Racism in America (with data)

[Blackhawk]

The thing that a lot of people don't realize is that Mount Rushmore is the equivalent of going in to Jerusalem and carving a statue of Hitler into the Western Wall.

[Punisher]

WaPo

As demonstrators marched along his private street in St. Louis, Mark McCloskey and his wife emerged barefoot from their mansion, brandishing loaded weapons at the crowd in what many read as an act of intimidation. Video of the scene instantly went viral, at one point even being retweeted — and then deleted — by President Trump.

But in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Tuesday night, McCloskey said he and his wife, Patricia, were in fact the ones being threatened.

“I was a victim of a mob that came through the gate,” he said. “I didn’t care what color they were. I didn’t care what their motivation was. I was frightened, I was assaulted, and I was in imminent fear that they would run me over, kill me, burn my house.”
...
Albert Watkins, a St. Louis attorney for the McCloskeys, said in a statement to The Washington Post that they “acted lawfully” out of “fear and apprehension.” The confrontation was not race-related, he added, and white “agitators” were responsible for provoking the white couple.

“My clients, as melanin-deficient human beings, are completely respectful of the message Black Lives Matter needs to get out, especially to whites,” Watkins told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It is unclear whether anyone in the group was armed, as he claimed to Fox News.

It's hard to believe that "white agitators" were the issue when the video shows them pointing their guns and shouting at blacks.

It's also hard to believe they're sympathetic to BLM when they've recently donated many, many times to Trump and to Trump-friendly PACs.

To be fair.... This group of people went through a private gate and onto their private property. This was not a public street they went down. I have seen pics of the gate being bent out of shape and pics of people walking through an unbroken gate and a pic of the gate being guarded by a uniformed guard (possibly letting them in, possibly not, but I could see a guard looking at that crowd of people knowing they are getting in any way and trying6to avoid getting mobbed)
So you have a MOB of people breaking (possibly) and entering your property. You have no idea what their true intentions are and you have a family and house to worry about. They didn't come out shooting (although they could both use a course on gun safety/discipline from what I saw) but they made a very obvious statement to keep back. I can easily see how they could be fearful of their lives especially since their have been plenty of peaceful protests that turned violent.

[malchior]

WaPo

As demonstrators marched along his private street in St. Louis, Mark McCloskey and his wife emerged barefoot from their mansion, brandishing loaded weapons at the crowd in what many read as an act of intimidation. Video of the scene instantly went viral, at one point even being retweeted — and then deleted — by President Trump.

But in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Tuesday night, McCloskey said he and his wife, Patricia, were in fact the ones being threatened.

“I was a victim of a mob that came through the gate,” he said. “I didn’t care what color they were. I didn’t care what their motivation was. I was frightened, I was assaulted, and I was in imminent fear that they would run me over, kill me, burn my house.”
...
Albert Watkins, a St. Louis attorney for the McCloskeys, said in a statement to The Washington Post that they “acted lawfully” out of “fear and apprehension.” The confrontation was not race-related, he added, and white “agitators” were responsible for provoking the white couple.

“My clients, as melanin-deficient human beings, are completely respectful of the message Black Lives Matter needs to get out, especially to whites,” Watkins told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It is unclear whether anyone in the group was armed, as he claimed to Fox News.

It's hard to believe that "white agitators" were the issue when the video shows them pointing their guns and shouting at blacks.

It's also hard to believe they're sympathetic to BLM when they've recently donated many, many times to Trump and to Trump-friendly PACs.

To be fair.... This group of people went through a private gate and onto their private property. This was not a public street they went down. I have seen pics of the gate being bent out of shape and pics of people walking through an unbroken gate and a pic of the gate being guarded by a uniformed guard (possibly letting them in, possibly not, but I could see a guard looking at that crowd of people knowing they are getting in any way and trying6to avoid getting mobbed)
So you have a MOB of people breaking (possibly) and entering your property. You have no idea what their true intentions are and you have a family and house to worry about. They didn't come out shooting (although they could both use a course on gun safety/discipline from what I saw) but they made a very obvious statement to keep back. I can easily see how they could be fearful of their lives especially since their have been plenty of peaceful protests that turned violent.

