Also - more broadly about race in America - I am finding Trevor Noah really interesting on the subject. This is a between the scenes answer to a question from the audience about reparations, from last year:




And this week

I'm a white man. These stories do not reflect my life experience. But they are absolutely representative of the life experiences of my black step brothers and step father.

This is real.

This is real, despite the fact that *I* didn't live it.

Well, here's a heartwarming story out of Chicago about police doing it right and giving a black man every chance to not only survive; but, retain his freedom.

The police showed restraint, so much so that they can now be replaced by barbed wire.

Police not being racist shits really shouldn't be noteworthy

Being the first to... is noteworthy. Being the first black person to do same..., being the first Hispanic to do same..., being the first Asian to do same... etc. shouldn't be noteworthy; but, it is.

Then there's Mr Lloyd...

Looks like his trousers are down.

I'm guessing he can't lift himself to pull them up further.

But again, the irrelevant is cited to avoid an obvious and major problem. Widespread racism exists even among some repeat posters in the Cellar. They routinely support Trump. Refuse to admit that Trump supporters include the KKK, White Supremacists, and Nazis. Even demonstrated in Franklin Twp NJ. They want to 'wreck shit'.

A racist will ignore those damning pictures to again admire and support Trump. Both his overt racist beliefs and his 30 second attention span.

Notice how those two obvious characteristics of the Don are not disputed - because they cannot be disputed. So cheapshots and irrelevant posts exist.

Al Capone would envy how Trump can get rich doing tax evasion. Just another item on a list that includes racism, hate, and praising despots.

Ken Nordine tells the future from 1966

That racist shit is just in the south, amirite?

A pair of lawyers defending their home from a bunch of those dreadful negros walking by. :rolleyes:

Dad, get me out of this!

Karen has that highly trained well regulated militia look.

Lawyer, huh?

She is brandishing while he is holding.

I wonder if she bothered to read the law about brandishing for her location. Bad lawyer. If anyone pressed charges against her, she would risk being disbarred, even if she got out of the charges.

They're violating a majority of basic gun safety rules.

Shooting barefoot must be some kind of fad there.

They could've been charged with manslaughter if any of the protesters had died laughing.

Probably will drum up business for their law firm...

They look ridiculous

Its like the apocalypse in stupidville

snort

These girls are twins.

Attachment 70998

Yes, born at the same time to an Irish decent father and half Jamaican mother.
I think most people would see one white girl and one light skinned black girl.
Good thing they were in England, in Alabama they couldn't drink from the same water fountain.

Attachment 70999

Woman in a van with four girls ages 6 to 17 looking for a nail salon on Sunday morning gets pulled over by the cops in a Denver, CO suburb. The girls were ordered out of the van and facedown on the pavement at gunpoint. The 12 and 17 year olds were handcuffed. Take that dangerous criminals.

Why were they pulled over? Because the COLORADO automobile license plate has the same numbers as a reported stolen motorcycle with a MONTANA motorcycle license plate.

This is absolute bullshit, the cops are out of control.

Hire stupid people to be your cops, this is what you get.

a few bad apples...

They are called bad oranges in FL. It is what the state does best.

What pisses me off is that people always use that phrase (the ones who employ it seriously) but miss off the rest of the saying:

A few bad apples spoil the bunch.

If you don't have your AR-15, you won't be able to do like lawyers do. And just as certainly, you won't improve on it either. And your situation will be dreadful if the rioters mostly peacefully kick your door in.

Which didn't happen at the lawyers' house. That's stupid? Or nearer to smart?

Pretty sure it's stupid

There were no rioters near the lawyers house, just demonstrators passing by on the sidewalk on there way to somewhere else. Going out to provoke a confrontation is stupid, especially the wife waving the hand gun.:facepalm:

And a confrontation was precisely the thing they did not provoke: exposed arms are confrontation suppressers. It's definitely under the heading of "confrontation" if there are shots fired, which there were not. I do not recall any shouting being done.

No, I'm more with them -- pieces of work that they are, and not exactly at one with their weapons either -- than against. This time.

First thing they teach in hostage negotiations - always deescalate the situation by carrying a big gun

Tell that to the armed protester in Austin who was reflexively shot (and killed) in a panic by another armed person who was harassing the protesters. It's ironic, but most Second Amendment nuts always envision themselves as the only armed person. They lionize the "good guy with a gun" and completely forget the inevitable "stupid guy with a gun." And FAR more average people are stupid, as opposed to bad.

Take up the discussion with -- i.e., tell that to -- a policeman. He wears a pistol most of each day and durn near all the week. You gonna tell me people start fights with the officer because he shows up wearing a holster?

Honestly, Fobble: you don't know a damned thing about guns, and less than zero about gun culture both inside and outside of law enforcement -- and you presume to lecture me? There's no shame in being guided by people who know more about something than you do. I'd know you *do* know a damned thing about guns once you start sounding like me.

