Jump to content

Famous singers boycotting Florida?


Go Skins

Recommended Posts

 
Until there's 0% of black on black crime, you darkies can't be concerned about racism.....that's the way it works.  JUST LOOK AT CHICAGO!!!!!!!!!!111



No complaining about credit card fees until rich white dudes stop swindling each other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your naive if you dont think the "oh well all black kids die anyway" isnt going on regarding society as a whole vs the leagal system.

 

As long as these famous singers boycotting Florida are included in that broad paint brush you term as "society".  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As long as these famous singers boycotting Florida are included in that broad paint brush you term as "society".  

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently this needs to be spelt out

 

Subset of society, which seems to be larger than some might want to admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Apparently this needs to be spelt out

 

Subset of society, which seems to be larger than some might want to admit.

 

I don't know seems kinda like your are dancing around the issue brought up by Randal.

 

How is a "subset of society"  supposed to care when they can still go see Stevie Wonder in their racist towns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't know seems kinda like your are dancing around the issue brought up by Randal.

 

How is a "subset of society"  supposed to care when they can still go see Stevie Wonder in their racist towns?

 

 

Exactly how am I dancing around anything? Is this really that difficult? I'm saying there is a subset of our society, that is larger than some may want to admit, that are bringing up the charcter of TM as an "he's black he would have died anyway" thing.

 

It was a response to what Bung said here

 

Yeah, I'm not on board with that kind of racist thinking. That type of attitude is the same callous disregard for the value of human life that caused the Holocaust.

 

 

Which is what I replyed to and that conversation went from there, it had nothing to do with Randal's reply, I didnt quote him in the reply you replyed to.

 

If you want to discuss what Randle brought up quote it and lets discuss it, but the conversation was a reply to bung, not randle, that was a different conversation I had with him.

 

You seem to have trouble when topics diverge from their topic title, which happens all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Strawman.

 

I'm not asking for your agreement with the practice.    It happens routinely.

 

People are injecting questions into TM's character to form a justification and a legit reason for that is because the Federal Government is indirectly questioning the defendants character by flirting with a cival trial.

 

It isn't to justify "oh well all black kids die anyway".

 

That's an absurd suggestion. 

 

 

- as far as your example.   You know for sure he is accused of raping her but later on you find out she was on top talking dirty to him.   Character of the victim and defendant would be important if you are trying to find guilt.  Agree?    Especially if people are disputing the evidence as presented.

 

Not even close to the same thing.. Your example deals with what was happening at the time the incident happened.. A more accurate analogy would be bringing up the fact that she has had multiple sexual relationships "outside of wedlock" thereby establishing the fact she was "a floozy who was likely to be guilty of seducing this poor family man."

 

Which is still complete bullshit.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not even close to the same thing.. Your example deals with what was happening at the time the incident happened.. A more accurate analogy would be bringing up the fact that she has had multiple sexual relationships "outside of wedlock" thereby establishing the fact she was "a floozy who was likely to be guilty of seducing this poor family man."

 

Which is still complete bullshit.
 

 

Whether you agree with it or not.   Point being character of victim and defendant is often explored and interjected into trial.

 

Not some silly justification of "well these blacks gonna die anyway" bullshit that was offered up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly how am I dancing around anything? Is this really that difficult? I'm saying there is a subset of our society, that is larger than some may want to admit, that are bringing up the charcter of TM as an "he's black he would have died anyway" thing.

 

 

I see a conflicting viewpoint between you and T-dub, I guess. 

 

Boycott is discussed.   A point about why these famous singers don't address Chicago is made by Randal and dimissed quickly.

 

A few reply's later by yourself you are explaining or relating the questioning of TMs charactery to society's attitude towards black kids. 

 

Seems kinda odd to dismiss Randal's initial point (addressing the group) and then turn around and you shit over a "subset" of society and an attitude precieved by you.

 

Exactly to the heart of Randal's point that was dimissed.      Are these singers not apart of society?  

