Noteworthy News

[Angrboda]

I'd like to request that the serious tag be removed from this thread. There doesn't appear to be a legitimate need for a thread discussing news items of random focus and seriousness to be protected or administered differently from an unmoderated thread. Particularly if people are going to use it for posting what are essentially personal attacks and ad hominems based upon straw men when challenged with an alternative interpretation of events. Failing that, IA may deserve a thread ban for the thinly veiled personal attacks even after having been reminded of the serious tag.

[Irreligious Atheist]

I'd like to request that the serious tag be removed from this thread.  There doesn't appear to be a legitimate need for a thread discussing news items of random focus and seriousness to be protected or administered differently from an unmoderated thread.  Particularly if people are going to use it for posting what are essentially personal attacks and ad hominems based upon straw men when challenged with an alternative interpretation of events.  Failing that, IA may deserve a thread ban for the thinly veiled personal attacks even after having been reminded of the serious tag.

What personal attacks? Children were assaulted on camera, and Tomato is asking what they did to deserve it, without any reason to believe they did anything at all based on the information we have. How is that any different from blaming a woman for her own rape? Even Boru didn't dare go that far and blame the kids for what happened to them. He just questioned parts of the story, which actually looks pretty tame now compared to what Tomato posted. And it's hilarious that you are now doing exactly what the woke students the black professor talked about engaged in (from the Destiny link I shared on the previous page). You and those students are one in the same. You hear one opinion that offends you and you starting calling for an authoritarian lockdown of speech and asking for your safe space while you give no shits about little children who were horrified as they ran away, got dragged and assaulted. Some priorities you have there.

Also, why would you immediately jump to the thought of a thread ban? I know why. It's because you want to silence me from posting stories that make your pet movements look bad. Period. If that wasn't the case, why not instead suggest that I get a warning, and be told not to make comparisons to blaming rape victims anymore? If that's what the mods want from me, I'd be happy to oblige and stop making that comparison if I must, because that's not a hill that I need to die on, but that's not good enough for you, is it? You want me banished, so news stories from only one perspective will be talked about from now on.

[Rev. Rye]

I'd like to request that the serious tag be removed from this thread.  There doesn't appear to be a legitimate need for a thread discussing news items of random focus and seriousness to be protected or administered differently from an unmoderated thread.  Particularly if people are going to use it for posting what are essentially personal attacks and ad hominems based upon straw men when challenged with an alternative interpretation of events.  Failing that, IA may deserve a thread ban for the thinly veiled personal attacks even after having been reminded of the serious tag.

What personal attacks? Children were assaulted on camera, and Tomato is asking what they did to deserve it, without any reason to believe they did anything at all based on the information we have. How is that any different from blaming a woman for her own rape?

For one thing, we know women get raped with zero provocation on their part all the fucking time.

However, something like white kids being attacked by black kids out of the blue and just being forced to swear allegiance to BLM is a strange event that demands more context. Especially when given sources like the Washington Examiner (a right-wing rag) and Andy Ngo (a less than credible journalist,) things start to get suspicious. This isn't helped by the fact that many of us have seen implausible stories of black-on-white crime (or cases of white people being persecuted for something that seems benign that actually isn't) that seem specifically designed to either radicalise people Dylann Roof-style or to pander to the prejudices of the already radicalised.

[Irreligious Atheist]

What personal attacks? Children were assaulted on camera, and Tomato is asking what they did to deserve it, without any reason to believe they did anything at all based on the information we have. How is that any different from blaming a woman for her own rape?

For one thing, we know women get raped with zero provocation on their part all the fucking time.

However, something like white kids being attacked by black kids out of the blue and just being forced to swear allegiance to BLM is a strange event that demands more context. Especially when given sources like the Washington Examiner (a right-wing rag) and Andy Ngo (a less than credible journalist,) things start to get suspicious. This isn't helped by the fact that many of us have seen implausible stories of black-on-white crime (or cases of white people being persecuted for something that seems benign that actually isn't) that seem specifically designed to either radicalise people Dylann Roof-style or to pander to the prejudices of the already radicalised.