It is highly non-intelligent to cultivate defenselessness. Never do the non-intelligent thing.

I've met a few people whose emotional makeup -- well, doesn't suit keeping arms, and they can honestly say so, and specify why. Speaking for themselves. I carefully avoid speaking for them. The anti-gun set can hardly be described as careful about that, so hurried are they in describing keepers of killing-tools as stupid or bitter -- as a universal thing.

My concern is less with long-time gun enthusiasts than with newly armed folks who've self radicalized right or left showing up armed and incompetent with a belly full of anger. In terms of local threats, here in hillbilly country, I'm concerned about folks who think it's bugaloo time hoarding ammo. I'm sure urbanites have their own concerns. We have a country which seems on the brink of something if each of us doesn't look for ways to de-escalate tensions. I know a lot of gun folks think open carry calms people down, but I don't buy it. I think that it actually causes less competent people to feel forced by circumstances to carry, like Pakistan having a nuke, nobody is really cool with it but Pakistan.

Hmm... you seem to believe the yahoos you decry somehow aren't going to get themselves settled by the rest of the citizenry. This is typical of the antigun and hence anti-rights and anti-republic superstition. If you're not used enough to guns, I can see where you'd be, well, nervous.

Not something I'd do, though. I got past that decades ago; it wasn't always so for me. But then I started reading material more knowledgeable about arms and private arms than Time magazine. Didn't take long to realign my thinking.

Except, I was raised in and live in the gun culture. This was a culture of hunting and home protection not a culture of intimidation.

*Psst*... I was, too. Don't tell UG. Guns were a fixture in not just one but both parents' houses; I was taken to the shooting range multiple times as a pre-teen. My problem's not with responsible gun owners, just with the fact that there is absolutely zero accountability right now in determining who is "responsible" and not an idiot. It's not a hypothetical for me--I have close family with severe, hospitalizable mental illness who should be prevented from purchasing a firearm at all costs. They aren't. It's fucked up.

*shhh* let him have his simple narrative.

That narrative is how we got Trump. It simply excites and rallies the adults who are still children.

And so one went to a pizza shop liberated children from the basement of pedophiles. When asked why that pizza shop did not have a basement, he said, "Bad intelligence." He never learned where bad intelligence exists. In the brain of an adult who is still thinking like a child.

...aaaand here's your sign.[/Engvall]

Nailed it

Back, back, like the pages in a book...

You can't; it is never simple.

My confirmation bias is showing but last nights tragedy-
https://apnews.com/97a0700564fb52d7f664d8de22066f88

An amateur news follower breaks out the differences between the left narrative and the right narrative in this event:

https://twitter.com/shaunjcammack/st...22815349149699

It would appear that we are fucked.

So what did the moderates say. Oh. This is social media. There are no moderates. That would be too honest.

It's supposed to be a standard tactical move of the Left to create chaos and destruction, the better to provoke an overreaction from the government, the police. In Kenosha, looks like the overreaction (if any, for a case for it being self-defense is emerging) is civilian, not authority... bad news for the Marxists, they're fumbling.

That and there's report coming that there's some kind of division of labor there: the rioters are white, the looters are black.

It's also the revolution's next tactical step, having created a deteriorating situation, to push the idea that they alone can get us out of it. "Put us in charge, and this'll be the last Kristallnacht."

That's what the Central Committee of fascists on Fox News ordered you to believe. History says fascist obtain total control - ie Nazi party - by creating chaos and destruction.

Oh. That contradicts what the Central Committee ordered us to believe. So we just ignore it. Also what fascists do to destroy Democratic governments. Ignore any history that exposes lies.

How curious. A president loved by American fascists, racists, and Nazis is Trump. Do what brainwashed Americans would do. Ignore it and deny it. Fox News will teach us how to think.

After all, it also proved Saddam had WMDs.

As near as I can figure his latest childlike gabble, tw remains blissfully ignorant that fascist and communist are both of the Left. Think about them. There are no substantive differences to be found. Adolf and company borrowed a leaf from Vladimir and company's handbook. In Germany and in Russia, it worked.

You don't know your political science, kid.

Walker expanded on his point, adding, "Growing up in the deep South, I've seen racism up close. I know what it is. And it isn't Donald Trump."

How many other falsehoods are the Dems wedded to?

How inflationary are the Dems?

"Some people don't like [Trump's] style, the way he knocks down obstacles that get in the way of his goal. People on the opposing team didn't like when I ran over them, either -- but that's how you get the job done." Particularly in the face of the constant, tedious, tendentious attacks, which all amount to iterations on "He's not our kind, dear." The sentiment demonstrates the gripers do not understand that this is Trump's most valuable trait, and the one most desired by the electorate: he's not their kind.

...

This is false. I prefer this guys take. Remember that fascists were pro-business, anti-union, anti-intellectual, law and order types, who in Italy anyway cloaked themselves in the Church. There are authoritarians all over the political spectrum but conservatives need to be as wary of fascism as liberals are of communism.

