This is complete bullshit, designed to cash in on white guilt.

Not one soul will address the problem of black on black crime.

Are the naively hyperprogressive college students saying that acknowledging the value of non-black lives - e.g. Asian, Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander - is equivalent to invalidating black lives?

We already know that failing to invalidate white lives is seen as equivalent to invalidating everyone else.

I've been told since childhood that black people just want to be treated as equals. But I'm starting to think they really want to be treated like they're special - and anything less is racist aggression.

You matter to me as much as I matter to you.

starting to think they really want to be treated like they're special

This is something I find with feminism as of late. As I put it; feminists now demand to be treated like eggshells, not equals. Feminism -- the feminism of accusations and the bringing down of men through "sexual harassment" claims (and never mind whether they're actually guilty) -- is now a conduit to unearned power over men.

Katie Steinle is unavailable for comment.

Not one soul will address the problem of black on black crime.

Of course not, there's no money to be made there. Unless you want to go the route of cocaine and AIDS are the result of a CIA program to destroy black people in the USofA.

"You matter to me as much as I matter to you."
Posted by: MarkD at July 20, 2015 5:22 AM

LOL!

You will never matter to them because you are not one of them. Even they do not care for themselves as individuals, only as a supportive cogs in the overall mob.

Try it. Go stand ('60's throwback - sit) w/them. Whine w/them. Just make sure you have your blinders on like the horse pulling the wagon because that's all you are to them.

This applicable to all organizations/groups. The hive is much more important that the worker.

"I've been told since childhood that black people just want to be treated as equals. But I'm starting to think they really want to be treated like they're special - and anything less is racist aggression."

Posted by: Ken R at July 20, 2015 3:58 AM

This was true for those born in the '50 - 60's but not for those born after the mid-70's at least.

These kids were given a shot at equality but were abandoned by the Teachers Union and their adult caregivers both black and white. (No school skills, no adult social skills, men allowed to impregnate girls, and now no hope except for a gov't check for the girls only.)

Young blacks (as all young do) resent being told what to do. Those older now realize too late that they were left to fail so that the Unions, Als/Jesses and AARPs can profit.

Those older than 20 know now that going to church, voting, and "acting white" were all that was required to basically become self-supportive.

Church provides mentors, supportive peer groups, access to people wanting to help them succeed.

Voting ensures that "your community" needs are met (and those needs may be different from mine).

Acting "white" means access to small opportunities that lead to bigger opportunities.

So equality is not in their minds because they know they blew it and getting it back would require leaving their current identity behind.

This is very hard, very scary, and not supported by their rap music, drug culture, and their friends.

Easier to give up, drug out, act like the "group" says is okay, and blame someone other than those you know screwed you over. After all, they are your "friends".

Not one soul will address the problem of black on black crime.

Posted by: Radwaste at July 20, 2015 2:12 AM
______________________________________

I forgot who said this, but someone (maybe many people) said that it's not the same thing at all, since that's not about racism, it's about severe poverty and despair.

I.e., there's probably a good deal of white-on-white violence as well in very poor, white neighborhoods, especially when meth labs are involved, but somehow, white people don't criticize THAT kind of violence the way they do black-on-black violence. Maybe.

And, of course, the media don't exactly cover up black-on-white violence, either.

MarkD: "You matter to me as much as I matter to you."

I have to say, that's brilliant.

Regarding the whole black-on-black crime, lenona has it right. I'd also add, when pointing out murder statistics, we need to remember most people who are murdered are murdered by people they know.
Where communities are segregated, most people will be murdered by one of their own race. Most white murder victims are murdered by other whites.

"... it's about severe poverty and despair."

"... there's probably a good deal of white-on-white violence as well in very poor, white neighborhoods, especially when meth labs are involved, but somehow, white people don't criticize THAT kind of violence the way they do black-on-black violence. Maybe."

lenona,

Severe poverty knows no race boundaries (Google historical poverty levels in Appalachia) so why should a white person care about just black poverty.

I agree that to appear sensitive and such that "white" people should throw as many "white bad" cops as we can find under a bus and just like everyone else ignore the black mores that are literally killing a gazillion more blacks than bad cops. (I do have a hard time chewing gum and walking at the same time.)

Then we can all go out together to Chick-fil-A for lunch. (Patrick is invited but I would understand if he does not want to come.)

The left is perfectly willing to talk about black-on-black crime. They blame it on white racism.

Bob in Texas: Then we can all go out together to Chick-fil-A for lunch. (Patrick is invited but I would understand if he does not want to come.)

