Tag: Victim Propaganda

Dear Whiny People… A full dissection of Nichole Arbours “Dear Fat People” Video

After going viral on both Youtube and Facebook Video, the following piece of media has generated outrage and accusations against its author and the sentiments she expresses. But are they merited? *In my best Tootsie-Pop Owl voice* ~ Lehtz, Fiihnd Out…

Here are some things you may have failed to see…

The first 3 seconds of the video makes fun of herself.
The video starts with a cold open in where Arbour refers to the streak of pinkish purple in her blonde locks as her “Ke$ha hair” and lifts a strand further down that appears stiff, saying “you don’t know if this is hair spray or semen”.
This entire post could end with that. Every Social Justice Warrior who thinks that in attacking this video they are crusading against an oppressive bully-culture is revealed to be a self-important fraud after just 3.5 seconds of the damn thing. You lost before you started. You are rallying your troops around a woman comedically making light about her sense of style and after-sex hygiene who also says it is unhealthy to be unhealthy. You are constructing a strawman bully to take down for your own agenda and not because this is an actually pervasive figure guilty of unfair demonization. When you claim villainy in people making jokes about themselves while also making jokes about certain unhealthy choices, you are mocking your own cause.

Within 6 seconds she called out her overly sensitive future critics
With just the words “Dear Fat People” she notes that “people are already mad about this video”. That would be a lame pre-emptive defense about taking heat for being controversial over something non-controversial if it didn’t pan out exactly that way and more, far beyond what anyone could have expected. Congratulations, whiners! Your predictable overreactions have become such a cliche trope that you are living self-fulfilling prophecies of Outrage Culture.

Her “Fat People running” comedy bit is legit
When I heard the outcry over this video I naturally assumed it was another fitness lifestyle person evangelizing the virtues and benefits of not remaining unhealthy. In reality, as if the previously mentioned tipoffs weren’t enough, it is shown within 20 seconds of the video that this is a comedy routine. That doesn’t mean you have to think it’s funny – it just means you have to know that it’s comedy. When you treat jokes from an entertainer like they’re serious hateful attacks from a position of authority then you’re being a douche. Jokes with a message behind them should have that message rebutted in a manner of levity equal to the offense. In the first 20 seconds of the video, Arbour goes on a tangent about how Frankenstein is slow and thus non-menacing to someone who can run “at a reasonable pace” and segways into how the zombies from The Walking Dead are allegedly also easy to avoid if not for writer and producer plot devices. You have no excuse for treating this monologue like its a Presidential Address to the nation.

“Fat shaming is not a thing. Fat people made that up”
Finally at around 35 seconds, we have at least something that could potentially be disputed regarding overweight humans. Arbour says “fat shaming is not a thing”. This is essentially the thesis of the video and yet the vast majority of its critics refer to it as a “fat shaming video” when the video purports to be a video dispelling the myth of fat shaming. Arbour explains her position but the critics think they don’t need to explain theirs for some reason. So lets just examine her argument… Arbour says Fat shaming is a made-up construct invented by fat people in contradistinction to legitimate Victim Cards in a deck she says includes Race, Disability, & Gay. These “Cards” are legitimate plays according to Arbour because each of the 3 groups face hurdles in life they didn’t choose and cannot change, unlike fat people whom overwhelmingly either chose their state of health, can change their state of health, or both. Unless…

Who she’s NOT talking about is explicitly stated in the first minute
In 1 minute of the 6 minute video, Arbour states that people with a little more “cushion for the pushin” or with specific health conditions need not apply to her criticism. So why have so many applied? The fact that so many people crave victimhood status is a servicing illustration to Arbours point, not a debunking of it. There is no excuse for being chubby or suffering from a medical issue that causes fat accumulation and thinking you are being in any way derided. The woman slows her speech like she’s talking to a kindergarden Special Needs class and makes an O with her hand to illustrate that she is only pinpointing the 35% of North Americans who are O-bese – i.e. – people making life decisions regarding food intake and movement/exercise that are negatively affecting their health by adding large amounts of calories that they are not burning.

“Big boned” isn’t a thing
Arbour quips that “there are no fkking skeletons that look like the Michelin Man”. Amusing line. Problem? If so, then Science is your enemy, not this comedy delivering blonde girl.

