Candace Owens speaks on the riots and more
And everyone should listen:
Here’s a discussion that I think is very informative and well worth a listen. It’s the sort of thing you could send to some friends who vote Democrat and read the MSM, if you’re so inclined:
I had a discussion recently with a friend who is convinced that the police are purposely massacring black people in great numbers. I mentioned that the numbers are very small, and that white people are also often the victims, and offered to send her a single link to a study about it that was done by a black professor. She didn’t want me to send it, and insisted that the numbers didn’t matter because many of these murders are done in secret and are never reported.
I wonder whether that sort of thinking is frequent. The more common it is, the less likely any discussion such as the above would reach the people who believe such a thing and could ever change the listeners’ viewpoints. Just another example of how hard it is to change a mind.
The minds of the “wokerati” are unlikely to be changed by an appeal to reason or logic, or by any argument founded on facts and evidence, as most of them have abandoned whatever mental faculties they may once have possessed upon entering the most pernicious contemporary cult (the “woke” version of SJW leftism is more accurately described as a cult than as a faith/religion). On the topic of indoctrination and propaganda, Mark Levin had an excellent conversation last night on Fox with John Ellis (Emeritus Professor of German) on his new book entitled The Breakdown of Higher Education.
“I mentioned that the numbers are very small, and that white people are also often the victims, and offered to send her a single link to a study about it that was done by a black professor. She didn’t want me to send it”
An alternate strategy is to say, thoughtfully, “You know, cops are hired on the local level not by the federal government. Hmmm. Who’s the mayor and who’s the governor for that area? Wow, Mayor XXX is a Dem. How long has the Dem Party been in charge of the city … choosing the police chief … setting the standards for police officer behavior? Well, it looks like it’s several DECADES of control. Why are Dems so mean to black Americans?”
“many of these murders are done in secret and are never reported”
Reminds me of the madness around the 100,000s of babies being sacrificed to satan nonsense of the 1980s.
I had a friend in NC offer to link me to a John Oliver video clip that really had the goods on the riots. I said, “The white British comedian who dared Trump to run, & mocks him a day before Trump is proved correct every time?” He didn’t answer.
John McWhorter, a black professor of linguistics, announced his turn-around on police racism:
_________________________________________
Police officers are too often overarmed, undertrained, and low on empathy. Some police officers are surely racist and act like it. But it does not follow that white cops routinely kill black people in tense situations out of racist animus. This scenario may seem plausible—I believed it until only a few years ago. But there are times when facts are counterintuitive, and it is important to get the facts right and to analyze them with clear eyes and a clear mind….
“Racist Police Violence Reconsidered”
https://quillette.com/2020/06/11/racist-police-violence-reconsidered/
__________________________________________
McWhorter is an interesting case. He’s not lockstep with black American politics, but he does have to fight that undertow, as indicated by his admission, “I believed [racist police violence] until only a few years ago.”
I’ve been manhandled by the police my share. No one ever had to teach me to be calm and respectful when dealing with a Badge and a Gun. Likewise other white friends. It seems many blacks assume that they are the only people who ever get hassled or worse. And if they do, it’s racism.
I’m looking for shoes to drop in the Chauvin-Floyd case.
“…the numbers didn’t matter…”
Of course they don’t.
Not for just another “We-don’t-care-about-the-facts-we-care-about-the-Truth” Bidenesca.
(They also “know” that Putin helped Trump win the election. With trenchant analysis like that, Mueller and his desperadoes didn’t have to be hired. The country would have saved a mint….)
Yesterday I brought up the fact that white deaths by police are more than double black deaths by police. But this one is on video they said. That was their argument.
14 killed in Chicago this past weekend, 5 kids. 88 wounded. None were by police.
If it’s done in secret and never reported, how did she become aware of it?
The trouble with Neo’s attempt is the same as Candace’s. They are both using logic and reason which will never reach these people. The “done in secret and never reported” is exactly the same response I got a week or so ago regarding Georgia and Florida’s death toll due to the WUflu from a FB post. The woman basically said that those two states are lying about all their virus deaths in order to have good numbers. I asked her if my own state of Connecticut which has an even lower number despite being the 3rd worst in the country 2 months ago was also lying. Crickets.
