The Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment.
"[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
while that should be a common sense statement, we've already seen people try to claim that racism was somehow dead before obama came.
so that has to be a dynamic that has to be acknowledge. on one side, racism will never die, but on the other, unfortunately we have way too many people who think racism is dead.
not even close.
i agree with you that a short term solution is exposing them out in the open. my fear with that - and maybe that's a consequence we have to just live with - is that exposing them could potentially lead to more attacks like we saw with the guy who drove his car into a crowd.
we agree that *most* like to operate in the shadows, but once their expose, it's a crapshoot as to what their response is gonna be after that. will they retreat further into the shadows and just keep their nastiness to themselves and lay low? or will they just say screw it and go full potato on the american population?
but again, maybe that's a risk we are just gonna have to deal with when it comes to beating back this plague.
breaking up their ways of communication, through forums and their websites, is something i agree with.
the problem is what does the law say about that?
the 1st amendment (i fully agree with and do not want any changes to it whatsoever) protects these ass hats in a lot of different ways. so that's something we have to make sure we don't screw up while combating racist, because the last thing we need is something going up to the supreme court, and then having a bunch of racist standing on the grounds in DC declaring victory.
holy recruitment numbers, batman!!!
i know i come off as severely militant when it comes to the klan and such, but man bro....we really haven't seen anything else work other than combat.
i mean how many times does that ideology need to lose in the grandest battles of all time before they realize that they are indeed a minority demographic?
and the education tip sometimes bothers me. i agree with you and Vers that we got to get the kids as exposed to the real world as possible. but how do you do that while circumventing their racist parents?
while not all of them, a lot of these guys live in places where there just isn't much of any minorities in the area. so the only exposure they get to minorities is the occasional latino who works out in the rural area, and the media where depending on what they're watching, is showing nothing but negatives when it comes to minorities.
so for most of the adults, it's already too late. and then there's the added dynamic that they ARE our cops, doctors, teachers, technicians, judges, and everywhere else in our society.
so with the other portion of that demographic, they ARE exposed to diversity, and preach against it anyway.
the biggest tool for factual education, the internet, is how these guys unite and plan out protest/marches and spread their racist memes, etc. so they already have the tool to know what the world is really like, yet decided to hell with that and spread their racist ideology anyway.
i mean damn, they even changed the narrative and have people believing their narrative.
go back to the other thread. look how many people tried to claim the issue that they were protesting was "history" and the "statues".
Diam, you and i both know that when people are marching in the streets chanting "blood and soil", something about jews blah blah blah, and having nazi flags and heil hitler salutes, that the LAST thing they give a crap about is the statues.
the statue was nothing more than a rally point for them to congregate at and spread their hate. and yet they've managed to get people like Day, Knight, 40, and Excl to think that the actual problem is the removal of the statues, when the REALITY is that the white nationalist honor those statues and "defend" them because it represents the history of white superiority and the oppression of jews and other minorities.
the racist ideology might be stupid as all hell, but their tactics are not. they are highly intelligent when it comes to how they operate, and look how many people, including right here on the board, that they straight up PLAYED into thinking that the statues was the main issue. their strategy worked so well that they have people who don't even realize that they are arguing in favor of white nationalist ideology. They even got the POTUS doing it now.
so when we're talking about educating the population, it appears that we need to start with the people who claim they aren't racist first. because they don't seem to understand the significance of how and why these confederate monuments are a rallying cry for white nationalist. they got played into the false narrative that this is about destroying history, when the people who created the narrative are actually protesting/marching to keep white superiority at the front of our country.
we have a lot of work to do.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Saw this earlier. She posted then deleted it. I think she should and will be getting a visit from the secret service. Wishing the man assassinated is just plain wrong and there is no excuse. I hope she is jailed since she is in a position of power.
So I guess the Germans were cowards when they removed the statues and symbolism of Hitler and nazis after the war too, right?
