Culture

[drayer54]

Being white apparently means you are arrogant, too certain, too defensive, not humble, apathetic, and too united. It doesn't say some white people, it doesnt specifically say white trash... be less white.

What color are you Toronto? If you are white, can you kindly be less of it?

Use this slide from Cigna's anti-white training to quantify your privilege to the group.

 

[TorontoGold]

At least you agree it makes YOU look bad. So when false narratives and faux racism stories get circulated you would probably agree that also makes YOU look bad. The problem in this statement is people don't necessarily care about making THEM look bad. They have an agenda to make everyone like him look bad... which would include you.

Laws/culture - Here is just a recent example. When we signed up for grants and state funding they all do things differently. In our city have had a few rounds of grant money for small business. The first time we got rejected. The second time we only recieved like $1500, the third time we recieved $10,000. At the guidance of a neighbor/friend that works with city/state government he suggested I check yes on the box that says I am a part of a historically oppressed demographic. I only checked this box on the third instance. I asked why checking that box made such a huge difference and he just said "haha, I think its obvious but my official answer is no comment". When I ask around some business owners received zero and some received up to $20,000 or more. There is a lady that makes burritos out of her house and drives from business to business offering burritos and a 12oz coke for $5 that recieved $20,000. I highly doubt she has a better accountant than I do, but I bet she checked the right box.

Coca-Cola is saying be less white. Yahoo published an article stating whiteness is pandemic. Its all over man.

Being white apparently means you are arrogant, too certain, too defensive, not humble, apathetic, and too united.

Whiteness is a pandemic
https://sports.yahoo.com/whiteness-pandemic-170000715.html

COCA-COLA DIVERSITY TRAINING PROGRAM TELLS EMPLOYEES TO ‘BE LESS WHITE’
https://www.blackenterprise.com/coca-cola-diversity-training-program-tells-employees-to-be-less-white/



Being white apparently means you are arrogant, too certain, too defensive, not humble, apathetic, and too united. It doesn't say some white people, it doesnt specifically say white trash... be less white.

What color are you Toronto? If you are white, can you kindly be less of it?

My first instinct when a tragic shooting happens isn't to think about how the "media" and "think tanks" are making ME look bad. I'm comfortable that people who know me and meet me understand I don't share similarities with any of the shooters.

Right, that's an inefficient process caused at the government level that is trying to means test people based on ethnicity. I've always been against means testing at the grant level, as you can always claw back any overpayment at tax time. Of course that is under the assumption that a tax agency runs perfectly. I find it strange to pin that on minorities as them abusing the system when it was likely done by some idiots who were trying to appease progressives but fucked it all up. I fully support you taking every penny from the government, make them come and get it back from you.

The Coca-Cola thing is partially false, the actual slide deck is real but there is no proof it was part of the curriculum for Coca-Cola. They bought access to the Linkedin training feature but it was not part of the required programs for their employees. Seems like someone was able to bypass LinkedIn's review of the slides and get them up there briefly before having them taken down.

I won't tell you what to be outraged over, but something that Nigel Farage clings to as fact is not something I'd recommend getting upset about.

 

[Blazers46]

My first instinct when a tragic shooting happens isn't to think about how the "media" and "think tanks" are making ME look bad. I'm comfortable that people who know me and meet me understand I don't share similarities with any of the shooters.

Right, that's an inefficient process caused at the government level that is trying to means test people based on ethnicity. I've always been against means testing at the grant level, as you can always claw back any overpayment at tax time. Of course that is under the assumption that a tax agency runs perfectly. I find it strange to pin that on minorities as them abusing the system when it was likely done by some idiots who were trying to appease progressives but fucked it all up. I fully support you taking every penny from the government, make them come and get it back from you.

The Coca-Cola thing is partially false, the actual slide deck is real but there is no proof it was part of the curriculum for Coca-Cola. They bought access to the Linkedin training feature but it was not part of the required programs for their employees. Seems like someone was able to bypass LinkedIn's review of the slides and get them up there briefly before having them taken down.

I won't tell you what to be outraged over, but something that Nigel Farage clings to as fact is not something I'd recommend getting upset about.

