SFSU 2016 - Campus employee assaults white student for "cultural appropriation"

[john cena]

There has been a video up about false guilt for a while. Now, I think it might be time for a video on false grievances. This story has over 3,000,000 views just on YouTube and has widely circulated the internet, yet the main stream doesn't pick up on it. Imagine if a white man had assaulted a black woman telling her he couldn't straiten her hair because "it wasn't natural". The entire campus would be shut down with rioting. Why the fuck don't white people care about their own race? More importantly, what the heck is wrong with these people that they think they're in the right because of "social justice"? This is blind fascism and nothing more. 

 

 

You’re saying I can’t have a hairstyle, because of your culture? Why?” asks the white male, who appears to be wearing a dress.

“Because it’s my culture,” responds the black female.

“Do you know that it was in Egyptian culture? Are you Egyptian? Naw,” replied the male student with animated body language.

Interjecting, a black male observer who appears to be wearing pink leggings asks the white male if he’s Egyptian.

As the white male attempts to leave up a staircase, the black female grabs his left arm sleeve. Giving in to the pull, the white male demands to be left alone as he descends back to the main floor.

Fitting in with a deepening pattern of offense-taking across colleges and universities, the incident is yet another illustration of the pursuit of grievance cultivated by the left.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/4465/cultural-appropriation-black-female-accosts-white-robert-kraychik

[Jer]

Dear Michelle Fields,

This is what assault and battery looks like.

[A4E]

I turned in a black man walking like a white man today. So proud of myself.

[st434u]

She was flirting with him. Cmon, this is not assault, not even close. He took it the wrong way and when she realized that he wasn't into her she backed out. That's why she got upset that it was being filmed, not because she was assaulting him.

[john cena]

She was flirting with him. Cmon, this is not assault, not even close. He took it the wrong way and when she realized that he wasn't into her she backed out. That's why she got upset that it was being filmed, not because she was assaulting him.

In the USA that is absolutely assault. More like two accounts of assault. I have seen many people prosecuted for simple assault for merely grabbing a camera. 

 

If this is how girls flirt with you, there's something seriously wrong in my opinion! Wouldn't it make more sense she was mad that she just got filmed committing an assault?

[st434u]

In the USA that is absolutely assault. More like two accounts of assault. I have seen many people prosecuted for simple assault for merely grabbing a camera. 

 

If this is how girls flirt with you, there's something seriously wrong in my opinion! Wouldn't it make more sense she was mad that she just got filmed committing an assault?

 

Also in the USA people are convicted of rape because their sex partner had a drink and they didn't. Just because the justice system calls it assault doesn't mean it is. And I didn't say I approve nor disapprove of her behavior, I was simply stating that it is in no way comparable to actual assault.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Why the fuck don't white people care about their own race? More importantly, what the heck is wrong with these people that they think they're in the right because of "social justice"? This is blind fascism and nothing more.

 

 

People who don't have empathy don't care about being right. They care about getting away with their temper tantrums and projected feelings of hatred and anger whenever they can, to whomever they can. That's why it is so confusing to the guy in the video and people like you and me who have empathy, because we assume personal responsibility, and couldn't imagine sadism behind the veil of "social justice." The girl in the video is a racist and has no rational justification for her initiation of force. And the cultural marxists who gives excuses to sadists are almost worse than the sadists themselves.

[john cena]

Also in the USA people are convicted of rape because their sex partner had a drink and they didn't. Just because the justice system calls it assault doesn't mean it is. And I didn't say I approve nor disapprove of her behavior, I was simply stating that it is in no way comparable to actual assault.

So if a strange man puts his arm around your wife to prevent her from passing, and almost rips her shirt trying to hold her, you would want that to be totally legal?

[Donnadogsoth]

Why the fuck don't white people care about their own race? More importantly, what the heck is wrong with these people that they think they're in the right because of "social justice"? This is blind fascism and nothing more.

 

(1) Guess the quote:

 

"We're not going to make it, are we?  [White] people I mean."

 

"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."

 

(2) If the goal is to avoid being bred out of existence, things that hinder assimilation are benefits.  If blacks refuse to act "white" and make themselves repulsive to whites, and if blacks "police" whites from acting "black" thereby alienating whites from black culture, then the races are less likely to mix.

