Trump-Loving California Couple Charged With Hate Crime For Brazen Vandalism Of Black Lives Matter Mural

Markle, the demand "LINK" or "PROVE IT" regarding realities of current events is a very
commonly used ploy amongst practiced propagandists. Try not to let it frustrate you
 

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?

How can one person be charged with defacing another defacement?

The people who painted the BLM mural had no right or permission to do so. They themselves should have been charged with defacing public property long before “Karen and Chad” came along.
The news article indicates they had permission

Even if true, they shouldn’t have been given permission. Not unless the city was willing to also allow another group to paint “White Lives Matter” or even “All Lives Matter”.

I think you and I both know that they would have never given the green light for that. Why? Because then the city would be seen as racist or unwoke or - to employ another idiotic fad term - tone deaf.
Why is equality such a problem for you ?

Where do you get the impression that equality is a problem for me?
 
The mural was their with the city's permission.

That doesn't make it right or wise.

I want to know if all these city leaders actually have the authority to paint political slogans on our public highways. If so, we're going to be spending millions painting and repainting our highways like billboards.

They (gov. officials) are intentionally stoking the fires of the increasing division and further violence.

George Soros must be dancing. Democrats are following his orders.
 
Last edited:

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?
Thanks Tommy, I was just getting ready to post this story myself when I saw yours.

Well this good news - first & foremost, no one was injured or killed due to the racist acts of this couple, but equally important is that they were at least charged. This is further than a lot of cases involving injury and death get, when the victim(s) is of African descent or person of color.

We'll see if they're actually convicted though and/or serve any time.

Oh and it was almost comical to hear one of the resident racist describing these two as "the brave white couple who engaged in an act of civil disobedience" while another of them was wishing out loud that he had the money to bail them out of jail.

They deliberately defaced a mural that had city approval to be painted where it was and the racists are acting as if they are candidates for sainthood, yet Ahmaud Arbery was alleged to have trespassed on a site where a home was being remodeled and where other people, including children had often stopped by to take a look around and three white racists chased him down, shot and killed him under the pretense that they were trying to place him under citizen's arrest - for the misdemeanor crime of trespass, which it still has not been established that he had.

This is what it's like to live one's life as a black person at any point in time in the U.S. of A.
The city should be charged with treason for promoting anarchy. Nobody should be allowed to paint anything political on ANY public property. Furthermore, hate crimes are bogus. There should be no such thing as a hate crime.
Nothing political on public property? Like statues of politicians?

Long dead politicians.
 
The news article indicates they had permission

BUT, does the city council or whatever have the AUTHORITY to allow political messages to be painted on the public highway? If they do, then don't they have to provide equal space to the Republicans for their message? If not, why not?
 
The mural was their with the city's permission.

That doesn't make it right or wise.

They (gov. officials) are intentionally stoking the fires of the increasing division and further violence.

George Soros must be dancing. Democrats are following his orders.

There is an aphorism in law which seems to be, in the current course of events of massive vandalism and looting, assault, and harassment, entirely trashed. It is an "entitlement to all"---to wit Equal Protection Under the Law . Equal protection under the law is absolutely necessary in a society that clams EQUALITY and it should be recognized by all people who claim to seek EQUALITY. In my town there is an actual moratorium on arrest and criminal charge for actual
crimes. In cases of vandalism, even the cops seem forced to trivialize real vandalism, assault and harassment with ---"take it to civil court" Somehow the painting over of a clearly RACIST statement ---
"Black lives matter" on a public byway gets to be ELEVATED TO "AN ACT OF RACISM" or even a "HATE ""CRIME"" " The act has stimulated demands for "criminal prosecution" ----criminal prosecution??
Repair of this "crime" ---consists, merely, of another paint job. -----yet the really depraved actually mention "JAIL TIME" whilst dead bodies on hospital gurneys have been ignored for DECADES. Destroyed and looted shops------also trivialized.. Disrupted lives----A JOKE
 

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?
Thanks Tommy, I was just getting ready to post this story myself when I saw yours.

Well this good news - first & foremost, no one was injured or killed due to the racist acts of this couple, but equally important is that they were at least charged. This is further than a lot of cases involving injury and death get, when the victim(s) is of African descent or person of color.

