TargaryenTKE @ TargaryenTKE @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

252

Joined

2 yr. ago

In what way? The article mainly presents historical facts, not ideological theories. And when it does present theories, it does so within the historical context surrounding it. That was the whole point of the article, that one's view of history directly relates to their political leaning. If you want to be fair and balanced but refuse to acknowledge that one side is clearly doing more criminal/immoral acts and/or just straight up lying than the other party, then you're not being fair at all; you're giving false credibility to an obvious conman simply because you don't want to admit you've been played

In what way? The article mainly presents historical facts, not ideological theories. And when it does present theories, it does so within the historical context surrounding it. That was the whole point of the article, that one's view of history directly relates to their political leaning. If you want to be fair and balanced but refuse to acknowledge that one side is clearly doing more criminal/immoral acts and/or just straight up lying than the other party, then you're not being fair at all; you're giving false credibility to an obvious conman simply because you don't want to admit you've been played

Did you even read the rest of the article? Or did you just Ctrl+F "Trump" and "Harris"?

I agree in principle, but I feel like I should point out that mindset is very similar to what we all thought back in 2016, and he ended up 'winning' because we underestimated his chances. Unfortunately, we'll just have to let hindsight be the judge

So this summary I'm going to give really does not do justice to the whole situation, but I'm going to try to be brief-yet-informative:

In 1921, Tulsa, Oklahoma, a black teenager, Dick Rowland, was arrested for 'assaulting' a white woman (most reports say he likely just tripped and accidentally touched her as he fell; she declined to give a statement). At the time, the black community in Tulsa was one of the most financially successful in the country, colloquially called "Black Wall Street." Meanwhile, the KKK and racism in general were at a historic high across the entire country, not just the South. As news spread over the arrest, a large group of white people (some of whom had been deputized earlier that day for this exact purpose) arrived at the jail to lynch Rowland as well as a smaller group of black people who arrived to defend him from what was certainly going to be his death. Some sources disagree on how EXACTLY the violence started but the general consensus is that the police convinced the black group to go home but someone in the white mob tried to disarm them before they left, possibly even trying to wrestle away someone's gun. A shot was fired, and then many, many shots. Over the next 16(ish) hours, white mob violence burned down 35 square blocks of Black Wall Street (at least 1250 homes), somewhere between 50-300 people died, many hundreds more were injured, and not a single criminal charge was brought to anyone. Also insurance companies refused to compensate the black families because obviously

Fast forward to 1996, and the city of Tulsa formed a committee to investigate the Massacre (only 75 years late). The committee found that the city was at least partially responsible and should (among other things) pay reparations to the few remaining geriatric survivors who would have been mere children at the time. The city refused to do follow their advice (even though they were the ones who MADE the committee in the first place) so a lawsuit was attempted. It was thrown out because the statute of limitations (which was only 2 years for a civil rights claim) had long since passed. Although the city DID give out some medals to the survivors as if they were fucking Olympic athletes or something and not the victims of a state-supported hate crime/murder spree

It's another example in a very, VERY long list of American hypocrisy, broken promises, and racism that we refuse to even acknowledge on an official level. It's kinda similar to modern-day Japan denying that they committed any war crimes during World War 2 despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary

And yet, they still refuse to even consider taking any kind of responsibility

Goddammit you got me

That was a great explanation, thank you

I had forgotten and the joke was almost lost on me, thanks!

Did you bring the buttfor?

Similarly, pretty much every accusation from every Republican can be interpreted as a confession

Honestly, I'm pretty sure I was just drunk wrong when I said Nintendo. I know they started with playing cards and I think I just assumed they dabbled with other stuff but no, I was wrong. I'll edit my comment

Wait until OP learns about the chaebol system or Nintendo

Edit: I was drunk confusing Nintendo with something it isn't, I was wrong

Good shit post, 7/10 8/7/22

Edit: (For my fellow Americans, that's July 8th, not Aug 7)

Completely ignoring the (better) point that most resumes only really include job history that would directly affect what you're applying for, I have been told countless times that if I so much as dared to include a resume that was more than 1 single page, it would immediately get tossed in the trash.

Zionism does not equal Judaism; it's a political stance, not a cultural identity

Look, I don't like Kamala either and I think continuing to supply weapons is awful, obviously. But she's the only realistic option at this point. You can still protest the genocide in Gaza AFTER the election (and I fully support you doing so, Hell I might even meet you at one), but look at it this way: if Kamala wins, you at least have a chance to make a change over there, but if Trump wins again, every Palestinian is as good as dead. Do I like either option? No! Do I think our elections are a good system? No! Am I going to vote for Kamala anyway? Yes! Because at this point, the choice is between shooting ourselves in the foot or in the temple

It's the only realistic option at this point. You can still protest the genocide in Gaza AFTER the election (and I fully support you doing so, Hell I might even meet you at one), but look at it this way: if Kamala wins, you have a chance to make a change over there, but if Trump wins again, every Palestinian is as good as dead. Do I like either option? No! Do I think our elections are a good system? No! Am I going to vote for Kamala anyway? Yes! Because at this point, the choice is between shooting ourselves in the foot or in the temple