Marijuana is racist

[rogue06]

Meet the woman behind Libs of TikTok, secretly fueling the right’s outrage machine
.

Under her first handle @shaya69830552, she minimized covid, cast doubt on the election results and promoted a dubious story about a child sex trafficking ring. On Nov. 23, 2020, Raichik changed handles, this time going by @shaya_ray and identifying herself publicly as a real estate investor in Brooklyn. She began doubling down on election fraud conspiracies using QAnon-related language. Early that December, she joked about launching a clothing line titled “voter fraud is real.”

In January 2021, Raichik started talking about traveling to D.C. to support Trump on Jan. 6 at the Stop the Steal rally. When violence broke out at the Capitol that day, she tweeted a play-by-play account claiming to be on the ground. “They were rubber bullets from law enforcement. 1 hit right next to me,” she said. She posted videos from the crowd and spoke of tear gas being deployed nearby. After saying she left the riot, she used Twitter to downplay the event, claiming that it was peaceful compared to a “BLM protest.”

Propaganda works best with folks who don’t check their sources. Y’all might think about how the rest of us see this whole Q-fueled frothing that everyone you hate is a pedophile. Because honestly, the more you show this inordinate interest in sex with children, the happier we’ll all be if you stay away from our kids.

That WaPo doxxed her and put her life at risk is well known, and your continuing to promote that sort of "journalism" is nothing short of reprehensible, but be that as it may, that does nothing to address the fact that you can see for yourself, teachers saying in their own words, that what so many are positively giddy about is a far cry from your mischaracterization of them just mentioning as an aside that they have a bf / gf.

[myth]

Rhetoric and irony are wasted on some folks.

So to clarify, I wasn’t calling you names. I was directing your attention to the widespread “language game” evident in the use of the term “groomer,” hoping to spur self-reflection. “Groomer” is not being used by leftists, but by rightists, if that’s a word, an accusation both far more foul than racism and far less justified. You posted without thinking, without even reading the thread, and for that I can think of a number of appropriate adjectives, none of which include any implications of pedophilia.

So relax, and enjoy the fact there’s little chance that particular epithet will ever be hurled at you for the crime of thinking we should let gay folks be, at least not unironically

Saying "groomer" isn't a language game, it's simply a pejorative term. If you don't know what language games actually are, then it's clear you're the one not thinking. By "language games", I mean, in part, the persistent redefining of common terms with new definitions. Which, as I said, the left is very accomplished at.

[Juvenal]

Saying "groomer" isn't a language game, it's simply a pejorative term. If you don't know what language games actually are, then it's clear you're the one not thinking. By "language games", I mean, in part, the persistent redefining of common terms with new definitions. Which, as I said, the left is very accomplished at.

I called you out for failing to read the thread because had you done so, you would have been aware that the language shift from cannabis to marijuana was racist, an observation which, full disclosure, was news to me as well.

I mean, they're not actually wrong. The push to call it marijuana was indeed driven by anti-Mexican, anti-immigrant sentiment. Before then all the medical, government, etc. lkterature called it Cannabis.

a good article on the topic:

[…]

It's not a mistake pr coincidence that the term used by the people who were demonized over use of it, became the term used instead of what had been previously used.

And if you still have any doubt, here's a Newspaper editorial that was presented by the Narcotics Commisioner Harry Anslinger when he testified before congress in 1937, shortly before cannabis was made illegal:

[…]

But the mainstreaming of the term "marijuana" in place of cannabis during the push to illegality it, while preying on fears of the populace of immigrants/Mexicans trying to kill their kids with the "locoweed" .... that can't really be denied as legitimately racist.

Had you thought to correct that omission, we might have had a meaningful conversation.

Instead, I’m stuck calling you out again for the same oversight. But true to my epithet, I’m no longer holding back the observation that by speaking out of uncorrected ignorance, you’re now on the hook for calling g-land a leftist. If you’re going to waste my time, I’m going to find a way to make it enjoyable.

In context then, describing marijuana as racist is anything but a language game. It’s an accurate, objective observation. Using groomer to describe the LGBTQ+ community isn’t merely pejorative, or untrue, or a language game, though it is all three. More aptly, it’s conspiracy-fueled propaganda that can easily result in violence against the community, including murder. “I didn’t know” is a poor excuse for being complicit, and even less so as a member or former member of law enforcement. You should know better.

I’m calling you out on that, too.

[myth]

I called you out for failing to read the thread because had you done so, you would have been aware that the language shift from cannabis to marijuana was racist, an observation which, full disclosure, was news to me as well.



Had you thought to correct that omission, we might have had a meaningful conversation.

Instead, I’m stuck calling you out again for the same oversight. But true to my epithet, I’m no longer holding back the observation that by speaking out of uncorrected ignorance, you’re now on the hook for calling g-land a leftist. If you’re going to waste my time, I’m going to find a way to make it enjoyable.

In context then, describing marijuana as racist is anything but a language game. It’s an accurate, objective observation. Using groomer to describe the LGBTQ+ community isn’t merely pejorative, or untrue, or a language game, though it is all three. More aptly, it’s conspiracy-fueled propaganda that can easily result in violence against the community, including murder. “I didn’t know” is a poor excuse for being complicit, and even less so as a member or former member of law enforcement. You should know better.

I’m calling you out on that, too.

I read the thread before my first post I just don't agree with the assessment that the term is, in fact, racist. But then, I think the left is way too willing to call anyone and everything racist, and I use the term more narrowly than the left. I think the left uses the term more expansively than they should, and in fact, that doing so causing confusion and inhibits the ability to actually fight against racism. But I digress.

You're not "calling me out" on anything, you're merely speaking out of your anus from ignorance. I've never used the term "groomer" for the LGBTQ community, so your weird attack on me with that term is both off-topic and utterly inane. You clearly don't understand language games, so maybe go read some postmodern philosophers and get back to me when you're not drowning in the deeper end of the pool.

