DescentBB

....not easy ideas here, clearly not bowing to anyone in the liberal establishment, either. Just a frank look at the true complexities that get broad-brushed as 'race issues' in America:

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/05/our_rea ... socialflow

How the hell can you expect any logical person to take that serious when the opening is based on a totally flawed premise? Michael Brown was not murdered.

I understand that is the necessary narrative to support all sorts of agendas and the status quo of the race baiters etc but it is bullcrap.
And that "good read ' as you call it is based on that same bullcrap.

I agree, a long read but a really good one. I generally hate Salon as much as Fox News, but this article provides a genuinely unique perspective I've never seen before and really does go beyond the typical framing of race in our society. It made me want to read the supporting material written by the author and by Sokol and by Galbraith, though I've pretty much got my hands full with school until 2016, haha. I'll just put it on the list. Meanwhile, I will take some time to reflect on these ideas.

note the difference in approach. One man reads one line and dismisses it, the other reads all the way through and wants to follow up........maybe lack of intellectual curiosity is what makes modern American Conservatives what they are.....

oh, and Vision, I am with you on Salon.....not my usual cup-o-tea, but this writer, as you noted, looked at a situation in a way I've not heard any other do. Far too much superficial, knee-jerk reaction on both sides, and as was pointed out (for those who read the article), politics has made the situation more of a problem.

Oh, and yes, Brown was not murdered, he was executed. What capital offense occurred, and do you really think the same would happen to a white teenager? No, we have an ingrained fear of young black men as inherently dangerous. Some here has regurgitated the same fears, and some even wished those fears to be manifest in my life('I hope some black teenager breaks into Slicks house' or the like over the past couple of years). It is dispelling those fears, and any look at reality will do so, actually, if one allows it, that has to be done before anything really changes.

callmeslick wrote:note the difference in approach. One man reads one line and dismisses it, the other reads all the way through and wants to follow up........maybe lack of intellectual curiosity is what makes modern American Conservatives what they are.....

Some people buy into Scientology after one meeting too it doesn't prove the basis is without serious flaws.

The evidence that vision drank the Kool-Aid willingly doesn't prove the Kool-Aid is wholesome, it merely gives you support where you have a need for it.

Meanwhile Michael Brown was still not murdered and neither you nor vision have a problem cheering the works of someone who used the lie that he was as the basis of their screed. You would have to be a fool to trust the rest of the writing once you discovered such a blatent lie.

Edit to add:
Now I read you say he was Executed?!? Lol. You are lost in the lie.

yes, executed. That incident clearly was mishandled by the cop. Even his own police force acknowledge that. He suddenly decided to stop being a cop, likely because he was never going anywhere after this incident.
And, feel free to keep demonstrating a cartoonlike oversimplification of complex relationships and societal norms that are the true issue here. The guy in Salon got it. You don't.

Please use the evidence of that 90 second encounter to support your claim the cop executed the suspect.

Or stop spouting nonsense.

Any dialog that starts with a false premise or deliberately places blame in the wrong place is automatically invalid.

This entire (national) conversation is void of the responsibility of the poor attitude and misbehavior, on the part of one side of the equation, and for political reasons…always will.

When I lived in North Philly that was the time the police first started using the mandatory 2 cops in a car policy…as a direct response to the utter distain and hostility shown towards police. (sniping from second floor windows was one of the most common problems)

This problem is not based in race, but it is most definitely exacerbated by race…no this problem is a cultural problem, where a lot of the responsibility falls on the group…you can’t blame for anything.


Oh, and the “execution” comment is part of the problem, not the solution.

since when is resisting arrest a capital crime? And, if the suspect is not fighting back and is unarmed, continuing with deadly force is an execution. So, I ask, why did Brown have to be killed? Why did the guy in NYC, clearly not resisting, clearly saying he could not breathe, get choked to death? What kind of exchange or evaluation could have gone down in Cleveland in the 3 seconds between the cops arriving and one of them gunning down a 12 year old boy? And so on. What you have is an unwarranted, overblown FEAR by many white people of young black people. Throw this into the mix with 150 years of disparate treatment of people of color by the 'authorities', social breakdowns across the entire culture and about 10 other social and economic factors, and you have a PROBLEM. Not acknowledging that problem, or suggesting that one group or the other has ownership or, for that matter, any control over the problem is counterproductive. That is, unless you have some sort of vested interest in this continuing apace, which will lead to, ultimately, wholesale changes of a more radical nature.

Da Mayor gets it, too:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-BBgp2aI

callmeslick wrote:since when is resisting arrest a capital crime? And, if the suspect is not fighting back and is unarmed, continuing with deadly force is an execution. ...

Since when is trying to take a policeman's gun from him in the initial confrontation not considered an imminent threat to the policeman? An unarmed suspect who had just tried to disarm a policeman who then turns back and charges toward that same policeman has to be considered an unarmed suspect trying to arm himself.

I think there are at least as many dead cops from those kind of events recorded than there are unarmed people shot without any justification for deadly force if not more.

Also slick, it was maybe a week or two ago that you said the cop was following the law and shouldn't have been prosecuted.
Now you say something different completely!
I think you are flopping around in the breeze with no real principled beliefs at all to anchor you.
Apparently if the lefties narrative makes enough noise you respond by barking up a new tree like Pavlov's dog.

Why should we take you seriously?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:since when is resisting arrest a capital crime? And, if the suspect is not fighting back and is unarmed, continuing with deadly force is an execution. ...

Since when is trying to take a policeman's gun from him in the initial confrontation not considered an imminent threat to the policeman?

no legal proof of that. It never went to court.

I think there are at least as many dead cops from those kind of events recorded than there are unarmed people shot without any justification for deadly force if not more.

I'd love you to try and find data to support that ludicrous claim. Not that it would affect the fact that shooting unarmed people is WRONG.

Also slick, it was maybe a week or two ago that you said the cop was following the law and shouldn't have been prosecuted.
Now you say something different completely!

no, not the same thing. I am saying that this event, and others, are causing rising tensions because they speak to a wrong that goes back decades. Officer Wilson, I also stated, showed extremely poor judgement, even if technically legal. He should not be a police officer, and seems to have made that judgement himself.

I think you are flopping around in the breeze with no real principled beliefs at all. If the lefties protest make enough noise slick responds by barking up a new tree like Pavlov's dog.

sadly, what I am addressing is the complexities of reality, whereas you simply regurgitate shallow stupidity that you are trained(sort of dog-like behavior itself)to spit back. Pathetically dimwitted.

Why should we take you seriously?

for whatever reason one feels, I do at least try to deal in intellect, depth of knowledge and subtlety. You, not so much, so what you take seriously is of utterly no concern to me.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:since when is resisting arrest a capital crime? And, if the suspect is not fighting back and is unarmed, continuing with deadly force is an execution. ...

Since when is trying to take a policeman's gun from him in the initial confrontation not considered an imminent threat to the policeman?

no legal proof of that. It never went to court.

It went to the Grand Jury where the Prosecution has a decided advantage to get an indictment to carry the charge to a trial. There wasn't enough evidence to support your implying the suspect didn't try to disarm the cop. There WAS plenty of forensic and eye witness evidence to support the assertion that the suspect DID try to disarm the police man.

Your perception/spin is unsupported and was tossed out by a jury.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I think there are at least as many dead cops from those kind of events recorded than there are unarmed people shot without any justification for deadly force if not more.

I'd love you to try and find data to support that ludicrous claim. Not that it would affect the fact that shooting unarmed people is WRONG.

I will retrieve those stats for you and you can then do your dance-of-the-dodge again...

As you just again dodged the distinction between a suspect trying to arm himself with a policeman's gun and the generic 'unarmed innocent victim'.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:[Also slick, it was maybe a week or two ago that you said the cop was following the law and shouldn't have been prosecuted.
Now you say something different completely!

no, not the same thing. I am saying that this event, and others, are causing rising tensions because they speak to a wrong that goes back decades. Officer Wilson, I also stated, showed extremely poor judgement, even if technically legal. He should not be a police officer, and seems to have made that judgement himself.

Blah blah blah bullcrap!
You said he was "executed"! That is what you are saying today.

You previously said:

callmeslick wrote:Will, you seemingly missed my point above. I don't think there were grounds to prosecute, given the broad leeway within Missouri law. The DA should have stated that long ago, presented why, clearly, and urged those concerned by the outcome to effect change in the law for the future.

So unless you were implying then, incorrectly, that Missouri law allows executions in the street you have changed your position drastically!

No no Will…everyone knows the poor innocent cherub was standing with his hands up, pleading “please don’t shoot me” but the evil racist honky pig, instead decided to blast the poor cherub execution style.

Will Robinson wrote:So unless you were implying then, that Missouri law allows executions in the street you have changed your position drastically!

that was PRECISELY what I am implying. That execution of citizens not proving to be a lethal threat and not even into the court system can be upheld as legal under Missouri law, and there is nothing in the least incorrect in that reading.

callmeslick wrote:suggesting that one group or the other has ownership or, for that matter, any control over the problem is counterproductive.

That was my point, but as usual you totally ignore what I say, and instead read into it your own pre-conceived notions.

And then even trying to make it look like it’s you point.

Spidey wrote:Any dialog that starts with a false premise or deliberately places blame in the wrong place is automatically invalid.

Not necessarily. In writing, a statement like that can be used as a simple hook and the author might refute it later. Also, if Will would have read the article he would have seen statements he agrees with (though he might not immediately know why he agrees with them since the author is writing from a rather unique perspective). Personally, I don't automatically dismiss an article when I see something I disagree with. I deliberately read things counter to my views because you never know when you'll see a good argument that can change your mind. The article linked above really is good and goes way beyond the typical "race pimps" argument.

Or, you know, don't read it. No one cares, but I'm glad I did.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So unless you were implying then, that Missouri law allows executions in the street you have changed your position drastically!

that was PRECISELY what I am implying. That execution of citizens not proving to be a lethal threat and not even into the court system can be upheld as legal under Missouri law, and there is nothing in the least incorrect in that reading.

You are ridiculous, not just wrong, but ridiculously so, to characterize Michael Brown as 'not having proven to be a lethal threat'.
His actions and mindset proved, by forensic and eye witness testimony, to be the direct cause of his getting shot by a policeman.

So your position that he was 'executed' is equally ridiculous.

There are no national statistics on how many times officers' guns are taken away. But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent.

"What's remarkable is that it doesn't happen more often," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the national Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest union for law enforcement officers.

Police are trained to protect their weapons if they are attacked, and to resist using their guns unless a threat is imminent. If a weapon is grabbed, the officer always tries to retrieve it and often succeeds, experts said.

from here

Will Robinson wrote:You are ridiculous, not just wrong, but ridiculously so, to characterize Michael Brown as 'not having proven to be a lethal threat'.
His actions and mindset proved, by forensic and eye witness testimony, to be the direct cause of his getting shot by a policeman.

with lethal force? Get real, and like I say, neither of us will be privvy to proper presentation of evidence, because it never went to trial.

.

There are no national statistics on how many times officers' guns are taken away. But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent.

so, given that the stats are for a ten year period, nationwide. They indicate, on average 62 officers per year killed on duty, 52 died by their own gun, the stat you focus on. That comes to around 5 annually. We have had 5 unarmed black men killed by police in about a 3 month period, and you don't see where some could wonder if there is a problem?? Thanks for going to get the statistics. I suspected that the numbers were fairly small, and FAR smaller than the number of suspects killed over the same time, I'd be willing to bet.

The "problem" that is most apparent in this discussion is your willingness to think of criminals getting themselves shot in the act of committing a crime is somehow the same as a non violent person getting executed in the street.

And give up trying to sell the silly notion that the Grand Jury is somehow an inferior place for the evidence to be examined by a jury.

The prosecution in a Grand Jury has a much easier time of stacking the case against the accused in that scenario and the expert witnesses and eye witnesses are put through the same process by the same level of professional lawyers, judges and prosecutors, clerks, etc. etc. that they would be at a trial only with less restriction on the prosecution and much less chance for the accused to offer a defense! The accused officers lawyer isnt even allowed in the room with the Grand Jury. He isn't allowed to call any witnesses or challenge any testimony!

On top of that, in this case, Eric Holder's army of Federal agents and lawyers were running a parallel investigation providing any evidence or interrogation of witnesses to add to the prosecutions case against the officer!

There was a very thorough presentation of evidence to a jury. A jury that only needed nine out of 12 grand jurors to agree and the officer would be going to trial. A jury that isnt even faced with the consideration of sending a man to prison since their finding of guilt would only send him to a trial.

That is a very low threshold to get across and there was a ton of exculpatory evidence that caused the jury to not cross it. And when is the last time a regular jury trial judge put all the evidence on line for your 'privvy examination' less than 24 hours after the case was decided?

You are being extremely dishonest suggesting the evidence was 'not looked at properly' or that 'we would have better knowledge of it' if it had gone to trial.
All you have is a false narrative that you are trying to prop up with smoke.

callmeslick wrote: so, given that the stats are for a ten year period, nationwide. They indicate, on average 62 officers per year killed on duty, 52 died by their own gun, the stat you focus on. That comes to around 5 annually. We have had 5 unarmed black men killed by police in about a 3 month period, and you don't see where some could wonder if there is a problem?? Thanks for going to get the statistics. I suspected that the numbers were fairly small, and FAR smaller than the number of suspects killed over the same time, I'd be willing to bet.

Only problem there is…those numbers are not meant to be compared to each other…but only to point out that police “do” get their guns stolen, and used against them.

To somehow try to compare those two sets of numbers, makes no sense.

Apparently, in the US there are no nation, there are only population. So the police do not respect the American people, and therefore, people do not respect the police.

bull★■◆●, Sigma. There are whole segments of society that do not respect LAW. That is the beginning of THAT revolving door. I would argue that this leads to policemen looking on "citizens" as enemies (rightly so), rather than responsible, law-abiding members of the community to be respected.

There are probably other aspects... a thought just crossed my mind that I wonder how it effects police officers when their department is stretched so thin that day-to-day duties basically involve a majority of their dealings being with bad scenarios and criminals.

Will Robinson wrote:The "problem" that is most apparent in this discussion is your willingness to think of criminals getting themselves shot in the act of committing a crime is somehow the same as a non violent person getting executed in the street.

not sure some of the recent examples WERE committing a crime when the event occurred. I know the guy in NYC wasn't. He was suspected of selling cigarettes at an earlier time, but all reports said he was doing no such thing at the time of being choked to death.

And give up trying to sell the silly notion that the Grand Jury is somehow an inferior place for the evidence to be examined by a jury.

it isn't a 'notion', and is accepted as fact by any criminal attorney of any status.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And give up trying to sell the silly notion that the Grand Jury is somehow an inferior place for the evidence to be examined by a jury.

it isn't a 'notion', and is accepted as fact by any criminal attorney of any status.

Lol! "of any status" doesn't mean diddly squat to me coming from you because all you are really saying is 'agrees with slicks view, whatever it may be at the moment'

To most attorneys and judges and prosecutors and legislators the Grand Jury is definitely considered a proper place to determine if there are reasonable grounds for prosecution of an accused person. They use it so much that there are hundreds of Grand Jurys impanelled year round across the country.

In this case the Grand Jury found your notion to be ridiculous and many criminal attorneys of all sorts of various 'status' have examined the Ferguson case and, based on their comments, they think you are wrong too.

I must have spent the last 45 minutes reading all I could find relating to the micheal brown autopsy report and related information.

Yes, it's true brown decided to reach for wilson's gun. was he being agressive. or was he acting in self-defense? hard to say, but by judging by browns' earlier behaviour at the store, it's not unreasonable to assume it was an agressive move, which resulted in a wound to the hand consistent with close discharge.

Was he running away? The report also suggests this, due to the back-to-front wound in the arm. It's reasonable to assume that this caused brown to stop, turn around and put his hands up.

The rest of the shots to me seem like the result of a man stumbling due to blood loss (chances of a wound to a major artery is extremely high in this case) and the officer firing the rest of his ammunition under the belief that brown was coming for him.

I don't think it was an execution, and I don't think it was reasonable use of force. but as the article says, I think it is the result of racial tension.

Ferno, if you read the eye witness testimony you will have to modify your assesment to make it compatible with Browns movement.

He was shot at three times, in the car and each of the two times he was advancing toward the policeman against the direction of the officer and against all common sense that a person trying to surrender would be excercizing.

The last series of shots would have included shots fired at a person who fell forward. Thus the top of the head and other entry angles not consistent with a person standing still and up right.
The wound to the arm could have come in the initial discharge of the weapon as well...the gun was being wrestled over, Brown leaning in the cars window at times, etc. who knows how many potential angles of fire and hand an arm positions both Brown and Wilson were in during the struggle to maintain/win possession of the gun.

If the kid had just stopped breaking the law when a cop came along and busted his groove he would be alive today. I don't buy the alternative narrative that the cop wanted to shoot him....not until Brown fought to take the cops gun anyway. At that point Brown opened the door to doom.

why the focus only on Brown, Will? We have at least 6 cases in the past 3 months in which unarmed black men got killed. One was choked to death by a cop while 5 other cops looked on. To try and narrow it to one case misses the entire point.

callmeslick wrote:why the focus only on Brown, Will? We have at least 6 cases in the past 3 months in which unarmed black men got killed. One was choked to death by a cop while 5 other cops looked on. To try and narrow it to one case misses the entire point.

Why?

Because you and many others have misrepresented the events, evidence and logic in order to portray Browns death as something completely different than it was. Doing so to the extreme detriment of our society.

Because there people who are holding up a stupid criminal getting himself shot during a series of criminal acts as 'proof' of racism and police negligence to the extreme detriment of legitimate struggles against those conditions that do exist.

Because it has become such a focal point of the current public discourse, and at the same time such a blatantly false premise, "Hands up, Don't shoot"...'He was executed', that it has become a gift of an opportunity to point out the horrible dishonesty of those who exploit the sensitivities of black people for their own agenda of gaining and holding power and profit with no concern for the damage it does to individuals lives or the health of the nation.

Go ahead and tell a bunch of complete bald face lies, form a bunch of illogical conclusions, etc. about another case and I'll probably be compelled to point out how horribly wrong you are in that case as well.

so, instead of focusing on the substance of the lengthy, link-filled article I posted, you insist on whining about what YOU call a misrepresentation of one of six recent events? I guess that's how you can avoid actually thinking, huh?

The largest flaw (and there are many) in that article is this notion of "ressentiment" and how it would apply to a police officer, who are excluding the wealthy, some of the most entitled people in this society.

And the idea that the suspect was “choked to death while the others looked on” is a bold face lie…I watched that video, and the death most likely occurred because the other cops were sitting on the guys chest. (those you say were “looking on”)

An expert on the NewsHour said it was most likely a “compression asphyxiation” quite common with overweight people with asthma.

callmeslick wrote:so, instead of focusing on the substance of the lengthy, link-filled article I posted, you insist on whining about what YOU call a misrepresentation of one of six recent events? I guess that's how you can avoid actually thinking, huh?

Slick neither you or the author of the article are willing to recognize the distinction between murder and justifiable use of force by a policeman. That isn't a minor mistake on your/their part. It is blatant dishonesty.

So why would I want to sift through all that bullcrap in search of an intelligent premise?
And then on top of that you think you, the dishonest one, have a legitimate foundation to question my ability to think?!? Lol

No, you can carry on with trying to validate your false narrative to your hearts content. I'm not interested in taking part in it. I've pointed out the lie, that's enough for me.

If I want to engage in discussions on the bigger picture I wouldn't want to include you in that after experiencing how dishonest you are.

Will Robinson wrote:So why would I want to sift through all that bullcrap in search of an intelligent premise?

Ever get a specialty hamburger and pick off the toppings you don't like, or do you just send the whole thing back to the cook like a princess?

Vision I feel sorry for you if you think that is a valid analogy.

And in case you figure out where you went wrong and correct the question let me go ahead answer it now:

If I order a burger and the waiter brings out a plate of dirt and then insists it is a burger I wouldn't buy it.
And if he consistently made the same misrepresentation I would not trust him to be honest about what he's selling.
Nor would I be interested in hearing about the rest of the menu from him....

“Where’s the beef”

Yea, that’s the worse logic I have heard in a long time.

“A good read” is something you are engaged in, and when it’s over…you feel like you learned something…”a good read” shouldn’t have you rolling your eyes every 5 seconds, and be left with the idea that you were just blamed for something.

I can sum that entire article up in a nutshell (and yes vision…I did read it):

Current economic conditions have wreaked havoc on the once privileged white male, and therefore he is taking it out on those poor hapless minorities…and the liberals can’t do anything about it but whine, cry and wallow around in self pity about their failure to be able to do anything about it.

The false premise Will pointed out, is only the first…there are too many more after that, to list here.

I’m really sorry everyone does not share the same notion of what constitutes a “good read” but that’s life…get over it.

Spidey wrote:Current economic conditions have wreaked havoc on the once privileged white male, and therefore he is taking it out on those poor hapless minorities…and the liberals can’t do anything about it but whine, cry and wallow around in self pity about their failure to be able to do anything about it.

That's not what the article says. You read it, but only heard what you wanted too. Sad, sad.

I’d like to hear your summation.

Will Robinson wrote:Ferno, if you read the eye witness testimony you will have to modify your assesment to make it compatible with Browns movement.

