...did you even bother with any of the material I've been citing throughout this increasingly farcical exchange? The notion that King et al were laser-focused on the upper crust is patently false, as is your even more ridiculous prior assertion that they favored "race blind" rhetoric: King was VERY clear in stating not only that whites as a whole bore far and away the greatest burden in making racial equality a reality, but that "ordinary" whites, not just the rich and powerful ones, were very much obligated to make both social and material sacrifices towards that end as well. He was NOT even a LITTLE bit subtle about it, and others beat that drum a LOT harder than he did.Vanguard wrote:Because he didn't undermine the movement. The modern social justice movement is different from, and undermines, the old civil rights movement.
This state of affairs, of course, was a deal-breaker to many otherwise "moderate" whites - as King's own daughter has noted, despite how revered he (or, perhaps more accurately, his carefully-curated "safe" alter ego) is nowadays, in real time he was the most hated man in America - and, judging by the fact that we're even having this conversation, still appears to be very much the case for some people.
Whatever your criticisms of them, some of which are surely valid, the notion that today's "social justice" figures, along with their arguments and demands, are somehow completely divorced from their "civil rights" forebears to the point that they should be seen as acting in opposition to the latter's goals is, to put it bluntly, a pile of steaming hot garbage - moreover, I would posit that anyone making such an argument at this point in time is not only profoundly but almost certainly willfully ignorant of the history that led us to this point.
In like manner I probably ought to acknowledge my own skepticism of any and every "it's actually the blacks trying to start a race war" stems in part from how frequently it's been used as a means to rile up the worst elements of American society, particularly during the Obama era - "he's gonna take our guns away, send The Signal to the inner cities, and we'll be defenseless as they make us into slaves as ill-conceived revenge!" (And, as you'll constantly hear me harp on here, the fact that the "moderates" who were supposed to push back against this sort of filth sat silent until they voted the likes of Trump into office just rubs salt in the wound).BIL wrote:As in prior discussions we've had of the ol' race relations minefield, I suspect that where we differ on C&H et al, it's more a willful alarmism on my part.
One item I have been meaning to pick your brain on concerning the notion that whites are somehow destined to "play the villain" - again, I'm probably projecting here, but I wonder if the matter is best explored not as some sort of supposed genetic predisposition (i.e. "the melanin thing") but a long-standing cultural tradition of celebrating and revering the most brutish elements of one's cultural history. This is, admittedly, a topic I know little about, especially as it requires a comparison in this area of "white" civilizations to others in how persistent they've been in glorifying the most objectionable parts of their past - obviously every culture has done plenty of it over the millennia, going back to the Mesopotamian/Egyptian/etc. murals celebrating the enslavement and slaughter of their enemies - but I'm far less informed about how varying groups carry on, or don't, similar traditions today.
The only real reference I have, of course, is what I see here in the USA, particularly the absolutely fierce opposition to revisiting monuments and other venerations of the Confederacy and the sentimentalization of the era of slavery in general; the similar controversy surrounding Columbus Day is another one (ironically, of course, that particular holiday was originally ginned up as a means to grant Italian-Americans access to "whiteness", which complicates matters even further). Whether trends like these are outliers from a global perspective I honestly have no idea - I am aware that some view the continued existence and sometimes-reverence for the royal family on your side of the pond as nostalgia for colonialism, though I couldn't say how pervasive such a view might be - but if there's anything of value to be gained from the original statement I would guess it's somewhere in this realm. What do you think?
Pretty disturbing, the thought of that quintessentially animal hatred roiling within someone, yearning for release; never self-interrogated or addressed, just futilely buried.
). China is currently hard at it, pumping out Neo-Reaganomic action propaganda like 
) Or, of course, simply murdering them outright.
Well, as before, I want to hear from you; are you participating in this important social movement? On which side? I myself enjoy the occasional bottle of wine, and sometimes a malty Guinness! But I think American beer tastes uncannily like my own piss, which I have drank to survive! So, as with Mahou Bumsex Gakuen, this is rather an easy boycott for myself. 
Even with parent company Anheuser-Busch's many tentacles in the sugary junk world - of which I rarely partake, lest my healthy pen0r shrivel up and die of the beetus, just like MovieBlob's!
And who could forget TEH PEST, which introduced my generation to the ol' "Germans love scat" and "Gay people are sex-crazed monsters" things! Bwaaahahahahaaa!
Nor do they even know that MARIO was famously based on old man Yamauchi's #1 hirsute PRINCETON BUMCHUM, who later died in a tragic rowing accident at the Gran Milano Classico, forever darkening the infamously gruff magnate's heart! 3;
It is almost like normalising racism against certain approved targets leads nowhere good at all! Wow - who could have seen that coming?
I can't even post about it here. "Black Man Gets Ass-Raped By Assertive Blonde w/ Strap On?" Yeah bit much.
*shaving frantically*
(of course having his guard up just underlines that he's defending himself from the impeccably-named Karen)
