search results matching tag: nigger

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (33)     Sift Talk (4)     Blogs (2)     Comments (533)   

White supremacist Kenosha County Sheriff david beth

newtboy says...

Sorry, you seem to have bought the right wing antifa lie. Where did you get this explanation?

Most people caught shooting or committing arson were dressed as antifa but were in fact right wingers, largely boogaloos boys, who's plan is to commit crimes and blame antifa and BLM in hopes of sparking a civil (and race) war. Nearly 100% of shootings and fully 100% of attempted bombings fit that model.

Because someone wears a black facemask is no indication they support antifa. If they're armed, it's a near guarantee they are anti antifa.

1) the kid came from out of state with armed friends intent on confronting unarmed protesters with guns, you don't do this to protect a random gas station, you do this in hopes of shooting someone.
2) he sure didn't look like he had been sprayed as he ran from the murder he just committed, hands were on his weapon or above his head, not covering his face like a sprayed person.
3) white pedophile? Explain please....how would you know...because he had a 17 year old girlfriend?
4) white guy in a crowd of black men shouting "nigger"?! Doesn't sound right, and I haven't heard it in any videos, but are you saying that excuses the militia boy shooting him and others?
5) gunshot from Antifa?!? Now I know you're duped by right wing media. Antifa is pretty hard to identify unless you're dishonest and just call any black mask wearing person antifa. Also, what evidence is there of this single gunshot from the BLM crowd?
6) he was NOT running to police lines, he was running past them. He didn't stop at them and say "btw, I just shot at least 3 people and maybe more when I just shot into the crowd.", he just walked on by, still carrying the smoking gun.
7) again, where are you getting this info?

8 ) in short, a cowardly murderer who crossed state lines heavily armed who shouldn't have been there but went looking for trouble, started a fight, murdered another man, ran away armed pointing his gun at many uninvolved bystanders, shot and killed those trying to stop an armed murderer (should have emptied that glok if it existed) so he shot one, murdered another and fled the scene, the city, and the state without ever reporting that he had shot at least three people and killed at least two.

I hope he gets sentenced to life in prison, his dad too if they went together, he went heavily armed to a protest hoping to shoot some liberals, he did, now he wants to use the fact that some citizens tried to disarm and citizens arrest him after he shot someone in the head as an excuse for both murders and the other shootings?! And you buy it?!?

I'm so extremely disappointed you would buy such obvious self serving slant where the out of state multiple murderer who travelled armed looking for conflict is the victim.
That's totally asinine. I have much higher expectations for you.

Again, references for these claims please.

Mordhaus said:

I don't agree with him, but there are normal protesters and then there are Antifa people.

If you dig a bit deeper into the whole Kyle Rittenhouse thing, you find out a lot that is being flat out ignored.

1. The kid was protecting a business that had already been vandalized by Antifa.
2. He was pepper sprayed by Antifa 'protesters' for guarding the site.

3. Then a white pedophile started attacking him while saying the n word, "Cmon and shoot ME, N****!"

4. In the ensuing conflict, which included at least one gunshot from the Antifa folks, Kyle shot that guy and then tried to run to the police lines as multiple Antifa people tried to chase him down to beat him/take away his gun.
5. He tripped and a person with a skateboard, as well as a rap sheet for assaults a mile long, started beating him with the skateboard as he lay prone. This was the second person who got shot.

6. The final 'protester' was carrying a Glock 17 and later said (paraphrasing) "I wish I would have just mag dumped the Glock into him while he was laying there". This protester also had a massive rap sheet and shouldn't even have had the Glock, but in his intelligence he started trying to wrestle the AR-15 from Kyle...from the business end. He was the last person shot and lost a bicep.

So, in short, a scared kid who shouldn't have been there was attacked, shot at, and mauled by several 'peaceful' protesters. He defended himself and then tried to run to the police, but they weren't having that, so some more people got shot.

Now he will probably get sentenced to life in a highly politicized trial because he stood up and tried to guard property that 'peaceful Antifa protesters' were trying to burn to the ground.

Police Who Murder Man In Public On Camera Fired

StukaFox says...

Sorry Newt, but this'll just be added to the pile of "who cares?"

This is the country that watches its children get machine-gunned in their schools and just shrugs. This is the country that poisoned its own population with opioids and just shrugged. This is the country that allowed corporations to take over the entire power structure of the nation and just shrugged. No one cares. No. One. Cares.

