Poll of the Day > KKK Leader turned PRIEST asks a Black Couple for FORGIVENESS..but they REFUSED!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Probably because the board is full of closet-religious conservatives pretending to be liberals who believe in indelible sin so they regard the notion that people can change -- the entire ideal of our justice system -- as being impossible

Mother of god

Where does he come up with this shit
---

TheSlinja posted...

Zeus posted...

Oh, was somebody murdered? Did he beat somebody up? Did he burn down their home? Rape somebody? No? He just burned a part of their lawn? Sounds like vandalism to me.

welp this is it, zeus has gone off the deep end
he was always teetering but the trump election arc just slowly pushed him too far
he is just another troll now

Zeus doesnt understand context in a lot of situations.

Anyone with even a loose understanding of American history during the civil rights movement would understand how heinous the act of burning a cross is. Pretty fucking ignorant for anyone to chalk to up to mere vandalism.
---

Far-Queue posted...

Anyone with even a loose understanding of American history during the civil rights movement would understand how heinous the act of burning a cross is. Pretty f***ing ignorant for anyone to chalk to up to mere vandalism.

Okay, so it was threatening vandalism. That's still not as bad as beating someone up, burning down a house, raping someone, etc. Are you going to tell me next that a rape threat is just as bad as raping someone?
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

Are you going to tell me next that a rape threat is just as bad as raping someone?

Threatening to rape someone is telling them that you're going to rape them. It's not a thought crime. It's the person telling them they are going to rape them.

Someone putting a burning cross on the lawn of a black persons home is telling them they want to do whatever the KKK did to black people.

They didn't go up to the house, and spray paint, "William was here."

No, the action said, "I am white, you are black, I want what the KKK does to people done to you."

It's not rocket science here.
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

Far-Queue posted...

Anyone with even a loose understanding of American history during the civil rights movement would understand how heinous the act of burning a cross is. Pretty f***ing ignorant for anyone to chalk to up to mere vandalism.

Okay, so it was threatening vandalism. That's still not as bad as beating someone up, burning down a house, raping someone, etc. Are you going to tell me next that a rape threat is just as bad as raping someone?

Another person who lacks basic knowledge in American history. Pathetic.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Threatening to rape someone is telling them that you're going to rape them. It's not a thought crime. It's the person telling them they are going to rape them.

Someone putting a burning cross on the lawn of a black persons home is telling them they want to do whatever the KKK did to black people.

They didn't go up to the house, and spray paint, "William was here."

No, the action said, "I am white, you are black, I want what the KKK does to people done to you."

It's not rocket science here.

Okay, but my point is that words or messages are not the same as actions.

Far-Queue posted...

Another person who lacks basic knowledge in American history. Pathetic.

This isn't basic knowledge, actually. This is pretty specific knowledge about the KKK. Basic knowledge would be things like "George Washington was the first POTUS under the new Constitution" or "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." Either way, I don't need to know this tidbit of history to know that actually committing a heinous act is worse than saying you'll commit a heinous act.
---

This is shit I learned in high school. Its basic knowledge.

If you dont understand the sheer terrorism employed by the KKK prior to and during the civil rights movement, and even up to today, and you dont understand the impact behind the message sent with the burning crosses, then youre ignorant. Just ignorant. Go read a book and try to better yourself.
---

Far-Queue posted...

If you dont understand the sheer terrorism employed by the KKK prior to and during the civil rights movement, and even up to today, and you dont understand the impact behind the message sent with the burning crosses, then youre ignorant. Just ignorant. Go read a book and try to better yourself.

I learned about the KKK in grade school too. I learned that they were revered for a time as a good organization, but then it was revealed that they were lynching black people and indeed committing terrorism. What I didn't learn is a very specific piece of information about them like the one you're describing. It's not like there was an entire unit of history dedicated to the KKK. I'm not going to read a book about the KKK as that's a waste of my time. I don't need to know every single little detail about the KKK and how they operate(d) to know that equating threats and vandalism to the actual heinous act is ridiculous. If I say I'm going to punch you, that's not as bad as if I actually punched you. If I say that I want to commit genocide, that's not as bad as actually committing genocide.
---

That depends. Does he donate generously to the Democratic party?
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

I learned about the KKK in grade school too. I learned that they were revered for a time as a good organization, but then it was revealed that they were lynching black people and indeed committing terrorism. What I didn't learn is a very specific piece of information about them like the one you're describing. It's not like there was an entire unit of history dedicated to the KKK. I'm not going to read a book about the KKK as that's a waste of my time. I don't need to know every single little detail about the KKK and how they operate(d) to know that equating threats and vandalism to the actual heinous act is ridiculous. If I say I'm going to punch you, that's not as bad as if I actually punched you. If I say that I want to commit genocide, that's not as bad as actually committing genocide.