“Fat shaming” is really just “shaming bad habits until they fkking stop”
Fitting into her earlier point about how “fat shaming” at large is not a thing, Arbour explains that what people wrongfully call fat shaming (a phrase with connotations of personal condemning) is actually the shaming of bad behaviors that result in life threatening actions (something every reasonable human is called by logical society to do).

Shop-aholics vs Over-eaters who don’t exercise
Still less than 2 minutes into the 6 minute video, Arbour delivers some jokes about Shopaholics (people with a compulsion to buy things in unhealthy quantities) are more sympathetic victims than Food&sloth-aholics (people who take poor care of their bodies via a compulsion to eat large quantities of junk food paired with sedentary activity). Recalling her setup about legitimate handicapping, she jokes that obese parking should be further, not closer to the store to encourage the calorie burning that obese people need to save their lives. So so far, Arbours alleged “shaming” and “bullying” has been to advocate better behavior with the intention of saving peoples lives (also known as “neither shaming nor bullying”).

People destroying their bodies are doing something horrible
2:20m – Arbour says if you have a pack of Smarties candies and you mash one up and make it “not good” then it’s no big D cuz you have a whole pack left, while the case with your body is that you have only 1 and if you eff it up then you’re screwed. It’s an odd analogy fitting with the light hearted comedic delivery of the rest of the video and it’s 0% inaccurate. Regardless of candy analogies, there is no disputing the fact that at the time of this writing and the time of Arbours recording, human beings have only one body as an option. In the future, depending on how this head transplant thing goes and how thoroughly we are able to download our brains to plug into new mechanical, organic, or cyborg/mixed vessels – Arbours claim is 100% true.
So more than a quarter of the way through the video and we have yet to experience anything inaccurate, nasty/mean, or “shaming”.

Being “body positive” means “being positive to your body”
Lampooning the phrase “body positive” as it’s used in regards to glorifying unhealthy bodies, Arbour suggests the alternative of labeling positive things positive. By illustrating absurdity by being absurd, Arbour takes the action to its logical extension by pointing out that #MethLove and #TeamSmoker campaigns are not positive. Putting a hashtag next to something does not change the objective reality that it is physically bad – it just makes something that is physically bad, culturally good. And this is the real heart of the body positive issue… it operates under the hippie philosophy that if anyones choices are not celebrated then they are a victim and hippies love fighting against societal majorities by using victim martyrs. So the victims get conned by feeling better about killing themselves and ruining their lives while the hippie feels like a hero for fighting against the boogie men of logical critical analysis of health by falsely labeling it with hate smears and fiction of oppression.

What about the family?
Around the 3 minute halfway mark of the video, Arbour notes that the health conditions and early deaths caused by obesity take an unfair toll on the family and loved ones of the obese. She calls out the selfish behavior of someone allowing their addiction to unhealthy food rob them from their loved ones. People who seek pleasure for themselves regardless of the pain it causes others are typically known as jerks. Most jerks are jerks because of problems, yes, no one fails to grasp that. But as an evolved society we are compassionate to peoples problems when they seek help – not when they embrace their problems and make them other peoples problem. That action should be condemned, not celebrated as a personal choice. If you are a hermit with only enemies then it is a personal choice how you destroy your life with food and inaction. If you have anyone – even one person in your life who loves you – then you are being a jerk by destroying your life whether it’s with food, alcohol, drugs, or whatever. That’s *my* point, not Arbours, but Arbours point that killing yourself with food is a dick-move to your loved ones is objectively true. I could think of a bunch of ways that and every other objective truth could be used to bully, ridicule, shame, or otherwise gratuitously attack an individual or group of people, but so far this video has done no such thing.

Fat Privilege
3:10 – Telling a story of obese people getting to cut a long security line at the airport because their knees were hurting from standing too long, Arbour again illustrates the absurdity of the situation sarcastically responding “oh, I showed up an hour early like I was supposed to, but you overeat, so let me help you”. Sorry, but Arbour isn’t the jerk in that situation. She could be if she was the TSA agent in charge of the line and refused to expedite the obese persons time they spent in pain or discomfort (assuming the suffering was legitimate) but the person in this story wasn’t given pain or discomfort by any 3rd party – they alleviated their pain and discomfort at the expense of others. This is known as “being a jerk”. Arbour sarcastically pointing out that she and others miss out on preferential treatment due to not destroying their bodies, is just logic.