We'll see if they're actually convicted though and/or serve any time.

Oh and it was almost comical to hear one of the resident racist describing these two as "the brave white couple who engaged in an act of civil disobedience" while another of them was wishing out loud that he had the money to bail them out of jail.

They deliberately defaced a mural that had city approval to be painted where it was and the racists are acting as if they are candidates for sainthood, yet Ahmaud Arbery was alleged to have trespassed on a site where a home was being remodeled and where other people, including children had often stopped by to take a look around and three white racists chased him down, shot and killed him under the pretense that they were trying to place him under citizen's arrest - for the misdemeanor crime of trespass, which it still has not been established that he had.

This is what it's like to live one's life as a black person at any point in time in the U.S. of A.
The city should be charged with treason for promoting anarchy. Nobody should be allowed to paint anything political on ANY public property. Furthermore, hate crimes are bogus. There should be no such thing as a hate crime.
Nothing political on public property? Like statues of politicians?

Long dead politicians.

Persons of historical importance for our society of whom nobody claimed DIVINE PERFECTION and
works of art, publically commissioned. -----not racist
slogans. In the face of rising murder rates in my city---the slogan "black lives matter" ----over the dead bodies of persons of all races------IS RACIST
 

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?

How can one person be charged with defacing another defacement?

The people who painted the BLM mural had no right or permission to do so. They themselves should have been charged with defacing public property long before “Karen and Chad” came along.
The news article indicates they had permission

Even if true, they shouldn’t have been given permission. Not unless the city was willing to also allow another group to paint “White Lives Matter” or even “All Lives Matter”.

I think you and I both know that they would have never given the green light for that. Why? Because then the city would be seen as racist or unwoke or - to employ another idiotic fad term - tone deaf.
Why is equality such a problem for you ?

the issues being discussed here ARE EQUALITY ----
equal protection under the law and equal consideration under the law which has somehow been so perverted that the declaration "ALL LIVES MATTER" has been
declared a RACIST HATE CRIME
 
.....wow they painted over something--blacks MURDER whites at TEN times the rate of vice versa
...blacks commit hate crimes at twice the rate
..you wouldn't know this because you are from the UK and don't even research it
 

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?
Thanks Tommy, I was just getting ready to post this story myself when I saw yours.

Well this good news - first & foremost, no one was injured or killed due to the racist acts of this couple, but equally important is that they were at least charged. This is further than a lot of cases involving injury and death get, when the victim(s) is of African descent or person of color.

We'll see if they're actually convicted though and/or serve any time.

Oh and it was almost comical to hear one of the resident racist describing these two as "the brave white couple who engaged in an act of civil disobedience" while another of them was wishing out loud that he had the money to bail them out of jail.

They deliberately defaced a mural that had city approval to be painted where it was and the racists are acting as if they are candidates for sainthood, yet Ahmaud Arbery was alleged to have trespassed on a site where a home was being remodeled and where other people, including children had often stopped by to take a look around and three white racists chased him down, shot and killed him under the pretense that they were trying to place him under citizen's arrest - for the misdemeanor crime of trespass, which it still has not been established that he had.

This is what it's like to live one's life as a black person at any point in time in the U.S. of A.
Please explain how them covering up painted letters implies they think one race is superior over another?
Why did you think that they found it necessary to attempt to erase those letters?
A myriad of reasons. So, can you answer the question now?
If they were black would you call it racist?
Isn't automatically assuming racism simply because of skin color ACTUALLY racist?
You know it's difficult to have a conversation with you because you have claimed that due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 racism no longer exists in the U.S. Or at least you issued a challenge to find a law that allows racial discrimination against black people today.

Because I know you're unwilling or unable to grasp the concept that laws only outline what behavior is prohibited and the penalty for violating them as opposed to preventing the prohibited behavior, I suspect that no matter what I say or what arguments I present we're going to end up right back where we left off which is with you still unable or unwilling to see that racism in the U.S. is still very much a problem primarily so because it's so interwoven into the economical/social constructs of society.

Racism is not defined just one or two ways, it manifests and surfaces in a variety of ways that are often so subtle that it takes some studying to understand it all. If you're truly interested in understanding it, I recommend the book "White Rage".

