White Americans have a lot to atone for in their violent racist oppression of blacks

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Teaching little children about good touches and bad touches is perverse? I don't think so. At the same time, you can teach them not to talk to strangers, not to go with a stranger, what to do if a stranger talks to them (run away and tell a parent), as well as other general safety teaching.

Yes, all adults in the USA are well informed and rational ...

Just kidding.

No Seth, the need to have to tell kids about good touches and bad toucheds because they saw a bunch of protesters asking to bad touch them because they think it's good is perverse.

Some things don't deserve airing in the public domain. For protection of it's citizens.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Oh god yes i know of those hideous creatures. I've long railed against them. Lois Theroux did a fabulous couple of docos with them. I've no idea outside of some collective fungus they are all eating as to how they got like that.
I laughed out loud at that.

My heart goes out to you that you had to defend that. I swear, i would throw my badge down in disgust, and live to regret it.
This happened in the late 80s, early 90s. I had small children then. I couldn't afford to get fired. I knew I was defending their 1st Amendment right - the greater good - but believe me, another part of me wanted to punch their leader right in the face and turn him over to the crowd.

See over here, you just can't say that kind of stuff in public. We have anti-vilification laws. It stops people being heartbroken or traumatised unnecessarily.

I think i prefer our way.
I understand that. It's just a difference between our two cultures.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
No Seth, the need to have to tell kids about good touches and bad toucheds because they saw a bunch of protesters asking to bad touch them because they think it's good is perverse.

Some things don't deserve airing in the public domain. For protection of it's citizens.
I actually agree with you that some things don't deserve airing in public, especially this. But we have laws against it, and so our citizens have a right to debate it or to publicly oppose those laws.

But again, I'm not aware of any public demonstrations in favor of legalizing sex with children. I would google it to see if it's ever happened, but I'm afraid alarm bells would go off somewhere in the FBI if I google it, so I'll pass, lol ....
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
This happened in the late 80s, early 90s. I had small children then. I couldn't afford to get fired. I knew I was defending their 1st Amendment right - the greater good - but believe me, another part of me wanted to punch their leader right in the face and turn him over to the crowd.

I truly admire your dedication to your higher principle. I think i would have used all of my police gadgets to attack them. But i'm never to be trusted.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
I actually agree with you that some things don't deserve airing in public, especially this. But we have laws against it, and so our citizens have a right to debate it or to publicly oppose those laws.

But again, I'm not aware of any public demonstrations in favor of legalizing sex with children. I would google it to see if it's ever happened, but I'm afraid alarm bells would go off somewhere in the FBI if I google it, so I'll pass, lol ....

Oh yes. Do not google that!

I simply use the example to try to get you to relate to just how offensive it is for people of colour to see publicly pronounced and reported that they are inferior; or rapists; or criminals; or their daddy doesn't love them; or they're going to end up in prison; or any of the other hateful lies white supremacists pimp when thumping their chests?

Or sexually diverse people being told they are going to hell and that they are abominations.

Or any of the other "hate" messages that these people disseminate.

They are causing actual harm. A harm that is NOT outweighed by whatever release they feel in saying it.

And i would think with how close you just came to the public being whirred up into a state of frenzy over there, just a few deaths but, y'know ... you think you'd be a little more scrutinising of the unconditional right to freedom of speech.

Seriously Seth, your constitution is seriously outdated. It requires urgent reworking.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Oh yes. Do not google that!

I simply use the example to try to get you to relate to just how offensive it is for people of colour to see publicly pronounced and reported that they are inferior; or rapists; or criminals; or their daddy doesn't love them; or they're going to end up in prison; or any of the other hateful lies white supremacists pimp when thumping their chests?

Or sexually diverse people being told they are going to hell and that they are abominations.

Or any of the other "hate" messages that these people disseminate.

They are causing actual harm. A harm that is NOT outweighed by whatever release they feel in saying it.

And i would think with how close you just came to the public being whirred up into a state of frenzy over there, just a few deaths but, y'know ... you think you'd be a little more scrutinising of the unconditional right to freedom of speech.

Seriously Seth, your constitution is seriously outdated. It requires urgent reworking.
I understand what you're saying, but we here have an aversion to limiting speech.