I am talking about you as it relates to your whiteness. I have best friends that know me well and still think all white people are the problem. They

I am not pinning this on minorities... like I stated... policy/culture/rules are made based on certain narratives. I am blaming this on governent for caving to this narrative and feeling they have to.

Coca-Cola or not Coca-Cola... I think we can both agree its been said.

 

[Irish#1]

From my understanding, we have hate crime laws becasue of the need to deter what was once a very big problem. White people performing extrajudicial executions or committing violence against black people denying them their civil and constitutional rights. These are also called bias crimes becasue they are specifically carried out due to bias of race, nationality, and religion. While I admit this would be more difficult to prove today, it was very much easy to see back then ( from my grandparents and family who told me such stories when they were growing up in the south circa 1930s-1970s). They told me stories that downright hurt my soul and they told them as if it was matter of fact that that was the way it was.

Black people being pulled out of their house or cars and lynched for virtually no reason that could stand up in court. Stabbing/attacking them and their families them when they left the voting centers to deter them or their family from voting. Genuinely hate filled violence against their homes and churches or at their places of employment... these arent secrets and they occurred so much that Lyndon Johnson included in Title 1 of Civil Rights Act. These types of crimes are typically pre-meditated with malicious thought and are carried out to cause terror or deny due process. They are not simply a robbery gone wrong or an accidental crime of passion. From my understanding they were developed to deter these types of crimes by inflicting sever punishment's (this is a common way to deter unwarranted behavior is to make the punishment's so bad you choose not to do it, especially with premeditated crimes). I grew up around many family members that were racist as fuck and their thoughts on black people specifically are very hateful.

These laws were able to bust up the KKK to where they were almost non existent becasue being associated with them was very detrimental. In SC the KKK had a very large bank roll and property list which after multiple prosecutions, the government was able to seize and destroy their fundraising and properties becasue they were centers of planning and operations of hate crimes. I received a few KKK flyers in my mail a few years back as they seem to be recruiting again.

I totally get what happened back in the last century. The hate crime laws are fairly new. Don't get me wrong. I know why the laws were written, but you would have a hard time convincing me that someone who was hell bent on killing someone is going to have second thoughts simply because there's not only a law against killing, but also a law against killing due to hate (race, religion or LGBT).

 

[Irish#1]

Really??
Monkey see monkey do. The reason for these laws is simple. To try and deter hate crimes and making sure that the general public knows that they won't be tolerated. Is it perfect solution no.
I love the constant normalization and defending on here.
. It always comes from those that lean with at least a bit of hate in their hearts.
It almost always is a white male. If you aren't against hate crimes then you are for them. There isn't a gray area.

I don't know whether I should laugh or cry.

 

[Blazers46]

I totally get what happened back in the last century. The hate crime laws are fairly new. Don't get me wrong. I know why the laws were written, but you would have a hard time convincing me that someone who was hell bent on killing someone is going to have second thoughts simply because there's not only a law against killing, but also a law against killing due to hate (race, religion or LGBT).

When it comes to murder and killing people I think attaching a “hate crime” statute is just (to use a familiar phrase) theatre. Like this Spa/Parlor guy. He’s either going to get the death penalty or like 100 years per person killed. Attach the hate crimes and he’s got maybe another 50 years. So he serves 800 years or 850 years... 400 with good behavior ‍♂️??

where hate crime laws might effective is for lesser crimes like assault or even vandalism.

 

[irishff1014]

Which media? If you mean all media, I might agree. If you refer to the media that isn’t your media, well, that’s a different story.

Any news outlet. They just care about being first. They don’t care if the whole thing could be false.

 

[Irish#1]

When it comes to murder and killing people I think attaching a “hate crime” statute is just (to use a familiar phrase) theatre. Like this Spa/Parlor guy. He’s either going to get the death penalty or like 100 years per person killed. Attach the hate crimes and he’s got maybe another 50 years. So he serves 800 years or 850 years... 400 with good behavior ‍♂️??

where hate crime laws might effective is for lesser crimes like assault or even vandalism.