I will say this. Ever since the inception of Black Lives Matter there have been a variety of opposing sayings in an effort, it would appear to cancel out the message of BLM. This couple's attempt to blot out the letters is analogous to attempting to mute Black Lives Matter's message, in my opinion.

The mural was their with the city's permission.
All that and you still didnt answer the question. In this instance, the only racist is you. What if they had a reason to do it? What if a BLM crowd burnt down their business? Or threatened a family member? What if their beef is with the group and not blacks? But you didnt even consider anything but "racism" did you?
I never said racism doesnt happen. Its all over the country, the world. I mean, look at you right now. What I said was there is no systematic racism, there are racist individuals. And you know what else? You couldnt prove me wrong on that either.
You say its difficult to have a conversation with me and i agree. Because im not emotional or hyperbolic on the real shit and you cant prove me wrong.
But I would love for you too. I love to learn :)
You've already been presented with the evidence that proves you wrong in your belief that racism in the U.S. is not systemic. The difficulty in conversing with you would appear to be that no amount of evidence and irrespective of the source is acceptable to you. This is true for any individual who refuses to accept factual documentation. If a Supreme Court ruling is not sufficient for you what else is there?

It's one thing to disagree with their ruling, it's another thing to pretend that this hasn't already been determined:

"Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real

Disparate Impact
In extending ‘disparate impact’ reasoning to housing cases, the court acknowledges that discrimination comes from more than just individual bad actors.

Jay Michaelson

Updated Apr. 14, 2017 10:34AM ET / Published Jun. 25, 2015 6:30PM ET

June 25 will be remembered as a crucial day for civil rights—not because of the Obamacare decision, and not because of the not-yet-announced marriage decision. It’s because on Thursday the Supreme Court saved a crucial part of civil rights law.​
You’d be forgiven for not knowing much about it. The principle, after all, is an obscure-sounding bit of legalese: “disparate impact.” But those words divided the court 5-4 on ideological lines, with Justice Kennedy writing to preserve, but restrict, the doctrine.​
Here’s why it matters.​
Most cases of discrimination—whether against women, African Americans, LGBT people, or other protected groups—are rarely as clear as they are in the movies. In media portrayals, discrimination is about evil individuals who fire someone because of who they are. But in real life, there’s rarely a smoking gun.​
First, racists are usually not dumb enough to leave records of their prejudice. They find some other reason to fire the employee, or keep the family out of the neighborhood.
Second, and more importantly, discrimination is often systemic and structural, not individual. Often, not only is there no smoking gun, but there’s often no individual “bad actor.” Even neutral requirements—a high-school diploma for employment, a family-size limit for housing—can have huge de facto discriminatory effects, which may or may not be intentional.​
That’s where “disparate impact” comes in. Under some civil rights laws, plaintiffs can prevail even without evidence of a specific discriminatory intention if they can show a disparate impact on the affected group"​
Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real
So systematic racism is when a group of people dont want to put projects in nice neighborhoods lol. Can you not do better that? Because that isnt systematic racism. That is "classism"
And I like how you completely abandoned our original topic.
 

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?
Thanks Tommy, I was just getting ready to post this story myself when I saw yours.

Well this good news - first & foremost, no one was injured or killed due to the racist acts of this couple, but equally important is that they were at least charged. This is further than a lot of cases involving injury and death get, when the victim(s) is of African descent or person of color.

We'll see if they're actually convicted though and/or serve any time.

Oh and it was almost comical to hear one of the resident racist describing these two as "the brave white couple who engaged in an act of civil disobedience" while another of them was wishing out loud that he had the money to bail them out of jail.

They deliberately defaced a mural that had city approval to be painted where it was and the racists are acting as if they are candidates for sainthood, yet Ahmaud Arbery was alleged to have trespassed on a site where a home was being remodeled and where other people, including children had often stopped by to take a look around and three white racists chased him down, shot and killed him under the pretense that they were trying to place him under citizen's arrest - for the misdemeanor crime of trespass, which it still has not been established that he had.