There is video of that bent gate and it was intact. The only time we've seen the bent gate is a still photo with no crowd present. We don't know when it happened or who did it. So when the gate was still intact, this moron was running around with a rifle. This crowd was marching on a private street, yes. That alone doesn't make it a 'mob'. They weren't rioting. There was no other reports of vandalism or damage. And that they were fearful. Sure, they saw a mixed crowd - pun intended - and lost their minds. Are they racists? I don't know but they definitely overreacted and looked like the living embodiment of white flight.

Edit: Update with another video of the gate *intact* and a guest appearance of McCloskey towards the end when he appears with his rifle.

[YellowKing]

If they are Fox News junkie Trump supporters, keep in mind they have been conditioned to fear this exact scenario. We see a bunch of protesters calmly walking past their house; they see a mob of armed Antifa soldiers coming to execute them.

My ex-stepdad was a Fox News junkie 24/7 and right before he and my mom split he was convinced that the FBI had hacked his computer and was spying on him. Swear to God.

Unfortunately the years my mom spent with him consuming that garbage second-hand turned her quite paranoid as well, and leaving him didn't erase her fear and paranoia. She's terrified that every adult male is a child molester trying to prey upon my kids, she's terrified of every disease, she thinks crime is on every doorstep and if you leave your door unlocked for 5 minutes while you check the mail, it's going to be ransacked by a gang of violent thugs. I don't know how people live like that, it must be exhausting being terrified every minute of your waking life.

[RunningMn9]

The thing that a lot of people don't realize is that Mount Rushmore is the equivalent of going in to Jerusalem and carving a statue of Hitler into the Western Wall.

This is exactly the kind of thing that I wrestle with (when it comes to books, statues, songs, whatever).

If I view them only through the lens of MY experience, then I understand leaving them alone (except the confederate monuments, because fuck those).

I mean, my immediate and honestly, visceral, reaction to blasting Mt. Rushmore into oblivion is “are you fucking kidding me?”.

But there’s some real compelling context there that I don’t ever contemplate. I don’t really care that the sculptor was a racist piece of shit, but the fact that we purposefully erected this monument THERE, after giving sovereignty of that land and mountain to the Sioux, that’s such a colossal dick move that it becomes pretty hard to defend.

We are trained to just look at that as a monument to our greatest Presidents, but it’s not that.

Of course the problem is that you can’t exactly just move it somewhere else.

[Remus West]

One option we could discuss with the Sioux would be fully funding a museum of Native American history at Crazy Horse monument. We could also offer to fund the completion of that with no strings attached but my understanding was the people involved there want ZERO federal money. Not even sure they would want money for the museum as what they had last time I was through there was very nice without getting anyone else involved.

[Punisher]

WaPo

As demonstrators marched along his private street in St. Louis, Mark McCloskey and his wife emerged barefoot from their mansion, brandishing loaded weapons at the crowd in what many read as an act of intimidation. Video of the scene instantly went viral, at one point even being retweeted — and then deleted — by President Trump.

But in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Tuesday night, McCloskey said he and his wife, Patricia, were in fact the ones being threatened.

“I was a victim of a mob that came through the gate,” he said. “I didn’t care what color they were. I didn’t care what their motivation was. I was frightened, I was assaulted, and I was in imminent fear that they would run me over, kill me, burn my house.”
...
Albert Watkins, a St. Louis attorney for the McCloskeys, said in a statement to The Washington Post that they “acted lawfully” out of “fear and apprehension.” The confrontation was not race-related, he added, and white “agitators” were responsible for provoking the white couple.

“My clients, as melanin-deficient human beings, are completely respectful of the message Black Lives Matter needs to get out, especially to whites,” Watkins told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It is unclear whether anyone in the group was armed, as he claimed to Fox News.

It's hard to believe that "white agitators" were the issue when the video shows them pointing their guns and shouting at blacks.

It's also hard to believe they're sympathetic to BLM when they've recently donated many, many times to Trump and to Trump-friendly PACs.

To be fair.... This group of people went through a private gate and onto their private property. This was not a public street they went down. I have seen pics of the gate being bent out of shape and pics of people walking through an unbroken gate and a pic of the gate being guarded by a uniformed guard (possibly letting them in, possibly not, but I could see a guard looking at that crowd of people knowing they are getting in any way and trying6to avoid getting mobbed)
So you have a MOB of people breaking (possibly) and entering your property. You have no idea what their true intentions are and you have a family and house to worry about. They didn't come out shooting (although they could both use a course on gun safety/discipline from what I saw) but they made a very obvious statement to keep back. I can easily see how they could be fearful of their lives especially since their have been plenty of peaceful protests that turned violent.

