Black Gangs Vented Hatred For Whites In Downtown Denver

Post Reply New Topic

Attack the position, not the person. Just a reminder, folks.


M.

Give it a rest.

No, ascan. Quite simply, those are the rules. While PPR gets a wide berth, it isn't exempt from the site's rules. If you two have an issue between you that needs to be resolved, either take it to PM or take it elsewhere - otherwise, keep it on topic and quit flirting.


M.

Stop making trouble where there is none. If you had your way with your over-zealous self-serving interpretation of the TOS half the contributors here, including yourself, would be banned. Note I'm not attacking you personally, just your position. Do I need to add that caveat to every post I make just to satisfy you?

If you're not going to differentiate in your statements, then it wouldn't hurt. If you're going to be evident, then it is up to you. This isn't an argument, it is a reminder - and you're taking this further off topic. If you have an issue, take it to the appropriate sub-forum or contact myself or another moderator privately. Knock off with the attacks, and take it elsewhere if you two need to work something out between you.


M.

I'm just having a discussion with TLC, makuranososhi. That's what this place is for... don't you remember? This forum isn't a platform for you to continually remind us of your absolute power here. If TLC or anyone else doesn't want to communicate with me, then they don't have to reply. Indeed, if anyone feels especially hurt by my comments to them, and they wish to communicate that to a responsible moderator, then if that is relayed to me I will attempt to make amends.

Anyway, I'll keep your "reminder" in mind. Furthermore I'd suggest, most respectfully, that you reflect a little on what has motivated you to start this communication with me.

And don't forget to lock the thread to ensure you get the last word...

A discussion, yes - a place for any party to attack the other personally, no. If there is a question regarding the difference between the two, I am more than happy to help. And if you will re-read this thread, you'll see that you started the conversation - my post was a reminder to you both, as well as to others in this thread, to keep it civil and per the rules. Your comments are duly noted. The reminder stands.

As for the original topic, it still smacks of the actions of individuals being used to paint a larger demographic to suit "popular" needs. The manufacture of hatred seems to be a line of business that continues to be booming.


M.

noted and aoplogies.

I'm afraid the difference between us is an ideological one. Ascan is a committed racist, I am a committed Marxist - the two standpoints are completely incompatible and I make a point of exerting every sinew to smash racism where I encounter it - if I then venture into personal attacks it is a serious flaw in my argument/s.

@ascan-



and every time we've crossed paths your positions have fallen apart under cross examination, so to speak.



how unfortunate



I've never seen racist spelt like that.



- history is also replete with examples of gang rape and slavery - by that logic gang rape and slavery are also acceptable. This also does not address how or why different societies are 'forced into close proximity'. It simply says that in the past two societies came into contact, then extreme violence follows. The question is what caused them to come into contact, why did the violence occur, for what purpose, could it have been avoided. You appear to be raising the abominations of human history into a categorical imperative.
- the question is about how one defines 'own kind': for a racist an individual has to meet certain criteria of skin colour etc for a Marxist all humanity is my 'own kind' and will fight for the betterment thereof.
- it's spelt 'hordes'. 'hoard' is a verb, as in 'to hoard away'
- again, unless I was speaking to codarac, i've already made clear my position on multiculturalism and immigration policy. You've also only cited two criteria, not several, for rejecting multiculturalism and mass immigration, those being racial violence and currently existing immigration policy
- again, you've misspelt 'racist', that sentence should read 'completely un-racist in the real world'.
- ? I'm not sure that even makes sense. Are you saying that a revolution is impossible because of current immigration policy and of previous acts of racial violence? Non sequitur.



ideology actually, we also fully acknowledge its status as such, the various religions, racism and Friedmanite economics are other forms of ideology but very rarely recognise themselves as such if at all. The point of this? To quote Malcolm X "I believe in a religion that believes in freedom. Any time I have to accept a religion that won't let me fight a battle for my people, I say to hell with that religion."
I fail to see how recognising my own ideological position, and being open about it, is a particular problem. Ideology is constitutive of the subject, every single subject, it can change but that doesn't amend the fact that every individual speaks from an ideological position. And as brilliant a political figure and military leader as he was Trotsky was neither an invisible anthropomorphic entity nor omnipotent. If he were then the series of workers revolutions that took place between 1917 and the mid 1920s (Russia, Hungary, Germany etc) would have turned out far more favourably for the workers.



this is true, its pretty rare to find any media outlet that doesn't do this kind of thing in my experience.

