The Rise of Far Left Extremism

[Deprecator]

All that and yet Raver's shucking and jiving ass wants to speak about the rise of "left wing terrorists." GTFOH. Like I said the first time, I have absolutely no patience for his intellectual dishonesty. For anyone with more than 3 fully functioning brain cells, it's more than obvious who and what entities comprise an ACTUAL threat.

I think it's intellectually dishonest to focus solely on "extremism" as opposed to crime in general. The fact is that the vast majority of violent crime is intraracial (occurring between members of the same race). Of the interracial crime that does occur, a disproportionate mount of this crime is black on white. Of the white on black crime that does occur, the vast majority of these incidents do not qualify as "hate crimes."

White on black "hate crimes" are thus a minority of a minority of a minority, comprising of <.01% of total crime in general, and even occurring less often than black on white "hate crimes" when taking into account population sizes. In other words, a black man is literally thousands of times more likely to be killed by another black man than by a white man, let alone a white man who also identifies as a white supremacist.

Meanwhile, despite the absurdly low numbers when looking at crime in general, the left is still OBSESSED with white supremacy; constantly droning on and on about its dangers, constantly parroting that it's "on the rise", super desperate to identify people who disagree with them as "secret white supremacists".... heck there are even those willing to make equivalencies between white hoods and MAGA hats. Collectively this leads me to believe that the left operates by means of intellectual extortion; either agree with us or be prepared to be lambasted as a nazi/ racist/ white supremacist.

[Singu]

I think it's intellectually dishonest to focus solely on "extremism" as opposed to crime in general. The fact is that the vast majority of violent crime is intraracial (occurring between members of the same race). Of the interracial crime that does occur, a disproportionate mount of this crime is black on white. Of the white on black crime that does occur, the vast majority of these incidents do not qualify as "hate crimes."

White on black "hate crimes" are thus a minority of a minority of a minority, comprising of <.01% of total crime in general, and even occurring less often than black on white "hate crimes" when taking into account population sizes. In other words, a black man is literally thousands of times more likely to be killed by another black man than by a white man, let alone a white man who also identifies as a white supremacist.

Meanwhile, despite the absurdly low numbers when looking at crime in general, the left is still OBSESSED with white supremacy; constantly droning on and on about its dangers, constantly parroting that it's "on the rise", super desperate to identify people who disagree with them as "secret white supremacists".... heck there are even those willing to make equivalencies between white hoods and MAGA hats. Collectively this leads me to believe that the left operates by means of intellectual extortion; either agree with us or be prepared to be lambasted as a nazi/ racist/ white supremacist.

Doesn't sound like it:

Interracial Crime Study Finds Whites More Likely to Assault Blacks Than the Reverse

Also let's not forget that the police that are actually shooting and killing innocent black people.

"X race has high crime rates - therefore, X race has some sort of defective 'violent genes'" is a typical playbook by the far-right racists.

All these "We should restrict immigrants by race or ethnicity" arguments are also obviously far-right racialist arguments, no doubt about it.

[Deprecator]

Doesn't sound like it:

Interracial Crime Study Finds Whites More Likely to Assault Blacks Than the Reverse

"assault" is a specific kind of crime, whereas I was referring to general crime/ hate crime, both of which can include far more than mere assault.

[Singu]

"assault" is a specific kind of crime, whereas I was referring to general crime/ hate crime, both of which can include far more than mere assault.

Whites are more likely to assault or use weapons against Blacks/Hispanics than the other way around.

White-on-White crimes are most likely to be assaults, while White-on-Black crimes are more likely to involve robbery, assault and weapons use.

Blacks/Hispanics are more likely to commit robbery against Whites than the other way around.

Blacks/Hispanics are less likely to assault Whites, and more likely to commit robbery against Whites.

A little race bias there?

Whites are more likely to assault and use weapons against Blacks and Hispanics than Blacks and Hispanics are to assault or use weapons against Whites. On the other hand, Blacks and Hispanics are typically more likely to commit robbery (crimes which we characterize as being often related to economic motives) against Whites than the reverse.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...44818818301194

[Deprecator]

Whites are more likely to assault or use weapons against Blacks/Hispanics than the other way around.

White-on-White crimes are most likely to be assaults, while White-on-Black crimes are more likely to involve robbery, assault and weapons use.

Blacks/Hispanics are more likely to commit robbery against Whites than the other way around.

Blacks/Hispanics are less likely to assault Whites, and more likely to commit robbery against Whites.

