Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

It's not about the definition of what is, or isn't an act of terrorism. If this guy had been any other color but Caucasian white, he would have been branded a terrorist from the moment the police had identified him -- even before his arrest or, in this case, suicide by bomb, he would have been tagged with the T-word -- regardless of motive.

I think it's become a running joke... shooting/violence happens. The first question asked: "Was he/she Caucasian or colored?"
- "Caucasian." -- "Oh, mentally unstable then..."
- "Colored." -- "Terrorist or criminal."

Only in the minds of those who look at everything through a lens of racism. As has been discussed, the term "terrorist" implies a political motive.

[mad_gater]

It's not about the definition of what is, or isn't an act of terrorism. If this guy had been any other color but Caucasian white, he would have been branded a terrorist from the moment the police had identified him -- even before his arrest or, in this case, suicide by bomb, he would have been tagged with the T-word -- regardless of motive.

I think it's become a running joke... shooting/violence happens. The first question asked: "Was he/she Caucasian or colored?"
- "Caucasian." -- "Oh, mentally unstable then..."
- "Colored." -- "Terrorist or criminal."

[img]https://i.imgur.com/elnLWs9.jpg?1[/img



Yup, that's going to stop the bullets. They better have a strong arm to sling far and fast.





Who's the Lord, and who's the fly?

That was my take on that story about the rocks too....I was like "yeah bullets travel a lot faster than rocks thus you'll likely get shot before the rock even leaves your hand" *facepalm*

[Falcon Horus]

Only in the minds of those who look at everything through a lens of racism. As has been discussed, the term "terrorist" implies a political motive.

It's standard procedure to tag the culprit before motives are known.

Just look at how similar stories are covered, when it's Caucasian vs POC. Or better yet, look at how they are treated. It's a mindset, which was born from racism sure but evolved: white = good, brown = bad.

[mad_gater]

It's standard procedure to tag the culprit before motives are known.

Just look at how similar stories are covered, when it's Caucasian vs POC. Or better yet, look at how they are treated. It's a mindset, which was born from racism sure but evolved: white = good, brown = bad.

Not that I'm gonna say ALL black people are bad or anything but if there is a mindset like that festering and ubilding then perhaps it is likely because MLK Jr. is watching his "dream" turn into a living nightmare as he looks down and watches black people squander the gift he fought and died to obtain for them (the gift of freedom) in order to join gangs whose sole purpose is to continually act out brutish and base behaviors.

Oh sure there are white gangs as well, the Neo-Nazis being a case in point. However it seems that most of the membership in most gangs tends to be comprised predominantly of black people.

Thus MLK Jr.'s dream is turning into a nightmare as when more and more black people join these gangs like Black Panthers, etc. it further tarnishes the reputation of black people as a whole.

Again, I don't defend such a mindset of lumping everyone into the same boat like that, but it does unfortunately happen. There are wonderful black people out there who work hard and just want to live their lives in peace. Heck one of my fellow CA's at Whole Foods is black and he's pretty reliable.
Unfortunately it is the self-entitled loudmouths from their communities that lamestream media is giving the airtime to.

[LtColCarter]

Only in the minds of those who look at everything through a lens of racism. As has been discussed, the term "terrorist" implies a political motive.

Again, you miss the point.

It's standard procedure to tag the culprit before motives are known.

Just look at how similar stories are covered, when it's Caucasian vs POC. Or better yet, look at how they are treated. It's a mindset, which was born from racism sure but evolved: white = good, brown = bad.

I think we're beating a dead horse here. Annoyed is too stuck on the denotative meaning of the word "terrorist." For some reason, beknownst only to God, he is incapable of seeing what happens in the real world.

[jelgate]

That should of been obvious a long time ago. When he gets a POV he stubbornly commits to it and rejects all information that contradicts it.

[LtColCarter]

That should of been obvious a long time ago. When he gets a POV he stubbornly commits to it and rejects all information that contradicts it.

