King Jove
King Of †he Gawds
keep killing black people unjustly while laughing in our faces about it then act like the victims when those black people snap and start bussin back.
Damn brehs another brother killed by Houston police shot 10 times R.I.P Alva Braziel
- Thread starter Originalgangsta317
- Start date
-
- Tags
- innocent
El negrito de tejas
Fukk the govt I got my own Deficit
People thought I was crazy when I started applying for jobs out of the country but I can't take this shyt no more
The only thing these cacs respect is violence. They don't want to go back to 7/7 bytch ass cacs.
Deutsche Bank
Some Of My Partners Dope Fiends Ha
It takes hunger to spark a revolution. If nikkas/indios in Venezuela are hunting dogs, cats, and pigeons but ain't overthrowing shyt, these diabetic obese weed/syrup-addled American fools ain't bout to do shyt.truth be told.. yeah it would be a slaughter
Some dumbass wandering around on the corner at midnight with a revolver out, after his chick told his retarded ass to be back in the house lol. fukk outta here.
Fools'll either be back at work/feeling like disappointed dunsky's on their former lunch break when they realize they gotta be back out job hunting/still unemployed and broke like last week when Manic Monday rolls around.
The D-List Vet
Being in a recommendation system.
how did the job search go for you? you have a job line up RN?
ReturnOfJudah
Veteran
richaveli83
Veteran
My girl grew up around that area. Sad but unfortunately I'm not really shocked by this. I just knew in less than a week a brother or sister was going to get murdered in retaliation for Dallas. America was NEVER great for black people.
El negrito de tejas
Fukk the govt I got my own Deficit
Still applying bruh been at it for a month since I got back from Germany. All these shootings did was just accelerate the process
This continues to be the STUPIDEST line ever. It's the EXACT same shyt they say about you to justify their violence. It's the exact same shyt that anyone uses when they want to dehumanize anyone else and just follow their own innate urges.
If you actually look at history, you'd see it wasn't the least bit true. Nonviolent revolutions have the exact same success rate as violent revolutions (when you look by the % of the population that participated) except that non-violent revolutions have a much easier time ramping up to the requisite population #s, involve far fewer deaths, and are far more likely to lead to a peaceful, non-dictatorial new government afterwards.
You can be like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Zimbabwae or you can be like India, Poland, South Africa. Who did it really work for?
AMERICA was built on violence.... Everything the white man done, the conflicts, the wars, slavery, civil war, jim crow, trail of tears, the ww2 hiroshima boming, etc, etc, Has been violent...
You know the difference between "anecdote" and "data", fool?
I didn't say that violence didn't happen. I said that more often than not, it's consequences are bad. You want to be the White man? You want to model yourself after his most evil actions? If he's your idol, and you want his reward, then try to take it. But it ain't going to serve you well.
And you don't think the fact that America started with a bunch of guns isn't 90% of the reason why we're the only developed country with 35,000 dying from guns every year and 1,000+ getting murked by the cops every year? And you want MORE reliance on guns, after if obsession with guns didn't fukk us up in the first place. Canada never went to war with England, and they ended up as or more free than we are. They're influenced by some of our bad habits, but they're still not killing each other or getting killed by the cops or going all over the world trying to start shyt with a fraction the energy we are.
You mention slavery, why? Because you think that was a GOOD thing that we should model our own actions on?
And the Civil War? What the hell did that lead to? 600,000 souls dead, and it just goes straight into KKK dominance of the South, sharecropping, Jim Crow, and full-on segregation for the next 100 years. What started with violence and power continued with violence and power.
World War 2 is a GREAT response too. 60,000.000 people dead. Germany and Japan and Italy trying to solve their shyt with violence, and what good did it do them? America and Britain and Russia responding with violence, and what good did it do us? By the end, like you point out, we're murking 100,000 civilians at a time and looking just as bad as the enemy. The second WW2 ends, the "winners" go at each other's throats, grab all they can, and we have the Korean War, Vietnam War, and everything else in the next 45 years of Cold War and millions more dead. Not even to mention how we F'd up the whole Middle East in the aftermath too. Violence begets violence begets violence.....
Tell me again how all that shyt you mentioned is a GOOD thing to follow after? You point out the worst moments of American history, and point out that they're all VIOLENT. Get the message yet?
I just replied to what YOU wrote not admiring the white man's violent tendencies...
the_FUTURE
Superstar
Basically when the dude spoke, that's my entire thought process about this spoken and executed beautifully.
it's like these cops are saying "there's no more room in jail for these people, there's no time for y'all to get correct if they did a minor crime/offense. And we ain't even trying to figure if you're innocent or not, y'all gots to go".
But did you see what I wrote?
Nonviolent revolutions have the same success rate as violent revolutions. That doesn't mean that violent revolutions "never" succeed.
The basic cut-off is 3.5%. You get more than 3.5% of the population actively involved in revolution (not just moral support, but full-on doing shyt) then you'll probably overthrow the government. That's true whether you're holding guns or not.
It's a lot easier to get 3.5% of the people engaging in revolution when you're not killing people. That's why in the last 100 years especially, nonviolent revolutions have been way more successful than violent ones. South Africa, India, Phillipines, practically the whole Iron Curtain, etc. From 1900 to 2006, violent revolutions succeeded 26% of the time and nonviolent revolutions succeeded 53% of the time, primarily because the nonviolent revolutions attracted a wider base of support more consistently.
But even though the requisite numbers are similar, the aftereffects aren't. WAY more people die in violent revolutions than in nonviolent ones. Over a million guys died freeing Vietnam from France/US, only 7,000 died freeing India from Britain. Afghanistan went to arms against the USSR and won, but they're STILL dying there, whereas Poland had Solidarity to get free from USSR and they chill. I don't remember the exact numbers, but something like 70% of violent revolutions are followed by non-democratic, dictatorial control - that's what happened in Africa. When the guys who win do it by using the same brutality the White man did, then they end up ruing over their people in the exact same way. Different color of master, same results.
That's why I hate this "it's the only thing they understand" bullshyt. No it's not. It might be the only thing that they know now, but it's not the only thing they're capable of understanding. It's just the only thing you're willing to try. Britain was ruthless - look up the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. USSR was the epitome of evil in a lot of people's eyes. White South Africa was ridiculously bad too. And something other than violence still could bring all of them down in the end.