Mob beats grocery employees in Memphis - Discussion

[Anglo-California]

Of course. Give the blacks a reason and they riot.

if you give anyone a reason to riot, they will riot. Whites, too, don't pretend to be above it.

So should I be getting ready for the white riots that will ensue because of this? I'm thinking of doing something really bad this time, like using chalk to draw penises on sidewalks.

[Quintium]

if you give anyone a reason to riot, they will riot. Whites, too, don't pretend to be above it.

And if they do, we'll talk about people in general, but at the moment all significant riots in the United States seem to involve exclusively black people.

It's just that whenever they do, we're supposed to call them "urban youths" for some reason. Quite a few of them are adults. It's bizarre.

That reminds me.
http://imgur.com/AeEZWEB

[North Defese]

It seems that this debate has a large side-debate going over how big and effective of weapons should be given to civilians to protect themselves from such mobs. But the argument over how effectively American citizens should be in mowing down mischievous teenagers is focusing only on magazine size and recoil. We've not even branched out into the other possibilities.

If even one of those attacked employees had been open-carrying a low-yield nuclear bomb, they would have effectively incinerated the entire violent mob within a single second, along with the entire surrounding area and nearly a square mile of the county. This would have been a far more effective method to kill multiple violent offenders within the shortest amount of time, negating the worry over aim and magazine size by having the highest possible body count. Such a move would also serve to deter violent mobs in the future. Would teenagers really attack people if the answer was nuclear fire? Deterrence is the ultimate producer of safety.

Open-carry nuclear weapons are the only answer to personal safety in these dangerous modern times. An increase in funding for social services, community outreach, or more activities for children and teenagers outside school hours would only solve the root of the problem. The fact that we ignore our Constitution by not allowing responsible citizens to open-carry fission explosives is one of the biggest reasons that things like this happen.

[Quintium]

But the argument over how effectively American citizens should be in mowing down mischievous teenagers is focusing only on magazine size and recoil. We've not even branched out into the other possibilities.

Call them what they are. They are not 'mischievous teenagers'. They're not people who work honest part-time jobs and go to school in the daytime and drink a bit too much or carve their names into park benches at night. They're people who, for their own personal enjoyment, physically attack and seriously injure others. They are useless human beings, and I have no doubt that they'll all be ridiculous failures at life and that most of the people you see in that video will become career criminals or life-long welfare dependents. 'Mischievous teenagers', come on now.

If even one of those attacked employees had been open-carrying a low-yield nuclear bomb, they would have effectively incinerated the entire violent mob within a single second, along with the entire surrounding area and nearly a square mile of the county. This would have been a far more effective method to kill multiple violent offenders within the shortest amount of time, negating the worry over aim and magazine size by having the highest possible body count. Such a move would also serve to deter violent mobs in the future. Would teenagers really attack people if the answer was nuclear fire? Deterrence is the ultimate producer of safety.

You're making a logical mistake here. You're assuming that something which is bad in large doses is necessarily bad in small doses. Should you refrain from using medicine because you can get an overdose? Should you not have a glass of wine every now and then because some people drink themselves to death? Should you shuffle slowly through the woods to get everywhere because you might start speeding in a car? No. The real question here is how you're going to weigh different things in your eventual judgement of the situation. In this case, people are being attacked by the same group of people time and again, a group which has the intention of causing serious bodily harm in the people it attacks purely for reasons of personal entertainment. Against that, I believe lethal violence in self-defence should be considered perfectly acceptable.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't recall seeing a single black face at a neo-Nazi rally.
What's your point?

Apparently these mob attacks have more to do with race issues in United States than with general antisocial behaviour among youth.

Makes me wonder why is it that Black youths in particular tend to get involved in all sorts of violent riots and antisocial activities not just in the States, but also elsewhere in the West.

Not to mention that the authorities probably won't do anything to track down and punish any of the folks involved out of fear of being perceived as racist and provoking even greater race riots.

Do they, do they really.

Let me know when affluent blacks riot, mmkay?

So why is it that it's always the poor Blacks who get into all sorts of trouble? Somehow you don't hear of poor Whites getting involved in such acts of nonsensical violence on this scale. Is it a cultural thing or what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots
Though you wouldn't believe it at times, you mostly share the same culture as us.
So no, it's not a cultural thing. Whites and blacks rioting together in harmony, united against fascist shop shutters.

It might make it explode to the point there is no powder keg left though.