And instead of writing a new law, they could have just as easily amended the current law(s) to allow stiffer sentences.

 

[Bishop2b5]

The entire point of hate crime laws is to pander to the demographic being supposedly protected by them. NOBODY was ever about to murder someone and then stopped and thought, "WHOA! I'm killing this dude because he's gay, Jewish, black, trans, or an immigrant. That hate crime law will add another 10 years to my sentence if I do this. I better not." It's completely useless as a deterrent to such things. Where it MIGHT have some effect is, as Blazer suggested, deterring some lesser assaults or vandalism. Doubling the sentence for spray-painting a mosque or church, torching a gay nightclub, assaulting someone for their ethnicity, etc. might have some effect, but even that is questionable.

What hate crime bills are actually for is to pander to a particular group: "We care sooooo much about YOU! We want to protect you. Look at this (totally ineffective and useless) law we're passing just for YOU!" It's like a lawmaker funding some useless project back in his home district. It has virtually NOTHING to do with fixing some real problem there. It's about being able to say, "Look what I did for you" during the next election.

 

[TorontoGold]

The entire point of hate crime laws is to pander to the demographic being supposedly protected by them. NOBODY was ever about to murder someone and then stopped and thought, "WHOA! I'm killing this dude because he's gay, Jewish, black, trans, or an immigrant. That hate crime law will add another 10 years to my sentence if I do this. I better not." It's completely useless as a deterrent to such things. Where it MIGHT have some effect is, as Blazer suggested, deterring some lesser assaults or vandalism. Doubling the sentence for spray-painting a mosque or church, torching a gay nightclub, assaulting someone for their ethnicity, etc. might have some effect, but even that is questionable.

What hate crime bills are actually for is to pander to a particular group: "We care sooooo much about YOU! We want to protect you. Look at this (totally ineffective and useless) law we're passing just for YOU!" It's like a lawmaker funding some useless project back in his home district. It has virtually NOTHING to do with fixing some real problem there. It's about being able to say, "Look what I did for you" during the next election.

I tend to agree with you on this. I'm not a minority, but I can't help think if I was I would care more about action towards helping my community then whether some label on the killer is appropriate or not. It's like giving someone a key to the city. I can see the merits for lesser charges, but for murder?

 

[NorthDakota]

I tend to agree with you on this. I'm not a minority, but I can't help think if I was I would care more about action towards helping my community then whether some label on the killer is appropriate or not. It's like giving someone a key to the city. I can see the merits for lesser charges, but for murder?

I think a lot of people fall into this thinking.

Some burnout spray-painting the local high school and some local KKK guy spraypainting slurs/symbols on a local black church should be treated differenty.

An indiscriminate murder like the Night Stalker or the Zodiac* vs. Ted Bundy (very discriminate)...should Ted be treated differently?

I wonder if theoretically almost every rape could be a hate crime. After all, the victim was chosen because of an applicable classification.

*absolutely terrifying that Ted Cruz has still not been prosecuted.

 

[ab2cmiller]

I thought I read something in reference to the Atlanta shooting that some hate laws can even be applied to gender. That if the people who were shot were targeted because they are women, it could still be applied. Seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[Blazers46]

I think a lot of people fall into this thinking.

Some burnout spray-painting the local high school and some local KKK guy spraypainting slurs/symbols on a local black church should be treated differenty.

An indiscriminate murder like the Night Stalker or the Zodiac* vs. Ted Bundy (very discriminate)...should Ted be treated differently?

I wonder if theoretically almost every rape could be a hate crime. After all, the victim was chosen because of an applicable classification.

*absolutely terrifying that Ted Cruz has still not been prosecuted.

IF the Atlanta shooting gets deemed a hate crime than I think it would create a slippery slope to set a precedent for this, tbh.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

The entire point of hate crime laws is to pander to the demographic being supposedly protected by them. NOBODY was ever about to murder someone and then stopped and thought, "WHOA! I'm killing this dude because he's gay, Jewish, black, trans, or an immigrant. That hate crime law will add another 10 years to my sentence if I do this. I better not." It's completely useless as a deterrent to such things. Where it MIGHT have some effect is, as Blazer suggested, deterring some lesser assaults or vandalism. Doubling the sentence for spray-painting a mosque or church, torching a gay nightclub, assaulting someone for their ethnicity, etc. might have some effect, but even that is questionable.

