KKK: What's the deal?

[Deleted]

Only if you let them. (shrug)

There's indeed a big difference between sustained psychological abuse (as in the case of people who have been in warzones, victims of violent crime, domestic abuse, etc) -- and someone who is the "victim" of mean words.

Also slander, especially where it causes professional harm, is a whole different issue.

There is a sliding scale of psychological strength. Some people are mentally stronger than others.

If being told by a stranger that you're a dumbass on Twitter causes you PTSD or hurts as much as physical violence, that means you're a weak person, relatively speaking.

There reason we protect children is because they are weaker and more vulnerable while they grow up.

Adults need to grow up and out of that weakness and vulnerability or else they remain children.

[Kujako]

There's indeed a big difference between sustained psychological abuse (as in the case of people who have been in warzones, victims of violent crime, domestic abuse, etc) -- and someone who is the "victim" of mean words.

In the former, the words are irrelevant. They can just go "wah, wah, wah" like Charlie Brown's teacher. Someone calling you a mean word only effects you if you let it. Though the intent behind the word is a different mater.

[satimy]

Old kkk was scary, fbi basically dismantled them. New kkk is more political, not violent.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that once you're an adult, you realize that there are laws against things like slander or threats. Because words can be harmful, in and of themselves. Every single developed nation, including the USA, has been in agreement on this for well over a century.

Slander is fraudulous, and has to be proven vigorously. Threat has to be proven legitimate and also that the person making the threat is even capable of fulfilling the threat.

So don't compare usa to some restrictive hugbox like Europe where you go to prison for calling someone a fag on Twitter.

[Mistame]

Stick and stones may break your bones, but words leave psychological wounds that will never heal

Doesn't work that way. Those words are always there and they never leave, much like a scar. It can build up and weigh you down immensely.

This is part of the problem. Society needs to get the fuck over its obsession with "feels". Seriously, it's like there's an exponential increase in the amount tear balloons made of tissue paper. One wrong move and you're drowning in a sea of pusillanimity.

[Endus]

Slander is fraudulous, and has to be proven vigorously.

Not to the extent you apparently think. First, it's a civil crime; the bar is set at what's reasonable to expect, not beyond reasonable doubt. Second, most insults are objectively fraudulent.

If you call a woman a "whore", that's slander, unless you can demonstrate that you have reason to believe she literally takes money in exchange for sexual acts. And you'll have to demonstrate that justification, to defend yourself. Because, again, civil offense; there is no presumption of innocence.

[tj119]

A bunch of dumb rednecks who idiots like the OP keep giving publicity by sharing their stories and documentaries. While the KKK is still alive, they are not actually actively doing anything harming anyone. If words bother you that bad, stay home and hide like the sensitive puss you are.

[primalmatter]

Except racial motivated attacks DO occur and often fuelled by said groups

and when a criminal is shot some black communities respond by burning down their homes or revenge killings.

No group is perfect.

[satimy]

Not to the extent you apparently think. First, it's a civil crime; the bar is set at what's reasonable to expect, not beyond reasonable doubt. Second, most insults are objectively fraudulent.

If you call a woman a "whore", that's slander, unless you can demonstrate that you have reason to believe she literally takes money in exchange for sexual acts. And you'll have to demonstrate that justification, to defend yourself. Because, again, civil offense; there is no presumption of innocence.

That's such a disengenuous argument though, literally everything is a civil crime because you can civilly sue someone for anything. Also you have to prove damages came from me calling you a whore


Also you would have to prove that you are not a whore, which is impossible

[Felya]

It's scapegoating, which stems from the inability to take personal responsibility for your actions. As in, this isn't our fault, it's their fault.

- - - Updated - - -

A bunch of dumb rednecks who idiots like the OP keep giving publicity by sharing their stories and documentaries. While the KKK is still alive, they are not actually actively doing anything harming anyone. If words bother you that bad, stay home and hide like the sensitive puss you are.

They are not dumb or rednecks, they are misguided.

- - - Updated - - -

Also you would have to prove that you are not a whore, which is impossible

Maybe on Internet forum, but in real life you need evidance to accuse someone of being a whore and that evidance can be disputed.

[NuLogic]

I've been told mean words are as bad as physical violence.

Somehow, I doubt it.

It's also words that make one think they deserve it.

[Deleted]

A couple of things.

