The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

[Huber.]

White Supremacists decided it for you. Go out back of your house, holler over the fence and see what they have to say for themselves.

He never provided any context for it, so what are we supposed to assume? I mean, yeah words have literal meanings, but we get past those after 3rd grade and words have contextual meaning. I can only imagine those that get confused about this don't read or talk to people very often? I have no idea.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Bump

 

[AZ_]

I don't think they're accurate when they say that majority Muslim countries want us dead.

@Huber. what are your thoughts?

View: https://twitter.com/nratv/status/884111485605093376

Bump

 

[Huber.]

Bump

Not sure what to think. Let me go ask my white supremacist neighbor, Wilson. I will say this, most Americans support the travel ban.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Does anyone else on the board want to speak up about how unfair it is that white pride is associated with white supremacy? I don't think I will have any takers on that.

I suppose there are a few ways to come at this....

1) I think White Pride is racist, and deservedly associated with White Supremacy. Of course, I think the same is true for Black Pride being associated with Black Supremacy. It's just not PC to say that.

2) The problem with "White Pride" and "Black Pride" is that both are associated with skin color/race, not a specific ethnic or cultural heritage. To the extent someone believes it is logical to take "pride" in the achievements of people long dead just because you may share some genes (I don't), it at least should be associated with a specific cultural (as opposed to racial) heritage.

3) I noticed last week that when Trump referred to a particular European cultural heritage, and the "Judeo-Christian" influence (hardly a term he invented, either) on that heritage, that was attacked as racist even though race wasn't mentioned.

 

[Whittaker]

Redefining words for political effect

"When a progressive says “investment,” he often means taking someone else’s money to give to a third party.
When a conservative says “laissez faire,” he often means for the government to butt out – unless it intervenes to benefit him.
We should stipulate that, not only do the words of the politically inspired not necessarily mean what words normally mean, but neither do their labels.
“Progressives” frequently are not progressive, strictly speaking. Progressives often are closed-minded when it comes to tolerating religious viewpoints with which they disagree. “Conservatives,” likewise, counterintuitively can be willing to toss aside long-standing values when it benefits them. “Hypocrites” may be a more accurate label for both.
In his dystopian novel “1984,” George Orwell called this practice “Newspeak,” by which propaganda is made vague by euphemism and inversion of customary meaning. The intended effect is to limit freedom of thought, as well as limiting concepts such as freedom and self-expression."
http://www.ocregister.com/2015/05/16/redefining-words-for-political-effect/

The antidote to "Newspeak" is to reject the political re-definition of words.
There is no non-political reason why "White Pride" & "Black Pride" should be re-defined so that one is good and one is bad. It is a political attempt to divide people. It is stereotyping by race.
It is even worse to claim a new definition for a word or phrase because some fringe hate group uses it as a rallying cry. Are we going to let tiny racists extremist groups dictate the meanings of the words we use to communicate to each other?

Here are a couple other phrase pairs that people are trying to re-define in order to demonize the way their political opponents talk:
"The West" & "The East".
"People of Color" & "Colored People".

Think about it...How many words have become taboo on RCF?
The words heavily discouraged on here are words with political implications.
But we can freely call people "cunts" because that word hasn't been politicized.

This bears repeating...George Orwell called this practice “Newspeak,” by which propaganda is made vague by euphemism and inversion of customary meaning. The intended effect is to limit freedom of thought, as well as limiting concepts such as freedom and self-expression.

 

[The Oi]

Redefining words for political effect

"When a progressive says “investment,” he often means taking someone else’s money to give to a third party.
When a conservative says “laissez faire,” he often means for the government to butt out – unless it intervenes to benefit him.
We should stipulate that, not only do the words of the politically inspired not necessarily mean what words normally mean, but neither do their labels.
“Progressives” frequently are not progressive, strictly speaking. Progressives often are closed-minded when it comes to tolerating religious viewpoints with which they disagree. “Conservatives,” likewise, counterintuitively can be willing to toss aside long-standing values when it benefits them. “Hypocrites” may be a more accurate label for both.
In his dystopian novel “1984,” George Orwell called this practice “Newspeak,” by which propaganda is made vague by euphemism and inversion of customary meaning. The intended effect is to limit freedom of thought, as well as limiting concepts such as freedom and self-expression."
http://www.ocregister.com/2015/05/16/redefining-words-for-political-effect/

The antidote to "Newspeak" is to reject the political re-definition of words.
There is no non-political reason why "White Pride" & "Black Pride" should be re-defined so that one is good and one is bad. It is a political attempt to divide people. It is stereotyping by race.
It is even worse to claim a new definition for a word or phrase because some fringe hate group uses it as a rallying cry. Are we going to let tiny racists extremist groups dictate the meanings of the words we use to communicate to each other?

