On the one hand, the NRA certifies gun owners in many states. But that narrow utility makes it expendable, especially for Black gun owners, whom the NRA has historically struggled to engage as members.
“The NRA is just a political tool for us to be able to arm ourselves, but we don’t buy into the politics of any of it since it’s the right of every American to take advantage of [the Second Amendment],” says Mr. Omowale, who has joined armed rallies recently on behalf of Black rights. “I believe it’s time for [Black people] to start our own NRA.”
[…]
The NRA’s “insularity is intimately connected with the ideological alignment … with politically conservative culture warriors,” says Wake Forest University sociologist David Yamane, founder of the Gun Culture 2.0 blog, in an email. Now, “the proliferation of gun clubs, groups and organizations representing diverse gun owners – [National African American Gun Association], A Girl and a Gun, Liberal Gun Owners, to name a few – fills the vacuum left by the NRA.”
I’m for all of this. Personally, I never thought of the NRA as aligning with conservative ideology other than both political Conservatives and the NRA support our right to keep and bear arms. But if black folks or gay folks or female folks or whatever want to have their own group to support the 2nd Amendment, it’s all good.
Quasi-related… sure good to see some common sense in the Federal court system
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/14/politics/california-federal-court-second-amendment-high-capacity-magazines/index.html
>A federal appeals court on Friday struck down California’s ban on large-capacity magazines (LCMs), labeling it a violation of the Second Amendment in a consequential 2-1 split decision ruling.
“..I never thought of the NRA as aligning with conservative ideology…”.
Really? You never noticed the list of candidates they endorsed, or the policies they pushed that were markedly anti-wildlife.? They fought the use of non-toxic shot for years.
They used to endorse a lot more Democrats when more Democrats supported and defended the 2nd Amendment. As most Democrats eschewed that ethic, the NRA declined to endorse them. The 2nd Amendment never was, and never will be, about wildlife or hunting.
Leroy steps in it again. It’s been a bad week Leroy, perhaps next week will be better for you.
Owen:
I’ll respectfully disagree. They didn’t get involved with supporting political candidates for years, then went R whole hog. And the anti-wildlife (and anti-environment ) policies they supported were the final straw.
j:
And what, pray tell, did you add to the discussion? As usual: nothing.
Leroy, as usual, I added more than you, because my statements weren’t factually incorrect.
There’s historical records freely available on the internet showing donation history from 1990 to today. You should do some research, we can’t help you from here. Yada yada yada, you’re an idiot. Here’s a bonus for you though…, in 1990, 4 years before the big stupid liberal “Assault Weapons Ban” done by a Dem lead government, the donations between R and D was 60/40. 30 years ago they were donating to political candidates and didn’t go “whole hog with R’s”. So you’re factually incorrect again today, just like yesterday.
Like I said, the new weeks starts in a few hours, maybe you’ll get back on track!
j:
I said nothing about “donations”, you brought that into the conversation. And by the early 1990s I had dropped my long term membership due to the reasons cited above. As usual, you made assumptions without facts, and got burned.
Anti-wildlife?
Isn’t hunting a form of anti-wildlife?
How is the NRA anti-wildlife?
Yes you did, idiot.
>They didn’t get involved with supporting political candidates for years, then went R whole hog.
60% of donations to R, 40% to D in 1990, you’re wrong, like so often. Go ahead, spin it little man, you’re dancing on my stringer.
j:
D o n a t I o n s. . Now slowly read it again. Compare to s u p p o r t, which can take many forms. Now look in the mirror and call yourself the appropriate juvenile put down.
Ha Leroy. Only you would continue to argue that donations are not support. Support can indeed take many forms, and donations is without question a form.
You dumbass.
You feel better now, after putting your juvenile behavior on full display? I guess you need to use whatever means available to boost your ego.
Have a great Sunday.
Facts don’t matter to LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy.
He claims NRA supports “anti-wildlife” policies.
Well, except the Pittman-Robinson Act: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20010828/pittman-robertson-act-friend-of-the-hu
……..which is ALSO supported by the Sierra Club: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/pittman-robertson-wildlife-conservation-fund
But that doesn’t fit LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy’s narrative. And he’s still looking for $6K that Walker “stole” from him, so don’t bother him with facts or anything like that.
