Dear Racists: I know you’re going to to be trotting this out in the next few days claiming that this shows how white people are just as badly treated as black people in the US (though, of course, the idea that “it happens all the time” to white people is, of course, a ridiculous and disgusting lie).
But guess what, fuckheads, as usual, you’re wrong as fuck. The reason this tragedy isn’t national news is because, surprise surprise, a similar (ish) shooting of a white teenager by a black cop is being handled by the authorities completely differently! That’s right, you dumbfucks, this officer is being immediately and vigorously investigated, the officer’s name was released, the victim wasn’t denied medical care, nor was his body left on the street for hours. It’s almost like we treat black and white people differently in our justice system! And if you want to argue that the fucking Salt Lake City PD (oh shit, was I able to read about this case in the NATIONAL NEWS?!?!?! ) is racist against white people, you are fucking out of your mind.
So, nice try, you asshole, I know you were salivating over finding a case to compare this to Mike Brown, but, even with this timing, you’re not even fucking close to proving your racist “point.”
This anon’s statement reeks “reverse racism”.
>”Sucks to be white”.
A good friend of mine told me “reverse racism” is white supremacy backfiring on white people.
This anon should start telling the whites to stop their infatuation with white supremacy.
Dear Uncle Lou,
I think it was a vaild question, and one her viewers probably wanted to see answered. He should have been able to explain why protesting about helping those kids was NOT racist. He couldn’t do it, and fell back on “you must be a racist for asking if I’m racist.”
The clip really doesn’t do what the author of the article seems to think it does. The guy is talking about “protecting America,” but doesn’t seem to have any real idea what that means. If the viewers of the video assume he’s protecting it by keeping Latinos out, then he didn’t do anything at all to dissuade them.
Honestly, though, it’s pretty sad to see a black guy saying that if you bring up race you must be a racist. Then he tosses in “are you here legal?” at the end, and if that doesn’t make him look like someone that’s just angry at Hispanics, then I don’t know what could.
See you in a week.
Watch this, It shows the interviewer’s true colors.
The pro-amnesty liberals think that if you support enforcing America’s immigration laws, then you are a racist. One reporter believed that so strongly, that she let all of her prejudices show during an intense street interview.
Watch (above) as a shamefully biased reporter from Univision 34 (KMEX) in Los Angeles shows her biases against an anti-illegal immigration protester who was badly injured during a demonstration. The friend he mentions is conservative hero Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.
You’ll notice the indignant reporter’s facial expression and body language show that she quickly realizes she lost the the argument, but is too arrogant to admit it.
As President Obama gets ready to grant citizenship to MILLIONS of illegal immigrants, it takes courage to support the rule of law. Please share this video, and leave a comment if you want the Southern border to be secured immediately.
"…there’s a perception that if you’re rich and you’re white, you can get away with murder.”
— Barry Bateman, South African reporter on the Oscar Pistorius trial, on NPR
Bateman’s comment, in a discussion last week about parallels between the Simpson and Pistorius trials, brought up a point that I hadn’t thought about in some time. In many ways we’re more cynical than the South Africans here in the US. Or perhaps our different demographic breakdown leads us to acceptance of a different set of injustices. Perhaps we’re simply at a different point.
I remember following the OJ Simpson trial along with just about everyone else I knew. And I also remember trying to avoid it.
I didn’t want to know who Kato was, or anything about Cochran, Kardashian and Ito, but I did understand that there was a distinct divide over how people were viewing the trial. That much was obvious. If you were around at the time, people were truly polarized over this trial, and it turned just about everyone involved into a celebrity. The combination made it an ugly spectacle, and divisive in a lot of ways between people who would normally see eye-to-eye on most things.
When people I knew (mostly black) admitted that they thought he was guilty but were still excited that he was acquitted, others (mostly white) were disgusted by the dissonance in that statement and its suggested acceptance of the murders. I found it sad but unsurprising, and not because of any white hatred on the part of my black friends and colleaugues.