Comparing Confederate War Leaders to Hitler is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen anyone parrot on here. I didn't see the Confederates commiting mass genocide against a race, or baking people alive in ovens..get a grip man!
thanks for satisfying Godwins Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
confederates fought to keep blacks enslaved. and they do have a long history of mass murder as former confederate soldiers is what formed the KKK.
you don't even know your history yet got the nerve to make ridiculous comments like this?
please, keep posting. lets see how ignorant you truly are.
Knowing our History is an important thing and destroying or changing the facts of our History will leave future generations ignorant of all we have been through as a Nation.
So please let me know when you are willing to tear down everything associated with the Democrat Party as it was under their leadership that all these Racist things occurred.
Let me know when you are ready to tear down the statue of Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat leader. It is shocking that in the current year of 2017, there are hateful symbols of the Ku Klux Klan still in the US Capitol. The statue to Robert Byrd, Democrat Senator and "exalted cyclops" of the KKK is one.
-Robert Byrd was not only a KKK member but was in a key leadership position as "exalted cyclops" -Robert Byrd actively worked against desegregation efforts and filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Also let me know when you are ready to start burning books about our history as there are people with a long history of doing just that. I am sure they would be willing to help.
That crap belongs in a museum. Take it out out of our state and federal Buildings and parks, and put it in a museum where it belongs.
I do not know how much clearer I can possibly make that statement.
Last edited by Swish; 08/18/1708:58 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So I guess the Germans were cowards when they removed the statues and symbolism of Hitler and nazis after the war too, right?
Comparing Confederate War Leaders to Hitler is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen anyone parrot on here. I didn't see the Confederates commiting mass genocide against a race, or baking people alive in ovens..get a grip man!
thanks for satisfying Godwins Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
confederates fought to keep blacks enslaved. and they do have a long history of mass murder as former confederate soldiers is what formed the KKK.
you don't even know your history yet got the nerve to make ridiculous comments like this?
please, keep posting. lets see how ignorant you truly are.
It doens't change the fact the men on those statues are part of this nations history, for good or bad. Those statues are a constant reminder for the mistakes of the past to not be forgotten.
Of course the KKK during the Reconstruction Era was made up of former Confederate Sympathizer and Confederate Soldiers! Of course they committed foul acts, so did Tammany Hall of the 1850's, so did the Irish Mob of the 19th centuries....whats your point?
America wouldn't be the nation it is today without the mistakes of the men in those statues. If not for the men in those statues, Blacks would not be free.
Listen to Abraham Lincoln himself in a letter to Horace Greeley
Quote:
"my paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery, If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”- Abraham Lincoln
You think blacks would be free without them? Listen to Abraham Lincolns Inaugural Address:
Quote:
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered.
There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you.
I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Abraham Lincoln— First inaugural address, 4 March 1861[202]
Without the men in those statues, Blacks would not have gotten their freedom till much, much, much later...Lincoln wasn't going to raise a finger to change anything in the south.
On the contrary Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution which was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress.
Thus had that passed before the states decided to rebel Congress nor the Federal Government would have had ZERO authority to end slavery, and Lincoln supported it.
You call me ignorant? Its you that doesn't know the history. Had the South simply chilled and not done anything, Lincoln would not have raised a finger to end slvery, he said so himself....he didn't want war...in his letters he says as much....but keep believing the utter lies they teach about history in our crappy school system and liberal controlled press.
Move it to a museum where that crap belongs. They LOST. The only history the confederate have is a history of LOSING.
Remember, the confederacy wanted to secede from the union. Which means what?
They didn't want to be part of America. As such the confederacy represents TREASON.
Ya lost, get over it, change the confederate flag to an all white flag since y'all LOST, and move the monuments to a museum.
And stop trying to convince me to romanticize the people who fought to keep my ancestors ENSLAVED.
You are wasting your time. Take that crap to the daily stormer or the Briebart message boards where they actually agree with your nonsense.