So a guy shoots a mob member of another race and race riots spark?

I don't know if even the most ardent anarchists are able to spin a race riot out of a white guy shooting members of a "black" mob supposedly one hundred members strong.

Not sure how that could ever be justified.

He's implying black people.

Because, of course, blacks are the only people who perpetuate violence, as we all know.

It's just that whenever they do, we're supposed to call them "urban youths" for some reason. Quite a few of them are adults. It's bizarre.

You realise that "youth" is a generic term that can apply to the age of 25, right?
I don't recall any new PC Brigadier Directive to refer to "blacks" as "Urban Youths". That memo must have breezed by.

[Ifreann]

Sure is a shame that we've got a few injured people instead of a bunch of dead people.

I think we've been discussing all things but the real problem. The real problem is that we're pretending that they're rational, moral people who just happen to be in a situation where they turn into lawless beasts. I think that's wrong. They are not normal, rational people. Not everyone is capable of doing a thing like this, and we should stop pretending that this is human and not the result of an innate lack of morals. We should make a sharp distinction between those who act the way these people did, and those who do not. And those who are capable of such a thing shouldn't be mollycoddled anymore.

Here's my solution to the whole sordid affair - give them a good beating. It worked for centuries, so why shouldn't it work now? Beat them until they're either so scared they'll never act on their foul impulses again or are physically and mentally incapable of acting on their impulses. It's not the most humane solution, but people who commit random, unwarranted acts of violence aren't fully human anyway.

Sorry, just when were these centuries that were free of crime and violence?

[Quintium]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots
Though you wouldn't believe it at times, you mostly share the same culture as us.
So no, it's not a cultural thing. Whites and blacks rioting together in harmony, united against fascist shop shutters.

Actually, I think you're undermining the argument of racial equality in rioting by mentioning the riots in England. In those riots, there were only a handful of white participants at most, and a vast majority were African, Afro-Caribbean, Middle Eastern or South Asian. More so, in fact, than you could expect given the ethnic make-up of those areas. Another thing you saw was that mainly-white areas did not 'catch fire', so to speak, regardless of how poor and bleak they were. For some reason, all-white areas behaved while 'multicultural' areas went up in flames.

Sorry, just when were these centuries that were free of crime and violence?

Never, but there existed a time when men were not emasculated and would retaliate when organised violence was committed against them. A time when it wasn't considered morally good to be the frightened victim, when it was considered morally good to fight the hell back and kill the useless thugs who robbed and killed people for their own personal entertainment. In any case, you didn't have mobs of people just attacking other people for shits and giggles until a few decades ago in any civilized country, because if people did that they'd be beaten to a pulp or locked up for all eternity.

[Imperializt Russia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots
Though you wouldn't believe it at times, you mostly share the same culture as us.
So no, it's not a cultural thing. Whites and blacks rioting together in harmony, united against fascist shop shutters.

Actually, I think you're undermining the argument of racial equality in rioting by mentioning the riots in England. In those riots, there were only a handful of white participants at most, and a vast majority were African, Afro-Caribbean, Middle Eastern or South Asian. More so, in fact, than you could expect given the ethnic make-up of those areas. Another thing you saw was that mainly-white areas did not 'catch fire', so to speak, regardless of how poor and bleak they were. For some reason, all-white areas behaved while 'multicultural' areas went up in flames.

Britain is a "mainly-white area".
It started out, in London, as a peaceful black march about supposed police brutality.
Then a riot developed.

Then whites in other parts of the country thought "hey, I want a new TV too" and started looting shit in the north.

[Joan Rangers]

How's this for an idea? Whenever a riot like this happens the police helicopter sprays paint on them so even if they escape the scene they can easily be pointed out where they live. Just a thought.

Good thing it was caught on camera this time, now we can be prepared.

Anyway, this is deeply disturbing whether or not racial motivations have been ruled out.

[Ifreann]

Sorry, just when were these centuries that were free of crime and violence?

Never, but there existed a time

When?

when men were not emasculated and would retaliate when organised violence was committed against them. A time when it wasn't considered morally good to be the frightened victim, when it was considered morally good to fight the hell back and kill the useless thugs who robbed and killed people for their own personal entertainment.

And did this golden age of manliness have less crime and violence than today?

In any case, you didn't have mobs of people just attacking other people for shits and giggles until a few decades ago in any civilized country, because if people did that they'd be beaten to a pulp or locked up for all eternity.