I learned about the KKK...

Apparently not.

Im not going to read a book...

Being willfully ignorant is much more pathetic than being ignorant by circumstance. If youre not willing to make an effort to educate yourself, then maybe you shouldnt speak to things you dont understand.
---

Far-Queue posted...

I learned about the KKK...

Apparently not.

Im not going to read a book...

Being willfully ignorant is much more pathetic than being ignorant by circumstance. If youre not willing to make an effort to educate yourself, then maybe you shouldnt speak to things you dont understand.

Okay. Are you going to address my actual argument rather than play the "you're uneducated" card, or are you just going to continue dodging? Tell me what is so wrong with my logic. If something about the nature of cross-burning renders my reasoning void, I'd like to know. If you're so educated, you can at least tell me that.
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

Okay, but my point is that words or messages are not the same as actions.

You don't have a point. You think you do, but you don't. Even when saying what your "point" is, you're using a different word than you did previously.

First you said threats, now you're saying, words. A threat is a specific type of word. Which you're failing to understand.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

First you said threats, now you're saying, words. A threat is a specific type of word. Which you're failing to understand.

Why does it matter that a threat is a specific type of word? I don't see how that hurts my argument. I realize that threats can be delivered without words, but the purpose of both is to communicate information. But sure, go ahead and play the semantics game.
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

Far-Queue posted...

I learned about the KKK...

Apparently not.

Im not going to read a book...

Being willfully ignorant is much more pathetic than being ignorant by circumstance. If youre not willing to make an effort to educate yourself, then maybe you shouldnt speak to things you dont understand.

Okay. Are you going to address my actual argument rather than play the "you're uneducated" card, or are you just going to continue dodging? Tell me what is so wrong with my logic. If something about the nature of cross-burning renders my reasoning void, I'd like to know. If you're so educated, you can at least tell me that.

No, Im not going to address your bullshit argument, because the entire foundation of your argument is built on ignorance.

Its not my job to teach basic grade school social studies to every misinformed individual on the internet.

Im not trying to act all holier-than-thou or like some kind of history buff, but if you dont understand the symbolism behind the burning cross and why its not just some toothless threat to be shrugged off, that its not some simple act of vandalism, then sorry, but thats ignorant.

I barely graduated high school. Drive a fucking tractor trailer for a living. Its not that Im highly educated. This is basic fucking knowledge, and its readily available to you right now, on the internet, or at your local library. Go read up on it.
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

purpose of both is to communicate information

so then what the fuck are you trying to argue here man? People who burn crosses on the lawns of african american homes are communicating very specific information. you don't need any sort of intelligence other than "this is what KKK members did in the past to incite threats or fear" to understand what is going on.

you and zeus are ridiculous. literally no one else in this topic is agreeing with what either of you are talking about and still you refuse to acknowledge that.
---

Far-Queue posted...

Im not trying to act all holier-than-thou or like some kind of history buff, but if you dont understand the symbolism behind the burning cross and why its not just some toothless threat to be shrugged off, that its not some simple act of vandalism, then sorry, but thats ignorant.

And I'm telling you that even if it wasn't a toothless threat and was in fact a very real and "toothy" threat, it's not as bad as actually carrying out the threat. Okay, so he burned a cross on their lawn. Nobody is denying that's a bad thing. As a Catholic, that especially bothers me. Did he (the guy in question) carry out the threat? If not, then I guess it really was a toothless threat.

I did read up on the significance of burning crosses, and from what I gather the only real meaning is what you've already stated. Intimidation. I don't see how this debunks my argument.