Last edited by Swish; 08/18/1709:13 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
i agree with you that a short term solution is exposing them out in the open. my fear with that - and maybe that's a consequence we have to just live with - is that exposing them could potentially lead to more attacks like we saw with the guy who drove his car into a crowd.
we agree that *most* like to operate in the shadows, but once their expose, it's a crapshoot as to what their response is gonna be after that. will they retreat further into the shadows and just keep their nastiness to themselves and lay low? or will they just say screw it and go full potato on the american population?
but again, maybe that's a risk we are just gonna have to deal with when it comes to beating back this plague.
I believe theres going to have to be some ugliness and bad consequences that come with this ... your 100% correct on not knowing how some are going to react to being put back in the shadows ... we have no other choice though ... if were going to push back and we have too .. there not ALL going to just go away silently ....
Quote:
the problem is what does the law say about that?
No clue what the law says about the communication aspect of it ... and i am 100% on board about protecting the POS in regards to their 1st ammendment rights ... 100% on board with that ...
Facebook, Google, paypal ... there all "privately held" companies ... i know there publically traded, thats not what i mean by privately held in this case ... they can allow whoever the hell they want to post or to host sites on their sites ... there not bound by the 1st ammendment in regards to that ....
If I'm wrong ... u shut them down anyhow and let them sue ... then in 6 years after all the appeals and everything ... at least we've shut them down for 6 years ...
holy recruitment numbers, batman!!!
That made me *LOL* ..
i know i come off as severely militant when it comes to the klan and such, but man bro....we really haven't seen anything else work other than combat.
Please tell me what actual combat strategy u think would work ... i don't think theres one to combat this issue right now today ... I've been wrong before .. *L*
i mean how many times does that ideology need to lose in the grandest battles of all time before they realize that they are indeed a minority demographic?
I think the grand battles are done ... i sure hope so ... they'll never realize how small of a group they are ...
and the education tip sometimes bothers me. i agree with you and Vers that we got to get the kids as exposed to the real world as possible. but how do you do that while circumventing their racist parents?
Unfortunatley u cant ... its something were just going to have to learn the best way to deal with .. this may be an unsolvable problem with no solution ... the best we can do is educate them in school and hope they fall in with the "right" kids as they grow up .. i believe your next point feeds into it ...
while not all of them, a lot of these guys live in places where there just isn't much of any minorities in the area. so the only exposure they get to minorities is the occasional latino who works out in the rural area, and the media where depending on what they're watching, is showing nothing but negatives when it comes to minorities.
Agree 100% with this ... the good news on this front ... there's more and more segration in schools .. this time its not forced ... and kids are kids ... unless there coming from a racist house there color blind .... i noticed before i left the crap hole they call NY and down here in SC ... its really segregated ... my 3 youngest nephews have black friends they hang out with ... my oldest nephew has no friends ... sad but true ... borderline autistic and hes basically a recluse ... the first friend my 12 year old nephew had come over was a black kid ...
One of the things i love about the neighborhood my nephews live in ... theres a mix of white, black, middle eastern, Indian (dots not feathers .. thats not meant to be racist just the easiest description) and Mexicans ... i think that's AWESOME ... and hopefully will lead to aless racist country ...
so for most of the adults, it's already too late. and then there's the added dynamic that they ARE our cops, doctors, teachers, technicians, judges, and everywhere else in our society.
so with the other portion of that demographic, they ARE exposed to diversity, and preach against it anyway
I'm sure thats more prevelant than i believe .. hopefully its less prevelant than u believe ... I'm ASSuming we have a pretty wide gap in our beliefs on that one .. *L* ..
There's nothing we can do about that ... until we expose them or they expose themselves ... once that happens we can deal with it .. .
go back to the other thread. look how many people tried to claim the issue that they were protesting was "history" and the "statues".
Not a big fan of reading crap anymore ... from both sides .. so no thanks .. *LOL* ..