You must be living in some parallel universe.

This story was from a local paper, but I'll bet your national media ignored it - that same national media that believed the lies about the Duke lacrosse team and the Tawana Brawley case, and that tried to manufacture sympathy for the Jena 6, or that got its knickers in a twist over Don Imus.

The truth is this: the rate of violent crime among blacks in America is far higher than the rate among whites and your media does its best to cover it up, make excuses and/or latch on to any 'white racist' story they can find.

Well, English was never my best subject at school, TLC. Even so, I'll correct you by stating that hoard is also a noun, as in a hoard of coins. It is true, though, that in the context in question horde would have been correct. But to be honest, you picking me up on that is a bit rich considering how you don't even start your sentences with capital letters, and that your own posts aren't immune from either spelling or grammatical errors.


I don't recall that ever happening. Are you sure it wasn't in the dream in which the proletariat conquered the world?
(Note to over-zealous mods: the above is figurative, and refers specifically to the nature of TLC's statement, not to TLC himself. I'm not saying TLC is a dreamer, and my previous reference to pipe-dreams do not indicate I believe he is a drug user. I hope that's clear.)


The propensity to participate in gang-rape or slavery isn't something deeply embedded in the human psyche. The mistrust of those who are different to you is. That has been genetically programmed, so to speak, as necessary for survival. Even if you deny it, the fact is that it's still there. If most people would prefer to associate with those of their own kind, and evidence such as the troubles in Northern Ireland, or tensions between racial groups in cities backs this up, then why force people in to these kind of situations when it's not necessary? Why import hundreds of thousands of foreigners who can't speak English and who hold completely irrational beliefs that go against our country's own laws and culture? Our government contrived a situation whereby this occured for political ends; that's the answer. You asked why violence has occured, and if you take the example of the suicide bombers in London it's because a bunch of people with a completely different world-view have been allowed to live amongst us. You ask how that can have been avoided, well it's fairly straightforward: people from Islamic countries should have never been allowed to settle here in numbers. This seems so self-evident that I really can't see why you don't get it.


Because it's dated and so doesn't take into account over 100 years of evidence accumulated since its inception that indicates it is completely unworkable. Your talk of workers being exploited, and your dislike of shareholders and property owners is like something out of early 20th century Russia. Most people over 30 in this country, and the US, own property or shares. You fail to recognise that our current system, although far from perfect, is practically more egalitarian than that of any Marxist state. My parents came from poor working-class families, yet they retired comfortably as society rewarded their hard work. I enjoy a good standard of living, but I don't earn a banker's salary. That doesn't bother me, and I'm quite happy for other people to earn huge amounts of money. If you want to do something to help those less fortunate -- a worthy goal, I suggest -- then you need to work within the parameters of this system, not some ancient ideology that hasn't a cat-in-hells chance of ever being implemented.

Remove race from the equation, and base the breakdown in statistics on economic status (both at birth and at maturity) and you will find the same discrepancies in number. I'm one state over, and it got some coverage here - but not the sign of racial turmoil that it has been made out to be, and does not appear to be on the surface. That individuals behave in such a fashion is one thing; to paint all within a demographic with that same brush is a folly.


M.

ascan - go to the thread marked for you attention

Sorry for replying late.


Freidmanite? LOL WUT
I don't follow any man.
Friedman shares some ideas with me but he still believes the State is necessary for security, courts and military, I don't.



Corporatism is corporations controlling the State, Communism is State controlling the means of production. They both operate in the same State-Corporate cycle of market control.
The market existed since humans started exchanging goods and services between each other.
A FREE market cannot and has not existed from the moment the State was running the show.
A free market has no regulation, one of the main functions of the State is to regulate the market.

