Zone1 Explain This

[JoeB131]

Poverty and Crime

the residents of San Francisco’s Chinatown were among America’s poorest people—with the most unemployment, the worst housing conditions, the least education, and the highest rate of tuberculosis in their city. Yet despite such hardships, only five people of Chinese ancestry went to jail in the entire state of California in 1965.[1]

Similarly, Jewish immigrants to America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries also repudiated criminality despite having to face extreme economic deprivation. Historian Max Dimont describes them:

You had Jewish Gangsters and Chinese Tongs. When you have poverty and government that doesn't look out of your people, you'll have crime.
Have you never seen the Godfather movies?

It is ridiculous, but in an effort to explain how Jews can succeed during a current genocide of their people, and blacks still have problems like high crime and poverty rates when their horrific racism is generations removed, leftists downplay the horror of the Holocaust. We even had a moderator suggest that blacks in poor areas today may have had it as bad as a concentration camp victim.

Can we all please stop whining about the Holocaust? It didn't happen in this country. you don't hear Cambodians or Aremenians keep whining about stuff that happened decades ago.

My Fiancé from China lived through the Cultural Revolution and the Famines of the 1960's. Never heard her bitch about it once.

 

[Lisa558]

There never was an affirmative policy to help Jews. Quotas were used to reduce the Jewish percentage in the Harvard student body. Jews were often not hired for executive positions in American corporations.

Yup….we had the OPPOSITE of affirmative action. There was deliberate action to hold us back.

BTW, do you know that’s the reason for all the Jews in Hollywood? Back in the 20s, when antisemites back East wouldn’t hire Jews - no matter how smart, creative, and hard-working they were - what did they do? Did they cry about bigotry? File complaints? Throw up their hands and say “no fair”?

Nope. They headed west to start a new industry. The rest is history.

 

[Hector12]

You had Jewish Gangsters and Chinese Tongs. When you have poverty and government that doesn't look out of your people, you'll have crime.
Have you never seen the Godfather movies?

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics. January 2021

Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., BJS Statistician I n 2018, based on data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, black people were overrepresented among persons arrested for nonfatal violent crimes (33%) and for serious nonfatal violent crimes (36%) relative to their representation in the U.S. population (13%) (table 1). 1

White people were underrepresented. White people accounted for 60% of U.S. residents but 46% of all persons arrested for rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and other assault, and 39% of all arrestees for nonfatal violent crimes excluding other assault.

Hispanics, regardless of their race, were overrepresented among arrestees for nonfatal violent crimes excluding other assault (21%) relative to their representation in the U.S. population (18%).

Among other racial groups, Asians (6% of the U.S. population) were consistently underrepresented among violent ofenders, except for their involvement in rape or sexual assault (5%). Between 1% and 2% of ofenders involved in robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault were Asian.3

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf

The word "Asian" includes Arabs, so I avoid using it. Muslim immigrants in Western countries are notorious for sex crimes against non Muslim females. I am confident that Orientals have even lower crime rates than Asians.

----------

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs

THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE, LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS, AND LOWER THAN A RATE BASED SIMPLY ON THE JEWISH PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION (THE EXPECTED RATE).

CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS - AN OVERVIEW | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

----------

During the 1960s, for instance, the residents of San Francisco’s Chinatown were among America’s poorest people—with the most unemployment, the worst housing conditions, the least education, and the highest rate of tuberculosis in their city. Yet despite such hardships, only five people of Chinese ancestry went to jail in the entire state of California in 1965.[1]

Similarly, Jewish immigrants to America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries also repudiated criminality despite having to face extreme economic deprivation. Historian Max Dimont describes them:

“The majority of these immigrants had arrived penniless, all their worldly belongings wrapped in a bundle…. Most of [them] arrived in New York. Some made their way into other cities,… but the majority remained in New York, settling in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, [which was] a neighborhood of the poor. Sociologists, with their impressive charts showing the number of toilets (or lack of the), the number of people per room, the low per capita income, paint a dismal picture of the Lower East Side Jewish slum. But their charts do not capture its uniqueness. Though it bred tuberculosis and rheumatism, it did not breed crime and venereal disease. It did not spawn illiteracy, illegitimate children, or deserted wives. Library cards were in constant use.”[2]

1. James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein, Crime and Human Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), p. 473.
2. Max I. Dimont, Jews, God, and History (New York: Penguin USA, 1994), pp. 373-374. (This book was originally published in 1962.)