First, "whore" doesn't necessarily mean a technical prostitute who actually takes money, it could just mean "loose woman" and let's face it, "looseness" is relative and subjective, so it's pretty easy to say it was just meant as an insult and not referring to any actual professional status

Second, someone who sues someone for calling them a whore is a weak, pathetic, overly-litigious person -- and should be mocked and ostracised mercilessly. I mean come on, grow up. People who are that sensitive are just immature.

Society should not pander to overgrown, weak children like that.

[Malachi256]

The KKK started out as bunch of violent racists, but, thanks to the internet, have mostly evolved into a bunch of overenthusiastic acknowledgers.

[Deleted]

Old kkk was scary, fbi basically dismantled them. New kkk is more political, not violent.

- - - Updated - - -



Slander is fraudulous, and has to be proven vigorously. Threat has to be proven legitimate and also that the person making the threat is even capable of fulfilling the threat.

So don't compare usa to some restrictive hugbox like Europe where you go to prison for calling someone a fag on Twitter.

I love that there is this other Europe somewhere on Earth that is so radical and hippy.

[Captain N]

Second, someone who sues someone for calling them a whore is a weak, pathetic, overly-litigious person -- and should be mocked and ostracised mercilessly. I mean come on, grow up. People who are that sensitive are just immature.

Now change whore to abusive, or rapist, or pedophile. Still think words can't hurt even if they're not true. In those cases it has nothing to do with being sensitive. Those are labels that will tarnish a reputation even if you''re completely innocent.

[Bonkbonk100]

Same here, the KKK would probably try to tie me up and burn me alive, and they will say hateful things, but as long as they're not actually harming someone directly, they should be able to say whatever insane hateful things they want.

In fact, I feel better if they shout loud and clear, so we know who they are and where they are. I want them to stay in the public realm, so they can't grow quietly no one noticing, and then suddenly BAM my house is on fire.

"Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words can never hurt me." <-- it's called being an adult

Because KKK will never do anything else but insult you. Yeah. Can I have whatever drugs you are having? Seems like we live in 2 different worlds. Yours is a much more happy and naïve place.

[Endus]

That's such a disengenuous argument though, literally everything is a civil crime because you can civilly sue someone for anything. Also you have to prove damages came from me calling you a whore

This simply isn't true. Civil crimes are specifically defined.

Also you would have to prove that you are not a whore, which is impossible

Also completely untrue. Again, we're talking civil court, not criminal. You get no presumption of innocence. You would need to prove that you had reason to think me a whore. That's how civil courts work.

[Zoldor]

They took my baby away. They took her away. Away from me.

[Ivanstone]

Hell some members actually praised Hitler!

The KKK has always been massively anti-Semitic. They are also anti-catholic and dislike cultural groups that are dominantly catholic. Its WASP or GTFO basically.

The documentary also showed public demonstrations between the KKK and Black Panthers and what really alarmed me was how similar both activists were. KKK chanting white power and shouting racial slurs against Black Panthers chanting black power and shouting racial slurs! Ultimately it became apparent that both groups gained members due to racism flung towards them... A vicious cycle of racists creating racists by being racist towards others.

So what's the deal?

The Black Panthers and KKK are not alike. The KKK existed to terrorize people who were already suppressed.

The Black Panthers were simply angry. They may have been unlikable but they never enjoyed wide spread support or had the ability to sway elections like the KKK. The only thing they did was inadvertently get Gun Control laws passed in a few states (ex California).

[Lothaeryn]

It's better to have your racism out in the open. Everyone knows the KKK are racist, the overall opinion of them is that they are backwards in their thinking and not very smart.

Something like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons could never happen in the US. At some point a critic of Charlie Hebdo would take KKK cartoons and Charlie Hebdo cartoons lay them side by side and challenge people to pick which cartoon belonged to which organization. When the reader couldn't pick, Charlie Hebdo would be painted with the KKK brush and everyone would know Charlie Hebdo is backwards thinking, racist and not very smart.

How can you tell something is racist if you have nothing to compare it to? A gold standard of racism.

Grade A example of why freedom of speech works, and must always be allowed.

[Citizen T]

Not to the extent you apparently think. First, it's a civil crime; the bar is set at what's reasonable to expect, not beyond reasonable doubt. Second, most insults are objectively fraudulent.

If you call a woman a "whore", that's slander, unless you can demonstrate that you have reason to believe she literally takes money in exchange for sexual acts. And you'll have to demonstrate that justification, to defend yourself. Because, again, civil offense; there is no presumption of innocence.

Poor example. Dictonary.com - Whore. The exchange of money is not required - only promiscuous behavior. Promiscuity is pretty subjective so a whore in my opinion could be vastly different than such in yours.