The scary thing is that this mass psychosis seems to be spreading. Any historians here (or Art) know of past cases where the entire population went bat shit crazy?
I’m guessing Rwanda.
One thing is certain: this nuttiness is extremely contagious…. (And quite possibly, nobody is immune!)
https://nypost.com/2020/06/22/how-nypd-faked-shake-shack-controversy-and-conspiracy-theory/
You cannot reason with her then. She will not look at evidence, even to refute it with counter evidence. She is convinced that she knows of secret murders but seems to have offered you no evidence as proof. She will not be responsible, or held to account for her evaluations.
And yet, presumably, she has not relinquished her right to participate in the formation political and social policies which may affect the very survival of others.
Doesn’t she feel any obligation whatsoever to the concept of truth, and to a moral obligation to commit to the practice of reason and logic?
I’m getting the impression more and more that this is not just a matter of ignorance or cultural immersion, but of a morally profound personal choice which these people have made in order to unburden themselves from what most of us have grown up assuming is the holiest of all human obligations, and one in which rejecting, you may be placing yourself outside the pale of humanity itself, defined by the proposition that: Man exists as man, as a rational animal.
If one has no active commitment to reason, none to the truth, nor to the basic social and moral duty of reasoning carefully and thinking logically, then what is one in residue but that bag of appetites which I have sometimes hyperbolically referred to progressives as being?
What kind of people are these?
Physicsguy at 4:20. Past incidents where the entire population went crazy. For a over a dozen see “Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” by Charles Mackay, 1852, still in print today. The most famous was Tulipomania where the price of tulip bulbs was inflated to ridiculous heights as the result of a speculative bubble and its subsequent crash. Not in the book but much closer to home are the Salem witch trials where the accusations of a bunch of hysterical teenage girls caused the executions of local women falsely accused of the nonexistent crime of witchcraft.
“What kind…?”
It does indeed appear that “Night of the Living Dead” is actually a documentary.
(Gosh, who knew?…)
File under: “O brave new world
That has such people in ’t!”(?)
Paul in Boston. In defense of the Salem big shots, they didn’t know, nobody did, that witchcraft didn’t exist. Although, had it existed, it might not have been against the law. Never know about these things. But they thought it existed. It’s not as if they wanted to execute women for the crime of overcooking the pastry or something.
Neo’s friend who is proof against facts reflects a number of my acquaintances. They BELIEVE first and rationalize all arguments, no matter how silly they have to make themselves look and how silly they, in some other universe, would consider themselves.
I have mentioned earlier several who KNOW Michael Brown did not have his hands up, crying “Don’t Shoot”. But they will repeat it as if it’s true and some of them are not, actually, lying. They believe it. But when the actual facts are brought to their attention, rationalization won’t work because these people know the facts, and they know the facts are so well established that they can’t dismiss them, and they know everybody knows them. In a situation like that, I’ve seen a couple of physical manifestations as if they were having a stroke or something.
They NEED to believe it and they NEED to believe it so badly because….. I have no idea. Is it possible they are insanely desirous of being in with the woke and just? Can’t one be empathetic and consider right and wrong without being, in some sense, insane?
I see people applying insulting adjectives to Trump and then acting as if they believe these are objectively true and are actually nouns. Is it possible that people got so far out over their skis wrt Trump that they cannot allow either themselves or their friends or reference groups to think they were wrong. “Might’s well double down, going backwards ain’t possible.”
One of my issues, or at least questions, is how people can believe two contradictory things at the same time. I have met people like Neo’s friend who can always dodge. But there are those who know better…..
DNW:
What kind of person? One who is emotionally attached to her belief system and will not let it go. That’s why evidence to the contrary is not welcome.
I’ve not even sure that she completely believes in this theory of the secret murders. It may have been something she believes might be happening but also something introduced to get me to desist from sending her anything or talking about the matter further.
I am sometimes accused of “arguing like a lawyer” which is somehow considered unfair. They’re not saying I’m arguing like a crooked lawyer or a lying lawyer, and I believe what they are actually saying is that I use logic and evidence rather than emotion, and I tend to stay rather calm. For some people this is seen as really annoying and offensive and even somehow unfair behavior.
Richard Aubrey (5:36 pm) writes, asking,
“They NEED to believe it and they NEED to believe it so badly because….. I have no idea. Is it possible they are insanely desirous of being in with the woke and just?”