Discover the Networks

An Online Database of the Left and its Agendas, a Guide to the Political Left

www.discoverthenetworks.org

 

[Hector12]

Can we all please stop whining about the Holocaust? It didn't happen in this country. you don't hear Cambodians or Aremenians keep whining about stuff that happened decades ago.

My Fiancé from China lived through the Cultural Revolution and the Famines of the 1960's. Never heard her bitch about it once.

Lisa only mentions the Holocaust when posters blame high rates of crime and illegitimacy on slavery and Jim Crow legislation. It is worth mentioning in this context that black rates of crime and illegitimacy rose after the end of Jim Crow legislation.

 

[JoeB131]

Yup….we had the OPPOSITE of affirmative action. There was deliberate action to hold us back.

BTW, do you know that’s the reason for all the Jews in Hollywood? Back in the 20s, when antisemites back East wouldn’t hire Jews - no matter how smart, creative, and hard-working they were - what did they do? Did they cry about bigotry? File complaints? Throw up their hands and say “no fair”?

Nope. They headed west to start a new industry. The rest is history.

I thought you Rightwingers hated Hollywood?

Lisa only mentions the Holocaust when posters blame high rates of crime and illegitimacy on slavery and Jim Crow legislation. It is worth mentioning in this context that black rates of crime and illegitimacy rose after the end of Jim Crow legislation.

Lisa talks about the Holocaust all the time, especially when justifying the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Zionist Entity.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics. January 2021

Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., BJS Statistician I n 2018, based on data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, black people were overrepresented among persons arrested for nonfatal violent crimes (33%) and for serious nonfatal violent crimes (36%) relative to their representation in the U.S. population (13%) (table 1). 1

White people were underrepresented. White people accounted for 60% of U.S. residents but 46% of all persons arrested for rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and other assault, and 39% of all arrestees for nonfatal violent crimes excluding other assault.

Again, it's easy to be moral when you have a warm place to sleep and a full belly.

We tolerate a racist system of poverty and then wonder why we have crime and the occasional race riot.

 

[Hector12]

Again, it's easy to be moral when you have a warm place to sleep and a full belly.

We tolerate a racist system of poverty and then wonder why we have crime and the occasional race riot.

Again, poor Jews and Orientals are safe to live with. They have low crime rates. They also tend to be intelligent and hard working. They rarely remain poor for long. If they do not rise their children and grand children do.

----------

The late political scientist James Q. Wilson debunked the theory that crime results from poverty, or that redistributive government programs can reduce crime rates by alleviating poverty, by pointing out that “crime rose the fastest in this country at a time when the number of persons living in poverty or squalor was declining.” He added: “I have yet to see a ‘root cause’ or to encounter a government program that has successfully attacked it.”

In modern America, the correlation between high crime rates and poverty has a great deal to do with the proliferation of single-parent, father-absent households. According to the U.S Census, in 2008 the poverty rate for single parents with children was 35.6%; the rate for married couples with children was 6.4%. For white families in particular, the corresponding two-parent and single-parent poverty rates were 21.7% and 3.1%, respectively. For Hispanics, the figures were 37.5% and 12.8%, and for blacks, 35.3% and 6.9%. According to Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, “the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent” and thus constitutes the single most reliable predictor of a self-perpetuating underclass.

Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with profound economic disadvantages, but are also far likelier to eventually get into trouble with the law. As a Heritage Foundation analysis notes, youngsters raised by single parents, as compared to those who grow up in intact married homes, are much more likely to be physically abused; to be treated for emotional and behavioral disorders; to smoke, drink, and use drugs; to behave aggressively and violently; to engage in criminal activity; and to be arrested for a juvenile crime. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes.