You cannot overcome the wall of indifference and entitlement no matter how many impassioned pleas or elegant speeches you make.

Your heart's in the right place, but this is Bob Knight's country now and you will never get it back. And the people who're like Bob Knight? Yeah, they really don't give a shit about dead niggers.

As soon as I get my work visa for France finalized, I am out of here.

newtboy said:

Snuff or news? I feel like this incident is going to be with us for a while.

New Rule: Trump Is Above the Law

RFlagg says...

Probably? Try 100%. The scary thing is his supporters, the entire evangelical Christians, will walk lock and step with him all the way. They are 100% guaranteed to turn out in force in November 2018, so no Blue Wave, and they are guaranteed to show up in 2020 as well. He has 35% of the voting population that will support everything he ever does. Like he said, he could shoot somebody on live TV and wouldn't lose a vote. He's giving them everything they ever wanted. Everything. We'll be in a theocracy by the time his two terms are up, and then he may become President for life. And yet the liberals keep thinking that sooner or later, he'll trip up... he tries to order the Post Office to increase their rates specifically to Amazon because it's founder owns a newspaper that has said bad things about him, and now has ordered the Justice Department to carry an investigation into his political enemies. He doesn't understand the divisions and separation of power, he thinks being President is like being an owner and CEO of a major company. And the GOP will never do anything to stop him, again because he's got that 35% that is 100% guaranteed to follow him no matter what. He could appear on TV and say "I'm doing everything I can to undo that niger Obama's Presidency... and we all know there's a difference between a black person, like my friend Kanye, and a nigger like Obama" and they'd just say something like they don't share his opinion, but do nothing... he could follow through with his threat to shoot somebody, and they wouldn't care. There can be no overstating the dangers democracy is in right now in the country, that's how bad it is...

Mordhaus said:

Scary thing is, he is probably right. *quality

Antifa Violence Finally Called Out by Media

newtboy says...

@Asmo, ok, here's your video of antifa violence, I've spotted one that is in that crowd of women and children shooting a short flame in the direction of the Nazis, met with greater, deadly Nazi gun violence and "just die nigger"....Thanks Bob for finding this video....even though oddly he couldn't point out the antifa in that crowd.

This video was also not released by the media, I guess you would say that's to protect the antifa being shot at from responsibility, not the right wing nazi?
I take a more reasoned approach and believe it was withheld to 1) not incite more violence 2) protect the police's already badly tarnished reputation from those saying they caused the violence by doing nothing and 3) help the police investigate without the guilty parties going into hiding.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Nazi-Violence-Finally-Called-Out-By-Media

ANTIFA Returns To Berkeley

newtboy says...

Sweet zombie Jesus, Bob. Did you even watch the video? You might note the people wearing masks, helmets and armor are all unite the right wingers, as is the one who jumps out to shoot into the crowd of non-antifa citizens (not one masked on the counter protesters side here) shouting what sounds like "just die nigger" before shooting and melting back into the right wing marchers that instantly defend him after watching him shoot into a crowd....but yeah...all this horrendous leftist violence must be stopped.
Jesus Bob.

bobknight33 said:

These actions seem to be quite typical from ANTIFA. Those NAZI were peaceful until mixed together with ANTIFA and BLM in Charlottsville..

I did last night see a video TYT of a guy firing into ANTIFA. Not cool.

Is There an Alternative to Political Correctness?

ChaosEngine says...

The term "political correctness" originally came about as a disparaging way for assholes to describe not being an asshole.

“Political correctness is what right-wing bigots call what everybody else calls being polite”
-Iain M. Banks

Basically, while there are undoubtedly some idiots who take it too far, in general, I'm ok with it no longer being socially acceptable to call people niggers, queers and bitches.

The whole intellectually/vertically/gravitationally/whateverly challenged nonsense was invented as a parody of political correctness and in general, no-one actually uses those terms to describe anyone.

The problem is that people see the worst excesses of political correctness and assume that that's the whole point. It's like seeing one police shooting and deciding that law enforcement itself is a bad idea.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever met anyone who genuinely used the phrase "that's not politically correct" when talking to another human.