Of course, we do limit some sorts of speech - you know, like inciting a riot, certain types of threats, violations of domestic abuse restraining orders, yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater - those sorts of things.

So we put up with the fringes, even if they're offensive. Yeah, that's America.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
I understand what you're saying, but we here have an aversion to limiting speech.

Of course, we do limit some sorts of speech - you know, like inciting a riot, certain types of threats, violations of domestic abuse restraining orders, yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater - those sorts of things.

So we put up with the fringes, even if they're offensive. Yeah, that's America.

Isn't the saying that someone is of lesser value to you an implied threat?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Isn't the saying that someone is of lesser value to you an implied threat?
You mean because of their race or gender? Is it an implied threat?

I think that depends. It depends on whether the person has any power over the other. As examples, the KKK dorks I spoke of earlier, or the Westboro cultists. Neither has any standing with the public, nor do they wield any power. The Westboros could infuriate me and make me hate them, but not feel threatened by them.
 

Texan

Active member
I didn't realize the term "mixed race" was an insult down under. I was just using it to describe the situation. My daughter in law has used the term "mixed race" to describe her history. She has a black father and her mother is 1/2 hispanic and 1/2 white. She grew up in Italy as a military brat with her mother and stepfather. My son is "white", but he actually has Scottish, English, Choctaw and Cherokee Indian in his family tree. My son speaks fluent Spanish and earned a slot to go to linguist school for the USAF. They gave his slot to someone else and he chose a different career field. My dad's first cousin is a retired military linguist and speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese. I have uncles and cousins from Germany and Mexico. I have a pretty multicultural family and I'm pretty typical of Americans.
 

Texan

Active member
You mean because of their race or gender? Is it an implied threat?

I think that depends. It depends on whether the person has any power over the other. As examples, the KKK dorks I spoke of earlier, or the Westboro cultists. Neither has any standing with the public, nor do they wield any power. The Westboros could infuriate me and make me hate them, but not feel threatened by them.
I really enjoy seeing the veteran biker clubs negating the Westboro cultists. When they try to insult fallen heroes during funeral processions with signs, the bikers surround them and rev their engines as the funeral procession passes to protect them from the Westboro insults.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I really enjoy seeing the veteran biker clubs negating the Westboro cultists. When they try to insult fallen heroes during funeral processions with signs, the bikers surround them and rev their engines as the funeral procession passes to protect them from the Westboro insults.
Me too! :Salute 🇺🇸
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I didn't realize the term "mixed race" was an insult down under. I was just using it to describe the situation. My daughter in law has used the term "mixed race" to describe her history. She has a black father and her mother is 1/2 hispanic and 1/2 white. She grew up in Italy as a military brat with her mother and stepfather. My son is "white", but he actually has Scottish, English, Choctaw and Cherokee Indian in his family tree. My son speaks fluent Spanish and earned a slot to go to linguist school for the USAF. They gave his slot to someone else and he chose a different career field. My dad's first cousin is a retired military linguist and speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese. I have uncles and cousins from Germany and Mexico. I have a pretty multicultural family and I'm pretty typical of Americans.
My wife's now passed away father is part Sioux. He traced his lineage back to a sister of a Sioux chief, about 4 generations back.
 

Squire

Active member
I didn't realize the term "mixed race" was an insult down under. I was just using it to describe the situation. My daughter in law has used the term "mixed race" to describe her history. She has a black father and her mother is 1/2 hispanic and 1/2 white. She grew up in Italy as a military brat with her mother and stepfather. My son is "white", but he actually has Scottish, English, Choctaw and Cherokee Indian in his family tree. My son speaks fluent Spanish and earned a slot to go to linguist school for the USAF. They gave his slot to someone else and he chose a different career field. My dad's first cousin is a retired military linguist and speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese. I have uncles and cousins from Germany and Mexico. I have a pretty multicultural family and I'm pretty typical of Americans.
Culture and ethnicity are not necessarily associated concepts. The USA is about 90% monocultural, including the Jews who mostly follow the majority US cultural practices.
 