By Jason’s logic and tactics, if we only knew what he looked like or where he worked, we could make our arguments even stronger! Or we could just use, as Tuerqas put it, insults a twelve-year-old would use.
Meanwhile we can just buy him – as a donation – a copy of Kevin’s Dictionary Where Words Mean Whatever You Want.
Awww, poor Leroy is now a victim. That will assuage his sore feelings from being so very wrong again this week. Maybe next week brother.
>Meanwhile we can just buy him – as a donation – a copy of Kevin’s Dictionary Where Words Mean Whatever You Want.
Is that the one where Leroy still claims that Trump is trying to and could possibly Dismantle NATO? I’m sure that dictionary is on your bookshelf.
Many people are saying that Trump is trying to dismantle NATO, they’ve been saying it a long time, many great people. And Putin smiles.
Many people are saying you’re racist and a dick. Add that to your dictionary.
So, Le Roi, how is the NRA ant-wildlife?
Should say anti-wildlife before the grammar and spelling police attack me.
But Le Roi, serious question, how is the NRA anti-wildlife?
j:
I don’t feel I’m a victim. But you can think whatever you want.
Thanks Lieroy, is that how you get by after making stupid statements like “donations” do not mean “support” or that you think Trump could dismantle NATO?
What’s the difference between donations and support, then, Mr. Dictionary?
Look it up.
I can’t help you from here.
You won’t learn anything if I show you everything.
Do your own homework.
I though you were a reader.
Pick one of those lame answers, it’s all I ever get from you or Lieroy.
I guess Pathological Liar Le Roi is lying again.
Cannot answer a simple question.
Gee j, you sure get all snotty when you don’t have a rational point to make.
And no, I never mentioned donations. Spin yourself in circles all you want, but I never said it. You could look it up, were you not having a tantrum.
mar:
There isn’t enough time left in my or your lifetime to explain sound wildlife management in terms simple enough for you to understand. You’ll just have to live with that lack of knowledge.
And I never mentioned support. If you weren’t so stupid we wouldn’t have to go in circles.
LeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy should prolly ‘splain “sound wildlife management principles” to the Sierra Club while he’s at it.
Pathological Liar Le Roi lies again.
Makes a statement and cannot back it up.
How sad.
How pathetic.
How stupid because I might have agreed with you.
But just tell us more lies, Pathological Liar Le Roi.
Stay uncivil.
Still Pathological Liar Le Roi won’t back up his statement that the NRA is anti-wildlife.
Why must you lie all the time, Le Roi?
mar:
Wrong again, mar. I gave a specific example, but you probably can’t understand the technical terms. That isn’t my fault.
“There isn’t enough time left in my or your lifetime to explain sound wildlife management in terms simple enough for you to understand. You’ll just have to live with that lack of knowledge.”
So, Pathological Liar Le Roi, in your very simple mind, that’s a specific example?
You better up that dose of Geritol and stop taking hydroxychloroquine.
Herd management is the NRA’s fault?
I thought that was the responsibility of the DNR, BLM (the federal government. not the terrorist group) and other wildlife management agencies.
No mar, I gave a specific example. You missed it. Not my fault. And I never mentioned “herd management”, that is on you.
Le Roi:
Mar is busy listening to those police scanners across the country. He doesn’t have time to read and understand posts.
RF:
True. And maybe his cognitive abilities are slipping.
Looks like Randall and Pathological Liar Le Roi are smoking the same crack and meth today.
Bad combination.
Wrong again, mar. As I have told you numerous times, I don’t, won’t, and, never have, used drugs.
So, Pathological Liar Le, your mind is so screwed up naturally?
Wow, ok.
But once again, you put out a statement, could not back it up and then blame the other person for your lying and incompetence.
That’s typical for you.
By the way, just because you used mulit-syllable words, wildlife management, means absolutely nothing. Perhaps you expound on that and I might actually agree with you.
mar:
The example I mentioned is still there, you too lazy to look?
You didn’t say crap Pathological Liar Le Roi.
Get your bartender to read it to you. I can’t help from here.
You are such an uncivil a-hole.
