Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
LIBERAL MEDIA- "Let's Hope the Boston Bomber is a White American!"
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: April 17, 2013 07:18AM
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/
Yes.
You read that correctly.
That is how these people think.
Yes.
You read that correctly.
That is how these people think.
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Re: LIBERAL MEDIA- "Let's Hope the Boston Bomber is a White American!"
Posted by:
staying alive
()
Date: April 17, 2013 07:55AM
Hey Cary,
Can these angry cry baby red-neck right wingers get their own board on FFU please?
Can these angry cry baby red-neck right wingers get their own board on FFU please?
Re: LIBERAL MEDIA- "Let's Hope the Boston Bomber is a White American!"
Posted by:
BEH
()
Date: April 17, 2013 07:56AM
If this was the work of the camel lovers, they would have been bragging about it by now.
As primitive minded as those savages are, the bombs used in Boston seem to be the work of someone even less sophisticated.
Some disgrunted, alienated white douche is my guess, which would fit into the ultra left liberal agenda.
But in this case, the perpertrator being white would be a blessing.
There would be no restraint in the punishment of a white devil.
As primitive minded as those savages are, the bombs used in Boston seem to be the work of someone even less sophisticated.
Some disgrunted, alienated white douche is my guess, which would fit into the ultra left liberal agenda.
But in this case, the perpertrator being white would be a blessing.
There would be no restraint in the punishment of a white devil.
Re: LIBERAL MEDIA- "Let's Hope the Boston Bomber is a White American!"
Posted by:
mo barry
()
Date: April 17, 2013 07:58AM
MSNBC was already praising Obamas response a half hour before he spoke.
Re: LIBERAL MEDIA- "Let's Hope the Boston Bomber is a White American!"
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: April 17, 2013 08:02AM
Read the faggotry in it's own words-
As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.
This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.
Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.
“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”
Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.
To know that’s true is to simply consider how America reacts to different kinds of terrorism.
Though FBI data show fewer terrorist plots involving Muslims than terrorist plots involving non-Muslims, America has mobilized a full-on war effort exclusively against the prospect of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, the moniker “War on Terrorism” has come to specifically mean “War on Islamic Terrorism,” involving everything from new laws like the Patriot Act, to a new torture regime, to new federal agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to mass surveillance of Muslim communities.
By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite — according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating — the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)
Enter the Boston bombing. Coming at the very moment the U.S. government is planning to withdraw from Afghanistan, considering cuts to the Pentagon budget, discussing civil liberties principles and debating landmark immigration legislation, the attack could easily become the fulcrum of all of those contentious policy debates — that is, depending on the demographic profile of the assailant.
If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.
It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world. As we know from our own history, when those kind of individuals break laws in such a high-profile way, America often cites them as both proof that entire demographic groups must be targeted, and that therefore a more systemic response is warranted. At that point, it’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties.
If that sounds hard to believe, just look at yesterday’s comments by right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham, whose talking points often become Republican Party doctrine. Though authorities haven’t even identified a suspect in the Boston attack, she (like other conservatives) seems to already assume the assailant is foreign, and is consequently citing the attack as rationale to slam the immigration reform bill.
The same Laura Ingraham, of course, was one of the leading voices criticizing the Department of Homeland Security for daring to even report on right-wing domestic terrorism. In that sense, she perfectly embodies the double standard that, more than anything, will determine the long-term political impact of the Boston bombing.
Is this mother fucker insane? Why would you WANT the bomber to be one race or another?
And does he really believe ALL of Islam will be targeted? America has bent over backwards in little displays of tolerance toward Muslims.
Liberals have already used violent incidents to attack political opponents- they used the Tucson shooting to blame everyone from Sarah Palin to the Tea Party before the blood was even dry.
If this is a white perp, look for them to do the same tenfold.
As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.
This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.
Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.
“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”
Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.
To know that’s true is to simply consider how America reacts to different kinds of terrorism.
Though FBI data show fewer terrorist plots involving Muslims than terrorist plots involving non-Muslims, America has mobilized a full-on war effort exclusively against the prospect of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, the moniker “War on Terrorism” has come to specifically mean “War on Islamic Terrorism,” involving everything from new laws like the Patriot Act, to a new torture regime, to new federal agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to mass surveillance of Muslim communities.
By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite — according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating — the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)
Enter the Boston bombing. Coming at the very moment the U.S. government is planning to withdraw from Afghanistan, considering cuts to the Pentagon budget, discussing civil liberties principles and debating landmark immigration legislation, the attack could easily become the fulcrum of all of those contentious policy debates — that is, depending on the demographic profile of the assailant.
If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.
It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world. As we know from our own history, when those kind of individuals break laws in such a high-profile way, America often cites them as both proof that entire demographic groups must be targeted, and that therefore a more systemic response is warranted. At that point, it’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties.
If that sounds hard to believe, just look at yesterday’s comments by right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham, whose talking points often become Republican Party doctrine. Though authorities haven’t even identified a suspect in the Boston attack, she (like other conservatives) seems to already assume the assailant is foreign, and is consequently citing the attack as rationale to slam the immigration reform bill.
The same Laura Ingraham, of course, was one of the leading voices criticizing the Department of Homeland Security for daring to even report on right-wing domestic terrorism. In that sense, she perfectly embodies the double standard that, more than anything, will determine the long-term political impact of the Boston bombing.