Why not eat at Chick-Fil-A? At this point in history, I have room to gloat. We have gay marriage legalized now. So, for better or worse, the U.S. is stuck with it, and there's nothing Chick-Fil-A can do about it. It would difficult, if not outright impossible to put this one back in the box. You can do it an Amendment to the Constitution of course, but with over half the country on our side, I don't see how you'll get the necessary number of states. And to allow gay marriage only to take it away again?

It didn't work for prohibition, either.

Patrick, so, is Thursday okay?

I'm waiting for the signature gatherers for that petition advocating a 1% tax on white people to pay for "white privilege" to hit Appalachia. Privilege?

Severe poverty knows no race boundaries (Google historical poverty levels in Appalachia) so why should a white person care about just black poverty.
_________________________________

And where exactly did I say that should be the case?

Got a problem with what I DID say about white-on-white violence?

...but somehow, white people don't criticize THAT kind of violence the way they do black-on-black violence. ~ Posted by: lenona at July 20, 2015 8:00 AM

Probably 'cause, that case, white people ain't gettin' accused of being racist for a high crime rate that they have nothing (or little) to do with.

"... white people don't criticize THAT kind of violence the way they do black-on-black violence. Maybe."

lenona,

I, a white person, am offended by your presumption that I criticize only black-on-black crime.

I thought you knew that white people are very very concerned about black-on-white crime.

We, white people, are sometimes concerned about white-on-black crime but guess you assume that this concern is marginal to other types of crime (property damage, criminal mischief, and such).

We white people are concerned about white-on-white crime as well but up here on the mountain it's usually all just between family (so many cousins) so we mostly keep quiet about it.

I thought you knew that white people are very very concerned about black-on-white crime.
___________________________________

Of course they are. Where did I say they weren't? As I said, the media don't exactly cover it up.
___________________________________

We, white people, are sometimes concerned about white-on-black crime but guess you assume that this concern is marginal to other types of crime (property damage, criminal mischief, and such).
____________________________________

I don't follow.
___________________________________

We white people are concerned about white-on-white crime as well but up here on the mountain it's usually all just between family (so many cousins) so we mostly keep quiet about it.
______________________________________

Somehow, I doubt that's necessarily the case in URBAN poor white America - unless you're including those "families" where the "blood ties" aren't genetic or even necessarily marital, hint hint.

There is some legitimate difference of opinion reflected in these shorthand memes (which should be resolved by debate, not feelsplaining).

#BlackLivesMatter contends that the problem with police brutality is racism.

#AllLivesMatter (at least the way I use it) contends that the problem with police brutality is the impunity with which they operate.

Does this pretty white girl's life matter?

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/07/17/any-excuse-to-kill/

I'm a Smith grad and K-Mac, as she's called, is a joke. Just another privileged elitist imported from Harvard posing as an educator. It's an all women's institution with nothing to say about the oppression of girls and women throughout the Muslim world. K-Mac did lead a year long debate about admitting trans people.

"Judith Butler, a philosopher at the University of California, Berkeley, recently explained why some find it offensive to respond to the "Black Lives Matter" movement with the "all lives matter."

"When some people rejoin with 'All Lives Matter' they misunderstand the problem, but not because their message is untrue. It is true that all lives matter, but it is equally true that not all lives are understood to matter, which is precisely why it is most important to name the lives that have not mattered, and are struggling to matter in the way they deserve," Butler said in an interview with The New York Times. "If we jump too quickly to the universal formulation, 'all lives matter,' then we miss the fact that black people have not yet been included in the idea of 'all lives.'"

Whew! I'm glad she cleared that up. I thought it had something to do w/poverty but WHOOPS! I was wrong. It was about inclusiveness.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/martin-omalley-all-lives-matter/

Conan: Probably 'cause, that case, white people ain't gettin' accused of being racist for a high crime rate that they have nothing (or little) to do with.

Give them a chance, Conan. I'm sure they'll find a way to make it white people's fault. Probably invent some new catchphrase to describe this newly discovered phenomena. It will be the cumulative effect of microracism or some other neologism.

Do I sound cynical? I think I reached my limit for being blamed for everything that goes wrong in everyone else's life when Amy posted the video of Amandla Stenberg complaining about "cultural appropriation" of corn rows, realizing that Bo Derek rocked corn rows two decades before that juvenile twit was even born.