You just cannot admit you were caught lying again
For what, the thousandth time?
You really need help.
And the bars are shut down here.
Hey mar, what did I lie about?
You’re a sick person, Le Roi.
Now, say good night to the nurse’s aide, take your bed time medicine, put your dentures in the cup,change into your Depends and go to bed.
See, Le Roi, Mar knows how to be civil!
No mar, I’m still up, and listening to all the republicans endorse Biden. Makes for great viewing. I’ll be there is a hellacious twitter storm tonight.
Having repaired DNR trucks for years, LeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy now trolls B&S in retirement. What a life he leads!
>Having repaired DNR trucks for years, LeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy …
Only if you think Advanced Disposal trucks double as DNR trucks!
Sorry guys, you are both wrong. But that should come as no surprise to the sane folks here.
Le Roi, see how they latch on to the doxxing? Anything they think will personally embarrass you – that’s what they’ll repeat?
Like T said, like a bunch of twelve-year olds.
The best and the brightest! The most Christ-like!
And the best words!
Oh, ‘they’ aren’t the only ones. And though I am sure you no longer remember, that comment was directed (clearly) at one person, there was no ‘bunch’ in it. When you direct it at others, they are your words.
Trading insults instead of ideas has become the virtual way, unfortunately, and you are definitely one of the traders so don’t exclude yourself in the categorical name calling department.
You can point an example of that, T?
For goodness sake dude, we are talking about one right now!
Using me multiple times now for the 12 year old statement isn’t an obvious enough example? I have seen it several times already, you have said ‘like T has said’ and always aimed at someone other than I used it for. Calling others a bunch of 12 year olds is name-calling in my book.
Did you mean other examples besides the topic of this conversation?
Insults traded just in this thread:
(This was aimed at Jason, even though Le Roi was the one who tried to differentiate)
Pretty much every entry except two was trading insults/sarcasm just in this thread.
Bantering with the local trolls can be its own form of self-flagellation.
T, I see it differently, apparently. I don’t call them poopy-heads. Yes, lots of sarcasm.
Right,jjf, I also use sarcasm.
But only to people who lie and troll, like you, Le Roi and Randall.
You use your “sarcasm” on everyone.
I can see how you could interpret me as insulting you if I called you “Mr. Dictionary.” Do you think it’s the same as you or Jason calling someone an asshole? Or making fun of your (presumed) appearance?
First, jjf, I don’t get insulted easily.
But yes, calling a person an a-jole is fair game when that person lies to your face and then blames you for their lies.
Not sure what you call that person, but a-hole is a pretty tame name.
I find it very interesting that there is suddenly a sliding scale of intent and interpretation to name calling, twelve year old behavior, sarcasm, bullying and even doxxing. Just yesterday it was black and white to some.
Pretty much every entry except two was trading insults/sarcasm just in this thread.
Correct. It started with Jason’s Leroy steps in it again. It’s been a bad week Leroy, perhaps next week will be better for you.
Every week above the sod is a good week.
Every week above the sod is a good week.
Hear, hear! And, as a bonus this week, we got to see Donald Trump profess his love for Q’Anon.
“Donald Trump profess his love for Q’Anon.”
And there goes Randall lying again.
You must have missed it Mar. He was gushing about how much they like him. That clearly shows his love for them.
I actually watched it live.
He really didn’t know who they exactly were and it was a gotcha question.
Yes, he was glad to have their support and yes he was glad they go after pedophiles.
And yes, President Trump was happy that the justice goes after pedophiles.
Are you angry with that?
Are you supporting pedophiles?
“Every week above the sod is a good week.”
Well, here is an issue we agree on.
Sarcasm directed at someone’s intelligence, for example, is an insult pure and simple. You may as well have called Kevin and Jason retarded, as in don’t understand the meanings of relatively simple words. You stand behind the liberal PC wall of protection and think you are smarter or better than the ones you denigrate because you use sarcasm and synonyms? You are the one using your own dictionary (thesaurus?) for that one.
Unfortunately, at least 98% of political commentary on the internet are insults, if directed at the other side or blind defense if commented about the same side. Look at jjf’s comments, when he uses “Mr Dictionary. That should have been directed at Le Roi, but he doesn’t think of criticizing another liberal so he throws sarcasm at the conservative.
