• 3 Posts
  • 413 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 1st, 2024

help-circle












  • Well, I’ve already explained exactly why it’s a continuation of native American genocide and how race is 100% a driver for these organizations en masse, even though other races are also affected.

    It’s not a hyperfixation on race to acknowledge racial issues and address them.

    I guessed you were from an area with colorblindness as it’s main racism, I am as well. That’s because you’re in an area that is still colonizing land from Natives, so it’s important to reduce their claims. One way to do this is to erase their heritage and ethnicity by forcing language, names, holidays, foods, etc that aren’t part of their history. Suppressing claims of racism automatically is colorblindness and part of how colorblindness is racist.

    https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Native-Indian-Culture-Color-Blind-Racism-F3YRAC73VU5YW

    Another form of racism placed onto Native Indian people is color-blind racism. This form of racism rationalizes “racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics” (Robertson 120). Color-blind racism takes the standards created by the dominant discourse and applies them to all ethnic groups, putting them on an even level plain field without recognizing historical or social context of each group. Therefore, according to color blind racism, the effects of casualties and stereotypical of Native Indians such as alcoholism, poverty, etc. is essentially their fault and they should be the ones to start change. However, these the casualties of Native Indian culture was changed by racial oppression implemented by the dominant discourse. Therefore, Native Indians cannot be the ones to change of societal perception when they were not the ones to implement it.

    https://www.pbs.org/education/blog/unlearning-kindness-color-blindness-and-racism

    The pressure to assimilate and narrow the gaps in our proximity to Whiteness goes hand and hand with so-called “color blindness,” or claiming not to see race. At best, this ideology is misguided because it’s predicated on the false assumption that if we do not talk about or acknowledge race and racism, then these issues will go away. It should go without saying that this is asinine, yet so many well-meaning White people wear their alleged color blindness as a badge of honor.

    At worst, it is a White supremacist tool used to intentionally gaslight BIPOC and give White people a justification for turning away from the experiences and voices of BIPOC. Color blindness requires BIPOC to “grin and bear” everyday instances of racism. We are expected to do this all in the name of making White people more comfortable with benefitting from their ancestors’ ill-gotten gains, as well as current inequalities. This is the “polite” brand of racism that prioritizes White supremacist notions of decorum, comfort, and acceptable forms of social expression over dismantling racism and alleviating the suffering that it causes.



  • What a bad translation, almost like it was deliberately translated badly. “Thigh fall away,” lmfao what nonsense. Btw in the quoted text below, when they say “impure,” “impurity,” they mean pregnancy.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers 5%3A11-31&version=NIV

    ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest.

    Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

    22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

    “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

    If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

    For the last 2 points - so you admit killing your own kid for God is seen as a virtue in the Bible, so much so that the 2 most important sons, Abraham and Jesus, both go through an event involving a parent killing them. And then there’s literally dozens of events in tbe Bible of God killing kids. God loves child murder.


  • Involuntary manslaughter would probably not stick as a charge

    https://zealousadvocate.com/resources/law/involuntary-manslaughter-texas-legal-insights-and-real-world-perspectives/

    Involuntary manslaughter refers to the unintentional killing of another person, usually through reckless behavior or negligence. It’s different from other homicide offenses because it doesn’t require intent, deliberation, or premeditation.

    The following factors influence criminal liability:

    • Actus reus (guilty action or conduct): evidence that the accused committed an unlawful act that directly led to a person’s death or acted in a way that demonstrated criminal negligence or recklessness.
    • Mens rea (intention or knowledge): while intent to kill is not required for Involuntary Manslaughter, there must be evidence of negligence or recklessness. For this, the accused should have been aware, or at least reasonably should have been aware, of the risk or danger their action (or inaction) would create.
    • Causation: There must be no doubt that the accused’s reckless or negligent behavior led to the victim’s death. In other words, the victim’s death would not have occurred without the reckless or negligent behavior of the accused.

    It’s the actus reus part that I don’t think checks out with this charge. They weren’t acting unlawfully. They weren’t acting criminally. They were doing their jobs within the law.

    https://www.dwilawyerstexas.com/tx-penal-code-15-02-criminal-conspiracy/

    Texas law prohibits criminal conspiracy, which is the agreement to commit a crime. If two or more people devise a plan to commit a felony, and at least one of them acts in furtherance of the plan, each person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit the object of the conspiracy.

    Again, they weren’t acting unlawfully.

    It’s actually legal for legislatures to pass legislation that kills us “passively.” Otherwise, if it wasn’t legal, homeless people could sue for their conditions and win. People who die from lack of medical care could sue and win. People who die in car accidents could sue because we dont have public transportation due to oil industry. We could sue due to climate change effects and government policies that worsened that. They currently cannot sue lawmakers and win those cases.

    I am 100% for having laws in place that charge lawmakers with crimes for policies like this. But they currently don’t exist how we want them to.


  • Have you ever worked in emergency medicine or been in an accident? Someone could have been hit with shrapnel and hid it due to sheer adrenaline. People have been shot in mass shootings and had limbs bit off by sharks and not really “noticed.” It’s entirely possible to keep going/dissociate from an injury if you think that the bombing event will continue, if you’re still in danger, if you think acknowledging your wound will put you in danger. Or if you think people will assume your innocent kid that got killed was a terrorist, you might want to lie about how they died so you can have a nice funeral and people won’t remember them like that or accuse your family of being terrorists.

    There’s also shrapnel from car accidents as well as shrapnel from the bombs.

    I’m not actually arguing, I was answering your question about why some injuries may have gone unreported by people who weren’t Hezbollah. However, I would say that any groups of innocent casualties seems to show that the attacks were not very specific as originally criticized.