Diam, you and i both know that when people are marching in the streets chanting "blood and soil", something about jews blah blah blah, and having nazi flags and heil hitler salutes, that the LAST thing they give a crap about is the statues.
I agree .. the statues just gave them a reason and a platform to show us what POS they are ..
the statue was nothing more than a rally point for them to congregate at and spread their hate. and yet they've managed to get people like Day, Knight, 40, and Excl to think that the actual problem is the removal of the statues, when the REALITY is that the white nationalist honor those statues and "defend" them because it represents the history of white superiority and the oppression of jews and other minorities.
I don't agree with that ... it appears that way because of the nature of this board and both sides contribute to it ... just look at U and I and the discussion were having right here and now .. 2 weeks ago if u took a poll i bet 0% of the board would have ever thought this was possible ... including U and I ... *LOL* ...
not sure if your opinion of me has changed at all since we've started discussing and became civil .. i know you've shocked me a few times .. *L* .. lets be honest ... a week ago with how we treated each other you'd be calling me a racist and i'd be saying you having a white wife doesn't prove your not a racist ... and those maybe the nices things we said to each other ...
I actually don't believe that any of us are that far off in our views .. the nature of the board has made us post in ways that make us appear to be mortal enemies ...
*shrugs* .. i could be wrong .. but i don't think i am and i sure as all hell hope not ...
so when we're talking about educating the population, it appears that we need to start with the people who claim they aren't racist first. because they don't seem to understand the significance of how and why these confederate monuments are a rallying cry for white nationalist. they got played into the false narrative that this is about destroying history, when the people who created the narrative are actually protesting/marching to keep white superiority at the front of our country.
I think we have more important places to start ... but i agree that is something we need to adress also ... i say it all the time .. u don't know what u don't know .. and that is worth a discussion ...
I'm not sure i explained the education thing clearly ... there's a bunch of components to that .. like education ourselves as to who these people are and what motivated them to hold the beliefs they do ... to educate ourselves on how to best get through to them and how to get there money and how to make communicating and recruiting as hard as we can ...
That's great bro and I appreciate the understanding we have now.
At least we agree: nazis are bad.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Remember, the confederacy wanted to secede from the union. Which means what?
They didn't want to be part of America. As such the confederacy represents TREASON.
You speak as a person of today wishing to bring our history from the past and look at it from today's view. This is wrong.
Back in the days of Lincoln, the States ruled themselves for the most part. This was how it was in America. People knew the State would watch out for their best interests and trusted them. The thought of surrendering those Rights to a large Federal Government was considered TREASON. Lincoln was seen by half the Nation as a possible Dictator grabbing power for himself.
Remember, the confederacy wanted to secede from the union. Which means what?
They didn't want to be part of America. As such the confederacy represents TREASON.
You speak as a person of today wishing to bring our history from the past and look at it from today's view. This is wrong.
Back in the days of Lincoln, the States ruled themselves for the most part. This was how it was in America. People knew the State would watch out for their best interests and trusted them. The thought of surrendering those Rights to a large Federal Government was considered TREASON. Lincoln was seen by half the Nation as a possible Dictator grabbing power for himself.
Exactly. Those statues taken in "historical context" the way they were meant to are in no way offensive. They represent the change and growth of the country since its inception.
Remember, the confederacy wanted to secede from the union. Which means what?
They didn't want to be part of America. As such the confederacy represents TREASON.
You speak as a person of today wishing to bring our history from the past and look at it from today's view. This is wrong.
Back in the days of Lincoln, the States ruled themselves for the most part. This was how it was in America. People knew the State would watch out for their best interests and trusted them. The thought of surrendering those Rights to a large Federal Government was considered TREASON. Lincoln was seen by half the Nation as a possible Dictator grabbing power for himself.
Exactly. Those statues taken in "historical context" the way they were meant to are in no way offensive. They represent the change and growth of the country since its inception.
Weren't meant to be offensive. Well, maybe the weren't in the 1800s but they sure as hell are now.
Having that written at the base of a statue in a place of respect is wrong. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
That sounds like a typical southern view of things.
Take the statues down!! We don't celebrate people who commit treason.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Remember, the confederacy wanted to secede from the union. Which means what?
They didn't want to be part of America. As such the confederacy represents TREASON.
You speak as a person of today wishing to bring our history from the past and look at it from today's view. This is wrong.
Back in the days of Lincoln, the States ruled themselves for the most part. This was how it was in America. People knew the State would watch out for their best interests and trusted them. The thought of surrendering those Rights to a large Federal Government was considered TREASON. Lincoln was seen by half the Nation as a possible Dictator grabbing power for himself.
Exactly. Those statues taken in "historical context" the way they were meant to are in no way offensive. They represent the change and growth of the country since its inception.
Swish and others don't seem to understand that our History is to be looked at and learned from but it can not logically be judged from today's morals. It was a different time, I liken it to a baby crawling before it can stand and later walk, we can not judge the child as handicapped because it is only crawling.
It is the same with Slavery. It was the way of the world back then, terrible as it was, and half the Colonies in America had Slaves. The only way we could become a Nation of United States was to negotiate a Constitution. This involved finding compromises to bring Anti-Slavery Colonies into agreement with Pro-Slavery Colonies. This is why the Constitution was vague on the Rights of Slaves. Otherwise we never would have been able to become a Nation at all. It was written and signed in agreement at the time BUT allowed for changes over time through AMENDMENTS. The signers knew that even though they didn't get everything they wanted, they could fight for change over time with Amendments to our Constitution.
The Nation was born, it crawled, it stood, and later in time, it began to walk.
Is anyone willing to support the removal of statues of people like:
U.S. Grant: who was part of the genocide of Native Americans?
Gen. Sherman: who murdered many southerners and requested the genocide of Native Americans?
Abraham Lincoln: who approved the genocide of Native Americans?
George Washington: who had many slaves?
Thomas Jefferson: who said that "all men are created equal" while owning many slaves and fathering children w/one of his slaves?
Want me to go on?
As usual, the focus of many is off center.
It is my belief that we should be focusing on bridging our differences rather than widening the gap.
Y'all keep on keeping on w/your misguided hate.
Not specifically replying to you Vers, just playing devil's advocate here (and I agree 100% that we should be focusing on bridging our differences rather than widening the gap) Would anyone like statues of:
Osama Bin Laden in New York Eric Rudolph in Atlanta Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City Dyllan Roof, Ted Kaczynski, Omar Mateen, The Tsarnaev brothers, etc...?
To many people, the statues of the Confederacy represent the same\similar thing that statues of these people would. I get why people want to have them removed.
So I guess the Germans were cowards when they removed the statues and symbolism of Hitler and nazis after the war too, right?
It's pretty simple really. They did what we should do. Put them in Museums and cemeteries where only treasonous confederate soldiers are buried.
Beside all these statues where erected after the civil war. Germans didn't build statues and monuments to celebrate the Hitler Nazi rule after the war like the KKK and others built here of their treasonous hero's after the civil war so the could hold their cross burning rally's around them.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
I don't want him dead. I want him out. I want him alive to see how much 'damage control' was required after his exit.
I firmly believe that ego/ulterior motives sent him on the campaign trail, and that he never seriously wanted this job. He'll never resign- his personality profile won't allow for it- but I think he'd breathe a sigh of relief if he was 25'ed by his cabinet. He'd hate them and tweetstorm the mess outta them... but he'd also love the freedom and lack of constant pressure.
Remember, the confederacy wanted to secede from the union. Which means what?
They didn't want to be part of America. As such the confederacy represents TREASON.
You speak as a person of today wishing to bring our history from the past and look at it from today's view. This is wrong.
Back in the days of Lincoln, the States ruled themselves for the most part. This was how it was in America. People knew the State would watch out for their best interests and trusted them. The thought of surrendering those Rights to a large Federal Government was considered TREASON. Lincoln was seen by half the Nation as a possible Dictator grabbing power for himself.
