Discussion: Racism - Part 1

[DeadPresident]

BLM does care about black on black violence I don't know where you got the idea they didn't.

About as much as the general public cares about Trey Smith in comparison to Will or Jaden Smith. It's a smaller issue to them, even though some studies show it has statistically higher prevalence, than white cops killing black males.

Here's some research you can look at: http://www.dailywire.com/news/7347/7-statistics-show-systemic-racism-doesnt-exist-aaron-bandler#

Their headline is spurious bull****, systemic racism does exist, but their stats tell a different story about where people need to focus.

And rap music doesn't glorify violence anymore than most people's favorite action, Gangster, Tarantino, etc movies or video games

Not exactly comparing apples and apples by citing a genre of music based on (in a lot of cases exaggerated) real events and fictional authors, are we? Some rappers have committed murders, have sold drugs, etc, etc - this isn't fiction.

Research indicates that black Americans kill other black Americans about 10 times more than white cops kill black Americans. Now if "Black Lives Matter" wants to accurately name themselves they should probably change it to "Black Lives Matter When They're Taken By White Cops" considering a lot of their behaviour.

People seem to want to make racist incidents and violence within the black community opposed to one another - they're not mutually exclusive issues. If BLM wants legitimacy as a movement then they should start addressing the rate at which violence occurs within the black community as much as they address the racist brutality perpetrated by cops. Both of these are crucial issues that need to be discussed and worked on, even if no white cop (or any cop) murders another black American ever again there will still be several thousand deaths a year where black Americans murder one another.

Now, one of them gets air time because it's a hot topic designed to divide people and cause ****, and the other one forces more than ten times the amount of black family members to act as pallbearers at funerals - which one is statistically more damaging to communities?

 

[MadVillainy]

I don't need to do research. I know people who are a part of BLM and not just the lowly people and they do stuff to combat neighborhood violence constantly in multiple cities.

And some actors, directors, etc. have sold drugs, raped girls, abused drugs, hurt women, assaulted men this isn't fiction. What's your point? What's different in listening to Get Rich or DIe Tryin or watching Friday the 13th or Goodfellas or A Clockwork Orange or even playing GTA V when it comes to violence

 

[DeadPresident]

I don't need to do research. I know people who are a part of BLM and not just the lowly people and they do stuff to combat neighborhood violence constantly in multiple cities.

Well those people need to do more to put themselves at the forefront of the movement and act and speak out against the unreasonable minority that derail a movement concerned with legitimate issues. The more they allow themselves to be spoken for by race traders and black nationalists like Jessie Williams et al the more it bleeds legitimacy from the cause.

Edit: Btw, the whole "I don't need to do research" bit and then using your personal experience to make blanket statements is about as anti-intellectual as it comes.

And some actors, directors, etc. have sold drugs, raped girls, abused drugs, hurt women, assaulted men this isn't fiction. What's your point? What's different in listening to Get Rich or DIe Tryin or watching Friday the 13th or Goodfellas or A Clockwork Orange or even playing GTA V when it comes to violence

And they deserve to be locked up if that's the case. Don't bother trying to use "Yeah but so and so has done X and Y", I don't give a **** who it is everybody needs to be held accountable for their actions. Whether it's a teenager looting a shop because he thinks the world owes him something or a scumbag director that should be jailed for a lifetime for rape. I don't care about anyone's identity categories - everyone needs to be judged according to their actions.

Once again, you're moving away from my point, I don't give a **** whether or not a rapper or a book or a movie directly causes or correlates with a person's actions - I've said this like four times now and I'll say it again:

Why do people look up to mediocre human beings for their moral and social guidance?

My whole point is that every community irrespective of identity needs better examples, whether that's the African American community or white Anglo-Saxons or Japanese school kids. Why are people aspiring to imitate morons, and what is being done to socialize the coming generation into aiming slightly higher than prancing and yodeling for a living? That's my point.

 

[MadVillainy]

You said it's weird to compare rap violence to video,game or movie violence. And I asked how is it different

And I brought up the point of filmmakers because you said "rappers have done crimes" and I brought up filmmakers and other celebrities because I don't get why people cry about rappers when so many of their other people they follow have done violent crimes too

I never disputed or even responded your point of why people look up to celebrities because I agree to a point that I don't see why people look up to celebrities. The first thing I did was say that not many rappers have a vocal "kill pigs" mentality
My other point was to another member about how rap doesn't glorify anything more than other forms of media. I just pointed out the silliness of the logic being used

and just because the media doesn't show it a lot doesn't mean it's not a big part of what BLM is doing. And I don't even really like BLM. I'm just squashing this silly notion of that they don't care about black on black violence

 

[DeadPresident]

You said it's weird to compare rap violence to video,game or movie violence. And I asked how is it different

You mean besides the small caveat that in some cases one happened and the other is fictitious...?