I'll be ending our discussion here, since you clearly have nothing of value to say.

[Gondwanaland]

I called you out for failing to read the thread because had you done so, you would have been aware that the language shift from cannabis to marijuana was racist, an observation which, full disclosure, was news to me as well.



Had you thought to correct that omission, we might have had a meaningful conversation.

Instead, I’m stuck calling you out again for the same oversight. But true to my epithet, I’m no longer holding back the observation that by speaking out of uncorrected ignorance, you’re now on the hook for calling g-land a leftist. If you’re going to waste my time, I’m going to find a way to make it enjoyable.

In context then, describing marijuana as racist is anything but a language game. It’s an accurate, objective observation. Using groomer to describe the LGBTQ+ community isn’t merely pejorative, or untrue, or a language game, though it is all three. More aptly, it’s conspiracy-fueled propaganda that can easily result in violence against the community, including murder. “I didn’t know” is a poor excuse for being complicit, and even less so as a member or former member of law enforcement. You should know better.

I’m calling you out on that, too.

Don't pull me into your debate when you're going to accuse me of "piling on" like you did in that other thread.

[Juvenal]

I read the thread before my first post I just don't agree with the assessment that the term is, in fact, racist.

On the one hand, there’s you saying you read the thread before your first post, and on the other hand there’s the post itself which interacts with nothing previously posted and, like this latest offering, fails to engage with the evidence presented of the term’s racist origins. As a former law enforcement officer, perhaps you’ll sympathize with my decision to accept evidence of guilt even when it conflicts with assertions of innocence.

But then, I think the left is way too willing to call anyone and everything racist, and I use the term more narrowly than the left. I think the left uses the term more expansively than they should, and in fact, that doing so causing confusion and inhibits the ability to actually fight against racism. But I digress.

My buddy Tony was called out for anti-semitism by one of the other members of our coffee clutch in college after saying he didn’t like matzah balls. In defense of the young lady making the accusation, her parents were jews who lived through the holocaust and were understandably hypersensitive. There are accusations of racism which are similarly biased, accusations which are deliberate falsehoods, and accusations that fill the gray area where determining the truth requires greater scrutiny.

The term, marijuana, is unquestionably racist in origin. The specific evidence in G-land’s post was compelling. But, like the battle flag of the confederacy, its modern usage can’t be definitively linked to racism without further examination of the mindset and education of the user.

You're not "calling me out" on anything, you're merely speaking out of your anus from ignorance. I've never used the term "groomer" for the LGBTQ community, so your weird attack on me with that term is both off-topic and utterly inane. You clearly don't understand language games, so maybe go read some postmodern philosophers and get back to me when you're not drowning in the deeper end of the pool.

I'll be ending our discussion here, since you clearly have nothing of value to say.

Perhaps there’s a postmodern philosopher whose insight into “language games” you’d like to recommend. But more likely, your lack of specificity is characteristic of “speaking out of your anus,” a phrase almost painful to reproduce even for the purpose of lifting it up for mockery. It’s one thing to have nothing of value to say, like, for example George Will, but the greater crime in my view is, with George Will as counterexample, failing to clothe the lack of contribution with anything approaching a threadbare eloquence.

Let me say that more simply and directly, compensating for the demonstrated lack of reading comprehension, or retention, or limited vocabulary, or whatever it might be that drives your fantasies of someone calling you out for using the term “groomer.” I called you out for complicity, and I did so because of your minimization of others usage of the term. And while it’s conceivable the accusation is poorly founded, even a poorly founded accusation remains an accusation. That’s how language works.

I sympathize with the target of a takedown wishing to absent themselves from the arena. But there’s no point pretending the victim is the final arbiter of value. I found it endlessly amusing. Admittedly, that’s a character flaw I should try to correct someday, but the fact is, until I can mend my unregenerate ways, when confronted with an ideological opponent rushing toward a cliff I’ve repeatedly warned them about, I will continue to reach for a camera rather than making any further attempt to save the victim from the consequences of their own actions.

[Juvenal]

Don't pull me into your debate when you're going to accuse me of "piling on" like you did in that other thread.

Snowflake.

[Gondwanaland]

Snowflake.

Blowhard.

[Juvenal]

Don't pull me into your debate when you're going to accuse me of "piling on" like you did in that other thread.

Snowflake.

Blowhard.

No one accused you of piling on, just of being a pile. Go back and read the post.

I called you out as a snowflake because you can’t handle criticism without melting down. You were wrong about 1901 being recent history, wrong about the American Nazi Party being relevant since Rockwell got his reward, and wrong about three growing to four being the beginning of a pile on as it made its way to eight as of yesterday. Suck it up, correct your mistakes and move on.

When you’re wrong, I’ll call you out on it, and when you’re right, I’ll call that out, too, even when it contradicts one of my prior assessments, as happened right here in this thread. Because none of this is personal for me. I don’t like you or dislike you. Honestly, my strongest opinions are saved for your writing skills or lack thereof.

When your stated reasoning is flawed, I’m going to look for better explanations. You’re objecting to having a public post on a discussion board credited in a discussion. And the reference wasn’t even critical. That says it all. You’re afraid the cover of acceptance from being part of the echo chamber is at risk if someone notices me agreeing with you. After a couple decades posting on sites where I’m guaranteed to see criticism, I’ve got stones to spare if you need to borrow some.

And if you’re still worried about getting your crystals roasted in the other thread, go ahead and grab a few more to make it a fair fight.

[Gondwanaland]

No one accused you of piling on, just of being a pile. Go back and read the post.

I read the post. You moaned about piling on and then responded to my post. So yes, you did, you absolute cockwomble.