Of course, I was criticized on YouTube for "attacking" a sixteen-year-old girl, so I pointed out that this child has been calling out adults like Taylor Swift (25) and Katy Perry (30). If she wants to wage war on adults, she's going to be treated like one. None of this attacking adults then insulating oneself from criticism.

"Why not eat at Chick-Fil-A? At this point in history, I have room to gloat. We have gay marriage legalized now. So, for better or worse, the U.S. is stuck with it, and there's nothing Chick-Fil-A can do about it."

Typical mischaracterization, promoted by professional victims...

The personal opinion of the founder of Chik-Fil-A was never company policy. They never refused a gay couple their cake... er, sandwich.

The hoopla was manufactured by those who think that private citizens and businesses should be forced to operate as they wish. Such people are a lock for those promoting socialism.

Radwaste: Typical mischaracterization, promoted by professional victims...

The personal opinion of the founder of Chik-Fil-A was never company policy. They never refused a gay couple their cake... er, sandwich.

No offense, but I wasn't suggesting that they did refuse gays their service. Nor did I suggest that they ever refused me or ever would. In fact, no one said that. It would be extremely impractical for a minimum wage earning fast food employee to screen every customer to see if they're gay or not.

However, their COO did make a statement in 2012 opposing gay marriage. That is why I can gloat. Regardless of whether you think the gay marriage issue was settled appropriately, that is one genie that we will not get back in the bottle.

Moreover, Chick-Fil-A's founders' charitable organization, the WinShape Foundation, has donated millions to anti-gay groups. True, they've never refused gays their service (and as I pointed out above, it would be extremely impractical for them to do so, even if they wanted to), but they are inextricably and deservedly tied to the anti-gay movement.

Even anti-gays agree with this characterization of Chick-Fil-A. On June 28, two days after gay marriage was legalized by SCOTUS, David Vitter decided to go trolling gay people, so he tweeted a picture of himself (taken two days earlier, the day SCOTUS legalized gay marriage) in his car enjoying some Chick-Fil-A, with the caption "Chick-Fil-A kind of day."

But Vitter forgot a critical rule: people in glass houses and all that...

People on Twitter were only too happy to remind him of his diaper fetish and the presence of his name and number on the DC Madame's call list, plus his own admission that he was availing himself of the Madame's services.

To say nothing of his blatant hypocrisy, claiming that Bill Clinton should resign for cheating on his wife, and his personal failure to tender his own resignation for cheating on his wife.

By the way, Bob in Texas wasn't suggesting that Chick-Fil-A wouldn't serve me, either. I understood that he was suggesting that I, as a gay man, might be boycotting the place. Which is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. Many gay people and their supporters choose to boycott Chick-Fil-A.

"People on Twitter were only too happy to remind him of his diaper fetish and the presence of his name and number on the DC Madame's call list, plus his own admission that he was availing himself of the Madame's services."

Somewhat at a tangent for this thread --- but hypocrisy is universal. There is no perfect person.

Denying any point because of the affiant's behavior is a classic fallacy. The public pervert can condemn himself and be completely correct, and so it follows that he may name any other practice and be correct.

But people do not seek logic. They seek comfort, and they do so by denying they do anything whatsoever that is wrong.

Radwaste: Denying any point because of the affiant's behavior is a classic fallacy.

Yes, it's called argumentum ad hominem (meaning "argument against the man," of which there are several kinds, such as tu quoque. Except that Vitter wasn't making a point to be contested. He was trolling. He simply decided to taunt gays and their supporters by photographing himself with Chick-Fil-A containers on the day the SCOTUS ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges.

As I said, glass houses...they decided to return fire by reminding him of his own infidelities with prostitutes and his peculiar fetish for wearing diapers.

I wonder if he ever retires to a nursing home, will he feel erotically stimulated when the nurses change his adult diapers?

And while his argument that Clinton should have resigned in the face of his infidelity to his wife might be valid, it's apparent that Vitter himself doesn't think so. He hasn't even persuaded himself that the best thing to do is resign.

"Are the naively hyperprogressive college students saying that acknowledging the value of non-black lives - e.g. Asian, Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander - is equivalent to invalidating black lives? "

Yes, that's what they are saying. But you have to understand the hidden meaning: it's a claim of privilege. All of these groups are constantly jostling for a higher position on the totem pole. This is one group staking its claim. Eventually someone will rise to the challenge, and if they happen to catch the winds of political fashion the right way, they they will be the new "#XYZ lives matter!!!!!!@!!!!!22!!"

(Now some wiseacre is going to come along and tell me you can't use '@' in a hashtag...)