If we want to get hyperbolic it's the same difference as Di Caprio dying in Titanic and an actual person who died on the Titanic.

And I brought up the point of filmmakers because you said "rappers have done crimes" and I brought up filmmakers and other celebrities because I don't get why people cry about rappers when so many of their other people they follow have done violent crimes too

I never disputed your point of why people look up to so and so. The first thing I did was say that not many rappers have a vocal "kill pigs" mentality
My initial point was to another member. I just pointed out the silliness of the logic being used

Yes, and Polanski wasn't idolized by millions for singing about his transgressions, last time I checked? The point is when people see someone behaving badly and not being held accountable that implies that society implicitly condones that behaviour.

Let's be really frank here, pop culture icons of all races have normalized and glorified bad, unacceptable, and undesirable behaviour. Nobody in society is doing much to right that, so when people start believing bad behaviour isn't actually bad we only have ourselves to blame. The point is that "killing pigs" is a memetic part of rap culture, and rap figures appear to be popular individuals for some people to look up to and request leadership from.

Snoop Dogg has no business being used as a role model the same way a ****tard like Kid Rock has no business being used as a role model. And this isn't a criticism on them, it's a criticism for people who have ****ty standards when it comes to picking who to take their social cues from.

and just because the media doesn't show it a lot doesn't mean it's not a big part of what BLM is doing. And I don't even really like BLM. I'm just squashing this silly notion of that they don't care about black on black violence

Will you be so enthusiastic about that notion when people flip it on you and talk about something like the media not showing black on black violence that much, not meaning it isn't a big part of the violence the black community endures...?

 

[MadVillainy]

lol so much rap is fictitious. This has been proven that many rappers have lied about the "work" they put in. Eminem didn't kill his wife and drag her to the trunk of his car, Ice Cube never went to jail, 2pac wasnt thug life until he was out of jaik

And no youre right Polanski didn't make a movie about raping but he still avoided jail, still had a lot of people saying "let it go", still was able to win awards, and still able to make a cameo in a movie where he had a Sodomy joke

And agreed about your 2nd point after the Polanski paragraph

I can't speak on the media not covering Black on black violence because where I'm from I see it on the news everyday. I think it's covered a lot, but that could be just where I live. The media is skewed and if they werent/aren't showing black on black violence, or showing Muslims in a positive light, or showing good that cops do I wouldn't be surprised nor moved by it. I don't care that the media doesn't show what BLM does in regards to black on black violence

 

[DeadPresident]

lol so much rap is fictitious. This has been proven that many rappers have lied about the "work" they put in. Eminem didn't kill his wife and drag her to the trunk of his car, Ice Cube never went to jail, 2pac wasnt thug life until he was out of jaik

Let's be fair though, they wanted it to be true or at least wanted people to think it was true because it would gain credibility or at least awe from their fans, correct?

What would we be saying if someone else lied about killing his wife or killing someone because they thought it would get them positive attention and notoriety among society?

And no youre right Polanski didn't make a movie about raping but he still avoided jail, still had a lot of people saying "let it go", still was able to win awards, and still able to make a cameo in a movie where he had a Sodomy joke

And agreed about your 2nd point after the Polanski paragraph

Sure, and that's unacceptable in the extreme and it's a travesty that he isn't being held accountable.

I can't speak on the media not covering Black on black violence because where I'm from I see it on the news everyday. I think it's covered a lot, but that could be just where I live. The media is skewed and if they werent/aren't showing black on black violence, or showing Muslims in a positive light, or showing good that cops do I wouldn't be surprised nor moved by it. I don't care that the media doesn't show what BLM does in regards to black on black violence

Fair enough. However that probably means we've had a more relevant discussion, and done more to come to some kind of consensus about the "truth" (as murky and subjective as that can sometimes be), about the real state of some social issues than the media will ever manage. And this is one of my main interests, people engaging with one another to make sense of their world through polite but critical discussion - and shouldn't allow clearly biased and untrustworthy institutions to do it on their behalf.