Description of gross fat people
In a world where obesity exists and unpalatable things exist, there is going to be some cross-over. Arbour describes a distinct smell and type of “standing sweat” fat (presumably, people with a weight problem so strong that merely being upright without assistance has the equivalent effect of lifting and carrying around various numbers of 20lb lifting-weights)

Privilege ridicule
“So what?” to the fact that the fat family got to skip in line and be carted to their destination while Arbour sweats “like a pig” under a time crunch – she notes that while suffering that imbalance, if she were to “play an ugly chick in a movie” then she’s more likely than them to win an Oscar.

Obesity as a disability to the obese and an inconvenience to the healthy
4:15 – Arbour says that in her recent travel story she was seated on the plane next to one of the kids from the fat family whom was referred to as being disabled and his fat was spilling out of the airline seat and onto Arbour.

“Genetics plays a part, to a degree” in obesity
Accurate and necessary observation.
4:50 and I’m still waiting to hear something offensive, bullying, or false…

“I’m really fkking selfish: I want you around”
5 minutes in and this supposed shaming bully is admitting to caring about all the obese people watching her that even though she doesn’t know them, she cares enough to want them to be alive. The people calling this video shaming and bullying are taking a giant dump over those words and cheapening actual harassment, personal ridicule, and culture affecting acts of punching down.

“Actually, I will love you no matter what…”
5:33 – After expressing light hearted self deprecation concern in teasing both herself and her appearance along with those who overheat to unhealthy degrees and then saying she is only lampooning the unhealthy behavior because she cares about the unhealthy who may only be getting feedback from enablers, this “bully” then says “actually, I’ll love you no matter what [size or weight you are]” and this hippie Victim Culture drenched elitist nunnery still goes around painting this woman as an intolerant bully.

The video ends without a single slice of fat-shaming…

The Zimmerman Witchhunt was a historical event in manufactured outrage

A Florida man has been charged with attempted murder and hate crime after fatally shooting an African American man in the head. He expressed disbelief over his arrest, telling officers that he “only shot a nigger.” That mans name is Walton Henry Butler and if the allegations are true, he obviously deserves a lot of scorn from the public in addition to his hopefully lifetime jail sentence.

Instead of being targeted by activists however, race-baiters are collectively going after a made-up charge of racism in a different Florida shooting in where a hispanic man shot a single bullet, allegedly in self defense from having been attacked and suffering a brutal beating by a teenager. Despite no evidence of racism being involved in the shot that resulted in the alleged attackers death, he is being lionized as a martyr and the shooter is being demonized as a racist.

The prosecution is going big with the “taking the law into his own hands” angle.

Judge Debra Nelson issued her ruling over the objections of Zimmerman’s lawyers shortly before a prosecutor delivered a closing argument in which he portrayed the defendant as an aspiring police officer who assumed Martin was up to no good and took the law into his own hands. “A teenager is dead. He is dead through no fault of his own,” prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda told the jurors. “He is dead because a man made assumptions. … Unfortunately because his assumptions were wrong, Trayvon Benjamin Martin no longer walks this Earth.”

There is literally zero evidence that Trayvon Martin is dead because of “assumptions” that were made because, while there is zero evidence that Zimmermans single shot was based on suspicion or taking the law into his own hands but rather was a legitimate use of self defense against an attacker who evidently assumed it would be a good idea to violently assault someone who had a legal firearm on them.

George Zimmerman called the police to express concern about a “punk” he saw suspiciously roaming the eves of other peoples houses and attempted to talk to the individual. Trayvon Martin called a girl friend and mentioned annoyance about a “creepy ass cracker” he saw watching him. Juan Williams:

George Zimmerman faces life in jail as a jury considers second-degree murder charges against him for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But thanks to the media he is already sentenced to life in the American public’s mind as a racist. NBC edited a tape of Zimmerman’s call to police as he was following Martin to make him appear to be focused on Martin’s race. The New York Times has referred to him in unique racial terms as a “white Hispanic.” The terminology was necessary to have the story fit into a well-worn news narrative throughout American history from the Scottsboro Boys to Emmett Till to Rodney King – the black victim of white racism. Hispanic people can be as racist as black or white people in a country with a deep history of racism. But, apparently for the Times, Zimmerman’s whiteness was important. It fit their good versus evil tale of a white racist killing an innocent black man.

