KKK Irish Outreach

[NineBerry]

It was Halloween. They may have been dressed as ghosts.

They must have been time travellers. Halloween is only today.

[Rum]

Neither the KKK nor the Orange order were representatives of minorities, until arguably, recently. The KKK seems to have grown up to defend the old ways in the face of improving conditions for black people and the Orange order in the face of the perceived threat from Catholics. At the time white communities in the south of the USA and Prods in NI were mainstream and in the majority.

Perhaps it is encouraging that we increasingly see them as fringe loonies these days - if dangerous ones.

[Cunt]

Cunt, after 9/11 were Americans more or less afraid of terrorism than they had been before 9/11? Now, ask the same question of blacks given events like the shooting described above. It's that simple.

I'd appreciate it if would explain how this:

Here is a revolutionary idea - how about thinking of people as people first, rather than a race first?

It's a lesson taught to me by people who have been labelled retarded their whole life. Believe me when I say that they have plenty to teach you, too.

addresses my point, and specifically how you imagine that it counters my point. It feels like you're just waving your hands around. It looks like you're attempting to insinuate that we disagree because you understand the world at some deeper level. Well, take me to that deeper level. Explain how your comment relates to mine, and how it counters the point I made.

With 'people first' language, you don't say 'white person', you say 'person who is white'. This same principle holds true across dimensions, race, creed, anything. It's not 'muslim person', it is 'person who is muslim'.

The reasons are damned good ones - they force you to first think of the group as humans, with the rest being less important.

People First of Canada taught me that, and it shows quickly how many people misuse language in this way.

Do you think seeing people who are black shot in a grocery store makes people who are white feel safer? Do you think that identifying the race or political affiliation of attackers is more important than anything else?

Start by thinking that people aren't 'black or white' first, but people first. If you want to say that a group is marginalized, you can still do so. If you want to rally support for a group, you still can. What it resists, is making another feature more important than humanity. Dividing people along racial, gender or political party lines doesn't exactly bring people together, does it?

Now, going back to this, why use these victims to make your point? Because of their race. Odds are, you would skim over 10 dead hispanics to find these, because you needed black victims.

You are using group identity FIRST. Try using people first language, and see how your thinking changes when you notice others doing it.

And seriously, if you haven't had exposure to People First, check into them. Great group who are more oppressed than ANY group you can name (because even your precious 'black people' can be in worse shape than just being black...)

[Animavore]

The arguments of KKK scum and the Orange order are similar. Both are afraid of demographics going against them and the previously oppressed (by them) coming back to take revenge by oppressing them back.

This, at base, is the root of their, and all Trump supporters, fears.

[Cunt]

The arguments of KKK scum and the Orange order are similar. Both are afraid of demographics going against them and the previously oppressed (by them) coming back to take revenge by oppressing them back.

This, at base, is the root of their, and all Trump supporters, fears.

Have you reached out to a Trump supporter, and found them fearful? Or are you just imagining some of them being fearful? Or is this just the script fed to you?

[Sean Hayden]

Cunt, after 9/11 were Americans more or less afraid of terrorism than they had been before 9/11? Now, ask the same question of blacks given events like the shooting described above. It's that simple.

I'd appreciate it if would explain how this:

Here is a revolutionary idea - how about thinking of people as people first, rather than a race first?

It's a lesson taught to me by people who have been labelled retarded their whole life. Believe me when I say that they have plenty to teach you, too.

addresses my point, and specifically how you imagine that it counters my point. It feels like you're just waving your hands around. It looks like you're attempting to insinuate that we disagree because you understand the world at some deeper level. Well, take me to that deeper level. Explain how your comment relates to mine, and how it counters the point I made.

With 'people first' language, you don't say 'white person', you say 'person who is white'. This same principle holds true across dimensions, race, creed, anything. It's not 'muslim person', it is 'person who is muslim'.

The reasons are damned good ones - they force you to first think of the group as humans, with the rest being less important.

People First of Canada taught me that, and it shows quickly how many people misuse language in this way.

Do you think seeing people who are black shot in a grocery store makes people who are white feel safer? Do you think that identifying the race or political affiliation of attackers is more important than anything else?

Start by thinking that people aren't 'black or white' first, but people first. If you want to say that a group is marginalized, you can still do so. If you want to rally support for a group, you still can. What it resists, is making another feature more important than humanity. Dividing people along racial, gender or political party lines doesn't exactly bring people together, does it?

Now, going back to this, why use these victims to make your point? Because of their race. Odds are, you would skim over 10 dead hispanics to find these, because you needed black victims.

You are using group identity FIRST. Try using people first language, and see how your thinking changes when you notice others doing it.