Yes...of this...I am aware!

[mad_gater]

Again, you miss the point.



I think we're beating a dead horse here. Annoyed is too stuck on the denotative meaning of the word "terrorist." For some reason, beknownst only to God, he is incapable of seeing what happens in the real world.

or perhaps we're sick of left-wing wannabe commies attempting to change what's written in the dictionary to suit their own agenda

[Bagpuss]

How about you guys show a little dignity and quit with the personal snits?

Right wing v left is never going to merge and become one big camp of kumbayas and sweetness,but try debating the topics and not each other.

[SoulReaver]

or perhaps we're sick of left-wing wannabe commies

speaking of - how long till the hammer & sickle replaces the star-spangled banner?

you haven't forgotten that the one you "elected" is only a vassal right?

[aretood2]

Only in the minds of those who look at everything through a lens of racism. As has been discussed, the term "terrorist" implies a political motive.

I remember listening to this conservative radio talk show host. He mentioned a random story of a Muslim man beheading a coworker (one of those cases of someone going post. He then proceeded to call it terrorism even though there was no political motive behind the attack and complain on how the administration (Obama) was doing a bad thing by not calling it terrorism. It was just someone going postal, no political motive though. There's a tendency where conservative talking heads claim anything bad done by someone who isn't white (especially if they are Muslim) to be terrorists or thugs. But when a white person does it, they wait until the last possible moment to even consider calling them terrorists or thugs.

This is what people are referring to the most when they show memes like the one you quoted. But you have to admit, that pattern holds true.

Not that I'm gonna say ALL black people are bad or anything but if there is a mindset like that festering and ubilding then perhaps it is likely because MLK Jr. is watching his "dream" turn into a living nightmare as he looks down and watches black people squander the gift he fought and died to obtain for them (the gift of freedom) in order to join gangs whose sole purpose is to continually act out brutish and base behaviors.

You are generalizing though. That's a problem. Without having any actual statistics you assume that the media is being representative of black people when describing crime and such. There's a Youtube video of a Fox News person interviewing people asking them why they think voter ID laws will negatively impact black people. They gave him a list of reasons from "Lack of education" to "Lack of money for the ID's" and so on. Then the person started interviewing black people who were quick to point out that none of that was true. That a lot of them had ID's, knew where to go and what to do if and when it was needed and that many were already registered to vote and money wasn't an issue.


I'm not saying that there aren't problems specific to black people that as a community they worry about, but just that it's not across the board. Gang mem There are enough black people with problems for this to be an issue, but not enough that it covers the majority.

Oh sure there are white gangs as well, the Neo-Nazis being a case in point. However it seems that most of the membership in most gangs tends to be comprised predominantly of black people.

Thus MLK Jr.'s dream is turning into a nightmare as when more and more black people join these gangs like Black Panthers, etc. it further tarnishes the reputation of black people as a whole.

Again, I don't defend such a mindset of lumping everyone into the same boat like that, but it does unfortunately happen. There are wonderful black people out there who work hard and just want to live their lives in peace. Heck one of my fellow CA's at Whole Foods is black and he's pretty reliable.
Unfortunately it is the self-entitled loudmouths from their communities that lamestream media is giving the airtime to.

The problem is also that the numbers aren't what you think they are. Look at this link:
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/S...s/Demographics

Interestingly enough, Hispanics almost make up half the gangs (though I wonder what they classify as gangs such as mafias and some supremacists/sovereign citizens...I think these are mostly younger people being counted, such as teens and young adults.) with blacks being at around one third. White gangsters are more common in smaller areas. Now these aren't percentages of total populations, so gangsters really represent small minority of all races. The next link gives more in depth analysis that looks at differences between regions and data acquisition. It's worth a good read

https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/96natyout...y/surv_6c.html

Really, you should be wondering about Hispanics and gangs not blacks...but then again, there are other factors. But when using hispanics, race is um...complicated. Historically immigrant populations do tend to take larger portions of gang memberships. Think of the old Irish gangs, Italian gangs, old and current Chinese gangs. There are social factors that push people towards gangs that are more prevalent among the most vulnerable of immigrant communities than native ones. After that it's a matter of geography.