Oh come on, that's just a fucking lie and you know it.

[Laerod]

I think we've been discussing all things but the real problem. The real problem is that we're pretending that they're rational, moral people who just happen to be in a situation where they turn into lawless beasts. I think that's wrong. They are not normal, rational people. Not everyone is capable of doing a thing like this, and we should stop pretending that this is human and not the result of an innate lack of morals. We should make a sharp distinction between those who act the way these people did, and those who do not. And those who are capable of such a thing shouldn't be mollycoddled anymore.

This is one of humanity's greatest delusions. That there is such a thing as a difference between "rational people" and "monsters". There isn't. There simply isn't. "Those who are capable of such a thing" is essentially everyone. Nietzsche pointed out that "He who fights with monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster," and the Stanford Prison Experiment went on to confirm worse: You don't need to fight monsters to become one; opportunity and power can be enough. Talk to lawyers that defend people in criminal cases: They'll point out that anyone can end up a thief or a killer. Crimes of passion, heated arguments... Just remember that story about a "responsible gun owner" shooting someone for texting in a movie theater. One story I've heard told was that a father of a family who had never done anything wrong might not have gone down for manslaughter if that knife had been lying a little further out of reach when he got into verbal fight in a restaurant. People get caught up in this all the time, and the only real solution is to realize that you are just as capable of becoming a monster as anyone else, that you're no different, and that you need to actively step back when you find yourself sliding down the slippery slope.

Here's my solution to the whole sordid affair - give them a good beating. It worked for centuries, so why shouldn't it work now? Beat them until they're either so scared they'll never act on their foul impulses again or are physically and mentally incapable of acting on their impulses. It's not the most humane solution, but people who commit random, unwarranted acts of violence aren't fully human anyway.

Absolute bullshit. Everyone commits acts of violence and justifies them in some manner; you've just presented the argument that you aren't any different. And that notion about it working for centuries is shit cherry on the steaming pile: One major reason for the Rape of Belgium was German obsession with punishment, something drilled into them at an early age through Prussian discipline. Everyone's the hero of their own story and everyone has their own moral code. Violence towards others is almost always considered just by the person doing it because in their eyes it is and violence against oneself almost always breeds resentment because it is not seen as such.

You're a perfect example of that kind of fallacious reasoning.

[Ifreann]

I think we've been discussing all things but the real problem. The real problem is that we're pretending that they're rational, moral people who just happen to be in a situation where they turn into lawless beasts. I think that's wrong. They are not normal, rational people. Not everyone is capable of doing a thing like this, and we should stop pretending that this is human and not the result of an innate lack of morals. We should make a sharp distinction between those who act the way these people did, and those who do not. And those who are capable of such a thing shouldn't be mollycoddled anymore.

This is one of humanity's greatest delusions. That there is such a thing as a difference between "rational people" and "monsters". There isn't. There simply isn't. "Those who are capable of such a thing" is essentially everyone. Nietzsche pointed out that "He who fights with monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster," and the Stanford Prison Experiment went on to confirm worse: You don't need to fight monsters to become one; opportunity and power can be enough. Talk to lawyers that defend people in criminal cases: They'll point out that anyone can end up a thief or a killer. Crimes of passion, heated arguments... Just remember that story about a "responsible gun owner" shooting someone for texting in a movie theater. One story I've heard told was that a father of a family who had never done anything wrong might not have gone down for manslaughter if that knife had been lying a little further out of reach when he got into verbal fight in a restaurant. People get caught up in this all the time, and the only real solution is to realize that you are just as capable of becoming a monster as anyone else, that you're no different, and that you need to actively step back when you find yourself sliding down the slippery slope.

Here's my solution to the whole sordid affair - give them a good beating. It worked for centuries, so why shouldn't it work now? Beat them until they're either so scared they'll never act on their foul impulses again or are physically and mentally incapable of acting on their impulses. It's not the most humane solution, but people who commit random, unwarranted acts of violence aren't fully human anyway.

Absolute bullshit. Everyone commits acts of violence and justifies them in some manner; you've just presented the argument that you aren't any different. And that notion about it working for centuries is shit cherry on the steaming pile: One major reason for the Rape of Belgium was German obsession with punishment, something drilled into them at an early age through Prussian discipline. Everyone's the hero of their own story and everyone has their own moral code. Violence towards others is almost always considered just by the person doing it because in their eyes it is and violence against oneself almost always breeds resentment because it is not seen as such.