I’m reminded right here of neo’s commentaries about Milan Kundera’s circle dancing. For example (one of a few such neo references) . . .
https://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2005/03/dancing-in-ring-response-to-query.html
physicsguy; Paul in Boston:
Here’s another example of “extraordinary popular delusions.” Somewhere I have a draft on the subject; maybe someday I’ll post it.
M J R:
Circle dancing is part of it. Sometimes there are also special individual circumstances that accentuate the belief in a certain narrative.
It’s called “double-think”.
A good old Orwellian term.
Been around for quite a while. (Maybe it shouldn’t be; but it is….)
Can often occur when bullies intersect (and interact) with their victims, which victims they often have a “sixth sense” about and whom they often invariably out. (Especially when the bullies are in positions of power and the victims are afraid for themselves or their loved ones, who are inevitably threatened and intimidated.)
…fueled by the interaction of psychotics who enjoy (and often ably rationalize) inflicting pain and humiliation (and worse) with people who are afraid of—or for some other reason, whether belief in the fundamental goodness and rationalism of humankind, reliance on the authorities for assistance, physical limitations, etc., unable to do so—standing up for themselves. But it’s often due to a profound sense of fear.
(A more vivid, accurate and oft-quoted description of which is Churchill’s adage of the alligator or (again) Orwell’s “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”)
What is curious is the corresponding quote attributed to F. Scott Fitzgerald:
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function”.
Which might make one wonder why so many intellectuals seem to be particularly susceptible to the “allures” of double-think…. though in their defense, it’s probably—in most case, at least—the fear; which begs the question, What would we do in their place? That is, we probably know what we’d like to believe we’d do; but would we actually do it”…. And I’ve concluded that the strongest countervailing force is the fear of death, or it’s equivalent. Which leads to the next question: How does one overcome fear of death?)
Should be “…invariably seek out.”
Coincidentally (or not, perhaps), Neo posted this today from Orwell, which certainly applies to her “don’t confuse me with facts” friend:
https://www.thenewneo.com/2020/06/22/to-the-public-all-lives-matter/
To be fair and balanced, the far right also is susceptible to fringe conspiracies and foolish beliefs; that’s what makes them the FAR right.
Tangential. I just heard Brit Hume express an opinion that statues don’t matter much. Brit is very smart, and I respect him immensely; so I was shocked that he said something this dumb.
Statues may mean little; symbolism matters a lot. When “authority” panders to every demand, no matter how egregious, it sends a clear signal. The mob understands the signal. The Panderers hope that they will take the offering and move and move on to another victim. But, when the mobs smells fear, their reaction cannot be predicted.
Moreover, when it is illustrated that rule of law is a meaningless concept, you can bet that every dangerous predator in the neighborhood will take note.
The story of this Principal is a graphic example of how this pandering is damaging multitudes of real people. In normal times her comments would be mainstream; or at worst, innocuous. If someone took exception, Authority, would shrug and point out that she has a constitutional right to express her personal opinions as a private citizen. Clearly, the Mob has effectively silenced all dissenting voices.
I hope that someone will open one of those ubiquitous “Go Fund Me” accounts to help her sue the cowards.
Shall we take bets on how long it takes for YouTube to shut Candace down?
One of the things I wish the Manhattan group would have addressed is who is behind THE BLM movement and others who are rioting, Jamil Jivani said that the BLM leaders are not on point with the real issues, but that was as far as it went.
“I wonder whether that sort of thinking is frequent. “ Hah. It’s not only frequent, it’s actively being encouraged and propagated like a house plant – which is an analogy rich with other similarities, like a house plant’s capacity for comprehension and critical thinking.
People who are embracing this madness are doing it with their head averted from the concept of fact, education, and in short – reality. Our media-dominated culture has made their Rubicon of getting people to disbelieve their own lyin’ eyes, just to be in fashion.
As long as Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and the cook on the Cream of Wheat box (being studied as of now), why don’t we also change Life Savers to Black Life Savers?
Yeah, we’re talking about the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. And that only got (semi) resolved by a war. I’m not sure why modern people have become so convinced that people can be talked out of evil, crazy ideas. That’s never worked in the past.
Sometimes there needs to be bloodshed. I guess what has to happen here is that we need to have some martyrs.
Barry Meislin/miklos000rosza: I’d have to go back and look at my Rwanda notes, but it wasn’t just collective insanity. There were puppetmasters behind it running the radio stations spewing genocide and the calculated French shipments of machetes to that sad little country.
–“We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Wish_to_Inform_You_That_Tomorrow_We_Will_Be_Killed_with_Our_Families
Oldflyer,
This is a guy I listen to a great deal. Usually he is pretty profane but this is one of his best, clean and more sober video’s and it relates to statues and erasing history from books and movies:
https://youtu.be/jXCAAZ8_fCM
Neo: “I am sometimes accused of “arguing like a lawyer” which is somehow considered unfair. They’re not saying I’m arguing like a crooked lawyer or a lying lawyer, and I believe what they are actually saying is that I use logic and evidence rather than emotion, and I tend to stay rather calm. For some people this is seen as really annoying and offensive and even somehow unfair behavior.”
Yes, using logic and evidence rather than emotion is counter to how so many people debate.
I was accused of the same thing when in graduate school. Whenever I challenged someone’s emotional statement with logical reasoning I was accused of being “unfair.”
One woman would often state “don’t argue with Charles, he always uses logic!” As if to say that using logic isn’t the correct way to debate.
Another phrase of mine that annoyed fellow graduate students was “debate the issue not the person.” Which would always cause they to furrow their brow and say “huh?” I would gently explain that if they wanted to debate then let’s stick to the topic at hand and not engage in personal attacks. Most didn’t get it – debating emotionally and engaging in personal attacks was the only method they seemed to know.
brinster:
You already get Black Life Savers with your Life Savers. Every Life Saver surrounds a Black Life Saver which is in truth a evil thing that saves no lives, as is the case with Black Lives Matter.
Same color, different race. #Character… PrinciplesMatter
charles — I think that what you have said about debating (I use that term loosely) emotionally rather than logically being the default position of most people is why Senator Cruz never got as much support in the 2016 Republican presidential primary as he should have, based on his policy positions.
The greatest boost to his popularity was the Sabo “Bad Cruz” poster, but he was never seen as emotional enough to win the election (so we got the hyper-emotional Trump, and then people (some of them the same ones!) complained about that).
I thought he was well able to do both but didn’t ever hit his stride with which kind of debate to use when on the national stage, and found him wickedly funny to boot. Would happily vote for him for president.
Coleman Hughes, at about 35:00, makes the same points Candace does, although from a slightly different angle, about how elevating criminals into martyrs and excusing black people from behaving in a civilized fashion (her words) just shows they aren’t expected to be responsible for their actions “like children, babies, and dogs” (his words) — “if they do something bad they can’t be appealed to to change their behavior, so by excusing any kind of misbehavior by black people, people think they’re doing the morally enlightened thing, but it’s actually the essence of dehumanizing”
(from the YouTube transcript function — very helpful).
More from Hughes: a feeling of victimhood is understandable because of black history, but it’s deeply unhealthy.
Candace Owens repeatedly asks “What does Black America want?” and I think the answer for a large segment of the population is simply revenge.
Coleman Hughes again at 46:00 or so addresses the concept of systemic racism and how it now just means disparate impact, and the relevance of cancelling statues and the commercial use of black characters: it doesn’t address any significant problem.
Really, my dream team is Candace & Coleman. Both are so well-informed, thoughtful, and articulate.
Go to 53:00 to hear the three panelists give their opinions about the “coming backlash” that figures in a lot of posts and comments on the right these days.
McWhorter: “Rhetoric has a way of straying from reality, and to get where we all want to go, it is reality that we must address.”
Fractal Rabbit on June 22, 2020 at 10:21 pm said:
…Usually he is pretty profane but this is one of his best, clean and more sober video’s and it relates to statues and erasing history from books and movies:
* * *
Outstanding video, thank you.
What the Drinker says about movies is spot on, and was addressed in much the same way by Connie Willis in her book “Bellwether” and (for books) her short story “Ado.”
The kicker is that she is one of the species of well-meaning but blinkered liberals, like Orson Scott Card, whom I have mentioned before.
I attended a talk she gave in Colorado some years ago, and it was obviously inconceivable to her that anyone in the audience for her books could possibly be a Republican.