Super_Thug44 posted...

so then what the f*** are you trying to argue here man? People who burn crosses on the lawns of african american homes are communicating very specific information. you don't need any sort of intelligence other than "this is what KKK members did in the past to incite threats or fear" to understand what is going on.

What I'm arguing is that if the now-priest William Aitcheson did not act on his threat, then people should stop acting as though he did. He intimidated/threatened them, sure, but a threat itself is not as bad as that threat being carried out.

Super_Thug44 posted...

you and zeus are ridiculous. literally no one else in this topic is agreeing with what either of you are talking about and still you refuse to acknowledge that.

We're ridiculous because we're touting common sense? Why should I care if no one else agrees with me? That's not a valid reason as to why I'm wrong. This is the argument of a spineless person who can't stand to hold an opinion different from everyone else.
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

What I'm arguing is that if the now-priest William Aitcheson did not act on his threat, then people should stop acting as though he did. He intimidated/threatened them, sure, but a threat itself is not as bad as that threat being carried out.

i don't know what else to say to you man. no one is arguing that his threatening actions are just as bad as actually physically harming the family. we are saying that it is ridiculous to equate what he did to "just vandalism".

it's like you are purposefully choosing to ignore what people are saying in this topic and spout some mindless nonsense for the sake of argument.
---

Super_Thug44 posted...

i don't know what else to say to you man. no one is arguing that his threatening actions are just as bad as actually physically harming the family. we are saying that it is ridiculous to equate what he did to "just vandalism".

Okay, fair point. It still doesn't make sense to hold onto something like this for 40 years. I've had traumatic experiences too, of arguably the same caliber, but I let go of them maybe a year or two later.
---

the point is you don't get to choose what is unreasonable when it comes to trauma just because you don't think it was a big deal
people are different, in different situations and different personalities, and you don't get to decide what is or isnt a big deal for them.
---

TheSlinja posted...

the point is you don't get to choose what is unreasonable when it comes to trauma just because you don't think it was a big deal
people are different, in different situations and different personalities, and you don't get to decide what is or isnt a big deal for them.

That's not what I'm doing. I think it very much was/is a big deal. What I'm saying is that holding onto these things for literally decades is a stupid thing to do.
---

then clearly you dont think its as big of a deal as they do
thats the difference
---

TheSlinja posted...

then clearly you dont think its as big of a deal as they do
thats the difference

Continue to believe that it's okay if people don't get past things then. Meanwhile, I'll continue to believe that people can and should get over traumatic experiences and have their own agency.
---

of course I think that people can and should
I just dont think its

a stupid thing

if they dont.
no one is perfect, life is hard, and all that
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

TheSlinja posted...

then clearly you dont think its as big of a deal as they do
thats the difference

Continue to believe that it's okay if people don't get past things then. Meanwhile, I'll continue to believe that people can and should get over traumatic experiences and have their own agency.

My drug-addicted stepfather was physically and emotionally abusive toward my brothers and I growing up. My mother died suddenly when I was a kid. Everyone has traumatic experiences to varying degrees.

But comparing a singular traumatic experience, or even the years of abuse I suffered as a child, to decades of murder, rape, and terrorism perpetrated by the KKK, on top of the centuries of systemic oppression and racism that African-Americans suffered through... thats a level of trauma and fear that finds a root in your very bones.

Who the fuck are you to tell people they should just get over it? Even if it were a minor trauma, its not your place to determine when its their time to forgive and move on.
---

TheSlinja posted...

of course I think that people can and should
I just dont think its

a stupid thing

if they dont.
no one is perfect, life is hard, and all that

Yeah, life is hard. Why make it harder by holding onto something that happened literally decades ago? There is literally no benefit to holding onto an experience like this. All it is doing is generating a steady stream of cortisol in their bodies. Thus, it's a stupid thing to do.

I do feel bad that this happened to this couple. I'm not saying that they're obligated to forgive Fr. Aitcheson. However, I am saying that the smart thing to do is forgive the guy and move on. I'm not even saying they should forget what happened. I'm a firm believer of forgiving but not forgetting. Not forgiving at all is beneficial to no one, though.
---

Far-Queue posted...

