Irony: Trayvon Martin
-
The_Mob_Has_Spoken — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 07:51 PM)
I told the truth and they couldn't handle it. I said their silly perpetual black victimhood narrative is nonsense and that they are fooling nobody.
"I like simple pleasures like butter in my ass and lollipops in my mouth." - Floyd Gondolli -
Kyumonryu — 9 years ago(October 12, 2016 02:47 AM)
I'll give another one
no, but you gave the one he already did. Good job. You now may feel proud of yourself
Trayvon and not the grimacing tattooed street thug who liked to pose with guns
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/06/05/2F19F6C200000578-0-image-a-42_1449381351132.jpg
https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/full/s3/media/2015/12/photographer_portraits_of_americans_with_guns.jpg
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160812101315-kim-rhode-march-8-2016-exlarge-169.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/03/article-2272675-174FC174000005DC-277_634x410.jpg
http://www.motherjones.com/files/gunmakers_beretta_social2000x1124_0.jpg
http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/2016/02/25/0225gopguns01.jpg
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160309175355-senator-ted-cruz-holds-gun-at-crossroads-shooting-sports-large-169.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/26/article-2253337-16A7B7CC000005DC-118_634x602.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/26/article-2253337-16A7B7C3000005DC-213_634x601.jpg
and last but not least, even with a book promoting racism, child rape, murder and hate crimes
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1862260.1405021156!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/fisher11n-1-web.jpg
Most people call these gun nuts above Patriots or real americans, but wow, wait a minute if the person is black, he is suddenly labeled thug.
Great points you delivered
but they hung him anyway.
Hanged, Ami. Your father was not a tapestry. -
EmperorOfLatveria — 9 years ago(October 12, 2016 07:53 AM)
I mean wow. You must have flunked out on your reading comprehension or something.
Let me quote word for word what he said:
"grimacing tattooed street thug who liked to pose with guns that he actually was."
Notice, he was already labeled a grimacing tatooed street thug in this. That is who the subject is, with the supporting adjectives to focus on the noun (thug).
What is the action? Who like to pose with guns, etc. Not a because statement. Just describing his activities, specifically with the verb of like.
You are reading it incorrectly, or adding your words in it. You are reading it as if it said "grimacing tatooed street thug BECAUSE he liked to pose with guns that he actually was". But there is NO BECAUSE. You are not understanding the basic context of what he is saying.
No. Just no. He was a thug, for different reasons, already settled on. And while I think it is a stupid thing to bring up posing with guns, he wasn't as stupid to call him a thug BECAUSE he posed with guns as you want to accuse him of being.
That makes you look rather silly doesn't it?
__
http://adayinourshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/trolls.gif -
Kyumonryu — 9 years ago(October 13, 2016 12:08 AM)
That makes you look rather silly doesn't it?
Not really, but if you say so, it must be true.
So ok, he mentioned "like to pose with guns" because of what? Ah yes, because he wanted to put emphasis on how dangerous this supposed "grimacing street thug" was.
So what made him a street thug? And what picture are we talking about?
but they hung him anyway.
Hanged, Ami. Your father was not a tapestry. -
EmperorOfLatveria — 9 years ago(October 13, 2016 12:13 AM)
No. You don't get it.
He mentioned he was a street thug that liked to pose with guns.
THAT IS WHAT HE SAID. You are adding the 'because'.
Let me point out to you why you adding in that word, by yourself, outside of what the other person said could be considered wrong.
Would you rather have a street thug that didn't like guns, or would you rather have a street thug that liked to pose with guns?
beep hell, neither one of these two options is excluding the other. Nor is the fact that posing with guns (since he didn't make it the qualifier of the actual argument) the reason why he was a street thug.
In fact, he didn't mention why he said he was a street thug at all. But you seem to want to prove that he wasn't, and you grabbed something that was neither intended nor implied to make a straw man to attack him with.
Under contexts like the one listed above, and many others you can think of if you tried, you can make sense of why someone might have mentioned that, without a qualifier.
If he meant it was because he posed for guns, he would have said 'he was a street thug BECAUSE he posed for guns'. But he didn't. He wasn't even close to that. Learn, reading, comprehension. It will help you.
__
http://adayinourshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/trolls.gif -
Kyumonryu — 9 years ago(October 13, 2016 01:22 AM)
Nope, I asked why he had to mention that he liked to pose with guns. As if this means anything.