There is video of that bent gate and it was intact. The only time we've seen the bent gate is a still photo with no crowd present. We don't know when it happened or who did it. So when the gate was still intact, this moron was running around with a rifle. This crowd was marching on a private street, yes. That alone doesn't make it a 'mob'. They weren't rioting. There was no other reports of vandalism or damage. And that they were fearful. Sure, they saw a mixed crowd - pun intended - and lost their minds. Are they racists? I don't know but they definitely overreacted and looked like the living embodiment of white flight.

Edit: Update with another video of the gate *intact* and a guest appearance of McCloskey towards the end when he appears with his rifle.

There is a definite timeline issue here because I saw another version of the crowd of people going through the gate with them coming out with the guns and it was a lot more people sop maybe this was being done multiple times?
I agree the only broken pic with it being bent is the still photo.
and sure this crowd of people appeared peaceful, but so have others that did turn violent. If there have been MULTIPLE peaceful protests that broke out into violence (instigated/started by only a few I'm sure, but exploding from there), should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob? At that point, it's too late. I really don't blame them for going out there with their guns to warn people that were trespassing off. They DO need to get training in gun safety/discipline as I mentioned above and this is one of the gun control things I do agree with. Training should be required if you are going to own a gun.

[Punisher]

The thing that a lot of people don't realize is that Mount Rushmore is the equivalent of going in to Jerusalem and carving a statue of Hitler into the Western Wall.

This is exactly the kind of thing that I wrestle with (when it comes to books, statues, songs, whatever).

If I view them only through the lens of MY experience, then I understand leaving them alone (except the confederate monuments, because fuck those).

I mean, my immediate and honestly, visceral, reaction to blasting Mt. Rushmore into oblivion is “are you fucking kidding me?”.

But there’s some real compelling context there that I don’t ever contemplate. I don’t really care that the sculptor was a racist piece of shit, but the fact that we purposefully erected this monument THERE, after giving sovereignty of that land and mountain to the Sioux, that’s such a colossal dick move that it becomes pretty hard to defend.

We are trained to just look at that as a monument to our greatest Presidents, but it’s not that.

Of course the problem is that you can’t exactly just move it somewhere else.

My problem with all of this is...where does it stop? Some of the founding fathers were slave owners. Do we cancel everything they did a just hand the US back over to Great Britain?
Yes, these people did some pretty shitty things that at their time were not always considered shitty in general. They were a product of their time.
Plus, should we just start erasing history and rewrite it or instead use it as a reminder and teaching point about bad things can be.

[LawBeefaroni]

I've said it before, monuments aren't history. They are awards. They may reflect history or commemorate it, but they are not history. In fact, in most cases are aren't even contemporary with the event/individual they are commemorating.

[LawBeefaroni]

Folks, we're all good now. The Trump Campaign store has some new photos. [Link to store]

[ImLawBoy]

The thing that a lot of people don't realize is that Mount Rushmore is the equivalent of going in to Jerusalem and carving a statue of Hitler into the Western Wall.

This is exactly the kind of thing that I wrestle with (when it comes to books, statues, songs, whatever).

If I view them only through the lens of MY experience, then I understand leaving them alone (except the confederate monuments, because fuck those).

I mean, my immediate and honestly, visceral, reaction to blasting Mt. Rushmore into oblivion is “are you fucking kidding me?”.

But there’s some real compelling context there that I don’t ever contemplate. I don’t really care that the sculptor was a racist piece of shit, but the fact that we purposefully erected this monument THERE, after giving sovereignty of that land and mountain to the Sioux, that’s such a colossal dick move that it becomes pretty hard to defend.

We are trained to just look at that as a monument to our greatest Presidents, but it’s not that.

Of course the problem is that you can’t exactly just move it somewhere else.

My problem with all of this is...where does it stop? Some of the founding fathers were slave owners. Do we cancel everything they did a just hand the US back over to Great Britain?
Yes, these people did some pretty shitty things that at their time were not always considered shitty in general. They were a product of their time.
Plus, should we just start erasing history and rewrite it or instead use it as a reminder and teaching point about bad things can be.

