White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Race Riots to America

[Anonymous No.4315591]

I really wish the janitor would stop banning books. Or they should make the banned book list public.

>Racial violence is back. Along with widespread racial crime — even riots. In hundreds of episodes in more than 80 cities since 2010, groups of black people are roaming the streets of America — assaulting, intimidating, stalking, threatening, vandalizing, stealing, shooting, stabbing, even raping and killing. Cities big and small. Expected and unexpected. But local media and public officials are silent. Crime is color blind, says a Milwaukee police chief. Race is not important, a Chicago newspaper editor assures us. That denies the obvious: America is the most race conscious society in the world. We learn that every day from black caucuses, black teachers, black unions, black ministers, black colleges, black high schools, black music, black moguls, black hair business owners, black public employees, black art, black names, black poets, black inventors, black soldiers, black police officers. We learn it in stories written by members of the National Association of Black Journalists. We talk about everything except black mob violence and lawlessness. That is Taboo. Result: Few know about it. Fewer still are talking about it. Today it is at epidemic levels at almost every city in the country.

https://mega.co.nz/#!bcllgbrZ!JyaCc09MBqu0yT1uNxfjX2tkSaZi7H57422WlwJ4nk8

[Anonymous No.4315595]

Can you use a trip please thanks :)

[Anonymous No.4315598]

>>4315591

I thought a janitors job was to clean up garbage?

[Anonymous No.4315600]

>>4315595
Why not go to a site designed to hide unpopular opinions if you are so averse to coming across information which contradicts your faith?

[Anonymous No.4315607]

>>4315598
>>4315598
Supposedly.

On /lit/ the janitor censors discussion of any book they don't like. Which is basically any book that's not far left.

The janitor was even banning discussion of the Zimmerman book, and that's a very mainstream opinion that doesn't push any boundaries. The guy was found not guilty for a reason.

I just wish for transparency. If the janitor has the power to unilaterally ban any book, make a ban list and let the janitor add books to it at a whim.

[Anonymous No.4315610]

>>4315600
I like /lit/ and don't want it shitted up by baiting retards

[Anonymous No.4315615]

>>4315591
I'm all for freedom of speech but why would anyone want to read such blatant propaganda?

[Anonymous No.4315620]

>>4315607

The janitor probably just foresaw the nature of the thread and deleted it. I doubt it had anything to do with the book per se. /lit/ is a board that has a very tenuous relationship with /pol/ and its ilk.

[Anonymous No.4315621]

>>4315591
Thanks for posting again. Would be fun to cross swords with /pol/ over this one (at least until it all disintegrates into nothing but shitposting), but I suspect this thread will get deleted as well. Dayum shame, really.

[Anonymous No.4315623]

Can someone detail the book a little bit more? What is the structure like? Does it talk about the media bias itself, or just give lurid anecdotes that weren't reported?

[Anonymous No.4315626]

>>4315615

muh white culture

[Anonymous No.4315630]

>>4315620
The janitor is clearly censoring books because he/she doesn't want anyone to read the information in the book.

If it's a matter of the discussion that it spawns, they could simply remove individual posts which cross the line.

They are very clearly banning and censoring books that contradict their ideology. That ideology being far, far left. Like I said, the Zimmerman book is very middleground and mainstream.

As for this book even Thomas Sowell praised it. I doubt he is some nasty racist.

[Anonymous No.4315641]

So what claims does the book make about the actual scale of the problem? How does it justify the 'epidemic levels' and the claim that the alleged phenomenon is 'back' (as opposed to normal, everyday, ongoing crime)?

[Anonymous No.4315642]

>"Reading Colin Flaherty’s book made painfully clear to me that the magnitude of this problem is greater than I had discovered from my own research. He documents both the race riots and the media and political evasions in dozens of cities."
--Thomas Sowell

[Anonymous No.4315646]

>>4315623
>>4315641
I haven't read the book yet. I was just happy to get a copy and decided to share.

Let's all read the book together and come back here to discuss it later. It doesn't appear to be heavy reading.

Or you can wait until I finish it and I will fill you in.

