Two recent shootings of black men, one in Tulsa and one in Charlotte, have set off another round of racial turmoil, not to mention another round of Orwellian news and news analysis.
So let us begin with some basic definitions. Protesters are those who assemble peaceably to register their views on something, or their insistence that something be done. Violent protesters are those who clash physically with the police who were guarding their protest. Rioters are those who indiscriminately attack the innocent for the sake of their ostensible cause. I use the word ostensible because a distinction needs to be made between the cause of racial justice and harmony on the one hand, and the cause of not having a big enough flat screen on the other.
Because Black Lives Matter is an organization that already knows what it thinks about the next incident where a black man is killed by cops, the details and facts surrounding that next incident clearly don’t matter, just as the details about this one don’t matter. Now this means that the rule of law doesn’t matter to them. And because the rule of law is one of the hallmarks of any civilized society, the BLM are revealing themselves to be nothing more than Black Lynch Mobs.
If you compare the Tulsa shooting with the Charlotte shooting, there appears to be much more of a cause for legitimate complaint in Tulsa—where protests occurred—than in Charlotte, where rioting did. In Tulsa, there certainly appears to be enough evidence to indict the white officer who shot Terence Crutcher. If she shot him “just in case,” then there should be appropriate legal consequences. The aerial footage of that incident looks bad—but even with that said, there must still be a trial where she has every reasonable opportunity to defend herself. But in Charlotte, where an armed black man was shot by a black officer, representing a department with a black police chief—naturally setting off a series of riots against whitey—the situation is quite different.
“Last night in City X, a ____________ police officer stopped a __________ motorist in a routine traffic stop. The _____________ officer apparently gave a command and stepped back toward the rear of the car. Aerial footage showed the motorist emerging from his vehicle with his hands in the air, but moments later he was on the ground, having been shot by the officer seven times.”
Now if you are the kind of person who needs to know the colors that fill in those blanks before knowing what you think of this, then you are the kind of person who ought to do us all a favor by using every trick possible to get out of jury duty.
Now let us say, for the sake of discussion, that the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte was simple murder by the cops. Let’s make the murdering cop white, and let us make the motivation bigotry simpliciter, and let us say that the Charlotte police department is riddled with seething racial hatreds. If the response is to riot, and to target people who had nothing whatever to do with the original offense, then you have successfully accomplished what so many before you have accomplished. You have become a differently-tinted version of your enemy. Your skin is a different color, but your hearts are the same color.
I don’t like Kant much, but I do like his formulation of the Golden Rule—so behave as that you would be willing for your behavior to become a universal law. If a legitimate response to a white murder of a black man is to select a random white bystander and kill him, then a legitimate response to a black murderer would be the photo negative of that. And if you want to live in a society governed by rules like that, the kind of “rules” that BLM foments, then you are clearly much fonder of adrenaline than I am.
At this point in the discussion—when the progressive defense of indefensible lawlessness becomes obvious—they usually want to turn the discussion to “root causes,” “systemic racism,” and so on. We have to address the root causes of racial unrest, they say. Okay, we can talk about that, but you are not going to successfully address the root causes until you are willing to outlaw all municipal governance by black Democrats.
“using every trick possible to get out of jury duty”
Only trick needed for most judges is revealing you might choose to nullify inappropriate laws.
Will get you thrown out right quick.
Years ago, you could just blow off a jury summons and nothing would happen. But now more and more cities are making it a crime to ignore a summons. So I’ve come up what I believe is the absolute fastest way to be excused from jury duty. When you show up for jury selection, you’ll be sitting in a big room with scores or hundreds of other people. Odds are very high that you will spend hours and hours waiting, only to be dismissed for one reason or another when you’re finally called for examination. Why waste all that time?… Read more »
40 Acres’s solution to all problems is more racism.
You right. He really do.
He’s a regular Al Sharpton of race reconciliation.
Maybe he *is* Al Sharpton.
What’s the lawyer’s theme song got to do with Al Sharpton?
Most lawyers, like Al Sharpton, and like you, aren’t Christians, and are going to spend eternity in hell unless you repent.
Uh. Sharpton may not be a very good Christian…. but he is a baptist and last I checked, we still count baptists as Christians.
LA has a huge problem with getting jurors. For a long time, you could be sure of being excused if you said “My life experience leads me to automatically believe the police are lying” or, alternatively, “I think that anyone who gets indicted is guilty.” The courts are on to that ploy, and the people I know who’ve tried it recently have been told to set aside their biases. Even “You can tell a defense lawyer is lying because his lips are moving” is not a sure bet. My special snowflake (and the thought of a 20-year-old sitting in judgment… Read more »
I believe that would be an ESPECIALLY pretty face to look at!
(and strangely cooling as well! ; – )
I’m not sure mob mentality has the capacity of self reflection
If you want to get out of jury duty just carry a copy of Doug and Nate’s “The Rhetoric Companion” with you. Any lawyer in his right mind would demand that the judge dismiss you.
Come to think of it, “Basic Logic for First Graders” would work just as well.
“If a legitimate response to a white murder of a black man is to select a random white bystander and kill him, then a legitimate response to a black murderer would be the photo negative of that.” Ah, you’d think so. But that’s where the key ingredient to this whole witch’s brew is added: “social justice”, or “legacy of slavery”, or whatever you want to call it. Anyone who argues with enough liberals will eventually discover how slippery they are. It is difficult to make liberals play by their own rules, because they’ll frequently find reasons why they have an… Read more »
They are goal post deniers! ; – )
Black Lies Matter. But what’s this “outlaw all municipal governance by black Democrats”? How are black ones worse than white ones?