Here are a couple other phrase pairs that people are trying to re-define in order to demonize the way their political opponents talk:
"The West" & "The East".
"People of Color" & "Colored People".

Think about it...How many words have become taboo on RCF?
The words heavily discouraged on here are words with political implications.
But we can freely call people "cunts" because that word hasn't been politicized.

This bears repeating...George Orwell called this practice “Newspeak,” by which propaganda is made vague by euphemism and inversion of customary meaning. The intended effect is to limit freedom of thought, as well as limiting concepts such as freedom and self-expression.

Let your freak flag fly. Start the movement for unpoliticizing "white pride." I'll buy the beater. @bushwick_bill will buy a spaghetti strap.

Bring back "porch monkey," while you're at it. It's also just words.

 

[kosis]

I was not aware of this Muslim belief. So I learned something today.

I googled this and came up with the following:

"There is a reference in the Qur'an concerning the crucifixion of Jesus: Sura 4:157-158: "They [the Jews] slew him[Jesus] not nor crucified [him], but it appeared so unto them...they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain, But Allah took him up unto Himself."



Though the Qur'an does not say so expressly, the interpretation of many Muslims is that Muhammad (or Mohammed) taught that Jesus was replaced by another man as Jesus was carrying the cross and that the other man was the one crucified, not Jesus.



There are other references in the Qur'an on this. For more reading consult Suras 3:55 and the whole of Sura 19:27-35 and 19:91-95. There is not much precision here. Muhammad mixes Moses' sister Miriam and Jesus' mother Mary. He seems to say that Jesus ascended without dying, that God had no son, and that Jesus is a recognized prophet of Allah."

Don't know if this is an accurate account of why they believe Christ was not crucified, but I would be interested in any enlightenment you might offer.

Don't want to get too far into a religion/ Book interpretation discussion in this thread... but yes, the common thoughts per Islamic belief are that Jesus was not crucified and he was taken by God. Little background: Jesus is a prophet in Islam, and no more than that. Like all prophets, he is mortal and therefore can/will die. The key point here and one that is generally agreed upon by Muslims is simply: God would not allow his prophet to be crucified, specifically because this act of Atonement is not a requirement for Islam. Whereas Christianity wouldn't be so without it.

This leaves us with two general schools of thought: Jesus was replaced by someone else on the cross, or the crucifixion never happened. I was taught the latter. Both schools of thought have many more branches of belief (If replaced, who was replaced with? A specific person? A roman soldier? Judas? If the crucifixion didn't happen at all, was there an appearance that it did? etc, etc...) Either way, as it pertains to current belief, this is the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam in their cores. God's plan for Jesus.

 

[Huber.]

Let your freak flag fly. Start the movement for unpoliticizing "white pride." I'll buy the beater. @bushwick_bill will buy a spaghetti strap.

Bring back "porch monkey," while you're at it. It's also just words.

Why do white people feel the need to be racist towards their own kind?

 

[The Oi]

Why do white people feel the need to be racist towards their own kind?

Self-loathing.

 

[Whittaker]

Let your freak flag fly. Start the movement for unpoliticizing "white pride." I'll buy the beater. @bushwick_bill will buy a spaghetti strap.

Bring back "porch monkey," while you're at it. It's also just words.

I don't believe I have ever used the phrase "porch monkey".
In my lifetime it has only been derogatory...just like "cunt".
As far as unpoliticizing "white pride", my point is I don't have to. I am not a white supremacist and I am not a race-baiter. So I can use the terms "white pride" and "black pride" sincerely and without guilt.
I won't allow racists and political hacks to dictate which words I use and the context in which I use them.
They can(and will) call me a bigot and a racist.
That's what they do to anyone who doesn't toe their political line.
It actually worked to an extent in the past, but that ship has sailed for most of America.(although it is still a major tactic on RCF)

 

[Whittaker]

but that ship has sailed for most of America.