 

(3) I realise it's fashionable to call everything bad "fascist" but really, fascism was an Italian political movement in the second quarter of the 20th Century.  Better terms would be racial authoritarianism, cultural marxism, and bullying.  I realise calling something Fascism makes it sound heavier and more ominous, but it's a nonsensical word at this point that is borrowing cultural cache from German National Socialism.

[Jer]

Also in the USA people are convicted of rape because their sex partner had a drink and they didn't. Just because the justice system calls it assault doesn't mean it is. And I didn't say I approve nor disapprove of her behavior, I was simply stating that it is in no way comparable to actual assault.

What do you call it when someone grabs you and won't let you go on your way even after you say "let me go"?

[st434u]

So if a strange man puts his arm around your wife to prevent her from passing, and almost rips her shirt trying to hold her, you would want that to be totally legal?

 

She never even grabbed his shirt, nor did she offer any significant resistance to him actually getting through. She put her arm around him and then he stopped and continued to engage with her. When she grabbed his hand and told him to come back, he did for a moment, then vigorously shook his hand free and left, and that's when she disengaged. I don't know if what happened should or shouldn't be legal, because it's hard to tell from the video, but what I can tell is that no serious damage was caused in any way, and she was being playful, maybe she overstep her boundaries and committed a minor offense, maybe she didn't, I don't know. But to call this assault is not very different from when radical feminists cry rape because they regret having had sex with someone.

[A4E]

What do you call it when someone grabs you and won't let you go on your way even after you say "let me go"?

White privilege.

[okymek]

What do you call it when someone grabs you and won't let you go on your way even after you say "let me go"?

 

Unlawfully detained.

[st434u]

Unlawfully detained.

 

Let us not forget that almost every time the police "lawfully detains" someone, it's a complete violation of that person's rights, as they have not been proven guilty of a crime, and often all the police has is a suspicion along with some mildly incriminating evidence. I don't see you guys making an outcry out of that. And for argument's sake, compare what the police do on a daily basis, to what this woman did, and the damage that each represents. All this "victim" had to do was vigorously shake his hand off and make it clear that he wanted no part in the woman's advances, and that was the end of the interaction.

[Jer]

Let us not forget that almost every time the police "lawfully detains" someone, it's a complete violation of that person's rights, as they have not been proven guilty of a crime, and often all the police has is a suspicion along with some mildly incriminating evidence. I don't see you guys making an outcry out of that. And for argument's sake, compare what the police do on a daily basis, to what this woman did, and the damage that each represents. All this "victim" had to do was vigorously shake his hand off and make it clear that he wanted no part in the woman's advances, and that was the end of the interaction.

What evidence do you have that leads you to think she is making flirtatious advances?

 

And yes, there absolutely would be an outcry if a cop had detained somebody because of his hairstyle. It would be a complete violation of his rights JUST LIKE IT IS WHEN THIS CIVILIAN DOES IT...

 

Unlawfully detained.

and she used unwelcome physical force to do so. You know, assault.

[Jer]

I think his point is that cops detain people LEGALLY every day for imagined crimes, with no outcry. Maybe not for a hairstyle, but for violating the terms of imaginary covenants like speed limits, drug laws, or failing to obey them quickly enough when they stop you arbitrarily.

Yeah, It's kind of pedantic and off topic.

Yes, I object to violations of the NAP. This video is different because it not only shows a violation of the NAP but also violation of the laws of the US and that makes it actionable.

[st434u]

I wasn't just talking about laws that penalize non-crimes, although that is an important factor as well. What I meant was that even when the police detain someone for actual crimes such as murder or theft, the "lawful detention" is in most cases still entirely immoral. They have no right to detain you on the mere suspicion that you could be guilty. Of course when the supposed crime you are accused of is a victimless crime or other such non-crimes, it's even worse. I was drawing a comparison between everyday "lawful detention" and what this woman did which was called "unlawful detention", which I think is a ludicrous categorization of what is seen in the video.
 
And then it was you, Jer, who implied that the two are the same.
 

And yes, there absolutely would be an outcry if a cop had detained somebody because of his hairstyle. It would be a complete violation of his rights JUST LIKE IT IS WHEN THIS CIVILIAN DOES IT...

 
In one instance you are put in chains and thrown in a cage for an indefinite period, and if you resist, you will be killed. In the other, the guy was forced to move his arm and state his preferences loudly and clearly.
 
You have something very wrong in your understanding of human interaction if you think the two are even remotely comparable.