A little race bias there?


https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...44818818301194

You've sure got some neat pointers there, though I'm not sure about their relevance to the discussion considering that none of them are even remotely inconsistent with anything I've said. Do you want to provide any stats pertaining to race and rape/ sexual assault or do you just like to provide random statistics without being able to explain how they're even remotely relevant?

[Singu]

I think it's intellectually dishonest to focus solely on "extremism" as opposed to crime in general. The fact is that the vast majority of violent crime is intraracial (occurring between members of the same race). Of the interracial crime that does occur, a disproportionate mount of this crime is black on white. Of the white on black crime that does occur, the vast majority of these incidents do not qualify as "hate crimes."

This simply has to do with the statistical reality of there being way more Whites than Blacks, and hence Blacks are more likely to come into contact with Whites, than the other way around:

The argument that black people who commit crimes are specifically seeking out white victims is simply not true. In an article in the American Journal of Sociology, for example, sociologist Robert M. O’Brien pointed out that population size and the impact of segregation help explain why overall rates of black-on-white crimes are higher than white-on-black crimes. Essentially, black people are far more likely to come into contact with white people in the course of their daily life than the other way around

https://www.splcenter.org/20180614/b...ck-white-crime

However, the far-right spin is to say that blacks are deliberately targeting whites, which is not true.

White on black "hate crimes" are thus a minority of a minority of a minority, comprising of <.01% of total crime in general, and even occurring less often than black on white "hate crimes" when taking into account population sizes.

This is simply not true, disproportionate amount of blacks suffer at the hands of hate crimes than whites:

The majority of those crimes were driven by hatred against black and Jewish people, but they also included crimes against people for being gay, Muslim, Hispanic, and other identifiers. Several hundred crimes were coded as being anti-white, although those appeared at a far lower rate than the percentage of the United States population that is white. (Eighteen percent of race-based hate crimes reported to the FBI last year were anti-white, while whites make up 77 percent of the U.S. population. Compare that to black Americans, who make up 13 percent of the country, but suffered 49 percent of reported race-based hate crimes.)

https://psmag.com/news/anti-black-an...or-hate-crimes

Meanwhile, despite the absurdly low numbers when looking at crime in general, the left is still OBSESSED with white supremacy; constantly droning on and on about its dangers, constantly parroting that it's "on the rise", super desperate to identify people who disagree with them as "secret white supremacists".... heck there are even those willing to make equivalencies between white hoods and MAGA hats. Collectively this leads me to believe that the left operates by means of intellectual extortion; either agree with us or be prepared to be lambasted as a nazi/ racist/ white supremacist.

Maybe because it actually is on the rise:



But nice attempt at a spin.

[Deprecator]

This is simply not true, disproportionate amount of blacks suffer at the hands of hate crimes than whites:

Blacks can be more likely to commit black on white hate crimes compared to the other way around, and at the same time, blacks can still be more likely to be a victim of hate crimes in general. In any event, I was merely referring to the fact that, according to the FBI, a disproportionate number of blacks are committing hate crimes when compared to whites.

Per the FBI's website:

"In 2016, race was reported for 5,770 known hate crime offenders. Of these offenders:

• 46.3 percent were White.

• 26.1 percent were Black or African American.

In 2015, race was reported for 5,493 known hate crime offenders. Of these offenders:

• 48.4 percent were White.

• 24.3 percent were Black or African American."

When taking into account population sizes (72.4% white and 12.6% black, according to wiki) blacks are suddenly significantly more likely to commit hate crimes than whites.

Maybe because it actually is on the rise:

Hate crimes in which race was reported comprise of roughly .005% of all violent crime in the US (even less if we consider that not all hate crimes are necessarily violent), and this number has remained fairly constant these past few years (.0051% of all violent crime in 2017 compared to .0045% in both 2016 and 2015). Even if you want to focus exclusively on an increase so marginal that it doesn't even appear when rounding to the 3rd decimal, blacks are still more likely to commit this very small percentage of crime than whites when taking into account population sizes.

Despite these facts, for whatever reason the left has embraced "white supremacy" as a major talking point. Honestly, it'd be statistically equivalent if 1000 healthy people died of the the flu last year compared to 1500 healthy people dying of the flue this year -- the whopping 50% increase might look scary if you posted a graph while also arguing that it's the "Spanish swine flu all over again", though any which way you want to spin it the numbers are still insignificant when looking at the larger picture, meaning that if anything I'd still be far more concerned about heart disease.

