(07-10-2023, 11:58 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(07-10-2023, 11:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Sorry, pal. I generally agree with the sentiment of your original post but using the 1960's as a baseline for lynchings is propagating a false narrative. According to Wikipedia, there were 5 lynchings in the 60's. 3 of them were black, and 2 of them were white. I bet those whiteys were at least a little Irish. You don't think it's hyperbolic to make it seem like lynchings were common in the 60's or they were exclusive to blacks?  There were more lynchings in the 80's than the 60's, lol. The 70's were even WORSE! 100 percent of the lynchings in the 70's were Jews. I mean, there was only one, but I think we can definitively state now that the Jews had it harder than the blacks way back then. C'mon, dude. It's hyperbolic. 

As to your next point, I didn't say you espoused it. I pointed out two lies: One bought into by the right, and one bought into by the left. It was my addition to your commentary.

As to your last point, who compared the modern "plight" of middle-class whites to other historical discrimination? I am simply pointing out that the tactics used by the elites are the same. Nothing we experience currently is as bad as it was in the past. Hell, I'd take being a black dude in the 70's before I'd take the average white guy in the early 1900's.

You should look up "hyperbolic" 
It doesn't mean what you think it means.
I didn't try to establish a baseline.
I asked if Irish folk were still being lynched in the 60's. 
You've created some weird false-narrative around my post that was never my intent. Go back and read it with fresh eyes tomorrow, maybe you'll see it. 

Or just stay stuck on the number of lynchings by decade. Has zero to do with the post, but whatever. 

To the bolded:
Umm, the OP. He did. I'm merely addressing the thread topic with that.

I know what hyperbolic means, broseph. Lynchings weren't common in the 60's for anybody. There wasn't a huge disparity between blacks and whites of the lynchings that did occur. Every statement has implications, so you can't just throw out a line like, "Were Irish Americans being strung up in trees for being Irish in the mid-sixties," then pivot to make it seem like you're just asking an honest question about the Irish. You weren't. You were making an implication about black struggles in the 60's, and, more importantly, casually throwing out an idea that they were being hung from trees. Which they weren't.

I guess would be a good time to point out that 3 of them were shot, one was severely burned and died after identifying the people who set fire to his shop, and the other one was actually lynched in the 30's and survived... he died naturally in his 60's after becoming a successful artist. So, the scores' 2-2 in favor of racial harmony. Turns out, people are just haters. If you can't see how it's hyperbolic to suggest that blacks were being strung up from trees in the 60's, then that's on you, man.

It seems odd we're even having this conversation since I mostly agreed with you. All you had to do is admit to yourself you were probably being hyperbolic and just ignore my comment.

As to the OP talking about it, sure. Guess you could have been talking to him. Seemed like you were talking to me. I have adjusted my previous statement magically to make sense within this newfound context. *poof*

---