That's an absurdist take on things. Some of the questions are easy - is this a statue to commemorate someone who waged war against America to defend slavery (e.g., Robert E. Lee)? Tear the fucker down. Is this a statue to commemorate a founding father's accomplishments, despite the fact that he also had some serious flaws (e.g., George Washington)? Keep it up (unless it's some weird statue that specifically commemorates George's slave ownership). There are obviously some gray areas. Some people want to continue to commemorate Columbus because of what he did in helping to discover the Americas for Europe, arguing it's similar to the Washington example. Some (myself included) would say that the overall monstrous nature of his character overrides his accomplishments (particularly given that the Americas were likely already discovered at some point for Europe). Mt. Rushmore is also a good example of the conundrum, and I don't know where I stand on that yet. Emotionally I'm currently in the "burn it all down" phase of things, but that might change upon further reflection.

In other words, it's going to be a case-by-case discussion (except with respect to Confederate monuments, because fuck those). But the reality that the discussions might be difficult is not a good reason not to have those discussions. We shouldn't just say, "Well, since some of these statues should probably stay, that means we can't get rid of any of them." That's a cop out.

[Jaymann]

On Mt. Rushmore, just put a BLM banner over the mouths of Washington and Jefferson.

[Blackhawk]

One option we could discuss with the Sioux would be fully funding a museum of Native American history at Crazy Horse monument. We could also offer to fund the completion of that with no strings attached but my understanding was the people involved there want ZERO federal money. Not even sure they would want money for the museum as what they had last time I was through there was very nice without getting anyone else involved.

Many of the Lakota like the Crazy Horse Memorial as little as they do Mount Rushmore. It's still carving up the Black Hills, and Crazy Horse would have despised it. I read a few biographies of Crazy Horse years ago, and to put it in context with another metaphor, this is like draining a crocodile swamp to put up a giant Steve Irwin memorial, and even that's inaccurate because Steve Irwin liked being a symbol. Crazy Horse hated it.

[Remus West]

One option we could discuss with the Sioux would be fully funding a museum of Native American history at Crazy Horse monument. We could also offer to fund the completion of that with no strings attached but my understanding was the people involved there want ZERO federal money. Not even sure they would want money for the museum as what they had last time I was through there was very nice without getting anyone else involved.

Many of the Lakota like the Crazy Horse Memorial as little as they do Mount Rushmore. It's still carving up the Black Hills, and Crazy Horse would have despised it. I read a few biographies of Crazy Horse years ago, and to put it in context with another metaphor, this is like draining a crocodile swamp to put up a giant Steve Irwin memorial, and even that's inaccurate because Steve Irwin liked being a symbol. Crazy Horse hated it.

All true. Maybe funding a museum celebrating the culture would still work though. There is so much misinformation and outright lies around our dealings with native peoples that a source of truth that neither sugar coats our misdeeds nor hides the wealth of culture would be a step in the right direction.

[LawBeefaroni]

They need a school more than another museum. I think it's more important to keep the culture alive than to celebrate its past.

[Blackhawk]

And a hospital. And a river without a pipeline.

If you want an approach, put them in control of the monuments. Offer federal dollars for maintenance for as long as they're left standing and open to the public, but they keep all the proceeds. Let them decide how to present them, how to charge for them, or whether to keep them there. Let them determine whether them being there is worth the steady flow of cash into their society, and let them decide how (and whether) to use that to preserve and present their history and culture.

Of course, the Crazy Horse Memorial is privately owned, so that would be an issue.

[Holman]

I haven't seen a lot of discussion of this, but there's a great deal of scholarship around what monuments actually are and how they function.

A monument doesn't have to be a statue of a "great man" that we then come to judge on the basis of the individual. The best example is Maya Linn's Vietnam Veteran's memorial, which was initially met with a HUGE amount of resistance but which has proven to be incredibly powerful and meaningful in engaging viewers with the power and complexity of commemoration. The 9/11 memorial is another good example.

[Alefroth]

should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob?

Short answer, yes.

[Holman]

should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob?

Short answer, yes.

Yep. Otherwise you become Bull Conner.