Indeed; a Dem is a Dem is a Dem.
My guess is Doug was being provacative, and also thinks that white, Asian, Indian, and any color Democrats are the root of “systemic racism” as well. And that black Republicans (or really, black conservatives) would be a solution.
Likely, given that Wilson previously attributed the same liberal, socialist agenda to insufferable white do-goodery. He suggested certain blacks were in an abusive relationship with white socialists, and need to reconsider. A different crowd got on Wilson’s case for that remark because he didn’t assign enough responsibility to blacks for accepting white socialist handouts.
I’ve rarely if ever seen him apply such an issue to “certain blacks”. Very frequently, if not most/nearly all of the time, he has indicted all Blacks as a uniform group with such statements.
Jonathan seems to want to create his own narrative. In Jonathan’s retelling, when Wilson proposed that blacks are in an abusive relationship with white socialist agendas, Wilson meant every single black person is in such a relationship, and every white person is a socialist do-gooder. I suppose that Jonathan also thinks that whenever Wilson refers to women, Wilson means every single woman without exception. For those actually paying attention, Wilson has already addressed this nonsense hermeneutic. What do people have against context? (Notice I said people, and not certain people. What will Jonathan make of that?)
haha, it’s funny that you say about my claim that right after someone has accused me of being the one who takes the most uncharitable reading of posts. Pastor Wilson often tends to refer to Black persons as a monolithic group when he specifically divies up White persons based on their actual beliefs. I have seen specific examples in both his books and blog posts and can give you specific examples if you want. You don’t have to extend that to the assumption that Wilson means “every single black person”, it’s just the point that with Black people, he considers… Read more »
Sure, let’s see specific examples, with citations and context. Jonathan’s weasel words so far have not made the case. Let’s see how charitable Jonathan’s reading is.
For instance, in this post, Pastor Wilson lists “White Sins” as Slavery/Jim Crow, abortion, and funding welfare….things that clearly only apply to people who died a hundred years ago, or liberals. There isn’t a single thing on the list that could possibly apply to a White conservative in the 20th century, much less the 21st. Even though he uses the phrase “White Sins”, he makes it obvious that neither he nor anyone of his political affiliations is associated with any of them. On the other hand, for “Black Sins”, he lists general emotional feelings that could apply to almost anyone… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: For instance, in this post, Pastor Wilson lists “White Sins” as Slavery/Jim Crow, abortion, and funding welfare….things that clearly only apply to people who died a hundred years ago, or liberals. There isn’t a single thing on the list that could possibly apply to a White conservative in the 20th century, much less the 21st. Jonathan’s assertion is trivially false. From the very same article, Wilson wrote: If you voted for Obama, then shut up, leave the protest, and go home. Throw your “black lives matter” sign in the nearest dumpster, and try to retrieve your conscience from… Read more »
Katecho, sometimes I honestly think that you’re just so deep in trying to defend Wilson that you actually believe the ridiculous and false leaps of logic you make. I’ll be charitable and assume that’s the case here. For example, in the first quote you note that I said, “There isn’t a single thing on the list that could possibly apply to a White conservative in the 20th century, much less the 21st” and then you claim to ‘prove’ that false by quoting Wilson saying, “And if you are a white evangelical working on racial reconciliation, and you voted for Obama,… Read more »
As further refutation of this particular false claim, here is another quote (regarding Titus 1:13) from the first of Wilson’s articles that Jonathan referenced above:
Notice how that sin can apply to a white conservative in the 20th or 21st century. Jonathan is clearly misrepresenting Wilson and should stop reading him so uncharitably.
First, I don’t think you’re sound on what the phrase “the list” means, because that’s the second time you’ve claimed someone was on a list that clearly wasn’t on the list. Second of all, Pastor Wilson has made clear many times that neither he nor conservatives like him are racist. Can you name a single person from ANY of Pastor Wilson’s cohorts, or a single peer who Wilson would call a “White conservative”, who believes that “any racial group cannot be sound in the faith”? Again, as I said in the comment you’re trying to refute, “while with White people… Read more »
I don’t think I’m saying Doug doesn’t mean what he says. I’m saying he’s emphasizing a part of his whole beliefs for provocative effect?
I think it is an offensive statement. It suggests that, of all Democrats, blacks are least competent to govern, and that, of all Democrats, blacks are least likely to value or impose social order. Having made such a point of dissociating himself from this kind of racial attitude, Doug has not helped himself with this remark. I find myself wanting to ask him: A white Democrat would be okay? Tell me why using arguments that do not have a racial premise.
“A white Democrat would be okay? ”
Pretty sure the answer to this is “no”.
Exhibit A is Detroit.
I just wish he had said Democrat period. Then at least we could discuss principles and policies.
Jilly, liberal Democrat special snowflakes come in a rainbow of colors! ; )
Conservative special snowflakes, not so much.
But if he had said that, he wouldn’t have offended enough people as much as he wanted them to be offended.
Pastor Wilson has a LONG history of making similar singling-out statements like this.
No, what he said was exactly right for its context, which is Democrat/leftist lies.
Also, we all need to get over the leftist brain-washing in which we were marinated since birth concerning even mentioning race or racial differences.
He’s not seriously proposing this either as a solution or a mindset. He’s saying IF the problem is systemic, and IF the systemic problem is dictated by who’s in charge, then logically, the problem is black Democrats, because that’s who’s in charge in the overwhelming majority of places where these things are happening.