[Singu]

Blacks can be more likely to commit black on white hate crimes compared to the other way around,

First off, blacks are less likely to commit hate crimes against whites than the other way around.

Again, when we're talking about crimes in general, this only has to do with the fact that statistically, there are more whites than blacks, therefore blacks are more likely to come into contact with whites. It's not as if blacks are targeting whites.

In any event, I was merely referring to the fact that, according to the FBI, a disproportionate number of blacks are committing hate crimes when compared to whites

You said that there are more black-on-white hate crimes than white-on-black hate crimes, which is not true.

Black-on-white hate crime is 18%
White-on-black hate crime is 49%

of total race-based hate crime.

Hate crimes in which race was reported comprise of roughly .005% of all violent crime in the US (even less if we consider that not all hate crimes are necessarily violent), and this number has remained fairly constant these past few years (.0051% of all violent crime in 2017 compared to .0045% in both 2016 and 2015). Even if you want to focus exclusively on an increase so marginal that it doesn't even appear when rounding to the 3rd decimal, blacks are still more likely to commit this very small percentage of crime than whites when taking into account population sizes.

So when you go to another country and face discrimination for being white, then that should be ignored because whites are a minority therefore it only comprises a small number of the total victims, therefore it should be ignored. Nice logic.

[Deprecator]

You said that there are more black-on-white hate crimes than white-on-black hate crimes, which is not true.

As I already mentioned, the comment was merely alluding to the fact that blacks are significantly more likely to commit hate crimes than whites, which is 100% true based on the FBI figures I cited.

Black-on-white hate crime is 18%
White-on-black hate crime is 49%

Did you even read the source that you provided? I don't mean to be condescending or patronizing with this question -- I merely ask because it's not exactly clear where you're getting these specific numbers from, and thus it's tempting to assume that they're coming from this quote here because it just happens to mention both 18% and 49% (my advanced apologies if this is merely a coincidence). "Eighteen percent of race-based hate crimes reported to the FBI last year were anti-white, while whites make up 77 percent of the U.S. population. Compare that to black Americans, who make up 13 percent of the country, but suffered 49 percent of reported race-based hate crimes."

Contrary to your post, these numbers are not a reflection of either black on white hate crime or white on black hate crime, and as such, are not remotely inconsistent with any of my claims. Blacks can suffer 49% of race-based hate crimes (again, there's nothing to suggest that whites are solely accountable for this 49% figure that you've taken upon yourself to cite), and at the same time blacks can still be far more likely to commit hate crimes than whites.

So when you go to another country and face discrimination for being white, then that should be ignored because whites are a minority therefore it only comprises a small number of the total victims, therefore it should be ignored. Nice logic.

You can spin it however you want, but I can honestly say that if I travel to another country then I'll be thankful if their hate crime numbers are on par with the US. In short, the overall number of hate crimes is exceedingly low when compared to crime in general, hate crime in general has remained fairly constant over the years in terms of its overall percentage of violent crime, and contrary to the left's narrative about "white supremacy", hate crimes are also more likely to be committed by blacks than by whites.

Anyways, it's been a nice chatting with ya bud, but at this point you're struggling immensely to understand your own sources, and are either making up random numbers or otherwise failing to explain how you've obtained them... and all while commending me for my "logic" which you've taken upon yourself to characterize. You can keep trying if you want to but at this point I'll likely be replying with a friendly X D

[Singu]

As I already mentioned, the comment was merely alluding to the fact that blacks are significantly more likely to commit hate crimes than whites, which is 100% true based on the FBI figures I cited.

This is likely because as you've said, the number of hate crimes are low compared to the overall population, which is 6370. So statistically it tips the scale of the total percentage more easily.

This is the actual number of hate crimes by race:

Blacks: 1356 (21.3%)
Whites: 3299 (50.7%)

adjusted for population size:

Blacks: 802 (12.6%) -554
Whites: 3866 (60.7%) +567

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/...ages/offenders

So adjusted to actual population, it's an error margin of ±500. Now 500 could be significant, or it could not. But the fact is that 500 cases could change as much as 10%.

Your claim that "blacks are significantly more likely to commit hate crimes than whites" is simply not true.

[Deprecator]

Now 500 could be significant

Your claim that "blacks are significantly more likely to commit hate crimes than whites" is simply not true.