You're a perfect example of that kind of fallacious reasoning.

Obviously you've been emasculated and consider it morally good to be frightened of black people useless thugs.

[Quintium]

When?

Until the late 1960s. If you want to be specific, right up until the summer of 1968. That's the moment the inevitable fall of western civilization started, as it was the moment that Marxist activists took over nearly all universities and colleges in the western world and started educating the generation born in the 1940s and 1950s according to their own ideals. It's when sociology became about the struggles of the working class, when Marx was suddenly taken seriously as an economist and a philosopher, and when self-loathing and normative multiculturalism entered our collective identity.

And did this golden age of manliness have less crime and violence than today?

There are no figures available that I can draw any such conclusions from. However, ask almost anyone who was raised prior to the late 1960s and he'll tell you that people were at least proper at that time. They took the interests of their communities seriously, and there was much more social control. Sure, there were habitual criminals then, but at the time those were locked up or ostracized, and taken care of by their own communities if they formed gangs. Even African-Americans seem to have been better off prior to the late 1960s. But then Johnson decided the Democrats needed voters, and in discussing his Great Society he said "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years", starting a cycle of welfare dependency and hopelessness.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

What started this?

EDIT: In any case the race card is hugely overplayed in the US. It's not even funny anymore.

Does racial profiling exist? YES it fucking does. Meaning that you're more likely to get stopped/ID'd/searched if you're black than if you're white for example. Now, implying that this = "shot for being blackkk!!!1111" or "all things being equal you're more likely to get shot if you're black" is a stinking pile of bullshit, and I wish the worst to anyone and everyone spreading it around. In lethal-force situations danger is perceived plainly as danger, not "is this kid black or white? oh he's black so I better shoot him lol" . The only reason more black individuals may be getting shot/killed by police than whites is that, because they are profiled they end up in those situations more often than them. It's not "whitey keepin us down", it's "we're fucking stupid and can't / don't want to handle interaction with cops civilly", for those blacks that are allegedly innocent yet end up getting shot by police.

[Ifreann]

When?

Until the late 1960s. If you want to be specific, right up until the summer of 1968. That's the moment the inevitable fall of western civilization started, as it was the moment that Marxist activists took over nearly all universities and colleges in the western world and started educating the generation born in the 1940s and 1950s according to their own ideals. It's when sociology became about the struggles of the working class, when Marx was suddenly taken seriously as an economist and a philosopher, and when self-loathing and normative multiculturalism entered our collective identity.

That's a rather extraordinary claim you've got there.

And did this golden age of manliness have less crime and violence than today?

There are no figures available that I can draw any such conclusions from. However, ask almost anyone who was raised prior to the late 1960s and he'll tell you that people were at least proper at that time. They took the interests of their communities seriously, and there was much more social control. Sure, there were habitual criminals then, but at the time those were locked up or ostracized, and taken care of by their own communities if they formed gangs. Even African-Americans seem to have been better off prior to the late 1960s.

Oh please, people say the same shit about the 90s. Rose tinted lenses might be stylish, but they're doing nothing for your visual acuity.

But then Johnson decided the Democrats needed voters, and in discussing his Great Society he said "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years", starting a cycle of welfare dependency and hopelessness.

Wasn't someone going on at length recently about how there is no evidence of him saying anything of the sort? I guess you've decided that enough time has passed and you can just ignore that inconvenient issue.

[Vaspostan]

10/10 thread will share with friends.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

so people in the USA are so poor that they are robbing groceries stores.

All Hail the Ultracapitalism in America.

this guy knows!

[Sdaeriji]

Even African-Americans seem to have been better off prior to the late 1960s.

Yes, I imagine blacks in America felt they were better off prior to the late 1960s.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

How's this for an idea? Whenever a riot like this happens the police helicopter sprays paint on them so even if they escape the scene they can easily be pointed out where they live. Just a thought.

That isn't going to work unless the helicopter is already in the air. It might work for longer incidents but this seemed like a hit and run pretty much.

[Imperializt Russia]

When?

Until the late 1960s. If you want to be specific, right up until the summer of 1968. That's the moment the inevitable fall of western civilization started, as it was the moment that Marxist activists took over nearly all universities and colleges in the western world and started educating the generation born in the 1940s and 1950s according to their own ideals. It's when sociology became about the struggles of the working class, when Marx was suddenly taken seriously as an economist and a philosopher, and when self-loathing and normative multiculturalism entered our collective identity.

