Message from @RyeNorth
Discord ID: 482720013078495254
Something I think @Timcast didn't mention (not calling him out, just saying) is that in all these robberies on white farms, nothing is stolen and the farmers aren't simply shot or bashed to death. They are tortured. If you take extra time to kill someone slowly or rape them before hand and don't steal anything then the narrative of it being a robbery is a bit far fetched I think
Yeah, and the government is directly stealing land from a specific race. Among other things. It’s pretty obvious, at least to me, that it’s a racial issue. But to be honest , I think his video was fair , and he did point out the media being hysterical about Trump .@Dunk Massive
Yeah his video was fair, I'm not bitching about it. Just something I thought was a big narrative breaker.
And it is undeniably racial based by admission of the president singing 'kill the boer' (boer is a white boy)
I’ve seen that video. Crazy.
Karma of making microphones and loud speakers *jk
Pretty sure Tim mentioned that some of the deaths are racially motivated judging by the gruesomeness or something like that.
Probably, my ears are as bias right as Tim's words are bias left.
(Not far left, not sjw crap, but left of centre)
But I think it was in the first video, yesterday not in the toadys morning one
I don't think I watched all of them. I've been following this SA thing for a long time so most of it is recycled news to me.
One reason I don't want to 'call him out' on shit I didn't watch
It seems to me that race is definitely involved in the level of brutality present in the attacks, but there's no real way to quantify that and determine objectively whether it is or is not a factor. It might not be a motivating factor but it definitely seems like an aggravating factor. Also the racial rhetoric coming out of mainstream politicians and public figures in South Africa is so shocking that I don't think western minds can really process it. Politicians literally singing and dancing while talking about killing people.
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'
'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
But that statement, absent the context, implies guilt.
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.