Do you read your own posts before posting? Again, I don't mean to be condescending or patronizing with this question. I previously asked if you had bothered to read your own sources that you took upon yourself to cite, and conveniently you've neglected to answer the question. I daresay that this isn't all that surprising -- you literally went from struggling immensely with citing accurate numbers (suggesting you're either incapable of reading your own sources that you've taken upon yourself to cite or otherwise simply are not capable of understanding what the numbers mean) to harping on what the the word significant might mean.

You can keep trying if you want but like I said before.... at this point I envision a lot of friendly X D's from my end if you wanna keep this up.

[Alonzo]

Meanwhile, despite the absurdly low numbers when looking at crime in general, the left is still OBSESSED with white supremacy; constantly droning on and on about its dangers, constantly parroting that it's "on the rise", super desperate to identify people who disagree with them as "secret white supremacists".... heck there are even those willing to make equivalencies between white hoods and MAGA hats. Collectively this leads me to believe that the left operates by means of intellectual extortion; either agree with us or be prepared to be lambasted as a nazi/ racist/ white supremacist.

What's intellectually dishonest is not acknowledging that tiki torch carrying bigots and all of those similarly inclined comprise only a [rather explicit] subdivision of white supremacy and exist within an overarching system of centuries old, deeply embedded structural racism that, in addition to a current US administration hellbent on rolling back human/civil rights for marginalized communities, altogether form a very real existential threat to certain Americans, as evidenced by >

• Republican governors and GOP-majority state legislatures deploying an array of voter-suppression tactics, including closing hundreds of polling stations in minority and low-income precincts, slashing early voting hours, reinstating poll taxes, mandating discriminatory voter ID laws and purging millions from the voter rolls.
• Extreme gerrymandered Congressional districts across the United States that violate the basic Constitutional concept of “one person, one vote" by diluting the electoral strength of large, racially diverse cities, and magnifying the power of overwhelmingly white suburbs and sparsely populated rural areas.
• Imposing a travel ban on people travelling from Muslim majority countries to separating children from their parents at the Mexican border to denying the rights of people seeking asylum.
• What about the fact that white families hold 90% of the national wealth, Latino families hold 2.3%, and black families hold 2.6% and the wealth gap is only increasing. It’s next to impossible to build wealth without steady and rewarding employment. But the black unemployment rate has been consistently twice that of whites African-Americans are 2x as likely to be unemployed. over the past 60 years, no matter what has been going on with the economy (whether it’s been up or down). Hmm, maybe higher education would help with that? Well, according to the data, blacks with college degrees are twice as likely to be unemployed as all other graduates. That may be because, as one study found, job applicants with white-sounding names get called back about 50% more of the time than applicants with black-sounding names, even when they have identical resumes.
• How about the fact that while black children constitute 18% of preschoolers nationwide, Black students are 3x more likely than white students to be suspended for the same infractions. they make up nearly 50% of suspensions. When all age groups are examined, black students are three times more likely to be suspended than white students, even when their infractions are similar. Overall, black students represent 16% of student enrollment and 27% of students referred to law enforcement. And once black children are in the criminal justice system, they are 18 times more likely than white children to be sentenced as adults.
• How about the fact a 2012 study found that a majority of doctors have “unconscious racial biases” when it comes to their black patients. One study found that 67% of doctors have a bias against African-American patients. Black Americans are far more likely than whites to lack access to emergency medical care. The hospitals they go to tend to be less well funded, and staffed by practitioners with less experience. But even black doctors face discrimination: they are less likely than their similarly credentialed white peers to receive government grants for research projects.

• What about the redlining that essentially barred blacks and other minorities from sharing in the American Dream and building wealth like their white counterparts, and although it was officially outlawed in the ’60s, the practice has still persisted. In fact, during the Great Recession, banks routinely and purposely guided black home buyers toward subprime loans. A recent study demonstrated that people of color are told about and shown fewer homes and apartments than whites. Black ownership is now at an all-time low (42%, compared to 72% for whites).
• Given all of the above, is it shocking that blacks make up 13% of the population yet 40% of the prison population? Perhaps because if a black person and a white person each commit a crime, the black person has a better chance of being arrested. It’s also true that, once arrested, black people are convicted more often than white people. And for many years, laws assigned much harsher sentences for using or possessing crack, for example, compared to cocaine. Finally, when black people are convicted, they are about 20% more likely to be sentenced to jail time, and typically see sentences 20% longer than those for whites who were convicted of similar crimes. And as we know, a felony conviction means, in many states, that you lose your right to vote. Right now in America, more than 7.4% of the adult African American population is disenfranchised (compared to 1.8% of the non-African American population).