So why is he considered a street thug?
Learn, reading, comprehension. It will help you.
Just wow, a tad full of yourself, are you? Granted that Im not a native speaker Im bound to make mistakes. But instead of just pointing this out, you rode into this thread on your high horse and stating that I must feel silly because I probably misunderstood something I read in my third/fourth language.
While I learn to read properly, you might want to check how to answer to people.
By the way, the "posing street thug" phot I found was this
http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/christandpopculture/files/2012/03/T-m-3.jpg
And this is hardly anything that could be considered intimidating. Its a teenage boy lipping the bird and showing his barely muscular chest. No tattoos, no grimacing, no guns. Another one of him is a collage with a hemp leaf, him blowing smoke and a gun. Again, not really street thug level.
but they hung him anyway.
Hanged, Ami. Your father was not a tapestry. -
EmperorOfLatveria — 9 years ago(October 13, 2016 02:20 AM)
If this is your 3rd or 4th language, then you probably don't understand the culture enough to make the judgement you are missing in regards to the street thug.
No one thinks someone is a thug simply for some stupid poses. They think they are a thug when they act like criminals, doing shady/criminal things. Especially in the inner city, this is almost a complete set of behaviors you can pick up quite quickly. For example, what Trayvon DID do in the night of question; regardless on whether or not Zimmerman was justified in doing what he did (he did take it a tad bit farther than he should of when it comes to the following him around thing; that said, Trayvon shouldn't have acted like a thug (there it is again) and beat him; especially with cops already being called).
Understand? When an American calls someone a thug - that right there is what they mean; or something close to it depending on the circumstance.
That is the reason why most people call him a thug, and it was made at face value. The poster in question added something for a danger value, he liked to pose for guns. Meaning, he was often armed; and since he is already a thug (as established, both by my reasoning above that were followed, and what the person was trying to convey), that combination can be extra problematic.
And in context, it makes perfect sense.
__
http://adayinourshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/trolls.gif -
The_Mob_Has_Spoken — 9 years ago(October 14, 2016 01:11 PM)
So what made him a street thug?
Oh, gee, I dunno.
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/5/23/15/enhanced-buzz-1359-1369336355-0.jpg
Note that the above linked photo is a far cry from images like this that the media flooded the airwaves with:
https://mediaanarchist.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/trayvon-martin-grad.jpg?w=640
And what picture are we talking about?
This picture for one:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130523170713-02-trayvon-0523-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg
"I like simple pleasures like butter in my ass and lollipops in my mouth." - Floyd Gondolli -
littlegeorgie — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 03:28 PM)
OK, to put the ball back in your court.
What's the standard so-called "black" narrative when such racially-charged criminal cases come up?
What's the standard "white" narrative?
NOWwhat's YOUR initial reaction when they come up? (Because you're almost assuredly not as immune to this same garbage as you think no one in America is.)
In other words, what makes you think you're not unknowingly just regurgitating lies that have been intentionally spoon-fed to you too, in posts like this? What makes you think posts like this are objectively part of the solution, instead of subjectively part of the problem? How can you be sure? Because if you're not sure, then chances are (despite what are probably good intentions on your part) you're probably making it worse.
So, let's somewhat start over.
What part of this race stuff are you actually SURE about, and what part are you speculating and regurgitating just like everybody else?
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant. -
Dismissed — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 04:26 PM)
Well, firstly, why do you seperate the narrative by "black" and "white"? There should only be the truth, yes?
Next, what makes the issue "racially-charged" and why? Why invoke "race" as factor? Are incidents immediately racial incidents because races differ?
I'm going to try to avoid a debate about the specifics of the Martin case; however, how does supporting an incorrect narrative ever exist as being objectively part of a solution? What is the problem being solved if we do not accurately define or express it? Further, is it part of the problem to assert that incorrect narratives should be remedied? What does it say about those that would argue against such notions?
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door. -
littlegeorgie — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 04:38 PM)
Theoretically it became illegal to segregate and discriminate in 1964. Yet in a multitude of statistically measurable ways white America is more segregated now than it was then.
What's THE TRUTH about the continued existence of "two Americas, separate and unequal"?
Until we can get to the bottom of THOSE kinds of questions, questions about Trayvon, and such, are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, in order to try and divert the narrative away from TRUTH.