[LtColCarter]

or perhaps we're sick of left-wing wannabe commies attempting to change what's written in the dictionary to suit their own agenda

Oh please...just watch any incident in the news on any news outlet. You can't be as ignorant as Amnoyed. Then again...

[Gatefan1976]

GUYS AND GALS!!!

The Mods WILL shut us down if we continue to -just- bicker about each other, lets not require a 3rd or 4th iteration of this thread, or them banning the whole topic entirely.
At least keep the snark to a single topic / response rather than stretch it out eh?

To the Mods:
I dunno if anyone has reported anyone else to get the step-in by Baggie, but for some people I assume this is one of the few ways they feel they can vent their frustrations (on either side) safely, and I don't want them to loose that ability to do so. Yes, you have absolute discretion here, we are playing in your backyard, but I am asking for slack here as the topics covered hit many emotional points for people.

Respectfully to all
GF1976

[Falcon Horus]

How about you guys show a little dignity and quit with the personal snits?

I didn't do it.

Right wing v left is never going to merge and become one big camp of kumbayas and sweetness,but try debating the topics and not each other.

And on that day, SGAlisa will tell us all -- told you say. The end of the world has happened after all...

[Bagpuss]

Nobody's reported anyone recently but every so often we swing by these current affair/political/social issues threads.
That's ok.It doesn't mean the Mods are planning to ban or gag any of you.

Mods are human too,and none of us are keen to ban these discussion threads,or lock any of them.Venting is healthy,and modern life,politics,and politicians,religious opinions etc aren't sacred icons that shouldn't be questioned.

Have to say though,we're not impressed by the levels of snark, and what appears to us to be a lack of tolerance shown between some of you in these threads.

If you guys could tone it down,stay on topic AND also quit having a go at each other in the other forum sections,that'd be great.

If you (the generalised "you") can't hold onto your tempers or the urge to derail threads into off topic tit for tat baiting then here's a few suggestions:

1.Ignore Feature.
Very useful if it's used correctly.Telling the Ignoree that you put them on Ignore and mocking them from then onward is a great way to derail threads and make things worse.On the other hand, if you truly leave posts unanswered,you keep your cool and the person on Ignore gets gradually starved of attention.

2.Report feature.
Keep the report itself brief,and tell us which forum rules you think are being bent,ignored or plain broken.There's no need to send a novel or scream at us.
If we agree the rules are broken,we'll take action.Sometimes that means we edit or delete a post.Other times we may talk with the person who made the report and/or the person who was reported.
All that chat is done in private.We don't air the laundry if we can help it, and we never,ever tell anyone who reported their posts.
We'd rather be seen as *insert namecalling terms of choice * than betray anything said to us in private or point fingers at anyone to divert the flak.
If any of us contact you,try not to take it as a personal insult.

3.Take a short break!
Log out,go have a cup of coffee,or just do something fun and distracting.
Once you've cooled off ,log back in and take another look at whatever upset you.Think whether you read it wrongly ,or whether you really need to reply/report or use the Ignore Feature literally or figuratively.

4.Bear in mind that this is just a forum.Most of us post under a Username ,not our real name.GateWorld doesn't ever sell or share any Member's details with any advertisers,snoops or other agencies.

Nobody here knows your address,your employment details or anything else that can lead to you being penalised by an employer ,the police or that nosy neighbour you think is always trying to get you in trouble.Be discreet though,because you never know who's lurking and skimming the forum.

5.Change the topic under discussion!
If you feel a current thread discussion is circular and boring,then find another hot topic to discuss.

I think that's all I need to say for now.