I was also a bit amused at The Drinker’s choice of closing “words of wisdom” — not because Picard’s advice was not sound, but because Patrick Steward is another of the clueless liberals who have been so worried about the always-on-the-horizon tyranny of the right, they forgot to look for the actual tyranny that has arrived from the left.
While we’re doing videos of common sense straight talk by black people, here’s another one by former police officer Brandon Tatum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88-dV9K_cHE
Enough with the ANTI WHITE NARRATIVE
1,542,095 views•Jun 10, 2020
He claims never to have experienced any racism in the 33 years he’s been black (heh), which seems exceptional even if you don’t believe America is tarred with systemic racism in every grain of sand. The comments that I scanned through were uniformly positive, from both black and white viewers.
Just a sample, four in a row:
IsBeingHello
As a person of colour, THANK YOU!!! I feel like I’m the ONLY one who feels this way. It’s so refreshing to see you. INSTANTANEOUS SUB! I love you, man! Please run for office. We NEED you.
DatBoiJeff
I tried to argue this point with my friend. But he said “ I know my people.” Funny thing is I am as black as a KitKat Bar
Tensa Zangetsu
Too bad, the ones this message needs to reach wont listen
Nick richardson
im a black man an i been saying everything you been saying an black ppl call me a tom thanks bro i feel better about how i feel becouse of this video
Heroism—and decency—that should be extolled:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-with-past-run-ins-with-the-law-saves-officer-from-burning-car-report
Aesop, that’s an interesting take on Cruz’ fortunes in 2016. Your idea actually encourages me as far as the GOP bench for 2024 is concerned; obviously, hoping we won’t have to worry about it until then, IYKWIM. But if Cruz expands or has expanded his tool box that he can bring to a later candidacy… how about it? Learning from the winners.
As for the Lady Candace video, I think it’s quite a pertinent question – what, indeed, does Black America want, ultimately? Gregory thinks that for many, it’s revenge. I’m rather inclined to agree, but with a couple of provisos and nuances. First, I’m not convinced (yet) that this feeling applies to a majority of the black community. Second, the attitude that I feel comes through in a lot of the commentary from black authors etc. who are pro-BLM is not necessarily revenge as such – that’s more what the rioters are about, I think – but more specifically that a lot of blacks would like to have a situation in which, generally speaking, no white person has power over a black person. That can be police power, or political power, economic power, etc.
Supposing for the moment that this is a correct assessment of the position of a plurality of American blacks (and I’m not necessarily saying that it is, though I think it is for the BLM protesters, at least on a rudimentary level), how that scenario could be realized is obviously a very large question, and in my mind it’s tied up with reparations, etc. It’s a very big picture, but I find that I’ve been forced to start to think through how it could happen.
I could say more, but don’t have time and this isn’t my blog. Anyway, I’m putting forward the formulation indicated above and am interested to see if somebody wants to run with it.
Oldflyer,
Britt Hume just reminds us all how cowardly and useless the conservatives are. NO hill is EVER the hill to die on for these moral cowards. I would remind you this country was not created by conservatives. In 1776, conservatives were called Tories and loyalists and a whole bunch of them were kicked out of the country when the war is over. Washington was a radical.
You want your country back?
First, every government position in America at every level, elected, appointed or hired must have term limits, career limits, age limits, nepotism limits and carpet bagger limits. No more senators for life and no more county clerks for life either.
Second, all voter registrations must expire automatically, all voter registration must be cleared through a central system to ensure the person is real and eligible to vote and only registered in one place (their residence). All voting must be done in person (too sick, too bad) except military and foreign service (not convenient, too bad). All vote tabulation must use paper ballots and must occur on old fashion unit record equipment with external plug-board type programming.
Third, all POS lawyers must be barred from government service wherever possible. There are just too damn many lawyers running things and they are as a class immoral trash. They must be restricted to that part of government service they have already reserved for their crappy profession.
Chases Eagles
It is infinitely more difficult to change a mind that is burdened under the weight of cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think revenge is what the majority or even a plurality of black America wants but I do think it is the motivation of the BLM movement and the 1619 Project. Revenge is perhaps too simplistic a term but I believe a large and influential segment of the black population thinks the current system to be irredeemable and wants it replaced with something else (yet to be determined).