No one thinks about the issues anymore, they don’t have to. There is already a dictated response from political leaders and/or biased media and education. My original comment was not directed at jjf or any other liberal, though I would not hesitate to use jjf’s words ‘arguing like a bunch of 12 year olds’ on most of the commentary on Owen’s blog.
It is unfortunate. Here is the internet allowing people from everywhere to connect, share ideas, hash out solutions and send in a petition, come up with new ideas, etc. and all we seem to use it for is to divide, disrupt, and destroy. Civility and manners were taught in the past, not anymore. The commentary above is what is taught for how to treat others today. Can anyone reading this say they are happy with that? I hope not. (And I am not immune or above it)
I try never to start commentary in any thread with an insult to a commenter, but you cannot continue a discussion when the only answers to your first comment are insults. And I too find it difficult not to answer in kind. My only defense is that it is often caused by my frustration that no one engaged with my original idea, pos or neg, they just insulted the idea, me, or pointed out a mis-spelling and moved on. Imagine if no one’s first comment was an insult. Would it be better or would there be no commentary in Owen’s blog?
Tuerqas, perhaps you haven’t seen enough of Kevin, for example. He likes to insist that science and evolution are religions, so therefore his religion belongs in schools and city hall, too.
Or Mar, who routinely makes the “they may have a doctorate but that doesn’t mean they’re smart” / “my ignorance is equivalent to their education” argument.
I don’t think Mar and Kev are dumb and I certainly wouldn’t use the R-word. I hold out great hope that they’ll learn more and behave better.
Not a day goes by that I wish there would be civil and intelligent discussions between progressives, liberals, conservatives and libertarians. It is rare to non-existent here. I think the twelve-year-olds scared ’em off.
And the conservatives here are the majority… so their divisive attack-at-all-costs approach wins the day. There is no conservative-on-conservative policing to encourage better behavior. Totally tribal. Can’t criticize the words of a possible ally. Can’t seem like you’re not supportive, so they just look the other way.
If you can point to a better-behaved forum with a Wisconsin theme, I’m all ears.
T:
Another type of response i would add is the “you are lying” with no proof of said lie. Any parrot can reflexively say “you are lying”; it is intellectually lazy and tells much more about the poster than the alleged liar.
Civility and manners were taught in the past, not anymore.
I disagree. Look how minorities, women, LGBTQ and such were treated for hundreds of years in the U.S. We have never been civil or mannered except where it was “easy.” So if it had been being taught, it sure wasn’t effective teaching.
jjf:
There is no conservative-on-conservative policing to encourage better behavior.
I would add a caveat to this in saying while there is not explicit policing, I do notice a very visible lack of support for some conservative commenters vs others. I take at least a little solace in that.
Gee, jjf, if you want to have a civil conversation then why don’t you try to be civil once in awhile instead of trolling, lying and taking people’s writing out of context.
As far as the racism, well, I just take you have said in the past.
“There is no conservative-on-conservative policing to encourage better behavior.”
Well, Randall there is zero liberal policing here. None whatsoever.
Not when a person trills or lies.
So, why don’t you step and be a man and start calling out liberals who lie and troll here.
If you do that, then I will call out conservatives who misbehave.
Randall, pointing out an absence isn’t very strong evidence that someone isn’t supported, especially to the person you think has the egregious behavior.
I could spin it the other way: How does that differ from tacit approval?
Mar, we’re back to words and their meanings, are we? “Lie” means saying a falsehood knowingly. As opposed to “wrong” where someone is stating something that is incorrect. Which do you mean?
Can you start differentiating between lies and being wrong? You seem to run to “lie” because you really seem to want the implied bad intent. You repeat that someone’s a lair, over and over, disconnected from whatever you think they lied – or were wrong – about. You focus on your assumption of bad intent, not any particular fact.
If Le Roi ever said something I thought was wrong, I’d correct him, too. Probably have, if he ever did. As for “lie,” we’d need evidence of intent, right? How do you propose to know that in many circumstances?