And seriously, if you haven't had exposure to People First, check into them. Great group who are more oppressed than ANY group you can name (because even your precious 'black people' can be in worse shape than just being black...)

I used black because I was talking about racists being harder to live with than SJWs, and I gave an example of the very worst of racism. The two people shot were shot because they were black.


Now, how does your "people first langauge" alter or counter that point?

People who are black are likely to be more hurt by the story of yet more people who are black being murdered because they are people who are black than people reacting to learning that they shouldn't call people retarded anymore.


Other than adding a lot of words and destroying clarity in the process?

It doesn't. It changes nothing.

[Sean Hayden]

It's just hand waving. You want to assert that you've got some deeper understanding of the issue, but so far you're unable to produce that understanding.

It's frustrating as hell.

[pErvinalia]

It sounds like a more confused version of #alllivesmatter. Essentially lacking in any sense of empathic understanding.

[Cunt]

Cunt, after 9/11 were Americans more or less afraid of terrorism than they had been before 9/11? Now, ask the same question of blacks given events like the shooting described above. It's that simple.

I'd appreciate it if would explain how this:

Here is a revolutionary idea - how about thinking of people as people first, rather than a race first?

It's a lesson taught to me by people who have been labelled retarded their whole life. Believe me when I say that they have plenty to teach you, too.

addresses my point, and specifically how you imagine that it counters my point. It feels like you're just waving your hands around. It looks like you're attempting to insinuate that we disagree because you understand the world at some deeper level. Well, take me to that deeper level. Explain how your comment relates to mine, and how it counters the point I made.

With 'people first' language, you don't say 'white person', you say 'person who is white'. This same principle holds true across dimensions, race, creed, anything. It's not 'muslim person', it is 'person who is muslim'.

The reasons are damned good ones - they force you to first think of the group as humans, with the rest being less important.

People First of Canada taught me that, and it shows quickly how many people misuse language in this way.

Do you think seeing people who are black shot in a grocery store makes people who are white feel safer? Do you think that identifying the race or political affiliation of attackers is more important than anything else?

Start by thinking that people aren't 'black or white' first, but people first. If you want to say that a group is marginalized, you can still do so. If you want to rally support for a group, you still can. What it resists, is making another feature more important than humanity. Dividing people along racial, gender or political party lines doesn't exactly bring people together, does it?

Now, going back to this, why use these victims to make your point? Because of their race. Odds are, you would skim over 10 dead hispanics to find these, because you needed black victims.

You are using group identity FIRST. Try using people first language, and see how your thinking changes when you notice others doing it.

And seriously, if you haven't had exposure to People First, check into them. Great group who are more oppressed than ANY group you can name (because even your precious 'black people' can be in worse shape than just being black...)

I used black because I was talking about racists being harder to live with than SJWs, and I gave an example of the very worst of racism. The two people shot were shot because they were black.


Now, how does your "people first langauge" alter or counter that point?

People who are black are likely to be more hurt by the story of yet more people who are black being murdered because they are people who are black than people reacting to learning that they shouldn't call people retarded anymore.


Other than adding a lot of words and destroying clarity in the process?

It doesn't. It changes nothing.

So are you suggesting that this multiple murder is somehow indicitave of some statistical increase in danger to people of certain races?

Or that waving a story like this around the media will make people fear that is the case?

[Sean Hayden]

I'm asking you to see that living with racism is more difficult than living with SJWs.

I can't tell if you're a genius, or one thick motherfucker.

[pErvinalia]

He's certainly not a genius.

[Sean Hayden]

Well, there are some smart assholes who like to play like this.

[Svartalf]

Neither the KKK nor the Orange order were representatives of minorities, until arguably, recently. The KKK seems to have grown up to defend the old ways in the face of improving conditions for black people and the Orange order in the face of the perceived threat from Catholics. At the time white communities in the south of the USA and Prods in NI were mainstream and in the majority.

Perhaps it is encouraging that we increasingly see them as fringe loonies these days - if dangerous ones.

can't argue with that, but I think that their loss of majority status is a fact.

[Cunt]

I'm asking you to see that living with racism is more difficult than living with SJWs.

I can't tell if you're a genius, or one thick motherfucker.

I have lived with both. Living with SJW's is MUCH harder.

Try this - go disagree with racists (like the fellow who collects KKK robes as 'trophies'). Next, go disagree similarly with SJW's.

Note the difference when you get back. See if you still disagree with me.

[Sean Hayden]

-meh, with my time growing up in Texas, and doing time in Texas, I'm comfortable calling your claim bullshit, and laughably so. Give me the SJWs thanks!

But even without that experience, I'd be stupid to ignore the enormous gulf between SJWs and racists in terms of actual harm done in the US.