But comparing a singular traumatic experience, or even the years of abuse I suffered as a child, to decades of murder, rape, and terrorism perpetrated by the KKK, on top of the centuries of systemic oppression and racism that African-Americans suffered through... thats a level of trauma and fear that finds a root in your very bones.

Considering that these people did not live through slavery, I fail to see how this is relevant. I doubt that you've lived through any instances of either of these things either, so why are you getting offended for them? Don't be a white knight. You really seem like a SJW, because only SJWs like to bring up bad/stupid things that happened in the past as justification for people doing bad/stupid things in the present.

I'm sure you'll counter with, "Lol you white-knighted for that priest! SJW!" Except you'd be failing to consider that I defended the fact that he has changed, and not that he did nothing wrong or stupid.
---

Super_Thug44 posted...

wow. you are literally worse than ICOYAR now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Zero_Maniac posted...

Zeus posted...

Probably because the board is full of closet-religious conservatives pretending to be liberals who believe in indelible sin so they regard the notion that people can change -- the entire ideal of our justice system -- as being impossible

What? That's not a religious or conservative stance, at least not a Christian stance. I'm a religious conservative myself, and I firmly believe people are capable of change, even major change. Five years ago I just went to Mass because my parents would punish me otherwise. Now I go to Mass because I want to go to Mass, and it's not as though my parents could do anything aside from guilt trip me if I didn't want to.

Indelible sin is the only way to explain it, though. And their stance is a position incongruent with the liberalism they pretend to embody. But you're right, it would be unfair to besmirch any group at large by comparing them to these individuals.

Mead posted...

Probably because the board is full of closet-religious conservatives pretending to be liberals who believe in indelible sin so they regard the notion that people can change -- the entire ideal of our justice system -- as being impossible

Mother of god

Where does he come up with this shit

By looking at people like you.
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

Far-Queue posted...

But comparing a singular traumatic experience, or even the years of abuse I suffered as a child, to decades of murder, rape, and terrorism perpetrated by the KKK, on top of the centuries of systemic oppression and racism that African-Americans suffered through... thats a level of trauma and fear that finds a root in your very bones.

Considering that these people did not live through slavery, I fail to see how this is relevant. I doubt that you've lived through any instances of either of these things either, so why are you getting offended for them? Don't be a white knight. You really seem like a SJW, because only SJWs like to bring up bad/stupid things that happened in the past as justification for people doing bad/stupid things in the present.

I'm sure you'll counter with, "Lol you white-knighted for that priest! SJW!" Except you'd be failing to consider that I defended the fact that he has changed, and not that he did nothing wrong or stupid.

Im not offended for them. Only thing that offends me here is your blatant ignorance.

Im pointing out that you dont understand anything about the civil rights movement, or the severity of the actions of the KKK, or the impact the KKK has had on the African-American experience. Therefore, any arguments or assumptions youre making about any of this is only serving to perpetuate your own ignorance.

Bringing up white-knighting and terms like SJW further show that you have no real argument here, and youre now resorting to these trendy internet catchphrases in lieu offering anything intelligent to the conversation.
---

Far-Queue posted...

TheSlinja posted...

Zeus posted...

Oh, was somebody murdered? Did he beat somebody up? Did he burn down their home? Rape somebody? No? He just burned a part of their lawn? Sounds like vandalism to me.

welp this is it, zeus has gone off the deep end
he was always teetering but the trump election arc just slowly pushed him too far
he is just another troll now

Zeus doesnt understand context in a lot of situations.

Anyone with even a loose understanding of American history during the civil rights movement would understand how heinous the act of burning a cross is. Pretty fucking ignorant for anyone to chalk to up to mere vandalism.

And you don't understand the context of vandalism. You apparently assume it's all fun and hip stuff. Vandalism can be threatening... but it's still vandalism and it still happened 40 years ago. Here's some context for you, though: There have been family members of murder victims have found it in their hearts to forgive their loved one's killer merely after he became remorseful and have done so in far less time and even gone so far as to speak on the killer's behalf at the parole hearing. However, here you have a person who not only served out his sentence and reformed his evil behavior, but he's served as a priest.
---

Far-Queue posted...