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant. -
EmperorOfLatveria — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 05:10 PM)
No. In all statistically relevant cases, we are less segregated. Now blacks and whites go to school together all the time. They don't sit on the backs of buses. They can eat or drink in white establishments, use the same fountains.
Might I go on? The KKK doesn't have memberships in the hundreds of thousands, black individuals can now obtain all sorts of positions of power they were never even allowed to have before.
I can go on All of this is statistically provable.
You can point to a few things on scales far less than that, like certain segregated private schools in the south (that are no longer fully racially segregated, and the ones that still exist are practically fully declined in membership, and are pretty much dying off.)
Or do you mean crime/arrest numbers, or statistical representation in certain fields?
Because that isn't segregation Do you know what the word means?
Or are you saying segregated safe spaces Because you do realize that works against your narrative, right?
America is America, all and entirety. If you want to break it down into divided subgroups, with various wealth/etc disparities; in every single country or state in the world? Sorry, but the world is and always will be. Unequal in outcome. We gave them equal opportunity, which we now all have.
__
http://adayinourshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/trolls.gif -
djtenacity — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 05:26 PM)
In a land where:
- You're 50% less-likely to get a job because of how "non-white" your name sounds.
- You're 400% more-likely to get "stopped and frisked" because you're a minority, when it's statistically proven that white commit many of the same offenses at equal-to-higher rates.
- You receive less return on your college investments as a minority.
- The government will purposefully decrease the penalty for drugs that affect the white community (cocaine) and exponentially increase the penalty for drugs that mainly affect the black community (crack)
you can't really site "equal opportunity." We have the illusion of equal opportunity, in this country, hence why most of the people who aren't affected by the reality are unable to acknowledge that the opportunity in this country isn't exactly equal.
People think that having black millionaire athletes, a black history month and a few, token black people in high positions of office means that this country actually employs equal opportunity. That is simply not true.
-
EmperorOfLatveria — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 06:21 PM)
Well, that still doesn't refute my original idea that discrimination back then is not comparable to today Yes, less jobs. But what were the jobs they were even allowed to have before?
If this is about my second idea, what, you think all whites have the same opportunity?
Shucks, looks like I will have to break down each one of your points:- You're 50% less-likely to get a job because of how "non-white" your name sounds.
Well, as for the name thing, of course? Even if it is confirmed again to be the case, it would only prove people tend to favor things they are more familiar with, not any racism or hating against black people, as a black person doesn't necessarily have to fall in either camp. And it certainly wouldn't fit the 'systemic racism' bill, because you can only incorrectly assume racism is the instigator without more facts or information to link the two together Which was never proven to be any case whatsoever; in fact, only proved from the first studies to be present in most areas, even nonwhites favoring those they are more close to (a form of nepotism, as is human nature, if you will).
But in actuality, the study is no longer the most current data on it, and its scope was a little bit too limited. The latest study, with more names, with more data points found not much difference between the call back numbers for black, white and Hispanic sounding names. Here is a link for you to check out from a number of months back:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bias-hiring-0504-biz-20160503-story.html
You're 400% more-likely to get "stopped and frisked" because you're a minority, when it's statistically proven that white commit many of the same offenses at equal-to-higher rates.
While I will deal with the stop and frisk thing a bit after, first I want to deal with the most glaring problem with your entire statement. Where on earth did you get that assumption about whites committing more crime at equal or higher rates? Seriously, did you just totally not decide to do any digging, and pull that out of your ass, or did you get it out of someone else who did to suit the narrative you just bought and didn't fact check? Blacks commit more murder, prostitution, drug related offenses, assault/battery, burglary, grand theft auto, at much higher rates (notice a lot of those have gang connections to those types of crimes?) Yes, whites greatly excel in white collar crimes. Goodness grief.
This is not me being racist, but these are the facts as they are in the crime data, backed by the FBI and other national survey groups. Do you want links? It actually makes sense given the high rates of dropouts, fatherlessness, etc - that all drastically increases the pull of these sorts of crimes, in any racial group. It is all part of a negative feedback loop that hurts each other.