We need more credible facts and more genuine dialogue about whatever issues are going unresolved IMO, but the media at large has turned into the most eagerly consumed source of "information", and it's doing serious harm to society.

 

[MadVillainy]

Agreed

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

It's not about supporting, it's about actually entertaining his opinion and viewing people who aren't entertainers as worthwhile aspirant figures. A key question might be why people turn on Sowell for his beliefs - is it because they intellectually understand what he's saying or is it because he isn't feeding them the age-old "You're all victims, liberals and leftists are your salvation" line?

Also, it's worth noting that a black American who doesn't allow his blackness to dictate every other level of his discursive practices is perhaps someone to look up to for the black community, instead of people like Jessie Williams who only wants to paint the black community as eternal, magical victims with thinly veiled ethno-nationalism.

How many kids want to be intellectuals like Tyson vs. how many kids want to be Kanye West and have dank cars and houses and a wife whose ass you can bounce phone books off of? And this counts for society at large, every demographic.

Uh, so how about people stop paying attention to him and listen to other figures? You're somewhat proving my point here, people need to stop using pop culture icons, half of which are of average intelligence and without a notable achievement to their names, as their beacons of social aspiration.

I was simply pointing out why rappers don't say "don't do drugs, support the police".

In my perfect world brilliant philosophers would be role models. And kids would dream of coming up with ground breaking philosophies instead of wanting to be rock stars and athletes.

But the elite have realized no matter how intellectual and sophisticated our culture tries to be most people will remain idiots.

They've had thousands of years to study the potential of the typical person and have decided that fulfilled potential is a fruitless endeavor.

Those are my suspicions anyway.

 

[conan69]

I typed a long response, then deleted it.

Instead Ill just paste this here...

Btw, the whole "I don't need to do research" bit and then using your personal experience to make blanket statements is about as anti-intellectual as it comes.

Agree

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I can't speak for most blacks but I disagree with Sowell for the same reason I disagree with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

It's not about getting salvation from liberals. It's about rich countries having the resources to provide healthcare, a social safety net, a clean environment, better wages, essential services, etc for everyone.

You call it "salvation". I call it "common sense".

 

[DeadPresident]

I was simply pointing out why rappers don't say "don't do drugs, support the police".

In my perfect world brilliant philosophers would be role models. And kids would dream of coming up with ground breaking philosophies instead of wanting to be rock stars and athletes.

But the elite have realized no matter how intellectual and sophisticated our culture tries to be most people will remain idiots.

They've had thousands of years to study the potential of the typical person and have decided that fulfilled potential is a fruitless endeavor.

Those are my suspicions anyway.

Overwhelming social psychological research suggests that people strongly resemble, within reasonable standard deviations either way, the social structures from which they come. Most people remain idiots simply because most people are raised by idiots. Increase the number of people with good values and relatively decent education and you will invariably increase the amount of decent human beings walking this rock, it's exceptionally simple in logic and incredibly unpopular in practice.

I can't speak for most blacks but I disagree with Sowell for the same reason I disagree with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

It's not about getting salvation from liberals. It's about rich countries having the resources to provide healthcare, a social safety net, a clean environment, better wages, essential services, etc for everyone.

You call it "salvation". I call it "common sense".

Morally and ethically I probably differ with Cruz and Paul because they just seem like deplorable human beings. That said, the reason why conservatism is technically correct on this count is because the left wants to create meaning for people about what they are and aren't allowed to be. It wants to tell people that they need a caretaker because as eternal victims they're too broken, too damaged and too inept to apply their personal will and skill to extricate themselves from their material circumstances, if those material circumstances are bad.

Now, should there be programs in place to look after the physically and mentally handicapped, the old, the military veterans? Of course there should, but a universal safety net will only end up breeding a sense of complacency and ultimately robs people of their agency. The reason why the left is wrong is because they want to take away people's personal responsibility to be accountable for their behaviour. The reason why that is crucial is only when people must account for their own actions do they respect the value and consequence of those actions.

If 90% of people in a country have the values and work ethic to provide healthcare, a clean environment, better wages or essential services for themselves and their fellow man, why should the government do it? The fact that so many people are asking for government intervention is an admission that people do not have the will power to want what is best for themselves and their fellow citizen, so much so that they can't or don't care to achieve it.