Oh, and even "politeness" isn't immune to politicisation. When I was younger, it was drilled into me that it was polite for a man to hold a door for a woman, or to pay for dinner on a date. It was considered polite for children to be seen and not heard. Good luck having an "apolitical" discussion about those topics.

ulysses1904 said:

Whatever benefits PC might bring to society, all I tend to see any more is the malignant outgrowth of the idea, with do-gooder dimwits using it as a weapon to wield. Where conversation is now a mine field, waiting for some eavesdropper to derive some offense and send us off to the equivalent of a re-education camp.

Hell is other people.

Trump pushes aside NATO ally and Preens for the camera

SaNdMaN says...

Mistaking brutishness for strength. Typical Trump supporter.

And if it were Obama, it would've been "nigger doesn't know how to act right; can't wait till we finally get a classy white president in the White House."

bobknight33 said:

Boss Trump!

Hey! Transgender Kids

poolcleaner says...

So yeah, im a half in, half out of the closet trans person living a genderfluid reality. Complicated existence, and unlesz you're in the demographic or a serious ally, you just don't understand what it's like. This isn't a new revelation, I have known this about myself as long as i have had self awareness.

I grew up during the Reagan era, so no one gave a shit that I thought I was a girl.

Literally just shit on and reshaped and fear thunderstruck, raped, molested as a form of homosexual comversion -- you got this shit?

I just didn't understand what people meant when they were trying to explain the differencez between male and female because i was CERTAIN i was a girl when I was 3 years old. And yes i have those memories. In fact, the age of 4 through 7 are the most vivid and awful memories of my reality an you may stare theough me and rwfuse to understand if you want, but like the song says "We exist." (By Arcade Fire; Cool song even if the musician isnt trans.)

Anyway. We are just shit on. I'm used to it. A friend of mine used to call me a white nigger and honestly, as racial insensitive as that is (a black guy telling me this) that is the feeling. Police brutality and all. Whatever. You dont want to understand so just dont bother. I got sick to death of explaining this so long ago it doent matter to me. How fu king sad is that? How fu ling sad is my goddamn perspective? How can I even be happy in this world? Its shit.

Logic: If you are so afraid we are a bunch of rapists, what about gay people who aren't transgender -- where do they take a pee where people won't fear them molesting people of the same sex? I mean, is there going to be a "Gays Only" and "Transgender Only" bathroom?? It doesn't make sense even if you fear us.

And in my humble and humiliated existence, gay people have wanted nothing to do with me and have even tried to convert and change my opinions of myself. Even in the middle of FUCKING LA PRIDE. Assholez like that CUNT Milo. He can go DIE.

It doesn't make sense. Have you ever peed in a Men's Restroom with a dress on? Totally awkward.

I know I'm using colloquialisms and non-PC language, but I'm just really depressed about this -- as if I wasn't already depressed about everything all the time lol

Republicans. Fuck you. I have no other means of relating my disappointment in the entirity of all reality -- the very fabric of this universe is hate.

Why I Left the Left

vil says...

The historical precedents being (self)censorship and gulags.

Subjective offense and harm defined by well-meaning panels of social judges are the road to hell.

Is the man really black enough to be allowed to say nigger? Is the woman really ugly or is she justly offended? Who decides? Or is there some other concept at work here? Like common morals decided upon by peers in normal social contact (conflict), instead of dictated by a "higher" entity, the SJW.

Let the people decide for themselves. The normal path is that legislation is formed based on morals, not the other way round.

dubious said:

It's a difficult concept to define what is an act of harm. In general this is highly related to concepts of political correctness and has it's very roots in classical liberal thought. In my understanding, Mill would say not to restrict free speech in the case offense only in the case of harm. However, psychology and neuroscience make this line less distinct in caseses of trama or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual, not just offense. This means that harm is less universal and depends on the individual and it leads to the idea of separating spaces based on the line between offense and harm. My understanding is the idea of rating systems, red light districts come from this. Also, now, a newer concept of safe spaces. It's easy to say that people should just suck it up, but it's not always that clear cut and there is historical precedence for this idea.

Ending Free Speech-Elizabeth Warren Silenced In Senate

Drachen_Jager says...

@newtboy

Tillman's words incited the incident, but it was his colleague's response, calling him a malicious liar, that started the fight and it was Tillman's ally in the senate who proposed the rule to protect him in the future.

The rule was made to protect Ben Tillman, who, among other things said:

"[We] agreed on on the policy of terrorizing the Negroes at the first opportunity by letting them provoke trouble and then having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable."