Most mainstream media is not going to report on the story, either because it's a local story and most local stories don't get national coverage, or because it doesn't fit the narrative. You think I like the Washington Examiner? Hell no. You think I like the New York Post? Not even close. But we get what we get in those regards. Of course we should be suspicious of these news sites, but after examining what we know, what happened is pretty clear in this particular case. The simplest explanation is usually true. Did a bunch of kids and witnesses right after the fact conspire to make up some story about being made to kneel for BLM, after they were dragged and assaulted. Or was it the parents? A father saw his son, and asked him who else got beat up, and then he called that other father and they decided together to make up a hoax about the BLM kneeling story, and then they told their children to enact this story, and the witnesses as well. Extremely unlikely. And then they got the principal and even police department to go along with their hoax? Even more unlikely still. This is beyond silly.

Does the Washington Examiner or the New York Post have alternative motives for sharing this story, like making so called CRT in schools look bad (for the record I don't call it CRT and I'm against any type of banning of anything in schools and I'm entirely against Ron Desantis' authoritarian Floridian laws), or maybe the Washington Examiner and NYP even want to sew seeds of distrust with images of black violence against white children, to the point where people will get radicalized and start thinking blacks are inherently violent. For sure those could be alternative motives, and of course we need to be constantly suspicious of these news sites. No disagreement there. There are thousands of news sites doing this, and it sucks. But Helios will see that the NYP is trying to radicalize people into anti-blackness, and from that, he will take away the position that anyone who shares any negative news story about a black person ever is literally the reincarnation of Hitler. He has a one track, all or nothing way of thinking and judging people.

I was not making any point about black children being violent, because I made sure to point out that this was very rare, but Helios just can't help himself. I started a fight and beat someone up on the playground as a kid to impress my older brother and his friends, and later felt bad about it. We all do dumb things as kids. That was never the point of me sharing the news story.

If you get a chance to check out the Destiny video I posted a page or two back of him reading a black professors comments about how bad and insufferable many students are nowadays, I'd like to hear your opinion on that if you get the chance sometime. I hope that video will better explain to you the problematic behaviour of the youth I was talking about before, as I think I was misunderstood. I don't want kids to be raised as child soldiers with no emotion. I don't want boys not to talk about their depression. But what the black professor talks about is bonkers.

And as far as what Tomato said in particular, he came down pretty hard on the white students, who are the only victims we know of, calling them white supremacists out of nowhere (I'm going to need a source for that, please, Tomato, or does refusing to kneel for BLM on the playground automatically equate to white supremacy to you, Tomato?), and Tomato also insinuated that they likely earned retaliation by saying he'd bet the victims might have been the real bullies. If anyone said that about a female victim of you know what, it'd be an automatic ban, but since it's me, IA, people automatically defend Tomato blaming the child victims while they call for my banishment (not saying you are. Respect for that.)

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that if our main concern is to avoid being a reincarnation of hitler, the white bar has been set awfully low. In general, though, I think you're on to something. When white supremacists start complaining about white genocide people do tend to tell them to go pound sand.

[Rev. Rye]

Yes, I understand that sometimes, activists can get their heads completely up their own asses, like the ones in Vincent Lloyd's seminar. I don't question that the sort of black-focused-to-the-exclusion-of-everything-else he described is real and, if tried in the real world, will only alienate people. Christ, just read Huggy Bear's posts on the subject for an example of that. Thing is, in my research, the closest thing to the event you described that I've seen them do is maybe dogpiling on Twitter. Or shit like this:





What I don't see is them actively bullying people IRL into supporting BLM. If the narrative that Ngo and the Examiner are pushing is actually true, then this sort of inexcusable act is still outnumbered by all the many cases of right-wing media sources (like them) overblowing some story and pushing the sort of narrative that, if it's not black people who are inherently violent, then it's BLM that's bad. And, in many of those cases, it turns out they're leaving out crucial information. There's only so many times such sources can talk about shit like that and leave out crucial information before we start reflexively asking for more information or suspecting that the "victim" might have actually provoked his attackers.

[Angrboda]

A Christmas gift meant to bring a family joy had a nasty surprise instead.

