Jump to content

BlitzFirst

Members
  • Content Count

    4,631
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

BlitzFirst last won the day on May 25 2016

BlitzFirst had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,444 Excellent

About BlitzFirst

  • Rank
    Starter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,462 profile views
  1. I thought life being threatened was a simple definition...someone has a weapon that can take your life and they are threatening a human with said weapon. Threatening violence without a weapon is just verbal...when it crosses the line is when a weapon becomes involved. In that video, if she brandished a gun because someone threatened to beat her up, she is wrong...even if the person hit her car...the right action would have been to turn away and ignore the person or record and call the police. Brandishing a weapon is escalation for any situation...and the only time it isn't escalation is if the situation has already been escalated. So, when is a weapon ok to point at someone? When the situation has already been escalated by the person you're pointing the weapon at...aka they a;ready have a weapon and are threatening vilence toward a human.
  2. The only time a gun should be pointed at another human being is if your life or the lives of those around are being threatened by the person you're pointing it at. PERIOD. Regardless if you are police or a citizen.
  3. I wish he'd put it over his eyes...and then go driving in his golf cart.
  4. Take it up with the dictionary and wikipedia definition of what hate speech is and not me. I posted a link to it but you didn't quote that part. I'm not arguing that there isn't speech that his hateful toward others and that it's protected...I'm saying that the definition of hate speech according to authoritative sources (dictionary, wikipedia) is that violence is threatened against groups or individuals because of race, creed, religion, sex, orientation, etc. That is the reason the subreddits spoken about were dissolved...their rights were not trampled on. You incite violence against groups or individuals you lose your constitutional protection according to the supreme court.
  5. Watch the documentary 13th. Take notes. Stop trying to cherry pick statistics.
  6. Not at all NDJ, and you should know better. You seem to talk like you know what's what with your posts...but you swung and missed on this one. Hate speech is inciting violence toward a subset of Americans.. It's considered a crime. It ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE. This is the key indicator. I don't care if you don't like a subset of human beings and express hatred of who they are, what they represent, or how they appear...but don't incite violence toward them. This is what the subreddits were held accountable on...asked not to do...and did it anyway. Nice try again though downplaying what was going on and making excuses for racists who want to incite a race war. FYI, definition here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States NDJ, today you learned that hate speech = calling for violence against a group or person = not covered by the 1st Amendment.
  7. Hate speech is different than that of free speech. They asked the moderators of those subreddits to police their threads to remove threats, hate, and violent rhetoric so they could stay online and communicating. They failed to do so. It was a simple ask that all other subreddits follow. It shouldn't have been hard for them to do so. So, this isn't the removal of free speech. It's morons who can't follow a few simple rules in order to keep their subreddit. But hey, keep pushing that narrative...I'm sure a few MAGA people will believe it and you guys can all get together and pat each other on the back while you shout white power from your 4 person golf cart. Keep siding with those racists NDJ but be careful...some people think you are who you hang out with.
  8. “Black people do more crime so, of coarse, they have to deal with the police more.” The fact that this person looked at black people instead of poor people shows just how bad the problem is. Poor people commit more crime...there just happens to be more poor black people due to systemic racism.
  9. Agreed. Critique both good and bad is warranted...but it's very odd for someone so racially aware to dismiss white fragility from existing. It's probably due to the fact that both Matt Taibbi and the person he is writing about are white. I'd rather learn about racism from someone who has experienced it. That's why I recommend Ibram Kendi: How To Be An Antiracist https://www.ibramxkendi.com/how-to-be-an-antiracist-1 probably one of the best books on the topic. His previous books are amazing as well. One of the most thought provoking authors I've read in a long time. He also had his "Stamped..." book adapted for young adult readers which is an area where these types of subjects are not covered.
  10. This is one of the most ill supported and ignorant articles I've ever read on both the book and the concept of 'white fragility' ever...it's makes sweeping generalizations with claims like this: Wow. You agree with this conclusion? He then rips on a portion of the book: Except there still is (white supremecy didn't vanish) and was (it was presented that Jackie Robinson was finally good enough to play with Whites...it's standard fair for institutional racism)....and this essay just sweeps it under the rug and cancels it out as if it didn't happen...which, subsequently, gives credence to the idea of white fragility and the author being a member of said fragility (I don't know if the author is white or not...but I would assume he is based only on this portion of his essay) What's sad is this guy has written on race relations NUMEROUS times and has written good books and articles...BUT, he must have incredible jealousy that "White Fragility" is getting more attention than his own books because his criticism in this article feels more personal than professional. He abandons all reason in most of this essay and this is a poor criticism and article that incoherently babbles through most of his diatribe. I seriously have to ask ...do you really agree with his conclusions? IF so, why? I think he's full of s#!t and ignorant and makes a piss poor argument.
  11. Great example of racial profiling here...for those that may not understand what it's like...pay specific attention how the cops don't even ask the lady for anything...they just take the lady who called word:
  12. Ahh the things people do and think in the name of religion.
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act ^ Anyone negotiating with a foreign government as a private citizen ^ I'm not sure what you're talking about...but I was talking about this.
×
×
  • Create New...