The facts don't give a fuck about your feelings, dude. White Supremacy is pervasive, it's just that the most colorful aspects of it get the most attention. But they are just the more ostensible, readily beheld symptoms of a systemic cancer melded to the bones of the country. When right wingers hurl accusations of "anti-white hatred" and "white guilt" at liberals, it makes me laugh to keep from crying because all they are doing is projecting. The right wing has done more to stifle, debase, disenfranchise and dehumanize than any other American demographic and so it's fitting that they project their guilt on those who seek to fight for and defend the disenfranchised. Moreover, though I don't think the vast majority of the American public is explicitly racist, a lot of people implicitly and unknowingly support racist and bigoted systems and institutions put into place centuries ago, which only exacerbates white supremacy; and the motherfuckers with the tiki torches and MAGA hats, in particular, actively want this. Sounds like you're mad that we actively and accurately call a thing, a thing.

@Singu You're the real MVP of this thread. Well done.

@Raver aka Tio Tomas, keep on tap dancing bruh (or sleepily strumming your guitarron), you're doing amazing.

[Raver]

@Raver aka Tio Tomas, keep on tap dancing bruh (or sleepily strumming your guitarron), you're doing amazing.

There's two sides of every story and each one is credible. I am just trying to acknowledge both by highlighting one that is often ignored, while others can bring up the other side themselves:

[Alonzo]

There's two sides of every story and each one is credible. I am just trying to acknowledge both by highlighting one that is often ignored, while others can bring up the other side themselves:

lol Still resorting to false balances, huh? In all of our interactions, I've literally explained to you what that is about 3 or 4 times, even giving explicit examples and you still don't get it. Perhaps if I were a SLI, my words would be able to penetrate somehow. Amazing. Within this particular context, on the substantial merits (i.e., empirical data) of each side's argument, one side deserves to be taken more seriously, heeded and paid more attention to. PERIODT. One can NOT assume that both sides' arguments have equal value and therefore, deserve equal time/opportunity to be aired and confronted. That is a FALSE assumption and conclusion. The answer does not necessarily lie somewhere in between both "extremes"; in this case, one perspective is significantly more noteworthy, dangerous and impactful (see the data points I've provided in a previous post concerning "white supremacy"). The notion that "Left Wing extremism" deserves similar/the same airtime as Right Wing Extremism is absurd, because the data does not support that they remotely compare in any substantial manner. The only thing you're doing is propping up an empirically unsupported assertion and giving Right Wing hypocrites cover to crouch under and a false leg to stand on. Ugh, nevermind. I can't engage Ti PoLR today. Dance away.

[Raver]

lol Still resorting to false balances, huh? In all of our interactions, I've literally explained to you what that is about 3 or 4 times, even giving explicit examples and you still don't get it. Perhaps if I were a SLI, my words would be able to penetrate somehow. Amazing. Within this particular context, on the substantial merits (i.e., empirical data) of each side's argument, one side deserves to be taken more seriously, heeded and paid more attention to. PERIODT. One can NOT assume that both sides' arguments have equal value and therefore, deserve equal time/opportunity to be aired and confronted. That is a FALSE assumption and conclusion. The answer does not necessarily lie somewhere in between both "extremes"; in this case, one perspective is significantly more noteworthy, dangerous and impactful (see the data points I've provided in a previous post concerning "white supremacy"). The notion that "Left Wing extremism" deserves similar/the same airtime as Right Wing Extremism is absurd, because the data does not support that they remotely compare in any substantial manner. The only thing you're doing is propping up an empirically unsupported assertion and giving Right Wing hypocrites cover to crouch under and a false leg to stand on. Ugh, nevermind. I can't engage Ti PoLR today. Dance away.

You're not wrong and I don't disagree with you on this point specifically. I just wish anger was rightfully directed upwards at the wealthy elite pitting us against eachother as unwitting pawns by using race, religion and class as artificial dividers. While, they laugh all the way to the bank with their neoliberal/neoconservative policies and we fight amongst eachother. For example, leftist groups like occupy wall street seem to have the right idea. They know that the real enemy is an economic one and not an idenitarian one.

[Singu]

I just wish anger was rightfully directed upwards at the wealthy elite pitting us against eachother as unwitting pawns by using race, religion and class as artificial dividers. While, they laugh all the way to the bank with their neoliberal/neoconservative policies and we fight amongst eachother.