This is a stunning case of media malpractice in fomenting hatred in service to an immoral and divisive agenda. There is absolutely nothing special about this unfortunate case that merits such media attention and making up details in order to fluff it up to justify the undue attention is some crazy propaganda-conspiracy shit unfitting of this Great Republic.
As I saw someone post on Facebook:
My prediction: George Zimmerman will walk on all charges, and appear in the next season of Dancing With the Stars alongside America’s favorite diabetic, Paula Deen. Then maybe (video courtesy of the Washington Free Beacon)

Why the people criticizing Obama for complimenting a woman are so stupidly wrong

Recently, President Barack Obama was doing the only thing he seems to be capable of not screwing up (see: getting people to give money) and still managed to step in it with his base of totalitarian hippie supporters somehow.

At a fundraiser outside of San Fransisco, the President included in his remarks that attorney general of California, Kamala Harris was “the best looking attorney general in the country”. The hippies got angry and used it as an opportunity to peddle their speech-policing about what is and isn’t okay.

What isn’t okay about noting that someone is attractive? Nothing, obviously. Which is the only thing that makes this a noteworthy story. The articles and social media praise for those scolding the president don’t even make an attempt at logical arguments. They just forbid and demand and seek to bully and shame those who don’t adhere to their thought and comment codes and it’s gross.

The definition of “political correctness” is forbidding truths inconvenient to the political Left, which is rooted in Marxist ideology seeking “sameness” but usually masking it under the more palatable but flexible term of “equality”. This strive for sameness requires a lot of social engineering that no un-brainwashed person would find at all appealing, so pressure tactics need to be employed under the guise of pleading on behalf of a victim class.

In this case, the social engineering the hippies desire is the 1960s version of “feminism” (the attack of femininity in the pursuit of women being seen, thought of, and treated no different than men in any way) which is the opposite of feminism (embracing the feminine and observing it as different but equal in respect and legal rights to masculinity and other typically male traits). Hippie feminism demands the suppression of the fact that men find women attractive, so thus it demands that references to this fact be banned. Media using attractive women are demonized as “objectifying” women and comments on women’s attractive appearances are labeled as doing the same thing. This is because that under an ideology of sameness-worship, the observation of differences debunks the end goal. So their solution is just to ban it. Call these things offensive.

It doesn’t matter that there is no logical basis behind keeping quiet over obvious observable truths and it doesn’t matter that there is nothing insulting, degrading, inappropriate, or out of context about polite notation of such obvious observable truths. The argument is merely “we said so. the end”.

Harris was already noted by President Obama as being “brilliant” and that “she is dedicated and she is tough” before he added that she was also “the most attractive attorney general in the country” so there is no argument to be made about any kind of denial of her non-physical attributes. Instead, the presidents comments are just being called inappropriate and offensive by the usual suspects of hippies stepping in front of someone who was neither victimized nor offended and broadcasting about victimizaiton and offense.

Mika Brezinski on MSNBC said “It just divides women and it just divides people up to separate them by looks and probably was a little ham-fisted. I just think the whole thing, the whole dynamic about women and their looks puts women under a lot of stress that they don’t need.” I like Mika and don’t want to beat up on her, so i’ll leave it to you to decide if she really believes that hippie talking point and/or if it is congruent with pictorials like this:

Katie J. M. Baker asks in a Jezebel post that uses an unflattering photo of Kamala Harris, “was it wrong of Obama to call Harris “the best looking attorney general” while listing her many other attributes?” and then immediately answers herself with “Yes”, because, she says “Women put up with enough unsolicited attention as it is; the president of our country doesn’t need to legitimize the practice by piling on.”

Robin Abcarian in the LA Times had to admit the statement is “accurate” and “stating the obvious” but still asks if it was “sexist” (inadvertently admitting that truth is sometimes “sexist” which un-defines the word sexism). She concludes that making obvious statements about a womans attractiveness is predatory and problematic by saying “More wolfish than sexist, I’d say. And this may be a little problem he needs to work on.” In an attempt to justify this potential “problem” that needs “working on”, Abcarian says:

As Arlette Saenz of ABC News pointed out, Obama got into some hot water a while back when he addressed a reporter as “sweetie.” That was obnoxious, and demeaning, and Obama rightfully apologized. In 2008, he told Hillary Clinton she was “likeable enough” during one of the primary debates, which turned off God knows how many women, who heard the smug judgment of an arrogant upstart.