Exactly. Those statues taken in "historical context" the way they were meant to are in no way offensive. They represent the change and growth of the country since its inception.
Swish and others don't seem to understand that our History is to be looked at and learned from but it can not logically be judged from today's morals. It was a different time, I liken it to a baby crawling before it can stand and later walk, we can not judge the child as handicapped because it is only crawling.
It is the same with Slavery. It was the way of the world back then, terrible as it was, and half the Colonies in America had Slaves. The only way we could become a Nation of United States was to negotiate a Constitution. This involved finding compromises to bring Anti-Slavery Colonies into agreement with Pro-Slavery Colonies. This is why the Constitution was vague on the Rights of Slaves. Otherwise we never would have been able to become a Nation at all. It was written and signed in agreement at the time BUT allowed for changes over time through AMENDMENTS. The signers knew that even though they didn't get everything they wanted, they could fight for change over time with Amendments to our Constitution.
The Nation was born, it crawled, it stood, and later in time, it began to walk.
Exactly! This sums things up perfectly.
this nation is not perfect, still inst perfect, and didn't start out perfect. We have had and have some major growing pains. It is sad slavery had to be part of those growing pains, but the world back then was a far cry from the modern world...a lot has changed since 1789
Swish and others don't seem to understand that our History is to be looked at and learned from
And you don't seem to understand that History lessons are taught in Museums, & Schools. Not taught rallying and inciting riots around statues of treasonous KKK hero's.
And you'd be ok to look upon and learn from a statue of Bin Ladin in south Manhattan near Freedom Tower as well right?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
Remember, the confederacy wanted to secede from the union. Which means what?
They didn't want to be part of America. As such the confederacy represents TREASON.
You speak as a person of today wishing to bring our history from the past and look at it from today's view. This is wrong.
Back in the days of Lincoln, the States ruled themselves for the most part. This was how it was in America. People knew the State would watch out for their best interests and trusted them. The thought of surrendering those Rights to a large Federal Government was considered TREASON. Lincoln was seen by half the Nation as a possible Dictator grabbing power for himself.
Exactly. Those statues taken in "historical context" the way they were meant to are in no way offensive. They represent the change and growth of the country since its inception.
Swish and others don't seem to understand that our History is to be looked at and learned from but it can not logically be judged from today's morals. It was a different time, I liken it to a baby crawling before it can stand and later walk, we can not judge the child as handicapped because it is only crawling.
It is the same with Slavery. It was the way of the world back then, terrible as it was, and half the Colonies in America had Slaves. The only way we could become a Nation of United States was to negotiate a Constitution. This involved finding compromises to bring Anti-Slavery Colonies into agreement with Pro-Slavery Colonies. This is why the Constitution was vague on the Rights of Slaves. Otherwise we never would have been able to become a Nation at all. It was written and signed in agreement at the time BUT allowed for changes over time through AMENDMENTS. The signers knew that even though they didn't get everything they wanted, they could fight for change over time with Amendments to our Constitution.
The Nation was born, it crawled, it stood, and later in time, it began to walk.
Exactly! This sums things up perfectly.
this nation is not perfect, still inst perfect, and didn't start out perfect. We have had and have some major growing pains. It is sad slavery had to be part of those growing pains, but the world back then was a far cry from the modern world...a lot has changed since 1789
For crying out loud the people back then didn't even know what a germ was. They would bleed you for anemia!
The root of all the problems we see IMO opinion is not really racism or bigotry or hate. Those are the symptoms of a larger problem. That problem is loneliness, isolationism and being ignored by peers. Humans don't like to be alone. They want friends. They want family. When that is not readily available, they will search out friends and family. More often then not these friends and family are the fringes of society that have also been shunned or ignored. And often times these members will hold ideologies and partake in actions they normally would not just for the sake of belonging and having attention and a misguided sense of family.
