Thug Culture

What is the point of this thread?

There are bad people out there. Criminals exist. Not exactly news.

[quote=“rowland”]What doesn’t get you expelled:

usatoday.com/story/sports/nc … /14253811/

[quote]
Freshman running back Joe Mixon, the Sooners’ top recruit, was suspended by Oklahoma on Monday after pleading not guilty to a misdemeanor charge related to an alleged assault.

Mixon is accused of knocking a woman unconscious with a punch and breaking several bones in her face. Mixon has not participated in team activities since the July 25 incident at a local restaurant.
[/quote][/quote]

Nor does rape, if you’re an athlete

[quote=“Chris”]What is the point of this thread?

There are bad people out there. Criminals exist. Not exactly news.[/quote]
It started as a thread pointing out that when black people act in certain ways, they are called thugs, but when right wing darlings act in the same way, it’s usually ignored. It’s become a racially loaded term. But then Rowland came along to try to make counterpoints, but by posting stories of black criminal behavior, inadvertently proving the original point. Either that, or because Rowland has fine tuned his color blind powers to such an extent that only he can see how the black man keeps whitey down :laughing:

1 Like

There’s a word for people who feel compelled to provide examples of black people behaving badly.

What’s the word for someone thinks every mention of someone who happens to be black has to be about race somehow?

I thought the point was to discuss examples of thug culture. Perhaps I was too literal. Was it really all about race and not culture? Or do people have trouble making that distinction?

Perhaps the whole point really was to harp on the then-forgotten Palins, for acting in ways that certain people would give you a pass for depending on your skin color or party affiliation. In which case, the thread ought to have been titled “Double Standard On Display.”

I’m slightly mixed race with the misfortune of being melanin challenged. I don’t enjoy the privilege of people making excuses for me if I should engage in thuggery. Or that of pointing out thuggery without being called a racist by racists-in-denial.

What’s the word for someone thinks every mention of someone who happens to be black has to be about race somehow?[/quote]
In this thread, discerning.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that your posts have all been either failed attempts at trying equivalency between 'dem liberals or lists of crimes by black criminals only after the lynching chant case was mentioned. Also, your downplay of chanting about lynching black people shows complete ignorance of history, so here’s a quick lesson for you. After slavery was abolished, lynching was commonly used to instill fear in the black population to keep them from being so radical as to ask for things like fair wages, desegregation, voting rights, etc. Even after being given voting rights, lynching or just the threat of lynching was used to keep generations from pushing the bar too high. So on the 50th anniversary of the march in Selma, a bunch of drunk white kids chant about lynching black people and your response is dismissive and to subsequently make two posts about black criminals. Now you say that wasn’t about race? And we are racist for pointing out your error? I double-dog dare you to admit chants about lynching aren’t merely words without mentioning black criminals.

Here’s what’s going on: every time somebody posts something stupid on this thread, I briefly Google examples of actual thuggish behavior by people who aren’t named Palin, and post without inquiring into race – which ought to be irrelevant, except to a crypto-racist.

Then, other people take me to task for those examples that just happen to be black, and insinuate I’m the racist for not filtering them out.

Somebody’s got some `splainin to do, and it’s not me.

What was this thread about again?

That explains why you make so many multiple posts, one right after the other :laughing:

Poor you. I mean, google has certainly victimized you by giving you so many examples of black thugs. Or could it be that the original point of this thread is correct- thug is a racially loaded term that is too often associated with black crime? I bet if you type the N word, you also will find people talking about black people. Who would’ve thunk it?

I think that question was asked and answered on this very page. You also obviously missed it with the first post, being so color blind and all. Do you really need us to explain again? Or think you can scroll up a bit? :laughing:

Fair warning: this is currently as uncorroborated as Michael Brown’s surrender was, but too juicy to leave unmentioned…

powerlineblog.com/archives/2 … part-3.php

There’s also speculation that he got beat up by some of his mob associates. Or maybe he just walked into a door or fell off a treadmill or something. Anyway, he’s fair game just because of his relatives, at least by the criteria of the OP of this thread.

[quote=“rowland”]Fair warning: this is currently as uncorroborated as Michael Brown’s surrender was, but too juicy to leave unmentioned…

powerlineblog.com/archives/2 … part-3.php

There’s also speculation that he got beat up by some of his mob associates. Or maybe he just walked into a door or fell off a treadmill or something. Anyway, he’s fair game just because of his relatives, at least by the criteria of the OP of this thread.[/quote]

Absolutely- my first thought on seeing those pictures of Reid on New Year’s Day (which I hadn’t till a couple of days ago) was “Noted Mormon politician slips off the wagon and has accident while DUI”.
If it’s a fight with his alcoholic brother that he’s trying to cover up, that makes it much less bad.

Personally, I believe there’s more to this story than a family fight while trying to restrain a drunk relative, which is why he submitted his unexpected resignation. Absolutely there should be media investigations. Dig away.

reviewjournal.com/news/nevad … un-charges

Maybe we should rename ths the guilt-by-family-association thread.

Who the fuck still drives drunk in 2015? Assholes.

It makes a difference what year it is?

I’ve never understood this temporally conditioned morality.

Who hires these people?

edition.cnn.com/2015/04/10/polit … index.html

Smart diplomacy.

[quote=“rowland”]Las Vegas News | Breaking News & Headlines | Las Vegas Review-Journal

Maybe we should rename ths the guilt-by-family-association thread.[/quote]

Absolutely- when the info comes out that Harry Reid drove his drunk brother to a party, his drunk/stoned children started screaming obscenities and fighting with the party-goers, and Harry Reid stood in the middle telling people to back off, screaming “Do you know who I am?”

[quote=“MikeN”]
Absolutely- when the info comes out that Harry Reid drove his drunk brother to a party, his drunk/stoned children started screaming obscenities and fighting with the party-goers, and Harry Reid stood in the middle telling people to back off, screaming “Do you know who I am?”[/quote]

Wouldn’t surprise me to learn this has happened numerous times before and been covered up.

He certainly seems like the type.

It makes a difference what year it is?

I’ve never understood this temporally conditioned morality.[/quote]

If the fact values change over time is too hard for you rowland you may want to just throw in the towel and move to a cave in Syria.

Drunk driving used to be joke material. There is a black and white Cary Grant film in which he and his lovely partner drive a car right onto steps of the courthouse while in a drunken stupor. The cop who sees them in the morning passed out just laughs. This was the way most people thought about it. It’s nothing. I can handle it. No one gets hurt. Etc.

The seriousness of drunk driving spread in the 80s, with groups like MADD. Many local governments also began campaigns. Road blocks became standard. I am sure a good conservative like you thought it was politically correct nonsense. Why should the gov get involved in private matters like drinking?

Anyway, after 30-40 years of awareness building no one is unaware that drunk driving is a dangerous, immoral, anti-social thing to do. People’s lives get destroyed.

You could have missed all that 30 years ago. Not today. Hence it is far more reprehensible to drunk drive in 2015 than it was in 1985.

So yeah, it makes a difference what year it is.

Well, rowland, you were right to warn us this story was completely uncorroborated:

talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ … harry-reid

Just what was the intended purpose of this thread? Was it trolling? Should it have been temped, by the same standards that some other threads get temped? If not, what’s the distinction?

Just asking.