This is what it's like to live one's life as a black person at any point in time in the U.S. of A.
Please explain how them covering up painted letters implies they think one race is superior over another?
Why did you think that they found it necessary to attempt to erase those letters?
A myriad of reasons. So, can you answer the question now?
If they were black would you call it racist?
Isn't automatically assuming racism simply because of skin color ACTUALLY racist?
You know it's difficult to have a conversation with you because you have claimed that due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 racism no longer exists in the U.S. Or at least you issued a challenge to find a law that allows racial discrimination against black people today.

Because I know you're unwilling or unable to grasp the concept that laws only outline what behavior is prohibited and the penalty for violating them as opposed to preventing the prohibited behavior, I suspect that no matter what I say or what arguments I present we're going to end up right back where we left off which is with you still unable or unwilling to see that racism in the U.S. is still very much a problem primarily so because it's so interwoven into the economical/social constructs of society.

Racism is not defined just one or two ways, it manifests and surfaces in a variety of ways that are often so subtle that it takes some studying to understand it all. If you're truly interested in understanding it, I recommend the book "White Rage".

I will say this. Ever since the inception of Black Lives Matter there have been a variety of opposing sayings in an effort, it would appear to cancel out the message of BLM. This couple's attempt to blot out the letters is analogous to attempting to mute Black Lives Matter's message, in my opinion.

The mural was their with the city's permission.
All that and you still didnt answer the question. In this instance, the only racist is you. What if they had a reason to do it? What if a BLM crowd burnt down their business? Or threatened a family member? What if their beef is with the group and not blacks? But you didnt even consider anything but "racism" did you?
I never said racism doesnt happen. Its all over the country, the world. I mean, look at you right now. What I said was there is no systematic racism, there are racist individuals. And you know what else? You couldnt prove me wrong on that either.
You say its difficult to have a conversation with me and i agree. Because im not emotional or hyperbolic on the real shit and you cant prove me wrong.
But I would love for you too. I love to learn :)
You've already been presented with the evidence that proves you wrong in your belief that racism in the U.S. is not systemic. The difficulty in conversing with you would appear to be that no amount of evidence and irrespective of the source is acceptable to you. This is true for any individual who refuses to accept factual documentation. If a Supreme Court ruling is not sufficient for you what else is there?

It's one thing to disagree with their ruling, it's another thing to pretend that this hasn't already been determined:

"Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real

Disparate Impact
In extending ‘disparate impact’ reasoning to housing cases, the court acknowledges that discrimination comes from more than just individual bad actors.

Jay Michaelson

Updated Apr. 14, 2017 10:34AM ET / Published Jun. 25, 2015 6:30PM ET

June 25 will be remembered as a crucial day for civil rights—not because of the Obamacare decision, and not because of the not-yet-announced marriage decision. It’s because on Thursday the Supreme Court saved a crucial part of civil rights law.​
You’d be forgiven for not knowing much about it. The principle, after all, is an obscure-sounding bit of legalese: “disparate impact.” But those words divided the court 5-4 on ideological lines, with Justice Kennedy writing to preserve, but restrict, the doctrine.​
Here’s why it matters.​
Most cases of discrimination—whether against women, African Americans, LGBT people, or other protected groups—are rarely as clear as they are in the movies. In media portrayals, discrimination is about evil individuals who fire someone because of who they are. But in real life, there’s rarely a smoking gun.​
First, racists are usually not dumb enough to leave records of their prejudice. They find some other reason to fire the employee, or keep the family out of the neighborhood.
Second, and more importantly, discrimination is often systemic and structural, not individual. Often, not only is there no smoking gun, but there’s often no individual “bad actor.” Even neutral requirements—a high-school diploma for employment, a family-size limit for housing—can have huge de facto discriminatory effects, which may or may not be intentional.​
That’s where “disparate impact” comes in. Under some civil rights laws, plaintiffs can prevail even without evidence of a specific discriminatory intention if they can show a disparate impact on the affected group"​
Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real
So systematic racism is when a group of people dont want to put projects in nice neighborhoods lol. Can you not do better that? Because that isnt systematic racism. That is "classism"
And I like how you completely abandoned our original topic.

for the record----no matter how raunchy the neighborhood----(or hood) the land owners (that
includes every privately owned shack) DO NOT
WANT "PROJECTS" ----especially in my city
 
You do know that there are no winners in a "you are worse than us contest" ?