 

 

I kinda agree with you in parts.    The artist only care because this is being spun to be a "white vs. black" issue.   As long as black kids kill black kids, I guess these famous singers don't care to use their influence in that manner.

 

 

Example: If I am a subset of society that you refer to and that attitude you precieve is correct.   Then why the hell should I start to care when the other subset of society doesn't care either? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why you think T-Dubb and I are at odds, I pretty much agree with him. I was responding to Bung, who had quoted him.

 

Using your example,

 

You dont care, but then so what? who cares what that subset thinks? that viewpoint needs to be stomped out of society

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why you think T-Dubb and I are at odds, I pretty much agree with him. I was responding to Bung, who had quoted him.

 

Using your example,

 

You dont care, but then so what? who cares what that subset thinks? that viewpoint needs to be stomped out of society

 

Certainly using the Zimmer trial as launching point for such a task is the best way.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most crime is related to opportunity and closeness. As such, "black on black" crime is not really different from "white on white crime." It's probably more worthwhile to look at "poor people versus poor people crime."

 

What is interesting is that you rarely hear folks using "white on white" crime as a canard or as an attempt to shift the conversation. So, when folks use the example of a highly-segregated Chicago's problem with "black on black" crime, you can be sure that the motives for doing so are not genuine. Call it what is it--an attempt to tap into fear of young, black men. There's nothing new about this. And that some people are suckers for this stupid rhetorical misdirection only goes to show folks that, while it is true that race relations have come a long way in recent times, they still have a long way to go.

 

tl;dr: Shut up, whiny crackers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jamie - have you looked at anything on the Roderick Scott trial?  It wasn't nearly as sensationalized in the media so it isn't well known.

 

The parallels are scarily similar to the Zimmerman trial.

 

Sure, except for the part where the kid he shot was actually committing a crime when Scott decided to confront him. 

 

Otherwise though, it is disturbing that the kid was shot in the back yet it was still considered self-defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sure, except for the part where the kid he shot was actually committing a crime when Scott decided to confront him. 

 

Otherwise though, it is disturbing that the kid was shot in the back yet it was still considered self-defense.

What is a neighborhood watch person supposed to do?  At least according to you, Jamie, et al from the TM thread?

 

Aside from having a gun with him during his neighborhood watch duties when he elected to leave the safety of his house (after the police had been notified)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most crime is related to opportunity and closeness. As such, "black on black" crime is not really different from "white on white crime." It's probably more worthwhile to look at "poor people versus poor people crime."

 

What is interesting is that you rarely hear folks using "white on white" crime as a canard or as an attempt to shift the conversation. So, when folks use the example of a highly-segregated Chicago's problem with "black on black" crime, you can be sure that the motives for doing so are not genuine. Call it what is it--an attempt to tap into fear of young, black men. There's nothing new about this. And that some people are suckers for this stupid rhetorical misdirection only goes to show folks that, while it is true that race relations have come a long way in recent times, they still have a long way to go.

 

tl;dr: Shut up, whiny crackers.

 

 

gators-graduation-applause.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most crime is related to opportunity and closeness. As such, "black on black" crime is not really different from "white on white crime." It's probably more worthwhile to look at "poor people versus poor people crime."

 

What is interesting is that you rarely hear folks using "white on white" crime as a canard or as an attempt to shift the conversation. So, when folks use the example of a highly-segregated Chicago's problem with "black on black" crime, you can be sure that the motives for doing so are not genuine. Call it what is it--an attempt to tap into fear of young, black men. There's nothing new about this. And that some people are suckers for this stupid rhetorical misdirection only goes to show folks that, while it is true that race relations have come a long way in recent times, they still have a long way to go.

 

tl;dr: Shut up, whiny crackers.

 

Nah.   People are more than willing to discuss the facts of the TM/Zimmerman case.

 

This whole discussion is a result of the unacceptance of the verdict.   The facts get discussed to a point then...    as Lucid would put the conversation evolved or as I would say the goal posts moved.

 

Explain to me how referencing black on black crime is not in play when the topic has evolved away from the trial and there assumptions about the thoughts of a society towards a group of people?  Certainly if one group is going to claim over and over sysmatic injustices and bias sub set of society that group, shouldn't that group be fair game to be put under the microsope?

 

 

If Corporate leaders complain about systematic injustice over the amount of taxes they pay.   Aren't they put under a microscope by the group that disagrees?  Uh yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain to me how referencing black on black crime is not in play when the topic has evolved away from the trial and there assumptions about the thoughts of a society towards a group of people?
 
I did explain why "black on black" crime is being brought up. I've bolded the part most relevant to you.
 

 

What is interesting is that you rarely hear folks using "white on white" crime as a canard or as an attempt to shift the conversation. So, when folks use the example of a highly-segregated Chicago's problem with "black on black" crime, you can be sure that the motives for doing so are not genuine. Call it what is it--an attempt to tap into fear of young, black men. There's nothing new about this. And that some people are suckers for this stupid rhetorical misdirection only goes to show folks that, while it is true that race relations have come a long way in recent times, they still have a long way to go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it tells me is that race relations have come a long way in this country but considering where the starting point was, this doesn't necessarily mean true progress has been made.  Racism is still alive and well today.....it's just conceiled under the surface and when it's pointed out....the reply is inevitably...."OH NO...you're pulling out the race card".   This country hasn't become less racist....it's become more devious in methods to hide racism.   You think the Civil Rights Movement changed the hearts of people who hated black people?  Hell no it didn't....now the racist had to do so under their breaths....and through legislation....and lack of social programs.  You think those people all of the sudden stopped teaching hate to their children? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it tells me is that race relations have come a long way in this country but considering where the starting point was, this doesn't necessarily mean true progress has been made.  Racism is still alive and well today.....it's just conceiled under the surface and when it's pointed out....the reply is inevitably...."OH NO...you're pulling out the race card".   This country hasn't become less racist....it's become more devious in methods to hide racism.   You think the Civil Rights Movement changed the hearts of people who hated black people?  Hell no it didn't....now the racist had to do so under their breaths....and through legislation....and lack of social programs.  You think those people all of the sudden stopped teaching hate to their children? 

 

 

You saying that only points out exactly how far we have come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most crime is related to opportunity and closeness. As such, "black on black" crime is not really different from "white on white crime." It's probably more worthwhile to look at "poor people versus poor people crime."
 
What is interesting is that you rarely hear folks using "white on white" crime as a canard or as an attempt to shift the conversation. So, when folks use the example of a highly-segregated Chicago's problem with "black on black" crime, you can be sure that the motives for doing so are not genuine. Call it what is it--an attempt to tap into fear of young, black men. There's nothing new about this. And that some people are suckers for this stupid rhetorical misdirection only goes to show folks that, while it is true that race relations have come a long way in recent times, they still have a long way to go.
 
tl;dr: Shut up, whiny crackers.

Off topic a little bit, but I'm sure you realize what that word refers to, in which case a "cracker" might reply, "you shut up or I'll give you the same justice your grand pappy got".
I just feel like that's a word that won't offend the type of person it is usually directed at, rather they'd see it as a badge of honor, like "fuck yeah I'm a cracker, and so was my paw, and his paw before that!"
The only people that will be offended by being called a cracker are those that would never think of uttering the N word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about Khat? We have a black president now, you didn't get the memo? Racism is over. :36:

I think it's actually empowered some racists to be more open in their bigotry, like "what are you complaining about?!? We put a BLACK MAN in the WHITE HOUSE! What more could we possibly do?!?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Here we go again with the "but black folks shoot each other all day!" bullshit. 
 

 

also why is there a question mark in the thread title.

 

Famous singers boycotting Florida.

 

because, yes, they are.

 

 

Hmmm.  Famous singers boycotting Florida you say??

 

https://www.songkick.com/concerts/15765189-jayz-at-sun-life-stadium

 

Jay Z and Justin Timberlake perform in Miami August 16th.   

 

That boycott didn't even last a month!!  Douche bags!!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...