Wouldn't that mean taking a "balanced" view and listening to the corporatist elite's side of things?

[Raver]

Wouldn't that mean taking a "balanced" view and listening to the corporatist elite's side of things?

No, most extreme leftists and extreme rightists that are idenitarians are unwitting pawns just as much as neoliberals and neoconservatives. You can be a centrist and have views that are completely opposite of corporatist elites or completely aligned to them. It is where you lie on each issue specifically that matters, not where you are aligned overall, whether that ends up as left, center or right.

[mfckrz]

What's intellectually dishonest is not acknowledging that tiki torch carrying bigots and all of those similarly inclined comprise only a [rather explicit] subdivision of white supremacy and exist within an overarching system of centuries old, deeply embedded structural racism that, in addition to a current US administration hellbent on rolling back human/civil rights for marginalized communities, altogether form a very real existential threat to certain Americans, as evidenced by >

Not sure what leads one to believe that tiki-torch carrying alt-right outliers have any association with prevailing institutional power. Quite a conflation.

bulletpoints

I'm with you that "America" doesn't work, and we ought to stop pretending. You make an outstanding case for national divorce.

Sounds like you're mad that we actively and accurately call a thing, a thing.

It's the disingenuous nature of the so-called dialogue that aggravates people. Those yelling the loudest about this aren't interested in 'fairness' or 'equality', they just want to be the ones holding the whip.

[Alonzo]

Not sure what leads one to believe that tiki-torch carrying alt-right outliers have any association with prevailing institutional power. Quite a conflation.

Nope.

1.) When one is accustomed to privilege (based on a slew of 'unearned' entitlements), equality feels like oppression. They fight to uphold a system that continues to disproportionately work for them and their interests--they are not interested in leveling the playing field, which is the true objective of those towards the opposite end of the political/ideological spectrum.

2.) They have been implicitly and explicitly validated and emboldened by that Mrs. Butterworth built motherfucker ('fine people on both sides') in the White House, the seat of American institutional power, and his corrupt (in every sense of the word) administration--they act as the de facto foot soldiers/nigh brown shirts of his empirically racist and bigoted agenda.

I'm with you that "America" doesn't work, and we ought to stop pretending. You make an outstanding case for national divorce.

Great, so long as the US is permanently crippled in alimony payments. And I'd love what that would do to the US on an international level--its standing as a moral authority was always dubious at best, but this would constitute the ultimate shirking of one's responsability for a problem it directly, clearly and undeniably caused.

It's the disingenuous nature of the so-called dialogue that aggravates people. Those yelling the loudest about this aren't interested in 'fairness' or 'equality', they just want to be the ones holding the whip.

lol More projection that lacks context and self-irony. The right wing has never played 'fair'; they play to win, and will fight dirty, if necessary--to a certain degree, I respect that type of tenacity. I tend to think those on the left are spineless cowards as far as their will to fight with the same level of aggressive tactics/strategy that the right frequently employs. The problem is that because the authoritarian predisposed Right thinks and operates in this way, they assume that their opposition thinks in the same manner, despite all of the consistent evidence to the contrary (e.g., the Democrats existing in a perpetual cycle of pussy popping, back pedaling, and back bending in order to acquiesce to the Right's unreasonable demands).

[mfckrz]

1.) When one is accustomed to privilege (based on a slew of 'unearned' entitlements), equality feels like oppression. They fight to uphold a system that continues to disproportionately work for them and their interests--they are not interested in leveling the playing field, which is the true objective of those towards the opposite end of the political/ideological spectrum.

Death is the only real equalizer. You're not stupid, so you might know enough history to see where this goes.

2.) They have been implicitly and explicitly validated and emboldened by that Mrs. Butterworth built motherfucker ('fine people on both sides') in the White House, the seat of American institutional power, and his corrupt (in every sense of the word) administration--they act as the de facto foot soldiers/nigh brown shirts of his empirically racist and bigoted agenda.

Didn't tons of them get doxed, disemployed, and otherwise had their lives ruined? A system that enables the persecution of white nationalists as dissidents is not a system of white supremacy.

Great, so long as the US is permanently crippled in alimony payments. And I'd love what that would do to the US on an international level--its standing as a moral authority was always dubious at best, but this would constitute the ultimate shirking of one's responsability for a problem it directly, clearly and undeniably caused.

I want an end to the American Empire more than anyone. But nobody's ever going to force the US into giving reparations to the world for whatever harms they've deemed it responsible for.