Then cease pointing out race problems in our country all the time and tend to thine own.

Tainted Tommy's degenerate shithole of a country has much greater problems than what little racism still exists over here. I guess he finds it easier to ignorantly raise a huge fuss over the mote that he thinks he sees in our eye, than to take any notice or concern for the beam in his own.
 
The news article indicates they had permission

Even if true, they shouldn’t have been given permission. Not unless the city was willing to also allow another group to paint “White Lives Matter” or even “All Lives Matter”.

I think you and I both know that they would have never given the green light for that. Why? Because then the city would be seen as racist or unwoke or - to employ another idiotic fad term - tone deaf.

Permission should never have been given for any markings on the street, other than those serving legitimate traffic control purposes. Certainly not for political statements on one side or another.

It's not just a matter of political unfairness, to give such favor to one side or another, but of basic traffic safety. Unnecessary street markings only make it more difficult for drivers to see and understand legitimate traffic control markings. And very much paint on a road surface can create traction issues.
 
This isn't about any rational concept of “equality”, and never was. It is, and has always been, about the open promotion of racism and violent criminal behavior.
BLM hates the idea of equality. That's why they flip out when someone tells them all lives matter.
Simple minded trolls don't know this or ignore the fact.
 

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?

I'll bet Karen could kick your ass.

Don't you have a neighbor to report ?
 

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?
Thanks Tommy, I was just getting ready to post this story myself when I saw yours.

Well this good news - first & foremost, no one was injured or killed due to the racist acts of this couple, but equally important is that they were at least charged. This is further than a lot of cases involving injury and death get, when the victim(s) is of African descent or person of color.

We'll see if they're actually convicted though and/or serve any time.

Oh and it was almost comical to hear one of the resident racist describing these two as "the brave white couple who engaged in an act of civil disobedience" while another of them was wishing out loud that he had the money to bail them out of jail.

They deliberately defaced a mural that had city approval to be painted where it was and the racists are acting as if they are candidates for sainthood, yet Ahmaud Arbery was alleged to have trespassed on a site where a home was being remodeled and where other people, including children had often stopped by to take a look around and three white racists chased him down, shot and killed him under the pretense that they were trying to place him under citizen's arrest - for the misdemeanor crime of trespass, which it still has not been established that he had.

This is what it's like to live one's life as a black person at any point in time in the U.S. of A.
Please explain how them covering up painted letters implies they think one race is superior over another?
Why did you think that they found it necessary to attempt to erase those letters?
A myriad of reasons. So, can you answer the question now?
If they were black would you call it racist?
Isn't automatically assuming racism simply because of skin color ACTUALLY racist?
You know it's difficult to have a conversation with you because you have claimed that due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 racism no longer exists in the U.S. Or at least you issued a challenge to find a law that allows racial discrimination against black people today.

Because I know you're unwilling or unable to grasp the concept that laws only outline what behavior is prohibited and the penalty for violating them as opposed to preventing the prohibited behavior, I suspect that no matter what I say or what arguments I present we're going to end up right back where we left off which is with you still unable or unwilling to see that racism in the U.S. is still very much a problem primarily so because it's so interwoven into the economical/social constructs of society.

Racism is not defined just one or two ways, it manifests and surfaces in a variety of ways that are often so subtle that it takes some studying to understand it all. If you're truly interested in understanding it, I recommend the book "White Rage".

I will say this. Ever since the inception of Black Lives Matter there have been a variety of opposing sayings in an effort, it would appear to cancel out the message of BLM. This couple's attempt to blot out the letters is analogous to attempting to mute Black Lives Matter's message, in my opinion.

The mural was their with the city's permission.
All that and you still didnt answer the question. In this instance, the only racist is you. What if they had a reason to do it? What if a BLM crowd burnt down their business? Or threatened a family member? What if their beef is with the group and not blacks? But you didnt even consider anything but "racism" did you?
I never said racism doesnt happen. Its all over the country, the world. I mean, look at you right now. What I said was there is no systematic racism, there are racist individuals. And you know what else? You couldnt prove me wrong on that either.
You say its difficult to have a conversation with me and i agree. Because im not emotional or hyperbolic on the real shit and you cant prove me wrong.
But I would love for you too. I love to learn :)
You've already been presented with the evidence that proves you wrong in your belief that racism in the U.S. is not systemic. The difficulty in conversing with you would appear to be that no amount of evidence and irrespective of the source is acceptable to you. This is true for any individual who refuses to accept factual documentation. If a Supreme Court ruling is not sufficient for you what else is there?

