Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz
They certainly start in his wallet, and they dont end with whom he chooses to associate.
|
No, but they do start where random image building and 'prosecution' (not judicial per see, more in the form of bullying) start. Do you think it okay for kids to bully each other? Do they get punished or detention for it?
|
Why would you bring this up? The "gangster" culture is not an example of someone else intruding on another persons rights. Granted its stupid, but its self inflicted but that is not illegal nor is it an intrusion.
|
Well this is a long story and an indirect side-effect. It's a side effect of historic ethnic oppression and induced poverty. ie policies based on racial opinion that still linger on mentally because they caused so much damage to self-awareness and self-confidence, as well as segregated thinking and social-economic situations (which I hope corrects itself through education over time, but that will take some more generations).
Long story short, it lead to the formation of ghettos and the idea that you can't be anything more because you are not allowed to by the big bad whites. It's stupid certainly and very self-inflicted. But this stereotyping happens due to role models. It's one of those sub-culture things that for instance Bill Cosby has been fighting by providing alternative role models.
It's a long term effect of an image of "what black, ghetto culture is all about and what its populace are" that grew into the US society over time. Getting that mental state out of a whole populace is going to be very hard and it does lead to physical problems, in the sense that it makes it becomes a self fullfilling prophecy. When "gangsta kids" act and dress like that, it makes it harder to get a job, re-enforcing any inferiority complex they may have. "Blame" lies both with themselves for not correcting it and those who initiated the segregation thinking. That said, I don't 'believe' in supporting the concept of "white man's guilt" (that we as descendants are responsible to correct everything). This is society's problem than any particular ethnicity's.
|
Prison is prison. Its not polite society nor is it a refection of it. Why is it even relevant to the topic at hand?
|
Because those people get out of prison and continue expanding their gangs there? You have not heard of huge gangs being setup and connecting/incorporating gangs all over the United States? These gangs include racially motivated hate doctrines among other things to create a bond, gain more power and up the rivalry with other gangs. That can definitely lead to massive outbreaks of violence in regular society eventually, whether or not aimed at each other or innocent bystanders.
|
Mass violations? Citation please.
|
Any situation where words lead to group thinking and mental states of mind that were so strongly filled with hatred people start acting irrationally on it. KKK, nazis, communist repression (both by and against communists), inquisitions, you name it. I don't feel giving a lot of maneuvring space to such "opinions" is beneficial to society. All it takes is the "right conditions", among which a charismatic leader with the wrong ideas, a state of despair for populace (need for some sort of promise of salvation), poor education and a scape goat to turn words of hate into acts of violence.
|
Wow, how did you manage to cram that much fictitious crap in that small of a paragraph? [...]
|
I noted you were among the LAST nations for equal rights and still are among the last in terms of other civil rights, depends on what state we are talking about, of course.
|
Citation please, because I think you are pulling this one out of your rear.
|
See the link provided by TheShift. In particular, president Johnson wanted to make sure that these states didn't try to obstruct voting by coloured people through underhand means.
I'll refer to this bit in particular:
"Application of this formula resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, "covered jurisdictions": Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina were covered. It also provided a procedure to terminate this coverage."
There is currently a lawsuit going verifying whether this is "discrimination of these states in national law" at the court of Columbia if I'm not mistaken.
Practices that were objectional were things like asking arbitrary questions one cannot answer to black voters, to "verify" if they were smart enough to vote. Such questions include (actual example!) being able to tell how many how many bubbles come from a bar of soap... One of the reasons that it is being verified now, is that legislation changed again in one of those states. The new demand is a birth certificate and being able to read, which excludes a lot of the older, coloured populace since either a doctor or a nurse present at the birth had to establish that they were born. Which of course did not happen for a certain populace bit. Similarly, analfabetism under a certain populace group is also higher due to segregation laws before 1960.
In other words, it's to verify whether Republicans in these states try to prevent likely Democrat votees from voting and thus try to rig the elections in their favour.
I suppose you don't remember election fraud (attempts) regarding the election of Bush Jr.?
|
No I think we will get started. Lets start with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals, Richard Warman, and his sock-puppet sting operations.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warman
This guy? What about him? Personally never heard of him, checked the critique on him and I'd agree that there's a level of ambiguity if he indeed acts as complainant and investigator. However, I do not share the critique that free speech is at stake when the freedom of harmful individuals is 'endangered'. And yes, I consider "hate speech" as fearmongering and an attempt at creating support for "angry mobs". Whether or not they actually carry pitch forks, if they act upon it through discrimination it infringes on the rights of others already. Spreading such ideas I find to be more undermining of society than restricting what I'll define as the "free speech of individuals with an agenda to corrupt society".
That said, other critique I don't share as much. It's not like entrapment isn't a method that was widely applied in the US to expose prostitutes and their clientelle. Tbh, that I find a violation of freedoms in itself, determining whether or not you can use your own body for that. For exposing forced prostitution and all crime related to that, or infiltration to get to organised crime and terrorists, sure. I do consider the oppressive and murderous scapegoatism stimulated by nazism a crime though. Now if it was just national pride and social thinking, fine, that's a philosophical freedom. Enforcing fascist dictatorship and genocide on others? Not so much. Preventing that sort of thing is better than curing it. Because you can't cure millions of people dieing or being oppressed once it has happened.
2012-03-28, 07:46 PM
Linear Mode