It’s not a recommendation, it’s a reductio aimed at the proposition “this is a systemic problem laid at the door of who’s running the cities.”
You may have addressed this before, but to what would you attribute the seeming rise of inappropriate killings by cops?
Fighting_Falcon wrote: You may have addressed this before, but to what would you attribute the seeming rise of inappropriate killings by cops? Can’t answer for Wilson, but I think it is a symptom of God removing His blessing on our culture, because of our ingratitude, pride, and unrepentant attitude. God is a storm bringer who will test the foundations of every institution and house. God is shaking idols everywhere. This has resulted in weakened institutions, which leads to fear and distrust. Our government is desperately trying to maintain an illusion with trillions in counterfeit money, and increasingly afraid of the… Read more »
You are right. But it is easy to find superficial causes as well. A general devaluation of the sanctity of life. A belief you can be a Christian and still nurse feelings of hatred and the desire for revenge. A police force that believes, often rightly, that they are expected to risk their lives for people who despise them. Children who grow up in the knowledge they can riot without the risk of facing an outraged father. Children who are taught to view all authority as a natural enemy–and this applies to privileged Special Snowflakes as well. A refusal to… Read more »
Is it a rise? I feel like it’s more an increase in publicity of a very narrow subset of killings related to police activity. If I’m wrong, and the police are actually killing more people recently, I apologize.
How many inappropriate killings can you provide as evidence? I can think of only a very few. The fact that you are aware of it is very much because of George Soros and others like him who have promoted and funded BLM. The outrage and protest is largely manufactured and has had the desired result. Part of which is that normal ordinary Americans now have the impression that cops are routinely murdering people.
I can give you a list of 100 from 2014 and 2015 alone that look inappropriate to me. Of course, proving each and every one as “inappropriate” is a fairly difficult task. And that leaves out a lot of cases where there was no video evidence and the only surviving witnesses were the shooter and the shooter with his fellow officers. I have no doubt that there are 100s of unnecessary deaths every year within the 1000+ people killed by police officers. As I’ve pointed out before, there are only 2-5 people killed by police every year in Germany. 0-2… Read more »
“I find it really difficult from a logical perspective to explain away a difference between four-digit police killings and single-digit police killings without including poor policing as at least part of the issue.” Maybe Americans are knot-heads? One difference is, police in many other countries, Germany for example, are actually much quicker to resort to non-lethal violence than American police are. And the people know it. Police in some countries just do not put up with the kind of defiance and disorder that is routine in America, and what’s more, neither is the general citizenry in those countries amused by… Read more »
“Maybe Americans are knot-heads” needs to be laid out a lot further, because it’s meaningless as stated. To describe a “knot head” problem so dramatic that it leads to the deaths of over 1000 people from a huge range of backgrounds every year, yet is virtually non-existent among people from any background at all in most other Western countries, is to hypothesize a variety of American exceptionalism that I have never heard. And the fact that a number of the people are non-Americans hurts that argument too. I doubt that the Gujarati senior citizen who was paralyzed by the police… Read more »
“a number of the people” people is meaningless as stated, and I’m sure if I cited an example like yours you would dismiss it as anecdotal. Germany was my example of a place where the police are quicker to use force, and anyone who has ever lived there a while understands what I’m talking about. They don’t assault people for no reason, but they tolerate less than our police are expected to. It might just be that good policing includes regularly reacting to belligerent non-compliance with non-lethal (though certainly unpleasant) force fairly early in the process, which might serve to… Read more »
Remember, the number of incidents were talking about in many of these other Western countries is so low that it only takes a few anecdotal ones in America to already wipe them out. If examples of bad police shootings are anecdotal, then many other things (for example, the entire list of terrorist attacks by foreigners on American soil) become merely anecdotal. These are the sorts of things that we want to limit to extremely few, and we’re not even close to there yet. What you say about Germany and the claim “Anyone who lives there knows what I’m talking about”… Read more »
The “back up” is simply that I had the experience of living there and know other people who have. Much as urban minorities have the experience of living where they do, and understand how certain things work there. Now, a couple of caveats: It has been twenty years since I lived in Germany, and I lived in a conservative region. That may make a difference. I never got the impression that German police were unreasonable and they did not use force for no reason, but it was understood they were well trained (more about that below) and would do what… Read more »
I did a quick google search of “do police use more force in germany” without quotes, and couldn’t come up with any other German residents collaborating your claim. In fact, a Bloomberg op-ed called German policing “laissez-faire”, and a German cop on a reddit thread on the subject gave a very, very long answer without once mentioning that German cops were quicker to use force, and several times implying the exact opposite. Maybe you lived in an unusual community. 1. True, and part of the problem, and worth thinking about where that attitude comes from. Which came first in American… Read more »
The fact that you find it difficult to explain says more about your ignorance and political leanings than it does about actual police interactions with civilians.
Please share, then, where the difference between four-digit and single-digit police killings comes from that accounts for the fact that the killings are spread against all races, armed status, and levels of victim culpability, yet has absolutely nothing to do with policing strategy.
According to the FBI, 72 police officers were killed by civilians in 2011, a 75% increase over 2008. Also according to the FBI, 461 civilians were fatally shot by police officers in 2014. These were self-reported by police departments as justified homicides. A study of the data shows that, during a seven year period ending in 2012, 96 blacks on average were killed each year by white police officers. Unfortunately, this doesn’t tell us anything about unjustified use of force. The only thing we can safely conclude that despite a downturn in violent crime, shootings by and of police officers… Read more »
I’m pretty sure those numbers are FAR off.