Texan

Active member
Culture and ethnicity are not necessarily associated concepts. The USA is about 90% monocultural, including the Jews who mostly follow the majority US cultural practices.
Isn't that the goal? We were intended to be a melting pot into a common culture that takes the best from other cultures. Most of the people have been white Europeans until recently, so that has been the dominant culture. We speak English that is continually evolving. Most Americans since it's inception have been Christians. It is what it is until it isn't. If we get enough of other cultures, we may evolve a different direction. Government or media forcing favoritism of one culture over another is just going to cause strife and animosity and is against our Constitution.
 

Squire

Active member
Isn't that the goal? We were intended to be a melting pot into a common culture that takes the best from other cultures. Most of the people have been white Europeans until recently, so that has been the dominant culture. We speak English that is continually evolving. Most Americans since it's inception have been Christians. It is what it is until it isn't. If we get enough of other cultures, we may evolve a different direction. Government or media forcing favoritism of one culture over another is just going to cause strife and animosity and is against our Constitution.
Government or media forcing favoritism of one culture over another is just going to cause strife and animosity and is against our Constitution.
That is exactly what White privilege and White supremacy is doing.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Let me first say, that my comments are not directed at you personally. My comments are only directed at the comments you make. It is all done in the spirit of honest discourse, and without malice or personal attacks. I do not know you, or who you really are. I also know that the things you say, or fail to say, may not really be who you are. You may be the best Pub-Mate, or the closest friend a person could ever hope to have. I don't know. Having said this, let me address your post.

I spent a lifetime of taking action and protecting the weak and vulnerable, Shell.
This was NOT my questions. I asked for evidence, examples of HOW you actively involve yourself in fighting the injustices of Whites, who passively or actively discriminate against Non-Whites? I even gave you examples. What do you do, when you see people committing racist discriminatory acts, on the bases of a person's AGE, race, disability, gender identity, sex or sexual orientation, or on their nationality? What specific actions have you spent a lifetime doing, protecting the weak and the vulnerable? This was the question. So far, you have only said that you do nothing except to IGNORE THEM!!

I didn't know there was a certain number we are supposed to have. Is there a quota or something?
This is NOT about quotas, Seth. This is about levels of acceptance and trust. Society starts with "accommodating" all the different cultures and races within its society. In short, the majority race only acknowledges the existence of all other races, but does NOT associate with them. They are not invited to dinner, become a member of the family, and are always described as a color or a race.

"Association" is the next level of acceptance and trust. It allows for the majority race to actually associate with other races directly and personally. It allows for having Minority friends, relationships, or even "mixed" marriages. Without voting rights for minorities, this stage would never have been reached. IMHO

The next level of acceptance and trust is "assimilation". This may take a few generations to achieve. This level allows for the actual blending of cultures. That is, it allows for the blending of ethnic values, customs, languages, intermarriages and breeding, and all behaviors and beliefs, to become accepted as the new social norm. This will certainly take a few generations to achieve. This is what I meant. So, having a POC in your family, is not yet the current social norm.

It is not "acceptance" or approval of any kind, active or passive.
It is Seth. It is passive acceptance. And, I have explained why. Since you haven't challenged my explanation with any evidence or logic, then this is just more of your unsupported denials.

Again, there is no "acceptance" or approval of white supremacist rhetoric by me or the vast majority of white people in the U.S.
Again, this is "passive acceptance/approval" by your inactions. You also didn't answer my questions. You don't have a clue what the vast majority of White Americans believe or think about White Supremacists. You can only be certain about your own thoughts and beliefs about them. That's it. And, judging by the number of hate groups on the 2019 map I presented, a lot of White Americans DO support their hateful rhetoric in many ways.

I could say the same about you, couldn't I? But if did, wouldn't I have to ignore everything else about you? A lifetime of learning and experience? And I could simply dismiss it all by the fact that you're white? That's what you just did.
Point taken, and I apologize. It was a poor response to your constant comments of me still living in the past.

I'd be fine with Antifa peaceably fighting against racism, using words, literature, signs, and peaceful public demonstrations. What I object to is using violence to fight against it. And if some far right wing group gains permission to hold a demonstration or speak in a public place, then they should be allowed to do so without physical assault or physical interference.
Since you have created your own unsupported straw man, your own logical premises, it is hard to disagree with this. Except, that this may be true in a perfect world. But in the real word, we are talking about concerned citizens going to hate rallies, to speak-out against racial misanthrops, who use fear and violence as a part of their message. Antifa members only go to rallies, that involve racial injustices, and hate mongering. One would expect violence to occur on both sides.