Same thing for racism. You repeat your claim over and over, and have nothing to support it, won’t discuss it even when I’ve pointed to the original post and my comments where it all seems to have started. But I’m supposed to believe you’re always operating in good faith and with civil intent, right?
Randall, a true bunch of 12 year olds argument, yes.
I will agree and still disagree with your statement:). I will agree that civility and manners were not taught to be universal, i.e. ‘southern hospitality’ and manners did not include minorities for the most part. Manners have always shown the prejudices of the times, but they were taught and often enforced by elders. Victorian Englanders were taught very rigid manners, but they did not include most other people and they weren’t designed for other people to emulate. In my neck of Wisconsin (growing up) manners were taught to be all-inclusive.
Today courtesy is never taught to be all-inclusive. It is based on political/PC beliefs and elders are often the ones with the worst track records. I watched a long string of insults on a different blog not too long ago between a Democrat and a Republican. The insults were pretty nasty until someone else pointed out that it was rude of the Dem to say such a thing to a black person. The turn of the Democrat probably caused whiplash and suddenly there were a lot of apologies and the ideas of that particular Republican had some merit. And there is also some merit to many conservatives falling into racist generalities, such as hating that their hard-earned money seems too often sent to struggling minorities and resentment builds from things like that. Self-interest is always an underlying cause of racism. So I guess some manners are still based on race, but along slightly different lines, and they are certainly getting less inclusive than they used to be. Reps and Dems are pretty much taught to hate 55% of the other people in the US, at least the very definition of minority is ‘less than half’.
1) It is not necessarily that “conservatives hate” that…money goes to “struggling minorities.” In some cases, “conservatives hate” that some Government, some place, decides to re-direct money away from….oh, say….that “conservative”‘s family, or a VERY deserving charity. As you probably recall, Burke’s conservatism envisioned family-church-village (in that order) financial assistance.
2) That goes to the word “struggling.” It is often impossible for one to judge WHY there is ‘struggling’ when a couple layers of Government are between the parties. In contrast, Burke’s formulation allows for VERY clear vision; and also gives one the opportunity to discuss–in clear terms–the reason for “struggle.” If it’s some female with 6 illicit children……..you get the idea.
3) “Self-interest”? or “Selfishness”? Big difference. And you’d have to prove that whichever it is is “cause of racism.” I’m acquainted with a lot of white folks who IMHO don’t deserve a dime. In contrast, I sent some real money to the suddenly-single (black) Dad of 6 whose wife was killed in a drive-by late last Fall. There was no Government involved in that transaction, and it was not needed.
When you assign malice to groups, you’re doing exactly what racists want. Be careful.
I remember Kevin well from the first iteration of B&S, and I can confidently say he is much worse than he used to be. A fine definition of un-Christian like behavior. Never building up, never forgiving, calling for death? He is the one I used ‘arguments of a 12 year old’ on. When has he not had ‘liberals are awful’ (or worse) or ‘do you denounce?’ in a comment? We used to have some interesting conversations…I don’t engage anymore.
Mar is way too often the giver or receiver of insult volleys and he starts them at least as often as he is the victim, but if engaged honestly has some good insights.
Of course you wouldn’t use the R word, it is politically incorrect. That is why I inappropriately used it. You not even be allowed to use the word in a response helps prove my ‘civility and manners’ point.
I would cry BS on the rest, though, based on your actions to date. If you even wanted to hold out hope that they would improve in any way, you wouldn’t be spending most of your time on this blog egging people on, you would be trying to get to the issue of the post, and you would call out liberals if they were wrong. I would love it if you acted as if you wanted those things. When I have tried to engage you it has usually had to get past your initial snarky dis-belief commentary that a non-liberal could hold an opinion of value first.
Dad29, I agree with pretty much everything you said, especially layers of Gov’t involvement and about wanting to be able to give a portion of your largesse to someone of your choosing. I agree with there being a difference between self-interest and selfishness, that’s why I never used the term selfishness. I meant exactly what I said.
When you assign malice to groups, you’re doing exactly what racists want. Be careful.
I don’t know how that equates to what racists want and I would also say there is an even larger difference between the words resentment and malice. Racism virtually requires the use of generalizations. People who are racist are seldom made that way from personal experiences with individuals, they are made by believing that one whole race has some quality or flaw.