"The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand niggers in the South before they learn their place again."

"We of the South have never recognized the right of the Negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him. I would to God the last one of them was in Africa and that none of them had ever been brought to our shores."

^--- This, I'd like to point out, is the guy @bobknight33 is effectively siding with. Rules that protect men like that should be followed, according to Bob.

Things aren't always as they seem

Jinx says...

Dunno, some relatives really hate each other

I'd love to see my DNA ancestry so I can say nigger (sorry sorry sorry) without white guilt because it says I'm 0.3% Sub-Saharan African.

No rly tho, I'm English as far back as anybody has looked so I'm actually a bit worried that it would turn out that the DNA indicates that my family have been sitting on this island FOREVER. I want an excuse to travel the world to find my "roots", fuck Holidays in the UK, it had best tell me I'm a Slav with bits of African and, err, Turkish! Yeah, I want to see Istanbul. Give me a bit of Turk too please.

newtboy said:

*quality idea to make comparative DNA compulsory. It would certainly screw with people that advocate separation by race. It's much harder to dehumanize people when you realize you are likely related.
*doublepromote

Cavuto: How does it feel to be dismissed, CNN?

enoch says...

so let me get this straight.

neil cavuto,a pandering,whoremongering demagogue who represents all that is diseased and corrupt from FOX news.is glibly and childishly deriding CNN for now being in the very boat that FOX was for years.

that somehow the criticism and sly accusations of FOX being biased and slanted were not warranted.that the REAL focus should be on the reactions of the executive branch,and not on the content of cable news.

when we consider that even as late as 2010,33% of FOX viewers STILL thought that iraq had connections to al qeada,and that they were hiding WMD's.this alone is enough to condemn FOX as a rapacious propaganda machine.

i am not letting CNN off the hook.who have also been caught fabricating conflict based on questionable sources to formulate political crisis when there was none.

but that is not even something cavuto is addressing.he is literally beaming with a smug condescension in this piece,self-righteously admonishing an entire network as if those networks are not populated by individuals.

as if they of one mind.
one message.
and the message is:"poor CNN is no longer the favorite and now has to sit in the back of the bus like we did for 8 years".

do you know what this is?
and i am POSITIVE cavuto is totally unaware of this comparison.

this is the new house negro ridiculing the OLD house negro.
who were lovingly called "house niggers" *dedicated to @gorillaman*and "uncle tom's" back in the day.

so house negro neil cavuto is just gushing with pride that his new master prefers his network to that old rust bucket CNN.

the new pimp in chief likes his cable news to bow and prostrate itself upon his moist loins,and no other network can whore itself quite like FOX news.

so good for you mr neil cavuto!
you are the presidents new,favorite whore.
so pucker up you precious little slut,trump has something for you,and say goodbye to your last vestige of moral integrity.

now go be a good house negro and go make a trump a sandwich.

this is too delicious not to *promote

hate speech laws & censorship laws make people stupid

enoch says...

@ChaosEngine
agreed.
context matters and i think being a decent human being plays a large role in that dynamic.

people tend to attempt to break down complex ideas and/or ideologies into more easily digestible morsels.this "twitter speak",in my opinion,is largely responsible for the decay of human interactions.

we all are biased.
we all hold prejudices,and preconceptions based on our learned experiences.
which are subjective.

we see the world through the lens of our own subjectivity and even the most open minded and non-judgemental person,when trying to sympathize/empathize with another person, will use their own subjective understandings in order to understand that person.

this tactic,which we all employ,will almost always fall short of true understanding.

so we rely on words,metaphors,allegory etc etc in order to communicate fairly complex emotions and experiences.

what brendon o'neill is pointing out,is that when we start to restrict words as acceptable and unacceptable,we infantilize our interactions.

words are inert.
they are simply symbols representing a thing,action or emotion.
it is WE who apply the deeper meanings by way of our subjective lens.

i am not trying to make something simple complicated,but bear with me.
a rock will always be a rock,but a cunt has a totally different meaning here in the states than in britain.(love you brits,and cunt is a brilliant word).

the problems of culture,region,nationality or race all play a role in not only how we communicate but how that communication is received ...and interpreted.

so misunderstandings can happen quite easily,and then when we consider that the persons intent is by far the greatest metric to judge the veracity of the words being spoken,and just how difficult it is to discern that intent....this is where nuance and context play such a major role,but we need to have as many tools in our language box to express oftentimes very difficult concepts,multi-layered emotions and complicated ideologies.