[stimpy]

should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, how fucking ludicrous.
"Sure.....you guys go right ahead and bust my shit up, set it on fire and break my door down. Help yourself to my wife and kids while I go find my unloaded gun, remove the safety, go get the bullets from the garage, load my gun, take a few practice shots and then confront you with 3 warning shots just in case you didn't see me holding the gun. I'll give ya 10 minutes or so to finish up, but then, I'm gonna open fire. After I warn you again and look up the word mob in the dictionary to make sure all criteria has been met.
Fucking ludicrous.
You are a victim in waiting.

[ImLawBoy]

should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, how fucking ludicrous.
"Sure.....you guys go right ahead and bust my shit up, set it on fire and break my door down. Help yourself to my wife and kids while I go find my unloaded gun, remove the safety, go get the bullets from the garage, load my gun, take a few practice shots and then confront you with 3 warning shots just in case you didn't see me holding the gun. I'll give ya 10 minutes or so to finish up, but then, I'm gonna open fire. After I warn you again and look up the word mob in the dictionary to make sure all criteria has been met.
Fucking ludicrous.
You are a victim in waiting.

Do you think that there is possibly - just possibly - any middle ground between being completely unprepared and going out on the lawn waving around guns and shouting at the protestors?

[Holman]

should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, how fucking ludicrous.
"Sure.....you guys go right ahead and bust my shit up, set it on fire and break my door down. Help yourself to my wife and kids while I go find my unloaded gun, remove the safety, go get the bullets from the garage, load my gun, take a few practice shots and then confront you with 3 warning shots just in case you didn't see me holding the gun. I'll give ya 10 minutes or so to finish up, but then, I'm gonna open fire. After I warn you again and look up the word mob in the dictionary to make sure all criteria has been met.
Fucking ludicrous.
You are a victim in waiting.

Yes. Because all of that was certain to happen if they hadn't pulled out the guns. They're lucky they didn't wait to put on their shoes.

But why should they wait until there are actual marchers to panic about? Shouldn't it be legal to wave guns at people you're certain are *potential* marchers?

And why stop at just waving the guns? Why not just shoot? It's better than being robbed/raped/killed, since these are the only possibilities.

[Alefroth]

should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, how fucking ludicrous.
"Sure.....you guys go right ahead and bust my shit up, set it on fire and break my door down. Help yourself to my wife and kids while I go find my unloaded gun, remove the safety, go get the bullets from the garage, load my gun, take a few practice shots and then confront you with 3 warning shots just in case you didn't see me holding the gun. I'll give ya 10 minutes or so to finish up, but then, I'm gonna open fire. After I warn you again and look up the word mob in the dictionary to make sure all criteria has been met.
Fucking ludicrous.
You are a victim in waiting.

Ludicrous is thinking there is nothing between having your ammo locked up away from your rifle, and being on your lawn brandishing.

Did any of f those people look like they were going to set your house on fire and take your wife? I mean other than the black ones.

[stimpy]

should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, how fucking ludicrous.
"Sure.....you guys go right ahead and bust my shit up, set it on fire and break my door down. Help yourself to my wife and kids while I go find my unloaded gun, remove the safety, go get the bullets from the garage, load my gun, take a few practice shots and then confront you with 3 warning shots just in case you didn't see me holding the gun. I'll give ya 10 minutes or so to finish up, but then, I'm gonna open fire. After I warn you again and look up the word mob in the dictionary to make sure all criteria has been met.
Fucking ludicrous.
You are a victim in waiting.

Do you think that there is possibly - just possibly - any middle ground between being completely unprepared and going out on the lawn waving around guns and shouting at the protestors?

Like what? Stern words? Squinty eyed looks?
Give me an example of what should be done when a group, crowd, mob, throng, horde, herd, flock, gaggle whatever you want to label it, of "innocent" protestors enter private property.

[stimpy]

should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, how fucking ludicrous.
"Sure.....you guys go right ahead and bust my shit up, set it on fire and break my door down. Help yourself to my wife and kids while I go find my unloaded gun, remove the safety, go get the bullets from the garage, load my gun, take a few practice shots and then confront you with 3 warning shots just in case you didn't see me holding the gun. I'll give ya 10 minutes or so to finish up, but then, I'm gonna open fire. After I warn you again and look up the word mob in the dictionary to make sure all criteria has been met.
Fucking ludicrous.
You are a victim in waiting.

Yes. Because all of that was certain to happen if they hadn't pulled out the guns. They're lucky they didn't wait to put on their shoes.

But why should they wait until there are actual marchers to panic about? Shouldn't it be legal to wave guns at people you're certain are *potential* marchers?