Look at how they governed to see where they are on the spectrum.

https://pseudoerasmus.com/2015/05/03...left-or-right/

Since fascism was always a kind of pseudo-ideology made on the fly, without a long history of thought and debate like socialism, it’s wrong-headed to infer “what they really were” from the Italian fascists’ platform in 1919, or the fact that Hitler called his party “(National) Socialist German Workers Party”, or even from their electoral strategy.

To say that fascism is an extremism of the political right, as defined in historical terms, is reasonable for the following reasons :

All actually-existed fascist states practised business-friendly economic policies, even if they were not ideologically laissez-faire. They could have easily done otherwise — this was after all the 1930s, the heyday and apogee of socialism as an ideology. But no fascist in power even contemplated taking the Soviet route of destroying the capital- and land-owning classes.

All actually-existed fascist states repressed labour unions, socialists, and communists. Despite the worker-friendly rhetoric of fascists, they in actual power regimented labour in such a way as to please any strike-breaking capitalist of the 19th century. The Nazis, for example, forced workers into a single state-controlled trades union (DAF), which controlled wage growth and prevented striking and wage arbitration. Businesses (some, not even most), by contrast, were given incentives to consolidate into Morgan-style industrial trusts as shareholers and engage in contractual relations as monopolists or near-monopolists with other trusts and with the state.

Communists have a demonstrated record of erasing traditional society root and branch — exterminating aristocrats, industrialists, landowners, priests, kulaks, etc. Fascists in actual power, despite their modernist reputation, seem almost traditional in comparison. In Mussolini’s Italy, the king, the titled nobility, the church, the industrialists, the landholders, and the mafia slept soundly at night. The chief innovation of fascism was not really in political economy, but in political community.

Self-proclaimed fascist parties in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s pinched their votes from the middle-class and conservative parties, not primarily from the socialists and the communists to whom their traditional constituencies (urban workers) mostly remained loyal. In Germany’s election of 1932, the Social Democrats and the Communists maintained their usual proportion of the combined vote (~35%), but the other traditional parties were substantially weakened, even hollowed out, with only the Catholic Zentrum maintaining double-digit strength (~12%).

Big business interests either were strong supporters of the fascists once in power, or (in some countries) had backed them well before their seizure of power.

Fascists fetishised law & order, and made a cult out of the armed forces.

Amongst observers in non-fascist countries, it was conservatives and businessmen, not progressives, who were the most numerous to express admiration for the fascists. There were a few prominent socialists like H G Wells who applauded some aspects of Mussolini’s regime, but these were mostly amongst intellectual kooks, and their significance pales in comparison to the conservative reaction which varied from enthusiastic approval of a bulwark against communism to benign indifference.

Other self-proclaimed fascists — those who took their inspiration from Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s — were unambiguously conservative in the unambiguously traditional sense, without the “modernist” touches which set Hitler and Mussolini apart. If I had to use three words to describe Franco, the best ones would be “God, Country, Property”.

The Nazis were sui generis and idiosyncratic, an outlier amongst fascists, and perhaps they really shouldn’t be pegged into the left-right spectrum. But if they had to be, their political economy was clearly capitalist and therefore clearly distant from revolutionary or egalitarian socialism.

Actual fascists who came to power behaved in a similarly labour-repressive, business-friendly, violently antisocialist way, albeit with national variations. Why were they so unanimous in their hysterical hatred of communists and socialists ? Could it have been that there was some “ideological space” for property and capitalism amongst fascists, albeit not well articulated theoretically ?

In the 1920s British conservatives generally approved of Mussolini, and liberals and socialists generally criticised him. I don’t mean that conservatives wanted fascism in Britain, but they thought it was an effective antidote to communism, admired fascist law & order, and found in it a healthy example of national pride. Of course Churchill was an early admirer of Mussolini and remained one until the early 1930s, and he took the nationalist side in the Spanish civil war.

What color are the murdering militia wannabes?

Racist as fuck.

Looks like his people have heard and heeded his clarion call:

Here comes the gasoline.

https://apnews.com/4a58a15c9955bb6312c1fbe42215110d

It bothers me that even if all the people get off their lazy asses and Trump gets only 25% of the vote, he'll be out but the trouble he's caused won't go away.
We'll still have Qanon, and the preppers, and the Nazis of every stripe, plus the clueless like UG to contend with. We'll still be suffering with stacked courts, a useless congress, and crumbling infrastructure. We'll also have less trustworthy allies or even respect overseas.

Oh, and tens of thousands of pork slaughterhouses without meat inspectors. :facepalm:

how will we ever survive like we did five years ago

all that stuff existed back then

after 2 terms of obama

and will exist again in five years after trump is gone

it's almost like who the potus is doesn't really matter all that much to the bigger picture