Discover the Networks

An Online Database of the Left and its Agendas, a Guide to the Political Left

www.discoverthenetworks.org

----------

Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women​

ROGER CLEGG FEBRUARY 26, 2020

Late last year, the final data for 2018 were published here (the key is Table 9 on page 25), and here’s what we learn: For all racial and ethnic groups combined, 39.6 percent of births in the United States were out-of-wedlock (incidentally, isn’t that appalling?). And there was as always a tremendous range among groups. For blacks, the number is 69.4 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, 68.2 percent (Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders were at 50.4 percent); for Hispanics, 51.8 percent; for whites, 28.2 percent; and for Asian Americans, a paltry 11.7 percent.

Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women | Center for Equal Opportunity

www.ceousa.org

 

[LibertyKid]

And whites don't tolerate racism? White's aren't victims of racism. Do we wonder Scott Adams said what he said?

Subway passenger who hurled abuse at family filmed in other incidents

The unnamed assailant's pattern of abuse was unmasked by social media sleuths outraged over his antics, taking to Twitter to create a catalog of four distressing clips showing his questionable behavior.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[JoeB131]

Again, poor Jews and Orientals are safe to live with. They have low crime rates. They also tend to be intelligent and hard working. They rarely remain poor for long. If they do not rise their children and grand children do.

Yes, they are much better than racist white trash like you, what's your point?

And whites don't tolerate racism? White's aren't victims of racism. Do we wonder Scott Adams said what he said?

Well, I wonder why he was so desperate for attention he blew up his own career. True, Dilbert hasn't been funny since the 1990's, and most of the papers that had cancelled before his meltdown people barely noticed it was gone.

Not sure about that tape, other than, yes, you meet crazy people on public transportation... which is why I tend to avoid it.

 

[toobfreak]

Explain why blacks do everything you guys say we need to do but still face white racism.

Your false assumption is designed (intentionally or otherwise) to lead to a preconceived false conclusion. You can't arrive at a valid conclusion beginning with invalid assumptions. What are some of your false assumptions?

1. That Blacks do everything "us guys" say you need to do.
2. That Blacks face white racism (implying falsely that racism itself is a sole-subset of just being white) any different than the racism that Indians, Asians or even whites face every day. The Irish faced racism from the British, for instance, even after leaving Ireland and moving here to the USA to get away from it.

Then answer us why Whites still face Black racism when we do everything you guys say WE need to do?

THEN maybe we can have some common context on which to have an INTELLIGENT discussion.

 

[Hector12]

Yes, they are much better than racist white trash like you, what's your point?

I have not insulted you. Why are you insulting me? Insults and name calling are the lowest form of discourse. Is that all you are capable of?

 

[LibertyKid]

Well, I wonder why he was so desperate for attention he blew up his own career. True, Dilbert hasn't been funny since the 1990's, and most of the papers that had cancelled before his meltdown people barely noticed it was gone.

Not sure about that tape, other than, yes, you meet crazy people on public transportation... which is why I tend to avoid it.

So I'll ask, why can we so easily dismiss terrible racism from a black man, yet, when the roles are reversed, it's systemic, white priviledge, weapons of whiteness? Perhaps, if the same mentality were taken when white racist assholes do the same, and the left stop trying to paint EVERYONE as racist because of a few assholes, maybe we could step in the right direction.

And as for Scott Adams, there is that liberal white woman telling blacks to stay away from whites. And blacks have started a whole new era of neo-segregation. What MLK was fighting for, many blacks and liberal whites are reverting back to it.

 

[JoeB131]

I have not insulted you. Why are you insulting me? Insults and name calling are the lowest form of discourse. Is that all you are capable of?

Your racism offends me... because you are a chicken$#1+ little coward who wouldn't dare go into a crowd of black people and talk smack about Bell Curves. But you can hide behind a screen name here and do it.

So I'll ask, why can we so easily dismiss terrible racism from a black man, yet, when the roles are reversed, it's systemic, white priviledge, weapons of whiteness? Perhaps, if the same mentality were taken when white racist assholes do the same, and the left stop trying to paint EVERYONE as racist because of a few assholes, maybe we could step in the right direction.

Again, which black man are you talking about? There's a school of thought that black people can't be racist because racism requires institutional power to back it up.

And as for Scott Adams, there is that liberal white woman telling blacks to stay away from whites. And blacks have started a whole new era of neo-segregation. What MLK was fighting for, many blacks and liberal whites are reverting back to it.