I am 100% certain that most (generalizing here:) liberals believe that self-interest equates to racism…in conservatives.
I believe that self-interest can lead to racism when said self-interest is perceived to be blocked by a cause tied to race. Thus there is some merit to the idea that many middle and lower middle class people would resent a significant portion of their pay going towards a lower class and potentially to a race that predominates that lower class where they live.
Granted, they should be resenting the wealthy even more, who could afford to be giving up more, and the Gov’t (set up by the wealthy, not the poor) who is forcing them to pay. Overall, I still think I was pretty careful there.
I don’t understand this. Please clarify.
There is also a distinction between “prejudice” and “racism.” Prejudice is not a serious problem; it’s natural to look at “the other” with suspicion and it goes ALL directions. Racism is acting on UN-founded hatred or animosity to an entire group defined solely by race. That may or may not be accompanied by a range of actions from simple disrespect through murder.
As to ‘resenting’ the “rich,” that’s a sin that most people commit; it’s called “envy” and it is very serious. (That’s distinct from resenting someone who is ‘rich’ but who stole the money, or obtained it un-ethically AND is un-punished for that offense.)
Oh, there’s “founded” hatred or animosity to other races? Go on… give us some examples.
As for envy, shall we make distinctions between a longing for someone else’s, and a desire to take someone else’s, and the desire for more more more?
*Yawn*
>Oh, there’s “founded” hatred or animosity to other races? Go on… give us some examples.
Too much for you to just stick to what’s written, instead of attacking what is not? You should try some of that self-policing you’re begging for from others.
Hey, it was Dad29 who capitalized the “UN,” not me. It is literally what he wrote. I can’t ask what he meant?
What could he ever mean? I guess it will forever remain a mystery!
Mar and Kevin routinely inject “I bet the liberals love this and lie and are racists and won’t denounce this” on every other post, and now Jason’s worried…
I’ll go on… why is it Natural “to look at ‘the other’ with suspicion”?
> why is it Natural “to look at ‘the other’ with suspicion”?
Ask your sociology professor, not me. I will say that Suspicion is a feeling, and we all know that there are no wrong feelings in today’s all-inclusive culture.
Jason, there’s no point attempting to bring Jiffy into a rational discussion.
It’s pretty simple, Dad29. What did you mean by “Racism is acting on UN-founded hatred or animosity to an entire group defined solely by race?”
I’m all ears.
Jjf, you support BLM. There have been thousands, probably tens of thousands of blacks showing their hatred of whites for all that oppressing we do. You argue that it is justified all the time and mostly just downplay and ignore all the wrong doing. The ‘peaceful’ marches have done nothing to help their cause. How could it, they have made no demands, required no solutions. That there is racism in police forces is already acutely well known, there is no value in marching to ‘bring awareness’.
The oppressed throughout history have often been forgiven their founded hatred for their oppressors.
You think that’s what Dad29 meant? I’d like to hear it from his keyboard.
I don’t think it’s hatred. I think it’s more like “stop killing us.”
I don’t understand this. Please clarify.
I am not 100% sure what you are asking for, but I’ll take a shot at what I think it is. I used the term ‘resentment’ and I assume you understand what I am saying. If I had gone on, resentment does not always turn to hate, prejudice or racism. Some people get over it, some people forgive, some keep some level of prejudice, and some let it fester until it turns into some level from general dislike to rage. Sometimes there could be a racial element in the mix, sometimes not. There are some who let it fester, then generalize their feelings and a racist is born. That is some portion of some portion of some portion, i.e a small proportion of all people. And that is just from those who started resenting in the first place. My point was that I think a relative majority of the middle and lower middle class, may have some level of resentment of taxes that are taken from them every year and of how they are distributed. Resentment is a breeding ground for racism. Racist movements will feed on those feelings of resentment, trying to light a fire. Sometimes it works, and it certainly works better than in one who has no resentment in him in the first place. Agreement or disagreement aside, does that clarify?
I resent that the upper .001 percent of the wealthy have bought up the tools that shape our lives (media, electronics and Government positions) and have used it very unethically to enrich and empower themselves. The middle class can’t take its Government back, the only candidates we can choose to elect are owned by the puppeteers. You may call that envy, I don’t know. I call it awareness.