I’m white, and so I had white coworkers who talked to me about being genuinely freaked out by the rejoicing of the black community where I lived. Maybe it was partly from actively avoiding the intricacies of the trial, but I couldn’t share in their fears and disbelief. I wasn’t sure how to verbalize it to them, but it didn’t seem like a new story to me. So I would simply say, “well I’m glad I wasn’t stuck on that jury,” and move on, not willing to comment on his guilt or innocence.
(I’ve even heard some bring it up as recently as this year, as a reference to how they are STILL bothered that a coworker was happy about the verdict. It honestly affects their opinion of them even today, years later. That’s just weird.)
I still don’t care to talk about Simpson’s guilt or innocence, because it’s honestly not relevant to me. I’m aware that it is to other people, but I was a casual observer of the evidence presented and was glad to not be any more than that. What was—and is still—relevant to me is how people reacted to the news.
For me, the response to the verdict seemed to mark a bizarre and dubious sort of progress on the part of our society more than any sort of surprising miscarriage of justice. I see it as an achievement of one type of equality at the expense of justice, instead of general equality in the service of justice. And for that reason I was sad to admit that I completely understood why my black coworkers were happy to hear “not guilty.”
Bateman’s comment suggests that South Africans are hoping to learn that being rich and white is not a guarantee to get away with murder. Here in the US, we learned the opposite, that it is no longer the only way.
Today, while it’s still not a guarantee, they may only need to be rich.
Reblogging an earlier post, since the Pistorius verdict, not guilty of premeditated murder, but guilty of negligent homicide, was read this week. It remains to be seen what the reaction in South Africa will be, but the fact that a Zulu female judge presided, weighed the evidence fairly by all accounts, and announced the verdict is a major step in itself for the young nation. (And yes, I mean young nation, as in young system of reformed governing institutions that’s only been around about two decades.)
Proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt is a high bar, and rightly so. Neither Simpson’s or Pistorius’s prosecutor could reach it, and that’s the end of their story for me. The story on how we as communities and as nations react, however, that’s a story that I find is always worth more investment.
With equality between genders becoming more important, how can the modern man navigate this mysterious minefield of liberation and still be chivalrous? Well we’ve answered some of the most complex dating questions for you.
"What should we talk about?"
What matters to you? Try asking open questions that give your date a chance to talk about themselves. Most importantly, try not to be an asshole or a fake.
"Should I hold the door for my date?"
Would you hold it for your platonic friend? Do the same. Don’t be a fake.
"Should I pay for dinner?"
Did you invite them? Then probably. Do you have a job and they don’t? Then probably. Don’t be an asshole about it either way, and you should be ok.
"Should I order for my date?"
Is your date a child? No? Then don’t be an asshole. (Unless you do this for everyone anyway. In that case, don’t be a fake.)
"Should I go somewhere that I can’t really afford in order to impress?"
Don’t be a fake.
"Can I expect a goodnight kiss? Or even more?"
You’re on your own here. Just don’t be an asshole or fake any emotions that you don’t really feel.
The difficulty, of course, is that these new dating rules are so unpredictable and inconsistent. So we understand if it’s too hard. Just keep on trying, and keep trying not to be an asshole or a fake.
Excellent essay, and well worth reading.
I just watched Django Unchained again, and this is worth revisiting. It truly is a white revenge fantasy, a way of projecting ourselves onto a character with which we can sympathize, a way of imagining that we would not have been the villains of the time. That we would have worked to empower the oppressed.
In fact, the Economist’s recent statements on that, as well as Reagan’s older ones, actually reflect that same desire. We don’t want to think we would have been the perpetrators of evil, but our society was set up for us to be exactly that, and few of us would have had the will or the courage to do anything else. Tarantino gives white people another, new path to imagine that they may have taken, however unlikely it would have been.
I thank god I live here today, and not then. Because I shudder to think what sort of person I may have too easily become at that time in our history.