The examples you gave of Germany, Italy and Chile does not support your claim that private property is a sign of fascism.
To have private property in these three countries you would have to be a cooperator, an allied of the State.
You even say that private property was in the hands of a few, yes, of a few collaborators NOT non-govermental private individuals.


Look, if you want to live a bum life and own nothing, fine, be happy with it, but others wont think like you, respect that, not what you actually want, to initiate violence against others who do not prescribe to your standards...
In a Communist/Socialist system, the guy who wants to work hard and have property is persecuted. This is not even debatable, you people are barbaric to think this is a legitimate way of achieving happiness for humanity.


Dude, why even bring inheritance up, we are talking about making a living, producing, serving others in return of money that you can utilize to purchase the service of others.

Of course workers have private property. The individual unit of a worker has less property than the individual unit of a owner of a big company because of the workers have sold themselves cheap. The over reproduction of ignorant people, thanks to welfare, have created legions of willful slaves.
If all workers would demand a better payment the payment would have to be paid, yet, there is always people willing to prostitute themselves for pennies. It is the worker's fault, the company owners just take advantage of it. Furthermore, if the workers would offer work for food and water the owners of companies would not say NO to it. Don't expect others to change, start with yourself, this is what individualism teaches. Workers need to respect themselves more.


Welfare prevented you from starving to death but what caused you to be in that situation in the first place?
You see, the State does not address the cause, they only address the symptoms.
The reason you were in that state was because the economic situation was not free enough for your parents to find jobs in the competing market. Like I told you, in a controlled economy not anyone can open up a company and start producing, you need to go through the thin filter of the State first.

My point is proven correct, you support the State because of the help they gave you, yet they caused the problem in the first place and your emotional attachment and lack of knowledge of Economics does not let you see that.


You say you don't want 10% to control 71% of things but you are fine with a 51% controlling an 100%?
Either way, Democracy is MOB RULE.


Capitalism is the way you manage a company, this is in the private sense, as the ownership not being of the State.
You call "Capitalism" everything that has to do with money and exploitation.
You might think this exploitation is caused by private ownership... Well, again, I have to repeat that if it wasn't for political power from the State the few entrepreneurs would not have gotten the power they have. If you cannot acknowledge this simple historic fact, then I am sorry I can't keep repeating the reason as to why economic monopolies arise.

Poverty in the world happens in the least free economies.
The US, Canada, Australia, Scandinavia, Europe and some parts of Asia have a higher standard of living thanks to their freer economies.
Certain countries simply do not have the power to to produce a good life for the millions and millions of people who keep reproducing without thinking of the consequences.


Patents ARE NOT private property.
Patents are granted and taken away by the State.
Patents are a temporary ownership of an exclusive economic advantage RESTRICTED to others by force of the State.


Regarding subsidies granted to some and others don't.
You're going to tell me the State does not do that? They don't help their people?
Give me a break, this happens everywhere. It is expected to happen because of the emotional attachment of the agents of the State have with their people.


To cap it off you admit that the elimination of the State is the Marxist goal, but then, if there is no State, and I want to open a company and employ people, could I do that? How would I be stopped? Who would stop me?
(Answer these three questions please)

I think of this, like most demonstrations of hate, as something like the Fight Club dynamic - ie. we're mad at life, mad at destiny, mad that it hasn't been what we wanted it to be, therefor we'll lash out at the living because we very well can't lash out at nature, the universe, or possibly a creator who exists outside of time. The news media's proclivity to the sensational doesn't help matters much either.