The primary failure of the left is that for socialism to be "right" it means that individuals are so morally and ethically far gone and callous and incapable of moral agency that the state needs to protect us from each other - that is a failure of people I am unwilling to accept.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Overwhelming social psychological research suggests that people strongly resemble, within reasonable standard deviations either way, the social structures from which they come. Most people remain idiots simply because most people are raised by idiots. Increase the number of people with good values and relatively decent education and you will invariably increase the amount of decent human beings walking this rock, it's exceptionally simple in logic and incredibly unpopular in practice.



Morally and ethically I probably differ with Cruz and Paul because they just seem like deplorable human beings. That said, the reason why conservatism is technically correct on this count is because the left wants to create meaning for people about what they are and aren't allowed to be. It wants to tell people that they need a caretaker because as eternal victims they're too broken, too damaged and too inept to apply their personal will and skill to extricate themselves from their material circumstances, if those material circumstances are bad.

Now, should there be programs in place to look after the physically and mentally handicapped, the old, the military veterans? Of course there should, but a universal safety net will only end up breeding a sense of complacency and ultimately robs people of their agency. The reason why the left is wrong is because they want to take away people's personal responsibility to be accountable for their behaviour. The reason why that is crucial is only when people must account for their own actions do they respect the value and consequence of those actions.

If 90% of people in a country have the values and work ethic to provide healthcare, a clean environment, better wages or essential services for themselves and their fellow man, why should the government do it? The fact that so many people are asking for government intervention is an admission that people do not have the will power to want what is best for themselves and their fellow citizen, so much so that they can't or don't care to achieve it.

The primary failure of the left is that for socialism to be "right" it means that individuals are so morally and ethically far gone and callous and incapable of moral agency that the state needs to protect us from each other - that is a failure of people I am unwilling to accept.

If only there were a way for the 90% to pool their resources to protect the environment, ensure better wages, provide essential services, provide unemployment in case of job loss, disability, social services, social security, aiding veterans, infrastructure, military, healthcare, etc.

Oh wait, we do. It's called taxes and some people can't stop crying about them despite the fact that they've been used to provide these things since the earliest civilizations.

And if you got rid of government, do you expect big business to give these things to everyone for free?

Look at how much private healthcare systems charge for prescription drugs for a hint.

 

[DeadPresident]

If only there were a way for the 90% to pool their resources to protect the environment, ensure better wages, provide essential services, provide unemployment in case of job loss, disability, social services, social security, aiding veterans, infrastructure, military, healthcare, etc.

Except government officials are wasting tax money on incorrect allocation at a rate of knots and the opportunity cost of bureaucratic practice is a blight on society?

Oh wait, we do. It's called taxes and some people can't stop crying about them despite the fact that they've been used to provide these things since the earliest civilizations.

Jesus...now you're spouting blatantly false lies - do you understand how feudalism worked? Taxes are fantastic, up to a point. Taxes become counter-productive when we use them to replace what should be our moral responsibility toward each other. This is about values, little else. When people have the moral conviction to ensure well-being for one another these problems cease to exist.

And if you got rid of government, do you expect big business to give these things to everyone for free?

Look at how much private healthcare systems charge for prescription drugs for a hint.

I'm not advocating governmental anarchy - I'm not some Libertarian scum, but dependency on some parental organization simply absolves people of personal responsibility. I don't need to be treated like a child, I know what the morally correct thing is to do and I don't need it done on my behalf, the left assumes we're incapable of that.

All the reprehensible behaviour you're talking about wasn't perpetrated by some "private system" - it was done by individuals, individuals with abhorrent or non-existent values or moral consciences. The possibility for unacceptable behaviour exists both in the public and private realm, stop bleating about the private sector being responsible for all society's ills and stop looking to your government to fix society's problems, the only people that can do that is us.

If it doesn't happen that's a statement about the quality of people, not about the applicability of a specific system or sector.

 

[Greens]

Now, should there be programs in place to look after the physically and mentally handicapped, the old, the military veterans? Of course there should, but a universal safety net will only end up breeding a sense of complacency and ultimately robs people of their agency. The reason why the left is wrong is because they want to take away people's personal responsibility to be accountable for their behaviour. The reason why that is crucial is only when people must account for their own actions do they respect the value and consequence of those actions.

I live in a country that has a universal safety net. Do some people abuse it? Sure. But it also means that whatever mistake you make in life, you won't end up homeless having to eat out of garbage cans. It means that if a risk you took didn't pan out, you're given a hand so you can slowly start to rebuild your life.