What hate crime bills are actually for is to pander to a particular group: "We care sooooo much about YOU! We want to protect you. Look at this (totally ineffective and useless) law we're passing just for YOU!" It's like a lawmaker funding some useless project back in his home district. It has virtually NOTHING to do with fixing some real problem there. It's about being able to say, "Look what I did for you" during the next election.

Except that when hate crime laws were being developed thy had a whole slew of incidents where the person doing the crime could explicitly be understood to have done precisely because of race, or sexuality or religion.

Dylan Roof explicitly said he killed those nine black people in a church because they were black.


It wasn’t pandering. It was because a the time black guy could be dragged out of his house and lynched and local law enforcement would do anything about it. That’s ridiculous and had to be stopped. If the local LeO want going to do anything to protect a specific groups of people then someone had to. Not saying Harsher laws are the correct answer but something had to be done to protect black people from being specifically targeted and terrorized by white people

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Matthew Shepherd was another one. He and many others were specifically targeted and attacked because he was gay. It isn’t pandering to gays. It’s a genuine attempt to reduce these types of crimes. My sister is gay and so can assure you I have seen the hatred shown to her by many people and so can easily see someone acting on that out of some sort of justified thoughts

 

[ab2cmiller]

Excellent article here. Definitely worth the read.

 

[Blazers46]

Matthew Shepherd was another one. He and many others were specifically targeted and attacked because he was gay. It isn’t pandering to gays. It’s a genuine attempt to reduce these types of crimes. My sister is gay and so can assure you I have seen the hatred shown to her by many people and so can easily see someone acting on that out of some sort of justified thoughts

I think it depends on how you look at it. Harsher punishments have proven to not deter crime. This has been a widely known fact in the Criminal Justice world for decades. Punishment deters crimes but adding something like a hate statute to give harsher sentences doesn't. Whoever made the harsher penalites for hate crime either knew this and knew it would would not deter hate drimes or they are just oblivious or ignorant of the criminal justice system.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I think it depends on how you look at it. Harsher punishments have proven to not deter crime. This has been a widely known fact in the Criminal Justice world for decades. Punishment deters crimes but adding something like a hate statute to give harsher sentences doesn't. Whoever made the harsher penalites for hate crime either knew this and knew it would would not deter hate drimes or they are just oblivious or ignorant of the criminal justice system.

Id say it was effective in busting up the KKK and other hate groups in the past or sure. There is real tangible evidence that this was the case. Is it going to stop a random unknown person ?? Doesnt seem so.

 

[Blazers46]

Id say it was effective in busting up the KKK and other hate groups in the past or sure. There is real tangible evidence that this was the case. Is it going to stop a random unknown person ?? Doesnt seem so.

I think that is totally different. In the late 1800s they made a serious of laws that gave black their rights to vote, hold office, and have equal protection under the law and there was something that essentially told people to stop killing black people. I kind of saw that as something like what our RICO laws might look like trying to dismantlle organized crime more than I would see those as hate crime laws.

 

[Irish#1]

Except that when hate crime laws were being developed thy had a whole slew of incidents where the person doing the crime could explicitly be understood to have done precisely because of race, or sexuality or religion.

Dylan Roof explicitly said he killed those nine black people in a church because they were black.


It wasn't pandering. It was because a the time black guy could be dragged out of his house and lynched and local law enforcement would do anything about it. That's ridiculous and had to be stopped. If the local LeO want going to do anything to protect a specific groups of people then someone had to. Not saying Harsher laws are the correct answer but something had to be done to protect black people from being specifically targeted and terrorized by white people

Matthew Shepherd was another one. He and many others were specifically targeted and attacked because he was gay. It isn’t pandering to gays. It’s a genuine attempt to reduce these types of crimes. My sister is gay and so can assure you I have seen the hatred shown to her by many people and so can easily see someone acting on that out of some sort of justified thoughts

Pretty sure that was the intention. Dragging a guy from his house was 20's - 60's violence. Hate crimes are a relatively new thing in relation to what you're talking about. I don't disagree that the treatment and actions that you mentioned had to be stopped. The point is there are laws already in place that address these illegal actions. Up the sentence if need be, but no need for duplicate laws.