WOW, So afraid. God will get me. Terror runs up my leg, oh sorry my Depends was loose. Let me get back to you.
Except, you know, it wasn’t.
The Puritans came to escape persecution, not to allow anyone else to do so. So-called witches weren’t the only people they killed. Quakers and other denominations of Christianity were hung or burned by the Puritans when they came to Massachusetts, and their strict codes of conduct applied to every person in their towns. Earlier English settlers (such as the Mavericks) were forced out by the new extremist arrivals.
Appalachian settlers weren’t all that religious in the first place, most coming to the new world to escape poverty and violence, bringing quite a bit of the latter with them. Sexually open and vulgar in speech by comparison to other parts of the nation (what other group would name their towns things like “Tickle Cunt” or “Bone Lick?”), the highlanders established churches in time on their own simple terms. Southern plantation owners were some of our most outwardly religious settlers, and we can see what sort of moral code they all operated under.
It’s no wonder that the US Constitution established a separation from the church. They had no choice. The framers probably all thought the other regions of the new country were unhinged, intolerant and nearly amoral.
It’s a slow news day, people. I’ve been combing Twitter and Facebook to find stuff to post and there just… isn’t much. Obama’s at Stonehenge. Congress is still on vacation. Midterm elections are happening in November but the wheels haven’t really started turning yet.
Is there a burning story I don’t know about? Have any questions about current events? Want to tell me about the latest horrible thing your ultra-conservative relative said? Hit me up.
Apparently President Obama is an ancient Druid who returned to his home temple and immediately became a giant due to the energy fields there.
Watchdog.org, a group of right-wing news sites coordinated across the U.S., is baselessly pushing a conspiracy theory that the Environmental Protection Agency has been hiding new maps that reveal an “alarming” power grab.
The maps of U.S. waterways were simply updated from versions created during the Bush administration, and are helping the agency keep drinking water safe more efficiently.
And the theory itself? "Bogus," according to an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Republicans talking shit AGAIN. This @GOP tweet is the literal opposite of what they believe, campaign, and how they vote.
Sharing someone’s nude pics without their consent is a crime and should be treated as such, whether the victim is Jennifer Lawrence, Paris Hilton, or an ex that some jerk wants to embarrass.
We should shame (and prosecute) those who betray the trust of their intimate partners or steal private photos. This is outright theft and an invasion of privacy.
How many people know who leaked Paris Hilton’s tapes? A man she was dating, a few years older than her, who profited handsomely off his betrayal before she was even of drinking age.
What kind of person does that? Is he in jail? Shunned? Of course not.
Pam Anderson? Some guy doing work on their house stole the tapes and sold them for a profit. A basic thief.
I wish there were two distinctly opposite things we did differently here as a society. First, such an act would automatically make the thief a social pariah that could be prosecuted for personal damages.
Second, I wish it didn’t have to matter to us men or to the victims themselves. The social constructs we’ve created—and continue to nurture—that private bodies and natural human acts of love or lust can be collected as well as used to shame are both damaging.
I can’t help but recall the painful “we saw your boobs” skit from the Academy Awards that disgustingly reinforced and promoted both of those constructs as good fun. Sadly, there’s probably a little schadenfreude toward Lawrence because of her participation in it. But it shouldn’t be that way; she’s a victim here.
Societal changes don’t happen overnight, if at all. So aside from treating these crimes for what they are, what else can we do today?
Not much. For one, don’t trust cloud backups with your most private info. It appears that the recent leaks were from iCloud. The most notorious “ex-girlfriend revenge porn” site got most of their images not via betrayal, but by hacking into women’s Gmail accounts and stealing photos from there.
As far as keeping exes from sharing private information, I don’t see how punishment for that should be any less severe than for sharing your credit card numbers. And focus on these assholes, not their victims.
For now and the foreseeable future, we have to remember what society we live in and lock our doors. But we still must push for change in how we treat the thieves as well as the victims, and not tolerate the perpetuation of shaming women for their humanity and private selves.