Make no mistake, most people do not take this system for granted. Having to depend on the government, and by proxy your fellow man, robs you of your pride. It's an embarrassing situation, but the line of thinking is... whatever your actions were (within the confines of the law) it doesn't do anybody any favors if you have to spend the rest of your life dirt poor with nothing to look forward to.

If 90% of people in a country have the values and work ethic to provide healthcare, a clean environment, better wages or essential services for themselves and their fellow man, why should the government do it? The fact that so many people are asking for government intervention is an admission that people do not have the will power to want what is best for themselves and their fellow citizen, so much so that they can't or don't care to achieve it.

The primary failure of the left is that for socialism to be "right" it means that individuals are so morally and ethically far gone and callous and incapable of moral agency that the state needs to protect us from each other - that is a failure of people I am unwilling to accept.

People ask for government intervention because that's the way the system works. The government pools our money and distributes it. Under the right circumstances, it's the most fair and efficient way of going about providing these essential services. If the government is not there to set boundaries and serve the populace, what exactly is it there for in your vision of the world?

 

[DeadPresident]

I live in a country that has a universal safety net. Do some people abuse it? Sure. But it also means that whatever mistake you make in life, you won't end up homeless having to eat out of garbage cans. It means that if a risk you took didn't pan out, you're given a hand so you can slowly start to rebuild your life.

Your country wouldn't happen to be a culturally homogeneous society with a population under 50m and a place where people possess common decency...would it?

Make no mistake, most people do not take this system for granted. Having to depend on the government, and by proxy your fellow man, robs you of your pride. It's an embarrassing situation, but the line of thinking is... whatever your actions were (within the confines of the law) it doesn't do anybody any favors if you have to spend the rest of your life dirt poor with nothing to look forward to.

I'm not saying it doesn't, and in extreme situations like those you've described I agree with it, I'm not saying there should be no government.

People ask for government intervention because that's the way the system works.

What system, which people?

The government pools our money and distributes it. Under the right circumstances, it's the most fair and efficient way of going about providing these essential services.

I agree 100%, the crucial part of your statement is bolded, it is effective under particular circumstances, and those circumstances are not present in each country trying to broaden its socialist structures.

If the government is not there to set boundaries and serve the populace, what exactly is it there for in your vision of the world?

RE the first part of your question, it depends on what we're talking about. What boundaries must a government set? If people aren't decent enough, don't actually possess as a collective, civil society some kind of moral conscience what does that say about the society, if it needs some kind of parent entity to dictate to it what isn't right or isn't wrong. If the citizens of a country feel they have a duty to one another to be decent human beings and raise their children as such, why would anyone need moral guidance from an institution?

My vision of the world isn't some vast departure from how most successful nations currently operate, my primary point is I don't understand why people relinquish their agency to government, that's problematic because it makes people nothing more than vessels that the government's say-so gets channeled through. Again, I'm not saying government shouldn't assist those in need, what I'm saying is it shouldn't act as everyone's training wheels after they no longer need them. It doesn't really matter what anyone's opinion is, Europe's little socialist experiment is swiftly falling apart at the seams, there's going to be hard data to support the limitations of grand socialist implementations relatively shortly.

I suspect you're in Canada, in which case this conversation is rather moot since Canada already has a healthy balance of economic and political policies - but most importantly it has a civil society with the values and morality to sustain it - something the USA is rapidly losing. The integrity of civil society and healthy social fabric is disappearing in all but a few countries, that's of far more importance than minor fiscal or ideological technicalities.

 

[RockSP]

Let's be fair though, they wanted it to be true or at least wanted people to think it was true because it would gain credibility or at least awe from their fans, correct?

What would we be saying if someone else lied about killing his wife or killing someone because they thought it would get them positive attention and notoriety among society?

Please. Rap and all other forms of music are entertainment. There are definitely people stupid enough to believe everything a rapper says (positive or negative) but just like most people don't take Johnny Cash literally when he says "I shot a man just to see him die", they don't take rappers as telling "real life" stories. Hell in many songs the rapper ends up dead at the end of it, and obviously the person rapping is still alive. Songs tell stories.

As for this black on black crime nonsense...people really need to lay off that strawman. They're basically saying police shouldn't be held accountable for the f***ed up things they do because black criminals (without badges) do f***ed up things too.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Except government officials are wasting tax money on incorrect allocation at a rate of knots and the opportunity cost of bureaucratic practice is a blight on society?