[Anonymous No.4315647]

>>4315600
If you want to talk about the issues raised by the book, go to /pol/ where it is more appropriate.

The only reason you would specifically want to bring this to /lit/ is to bait for the kind of responses you know it will get and will gain satisfaction from. Like all boards, we want less shitposters, not more of them, so kindly fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4315648]

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/10/23/worldnetdaily-now-peddling-white-nationalism/

[Anonymous No.4315653]

>>4315630
You are posting with an agenda and fishing for negative responses. Shitposting.

[Anonymous No.4315658]

>>4315647
The /pol/ board is far too unstructured for my tastes. I am a pure blooded /n/egro. I liked the discussions where a news article and link were required as the OP of every thread.

If I can't discuss news as it breaks in a structured and well moderated format, at least I should be allowed to discuss it afterwards when someone writes a book about it. No?

[Anonymous No.4315661]

>>4315648
>In July, Flaherty appeared as a guest on the Lowell, Mass.-based Malevolent Freedom Radio, a white nationalist show whose motto is “embrace white culture” and whose logo is the Schwartze Sonne, or black sun, a Nazi occult symbol. Telling Malevolent Freedom host Dean Anderson that he’s not part of “the [White Nationalist] movement,” Flaherty declared, “I’m just a guy that likes to write … I just have my eyes open. My attitude is, I’m going to tell you what’s happening now, and if you want to freak out about it, I really don’t care.”
Yeah, this is a problem. Publicity is publicity, I guess, but if you're going to put out a book about something this sensitive it's probably best to avoid these kind of associations.

[Anonymous No.4315665]

>>4315653
I am posting about books and trying to discuss books. I don't care what your opinion is. I welcome all opinions.

You on the other hand are metaposting complaints about threads themselves. Who is the real shitposter here?

[Anonymous No.4315670]

>>4315653
I consider myself leftwing/liberal and in this case I've got to support >>4315665, anon. It's not impossible to have a reasonable discussion about this stuff- if it turns into nothing but /pol/ shitposting then I guess it can go, but until then I don't see why.

[Anonymous No.4315673]

>>4315665
you just metaposted a metapost about a metapost

>>4315658
you should be able to discuss politics on /pol/
if you want to talk about the book as a book you can discuss it here
literally no one in this thread has read the book as far as I'm aware so there's no point in discussing it

[Anonymous No.4315683]

>>4315673
Then let us read the book together, and we can share our thoughts here as they come up or when we finish the book.

/lit/ isn't a very fast board so assuming no censorship happens the thread will be here when you are ready for it. There's no urgency.

[Anonymous No.4315686]

>>4315673
>>4315683
By the way, I would love to hear opinions about writing style and how effectively you feel the author presents his arguments.

We can discuss not just the book subject, but the book itself.

[Anonymous No.4315702]

>>4315665
You've repeatedly started threads about books that deal with crime in the black community. No one here has read these books, so there is no discussion to be had about them. In lieu of knowledge about the actual content and quality of these books, we can only discuss what we know of the issues they present, and so the thread has become a political one.

And let's cut the bullshit - you're reposting the same shit over and over, talking about right-wing this, left-wing that, only wanting to discuss books that show black Americans in a bad light, accusing /lit/ of censorship against right wing views. You're flame-fishing /pol/ scum and you know it. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4315703]

>>4315591

Just fuck off and die.
Noone gives a fuck about you and your "censorship" look at me shit.

[Anonymous No.4315707]

>>4315702
Fortunately, I share the books themeslves.

>reposting

I actually haven't made a single "repost" in the traditional sense of reposting. I only have resurrected the thread after unfair janitor deletion.

[Anonymous No.4315712]

>>4315702
>You're flame-fishing /pol/ scum and you know it. Fuck off.

/pol/lack here and I can confirm that OP is baiting race issues on /lit/ hard. Quoting this post for truth.

[Anonymous No.4315713]

>>4315707

Reposting shitposts after removal is spamming. Please ban this troll nigger.