And did this golden age of manliness have less crime and violence than today?

There are no figures available that I can draw any such conclusions from. However, ask almost anyone who was raised prior to the late 1960s and he'll tell you that people were at least proper at that time. They took the interests of their communities seriously, and there was much more social control. Sure, there were habitual criminals then, but at the time those were locked up or ostracized, and taken care of by their own communities if they formed gangs. Even African-Americans seem to have been better off prior to the late 1960s. But then Johnson decided the Democrats needed voters, and in discussing his Great Society he said "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years", starting a cycle of welfare dependency and hopelessness.

Do you have any opinions that aren't "'dem uppity blacks"?

[Ifreann]

Even African-Americans seem to have been better off prior to the late 1960s.

Yes, I imagine blacks in America felt they were better off prior to the late 1960s.

That was just manly men organising violent resistance against useless thugs.

---

Until the late 1960s. If you want to be specific, right up until the summer of 1968. That's the moment the inevitable fall of western civilization started, as it was the moment that Marxist activists took over nearly all universities and colleges in the western world and started educating the generation born in the 1940s and 1950s according to their own ideals. It's when sociology became about the struggles of the working class, when Marx was suddenly taken seriously as an economist and a philosopher, and when self-loathing and normative multiculturalism entered our collective identity.



There are no figures available that I can draw any such conclusions from. However, ask almost anyone who was raised prior to the late 1960s and he'll tell you that people were at least proper at that time. They took the interests of their communities seriously, and there was much more social control. Sure, there were habitual criminals then, but at the time those were locked up or ostracized, and taken care of by their own communities if they formed gangs. Even African-Americans seem to have been better off prior to the late 1960s. But then Johnson decided the Democrats needed voters, and in discussing his Great Society he said "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years", starting a cycle of welfare dependency and hopelessness.

Do you have any opinions that aren't "'dem uppity blacks"?

Ask him about Muslims.

[Joan Rangers]

How's this for an idea? Whenever a riot like this happens the police helicopter sprays paint on them so even if they escape the scene they can easily be pointed out where they live. Just a thought.

That isn't going to work unless the helicopter is already in the air. It might work for longer incidents but this seemed like a hit and run pretty much.

in the interest of preventing future incidents we should devote all of our scientific research to building faster helicopters that get flying (or hovering w/e) as fast as possible.

[Joan Rangers]

What started this?

EDIT: In any case the race card is hugely overplayed in the US. It's not even funny anymore.

Does racial profiling exist? YES it fucking does. Meaning that you're more likely to get stopped/ID'd/searched if you're black than if you're white for example. Now, implying that this = "shot for being blackkk!!!1111" or "all things being equal you're more likely to get shot if you're black" is a stinking pile of bullshit, and I wish the worst to anyone and everyone spreading it around. In lethal-force situations danger is perceived plainly as danger, not "is this kid black or white? oh he's black so I better shoot him lol" . The only reason more black individuals may be getting shot/killed by police than whites is that, because they are profiled they end up in those situations more often than them. It's not "whitey keepin us down", it's "we're fucking stupid and can't / don't want to handle interaction with cops civilly", for those blacks that are allegedly innocent yet end up getting shot by police.

We need more people like you on NSG.

[Laerod]

Even African-Americans seem to have been better off prior to the late 1960s.

Yes, I imagine blacks in America felt they were better off prior to the late 1960s.

Nazis sure did in Germany. Lots of Right-Wingers lament the social revolution of 1968 that sought to hold the elites accountable for all that Jew-killing, among other things.

[Ifreann]

What started this?

EDIT: In any case the race card is hugely overplayed in the US. It's not even funny anymore.

Does racial profiling exist? YES it fucking does. Meaning that you're more likely to get stopped/ID'd/searched if you're black than if you're white for example. Now, implying that this = "shot for being blackkk!!!1111" or "all things being equal you're more likely to get shot if you're black" is a stinking pile of bullshit, and I wish the worst to anyone and everyone spreading it around. In lethal-force situations danger is perceived plainly as danger, not "is this kid black or white? oh he's black so I better shoot him lol" . The only reason more black individuals may be getting shot/killed by police than whites is that, because they are profiled they end up in those situations more often than them. It's not "whitey keepin us down", it's "we're fucking stupid and can't / don't want to handle interaction with cops civilly", for those blacks that are allegedly innocent yet end up getting shot by police.

We need more people like you on NSG.

No, we really don't.