You think that’s what Dad29 meant? I’d like to hear it from his keyboard.
I don’t think it’s hatred. I think it’s more like “stop killing us.”
That is why the conservatives think you hopelessly naive among other beliefs:). It is why you don’t ‘understand’ how the unpleasant facts I brought up last week and others like them are relevant to main discussion. If you cherry pick what variables enter a discussion rather than including all relevant data, you will always come up with a flawed conclusion. That is why the media continually defines terms separately for Dems and Reps. If each side has different criteria and a completely different set of facts on which to discuss an issue, nothing but confusion can ever come out of it.
You will never look at this whole racism situation from the view of a police officer. Milwaukee is about 30% black. Let’s say Officer Smith has 10 neighborhoods in his jurisdiction, 3 black and 6 white and 1 hispanic. When 65% or more of the calls come from the black and hispanic neighborhoods, it is something that an officer will remember. When 75% of the potentially life threatening calls and murders come from those same neighborhoods, it is something that an officer will remember. I know I would come to dread the calls from those neighborhoods and especially the worst parts of them, where you may have been shot at several times in the past and threatened many more. And I believe I would fall into the trap of dealing more harshly in those areas to help preserve my life. I would never kneel on a man’s head, nor condone it in the least, but when guns come out, you act swift and hard or you may die. That part I can understand and even sympathize with, even as I condemn the actions of a few, you know like K is always asking you to do on BLM ‘mis-behavers’. It may be an example of founded hatred too, who knows.
T, saying “hopelessly naive” is needlessly dismissive. I’m nearing six decades above ground and I have plenty of political and personal perspective and my views have changed over the years. There were plenty of years I believed I was traditionally conservative in the old “classic liberal” sense, then more fascinated with libertarianism, then appalled at the GOP’s bizarre waltz into the Iraq war, then simply more tired of the divisive partisanship you also seem to dislike.
Your description of the police officer? Classic racism, right? See a black person, be on high alert. You’re just weaving an story to make it palatable.
And Dad29 goes silent. Am I missing some subtle meaning behind his words? He capitalized “UN” for a reason. And he’s fond of “natural” as in “Natural Law.”
Yah, well, the Old Testament is chock-full of petitions to God for “justice.” So it’s not like you’re the first one to have that problem. Choosing which asshole to elect isn’t hard. Living with them afterwards is.
Yup. Not sure that your analysis is identical to mine, but now I grok it.
Nope……….although T may differ………
You have a real problem with assigning the worst possible motive to any human action, inaction, or thought-line. That’s why you are regarded as an irritating little fruit-fly.
It’s not “racism,” classic or otherwise. It’s suspicion that is FOUNDED on experience. Lots of experience.
Then there’s Jason Whitlock, who is NOT an irritating fruit-fly.
Is he a racist, too?
And yet I ask questions you seem to be afraid to answer.
Tell us a few of your examples of “FOUNDED” “hatred and animosity” towards someone based on their skin color, and why it is Natural to look on the Other with suspicion.
What did I say about the motive of the police officer here?
Swat the fly! Should be easy, right?
Dad29, as for Whitlock’s statement, is it the fear-based politics or the racial-based politics that are offensive to you?
In order: Fair enough, so show that experience once in a while, prove that you ever thought conservatively. Even if you now eschew all that is Conservative or Libertarian, it should still have made some sort of impression on you. Literally none of your words have ever given any indication that you even see that there is another side than liberalism. You want civilized discussion? Empathy, showing that you understand or have considered more than your side would make a big difference. You choose not to, so it is hard to believe that you have ever thought any other way.
Me too, I just turned 57 last Saturday.
No, the police officer is not classist, and asking that makes me wonder if you know what it means.