I'm sorry, which white liberal woman is that, exactly? Because it kind of sounds like you are making stuff up.

I don't agree with self-segregation, but I can kind of understand it. If you know that these racists

Obviously, this is a big difference because these unnamed people you talk about don't have a public forum to express their views. Scott Adams was printed in every newspaper in the country for a while, until he was cancelled. And he slipped in these little jabs, like the "Black man who identifies as white".

He probably miscalculated what he could get away with, and a cancelling we will go.

 

[Hector12]

Your racism offends me... because you are a chicken$#1+ little coward who wouldn't dare go into a crowd of black people and talk smack about Bell Curves. But you can hide behind a screen name here and do it.

You imply that blacks would convince me that they are not dangerous and criminal by beating me up.

You insult me because you are privately aware that what I say is true, and insults are all you have.

 

[Hector12]

We tolerate a racist system of poverty and then wonder why we have crime and the occasional race riot.

Why did the race riots only begin after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into law, and the War on Poverty was declared the same year?

Why were there no race riots of any consequence in the South from 1964 to 1968?

Why did the race riots end with the presidency of Richard Nixon?

The answers to those questions suggests to me that black loot and burn stores when they think they can get away with it, and that they refrain when they know they will be punished.

I am not saying this is true of all blacks. It seems to be true of black criminals.

 

[Hector12]

I usually refrain from long copy and paste jobs. Nevertheless, the following essay should be required reading by those who discuss controversial topics on the internet.

-----------

How to Disagree, by Paul Graham

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

<quotation>

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.

How to Disagree

 

[Hector12]

Well uhh yea….because blacks have the highest rates of fatherless families.


theHawk: Probably, because blacks are the most dangerous race, statistically speaking.

JoeB131, I am too polite for you. I suspect theHawk would respond to you in kind.

I am not good at insults. I prefer calm polite discussions in an environment where facts that can be documented, insights that can be drawn from those facts, and logical reasoning are respected.

 

[JoeB131]

You imply that blacks would convince me that they are not dangerous and criminal by beating me up.

Naw, I suspect that you are too much of a coward to say this kind of shit to their faces. So like a little coward, you hide behind a fake screen name and say the most obnoxious stuff you read on Stormfront. Just like you won't go to work and start repeating this shit, because you'd know this would happen when HR would find out about it.

You insult me because you are privately aware that what I say is true, and insults are all you have.

No, I insult you because you are racist garbage.

Why did the race riots only begin after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into law, and the War on Poverty was declared the same year?

They didn't. There were race riots all throughout American history. For instance there were race riots in 1919, after African Americans fought for this country, and then came back and found out that their lives hadn't changed for the experience. You go from grateful French Girls willing to fuck you for saving their country, to white people making you use a separate bathroom, and you'd be amazed how pissed off you get.

Mass racial violence in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why were there no race riots of any consequence in the South from 1964 to 1968?

Why did the race riots end with the presidency of Richard Nixon?

Um, there were the Watts Riots of 1965. That was kind of a big deal. But here's a complete list of riots between 65 and 68. The Watts Riots left more people dead than the entire BLM Riots did.