and,unfortunately,there are attempts to legislate speech.

of course well intentioned,and reasonable sounding,but like any legislation dealing with the subjective nature of humans,has the possibility of abuse.

case in point:http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

a new canadian addendum to their human rights statute.on the surface this is a fairly benign addition to canadas already existing human rights laws,but there is the possibility of abuse.

a psychology professor from university of toronto was critical of this new addendum,and has created a flurry of controversy in regards to his criticism.

which you can check out here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

now he was protested,received death threats,there was even violence and a new internet star was born affectionately labeled "smugglypuff".

see:http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/smugglypuff

i agree that free speech cannot be viewed with an absolutist mindset.absolutist thinking leads to stagnation and a self-righteous fundamentalism,so we NEED the free flow of ideas...even BAD ideas..even offensive and racist..because this brings all those feelings/thoughts/ideologies into the market of ideas to be either absorbed or ridiculed and ultimately ostracized for the shit philosophy they represent.

i WANT to know who the racists are.
i want to know who is bigoted or prejudiced.
i want to know who is holding on to stupid ideas,or promoting fascism dressed up as nationalistic pride.

and the only way to shine a light on these horrendous and detrimental ideas is to allow those who hold them openly state who and what they are...so we can criticize/challenge and in some cases..ridicule.

we should be free to say whatever we wish,but we are not free from challenge or criticism.
we can say whatever pops into our pretty little head,but we are not free from consequences.
we are also not free from offense.

i know this is long,and i hope you stayed with me,and if you did,thanks man.i know i tend to ramble.

but we can use the banning of gorillaman as a small microcosm of what we are talking about here.

i felt that we,as a community,could take gorilla to task for his poor choice in verbiage "nigger prince" and i attempted to make the case by using his history,dark humor and bad taste to add context to his poor choice of wording.

bareboards felt it was a matter for the administrators to deal with.i am not saying her choice was wrong.just that we approached the problem from different perspectives.

now gorilla decided to become the human torch and flame out.which threw my approach right out the window.

but the point i am making in that case,is that bad ideas,bad philosophies,bigotry and racism will ALWAYS reveal themselves if we allow that process to ultimately expose bad ideas/shit person.

the free flow of ideas is the proverbial rope that ultimately hangs all shit ideas.

thanks for hanging kids.
love you all!

hate speech laws & censorship laws make people stupid

ChaosEngine says...

I don't believe anyone is talking about legislating "words" as such.

If anyone brought up a law that said you can't say "nigger" or "queer", that would be stupid.

But as always, context matters. There's a world of difference between calling someone a "nigger" and advocating the killing of black people.

Hell, you can couch horrible ideals in "politically correct" speech and espouse progressive ideals in offensive language.

enoch said:

free speech is not a binary equation.
many variables to consider,and i am of the thinking that i would rather not legislate words.

Yes We Can. Obama stories are shared. What a guy.

enoch says...

@ChaosEngine
what the holy FUCK are you babbling about?

when did i EVER state,or make the argument that free speech meant free from consequences?

the only difference in BB's and my stance is that her reference to "see something,say something" was a tad disturbing to me and since she felt this was a community (which i agree with) then as a community we can all hold gorilla,or anyone to account for what they post.BB felt that calling down the "benevolent dictator" was the best path.

i disagreed with her is all.
but it certainly within her right to choose to do so.
i felt that an un-necessary way to address gorillas comment.

but hey,i am not easily offended.other people are.i am in no way agreeing with gorilla's "nigger prince",even for low brow comedy it is offensive.i was defending gorillas right to say it...and our right to go "what the fuck man,that is just wrong and offensive",and people did show their opinion by downvoting,and yes,even BB's tactic of calling the "benevolent dictator" can be considered appropriate (though i felt un-necessary).

dude,yer kinda talking out yer ass here.
but nice lecture,useless and pointless n regards to what i was saying,but still nice.

i am of the philosophy that if we are a community,then we can respond as a community,no need to call daddy to settle disputes.we can wear our big boy pants.

*edit: and oh for the love of JESUS @gorillaman!
way to flush my argument right down the fucking toilet.
i give up..sighs..i tried..i really really tried...
/bangs head against the wall



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon