Message from @RyeNorth
Discord ID: 482721391284584481
If it's perfectly normal in your country's public discourse to talk about killing people of other races then that has to have some sort of effect on the level of racial violence, even if the racial violence is merely a secondary effect of robbery.
If it's normal for politicians and public figures to talk about killing people of other races, then there must be very little moral consideration given to the lives of people of other races. And if the common rhetoric the robber hears is about righting historical wrongs and redistributing wealth that has been illegitimately concentrated in the wrong hands - *and they're literally robbing these people anyway* - then it's not likely that moral consideration is going to restrain the robber from what they have been led to believe are retributive acts of violence.
They're thieves, who have been told by authorities the people they're stealing from are terrible people who have stolen from all the people of the thief's race. It's easy for the thief to mentally frame the robbery in terms of righting an injustice. A punishment.
That's my theory anyway. Not that there's some organized government led campaign of racial violence, but that the common rhetoric used in SA is making thieves think they're not stealing from but actually bringing justice to the farmers.
^^^
Sounds like a sound theory
I would not be surprised if they just want the farms to be nationalized and since most farms seem owned by white people, the racism is just a by-product. They do attack the farm hands who defend the property.
Kinda like the race statistics in the US can result in racism as a by-product. If the majority of your crime comes from a neighborhood of people who all look similar, people profile everyone who looks like that to be from there.
Bit of perspective off of Tim's video today, '[Woman] is going to prison for False Accusations against Men'
As far as 'Listen and Believe' goes, I think it can better phrase the argument.
'Innocent until proven guilty' should apply to both the accuser AND the accused.
Lying about rape is, in fact, a crime, and thus Innocent until proven guilty applies to the accuser as well.
Socially I think there's a healthy dose of *within reason* that needs to be applied
Like some of the accusations people make are absurd, and there's never any proof
Rolling Stone article comes to mind
But that's just it, innit?
The Rolling Stone article took the accuser's side.
Which implicitly presumes the guilt of the accused.
The Rolling Stone article wouldn't have had any apologizing to do if they were merely spotlighting the situation objectively.
Even if they didn't assume the accused was guilty, the notion we should be looking for an evil sex cult who would shove a woman through a glass table and assault her while she was covered in blood with no evidence is a bit much
Not to mention the fact that the primary "accused" wasn't a real person anyway
That's literally the problem with news today.
Magazines and outlets want to give their stories that 'Human touch'
Well if we believe someone when they say they've been assaulted, someone does have to be guilty of having assaulted them, unless we are to assume delusion
We just can't assume it's the person they point out
That means they have to get really close with the subject.
And that means taking a side.
The standards of 'Good Journalism' to the mainstream today requires taking the risk of being dramatically wrong.
And actual good journalism comes across as boring.
well, no.
I'd say Tim does good journalism
But that's largely because he has a bias that he 1. doesn't hide, but 2. keeps on a leash.
The only true objective way to cover it is by accepting a 'Schrodinger's Cat' paradox state.
Jesus christ. Sargonites already saw this shit, but holy shit...
Okay. I'm going to add a detail with every iteration of this. Let me know when it sounds insane.
A NASCAR driver lost a sponsorship.
A NASCAR driver lost a sponsorship over a comment.
eff you lago.
I was building up.