It's one thing to disagree with their ruling, it's another thing to pretend that this hasn't already been determined:

"Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real

Disparate Impact
In extending ‘disparate impact’ reasoning to housing cases, the court acknowledges that discrimination comes from more than just individual bad actors.

Jay Michaelson

Updated Apr. 14, 2017 10:34AM ET / Published Jun. 25, 2015 6:30PM ET

June 25 will be remembered as a crucial day for civil rights—not because of the Obamacare decision, and not because of the not-yet-announced marriage decision. It’s because on Thursday the Supreme Court saved a crucial part of civil rights law.​
You’d be forgiven for not knowing much about it. The principle, after all, is an obscure-sounding bit of legalese: “disparate impact.” But those words divided the court 5-4 on ideological lines, with Justice Kennedy writing to preserve, but restrict, the doctrine.​
Here’s why it matters.​
Most cases of discrimination—whether against women, African Americans, LGBT people, or other protected groups—are rarely as clear as they are in the movies. In media portrayals, discrimination is about evil individuals who fire someone because of who they are. But in real life, there’s rarely a smoking gun.​
First, racists are usually not dumb enough to leave records of their prejudice. They find some other reason to fire the employee, or keep the family out of the neighborhood.
Second, and more importantly, discrimination is often systemic and structural, not individual. Often, not only is there no smoking gun, but there’s often no individual “bad actor.” Even neutral requirements—a high-school diploma for employment, a family-size limit for housing—can have huge de facto discriminatory effects, which may or may not be intentional.​
That’s where “disparate impact” comes in. Under some civil rights laws, plaintiffs can prevail even without evidence of a specific discriminatory intention if they can show a disparate impact on the affected group"​
Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real
So systematic racism is when a group of people dont want to put projects in nice neighborhoods lol. Can you not do better that? Because that isnt systematic racism. That is "classism"
And I like how you completely abandoned our original topic.
No, that is not the definition of systemic racism, it's an example of one type of manifestation of systemic/institutional racism. And this is why conversing with you is difficult because racism and it's many pernicuous effects is a complex topic which you seem to want to reduce to a singular topic so that you can dismiss it out of hand.

If you are actually interested in learning about the topic instead of simply trying to score points on a message board I recommend the book White Rage by Dr. CarolAndersen. She explains it much better than I would ever be able to... here is an excerpt. Also let me know if you see anything within it that begins to answer the question you posed to me. People always have a reason for the things they do and it's not always what they say it is:

"...It was the same with policing, housing, voting and employment, all of which carried the undercurrents of racial inequality-even after the end of slavery, the triumphs of the Civil Rights Movement and the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. The policies in Missouri were articulated as coolly and analystically as were Giuliani's in New York.
That led to an epiphany: What was really at work here was white rage. with so much attention focused on the flames, everyone had ignored the logs, the kindling. In some ways, it is easy to see why. White rage is not about visible violence, but rather it works it way through the courts, the legislatures, and a range of government bureaucracies. It wreaks havoc subtly, almost imperceptibly. Too imperceptibly, certainly, for a nation considentiently drawn to the spectacular - to what it can see. It's not the Klan. White rage doesn't have to wear sheets, burn crosses, or take to the streets. Working the halls of power, it can achieve it's ends far more effectively, far more destructively. In my Washington Post op-ed, there, I set out ot make white rage visible, to blow graphite onto that hidden fingerprint and trace it's historic movements over the past 150 years.
The trigger for the white rage, inevitably, is black advancement. It is not the mere presence of black people that is the problem; rather, it is blackness with ambition, with drive, with purpose, with aspirations, and with demands full and equal citizenship. It is blackness that refuses to accept subjugation, to give up. A formidable arrange of policy assaults and legal contortions has consistently punished black resilience, black resolve.
And all the while, white rages manages to maintain not only the upper hand but also, apparently, the moral high ground. It's Giuliani chastising black people to fix the problems in their own neighborhoods instead of always scapegoating the police. It's the endless narratives about a culture of black poverty that devalues education, hard work, family, and ambition. It's a mantra told so often that some African Americans themselves have come to believe it. "
- Dr. Carol Andersen from her book 'White Rage'
 