• Watts riot of 1965; Los Angeles, California – August: This predominately African-American neighborhood exploded with violence from August 11 to August 17 after the arrest of 21-year old Marquette Frye, a Black motorist who was arrested by a white highway patrolman. During his arrest a crowd had gathered and a fight broke out between the crowd and the police, escalating to the point in which rocks and concrete were thrown at police. 30,000 people were recorded participating in the riots and fights with police, which left thirty four people dead, 1,000 injured and 4,000 arrested.
• 1966: Omaha riot of 1966, July 2, Omaha, Nebraska
• 1966: 1966 Chicago West-Side riots, July 12–15, Chicago, Illinois
• 1966: 1966 New York City riots, July 14–20, New York City, New York, A riot broke out following a dispute between white and black youths. One person was killed and 53 injured. There were three arson incidents and 82 arrests.[29]
• 1966: Perth Amboy riots, August 2–5, Perth Amboy, New Jersey, a riot broke out following the arrest of a Hispanic man for loitering. Hispanic residents also disliked being treated negatively by the police and being ignored by the community. 26 injuries were reported (15 from law enforcement officers and 11 from civilians) and 43 arrests were made. Interference with firefighters occurred.[29][87]
• 1966: Waukegan riot, August 27, Waukegan, Illinois
• 1966: Benton Harbor riots, August 30 – September 4, Benton Harbor, Michigan
• 1966: Summerhill and Vine City Riots, September 6–8 Atlanta, Georgia
• 1966: 1966 Clearwater riot, October 31, Clearwater, Florida[88]
• Hough riots; Cleveland, Ohio – July 1966
• Division Street riots; Chicago, Illinois – June 1966
• 1966: July 31, Chicago, Illinois, white residents attacked 550 civil rights protesters who marched into their neighborhood.[89]
• Marquette Park riot; Chicago, Illinois – August 1966
• 1966 Dayton race riot; Dayton, Ohio – September
• Hunters Point riot 1966; San Francisco – September
• 1967 Newark riots; Newark, New Jersey – July
• 1967 Plainfield riots; Plainfield, New Jersey – July
• 12th Street riot; Detroit, Michigan – July
• 1967 New York City riot; Harlem, New York City – July
• Cambridge riot of 1967; Cambridge, Maryland – July
• 1967 Rochester riot; Rochester, New York – July
• 1967 Pontiac riot; Pontiac, Michigan – July
• 1967 Toledo Riot; Toledo, Ohio – July
• 1967 Flint riot; Flint, Michigan – July
• 1967 Grand Rapids riot; Grand Rapids, Michigan – July
• 1967 Houston riot; Houston, Texas – July
• 1967 Englewood riot; Englewood, New Jersey – July
• 1967 Tucson riot; Tucson, Arizona – July
• 1967 Milwaukee riot; Milwaukee, Wisconsin – July
• 1967 Minneapolis North Side riots; Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota – August
• 1967 Albina Riot Portland, Oregon – August 30[90]

The reason why 1968 is remembered for riots is that is when MLK was assassinated, and you had big riots.

Why did the race riots end with the presidency of Richard Nixon?

They didn't. We continued to have riots well into the 70s.. In Chicago, we had them in Marquette Park and Humboldt Park.

Now, usually a riot has an instigating incident, such as the acquittal of the cops who beat up Rodney King or the murder of Geo. Floyd. We should probably try to prevent those. But usually riots are the cummulation of other aggravating factors. For instance, when the King Riots happened, we were in the middle of a particularly nasty recession. And of course, the Floyd riots happened after we had all been on edge being locked in our houses for two months during Trump Plague(TM).

I usually refrain from long copy and paste jobs. Nevertheless, the following essay should be required reading by those who discuss controversial topics on the internet.

Naw, here's how you disagree with Racists.



Then you out them and ruin their lives.

I am not good at insults. I prefer calm polite discussions in an environment where facts that can be documented, insights that can be drawn from those facts, and logical reasoning are respected.

Dude, you're a racist. Don't pretend you are a decent person.

 

[Lisa558]

Naw, I suspect that you are too much of a coward to say this kind of shit to their faces. So like a little coward, you hide behind a fake screen name and say the most obnoxious stuff you read on Stormfront. Just like you won't go to work and start repeating this shit, because you'd know this would happen when HR would find out about it.




No, I insult you because you are racist garbage.



They didn't. There were race riots all throughout American history. For instance there were race riots in 1919, after African Americans fought for this country, and then came back and found out that their lives hadn't changed for the experience. You go from grateful French Girls willing to fuck you for saving their country, to white people making you use a separate bathroom, and you'd be amazed how pissed off you get.

Mass racial violence in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Um, there were the Watts Riots of 1965. That was kind of a big deal. But here's a complete list of riots between 65 and 68. The Watts Riots left more people dead than the entire BLM Riots did.