The Guardian found that in 2015, there were nearly 1000 civilians fatally shot by police officers, with about 300 of them being Black. I think 2016 is on pace for similar numbers.
So either there’s been a recent huge increase, or police departments were massively underreporting.
Or The Guardian is wrong. I don’t know that, but I’m willing to consider the possibility just as much as I’m willing to consider police departments under report. I don’t know the numbers apart from what I read either, but how are you so sure the numbers quoted for earlier years are FAR off?
It’s almost impossible to deny that the Guardian’s count is anything other than an absolute minimum. They have the name, date, description, and links to police reports and news reports for every single one of those shootings posted online on their site. If a single one of those was invalid, the police department in question would have disputed it long ago. Also, another media agency (I believe the Washington Post?) was doing a similar count concurrently, though of only lethal police shootings rather than all police killings, and got the same numbers for the shootings. So you’d have to claim… Read more »
“I know you’re really deep into the conspiracy game, but once again you’ve gone a bridge too far.”
?? You really need to explain that. What in my comments above, or any that I’ve ever posted, do you think justifies such an assertion on your part?
Looks like a smear tactic he learned from ME.
Ugh, that was my bad, I apologize. I’m often bad with names, and I momentarily confused you with the other guy I’m currently talking to who also has a four-letter first name that starts with a green letter and is followed by an capital M. That conversation, not for the first time, was centered on wacky conspiracy theories.
I wondered if that might be it. It happens.
There’s a lot of social engineering going on here, politics and manipulation designed to create a certain outcome. I suspect there are quite a few white people praying for a genuine race war. So we can blame black dems, blm, but I think when we fail to acknowledge those outright racists who would like nothing more than the opportunity a race war offers, we’re not seeing the whole picture.
How many white people do you suspect are praying for a genuine race war? Any percentages or hard numbers?
Who needs hard numbers when you can make stuff up and practice proof by assertion (also known as “repeating a lie often enough”).
Who needs minions when You have a society full of lemmings?
I guess if you want specific numbers you could go survey the alt white and ask them what they mean by vibrants and the zombie apocalypse.
Okay. I thought so.
Here’s how Vox just responded to that: “First, while I support white nationalism and see it as a necessary aspect of preserving Western Civilization, I am neither a white nationalist nor am I entirely white. I am an American Indian and I am a red reservationist who sees no reason to believe that whites deserve sovereign nations any less than we Indians do. As for Hitler, he was a cretin, a lunatic, a fool, and almost certainly the worst German leader in history, with the possible exception of Angela Merkel. I am not a 1488er in any sense of the… Read more »
The alt-right may be a lot of things but I don’t see them as the privileged elites.
Charles Manson wanted to provoke a race war in the belief that the blacks would win and that they would find themselves unable to govern. At that point, they would install Manson as dictator in chief. I have grown to accept the fact that lunacy surrounds me. But I draw the line at believing that white people are getting on board with this or any related moronic scheme.
Well Jilly, vox is actually one of the privileged elites currently living in Europe, whose father is in prison for multi million dollar tax evasion.
Vox currently has 23K followers on Twitter.
Out of a national population of 330M, I’d say the number of ME’s bogeymen to be statistically irrelevant, especially considering that of those 23K, probably only a handful actually get there jollies from dreaming of race war.
But, if we talk of the number of backbiting women who berate their husbands and balk at submissiveness? Well, we’re talking about real numbers, now.
Yes precisely, because women who berate their husbands and balk at submissiveness are exactly the same thing as a Lost Boy who mows down innocent civilians in a mall shooting.
Sometimes I am astounded by you people. Seriously, some women labored for hours in excruciating pain, so you could come into the world, and this is what you chose do with yourself?
Too easy, ME.
What is too easy? Watching you place yourself like a fish in a barrel so I can come along and take easy pot shots at you?
I am asking you and your ilk to wake up, a futile task I’m sure, but unsubmissive women are simply not the greatest threat to face civilization.
I’m lost here. The former happens at about a 50-75% rate in society at large, including Evangelical churches. You could call that an epidemic.
The latter (an alt-righter mall shooting?) has happened exactly 0 times. If you’re referring to the Turkish immigrant ISIS lover in WA state, that’s a different story.
You are both attempting to equate violent extremism with women who berate their husbands and balk at submissiveness.
How are these two things even comparable?
No, you’re comparing something that’s very real to something you made up (Vox’s imaginary violent followers). It’s like comparing adultery to Klingon attacks.
The individual actions are not comparable, of course, but neither is the sum of all the actions. In this case, I think the total impact of women’s marriage behavior is greater than the violent extremism.
Millions of people have been severely hurt by divorce caused partially by women’s poor behavior. Far fewer, perhaps 1000 but likely less, have been killed in violent actions by alt-right extremists.
Am I saying divorce pain is equal to death? Well, divorce is the death of a marriage. The grief experienced with either of these types of death is actually quite comparable.
I am sorry, as much as I empathize with suffering and the idea of divorce being a kind of death, it is absolutely appalling that there are men in the world equating unsubmissive women with violent acts of terrorism. A young girl I know, 3 days after she gave birth, her husband beat her to death and left her in a shallow grave. Another I know is permanently disfigured from having hot oil thrown on her, and you men can do nothing but speak to me endlessly about unsubmissive women and the horrors of women’s poor behavior, and all I… Read more »
“Far fewer, perhaps 1000 but likely less, have been killed in violent actions by alt-right extremists.”
The number is more like 0….unless you want to be anachronistic and claim things that happened 50 years ago were “alt right.” Vox has about as many radicalized followers who have acted out as ME does.