I think we are on the road to some type of reparations and I actually think that a lot of white Americans would support it if they believed that it would solve the racial divide. But I think reparations would actually solve nothing and like many other government programs, with the best of intentions, only make the problem worse.
Robert Johnson’s proposal of a wealth transfer of about $350,000 to every black person in the country would both do too much and too little to solve the racial divide. Too much because the $14 trillion price tag on top of our already out of control debt would be economically devastating. It would also cause a lot of resentment for poor and middle income Americans who don’t qualify. Too little because $350,000 isn’t that much money. It’s enough to buy a decent house in most of the country but it’s not enough to live on, and more importantly, it wouldn’t address the cultural issues that led to the wealth gap in the first place.
There is also the psychological factor of earning money versus having it given to you. Money is very good at eliminating the type of unhappiness that is derived from being poor (lack of food, housing etc.) but it doesn’t address the need for a life with purpose and the satisfaction that is obtained from achieving a goal through work. In a relatively short time a new wealth gap would emerge and we would be back to square one, only with a more frustrated black population and a more resentful white and Hispanic population.
I don’t think there is any government program that is capable of bridging the racial divide. The best it can do is to ensure equal opportunity. For many, this will not be enough. Despite the trillions of dollars we have spent and tremendous progress that has been made in reducing racism as a barrier to success, it is clear that there remains a simmering hatred among a large segment of the population to our current system. It is human nature to form tribal identities and to seek revenge on the groups of others who have done your group an injustice. I go back and forth on the question of whether America’s racial divide can be resolved peacefully. I am not feeling optimistic at the moment.
…Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and the cook on the Cream of Wheat box (being studied as of now…
Don’t the BLM-istas understand that these faces have been on packaging for decades because they are TRUSTED??? How can that be construed as racist?
Sonny – you are missing the point.
The BLM/Antifa radicals don’t want white people to trust black people (and certainly not the reverse): they want two warring camps.
“The BLM/Antifa radicals don’t want white people to trust black people…”
OK, for a while I thought it was just my tinfoil hat getting too tight.
How about this (xhe says, looking into xhit’s crystal ball):
Two (TBD) years from now, after all the Persons of Diversity have been expunged from packaging, the professionally cranky start to complain about the preponderance of pale people. I can see it already “What, you think black folk can’t cook?”
Betty Crocker, look out!
AesopFan:
Re: Cruz
President Trump should be able to appoint at least one more Justice in his second term. Given Roberts’ disappointing lurch to the Left, Trump should appoint a true, unwavering, conservative, which I believe Ted Cruz to be. Further, Alan Dershowitz has said Cruz was the brightest student he ever had.
It’s interesting in itself, that when friend “A* offers friend “B” some important data critical to the formation of an informed and morally justified political stance, that friend “B” has so little regard for friend “A” and for her views, that she will not even allow a link to the information to be sent … immediately discounting its potential relevance out of hand.
I suppose A could always ask B, if she would not at least look at it out of regard for their friendship, but then A probably already knows what result would ensue in that case.
What kind of friendship then, is this? What kind of character does this express in the instance of B? Is that kind of person even capable of loyalty to anything more than her own comfort?
I don’t say that that is unusual; nor that it is not in fact representative of a great many Americans` attitudes. But it is an example of a kind of psychological cowardice that ill befits either a friend, or someone styling himself as an American.
However it is not unusual. If we retain any illusions that our own friends and relatives might not even go so far at some point as to denounce us out of some hope of advantage, and then justify it on the basis of a disagreement expressed during what should have been a trivial and long forgotten conversation, we should rid ourselves of such illusions.
The American Civil War was by and large a war between the States. But where it was a civil war, as developed say, in Missouri, all bets were off. People can justify anything to themselves; and their spite, when loosed by petty resentments or some hope of personal advantage, knows virtually no limits.
We too easily call too many people, friends. And because a companionable attitude over coffee or a beer is all we usually require of someone we are willing to call a friend, most of us do it. But ultimately character counts. For everything.
Will their actions backfire, or is this a new stealth objective to prove the country MUST be racist, otherwise there would be more black people on… cereal boxes?
https://babylonbee.com/news/activists-fight-racism-by-making-sure-pop-culture-depicts-only-white-people