Slashdot Mirror

However, the term "White Nationalist" is semantically and massively wrong (but then, so would "Black Nationalist" or "Asian Nationalist"...) After all, what nation is titled as "White"?

I get that stamping out racism is a good thing, but seriously, folks - at least don't mangle the language while you do it.

I've been musing on this lately, as accusations of being a "White Nationalist" have become extremely bizarre. For example, claiming "White Nationalists" love anime or that multi-racial groups like the Proud Boys are "White Nationalists".

I think there are two main points with this:

• Racist has become so watered down that it has lost all of its emotional punch. It's not enough that someone is Racist; now they're a White Nationalist despite not being white nor advocating for a white-only nation.
• Polarization and echo chambers have created a situation where no one bothers to even listen to those who disagree. Instead, everyone who you oppose is all one big nebulous group. This is where you get people claiming there are black "White Nationalists" or "Neo-Nazi" Ayn Randian Objectivists (Ayn Rand was of Jewish ancestry, as were many early influential objectivists).

Close. The actual plan is this:

Step 1: Target Asia by dumbing down complex dialog, plots, (hard to follow with a language barrier) and reducing the number of black people in your movies.

Step 2: Release

Step 3: Profit.

Bill Maher: "Part of it is--and this is the dirty little secret--is that most movies are made with an eye to the foreign market, and Asians [in Asian countries] really are racist. [...] They don't want to see black people generally in their movies."

Of course, I can't wait for plenty of people to refute this without any sources by just going "Nu-uh."

[Bill Maher] https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...

http://www.truthdig.com/report...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://atlantablackstar.com/20...

The list of citations could go on for days if you're willing to put the time into finding and sorting them.

Back at you.

Not at all, I'm not relying on that page at all, to put it expressly, I don't believe in it.

But I do recognize that there are folks with a vested interest in making sure their version of their story is believed. And that's why you believe it, isn't it?

Or do you not realize the signals you're sending?

This was a good opportunity to offer a citation, but, for some reason, you didn't do it...

Oh, that's ok, you could have ASKED.

Oh wait, you went and got off on your own, without even paying attention to what I said or even asking first. And I do note you cut off two of the other issues I brought up. Well, actually, you cut of my own statement in the middle. That says a good bit. I suggest not doing that, if you don't want to create the impression of being deliberately misleading.

If you're going to be confrontational, at least be right, but you're not even right.

Maybe, that's because you are just lazy. Maybe, you knew to be posting an untruth and hoped, I would not call your lie. Fail. Here is a 2010 paper citing the following mortgage-failure numbers for 2007-2009: 790 per 10000 loans for Blacks, 769 for Latinos, 452 for Non-Hispanic Whites.

Which doesn't address what I said at all. I didn't make a distinction along racial lines, I said "that failure rates for those loans were not any higher than other loans (even commercial loans)" which refers to a different aspect of the problem. Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant by those loans? For that, you'll want to look at other documents.. But then, you should have asked first.

If you want to talk about racial policies, there is much of interest there, but hmm, no, I wasn't saying what you think I was, so I guess we should address that first, before moving on.

Can you admit you weren't even arguing with what I said, but over something else? If not, then stop here, and we'll go over it again.

(And seriously, the Center for Responsible Lending? That's a cringe-worthy name. Never trust somebody with a name like that, whether Honest Bob, the Committee of Public Safety, or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

The minorities, whom the Democratic demagogues, supposedly, tried to help, suffered the most from the "help". As usual.

Hmm, I'm not seeing an argument for the suffering being caused here, let alone it being increased by those actions, let alone the harming actions being from Democrats. In fact, I'd say the most harmful actions would be from financial institutions who you can read about.

It was blatantly stupid too. Racist or not, banks want to make money. Issuing loans is how banks make money. It would take a David Duke-like hard-core racism for a loan officer to lower his own bonus/commissions and reject a qualified loan-application on the basis of race.

Oh no, you don't need to think of David Duke as hard-core. He's slick, but not hard-core at all. He's smarmy enough to be a bank officer though, and he'd have all the sound and justifiable reasoning lined up to validate his actions. And no, they'd worry about losing their bonuses, or being sent to Duluth instead, because the bosses wouldn't like it. Same reason they don't rep

Why are American blacks so aggressive and violent? European blacks generally aren't so slavery doesn't explain it.

You are being a coward when you try to make a statement by posing it as a question.

The answer is that American Blacks are not in general aggressive and violent.
It is true that some American Blacks are aggressive and violent. Most are not.

On the off-chance that you have a serious question and are simply inarticulate, here's another way to pose such a question.
Why do American Blacks have a higher rate of violence than other groups in America?

Here are some thoughts about historical conditions that influence the rate of violence.
http://atlantablackstar.com/20...

First, you should know this:

The latest figures from the FBI, Bureau of Justice Statistics and public health agencies show that among black youth, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are the lowest in more than 40 years. Rates of murder and rape are now lower than when nationwide crime statistics first appeared in 1965—and those were far less thorough than today’s.
Assault rates are lower than when this crime statistic was expanded to include domestic violence and new offenses a quarter-century ago.
Violent and other criminal victimization of young African-Americans have also plummeted to record lows, as have a host of other ills including unplanned pregnancy, drug abuse and school dropout rates. Murder and violent crimes remain very rare events among African-Americans, less than two-tenths of 1 percent. Since the early 1990s, homicide deaths and arrests have plunged by 70 percent among black youth in America.

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

- Anne Coulter

Please consider that just for a minute. Imagine if some commentator said "My only regret with Osama bin Laden is he didn't order the planes to fly into the Wall Street Journal." Would they then be welcome on news programs, asked their opinion, sell hundreds of thousands of books, and basically be a spokesperson for ideologically "pure" members of the Democratic party, instead of being rightfully shunned?

You need to open your eyes a little. One of the reason why blacks don't clutch their pearls quite so much over the relatively microscopic handful of terrorist deaths in the U.S., is because they've suffered terrorism for a century: the KKK burning crosses on their front yards, lynchings, and racist police on a hair-trigger, murdering completely innocent people and planting evidence (and getting off scott free, even when the evidence comes to light). But see, terrorism don't matter when it's just black lives being lost - at least not for the millions that Coulter, Rush, and many other mainstream Republicans. They don't even want to call it terrorism. White terrorists are all just "criminally insane", not like real terrorists - you know "them", "those people".

Great! Since you seem to think my logic is unsound, you will demonstrate its failings for us by naming a single successful, low-crime majority-black area that has no local warlords and no "thug gangsta" culture destroying its own people. That would make me shut up, fast.

5 seconds of Googling came up with this: http://atlantablackstar.com/20...

so you are a nigger lover then? you will be moving your family to downtown Detroit then? great!

Great! Since you seem to think my logic is unsound, you will demonstrate its failings for us by naming a single successful, low-crime majority-black area that has no local warlords and no "thug gangsta" culture destroying its own people. That would make me shut up, fast.

5 seconds of Googling came up with this: http://atlantablackstar.com/20...

How on earth can opening the footage to the public NOT compromise privacy?

Check the article. They provide examples of over-redacted footage. Had you looked at them, you wouldn't be asking the questions you are.

I asked a cop on a streetcorner for directions the other day, he gave them, I thanked him and went on my way, no problem. I consider that to be a private conversation (it reveals my whereabouts that day and tells where I was trying to go). I don't want video of it to be a public record open to "fishing expeditions" by random jerks

All audio is removed from the over-redacted footage and techniques are used to ensure that people are not readily identifiable. Seriously, just go look at the examples.

And I hate to break it to you, but any video recorded of you by an officer already is a matter of public record. Those "random jerks" just need to file a FOIA request to get the video. And in some states, such as Washington, they can even file those requests anonymously. Any interaction you have with a police officer is a matter of public record, whether you like it or not. This doesn't change that.

Unless there's an actual dispute involving the person requesting the video, nobody (including the police department and the cop wearing the camera) should be allowed to see the video and it should be deleted after 1 year.

Oh, definitely. Great plan. Hey, I think the following people may want to review any available footage the police have regarding their "disputes", but for some reason none of them are speaking...oh, that's right, it's because they were all murdered at the hands of police officers. And what do you know? In the two cases below where footage was available, the police officer is facing murder charges, while in the third one, they aren't. How strange.

1) Walter Scott
2) David Kassick
3) Michael Brown

Those were just off the top of my head. But while simply trying to dig up links for those three, I found out that Olympia, Washington police shot two unarmed brothers at a grocery store yesterday, that a rookie cop in New York fatally shot an innocent, unarmed man who just happened to step out of an apartment at the wrong time, that a cop in South Carolina shot an unarmed man at a traffic stop when the man turned to grab his driver's license, that Anaheim, California cops fatally shot two unarmed men in back-to-back days...the list goes on.

Honestly, it's really depressing. I'm finding more articles about shootings I didn't know about than I am about the high-profile ones I was already aware of. And all of those but the last one are from just the last eight months.

Suffice to say, I vehemently disagree with you.

http://atlantablackstar.com/20...

Reality doesn't seem to be a strong suite of at least some Britons. Like the Prime Minister.

That's hardly limited to Brits.

Being able to filter reality in favor of your own beliefs seems to be required to be a politician of any stripe.

Modern political discourse is about deciding you are in possession of infallible truth, and then never listening to opposing view points again, and generally acting like a douchebag towards anybody who disagrees with you -- so much so that it devolves into screeching monkeys flinging feces at one another.