Hilary SupporterOh wow, she called super predators...super predators?
FOH and go protest something meaningful.
![]()


Hilary SupporterOh wow, she called super predators...super predators?
FOH and go protest something meaningful.
![]()


Dehumanizing of who? Did you watch the full clip? She wasn't talking about some kids in the inner city who get in trouble shoplifting or getting into fights. In context it doesn't come off the way it does in a 13 second clip. She never says anything about any color; she tied the term in with gangs and drug cartels who she likened to needing to have the same law enforcement response that the mob received while talking about a need for an increase in community policing.Because it's dehumanizing. It builds upon racist stereotypes of black male youths as not like normal white kids. They don't get boys will be boys or to be a kid that made a mistake. They're twisted into being soulless avatars of aggression. Hillary Clinton used this myth to help build support for this legislation. She and her husband validated racist feelings for political gain.
The fact that you'd defend this is honestly fukking disgusting.
Dehumanizing of who? Did you watch the full clip? She wasn't talking about some kids in the inner city who get in trouble shoplifting or getting into fights. In context it doesn't come off the way it does in a 13 second clip. She never says anything about any color; she tied the term in with gangs and drug cartels who she likened to needing to have the same law enforcement response that the mob received while talking about a need for an increase in community policing.
Yeah I kinda I agree. They seem kinda unorganized and randomBLM is suspect. I fukk with the idea but that whole "organization" has raised my eyebrows a couple of times.