Bringing up white-knighting and terms like SJW further show that you have no real argument here, and youre now resorting to these trendy internet catchphrases in lieu offering anything intelligent to the conversation.

...he says while forgetting he said this to Zero not that long ago:

Far-Queue posted...

Its not my job to teach basic grade school social studies to every misinformed individual on the internet.

ie, another version of the every trendy "educate yourself" shit-meme.
---

Again, Zeus, just because someone may be able to move past trauma and forgive their transgressors relatively easy does not mean everyone can, and its no ones place but the victim to say when they decide to move on.

Comparing KKK cross-burning to simple vandalism is ignorant. Already been over this. You could stand to read up on this yourself @Zeus
---

Far-Queue posted...

Again, Zeus, just because someone may be able to move past trauma and forgive their transgressors relatively easy does not mean everyone can, and its no ones place but the victim to say when they decide to move on.

The problem with the whole "well, all trauma is individualized!" is the fact that somebody who gets jostled in a crowd may be traumatized worse than somebody who was raped. At a certain point, what you consider trauma may instead be demonstrative of some underlying mental illness. And if the couple was so badly traumatized that they're still suffering 40 years later, they should have received psychiatric counseling over 30 years ago.

Far-Queue posted...

Comparing KKK cross-burning to simple vandalism is ignorant.

Actually, YOU were the guy who compared the cross-burning to tagging a bridge. I just called it vandalism, which is literally what it is. The fact that you don't understand what vandalism is or the fact that vandalism can be (and often is) threatening is on you. And, to put it the same way that somebody else described it recently, "its not my job to teach basic grade school social studies to every misinformed individual on the internet."

@Far-Queue
---

Not surprised Zeus would defend a hate crime by calling it mere property damage literally at all.
---

Zeus posted...

Far-Queue posted...

Again, Zeus, just because someone may be able to move past trauma and forgive their transgressors relatively easy does not mean everyone can, and its no ones place but the victim to say when they decide to move on.

The problem with the whole "well, all trauma is individualized!" is the fact that somebody who gets jostled in a crowd may be traumatized worse than somebody who was raped. At a certain point, what you consider trauma may instead be demonstrative of some underlying mental illness. And if the couple was so badly traumatized that they're still suffering 40 years later, they should have received psychiatric counseling over 30 years ago.

Far-Queue posted...

Comparing KKK cross-burning to simple vandalism is ignorant.

Actually, YOU were the guy who compared the cross-burning to tagging a bridge. I just called it vandalism, which is literally what it is. The fact that you don't understand what vandalism is or the fact that vandalism can be (and often is) threatening is on you. And, to put it the same way that somebody else described it recently, "its not my job to teach basic grade school social studies to every misinformed individual on the internet."

@Far-Queue

Actually, @Zeus, that was someone else that brought up tagging a bridge. I used the term vandalism in its broadest sense.
---

Oh, I guess it was EightySeven who equated all vandalism with its most harmless form. My mistake.
---

somebody who gets jostled in a crowd may be traumatized worse than somebody who was raped. At a certain point, what you consider trauma may instead be demonstrative of some underlying mental illness

What happened to you that made you end up this way?
---

That said, I should remind you that this is vandalism:



It's also the destruction of somebody's personal property, which would have created hardship and thus been more understandable to hold a grudge over.

This is also vandalism:



And it was damage to personal property in addition to being a pretty explicit death threat on that wall rather than just an implied threat using an icon. That's not counting the other property damage within. (If it's not clear, the message reads along the lines of "Get out of USA. You will die here." The stuff on his *other* walls I can't even post here.)

And another:



Minor property damage compared to the first two and without a direct death threat, but it includes racial slurs and a Swastika.

The argument isn't that vandalism is harmless -- although in the couple's case there was no property damage unless it was their cross -- but instead that it was of a far lesser harm than other things for which people often forgive a contrite criminal and do so in far less time.
---

Mead posted...

somebody who gets jostled in a crowd may be traumatized worse than somebody who was raped. At a certain point, what you consider trauma may instead be demonstrative of some underlying mental illness

What happened to you that made you end up this way?

Says the guy who leaves me on his ignore list until he takes me off it just long enough to harass me... and who accused me of stalking his wife even while attempting to cyberstalk me.
---

Zeus,

Your views are intricately delusional and sincerely offensive in a uniquely inconsiderate manner.