Is this mother fucker insane? Why would you WANT the bomber to be one race or another?
And does he really believe ALL of Islam will be targeted? America has bent over backwards in little displays of tolerance toward Muslims.
Liberals have already used violent incidents to attack political opponents- they used the Tucson shooting to blame everyone from Sarah Palin to the Tea Party before the blood was even dry.
If this is a white perp, look for them to do the same tenfold.
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Re: LIBERAL MEDIA- "Let's Hope the Boston Bomber is a White American!"
Posted by:
mo barry
()
Date: April 17, 2013 08:06AM
As I understand liberals if a white guy is responsible for the bombing all whites are responsible. Yet if two black thugs shoot a baby in a stroller its society thats to blame.
Re: LIBERAL MEDIA- "Let's Hope the Boston Bomber is a White American!"
Posted by:
Ralph Pootawn
()
Date: April 17, 2013 08:18AM
staying alive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Cary,
>
> Can these angry cry baby red-neck right wingers
> get their own board on FFU please?
What a bitch. Did your mommy pull her tit away?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Cary,
>
> Can these angry cry baby red-neck right wingers
> get their own board on FFU please?
What a bitch. Did your mommy pull her tit away?
Re: LIBERAL MEDIA- "Let's Hope the Boston Bomber is a White American!"
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: April 17, 2013 08:47AM
Islamic fundies are basically the same backward, misogynist, zealots the Left hate here.
But because of slightly darker skin and different language and culture, they are treated as misguided children who can be saved by raising taxes.
Why the huge difference treatment and why the eagerness to profile one group and the silenced fear when talking about the other?
But because of slightly darker skin and different language and culture, they are treated as misguided children who can be saved by raising taxes.
Why the huge difference treatment and why the eagerness to profile one group and the silenced fear when talking about the other?
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Re: LIBERAL MEDIA- "Let's Hope the Boston Bomber is a White American!"
Posted by:
strange very strange
()
Date: April 17, 2013 09:03AM
Liberals support islamic radicals and call them heroes. They demonize Republicans as having a war on women. Meanwhile in islamic countries women are stoned to death for looking at another man. Guess is escapes their attention.
Re: LIBERAL MEDIA- "Let's Hope the Boston Bomber is a White American!"
Posted by:
Que?
()
Date: April 17, 2013 09:14AM
What we need is some good, old fashioned, overt racism. Apparently affirmative action, civil rights, equal pay, blah blah, only further ducked things up in the long run. It'll never be "equal". Someone will always have to claim that their race is the best (ie; "Black people are the most talented people in the world", etc).
Reverse racism has never made much effort to be masked. It wasnt "racism", It was just making up for whatever opression that particular group picked out of a grab bag to justify hating whitey. Meanwhile, liberal white America has spent the last few decades working to orally appease black and brown, while the rest of us walk on eggshells afraid that we'll say the wrong thing and spark the ire of Al or Jesse or end up as a video on WoldStarHipHop (there's a highly ev
Reverse racism has never made much effort to be masked. It wasnt "racism", It was just making up for whatever opression that particular group picked out of a grab bag to justify hating whitey. Meanwhile, liberal white America has spent the last few decades working to orally appease black and brown, while the rest of us walk on eggshells afraid that we'll say the wrong thing and spark the ire of Al or Jesse or end up as a video on WoldStarHipHop (there's a highly ev
Re: LIBERAL MEDIA- "Let's Hope the Boston Bomber is a White American!"
Posted by:
Que?
()
Date: April 17, 2013 09:17AM
olved bunch).
It obviously isn't working. The difference in skin colors, genetalia, culture, etc, is unfortunately too big a hurdle for us to clear. It's ingrained in our DNA to dislike people dislike ourselves. So why are we still trying to hide it?
And why the fuck do we have a government routing against white America?
It obviously isn't working. The difference in skin colors, genetalia, culture, etc, is unfortunately too big a hurdle for us to clear. It's ingrained in our DNA to dislike people dislike ourselves. So why are we still trying to hide it?
And why the fuck do we have a government routing against white America?
Re: LIBERAL MEDIA- "Let's Hope the Boston Bomber is a White American!"
Posted by:
Yucky24.
()
Date: April 17, 2013 11:05PM
Ever since I left the Left, I've been trying to warn fellow Whites that the Left openly loathes White people (and Males and Christians) and that they're systematically discriminating against them and constantly demonizing them.
Here's yet another small reminder:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/17/guess-which-famous-singer-just-called-louis-farrakhan-a-super-hero-who-is-a-beautiful-brave-being/
Brown nationalism, hating White people and hating Men has become one of the main pillars of modern "liberal" philosophy.
And the environ-mental wing of the Western Left openly hates humanity itself as well.
The Western Leftist movement has become a dangerously self-destructive cesspit of anti-White racism, brown power, radical misandric feminism, environ-mental misanthropy and anti-Western totalitarian communism.
Here's yet another small reminder:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/17/guess-which-famous-singer-just-called-louis-farrakhan-a-super-hero-who-is-a-beautiful-brave-being/
Brown nationalism, hating White people and hating Men has become one of the main pillars of modern "liberal" philosophy.
And the environ-mental wing of the Western Left openly hates humanity itself as well.
The Western Leftist movement has become a dangerously self-destructive cesspit of anti-White racism, brown power, radical misandric feminism, environ-mental misanthropy and anti-Western totalitarian communism.