And why stop at just waving the guns? Why not just shoot? It's better than being robbed/raped/killed, since these are the only possibilities.

And how do you know that wouldn't have happened?
Pass around a petition asking each person to note their intent?
They didn't shoot. They warned the trespassers off their private property. Like they are supposed to do.
Sorry we all don't live in your chocolate factory where all people only have the best intentions.

[stimpy]

should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, how fucking ludicrous.
"Sure.....you guys go right ahead and bust my shit up, set it on fire and break my door down. Help yourself to my wife and kids while I go find my unloaded gun, remove the safety, go get the bullets from the garage, load my gun, take a few practice shots and then confront you with 3 warning shots just in case you didn't see me holding the gun. I'll give ya 10 minutes or so to finish up, but then, I'm gonna open fire. After I warn you again and look up the word mob in the dictionary to make sure all criteria has been met.
Fucking ludicrous.
You are a victim in waiting.

Ludicrous is thinking there is nothing between having your ammo locked up away from your rifle, and being on your lawn brandishing.

What is in-between? Call the cops? They're the problem to begin with, remember?

[stimpy]

crowd
[kroud]

NOUN
a large number of people gathered together in a disorganized or unruly way.
"a huge crowd gathered in the street outside"


mob
[mäb]

NOUN
a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.
"a mob of protesters"

Yeah.....major major difference between the two.
Please enlighten us uninformed folk how you experts can spot the tell-tale signs that one is going to turn into the other.
We can heal a lot of the world's wounds with your insights.

[Alefroth]

should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, how fucking ludicrous.
"Sure.....you guys go right ahead and bust my shit up, set it on fire and break my door down. Help yourself to my wife and kids while I go find my unloaded gun, remove the safety, go get the bullets from the garage, load my gun, take a few practice shots and then confront you with 3 warning shots just in case you didn't see me holding the gun. I'll give ya 10 minutes or so to finish up, but then, I'm gonna open fire. After I warn you again and look up the word mob in the dictionary to make sure all criteria has been met.
Fucking ludicrous.
You are a victim in waiting.

Ludicrous is thinking there is nothing between having your ammo locked up away from your rifle, and being on your lawn brandishing.

What is in-between? Call the cops? They're the problem to begin with, remember?

You not knowing that is a big part of why protests are happening.

[stimpy]

should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, how fucking ludicrous.
"Sure.....you guys go right ahead and bust my shit up, set it on fire and break my door down. Help yourself to my wife and kids while I go find my unloaded gun, remove the safety, go get the bullets from the garage, load my gun, take a few practice shots and then confront you with 3 warning shots just in case you didn't see me holding the gun. I'll give ya 10 minutes or so to finish up, but then, I'm gonna open fire. After I warn you again and look up the word mob in the dictionary to make sure all criteria has been met.
Fucking ludicrous.
You are a victim in waiting.

Ludicrous is thinking there is nothing between having your ammo locked up away from your rifle, and being on your lawn brandishing.

What is in-between? Call the cops? They're the problem to begin with, remember?

You not knowing that is a big part of why protests are happening.

Yeah....I'm the reason for the protests...…….what a caricature you're becoming.
How about you answer the simple question.
1 person or 40 people come onto your property uninvited, shouting at you and your family for any reason.
What do you do?
Bring out a pot of tea and cookies and ask them to share their feelings?
What do YOU do?

[ImLawBoy]

should they have to wait until the crowd does turn into a mob?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, how fucking ludicrous.
"Sure.....you guys go right ahead and bust my shit up, set it on fire and break my door down. Help yourself to my wife and kids while I go find my unloaded gun, remove the safety, go get the bullets from the garage, load my gun, take a few practice shots and then confront you with 3 warning shots just in case you didn't see me holding the gun. I'll give ya 10 minutes or so to finish up, but then, I'm gonna open fire. After I warn you again and look up the word mob in the dictionary to make sure all criteria has been met.
Fucking ludicrous.
You are a victim in waiting.

Do you think that there is possibly - just possibly - any middle ground between being completely unprepared and going out on the lawn waving around guns and shouting at the protestors?

Like what? Stern words? Squinty eyed looks?
Give me an example of what should be done when a group, crowd, mob, throng, horde, herd, flock, gaggle whatever you want to label it, of "innocent" protestors enter private property.