There is not a single BLM. The varying branches and members often act autonomously.BLM is suspect. I fukk with the idea but that whole "organization" has raised my eyebrows a couple of times.
Everyone knows that urban crimes are tied to minority youth--especially in the early 1990s. Hillary Clinton said these people no longer have conscience or empathy and brushed aside the issue of how they got to be in gangs in 3 seconds. Stop playing dumb. This was awful. Look at the effect of that policy:Dehumanizing of who? Did you watch the full clip? She wasn't talking about some kids in the inner city who get in trouble shoplifting or getting into fights. In context it doesn't come off the way it does in a 13 second clip. She never says anything about any color; she tied the term in with gangs and drug cartels who she likened to needing to have the same law enforcement response that the mob received while talking about a need for an increase in community policing.
The New York Times reported this week on the "superpredator" myth, which 20 years ago led nearly every state in the country to expand laws that removed children from juvenile courts and exposed them to adult sentences, including life without parole.
A documentary by Retro Report, The Superpredator Scare, tells the story of how influential criminologists in the 1990s issued predictions of a coming wave of "superpredators": "radically impulsive, brutally remorseless" "elementary school youngsters who pack guns instead of lunches" and "have absolutely no respect for human life." Much of this frightening imagery was racially coded.
In 1995, John DiIulio, a professor at Princeton who coined the term "superpredator," predicted that the number of juveniles in custody would increase three-fold in the coming years and that, by 2010, there would be "an estimated 270,000 more young predators on the streets than in 1990." Criminologist James Fox joined in the rhetoric, saying publicly, "Unless we act today, we're going to have a bloodbath when these kids grow up."
These predictions set off a panic, fueled by highly publicized heinous crimes committed by juvenile offenders, which led nearly every state to pass legislation between 1992 and 1999 that dramatically increased the treatment of juveniles as adults for purposes of sentencing and punishment.
As DiIulio and Fox themselves later admitted, the prediction of a juvenile superpredator epidemic turned out to be wrong. In fact, violent juvenile crime rates had already started to fall in the mid-1990's. By 2000, the juvenile homicide rate stabilized below the 1985 level.
DiIulio and Fox were among the criminologists who submitted an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in Miller v. Alabama. In Miller and its companion case, Jackson v. Hobbs, EJI argued that the mandatory life-without-parole sentences imposed on 14-year-olds Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
The criminologists' amicus brief summarized extensive research data demonstrating that "the predictions by the proponents of the juvenile superpredator myth" were wrong. "Yet," it concluded, "the superpredator myth contributed to the dismantling of transfer restrictions, the lowering of the minimum age for adult prosecution of children, and it threw thousands of children into an ill-suited and excessive punishment regime." The research shows that these new laws "had no material effect on the subsequent decrease in crime rates," and yet almost all of these laws remain on the books. And while the Supreme Court inMiller struck down mandatory life-without-parole sentences for children, thousands of kids remain sentenced to die in prison as states fight retroactive application of the decision to sentences imposed during the height of the superpredator panic.
States facing the mounting costs of excessive sentences imposed on children have begun to reform laws enacted in response to the superpredator myth. But children as young as ten continue to be exposed to adult prosecution in the United States; 10,000 children are housed in adult jails and prisons on any given day in America; and nearly 3000 American children have been sentenced to die in prison.
This is probably why it comes off as very suspect to me. It's not unified. Different branches have different and goals and it doesn't seem like they're truly one unit.There is not a single BLM. The varying branches and members often act autonomously.
LGBT stuff is important because black trans people get brutalized all the time and no one cares. Also, 40% of people are now being born out of wedlock. It's rising fastest among white Americans (at 30% and increasing), but it's still very high among black people. Basically, this is the new normal. Within 10 to 15 years, 50% of people in the US will be born out of wedlock. They are probably trying to get the same marital benefits for non-married couples. I can see the logic.This is probably why it comes off as very suspect to me. It's not unified. Different branches have different and goals and it doesn't seem like they're truly one unit.
Guiding PrinciplesBlack Lives Matter
Why the encouragement of the normalization of non-nuclear families? Why even bring up Transgender or LGBT shyt?
I get that they don't want to end up up like Occupy Wall Street did, leaderless and aimless, but this doesn't come off better at all.
I get that there are marginalized LGBT black people and I get that there is an increasing amount of non-nuclear families but the latter makes me feel as if BLM is reaching out for support from the LGBT community for a strong foundation when the LGBT doesn't really seem to do the same for the Black community. IMO LGBT rights and issues are theirs and theirs alone. They might cross with the black communities aims and goals but to me it's like putting the cart before the horse so to speak.LGBT stuff is important because black trans people get brutalized all the time and no one cares. Also, 40% of people are now being born out of wedlock. It's rising fastest among white Americans (at 30% and increasing), but it's still very high among black people. Basically, this is the new normal. Within 10 to 15 years, 50% of people in the US will be born out of wedlock. They are probably trying to get the same marital benefits for non-married couples. I can see the logic.
Using the term "suspect" implies that there is something nefarious. They're growing, and that's fine. I think you mean to use a different term. Most of the branches have overarching themes, but they go about them independently.
Can someone explain to me how the intellectually dishonest leap was made that by her saying kids who were running around killing/robbing people were "Super Predators" equates to her calling all black youth "Super Predators".
Because I am still trying to understand the faux outrage that so many people (most of whom still have Similac on their breath) equals out to an indictment of the entirety of black youth?
And how many people have actually watched a clip of that speech that is longer than the 13 second cut that only shows the "Super Predator" mention?
Since HL has become a place where we are all about putting politicians words and actions into context I offer this video that shows Clinton was talking kids in gangs and affilliated with drug cartels when she uttered the "Super Predator" line:
So does the socially conscious sister who was protesting count herself and all other black youth among the ranks of gang members and drug cartels?
Just wondering.![]()
Yeah, nuclear households are more stable. But out of wedlock does not mean the parents don't live together. It just means that they're not married. They are talking about all of these issues through the lens of black people though. Like a black LGBT person has a 50% chance of contracting HIV. I think they're overreaching, and should probably break it up but I can see where they're going.I get that there are marginalized LGBT black people and I get that there is an increasing amount of non-nuclear families but the latter makes me feel as if BLM is reaching out for support from the LGBT community for a strong foundation when the LGBT doesn't really seem to do the same for the Black community. IMO LGBT rights and issues are theirs and theirs alone. They might cross with the black communities aims and goals but to me it's like putting the cart before the horse so to speak.
And the former? Non-nuclear families aren't a death sentence or some sort of "scarlet letter" but does'nt research show that children in two parent households are shown to do better at school and thus perform better later in life??