[Anonymous No.4315714]

it's not censorship, you dumb motherfucker, it's off topic for the board because it's political discussion, not literary discussion, and no matter how much you try to disguise that, it's political discussion. not philosophical or theoretical political discussion, either, but immediate, political, and nothing but political. fuck off back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.4315715]

>>4315703
You wish death upon me for attempting to discuss a book on a subject matter you find uncomfortable?

And you probably believe yourself righteous, and I wicked.

[Anonymous No.4315717]

>>4315715
Stop projecting and leave /lit/ alone.

[Anonymous No.4315724]

>>4315591
Global Rules #3

[Anonymous No.4315726]

>>4315715

Nah, fuck off and die means gtfo my internets and back your basement troll-cave, asshat.

Your book doesn't make me uncomfortable, but it's less /lit/ related than even the usual Harry Potter/Zizek garbage threads trolls usually post.

[Anonymous No.4315733]

The thing is that we've had reasonable, intelligent, informed discussions about conservative and radical right-wing literature, that janitors have been fine with and that people have posted in at great length.

The difference is that you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.4315735]

/pol/ outside of /pol/ is a bannable offense

[Anonymous No.4315745]

>>4315733
Okay. Then there should be no problem with my threads coexisting on this board.

Thank you for being open minded and welcoming of people with other views!

[Anonymous No.4315740]

It's not that the book is banned; it's that your presentation of it smacks of low-grade, /pol/-infused shitposting.

Your problem is form, not content.

[Anonymous No.4315748]

I'd like to point out that OP has been trying to pull this shit since January.

http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=white+girl

[Anonymous No.4315751]

>>4315740
How should I present it, other than the book's official description and a link to an EPUB copy?

>"Hey guys have you seen what this SHITLORD Colin Flaherty wrote in this book? It's outrageous!"

Would that be acceptable?

[Anonymous No.4315759]

>>4315748
One thread from January and one from November. OMG It's an invasion!

Besides, the January thread is about the 5th edition which is not as up to date as the one in the OP which is the "WND Edition".

[Anonymous No.4315761]

/lit/ is (or should be) about writings that have an artistic value. Yes, "Literature" can mean "written works" but it's not a practical definition.

A book about fitness belongs to /fit/. A political book belongs to /pol/

I don't mind off-topic threads every now and then. Those >>4315733 were acceptable. But we end up with a ridiculous number of threads about black people.

[Anonymous No.4315766]

>>4315751

You don't get it, do you?
That it's a epub "book" doesn't make it literature.
Your book is not "banned". Your posting is just shit and you're too dense to realize the difference.

Now fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4315772]

>>4315761
Do anime with political themes also get banned from /a/ and sent to /pol/?

And are movies with political themes banned from /tv/? Hollywood can scarcely make a single movie without ham handed political themes. They would have a hard time discussing any movies outside of /pol/ were your fantasy rule in effect.

[Anonymous No.4315774]

>>4315751
if you dislike reddit so much why do you have so much material regarding it
it doesn't really help the case that you're not here to shitpost and be divisive. just because you have something relevant to discuss doesn't mean you can discuss it in a way that accuses all your opponents of having whatever you consider to be bad internet hygiene

[Anonymous No.4315780]

>>4315761
this
also this >>4315724
http://www.4chan.org/rules#global
3. Do not post the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry"), grotesque ("guro"), post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography. Keep /pol/ in /pol/. In essence: Don't shitpost.

[Anonymous No.4315783]

>>4315772

Shitposters are banned on all the boards, yes.

[Anonymous No.4315787]

OP is playing coy and trying to pigeonhole his political and social discussions under the guise of relevancy by associating it with a piece of literature. This was never truly intended to be about the book, but rather the issues raised in the book.

Don't let this retard loophole the system janitor. As others pointed out, he's been doing this for a while now.

[Anonymous No.4315790]

>>4315780
As you can tell by that rule it is banning shitposting, not any discussion that could be remotely considered political in nature.

The janitor already filed a ban request with that fraudulent reason.

If you post a schlomo edit and >muh shekels, you would probably be in violation of that rule. Discussing a book that is uncomfortable to people who are far left? Not so much.