He was shot at three times, in the car and each of the two times he was advancing toward the policeman against the direction of the officer and against all common sense that a person trying to surrender would be excercizing.

The last series of shots would have included shots fired at a person who fell forward. Thus the top of the head and other entry angles not consistent with a person standing still and up right.
The wound to the arm could have come in the initial discharge of the weapon as well...the gun was being wrestled over, Brown leaning in the cars window at times, etc. who knows how many potential angles of fire and hand an arm positions both Brown and Wilson were in during the struggle to maintain/win possession of the gun.

If the kid had just stopped breaking the law when a cop came along and busted his groove he would be alive today. I don't buy the alternative narrative that the cop wanted to shoot him....not until Brown fought to take the cops gun anyway. At that point Brown opened the door to doom.

And if you actually read what I wrote, you would find I said almost the exact same thing, and I included all details.

or in other words: stop arguing, you're making youself look foolish.

Spidey wrote:I’d like to hear your summation.

Gladly. I'm all caught up with my homework so I have a whole night to kill. I hope my explaining the article to you in public isn't completely embarrassing.

Ready? Ok, here we go.


I'll grant this article has some vibrant language that is probably stopping the message from getting though to everyone. Allow me to begin by addressing the thing that made Will stick his fingers in his ears. When author Jim Sleeper uses the word murder in paragraph 4, he is borrowing it from an article by Claudia Horowitz (who was talking about Tray Martin). It's not entirely clear if Sleeper agrees or if he is just maintaining the pace and tone of the discussion. He never says Brown was murdered, but surely Salon would have edited it to sound this way because they are a shitty rag (although I give them kudos for publishing this unique piece). You'll see why I think this is Salon's doing the end of my summation. Also note that Sleeper almost immediately outs Horowitz for not seeing the bigger picture.

According to Sleeper, whites have a deep anger and resentment that manifests racially, but is not because of race exclusively. There are many contributing factors. Basically, the current reality of being white does not correspond to the social fiction that surrounds them (us). It can be understood as a perceived shift in social class, though this is an over-simplification. It is not to say that whites are becoming lower class and blacks are becoming upper class. Economically, the differences between blacks and whites have hardly changed over the decades [1]. Yet, there is a new reality writing itself all around us, and whites, regardless of political affiliation, are reacting to it. This change in white America is contributing to "ressentiment."

Politically, both sides of the spectrum try to rationalize the discontent. (Rationalization is a process built in to ressentiment. More on this later.) Each side creates policy aimed around a kind of comforting or "equalizing" (or leveling in philosophy). This can readily be seen as emphasis on equality through the free-market or equality through social welfare programs. Regardless of their effectiveness, neither of these avenues of rationalization can quell the discontent which continues to build in whites young and old, male and female.

While Sleeper uses readily available examples of white discontent from Republicans, he is particularly hostile to two-faced Democrats who have moved away from serious political discussion to "identity politics" (and Will's race-pimps) while simultaneously selling out to private sector interests. He also chides the media for lack of integrity and fear mongering (ironically, since the article is published in Salon who excels in that area). These things both contribute to and are by-products of ressentiment.

The rest of the article points out ways that ressentiment is entrenched in white society and how there is no foreseeable change in awakening on the horizon since much of whites' motivations are largely subconscious. Even those public figures who call for measured, reasoned introspection on race are missing the larger target.

Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche attribute ressentiment to a weakening of spirit, when a society loses its identity, and when maintaining the status quo becomes important. When a people lose their passion the result is frustration and time for reflection which leads to rationalization by externalizing the condition, usually through scapegoating.

Today, the problem of white discontent goes beyond both race and class, and things like left/right politics only serve as a distraction that is completely ineffective for soothing frustrations with the world.

Got it? Here, let's take another look at your summation:

Spidey wrote:Current economic conditions have wreaked havoc on the once privileged white male, and therefore he is taking it out on those poor hapless minorities…and the liberals can’t do anything about it but whine, cry and wallow around in self pity about their failure to be able to do anything about it.

No.


Aside: Coincidentally, I found this article interesting because it focuses on concepts I was introduced to a few months ago when I read Nietzsche's "Beyond Good & Evil," which is around 300 pages and includes many things I don't agree with. So yeah, just because you find something distasteful doesn't mean it is not worth reading.

Irony: Will should have been excited to read this article since the author wrote a book espousing the idea that Liberals make race relations worse.