2 more bogus examples as the reporter didn’t express any offense at the “sweetie” remark, which isn’t inherently obnoxious or demeaning and the “likeable enough” comment was a joke in response to a question about whether Hillary “is likeable” (so in other words, he was using the language of the question in the debate to make light of the question in her defense – not decreeing to Hillary that he, as an elitist, had dubbed her to be adequate).

Amanda Marcotte at Slate wrote an article titled “Sorry, President Obama, but Complimenting a Colleague’s Looks Isn’t Harmless” but forgot to include in the article, any “harm” inherent in such an action. Instead she just points out that dumb hippies on twitter rebuked the President, and lauds that many were male and dismissed columnists debunking the lunacy as “unsurprising defensive whining”. At least she is unsurprised that when cry-bullying over fake victimization stories in service to illogical dogmas are used as offenses, the defense is expected. Her laughable evidence that complimenting women “isn’t harmless” is a statement by a social scientist who quoted a 1996 paper in where researchers discovered that – gasp – passive-aggressive behaviors exist. Marcotte should get with the 21st century and realize that this isn’t news. Yes, it’s true that people can say nice things in manipulative ways for negative outcomes – thanks for that professional citation to uncover that obvious point literally everyone is already aware of. Sorry, Amanda, but the potential to be negative by paying people compliments doesn’t make the act of making a compliment in itself “harmful”.

Joan Walsh at a Salon.com  titled “Kamala Harris deserves better” un-makes her point in nearly every line of the first few paragraph by admitting the details that contradict he phony claim of sexist oppression (Obama and Harris are close allies; the compliment was intended as such and not as an attack; that it was preceded by calling her “brilliant”) and then says “but my stomach turned over anyway”.

And that’s the perfect summary of this situation: “Yes, there was nothing wrong whatsoever about this comment that had good motives, was well received by the person it was directed to and was objectively accurate…but I hated it anyway” – Hippie Feminism in a nutshell.

~~

To review: President Obama says something nice about a friend and supporter at a fundraiser and no one there complains and the friend and supporter expresses no problem at having been publicly complimented by the President of the United states on her brilliance, toughness, dedication, and good looks. Leftist crusaders, however, step in to say that’s not okay in a variety of outlets, but to recap the 5 covered here:

An MSNBC host says that complimenting women on being attractive adds “stress that they don’t need” and “divides” them, even though she adds to the division with 90% more hair and makeup vamping and 100% more leg showing than her male co-anchors.

An LA Times columnist says that it is “wolfish” and “a problem” to compliment a women on her looks, even though she admits herself several times that the woman in question has complimentary looks (ie: a compliment).

A Slate.com columnist claimed that a 1996 paper someone wrote said that nice things could potentially be used in bad ways and dubiously concluded that that is proof that complimenting a womans appearance is “harmful”.

A Jezebel columnist said that the president was “piling on” the plight that women already unjustly suffer when they look attractive by saying so.

And a Salon.com columnist claimed that she became physically sick when she heard that the President had complimented a woman.

 

Peculiar Pot Smoking Punk ass Protestors Pepper Sprayed Prudently

This Occupy protesting nonsense is dragging on and accomplishing nothing positive. Shocking… The wests Tahrir moment, it aint. Some are under the false impression that rich people are somehow getting richer in this bad economy despite the number of taxpayers with more than $1 million of income declining from from 400,000 back in 2007 to just 235,000 in 2009. Others are just annoyed that the world isn’t perfect in their estimation so they’re out bitching about anything and everything and feeling super noble about it. Sometimes though, the whole “breaking the law and being a dick about your protests over nothing” thing has consequences and that only makes irresponsible people more outraged that they’re not getting what they want. Tragic.

The only positive thing that’s come out of the Occupy protests has been the silly Amazon product reviews of the pepper spray used in the Davis-spraying. Aside from that it’s just more cause for whining and outrage. Did you know that forcing people to move who refuse to move from property they don’t own is a “military threat”? Oh ya dude. Totally:

“How Could This Happen in America?” Why Police Are Treating Americans Like Military Threats
Why is the armed might of the state, (necessary in waging war against foreign enemies) being applied to domestic policing of local communities and peaceful protests?