Nope. It violated city law, just like the gangsters who spray paint graffiti on your viaduct that you cross on the way to work.
It's politically favored graffiti. The city of Martinez had no right to put partisan political messages on public streets to begin with. Not being remotely honest or moral they refuse to concede this point, however.
Try to imagine the city spraying MAGA messages on public streets.
And the DA who chose to press these draconian charges should be flipping burgers where he can't
hurt people.
 

Oh dear, poor Karen and Chad !

You cant help but laugh at this. How much hate can you carry in your heart to do this nonsense?

I dont think these idiots should be locked up. Maybe attending a racial awareness course would help to make them normal ?
Thanks Tommy, I was just getting ready to post this story myself when I saw yours.

Well this good news - first & foremost, no one was injured or killed due to the racist acts of this couple, but equally important is that they were at least charged. This is further than a lot of cases involving injury and death get, when the victim(s) is of African descent or person of color.

We'll see if they're actually convicted though and/or serve any time.

Oh and it was almost comical to hear one of the resident racist describing these two as "the brave white couple who engaged in an act of civil disobedience" while another of them was wishing out loud that he had the money to bail them out of jail.

They deliberately defaced a mural that had city approval to be painted where it was and the racists are acting as if they are candidates for sainthood, yet Ahmaud Arbery was alleged to have trespassed on a site where a home was being remodeled and where other people, including children had often stopped by to take a look around and three white racists chased him down, shot and killed him under the pretense that they were trying to place him under citizen's arrest - for the misdemeanor crime of trespass, which it still has not been established that he had.

This is what it's like to live one's life as a black person at any point in time in the U.S. of A.
Please explain how them covering up painted letters implies they think one race is superior over another?
Why did you think that they found it necessary to attempt to erase those letters?
A myriad of reasons. So, can you answer the question now?
If they were black would you call it racist?
Isn't automatically assuming racism simply because of skin color ACTUALLY racist?
You know it's difficult to have a conversation with you because you have claimed that due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 racism no longer exists in the U.S. Or at least you issued a challenge to find a law that allows racial discrimination against black people today.

Because I know you're unwilling or unable to grasp the concept that laws only outline what behavior is prohibited and the penalty for violating them as opposed to preventing the prohibited behavior, I suspect that no matter what I say or what arguments I present we're going to end up right back where we left off which is with you still unable or unwilling to see that racism in the U.S. is still very much a problem primarily so because it's so interwoven into the economical/social constructs of society.

Racism is not defined just one or two ways, it manifests and surfaces in a variety of ways that are often so subtle that it takes some studying to understand it all. If you're truly interested in understanding it, I recommend the book "White Rage".

I will say this. Ever since the inception of Black Lives Matter there have been a variety of opposing sayings in an effort, it would appear to cancel out the message of BLM. This couple's attempt to blot out the letters is analogous to attempting to mute Black Lives Matter's message, in my opinion.

The mural was their with the city's permission.
All that and you still didnt answer the question. In this instance, the only racist is you. What if they had a reason to do it? What if a BLM crowd burnt down their business? Or threatened a family member? What if their beef is with the group and not blacks? But you didnt even consider anything but "racism" did you?
I never said racism doesnt happen. Its all over the country, the world. I mean, look at you right now. What I said was there is no systematic racism, there are racist individuals. And you know what else? You couldnt prove me wrong on that either.
You say its difficult to have a conversation with me and i agree. Because im not emotional or hyperbolic on the real shit and you cant prove me wrong.
But I would love for you too. I love to learn :)
You've already been presented with the evidence that proves you wrong in your belief that racism in the U.S. is not systemic. The difficulty in conversing with you would appear to be that no amount of evidence and irrespective of the source is acceptable to you. This is true for any individual who refuses to accept factual documentation. If a Supreme Court ruling is not sufficient for you what else is there?