Now as for the stop and frisk; pray tell, what neighborhoods are being stopped and frisked? Probably the inner city neighborhoods that happen to have a lot of crime in them, and others similar to that, right? It is thus not against blacks until proven otherwise. Freedom of opportunity if taken the good way, by a large group of people, should start to address all of these problems, and it also ensures a right to fail. So far, none of this proves they don't have that opportunity yet; short of getting the shaft of fate of being born mostly in households with broken families, etc that don't give them the backbone that helps them succeed in life on average as good. But you can't help that, or blame that on unequal opportunity against them as a race.
You receive less return on your college investments as a minority.
Says who? You realize who goes to school the most, out of any other racial group in the US? The Asians Who have a huge number of them at the most elite institutions like Harvard, far beyond what their racial demographic % is in this country The Jews similarly. I could go on to why this is a valuable lesson for certain unsaid communities, to follow the model they seem to have for their kids, work ethic and family structures But I digress, as I do not want to get into that argument now.
Anyway, those groups are minorities, and they seemed to be doing damn well on their college investments. Many blacks are quite tailored to get into and get their degrees far more than whites, in the form of affirmative action
The government will purposefully decrease the penalty for drugs that affect the white community (cocaine) and exponentially increase the penalty for drugs that mainly affect the black community (crack)
Oh, you can prove this was because of racism? Or just happenstance? To the war on drugs The very stupid war on drugs But I have to ask you, isn't there a rational reason for this when you understand the politics for the drugs coming in, I mean, outside of just assuming racism? Because, when dealing with the drug running, you start to run into some of it
That being said, I do think all drugs should be legalized, and marijuana bans themselv
- You're 50% less-likely to get a job because of how "non-white" your name sounds.
-
wcgcapone — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 01:30 PM)
Crack sentencing disparities were supported by the Congressional Black Caucus in the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986, mostly because they didn't want crack destroying their neighborhoods.
http://prisontime.org/2013/08/12/timeline-black-support-for-the-war-on-drugs/
"Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 passes Congress, enacting far tougher Federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenders, including those caught with marijuana. Establishes a 100-to-1 disparity in punishments for crack cocaine compared with powder form of drug.
The measure is supported by the Congressional Black Caucus, though some members want even harsher penalties for drug crimes. Sixteen of nineteen African American members of the House including Texas Rep. Mickey Leland and California Rep. Ron Dellums co-sponsor of the bill." -
djtenacity — 9 years ago(October 12, 2016 10:17 PM)
That's a lot to tackle. I wasn't necessarily saying that things weren't any better, now, than they were "back then", but the idea of "equality", I believe, is simply not true on anything more than a superficial level.
Yours is a well-stated argument, though, and I will attempt to address some of your other points, when I have more time. -
EmperorOfLatveria — 9 years ago(October 13, 2016 12:23 AM)
Well, I will address the idea of it being equality on just a superficial level. I believe you are making a pointless argument, and as such, and if ever acted upon seriously as a big problem, will only be more dangerous and unjust for everyone. Let me explain why. No one is going to say any life circumstance does not make it easier or harder for anyone to be equal. In fact, simply because parents, and certain people only being in some areas of the world, giving entirely different community/family experience just for their presence, everyone is unique.
And thus, no one can ever be equal. So I guess, we are unavoidably superficial. Such is the nature of everyone. Going to push laws to make everyone equal in that way is insane (microaggressions, 'unconscious bias', etc). It cannot be done, and trying to enforce it will only make more inequality.
Superficial or not, is not the point at all. The point is whether they are on the surface equal. There is nothing directly prohibiting any one of them from making the life choices they need to be very, very well off for themselves. Or any white man from making a disaster of their life. Not one thing. The more we push for equality on the surface, as we have it, and make it known that is the only acceptable way of doing things, that is all we should do. Or else it will become a Tyranny under the guise of the superficial equality, which really boils down to a form of Marxism. The unattainable thing everyone may wish for, but can never get to without hard changes, and if those changes are implemented to do anything about it, would require something that will take over to be very bad (We can already see the influence of this in the SJW/PC culture). Starting to see the parallels here with a certain other ideology, that seems to be a great idea for a perfect society?
Do you see the danger of your reasoning now? Rather, you will always see me standing against cries of these superficial things for the sake of preserving the liberty of everyone. And what should be true equality.
__
http://adayinourshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/trolls.gif -
Dismissed — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 04:39 PM)
a few, token black people in high positions of office
How dreadful that you have such low regard for those in the black community that work hard, exhaust every effort, and succeed. Should these people not be your role models? Why do you have such a negative view of them?
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door.