[Jer]

And then it was you, Jer, who implied that the two are the same.

 

 

You have something very wrong in your understanding of human interaction if you think the two are even remotely comparable.

I said they are both violations of the NAP. I realize it's more unpleasant to be jailed indefinitely than it is to be accosted by some girl in the hall.

 

I maintain that this is assault. It may be unlawful detention also, but I am not interested that discussion.

[john cena]

Let us not forget that almost every time the police "lawfully detains" someone, it's a complete violation of that person's rights, as they have not been proven guilty of a crime, and often all the police has is a suspicion along with some mildly incriminating evidence. I don't see you guys making an outcry out of that. And for argument's sake, compare what the police do on a daily basis, to what this woman did, and the damage that each represents. All this "victim" had to do was vigorously shake his hand off and make it clear that he wanted no part in the woman's advances, and that was the end of the interaction.

 

You must be new here. You realize you're posting on an anarchist forum, right? That is kind of the entire point. 

 

 

In one instance you are put in chains and thrown in a cage for an indefinite period, and if you resist, you will be killed. In the other, the guy was forced to move his arm and state his preferences loudly and clearly.

 

You have something very wrong in your understanding of human interaction if you think the two are even remotely comparable.

What meets your definition of "remotely comparable"? A large star could be compared to a chimpanzee, merely because they are both made of matter. Can you give me one concrete example of some things that are not "remotely comparable"? 

 

In my opinion they are both immoral actions, and are quite readily comparable. Sure one may be more severe than the other, but that is a matter of aesthetics not philosophy. 

 

I am not really concerned at all with the actions that took place here, I am however concerned with the psychotic double standard applied to "white" people regarding racism. 

[shirgall]

It's amazing that progressives are fighting to have concepts like culture "own" ideas such as a look or a behavior and on the other hand fight against individuals having property rights. Cultural Marxism marches on!

[Cornetto97]

It's amazing that progressives are fighting to have concepts like culture "own" ideas such as a look or a behavior and on the other hand fight against individuals having property rights. Cultural Marxism marches on!

No cultural marxists love the idea of proclaiming your culture. Just as long as you're not white. White male to be exact. Especially if your white male and upper class. That shit will get you thrown into the cultural gulags. Can you feel the equality yet?

[shirgall]

No cultural marxists love the idea of proclaiming your culture. Just as long as you're not white. White male to be exact. Especially if your white male and upper class. That shit will get you thrown into the cultural gulags. Can you feel the equality yet?

 

Cultural Marxists love the idea of using your own culture against you. If your own culture excludes another, then you can be criticized for role-playing another culture... (and even if you deny your own culture, you also get to "check your privilege" and be excluded from the conversation anyway).

[Cornetto97]

Cultural Marxists love the idea of using your own culture against you. If your own culture excludes another, then you can be criticized for role-playing another culture... (and even if you deny your own culture, you also get to "check your privilege" and be excluded from the conversation anyway).

Oh yes the privelage card, see if cultural marxism didn't rely on vertical attacks of white privelage, or in this case, role playing another culture, it would crumble so spectacularly. Like it would just get trumped from day one (pun very intentional).

[SirrusDundle]

<sarcasm alert> But in order to achieve multiculturalism, we must all strive for complete personal cultural homogeneity. Especially white people, who have no culture of their own, and must be prevented from stealing it from humans. Culture is, after all, a zero sum quality. If you take, say, a litre of culture, that means one litre less for other more deserving folk, you selfish porkface. <end sarcasm alert>

[shirgall]

Bill Whittle referenced this video for his latest:

 

[Donnadogsoth]

The serpent devours its own tail.  We now see that the spread of "Eastern practices" was just a way of weakening Christianity and white people in preparation for the minorities to self-aggrandise.  Will black practitioners of yoga be censured and barred from it for the same reasons, or will their membership in the minority club give them a pass?

 

But more than this, as Whittle notes, it goes into music as well.  I've heard rock is indebted to black music.  Should we ethnically cleanse the music scene, so that only blacks can play rock?  What about a mulatto, should he be able to play rock only on alternate days?  If he's Indian/black can he do yoga on regular days and rock on alternates?  And of course only white people can rap--or is that reserved only for direct descendants of John Skelton?

 

The left poses us the interesting challenge of coming up with new words for its evil.  The femiblob oozes on...