So, for the last time, EVIDENCE SETH! Prove that Antifa members are all Anarchists plotting to take over the government. Prove that Antifa members only go to racists hate rallies, just to commit violence on the true purveyors of violence and fear. I have seen nothing but ordinary housewives, husbands, and children, who are all willing to risk their lives, to stop the spread of this divisive hate rhetoric. Their goal has always been to let these backward criminal shitheads know, that they and the majority of White Americans do not agree with them, and don't want to hear the hate-supremacist shit that they're peddling. Again, actions always speak louder than words. I only wish I was there with them.

That in no way approves of their message, but instead, it shows respect for our Bill of Rights. The freedom of speech must include speech that the majority deems to be offensive or ignorant. When we start approving of violence to be used against thought or speech, we jump onto a slippery slope that we should not get on. When we protect the freedom of speech of the stupid and ignorant and unpopular, we are protecting the freedom of speech of all of us. (Incidentally, this point of view illustrates a difference between American culture and the culture of the UK or Australia.)

Antifa always intends to use violence when they counter demonstrate against one of these groups, and inevitably, they always carry out their intentions.
WHO is approving violence against free speech, in your straw man Seth? Prove that Antifa intended to use violence on any of these hate groups. I won't argue, that they came prepared to defend themselves. What if they didn't come prepared to defend themselves, and got the shit kicked out of them by those good old boys? Do you think that certain mindsets, wouldn't just claim that it was their fault for just being there? We saw this at the civil rights marches in the 60's. Marchers only came with peace and signs, and were attacked with excrements, attack-dogs, rubber bullets, batons, and racial insults. Where were your voices of concern then? And, because the members of Antifa choose to arm themselves, to DEFEND themselves, against the people who preach violence, fear, and hatred, you have the nerve to call them violent. How dare they prepare themselves, or to actually fight back? They truly MUST be Anarchists. Really?

his intent to suppress speech is the same intent that was famously carried out against civil rights marches in the south in times past, and it is an offense to the Constitution. It is also the same behavior used by despotic regimes down through history.
Wrong again. Those racial misanthrops, including the cops, actively, openly, and violently violated the civil rights of those peaceful marchers. Not much in the papers reprimanding their actions and conduct, was there? Does Antifa bring attack dogs, police batons, human excrement, guns, rubber bullets, and openly attack those peaceful marching bigots carrying placards and signs? Another false equivalence fallacy.

I have other complaints about Antifa. I don't believe they are "anti-fascists". I believe they are a loosely knit group of criminals, zealots, and anarchists, who are no better than the fascists they pretend to hate. Their religion is a hatred of America, our economic system, our freedoms, and the rule of law, and a love for disorder, violence, and destruction. That is their rhetoric and their track record. In so many ways they are just like the Aryan Nation or the KKK, except for the focus of their hatred.
NOT ONE OUNCE OF EVIDENCE DO YO PRESENT TO SUPPORT NOT EVEN ONE THING YOU HAVE SAID IN THIS PARAGRAPH!! NOT ONE!! They are in NO WAY like the Aryan Nation or the KKK. And, Antifa's focus of hatred is completely, and morally justified. Not like the Aryan Nation of the KKK. All you are doing is defending these hate groups by shifting focus, and demonizing and denigrating Antifa as anarchists, who are trying to overthrow the government. None of this is true.

So, this unsupported long-winded tirade, is entirely your opinion. Of which I totally, and emphatically disagree.

So, let's talk about the freedom of speech you keep hiding behind, and using as an excuse for your inactions. The freedom of speech and expression, that is guaranteed to all citizens by the US Constitution, IS NOT ABSOLUTE OR UNLIMITED, SETH!! It has many limitations, including,

"..obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.

Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration.
".

The parts highlighted relate to the speeches and actions by these hate and supremacist groups. Of course they are very careful in the wording of their speeches. And of course they will bear no responsibility for the actions of its members(killings and mass murders). Do you know how many of these groups have been sued, and lost? Freedom of speech didn't protect them at all.