Adam Nottingham's kids got a Super Nintendo knockoff console last Christmas, preloaded with more than 800 games.

Nottingham believed it was a great gift at first; a chance to show his young sons some retro games.

“Nostalgia, these are the games I grew up with,” Nottingham said.

The console boasts that it is family-friendly online, claiming parents can watch their kids “enjoy the same happiness and fun in their childhood as you did!”

“We were hoping it was a fun gaming system for the kids to play." Nottingham said, "We did not expect anything inappropriate like this.”

Instead of games like Super Mario 2, the console had "Blackman 2." The game's home screen has the words "Kill Whitey" as the player picks their character. Throughout the levels, there are animated figures of the KKK.

Another game involves two kids going on an inappropriate adventure with Ronald McDonald.

“Naked children, they are reading a book that says porn on it, male genitalia all over the levels,” Nottingham said.

Nottingham expected to see some fake games on the console, but never imagined finding racist and sexual content.

“This was from Walmart,” Nottingham said.

Walmart confirmed the console was sold by a third party using its website. The supermarket removed the listing and the product is no longer for sale.

However, Walmart was not the only retailer that listed the console.

The product is still available on sites like Amazon.

(link)

[Rev. Rye]

Honestly, it figures that one of those "fuckton of games" emulators would be filled to the brim with shitty rom hacks like Blackman 2, which was actually a black-centered response to an earlier, racist SM2 hack. It's either that or loading them with hundreds of professional games there's no way in Hell you have the rights to.



But far be it from me to complain too much about the latter. I ordered a hardcover version of American Psycho from a Print-on-Demand publisher and was surprised that they went through the trouble of just rebinding a new paperback into the sort of elegant binding a book of that statue deserves.

[Angrboda]

Fox News pundits found themselves in a difficult spot when they had to brush off the results of a recent poll that found most Americans do not view the word "woke" as an insult.

Former Trump White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, now a Fox News host, and host Brian Kilmeade discussed the results of a recent USA Today-IPSOS poll asking how respondents would feel if someone described them as "woke."

The term generally refers to progressive ideologies that acknowledge concepts of social justice, civil rights, and labour issues.

The poll found that 56 per cent of respondents said they understood "woke" to mean "informed, educated on, and aware of social injustices."

"Believe it or not, 56 per cent have a positive view of the word woke," Kilmeade said.

Ms McEnany brushed off the results, suggesting "normal people" would not respond to a request to participate in a poll.

"I'm a Floridian so I get calls from pollsters all the time. I hang up on them," she said. "I think normal people who don't like woke just click, click, click."

However, the USA Today-Ipsos poll did include Republicans, and nearly a third of GOP-identifying respondent were among those who shared a favourable definition of the word woke.

Only 39 per cent of respondents had an unfavourable definition of woke, which they took to mean "to be overly politically correct and police others' words."

(The Independent)

[Silver]

Fox News pundits found themselves in a difficult spot when they had to brush off the results of a recent poll that found most Americans do not view the word "woke" as an insult.

Former Trump White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, now a Fox News host, and host Brian Kilmeade discussed the results of a recent USA Today-IPSOS poll asking how respondents would feel if someone described them as "woke."

The term generally refers to progressive ideologies that acknowledge concepts of social justice, civil rights, and labour issues.

The poll found that 56 per cent of respondents said they understood "woke" to mean "informed, educated on, and aware of social injustices."

"Believe it or not, 56 per cent have a positive view of the word woke," Kilmeade said.

Ms McEnany brushed off the results, suggesting "normal people" would not respond to a request to participate in a poll.

"I'm a Floridian so I get calls from pollsters all the time. I hang up on them," she said. "I think normal people who don't like woke just click, click, click."

However, the USA Today-Ipsos poll did include Republicans, and nearly a third of GOP-identifying respondent were among those who shared a favourable definition of the word woke.

Only 39 per cent of respondents had an unfavourable definition of woke, which they took to mean "to be overly politically correct and police others' words."

(The Independent)

When it comes to woke's antithetical, why would someone even want to be considered a critical thinking retiree?