It is an individual value judgement on each police officer, whether you want to call valid experience racism or survivalism. My first question to you is do you believe there is or can be a distinction? Are police officers not justified in delaying a call to put on Kevlar if they are going to a neighborhood called Hell’s kitchen, when they wouldn’t delay if they were going to Whitefolks Bay? Is it racism if they do so or pragmatism? Are they not justified in expecting resistance, resentment even hatred in the dangerous neighborhoods where they have been drawn on and shot at before? I would say they are justified and it is not racism, personally. I would say going on high alert if they see a black person just anywhere is racism, but going to a neighborhood known for drugs and violence means high alert no matter the race. Now we go back to the unpleasant facts about how 12.5% of the population is responsible for more than 75% of murders and that over 50% of murders are repeat offenses year after year. Making up stories? Police know the percentages. No, I do not think I am making up a fictional narrative based on conservative fantasy. That dread of the calls to specific neighborhoods are direct quotes by the 2 police I have known well in my life. If that dread and fear for their lives is not ‘founded’, I don’t know what is.
Lastly, it is completely ‘natural’ that the vast majority of people find friendship and comfort from being with and near people of the same nationality, backgrounds, religion, etc. It is human nature. The proof is in any study you can find on the subject. Some ‘ghettoes’ have been forced throughout history, but most same race/national/religious background neighborhoods are from new immigrants looking for others of the same language and background, finding them and settling down there. In most every city in the world where there are enough people of one race to form a good sized neighborhood, most (as in more than half of) of newcomers to that city will join the neighborhood they identify and share a language with. Whether they become a slum or a wealthy neighborhood in time, racial neighborhoods are usually formed by people’s choice.
T, in fact, when you reappeared here, I said you were a breath of fresh air. Can you imagine that I’ve learned from what I believed once before, and have changed my views?
I didn’t say “classist” I said “classic.”
I’ve thought about your police story since you wrote it. So what does it have to do with racist thoughts and policies in the rest of the USA, beyond the 0.2% of the population who are cops?
And to be fair, that fraction is far too generous, as most aren’t serving in Hell’s Kitchen or the equivalent.
Thank you and oops my bad on the classic. I apologize for that, read it a couple of times because it did not make sense. Onset senility, I guess.
First, let’s define racism for this comment only as white hatred of blacks. I have a whole set of different opinions on anti-religion, Semitism, Islam and Christianity; on minority held racism, whole books on Japan, etc.
Second on cops: Racism or caution, the progenitors are the cops who do go to and work around the worst neighborhoods and those that they communicate with on a daily basis. These have also been the offenders of horrible behavior that has consistently popped up in the news. 99% of the WI police everywhere north of the Fox valley don’t have those problems, for example, but are likely not racists either. Now, there are white supremacists and other similar groups that are racists by definition, but that is not a significant portion of the US, imo, at least I do not believe they have enough power in and behind Government to have significant impact. I would define racism in the police force as institutional btw, to those who have said that they think there is no such thing.
I think most racism today is taught by Government and their propaganda arm, the mainstream media, not father to son or friend to friend. Policies towards blacks over our lifetimes have constantly been about poor blacks, broken home blacks, give taxes to the disadvantaged and housing for the homeless. There have not been programs to offer livelihoods to these people, to bring them any sort of prosperity, just enough for subsistence and dependent on the next payment. Through this they have been taught inferiority and on the flip side, the people paying the bills have been taught superiority. Because despite what in their opinion is significant largesse (or extortion depending upon who you ask), relatively few of the targets of welfare ever get out of it. And the portion of Government that doles it out wants to keep it just that way. They are steady voters. And the portion of Government that claims to be against the handouts like it this way too, they get their steady voters from the bill payers. If there were no significant class of poor people (this country could easily support millions of new workers) there would be no easy division of voters. The only wealth division would be between the super wealthy and the middle class and no one in power wants that division to be highlighted. In essence, race and class divisions among the poor and middle classes are purposely cultivated by those in power who wish to stay in power.
I have never trusted Government, but the wool was finally fully pulled from my eyes about 23-25 years or so ago when a WI Republican super majority had been voted in to pass the taxpayers bill of rights in WI. They put it off and off and one day (I believe) Jeff Wagner was interviewing a Fitzgerald at the time who slipped up and said out loud that they would not pass it during that session (officially they had just said they were close and they most likely would pass it for the hundredth time). He said out loud that ‘If they did the Reps running for office would not have it to campaign on’. And it all fell into place. Everything they don’t do falls into that category. Even a black President did nothing to close the racial divide in his own country. Why?