This is one of the reasons I make it mandatory in my family for my two girls to attend every birthday party of every classmate that invites them. No exception. Many times, my daughters have been the only ones too show up. That's BS. Every kid (i dont care who rich, poor, stupid smart normal or weird)deserves to have his/her birthday with his/her peers. By not showing up and isolating that kid we begin creating the environment where her or she are going to start seeking those fringe families.
Just last summer I was in Florida watch my youngest daughter play ball. Our team was full of red neck hillbillies. At the park was a single local 12 yr old black boy named Jamal. He was there, skate board in hand, all alone. Kind went un-noticed. Day two he is back. All alone again wandering aimlessly. We have a couple 10 yr old boys that started talking to him. Jamal comes over and sits with us and watches the game. Drinks a bottle of water. Eats some fruit. starts engaging in small talk. Game ends and you can see he is a little disapointed that we are gonna leave. But we didnt leave. We just relocated for lunch. He was asked to come with us and have sandwhiches. We played two more games later that afternoon. Jamal stayed for both. We played three more days that week. Jamal knew our schedule and showed up alone every day to cheer our girls on.
This is an example of someone looking for attention. Most people (white or black) would not normally think a liitle black boy would be drawn to a bunch of red neck hillbillies. But the kid was alone. No sibblings. No dad. Mom worked during the day. Obviously lacking in the friends department. But he he was "making friends" with an odd group that showed him the attention he sought. Instead of rednecks, it could have been a gang, or members of the Klan or Nazis..you get my drift. We had Jamal for a week.. I don't know what happened to him after that. We went home Indiana. I am sure Jamal kept looking for an attentive social structure. Did he find a good one or did he get sucked into the fringes. I don't know.
People are gonna seek out friends. If you don't step up and be a "good" friend, then they are gonna find their friends elsewhere and that is often times gonna be as a member of all the groups were despise. Get off you phone, get off facebook, don't make every meaningful conversation you have be on an internet message board. Be a member of socitey and be friendly. Not doing so is what feeds the membership drives of so called hate groups.
They were talking about this subject this morning on NPR about how MS-13 is reaching out the school age kids in New York because the kids are looking for somewhere to belong.
On a side note, I am listening at work to the online police scanner and there are crowds growing in Wake County North Carolina because there is a protest planned for this afternoon and about 10 minutes there was a attempt for a permit for a march at 4pm today in the name of the KKK. They have already said that there are some in the crowd with gas masks and some that are open carrying. They just also asked for medics to be on standby
Since you enjoy interjecting your views on American politics, perhaps it is time to flush your own toilet first...
Canadians know that Canada can be better. It's nonsensical to suggest that Canadians know compassion better than any country when international agencies like Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Commission slam Canada for failing to alleviate the systematic discrimination of Indigenous peoples, and especially violence against Indigenous women and girls.
Canadians have a tendency not to be less racist than Americans, but less loud about it. As Charmaine Nelson, a professor of art history at McGill University, wrote recently in the Walrus, Canadians are "more insidious and covert" in their racism. This is where the notion of exceptionalism fails.
Since you enjoy interjecting your views on American politics, perhaps it is time to flush your own toilet first...
Canadians know that Canada can be better. It's nonsensical to suggest that Canadians know compassion better than any country when international agencies like Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Commission slam Canada for failing to alleviate the systematic discrimination of Indigenous peoples, and especially violence against Indigenous women and girls.
Canadians have a tendency not to be less racist than Americans, but less loud about it. As Charmaine Nelson, a professor of art history at McGill University, wrote recently in the Walrus, Canadians are "more insidious and covert" in their racism. This is where the notion of exceptionalism fails.
Canada isn't immune...especially when it comes to our First Nations. In fact, in my city of Calgary, they recently renamed a bridge that was named after a notable priest and pioneer. Unfortunately, he was also a key figure in the residential school system. So they got rid of the name and renamed the bridge.
Its a work in progress here as well. Perhaps less obvious and charged but still present.