• Watts riot of 1965; Los Angeles, California – August: This predominately African-American neighborhood exploded with violence from August 11 to August 17 after the arrest of 21-year old Marquette Frye, a Black motorist who was arrested by a white highway patrolman. During his arrest a crowd had gathered and a fight broke out between the crowd and the police, escalating to the point in which rocks and concrete were thrown at police. 30,000 people were recorded participating in the riots and fights with police, which left thirty four people dead, 1,000 injured and 4,000 arrested.
• 1966: Omaha riot of 1966, July 2, Omaha, Nebraska
• 1966: 1966 Chicago West-Side riots, July 12–15, Chicago, Illinois
• 1966: 1966 New York City riots, July 14–20, New York City, New York, A riot broke out following a dispute between white and black youths. One person was killed and 53 injured. There were three arson incidents and 82 arrests.[29]
• 1966: Perth Amboy riots, August 2–5, Perth Amboy, New Jersey, a riot broke out following the arrest of a Hispanic man for loitering. Hispanic residents also disliked being treated negatively by the police and being ignored by the community. 26 injuries were reported (15 from law enforcement officers and 11 from civilians) and 43 arrests were made. Interference with firefighters occurred.[29][87]
• 1966: Waukegan riot, August 27, Waukegan, Illinois
• 1966: Benton Harbor riots, August 30 – September 4, Benton Harbor, Michigan
• 1966: Summerhill and Vine City Riots, September 6–8 Atlanta, Georgia
• 1966: 1966 Clearwater riot, October 31, Clearwater, Florida[88]
• Hough riots; Cleveland, Ohio – July 1966
• Division Street riots; Chicago, Illinois – June 1966
• 1966: July 31, Chicago, Illinois, white residents attacked 550 civil rights protesters who marched into their neighborhood.[89]
• Marquette Park riot; Chicago, Illinois – August 1966
• 1966 Dayton race riot; Dayton, Ohio – September
• Hunters Point riot 1966; San Francisco – September
• 1967 Newark riots; Newark, New Jersey – July
• 1967 Plainfield riots; Plainfield, New Jersey – July
• 12th Street riot; Detroit, Michigan – July
• 1967 New York City riot; Harlem, New York City – July
• Cambridge riot of 1967; Cambridge, Maryland – July
• 1967 Rochester riot; Rochester, New York – July
• 1967 Pontiac riot; Pontiac, Michigan – July
• 1967 Toledo Riot; Toledo, Ohio – July
• 1967 Flint riot; Flint, Michigan – July
• 1967 Grand Rapids riot; Grand Rapids, Michigan – July
• 1967 Houston riot; Houston, Texas – July
• 1967 Englewood riot; Englewood, New Jersey – July
• 1967 Tucson riot; Tucson, Arizona – July
• 1967 Milwaukee riot; Milwaukee, Wisconsin – July
• 1967 Minneapolis North Side riots; Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota – August
• 1967 Albina Riot Portland, Oregon – August 30[90]

The reason why 1968 is remembered for riots is that is when MLK was assassinated, and you had big riots.


They didn't. We continued to have riots well into the 70s.. In Chicago, we had them in Marquette Park and Humboldt Park.

Now, usually a riot has an instigating incident, such as the acquittal of the cops who beat up Rodney King or the murder of Geo. Floyd. We should probably try to prevent those. But usually riots are the cummulation of other aggravating factors. For instance, when the King Riots happened, we were in the middle of a particularly nasty recession. And of course, the Floyd riots happened after we had all been on edge being locked in our houses for two months during Trump Plague(TM).



Naw, here's how you disagree with Racists.



Then you out them and ruin their lives.


Dude, you're a racist. Don't pretend you are a decent person.

And you’re an antisemite. Don’t pretend YOU are a decent person.

 

[Hector12]

Naw, I suspect that you are too much of a coward to say this kind of shit to their faces. So like a little coward, you hide behind a fake screen name and say the most obnoxious stuff you read on Stormfront. Just like you won't go to work and start repeating this shit, because you'd know this would happen when HR would find out about it.




No, I insult you because you are racist garbage.



They didn't. There were race riots all throughout American history. For instance there were race riots in 1919, after African Americans fought for this country, and then came back and found out that their lives hadn't changed for the experience. You go from grateful French Girls willing to fuck you for saving their country, to white people making you use a separate bathroom, and you'd be amazed how pissed off you get.

Mass racial violence in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Um, there were the Watts Riots of 1965. That was kind of a big deal. But here's a complete list of riots between 65 and 68. The Watts Riots left more people dead than the entire BLM Riots did.