The way your mind twists and obscures reality is genuinely fascinating and I hope that you will at least consider donating your brain after you pass away for the purposes of scientific research, I think a lot could be learned about how the mind can misconstrue even the most basic information.

Love, Mead
---

Far-Queue posted...

Bringing up white-knighting and terms like SJW further show that you have no real argument here

Says the person bringing up personal anecdotes and irrelevant history.
---

Jen0125 posted...

Not surprised Zeus would defend a hate crime by calling it mere property damage literally at all.

He's not defending this hate crime, though. He's giving it the appropriate label. Is it a hate crime? Yes. Is it a threat? Yes. Is it vandalism? Also yes. He's not incorrect in calling it vandalism.
---

Hes incorrect(redundant) in acting like it is only an act of vandalism

The fact that he cant wrap his head about how threatened and shaken a family would feel about an organization essentially declaring that they wanted them dead in such a racially turbulent time would be astonishing if we were talking about any other user
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

Jen0125 posted...

Not surprised Zeus would defend a hate crime by calling it mere property damage literally at all.

He's not defending this hate crime, though. He's giving it the appropriate label. Is it a hate crime? Yes. Is it a threat? Yes. Is it vandalism? Also yes. He's not incorrect in calling it vandalism.

Was there vandalism? Yes. Was that the only outcome that arose? No. To label it mere vandalism or property damage is totally tone deaf.
---

Jen0125 posted...

Was there vandalism? Yes. Was that the only outcome that arose? No.

No one is talking about vandalism as an "outcome", aside from you I suppose. We're talking about it as something that was done. The outcome of the vandalism would be the trauma of the couple.
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

I don't see how that hurts my argument.

It's obvious from all your posts that you don't see a lot of things.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Zero_Maniac posted...

I don't see how that hurts my argument.

It's obvious from all your posts that you don't see a lot of things.

Or I get lazy and don't bother to read paragraphs of ranting. Or I actually do see what is being said and disagree with it anyways.

Nice adhom, by the way. I guess that's how you establish your moral superiority, huh?
---

Mead posted...

Hes incorrect(redundant) in acting like it is only an act of vandalism

The fact that he cant wrap his head about how threatened and shaken a family would feel about an organization essentially declaring that they wanted them dead in such a racially turbulent time would be astonishing if we were talking about any other user

No use trying to explain it, theyre too dense.
---

Far-Queue posted...

Mead posted...

Hes incorrect(redundant) in acting like it is only an act of vandalism

The fact that he cant wrap his head about how threatened and shaken a family would feel about an organization essentially declaring that they wanted them dead in such a racially turbulent time would be astonishing if we were talking about any other user

No use trying to explain it, theyre too dense.

No, I see what you're saying. I think we're just talking/typing past each other.
---

Zeus posted...

Oh, I guess it was EightySeven who equated all vandalism with its most harmless form. My mistake.

Excuse me, but you're the one who was trying to brush it off as something minor as if the primary consequence of the act was merely a little property damage. Don't try to pretend after the fact you weren't downplaying it to petty vandalism.

In case you don't remember:

Zeus posted...

If it's 40 years and the only thing they suffered was a damaged lawn, you can kinda let it go

Talk about totally missing the mark, but I guess when you're utterly devoid of empathy it's hard to grasp the potential psychological concerns with things like this. Again, there's a reason why this is the textbook example for terroristic threats and it's not because people are emotionally connected to their lawns.

Mead posted...

Zeus,

Your views are intricately delusional and sincerely offensive in a uniquely inconsiderate manner.

The way your mind twists and obscures reality is genuinely fascinating and I hope that you will at least consider donating your brain after you pass away for the purposes of scientific research, I think a lot could be learned about how the mind can misconstrue even the most basic information.

Love, Mead

Mead,

You're a consummate troll and manipulative, sociopathic liar. Someday I hope you consider participating in psychological studies because entire books could be written about you.

Also you don't know how to write a letter. I'm not sure where in your life you went wrong in that regard, but I'm sure it will prove instructional as well.

Sincerely,
Zeus
---