This is likely my last interaction with you on this topic, as you appear more interested in getting indignant than actually engaging with people. In the interest of good faith, though, I'll give it one more shot. If you continue to respond as you've been doing in this thread, I'll bow out and you can continue your trolling.

The example you requested is in this post I made in another thread:

Worried enough to keep an eye on them or worried enough to arm yourself and go out to confront them in a manner that may provoke the actions you are worried about?

Yeah, that's my issue here. I'd certainly be nervous if a group of protestors marched by my extravagantly restored palazzo, as it seems like the kind of thing that might incur the wrath of a mob fighting against social injustice. I'm not sure it's a reasonable or appropriate response to go out to confront the protestors (who are peacefully marching at that point) waving guns around and shouting at them, though. Maybe there was more going on than I saw, but it seems like the best approach may have been to have the weapons ready and watch the crowd from safety. If they started approaching the house or throwing things, then maybe you should go out there. Without that, though, running out there like a suburban commando seems more likely to provoke rioting than to prevent it.

In full disclosure, I was nervous about the marches happening less than a mile from my house, so I get why they'd be nervous about them coming down their street. My preparations involved bringing in the kids' bikes and closing the blinds, though, not getting armed.

[stimpy]

You wrote that "if they started approaching the house, maybe you should go out there".
This video shows them getting pretty damn close to the house to fall under the "approaching" category to me.
https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/mark-pat ... uns-video/

You were concerned enough to do something as innocuous as taking in the kids bikes (?) and closing the blinds when protestors were a mile away.
Imagine them on your steps. Then what? Dismantle the trampoline and turn out the lights?

I do think that had one of the protestors been armed it could have gone full out western, which would have sucked for all involved.
But they had every right to defend their home, which they did without anyone getting hurt. Except for feelings, I guess.

[stimpy]

And ImLawBoy, I will remove myself from this conversation.
I stayed out of the thread for awhile. Poked my head back in and regret it.
Your input here is obviously more valued than mine, which is fine.
I aint everyones cup o tea.
Or maybe I just suck at expressing myself.
Either way.....it's all yours.
See you in EBG!!!!

[Holman]

You wrote that "if they started approaching the house, maybe you should go out there".
This video shows them getting pretty damn close to the house to fall under the "approaching" category to me.
https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/mark-pat ... uns-video/

You were concerned enough to do something as innocuous as taking in the kids bikes (?) and closing the blinds when protestors were a mile away.
Imagine them on your steps. Then what? Dismantle the trampoline and turn out the lights?

Every video at your link shows protesters on and only on the sidewalk.

I do think that had one of the protestors been armed it could have gone full out western, which would have sucked for all involved.
But they had every right to defend their home, which they did without anyone getting hurt. Except for feelings, I guess.

You think lots of things, but the only people escalating in these videos are Rambo Polo and Killmonger Karen. The protesters are far more restrained, raising cameras rather than guns and encouraging each other to keep cool and keep focused.

Do you even know why they were on that street? Or do you believe it was just to rape and pillage the owners of tacky furniture?

[WYBaugh]

I agree the people are idiots, but it appears they have the right to be idiots under Missouri law:

In recent years, the state of Missouri expanded the state's Castle Doctrine, a stand-your-ground law allowing a resident to use deadly force against anyone perceived to be threatening a resident's property or person. Individuals defending their property have no duty to retreat when facing a perceived threat.

"At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn," explained Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University. Walker told the St. Louis Dispatch that the couple's decision to engage with protesters was "very dangerous" but the law allows them to defend their private property and even pull the trigger.

Now there are arguments about where their lawn begins, etc.

[Alefroth]

I wonder if Castle Doctrine could be applied to police coming onto your property.

[LawBeefaroni]

They didn't shoot. They warned the trespassers off their private property. Like they are supposed to do.
Sorry we all don't live in your chocolate factory where all people only have the best intentions.

They didn't do it like they are supposed to do. They did it like pair of untrained morons.

[Jaymann]

Who wore it better?

[hepcat]

Good old Scott Adams. In spite of being white, he managed to make a ton of money at one point. But because he IS white...and male...he can’t catch a break.

“I lost my TV show for being white when UPN decided it would focus on an African-American audience,” he wrote. “That was the third job I lost for being white. The other two in corporate America. (They told me directly.) … I wasn’t fired. I was told I couldn’t be promoted because of my color and gender, so I left, of course.”