Who is gullible enough to fall for this victim-porn propaganda? These protests are often not peaceful – what with the attacking the police, vandalism, vandalism with feces, vandalism with 200 pounds of feces, other mass filth, corpse-filth, disease, open drug use, overdoses, rapes and death and all – but even during the peaceful ones, it’s painfully obvious that the whining reaction to them are just whining. Oh no.. you broke laws and got arrested or forcibly moved from a place you weren’t allowed to be. and I’m supposed to feel sympathy for that just because you wanted to be there? This is stupid. That article ends with this paragraph:

“Is this still my country?” That’s been a question from day one, asked by Americans of widely diverging views in response to government crackdowns on protest. Objecting to military violence against protesting citizens may be inherently American. The urge to crack down can look inherently American too.

Don’t people usually die in “military violence”? And yet no one has died in the law enforcement tactics used against these fleabaggers while 7 have died within the Occupy dumps. Lets see.. which is worse? Getting sprayed with something that hurts your eyes in response to your refusal to leave a blockade that has no purpose or meaning? Or dying for participating in a protest that has no purpose or meaning?

Update: woman pepper sprays black friday shoppers so she can get her Tickle-me Elmo or whatever.


I double-dog Dare you to think of something more stupid than this caption^

Police haven’t been shitting on any of the protestors. But the protestors have been shitting on the police.
Police haven’t killed any of the protestors. But the protestors have been killing themselves.
Police haven’t been breaking any of the protestors things to express their political opinions. But the protestors have been costing thousands of dollars in damage to public and private property.
Police haven’t stabbed any of the protestors. But the protestors have been knife attacking themselves.
Police haven’t jerked off in front of any 16 year old girls in the protests but… okay – i’ll give them a pass on this one.

UPDATE: Occupy sympathizer threatens to murder South Carolinas Governor. To date, police have not made any such murder threats in their “military action”.

I don’t understand what the argument against it is. When you tell someone to move and you have the legal authority to do so, wtf are you supposed to do? “Hey, those people are not legally allowed to be occupying that space. it’s not theres, we don’t want them there and they need to leave” – “but… they said no” – “Oh, okay. end of story then. I guess we tried!”. wtf? I don’t think so. They’re lucky all they got was a shot of pepper. Morons.

Although, I’ve also never made a secret of the fact that I don’t understand the Occupy protest as a movement either, and it’s not for lack of investigation. It’s an unorganized collection of whining about nothing specific and has no plan of action other than being annoying as a way to get what they want.

When it first started the most common line I saw was that it was against “Corporate Greed” but no specifics were given on what anyone wanted to do about it. Who exactly is breaking the law or doing something immoral? If the former – why are you not revealing their name to any of the thousands of trial attorneys whose mouths are watering this very second at the thought of taking a Wall Street corrupto-crat down and if it’s the latter then why are you not revealing their names either so people know what it is you’re protesting against and can maybe have some sympathy for your smelly disease riddled public park destroying illegal bongo sessions.

Following a pledge to “stick it to taxpayers“, the cost of this feel-good/accomplish-nothing masturbatory movement to the taxpayers is $10,000 a day or $13 million so far.

Thanks a lot, assholes.

UPDATE: this was posted before the following video surfaced that – SURPRISE – tells you more of what you should have already realized if you weren’t a hippie anti-authority romanticizing fruitcake:

Depictions of Faceless white victims = Anti-Black Racism

Stuffed white people hanging from trees are the new black people getting lynched? Logic says what?

The mayor of Frederick, Md., says a controversial Halloween display featuring three faceless dummies hanging from a willow tree will remain at a city park, despite complaints from the NAACP.

Guy Djoken, president of Frederick County’s NAACP chapter, has called on Mayor Jeff Holtzinger to order parks officials to remove the display, which he calls “disturbing.”

“Something should be done right away,” Djoken told FoxNews.com. “When you look from a distance, it doesn’t look good. We should just remove it.”

Um, yea, dummy – hanging bodies are “disturbing” – that’s the point… Adding a racial element to it is stupid, but worse than that – it’s a sad commentary on the race-obsessed mindset some people are conditioned into having which keeps them from enjoying life like normal people. Hanging people from the neck by a rope as a way of execution and murder is something exclusively tied to blacks in these peoples minds, despite that method of death inducing historically being practiced on whites to a factor of…what do you think?… 3, 10, 20 times more?

Making matters worse for the victim-minded case is that the hanging dummies have white sacks for heads… No faces drawn on them – just blank white canvases for the viewer to fill with whatever their imagination conjures. How sad that for many, what they choose to fill that canvas with is hate-based.

Can’t we all just enjoy a holiday celebrating the horrors of death without relating it to arbitrarily assigned deaths of history?