How do you define alt-right? Anders Behring Breivik is pretty much pure alt-right by any definition, right? And how can you not include Dylann Roof? Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, Wade Michael Page, Jerad and Amanda Miller, Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr., the FEAR terrorists, the Posse Comitatus terrorists, James Wenneker von Brunn, Jim David Adkisson, Shawna Forde, Jason Eugene Bush, and Albert Gaxiola, Scott Roeder and Robert Lewis Dear, Jr…. at least some of those count, right?
No. The term was first used in 2008-2009 and not broadly used until several years later. I seriously doubt Breivik had any interaction with the A/R. McVeigh, who’s often used as a guilt-by-association ploy when attacking conservatives or Christians (not surprised you’d join it), said that science was his religion. That puts him much more in the camp of Krycheck and RandMan than Vox.
Seriously, can you not do better than a stereotypical Puff-Ho/Vox style name dropping?
So since the term “Islamofascist” wasn’t used until 1990 and wasn’t broadly used until after 2001, I guess there weren’t any Islamofascists before then? The alt-right isn’t a specific organization or a movement you sign up and pay dues for, it’s the name of a certain ideological movement, and the movement existed long before a name was coined for it. Breivik was a huge fan of Fjordman and Geert Wilders, who are frequently associated with alt-righters. The wikipedia summary of his 2011 manifesto: In them, he lays out a worldview encompassing opposition to Islam and blaming feminism for creating a… Read more »
I already corrected your ridiculously false assertion.. As for McVeigh’s views, they sound nothing like the A/R philosophy. Note Vox doesn’t live in the U.S. and says nothing about the Constitution, “blood flowing in the streets” or other twisted fantasies that you and ME have about them: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html I certainly don’t agree with everything in their platform, but it’s nothing like the McVeigh quote. And you missed the point about McVeigh’s view of science as well. Sadly, once again you favor conjecture, straw man arguments, poor reading comprehension and mastubatory rambling over an objective analysis. And anyone can play this… Read more »
Anders Behring Breivik hated multiculturalism, feminism, socialism, and Islam, and believed that their spread and acceptance in Europe was destroying a European culture that had been traditionally White and Christian. He wanted to deport all Muslims and destroy feminism and multiculturalism before they destroyed traditional European culture. And he killed 70 kids in order to SPECIFICALLY advance those exact aims. If that’s not an alt-right killing, then I don’t know what is. Since you focus two paragraphs on McVeigh’s views supposedly sounding nothing like alt-right philosophy but completely ignored Breivik’s, I assume you’re admitting that Breivik’s views are perfectly right… Read more »
But this is mostly becoming an even more useless argument than it already was, so I’ll make a move to forfeit it. If the alt-right is really just a tiny, recent community solely composed of people who put “alt-right” on their business cards (I’m being a wee bit facetious here, obviously), then of course they haven’t built up much of a body count yet. If it is expanded to those who share their same ideology, with or without the label, then obviously the body count is well above zero. Either way, the only real point is that virtually any political/religious… Read more »
I lived through the riots after the first Rodney King verdict. They were terrifying. They were equally terrifying to my black, middle class neighbors. The thought of anyone who believes in God enough to pray to Him asking for race-based chaos is ridiculous.
How many white people are employed in __________ Studies departments in universities?
That’ll probably give you a reasonable approximation.
However, I am not sure how often they pray!
I’m curious – do you have a sense of the percentage of the USA population you think is praying for such a war? I am with you in being incredibly angry about the outright racists who are being quite loud this year, but I’m not convinced itls “a lot.” (For that matter, I’m not convinced that “a lot” of BLM protesters are the kinds who advocate riots. I do think that a lot of them, like a lot of conservatives, are sinfully happy to sit idly by while their wicked co-belligerants commit evil in their name).
I’m guessing about 8% are serious racists, as in having the potential to be radicalized. Another 10% are outright racist, but of the keyboard warrior kind, blowing off steam and venting.
Hmm. Almost one in five.
Yes, sounds about right. I’m not concerned about ordinary bigotry, the kind we all share, dislike of short people, biases towards certain groups. That’s just a part of the human condition. We all have our prejudices. But so many conservatives don’t seem to understand that violent racism is really a thing among their ranks that must be addressed.
I agree it must be addressed – and by addressed, I mean kicked out – but I’m not sure how high the percentage is.
Just how do you propose kicking out those who are racially bigoted? There are few, if any, groups of the alt-right that have strict membership requirements. Even if they are kicked out, what would prevent them from forming their own group?
The immediate disavowal of statements clearly coming from the alt-right perspective on race or sex, and a concentrated effort by serious intellectual leaders in the conservative movement to examine, understand, and rebut the alt-right philosophies of race and sex.
I do not mean “trying to get them fired.” I apologize for the unhelpful articulation.
“The immediate disavowal of statements clearly coming from the alt-right perspective on race or sex, and a concentrated effort by serious intellectual leaders in the conservative movement to examine, understand, and rebut the alt-right philosophies of race and sex” I totally agree with that definition Ian, and I believe that process may actually be starting to occur, something I find most encouraging. I am a big free speech fan, so totally opposed to doxxing, “getting them fired,” and assorted other nastiness, but I do think there is great power in men simply leading one another. There’s always a huge urge… Read more »
I hope so. However, a lot of these things were made unacceptable back in the 60s and 70s, and they’re coming right back, meaning that the kind of social pressure we expect only makes people hide (sort of like current social pressure to hide any opposition to non-heteronormative-monogamous-marital sexuality). It’s a constant battle, and maybe the conservative thought leaders got lazy.