• Watts riot of 1965; Los Angeles, California – August: This predominately African-American neighborhood exploded with violence from August 11 to August 17 after the arrest of 21-year old Marquette Frye, a Black motorist who was arrested by a white highway patrolman. During his arrest a crowd had gathered and a fight broke out between the crowd and the police, escalating to the point in which rocks and concrete were thrown at police. 30,000 people were recorded participating in the riots and fights with police, which left thirty four people dead, 1,000 injured and 4,000 arrested.
• 1966: Omaha riot of 1966, July 2, Omaha, Nebraska
• 1966: 1966 Chicago West-Side riots, July 12–15, Chicago, Illinois
• 1966: 1966 New York City riots, July 14–20, New York City, New York, A riot broke out following a dispute between white and black youths. One person was killed and 53 injured. There were three arson incidents and 82 arrests.[29]
• 1966: Perth Amboy riots, August 2–5, Perth Amboy, New Jersey, a riot broke out following the arrest of a Hispanic man for loitering. Hispanic residents also disliked being treated negatively by the police and being ignored by the community. 26 injuries were reported (15 from law enforcement officers and 11 from civilians) and 43 arrests were made. Interference with firefighters occurred.[29][87]
• 1966: Waukegan riot, August 27, Waukegan, Illinois
• 1966: Benton Harbor riots, August 30 – September 4, Benton Harbor, Michigan
• 1966: Summerhill and Vine City Riots, September 6–8 Atlanta, Georgia
• 1966: 1966 Clearwater riot, October 31, Clearwater, Florida[88]
• Hough riots; Cleveland, Ohio – July 1966
• Division Street riots; Chicago, Illinois – June 1966
• 1966: July 31, Chicago, Illinois, white residents attacked 550 civil rights protesters who marched into their neighborhood.[89]
• Marquette Park riot; Chicago, Illinois – August 1966
• 1966 Dayton race riot; Dayton, Ohio – September
• Hunters Point riot 1966; San Francisco – September
• 1967 Newark riots; Newark, New Jersey – July
• 1967 Plainfield riots; Plainfield, New Jersey – July
• 12th Street riot; Detroit, Michigan – July
• 1967 New York City riot; Harlem, New York City – July
• Cambridge riot of 1967; Cambridge, Maryland – July
• 1967 Rochester riot; Rochester, New York – July
• 1967 Pontiac riot; Pontiac, Michigan – July
• 1967 Toledo Riot; Toledo, Ohio – July
• 1967 Flint riot; Flint, Michigan – July
• 1967 Grand Rapids riot; Grand Rapids, Michigan – July
• 1967 Houston riot; Houston, Texas – July
• 1967 Englewood riot; Englewood, New Jersey – July
• 1967 Tucson riot; Tucson, Arizona – July
• 1967 Milwaukee riot; Milwaukee, Wisconsin – July
• 1967 Minneapolis North Side riots; Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota – August
• 1967 Albina Riot Portland, Oregon – August 30[90]

The reason why 1968 is remembered for riots is that is when MLK was assassinated, and you had big riots.


They didn't. We continued to have riots well into the 70s.. In Chicago, we had them in Marquette Park and Humboldt Park.

Now, usually a riot has an instigating incident, such as the acquittal of the cops who beat up Rodney King or the murder of Geo. Floyd. We should probably try to prevent those. But usually riots are the cummulation of other aggravating factors. For instance, when the King Riots happened, we were in the middle of a particularly nasty recession. And of course, the Floyd riots happened after we had all been on edge being locked in our houses for two months during Trump Plague(TM).



Naw, here's how you disagree with Racists.



Then you out them and ruin their lives.


Dude, you're a racist. Don't pretend you are a decent person.

You know that what I say is true.

 

[JoeB131]

And you’re an antisemite. Don’t pretend YOU are a decent person.

Religion is a choice. Race is not.

I know a lot of Jewish folks who are pretty decent, because they don't think that an imaginary sky fairy gives them the right to act like jerks.

And then there's you...

You know that what I say is true.

No, buddy, just because some girl left you once because a black man could satisfy her when you couldn't isn't an excuse for your racism.