Jesus...now you're spouting blatantly false lies - do you understand how feudalism worked? Taxes are fantastic, up to a point. Taxes become counter-productive when we use them to replace what should be our moral responsibility toward each other. This is about values, little else. When people have the moral conviction to ensure well-being for one another these problems cease to exist.

Ancient Egypt predates feudal Europe by a wide margin. And Europe eventually adopted a tax system.

Charity is not sufficient. You think a church is going to give a veteran 2,500 a month for disability and 2,500 a month for someone who was laid off and 2,500 a month for someone who lost their retirement and 2,500 a month for thousands of other people?

These people would be lucky to get 30 bucks worth of groceries from the food bank.

I'm not advocating governmental anarchy - I'm not some Libertarian scum, but dependency on some parental organization simply absolves people of personal responsibility. I don't need to be treated like a child, I know what the morally correct thing is to do and I don't need it done on my behalf, the left assumes we're incapable of that.

A child would believe that pooling our resources is unnecessary because most taxes go to jobless grifters.

They do not.

Most go to the elderly, the military, the working poor, veterans, infrastructure, and healthcare.

Reasonable things that charity won't come close to paying for.

All the reprehensible behaviour you're talking about wasn't perpetrated by some "private system" - it was done by individuals, individuals with abhorrent or non-existent values or moral consciences. The possibility for unacceptable behaviour exists both in the public and private realm, stop bleating about the private sector being responsible for all society's ills and stop looking to your government to fix society's problems, the only people that can do that is us.

If it doesn't happen that's a statement about the quality of people, not about the applicability of a specific system or sector.

You live in a dream world where corporations do nothing bad, only "individuals".

It's not individuals on the corner who cause Americans to pay way more for prescription drugs ACROSS THE BOARD.

It's pharmaceutical companies.

Yes, individuals work there but I think you can see a trend.

This isn't an isolated case where one or two drugs being more expensive because of a couple of bad people.

It's a flaw in a capitalist system that puts the need for higher and higher profits ahead of human life.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

In the end there's a reason 100% of developed nations have mixed economies.

 

[MadVillainy]

I typed a long response, then deleted it.

Instead Ill just paste this here...


Agree

Edit: Btw, the whole "I don't need to do research" bit and then using your personal experience to make blanket statements is about as anti-intellectual as it comes.

I wasnt saying I wont do research to be anti-intellectual I was saying I don't need to do research because I have first hand experience/evidence. That's nonsense. People were acting like BLM does care about black on black violence. I said that wasn't true. Someone linked an article. And in response to the article I pointed out that I have first hand experience that shows that BLM or at least a section of it does care about black on black violence.

If I have first account experience that proves a notion, why would I need to research.
"My research shows me that this way is faster"
"In my first hand experience it's slower"

Maybe that's just me but I take first hand experience and evidence over research in some cases. This was one of them If that's anti-intellectual then ok

 

[Docker2.0]

Don't officers have mental profiles done on them before they patrol the streets? Some of these cops are just psychotic and looking to start a race war.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-to-unravel/?utm_term=.eb019abdf42e#comments

 

[chaseter]

I think a lot of people want a race war.

 

[Docker2.0]

I think a lot of people want a race war.

Sadly this we agree on. I remember reading about some rednecks that were on their way to the white house but were caught by the GBI because they wanted to have a shootout to get the "war" started. I remember a few years ago, this "time traveler" who would post online about how he was from the future and how there would be a race war and I didn't believe it would ever happen because of how you see interracial dating like a mofo but the way it looks today, the more it looks true. And no, I don't believe in time travel BS but just saying it was crazy at the time for someone to say some ish like that.

 

[hellified]

I think a lot of people want a race war.

WAKE UP! the race war has been going on since the 1600s...on thru the civil war on thru the race riots of the early 1900s on thru the civil rights struggle (ask why it was a struggle) on thru the 80s and 90s to today...


people keep talking about race war as if its going to open warfare like syria..its been going on since the birth of the nation.

 

[chaseter]

No I think most people generally get along. It's the loud few, white or black, cop or citizen, politician or taxpayer that fuel this hate and the media amplifies pin drops that makes the sensible majority think it's an explosion and freak out. The media profits, the racists profit...and everyone else loses. Things won't get better until people sit down and have an honest discussion with each other. The real war is the war on poverty.

chaseter for President 2016