Hmm. Well, I think the 60’sand 70’s were times of some vehement racism and sexism, often stemming from the Left side of the aisle. It was actually black conservative churches back then leading the way forward, away from this foolishness. And the outright hostility towards women, it was conservative Christians pulling women out of the freelove movement, off the streets, out of addiction. So what in the world has happened here?
Excellent point. I don’t know enough about the history of the alt right past the last few years – I mean, I know Vox Day’s been around for a long time, but I don’t really know how it got started.
What’s happened is the same thing that always happens, though. O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? Only this time we’re getting it from both sides – the alt right and the hyper progressives.
Let’s recap this bit of unbiblical nonsense:
“The 60’s and 70’s were times of some vehement sexism and the outright hostility towards women”
How so? It’s not quite clear, but it required “…pulling women out of the freelove movement, off the streets, out of addiction.”
In other words, women being involved in the “free love” movement and getting addicted to drugs wasn’t a sin issue…it was cultural and institutional sexism and hostility towards women!
This stuff is so bad that you can’t make it up…
I don’t understand this at all. Were the sexists the ones in the free love movement, or were the sexists the ones in the churches who were going among the free-lovers and pulling them back into church? But then the sexists wouldn’t be the vehement ones on the left. And black conservative churches were not sexist in the 1960s? News to me. Everybody was pretty sexist in the 1960s in the sense that people believed in traditional gender roles. So, if I have this correctly: women were driven into promiscuous sex and drug use by cultural sexism and hostility. Why… Read more »
Jimson weed is a terrible thing to waste.
I doubt that your comments here are likely to effect changes in the behavior of the “serious intellectual leaders in the conservative movement”. Rather than vain protestations, I propose that you make it your mission to accomplish this. Identify these leaders, identify the alt-right statements to be corrected or rebutted, make certain the leaders follow your recommendations, and make a commitment to continue to repeat this process until the problem no longer exists. And don’t forget to convince the media to cooperate with you. Please let us know how all of this works out for you. Even if you did… Read more »
Well, Doug is a leader, and occasionally serious. Not that I think I have any chance of changing his mind – more the other way around. However, I disagree that it makes no difference when non-leaders such as myself protest. I am merely trying to be as faithful in my own circle of influence in this matter as I can. Stating my wishes for the larger intellectual world is part, but not the biggest part, of that resistance. However, I’m fairly certain you’re being satirical by the time you mention convincing the media. They and the progressives have been saying… Read more »
Well Ian, forgive my somewhat optimistic response, but conservatives are smart, and men who are real leaders, they have the wisdom to actually listen to people.
So, I have had some success sharing my concerns a few times and actually been heard, and I think it all matters a great deal in the larger scheme of things.
I hope so as well. (The reason I’m not too worried about trying to change Doug’s mind is that I don’t think it generally needs changing by me. :) )
The conservative movement could be made up of clones of Edmund Burke and it would make no difference who those who see it as made up of David Duke clones in SS uniforms.
“violent racism is really a thing among their ranks that must be addressed.” Again, this is a tiny, tiny faction based on actual data. There’s much more violent black-on-white racism in our society.
I must admit, though–it’s fun to be called unintelligent by someone who’s completely innumerate.
I believe I called you a lemming. That would be a small rodent.
I don’t recall calling you unintelligent, but I’m sure I’ll get around to it at some point.
You’ve said it before. Apparently my memory is better than yours.
Apparently it was a memorable experience for you.
Yeah, right up there with a mosquito bite I got back in ’97.
What am I supposed to say to someone who has spent the last decade lamenting over a mosquito bite? Did you at least get malaria? Lose a leg?
I have assumed that you are a woman, given the icon you use, but I often look at what you write and ask myself, “is this something a woman would typically say?” And my answer is usually, “no, no woman I know says things like that.” So… I looked for and found an on-line gender analyzer and inserted a half dozen of your comments. In all but one instance the conclusion of the analyzer is that your comments were written by a man. So, pray tell, what is the truth of the matter?
Do you have a link? I am dying to try it out.
Thank you, I am going to spend the next couple of hours cutting and pasting!
Well, that link got me thinking! I put in some of my posts here and came out overwhelmingly male. This didn’t really surprise me because I have often been told that I think like a guy. Whether men who say this mean it as a compliment or a reproach depends on where I stand on the particular issue! But this led me to put in posts from the other women who comment here regularly, and they also write like men according to the analyzer. So I wondered if women who post on a largely male board tend to adjust their… Read more »
Ha! I’m quite delighted that you would take the time to even read half a dozen of my comments, let alone feed them into a gender analyzer. I assure you, I am a girl, 50 now, married 30 years, four kids, two grand kids.
I actually did not feed any of your comments into an analyzer, but I did come to the conclusion that you are probably not a Dead President.
Well, of course I’m not dead. That Zapruder tape really did the trick; we worked on it for over a month.
Some things definitely don’t add up. I don’t read her blog, but apparently she talks about having a happy marriage and loving her husband. However, there’s no way her foul-tempered, malign-without-proof, misandrist persona has a happy marriage. She may lord it over some poor henpecked guy, but that’s as far it could go.
Now maybe he/she plays a totally different person on the internet. Who knows.
“But so many conservatives don’t seem to understand that violent racism is really a thing among their ranks that must be addressed.”
Once again, ‘ME’ proves her leftist mala fides
Hmm, a mala fide is bad faith, an intent to deceive? Since I’ve never pretended to be anything at all, nor am I the least bit interested in currying any favor from either the left or the right, I have no actual motive for deception or bad faith.