Americans deserve reparations too from a govt cabal that steals from them so it can wage stupid wars & influence peddling in their name. But it won't happen. And while adorning the National Mall with public executions would be beautifully cathartic, there'll be no tribunals nor much of anyone held accountable when the bottom finally does fall out. The rats will abscond, and that'll be that.

lol More projection that lacks context and self-irony. The right wing has never played 'fair'; they play to win, and will fight dirty, if necessary--to a certain degree, I respect that type of tenacity. I tend to think those on the left are spineless cowards as far as their will to fight with the same level of aggressive tactics/strategy that the right frequently employs. The problem is that because the authoritarian predisposed Right thinks and operates in this way, they assume that their opposition thinks in the same manner, despite all of the consistent evidence to the contrary (e.g., the Democrats existing in a perpetual cycle of pussy popping, back pedaling, and back bending in order to acquiesce to the Right's unreasonable demands).

It's funny because of course I've heard people on the Right describe the Left that way.

Democrats aren't really acquiescing, just playing kabuki theater along with the Republicans. These are mostly pragmatic nihilists on the psychopathic spectrum for whom Left/Right ideology means very little beyond rhetorical window-dressing.

[Deprecator]

mandating discriminatory voter ID laws

You mention the word "fact" at various times throughout your post -- almost as if you feel that facts are important -- but then you go and make an offhand remark such as this one. Honestly, I don't know what sort of mental gymnastics the left must be experiencing on a regular basis to argue that voter ID laws applying equally to all citizens are somehow 'discriminatory'. White, black, male, female, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian.... you'd have us believe that it's somehow 'discriminatory' to suggest that all voters regardless of affiliation or background should be required to verify their identities before they can vote?

When considering the policies of liberal progressive countries in Europe, I don't even know how this policy became controversial in the US. (oh wait that's right.... in the 2016 presidential election, states with voter ID laws overwhelmingly voted republican and states without voter ID laws overwhelmingly vote democratic. Almost as if.... and yes this is pure speculation.... non-citizens are able to vote because there's not any voter ID laws in the state!)

In any event, who would have thought that the policies of countries like Sweden, France, Iceland and other progressive European countries would be so discriminatory.

France: "In France, you have to prove your identity to vote: at the registration (proof of address —A phone, water or electricity invoice...— and an identity document that prove your nationality —National Identity Card or Passport— and the day of the vote, in town larger than 1000 inhabitants, an identity document is required"

Iceland: "Voting is voluntary for all citizens 18 years or older. All voters must present photo ID before being allowed to vote."

Sweden: "When physically voting on election day, every voter must provide a valid identification document (such as a passport, drivers license, or an ID card from the Swedish Tax Agency)."

From making up random numbers to arguing that laws applying to everyone equally are somehow racist or discriminatory.... just goes to show you the IMMENSE mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance the left is constantly experiencing on a regular basis in order to maintain their belief set.

What about the fact that white families hold 90% of the national wealth

What about it? Last I checked it would be a very small percentage of white families that would be controlling most of the wealth and grossly inflating this figure, meaning that the vast majority of white families would not be 'benefiting' from this figure. This unequal distribution of wealth isn't shocking and it isn't news; it's what we're all taught in sociology 101, and it merely reinforces the notion that 'privilege' associated with class is worth far more than any 'privilege' that might be associated with skin color.

Nice try though.

[Alonzo]

You mention the word "fact" at various times throughout your post -- almost as if you feel that facts are important -- but then you go and make an offhand remark such as this one. Honestly, I don't know what sort of mental gymnastics the left must be experiencing on a regular basis to argue that voter ID laws applying equally to all citizens are somehow 'discriminatory'. White, black, male, female, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian.... you'd have us believe that it's somehow 'discriminatory' to suggest that all voters regardless of affiliation or background should be required to verify their identities before they can vote?

When considering the policies of liberal progressive countries in Europe, I don't even know how this policy became controversial in the US. (oh wait that's right.... in the 2016 presidential election, states with voter ID laws overwhelmingly voted republican and states without voter ID laws overwhelmingly vote democratic. Almost as if.... and yes this is pure speculation.... non-citizens are able to vote because there's not any voter ID laws in the state!)

In any event, who would have thought that the policies of countries like Sweden, France, Iceland and other progressive European countries would be so discriminatory.