I will have to agree with Tech on this one (until such time as some facts come to light to illuminate me further on the subject). I was born and Raised in Canon City, only an hour or two from Denver. Over the past few years I have noted this type of violence growing exponentially. It is sad to see what has become of my home state since I left. That aside, Tech has made the most sense. Tech has also remained fairly impartial with the statement above mine. It would be nice too see more posts with that much thought and un-biased argument put into it.

ok this thread looks pretty dead anyway (no thanks in part to myself)

@ asper



I'm not sure if its worth this effort as you appear to be a partisan of a cause you don't understand yourself. never mind though.
ok, first of all what you are referring to is trade, NOT the market. a market economy is a specific mode of production and of organisisng an economy based upon the accumulation of private property.

if the state exists to enforce the interests of corporations and the state is responsible for bringing about monopolies what exactly is hte purpose of the various forms of anti monopoly laws and competition commissions in the world - i think this is referred to as anti-trust in the US?

errrr, no thats not what i claimed. Communism essentially equals the abolition of private property. Private property exists in fascism. You stated that communism and fascism were the same - which is incorrect.




I don't want to live like a bum, nor do i want to initiate violence, I've done paid work since i was old enough TO work - I've taken on thousands in debt to improve my life yet I get no further forward. why? because of my socio-economic background - that is my class. I am placed under an economic coercion to exchange my labour time for money (and am not paid the full value of my labour) in order to simply continue my existence!
? no, the guy who wants to work hard we want, people who want private property are rather less popular. I think you are also having difficulty distinguishing between socialism and Stalinism.



well, you see, some people feel the need to pass on all the private property they paid other people to work for to their snot nosed little brats who then use it to pay other people to make them more private property and so on and so on. some people start out in life with an advantage over others in terms of their ability to purchase the 'services' (i assume you mean labour) of others. If inheritance rights do not concern you perhaps you would agree to their abolition?




come on! if you're going to spout this drivel what, really, is the point? you must know something about labour market economics. you know supply and demand? - if there are more workers than there are jobs to be done the value of wages go down; if there are more jobs than workers wages go up. if the ratio of jobs to workers reaches a certain point wages will be high enough to limit or even prevent the making of profit for an organisation - they therefore start laying people off, cuting wages etc. this has nothing to do with 'individualism' or people 'over-reproducing' or welfare it is a structural feature of capitalism.



easy, one person or groups of people treating food as private property to be sold on at a profit - unless you intend to turn the world back into an agrarian economy where everyone only grows enough for themselves (and thereby removing almost every benefit of modern industrial society and leaving all to the grinding poverty of feudalism)



err, well, you must have missed that particular memo, marxists actually want to overthrow the state with the aim of ending it so i'm not convinced theres much of an emotional attachment going on there. I'm not sure you should be throwing around accusations of not understanding economics as freely as you do......



so you do not contend that capitalism is not democratic? do you also state that you would go against a democratic decision abolishing private property in order to defend private property? if so then i think you've demonstrated why Marx drew the conclusion that a revolution is necessary to change society - if you're not willing to hold to a democratic process then what course is there left?




no, the state exists to defend property, the market works to concentrate property, the state will therefore defend those with large quantities of property - also known as monopolies.



you've also named the regions and countries with the largest concentrations of state power.



this - "A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor," - is taken from here on the US patent and trademark office website.
If patents are property, and the state uses force restrict the use of patents (property) then the function of the state is.........?



Well, under the marxist analysis the state exists to enforce the interests of one class over another, a class being determined by its relation to the means of production, take the means of production in to communal ownership (by abolishing private property) and there are no classes and the state would cease to be a state, simply becoming the democratic process of a community deciding how best to use the communal resources. under socialism (the lower stage of communism where the state would still exist to enforce the interests of the working majority over the interests of capital) the employment of wage labour would be illegal, there would also be no economic coercion on the individual to agree to paid wage labour - more so upon the achievement of communism, so no-one would be interested in taking money to work. Furthermore there would be nothing for you to offer to produce as all the necessities of a society would be prodcued on a planned basis, other than the extremely niche products like mail order tubs of vitamins and homeopathy kits etc etc which, so long as a community was willing to exchange the necessities for what you produced on your own instead of your adding labour to the communal product then nobody would give two hoots about what you were doing. If you think anyone would get off lightly for not pulling their weight then you clearly have never witnessed the reaction of individual and groups of workers to 'shirkers', 'cheats' and 'skivers' and the like.