 

[Irish#1]

From The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/second-klan/509468/

The United States was fortunate to have presidents during the 1920s who saw the Klan for the public menace that it was, but the Klan did not disintegrate because of the fundamental liberality of white Americans and the nation’s leaders. Rather, it went into decline mostly because of its own self-destructiveness, the fierceness and constancy of its opponents, and changing socioeconomic and political contexts that deprived the Klan of much of the energy that had given it life.

Klan leaders notoriously oversaw local and state chapters as dictators and stole funds from organizational treasuries, and the stream of members who left in frustration became a flood by the end of 1925 after the conviction of David Stephenson, the leading Klansmen in Indiana, for murdering a young woman he had also brutally raped. That scandal was shocking to Klan members who valued the group’s alleged commitment to moral integrity, but it was no surprise to the many Protestant ministers, black civil-rights organizations, newspaper editors, and Jewish and Catholic groups who had been vocal and courageous in their opposition to the Klan from the very beginning.

Perhaps most important in bringing down the Klan was that the vision of an America decaying from foreign ideologies, dangerous immigrants, and moral rot never came into being. The post-World War I recession eased and by the middle of the 1920s the American economy boomed again. Labor disputes that Klansmen warned came from Communist agitation faded, black migration proceeded without causing massive unrest and social revolution, immigration restrictions passed in 1924 limited the number of people arriving from eastern Europe, and the age of the flapper moved ahead whether moralists liked it or not.

 

[ab2cmiller]

I think it depends on how you look at it. Harsher punishments have proven to not deter crime. This has been a widely known fact in the Criminal Justice world for decades. Punishment deters crimes but adding something like a hate statute to give harsher sentences doesn't. Whoever made the harsher penalites for hate crime either knew this and knew it would would not deter hate drimes or they are just oblivious or ignorant of the criminal justice system.

Can't the same be said of of the death penalty? Does someone about to commit an extremely heinous murder think to themselves, wait, I might get the death penalty instead of life in prison.

 

[Blazers46]

Can't the same be said of of the death penalty? Does someone about to commit an extremely heinous murder think to themselves, wait, I might get the death penalty instead of life in prison.

For sure.

 

[drayer54]

Excellent article here. Definitely worth the read.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1374464945794871302[/TWEET]

This guy is sharp. An excellent Twitter account to follow and a well-written piece here.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Sometimes racism is OK I guess

 

[Wild Bill]

This guy is sharp. An excellent Twitter account to follow and a well-written piece here.

Bari Weiss?

 

[ab2cmiller]

Bari Weiss?

That’s the person who tweeted the article. The writers Twitter profile link was at the end of her intro. Zaid Jilani

 

[NorthDakota]

Bari Weiss?

We don't know how he/she/it identifies....

 

[Blazers46]

In your opinion which laws/culture are changing for the worse in your opinion?

Personally, I don't get upset because I know there's white trash out there that makes me look bad and anything that highlights them as garbage is good. I mean, we have people in rural Ontario flying confederate flags that piss their pants when people call them out for it. I can guarantee you some Letterkenny ass is not just a "southern pride" loving good ol'boy.

Nobody is saying be less white, it's likely they're asking you to re-examine your views to see if there is some possible subconscious bias towards a certain race based on old tropes.

Circling back - Biden using racism/Jim Crow and whoever “Jim Eagle” is to argue getting rid of the filibuster.

 

[arahop]

This is completely nonsensical. These laws are unevenly and arbitrarily applied. "You're either with me, or you're my enemy...." It's like Anakin Skywalker is defending this garbage and acting like he has the high ground. People are either equal under the law...or not.

That's what written law says and ideology IMO. I wish it were true.