France: "In France, you have to prove your identity to vote: at the registration (proof of address —A phone, water or electricity invoice...— and an identity document that prove your nationality —National Identity Card or Passport— and the day of the vote, in town larger than 1000 inhabitants, an identity document is required"

Iceland: "Voting is voluntary for all citizens 18 years or older. All voters must present photo ID before being allowed to vote."

Sweden: "When physically voting on election day, every voter must provide a valid identification document (such as a passport, drivers license, or an ID card from the Swedish Tax Agency)."

From making up random numbers to arguing that laws applying to everyone equally are somehow racist or discriminatory.... just goes to show you the IMMENSE mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance the left is constantly experiencing on a regular basis in order to maintain their belief set.

= "IMMENSE mental gymnastics" lol Do you people do anything else besides project? I can't discern whether you are egregiously disingenuous or context blind and autistic as fuck. In theory and within certain contexts/situations, Voter ID laws are perfectly acceptable and reasonable. Who the fuck actually thinks (and has argued) that Voter ID law, in and of itself, is inherently bad or racist or whatever? No, the problem is discriminatory Voter ID law, as in Voter ID laws that are discriminatory. I didn't think I'd have to explain that to someone not retarded and reaching into the upper extremities of the exosphere for some cheap, insincere form of "gotcha!" and justification for their own biases and jaundiced worldview.

Those countries you listed? You know what they all have in common? Their histories are not steeped in centuries of codified racism and prejudice against a disenfranchised subset (a former slave class) of the population that have a history of their right to cast a vote being stymied, stifled and restricted--although it's worth noting that during the Third French Republic, there were efforts made to disenfranchise Algerians and others living within France's colonial empire but by 1944, there was universal suffrage. Those countries didn't need a Voters Rights Act. The problem with Voter ID Law within an American context is that because of the US' precarious history, voter registration (in the form of poll taxes, literacy tests, etc...) was not conducted in good faith but was used as a method to keep disenfranchised people (largely blacks) from casting their vote/having their say in the Democratic process. This is why it was necessary to the pass the Voting Rights Act (of which the trash ass Supreme Court struck down a key aspect of it in 2013), because there are a heap of disparities (rooted in systemic and institutionalized racism) that contribute to certain Americans (particularly the non-white, young and poor) being prone to not having certain forms of ID.

The laws discriminate against minority and younger voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates, because among other things, they’re less likely to have the money, transportation means, and flexible work hours needed to obtain a required ID. For example, many of the residents struggling to obtain a valid photo ID are ethnic minorities, elderly and poor and were born in homes rather than hospitals. As a result, birth certificates were often lost or names were misspelled in official city records, which is an impediment in states where there are strict voter ID laws that don't allow for any inconsistent information.

Having said all that, there is an ever growing body of research that suggests voter ID laws have a much smaller effect than critics feared and proponents hoped, even though it is true that blacks and other minorities are disproportionately affected. Despite the legal and political battles over voter ID laws, they don’t really seem to do much of anything. The authors of this relatively recent study cite the laws’ apparent ineffectiveness against voter fraud and then go on to argue that adopting such laws in the first place are all but pointless considering the evidence.

But of course the crooked and corrupt Republicans you neglect to mention in your feverish diatribes insist that Voter ID measures are meant only to protect against voter fraud, although in some cases they’ve admitted that the intent is to make it harder for some groups to vote. Excluding minority voters because they tend to vote for one party over another is nothing more than an attempt to remove minority voices from vital policy debates and avoid addressing the political needs and demands of those communities. With recent wave of court decisions concerning Voter ID laws in the past few years, federal judges, at long last, have signaled a strong message to states: Seeking to target black and other minority voters for exclusion, regardless of motive, is unconstitutional and undemocratic. Suck on that, motherfucker.

What about it? Last I checked it would be a very small percentage of white families that would be controlling most of the wealth and grossly inflating this figure, meaning that the vast majority of white families would not be 'benefiting' from this figure. This unequal distribution of wealth isn't shocking and it isn't news; it's what we're all taught in sociology 101, and it merely reinforces the notion that 'privilege' associated with class is worth far more than any 'privilege' that might be associated with skin color.

Ugh, more myopic, context blindness. If you don't know that within an American context, race and class involve interlocking systems that compound and exacerbate the other, thenn I don't currently have the willpower or interest to cure that degree of ignorance. How about you no longer quote me? I'm disinterested in engaging with the willfully obtuse and eternally aggrieved (when all evidence dictates otherwise). Take your disingenuous bullshit elsewhere.