I find it a little silly as an argument. Every political party, or group sharing broad principles such as liberalism or conservatism, will have its share of people on the edges. This is a given, and nothing can be done about it. It surely can’t impose, on the vast majority of normal, decent, rational people, the burden of constantly denouncing outlying opinions. “Hi, I’m Jill and I’m here on behalf of SOCAL pro-life. But before asking for your support, I have to take a few minutes to denounce any fanatics in my group who might think about killing an abortion… Read more »
I’d say 0.008% is a better “guess.” Hardly anyone shows up for Klan rallies, and while the MSM makes a huge deal about white-on-black crime or neo-nazi activities, those are a tiny, tiny blip of the overall crime scene. Of course, whenever there’s a terrorist event, some “journalists” immediately blame it on white supremacists or a milita group. It recently happened in NY. Of course, they’re disappointed to find out the perpetrators are once again Allah worshipers of Middle Eastern or N. African descent. Muslim groups radicalizing BLM types is a much bigger concern. I suspect some of that went… Read more »
Ugh, I just tried to figure out the comparison between radical Islamic terrorist crimes and white supremacist crimes…and can’t, because the latter are all lumped in with “hate crimes,” which tells me next to nothing. I did find that about 1% of the USA population is considered Muslim, so if ME is anywhere close to right, there are a lot more racists than radical Muslims (or Muslims in general). I’m tempted to the fallacy of the middle, falling into assuming it’s between 1-10%. I do think the loudness of the white supremacist yells right now are a serious problem, no… Read more »
“Hardly anyone shows up for Klan rallies”
You mean “the Klan’s rallies, so I’ve heard”, right?
Aren’t you the funny one?
I grew up in the South, but I haven’t seen anyone in those sheets for several decades. I think we drove by a small group of them 2 or maybe 3 times tops in small towns. No one viewed them as anything more than a curious sideshow.
Alright, just the way you said it, that’s all. ;) I do think we are talking about a lot more than 0.008% of the population, even if the bed sheet thing is passé.
I’ll ask ME, if she’s reading this, how she defines “outright racist”, vs “serious racists” vs “radicalized racists”. I think definitions might help any of us decide how much we agree or disagree on the matter.
“Race war” is a joke. Blacks and Hispanics are merely auxiliaries in the centuries-long war between groups of white Americans.
Wait…are you part of the 8%?!
I sometimes think that some black and Hispanic movements are being influenced by people who have no interest in their welfare. The most valuable lesson I learned in school was always to ask: “To whose advantage is it that I believe this? For what purpose is someone playing with my emotions?” Because the reason is likely to reflect their self-interest, not my own. I think that hard-core racism is somewhat overstated. We have reached a point where a statement expressing hostility toward blacks is likely to be a career-killer, at the very least. Even by the end of the CRM,… Read more »
Bravo, Doug. The media is as complicit as BLM, for without the oxygen and bias from the press the continual resentment among those rioting would be greatly reduced. The lying press should be held accountable.
“You have become a differently-tinted version of your enemy. Your skin is a different color, but your hearts are the same color.” <– #boom.
The social experiment documented in this short video illustrates why I think it’s pointless to argue with those who are pro-BLM. We have a significant minority population embracing ideas and attitudes that are entirely incompatible with western civilization, and such people, in my opinion, should be politely asked to leave.
“But you are not going to successfully address the root causes until you are willing to outlaw all municipal governance by black Democrats.”
And class, that is what we call racism.
pish posh. That is what we call provocation. The definition of racism has changed in the last few years. I was surprised to find out that all whites, by nature of their white representation in government, are racists. According to the left’s definition, blacks cannot be racist because they are not in a position of power. It’s called prejudice plus power. Look it up. The entire argument falls apart if there are black democrat officials in government because now they can exercise prejudice plus power. But wait, we’re told blacks can’t be racist because they aren’t in positions of power.… Read more »
Yes, Obama, Holder and Loretta Lynch certainly don’t fit the “prejudice plus power” rule. Or actually they do in reverse.
Racism is simply racial animus and hatred. Like saying, “But you are not going to successfully address the root causes until you are willing to outlaw all municipal governance by black Democrats.”
Says who? Of course, the victim says. Where is hatred in his statement? The victim reads hatred into it, and we’re all supposed to fall on our knees and moan mea culpa for something you might have felt was spoken in an unspoken way. I think it’s interesting that I, who am about as mousy a person as you’re likely to find west of the Ol’ Mississip, have had enough and am willing to say so. If I feel this way, then certainly you must have caused it, and you should apologize to me for making me feel all defensive… Read more »
Of course your not going to seek forgiveness or reconciliation. That’s a given. That won’t stop us from calling you what you are. Never. It’s a thankless job, but somebody has got to do it.
God forfend that I would ever harm another made in his image. Would that BLM felt the same.
I like anyone who can correctly use forfend!
I was actually thinking of you when I wrote that! ????
Define forgiveness and reconciliation. Are they one-way or two-way?
If only they were. But everybody surely knows that you don’t start negotiating while the bullets are flying. Sometimes I think we are much too prone to believe what violent people say is the source of their violence. I don’t see a moral difference between a racially aggrieved person who shoots a cop (or innocent bystander) and a financially aggrieved person who shoots a bank teller. How about they are just plain evil? How about you don’t get to declare war on society using real weapons? And when everybody is behaving calmly, we can talk about what brought us here.