As proof I submit the fact the most of the left and most of the media presented Trump as a racist and a bigot for months, and the end result was him being elected as President(despite being crude and boorish).
America isn't playing the race-guilt game anymore.

 

[AZ_]

As proof I submit the fact the most of the left and most of the media presented Trump as a racist and a bigot for months, and the end result was him being elected as President(despite being crude and boorish).
America isn't playing the race-guilt game anymore.

Well, he was consistently saying racist and bigoted things.

So I mean, you sort of get what you pay for with regards to that.

For example, labeling all illegal immigrants, or Mexicans as he put it, as rapists and drug dealers.

Not sure why you're copping out behind terms like "crude and boorish" when the things he said meet any standard of bigotry and racism.

 

[Whittaker]

For example, labeling all illegal immigrants, or Mexicans as he put it, as rapists and drug dealers.

I would have to look up the actual quote in context but I can say this without reservation...Your interpretation of what he said is not the interpretation of a large part of America.
Nor is it mine.
I don't like Trump and I didn't vote for him.
But I don't believe in the least that he thinks "all illegals and/or Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers".
I don't call him racists and bigoted because I honestly don't believe it.
I call him crude and boorish because I honestly believe it.
Its that simple. Not a cop out.

 

[AZ_]

I would have to look up the actual quote in context but I can say this without reservation...Your interpretation of what he said is not the interpretation of a large part of America.
Nor is it mine.
I don't like Trump and I didn't vote for him.
But I don't believe in the least that he thinks "all illegals and/or Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers".
I don't call him racists and bigoted because I honestly don't believe it.
I call him crude and boorish because I honestly believe it.
Its that simple. Not a cop out.

Choosing to not believe words have meanings is a cop out.

Words like collusion, racist, bigot are words which have definition that are being ignored to stick to a narrative of belief in a chosen person or party.

The goalpost keep being moved to meet a sliding definition for these words, and that's simply not how it works.

 

[Cavatt]

I suppose there are a few ways to come at this....

1) I think White Pride is racist, and deservedly associated with White Supremacy. Of course, I think the same is true for Black Pride being associated with Black Supremacy. It's just not PC to say that.

2) The problem with "White Pride" and "Black Pride" is that both are associated with skin color/race, not a specific ethnic or cultural heritage. To the extent someone believes it is logical to take "pride" in the achievements of people long dead just because you may share some genes (I don't), it at least should be associated with a specific cultural (as opposed to racial) heritage.

3) I noticed last week that when Trump referred to a particular European cultural heritage, and the "Judeo-Christian" influence (hardly a term he invented, either) on that heritage, that was attacked as racist.

Just a couple things.

#2 I agree is problematic. The difference between white and black people here is that black people had their heritage/language/culture forcibly taken from they if they are descended from slaves. That wasn't a choice as it was for many white families that just wanted to be "Americans".

How do you replace that?

Also, white pride was once acceptable especially in the south, but also elsewhere whereas being black meant you weren't allowed to show pride in anything including your work lest you be viewed as showing up a white person. Black people literally had to learn to have pride as self-esteem was seen as something to be squashed.

So I am not going to lump those 2 things together as their history is very different. Ideally I would agree with you that you shouldn't sort yourself into such vague groups. It definitely seems in the case of African Americans it was necessary for survival.

As to the Trump stuff, I think what he said was sort of small minded. If you take Western Civilization to mean European Civilization, that is at the root of our culture, but we are more than European Civilization. America is a true melting pot and while we are made up of judeo-christian people we are also products of immigration from everywhere. It really does discounts the contributions of Asians, Hispanics, Middle Easterners and of course black people in our society. Of course he doesn't want to focus on those guys. I think it is no surprise that he gave this speech in Poland which has been incredibly hostile to refugees. America has been historically the most friendly to refugees as many of us includingy my great grandparents were.

As we all know. Refugees are the most American and believe in out values more than we who are born here. I know why Trump doesn't get that. Other people who weren't born into wealth I dont really get it.