I remember 15 years ago or so watching a news report on one of the national news networks of a KKK "national rally" held in some city in some eastern state. I can't remember which city or state now. It was in some sort of park. I remember this dopey looking guy up on a platform in his KKK costume giving a speech. One or two other similarly dopey looking guys were standing near him on the platform also in their costumes. I remember that the news crew panned their cameras over a "crowd" of about a dozen (two dozen at best) onlookers. This, as I remember, was billed as a "national rally" of the KKK. The news reporters opined that most of the onlookers were family members of the speakers.
https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2...anger-to-KKK-Nazi-rallies/stories/20170813248

So again you are saying to just ignore or ridicule them. What about all the different races and religions, that they are offending, denigrating, insulting, and demonizing? Are they all suppose to ignore them as well? What about their children? Should they just ignore their experiences in the schools? Yet you can't even ignore someone who just insinuating that you are a racist bigot. So why would you expect other to just ignore blatant assaults on their entire race or religion? It is just hypocritical. The only logical conclusion, is that since these groups are NOT criticising YOUR race, they will just get a passive response. Or, can hide behind the right of free speech. And, this is exactly what I am seeing and hearing!!

Do you really think they made any converts? Do you really think they can be forced to convert from their beliefs? No and no. But by upholding their right to free speech, did we uphold the right of free speech for all?
Again NO EVIDENCE!! just opinion and speculation. Judging from the racist map, again I disagree with you. Even if these groups were able to convert even ONE insecure moron with daddy and authority issues, that would still be one too many.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Black Americans refer to themselves as "black people" or speak of the "black population" or the "black community" all ... the ... time. About equally, they use the term "African American".

In the U.S. these terms are used by everybody, black, white, liberal, conservative.
What Black Americans call each other is none of your business. In the US these terms are all derogatory, dimeaning, and divisive terms, no matter who is using them. These were the same insulting terms that White Americans used to exclusively refer to Black Americans. So, if Black Americans call each other Black, the "n" word, "coon", "negro" etc., the terms are still derogatory, and should never be used by anyone. Older Black Americans have been telling their younger generation, that these terms are "slave terms", and should never be used on each other.

I seriously doubt that White Americans would want to be referred to as "peckerwoods", "honkies", "crackers", "wogs", "wops", "krauts", "micks", and "hillbillies", by anyone. So spare me the fake outrage.

You are correct that these terms ARE being used in America. But they are still derogatory terms. And, I seriously would NOT advise visitors to the US to use them. Black and white are exclusive terms referring to Black and White Americans. Conservative and Liberal are terms that have nothing to do with race. So, just another false equivalence fallacy.

Also, any moron can say what they mean. But by using a few more brain cells you can know HOW to say what you mean.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
That's not what i mean. I mean, how do you think that demonstrations for the rights to root children would go down with the GOP? And all of it's fan base?

Fox news?

Free speech then you reckon? No aggression in response?
First of all, that would never happen in the US. Secondly, it is NOT protected by the Constitution(free speech and expression). WHY? Because,, the only message that a pedophlia rally could claim or encourage, is to commit a criminal act. And, inciting anyone to commit a criminal act is NOT protected speech or expression. Also, any depictions, illustrations, sexual acts, involving underaged kids, is illegal. And, they would be arrested on the spot.

This why you won't see murder or rape rallies.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
First of all, that would never happen in the US. Secondly, it is NOT protected by the Constitution(free speech and expression). WHY? Because,, the only message that a pedophlia rally could claim or encourage, is to commit a criminal act. And, inciting anyone to commit a criminal act is NOT protected speech or expression. Also, any depictions, illustrations, sexual acts, involving underaged kids, is illegal. And, they would be arrested on the spot.

This why you won't see murder or rape rallies.
I agree that sex with children is illegal, as well as child pornography, etc. It is not protected under the Constitution, nor should it be.

As unpopular as it would be, if pedophiles wanted to use speech or even a public demonstration for the sole purpose of lobbying to repeal the laws against having sex with children and child pornography, that would be protected speech. You see the distinction?
 
Top