[ImLawBoy]

You wrote that "if they started approaching the house, maybe you should go out there".
This video shows them getting pretty damn close to the house to fall under the "approaching" category to me.
https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/mark-pat ... uns-video/

After the couple had already come out carrying guns and waving them around. Had the couple never come out with the guns, I strongly suspect the crowd would have continued on to their destination. I don't recall seeing any evidence that they went to any other private residences (other than the mayor's, I presume, which was the intended destination of their protest). And it's worth noting that they never approached closer than the sidewalk, and those who went that far appeared to be gawking at the couple.

You were concerned enough to do something as innocuous as taking in the kids bikes (?) and closing the blinds when protestors were a mile away.
Imagine them on your steps. Then what? Dismantle the trampoline and turn out the lights?

Can you see a difference between the first nights of George Floyd protests (with all of the looting) and a targeted march to the mayor's house for a specific purpose with no reports of looting? Can you see the difference between a reasonable, measured response (i.e., taking in the kids' stuff) and an overreaction that only serves to inflame the situation (i.e., going out with guns and yelling at a group marching by)?

I do think that had one of the protestors been armed it could have gone full out western, which would have sucked for all involved.
But they had every right to defend their home, which they did without anyone getting hurt. Except for feelings, I guess.

You're right on with the hypothetical of one of the protestors being armed. If the couple stays inside (they could even caress their guns just inside the door for all I care), the crowd probably passes by without incident. They had a destination in mind and a reason for going there. Coming out and waving guns around makes things less safe for all involved. What if just one person in the crowd got spooked and thought the woman waving the gun was about to shoot, so that person tried to take preemptive action? It was just dumb, dumb, dumb.

And I'm certainly not saying they don't have a right to defend their home. But claiming that they successfully did so here is like me claiming that I successfully defended my home from looters when I moved the kids' bikes inside. Turns out there was nothing really to defend against.

And ImLawBoy, I will remove myself from this conversation.

No need. Your last reply to me was reasonably and respectfully stated (albeit ultimately wrong ) and didn't try to move the goalposts or anything. I like that kind of back and forth.

I stayed out of the thread for awhile. Poked my head back in and regret it.
Your input here is obviously more valued than mine, which is fine.
I aint everyones cup o tea.
Or maybe I just suck at expressing myself.

To the extend they value my input more than yours, I suspect it is more a function of your posting style than anything I am saying.

Either way.....it's all yours.
See you in EBG!!!!

Go Cubs!

[hitbyambulance]

Same with Conan, where the original stories had disparaging depictions of "dark-skinned natives" and the like.

Robert E. Howard was going to be one i called out, along with Edgar Rice Burroughs (Tarzan, etc) and H. Rider Haggard (the Allan Quatermain series, etc)

These examples bring up an interesting point.

I'll go out on a limb and say that almost nobody reads these authors anymore. They're not cultural standard-bearers, and we really only encounter them as niche curiosities or special interests.

However, their cultural legacy is enormous: they helped to inspire the 1970's role-playing games that grew into such a prominent part of today's pop culture, movies, media, video games, and etc.

THAT culture, however, has begun to cancel away the prejudices baked into the antecedent source material. Just this week there have been huge Twitter discussions about how the next version of D&D will eliminate the idea that whole races or species of monsters adhere to a specific alignment. The idea that all orcs or kobolds are "Evil" will be leaving the game. It'll be up to the DM or scenario designer to determine whether the creatures you encounter are aligned for or against your values.

So here we have a clear example of using the best a creator makes available without having to endorse the errors in their thinking. D&D would be impossible without Burrough's simplistic racial thinking (or Tolkien's more elevated equivalent), but their imaginative invention of fantastic realms remains inspirational and valuable and good.

...and every now and then there's an exception to a rule, brought to light by sheer coincidence. i've been going through a collection of Ambrose Bierce's and last night i read "The Haunted Valley" (originally written in 1871). the story seems to follow the usual setup of his several 'peculiar individual in an isolated wilderness in unusual circumstances descending into madness' horror/ghost stories, but actually resolves as a fairly pointed critique of anti-Chinese sentiment in gold rush-era California (and a cutting rebuke of the hypocrisy of the oppressors):

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Haunted_Valley