It's one thing to disagree with their ruling, it's another thing to pretend that this hasn't already been determined:

"Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real

Disparate Impact
In extending ‘disparate impact’ reasoning to housing cases, the court acknowledges that discrimination comes from more than just individual bad actors.

Jay Michaelson

Updated Apr. 14, 2017 10:34AM ET / Published Jun. 25, 2015 6:30PM ET

June 25 will be remembered as a crucial day for civil rights—not because of the Obamacare decision, and not because of the not-yet-announced marriage decision. It’s because on Thursday the Supreme Court saved a crucial part of civil rights law.​
You’d be forgiven for not knowing much about it. The principle, after all, is an obscure-sounding bit of legalese: “disparate impact.” But those words divided the court 5-4 on ideological lines, with Justice Kennedy writing to preserve, but restrict, the doctrine.​
Here’s why it matters.​
Most cases of discrimination—whether against women, African Americans, LGBT people, or other protected groups—are rarely as clear as they are in the movies. In media portrayals, discrimination is about evil individuals who fire someone because of who they are. But in real life, there’s rarely a smoking gun.​
First, racists are usually not dumb enough to leave records of their prejudice. They find some other reason to fire the employee, or keep the family out of the neighborhood.
Second, and more importantly, discrimination is often systemic and structural, not individual. Often, not only is there no smoking gun, but there’s often no individual “bad actor.” Even neutral requirements—a high-school diploma for employment, a family-size limit for housing—can have huge de facto discriminatory effects, which may or may not be intentional.​
That’s where “disparate impact” comes in. Under some civil rights laws, plaintiffs can prevail even without evidence of a specific discriminatory intention if they can show a disparate impact on the affected group"​
Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real
So systematic racism is when a group of people dont want to put projects in nice neighborhoods lol. Can you not do better that? Because that isnt systematic racism. That is "classism"
And I like how you completely abandoned our original topic.
No, that is not the definition of systemic racism, it's an example of one type of manifestation of systemic/institutional racism. And this is why conversing with you is difficult because racism and it's many pernicuous effects is a complex topic which you seem to want to reduce to a singular topic so that you can dismiss it out of hand.

If you are actually interested in learning about the topic instead of simply trying to score points on a message board I recommend the book White Rage by Dr. CarolAndersen. She explains it much better than I would ever be able to... here is an excerpt. Also let me know if you see anything within it that begins to answer the question you posed to me. People always have a reason for the things they do and it's not always what they say it is:

"...It was the same with policing, housing, voting and employment, all of which carried the undercurrents of racial inequality-even after the end of slavery, the triumphs of the Civil Rights Movement and the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. The policies in Missouri were articulated as coolly and analystically as were Giuliani's in New York.
That led to an epiphany: What was really at work here was white rage. with so much attention focused on the flames, everyone had ignored the logs, the kindling. In some ways, it is easy to see why. White rage is not about visible violence, but rather it works it way through the courts, the legislatures, and a range of government bureaucracies. It wreaks havoc subtly, almost imperceptibly. Too imperceptibly, certainly, for a nation considentiently drawn to the spectacular - to what it can see. It's not the Klan. White rage doesn't have to wear sheets, burn crosses, or take to the streets. Working the halls of power, it can achieve it's ends far more effectively, far more destructively. In my Washington Post op-ed, there, I set out ot make white rage visible, to blow graphite onto that hidden fingerprint and trace it's historic movements over the past 150 years.
The trigger for the white rage, inevitably, is black advancement. It is not the mere presence of black people that is the problem; rather, it is blackness with ambition, with drive, with purpose, with aspirations, and with demands full and equal citizenship. It is blackness that refuses to accept subjugation, to give up. A formidable arrange of policy assaults and legal contortions has consistently punished black resilience, black resolve.
And all the while, white rages manages to maintain not only the upper hand but also, apparently, the moral high ground. It's Giuliani chastising black people to fix the problems in their own neighborhoods instead of always scapegoating the police. It's the endless narratives about a culture of black poverty that devalues education, hard work, family, and ambition. It's a mantra told so often that some African Americans themselves have come to believe it. "
- Dr. Carol Andersen from her book 'White Rage'
Not wanting projects in nice neighborhoods isnt systematic racism, no matter how desperately you want it to be.
You have to do better than this.
 

Forum List

Back
Top