That sentance clearly relates back to this: “But in Charlotte, where an armed black man was shot by a black officer, representing a department with a black police chief—naturally setting off a series of riots against whitey—the situation is quite different.”
JL, I have a hard time not seeing that statement as having some major racial overtones. I would understand an objection to rule by Democrats–not agree, invariably, but I would see it as a statement of quite reasonable opinion. But how can a person make such a statement and avoid the implication that, of all Democrats, blacks are the worst? Wilson is not saying that blacks should either give up their positions of power or give up crying racism. That is what you said, and I think it is a fair comment. What Wilson said is we will never address… Read more »
Jillybean, you are misquoting him I think.
He said, “Okay, we can talk about that, but you are not going to successfully address the root causes until you are willing to outlaw all municipal governance by black Democrats.”
He is not speaking about external actions (until you outlaw). He is talking about internal consistency (until you are willing). Does that make sense?
(Apologies, Pastor Wilson, if I am misrepresenting your words.)
I see that I misquoted, but I still don’t see the point and I hope you can help me. What he said is this: We have to address the root causes of racial unrest, they say. Okay, we can talk about that, but you are not going to successfully address the root causes until you are willing to outlaw all municipal governance by black Democrats. Is Wilson saying that we can’t address root causes of racial unrest as long as we are willing to tolerate black Democrats holding municipal office? That seems to me to be a clear reading of… Read more »
Is Wilson saying that we can’t address root causes of racial unrest as long as we are willing to tolerate black Democrats holding municipal office? I don’t think he is saying that at all. He is challenging all people who are trying to rewrite reality to fit their ideals with no regard for logic: A) In Charlotte, the people in positions of power (policeman and police chief) are black. B) BLM rioted because of racism, which they define as prejudice plus power, something that only whites can possess. Had they protested in Tulsa, I wouldn’t have much to say because… Read more »
“You can’t claim to be protesting racist whites when no whites were involved.”
BLM is the homegeown version of ‘occupy wall street’
Racism isn’t even that prominant in their list of demands.
“I wouldn’t have much to say because it was a white officer, representing a white police chief”
Or, as I would put it: it was a woman — who, by her very nature as a woman, has absolutely no business being a police officer — who, in panic, shot a (black) man.
Very well said. Good clarification. Wilson isn’t offering his personal stance, but a reductio, as an attempt to impose logical consistency on the progressive rioters.
It is a weird statement, but since I highly doubt that Wilson became a virulent racist overnight, there must be some other explanation. He should just clarify so people don’t misunderstand whatever it is he’s trying to say.
You can’t “clarify” anything for those who will not see.
Or maybe he’s aware of the higher rates of imprisonment for black municipal leaders (vs. white municipal leaders) due to the taking of bribes and other improprieties.
“And class, that is what we call racism.”
And *that*, class, is what we call a lie, spoken by a liar.
The primary problem I see here is that much is said of what BLM believes, yet no evidence is given. I actually don’t even know whether BLM is a true organization with an administration structure, official channels, etc, but if they are then they should have to indicate belief in something before being charged with it, and if not then I’m not sure what useful conclusions can even be drawn about them or their beliefs. BLM may be guilty of all said here and more, but you need to produce the evidence for these kinds of assertions.
Muh evidence. What exactly does this evidence need to look like? A quick google of black lives matter platform gets you to a couple links which spells out what they think. And it isn’t pretty. From The Movement for Black Lives… https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/ They demand–not propose, suggest, call for, reason for, are working toward, etc. but demand–“an end to the war on black people,” “reparations for harms inflicted on black people…including colonialism (?) and slavery,” “investments in the education, safety, and health of black people,” “a reconstruction of the economy,” and “full and independent black political power.” The Black Lives Matter… Read more »
Well there is this…
One thing that always amuses me — most of you (white (*)) people pontificating …. from either direction … about “racism”, and specifically the “racism” of other white people, have never lived around black Americans, much less have you been in the situation sometimes called “majority-minority”. Having lived as a “majority-minority” for most of my life (**), I can assure you: black Americans are just as human — as much moral agents, and as much sinners — as you are. (*) for this post, I’m playing up my pinkness (pink being white and red mixed) (**) I’m currently living through… Read more »
If God calls you to be a parent, pastor or (fill in the blank), then be the best parent, pastor or (whatever) you can be. If He calls you to be a Juror for a brief period of time, then show up with a smile, answer the questions honestly, listen to the evidence, follow the jury instructions, and render a verdict. Christ is the Lord of our courts, just as He is the Lord over everything else. At some point, we have to recognize that obedience to Christ when he calls us to a task has no exceptions.
Amen to 98% of that.
As re. “answer the questions honestly,” I have to say that, if charged by the judge to judge only the facts and evidence, but NOT the application or justness of the law, I will lie and say, “Yes your honor,” knowing full well my power to judge BOTH the facts AND the application or justness of the law. In war, we do not owe our enemies the truth re. our tactics.
voir dire (n) – French for “jury tampering”
“voir dire (n) – French for “jury tampering””
Having served on a jury, having been through ‘voir dire‘, I have to agree.
Black Lynch Mob?!?! I have yet to find one incident of a white person being lynched by a “Black Lynch Mob.” Do you know what lynching is? To use that term for your opinion piece is evidence of a small, limited mind. It has always been “White Lynch Mobs;” where human-beings were killed by white mobs just because of skin color. It is one thing to speak your mind on this topic, but to equate BLM to Black Lynch Mob, where no actual lynchings took place, is absolute stupidity. Your opinion piece is more evidence of SWM (stupid white man).… Read more »