I just came upon an interesting story:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/01/white_leftists_go_after_a_black_man_trying_to_start_a_business_in_their_neighborhood.html
Who do we know who lives in this city and constantly proclaims the goodness and virtue of "progressives"? Hmm. It seems there's someone. It's like the name is on the tip of my tongue.
No. Really. It's someone who insists he stands up for minorities. A real champion of the poor and marginalized.
It'll come to me.
Friday, January 16, 2026
Now THIS Is Interesting!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
It's simple. White leftists cannot abide black folk who stray from the one True path of liberal dogma.
The article comes off as too whiny to take seriously. People often support minority voices that fit their worldview and push back against those that don’t. it's really a form of confirmation bias.
Ah, the hypocritical LEFT!!!
I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. The article points out the obvious hypocrisy of the "progressives" about whom another Louisville resident raves as wonderful people who care about minorities and the oppressed. None of them give a legitimate reason why this minority man can't open his gun store in their neighborhood. None of them consider the other more likely negatives of existing businesses, such as the bars. There's nothing "whiny" about any of that. It's legitimate criticism.
I saw an new acronym this weekend. AWFL or AWFUL. Angry While Female Upper class Liberal (or something along those lines).
It's possible that the article can report on a legitimate criticism and be whiny at the same time.
I agree with the larger point and with pointing out the hypocrisy being demonstrated, but think that the article understates the impact of the type of business being operated. I'd argue that the push back is more about the fact that it's a gun store, than about the skin color of the owner. I'd bet that the outrage would be much less, or nonexistent, if it was a bookstore, coffee shop, or restaurant. Even if the owner was clearly conservative, I suspect that the outrage would be more muted.
Personally, I question the business sense of opening a gun store in the middle of a neighborhood like this. It seems obvious that there will be very few liberals patronizing a gun store (although as MN proves, liberals do hunt) in a neighborhood like this.
As I've sat with this story for a few days, I've slightly modified my position. I agree with the larger point being made, that liberals are hypocritical on this type of issue, but don't agree that this is a "race" thing as much as a "gun" thing.
I saw that as well, and it's a good one for the hags so commonly seen at these anti-ICE and anti-Trump protests.
I totally agree that the gun control mentality is the primary issue here. But its also another example of the left's conflict in trying to hold two disparate positions which cannot help but conflict with each other when they overlap as is the case here.
As regards the "questionable business sense", it does seem a more welcoming neighborhood would've been a better choice.
For what it's worth:
1. You appear to be referencing a story in Louisville about a gun shop opening in a residential area.
2. As someone who lives here, (first of all, I've barely heard mention of the story, but beyond that...) there has been NO reporting about race at all, because, why would there be? This is not a racial question. At all. That might be one area where Jesse is saying the article sounds shrill and whiny and just a little over-the-top pathetic in their efforts to demonize, even if they have to make up a non-existing story. I only know about the race of the gun store owner because you mentioned it, not because it's been promoted that way or covered that way.
3. Liberals (some) DO buy guns.
4. I personally don't agree with the push back against this gun store. I'm not a gun owner and certainly not a gun enthusiast, but neither am I worried about responsible gun stores or gun ownership.
4a. I've not seen any literature or research suggesting that crime rates or violent crime rates go up in the presence of gun shops. I suspect (don't know) that gun shops probably have tended to open in places that are more likely to have some violence problems. Maybe there is research to that end. If so - if research shows that violence goes up in places near gun shops and that there is a causal relationship, I think the case could be argued on that point.
5. I DO suspect that there would be less demand for guns in this neighborhood, but who knows? Given the oppression and violence by this current administration, I AM hearing a call amongst some liberals to buy arms to push back against violence. Again, a bad idea, in my thinking. But to the degree that this is perhaps happening more, it's a result of liberals responding to white nationalists and other far right violence and calls for civil war, etc.
IF the research showed that violence increases in neighborhoods with gun stores, would you agree it's reasonable for neighbors in a residential area with schools, churches, synagogues all around to be concerned?
Associating this story with race is just low-level race-baiting on the part of conservatives. Thank you, Craig, for taking a stand against calling it a story about race... even if it was only half-way, milquetoast, vaguely accommodating stand.
January 19, 2026 at 1:55 PM
1. "Appear"??? It wasn't obvious to you?
2. Because of the notorious race baiting of the very people who are rejecting the establishment of this minority-owned business.
3. Noted in the article itself.
4. Good for you. No one should, including your "tribe" now whining about it.
4a. That was the angle put forth by the science teacher, not by the author.
Gun shop owners, like any other person who seeks to open a business, look for the most promising location by their own personal criteria. The areas with the most violence are often and likely to be areas where residents have less money to spend on all that's required in a blue state to be "allowed" their right of self-defense, contingent upon the arrogance of the very people rejecting this store's desire to open in their neighborhood.
5. I doubt you have any idea of what drives demand for any produce or service such that it compels a potential business owner to set up shop in any given location.
There's no "oppression and violence" from the current administration. The oppression was in Tim Walz having cops march through neighborhoods during the COVID fraud threatening citizens with arrest if they didn't get off their porches and back into their homes. It was the Biden administration arresting Trump and those allied with him on the flimsiest of charges with SWAT-style tactics. It was showing up in the same way to the homes of those like the pastor to arrest him for truly peacefully protesting abortion.
What you dishonestly regard as "oppression and violence by this current administration" is actually the proper employment of law enforcement.
Further, "white nationalism" is a hoax, there is next to no "far right violence" and certainly nothing which compares to the quantity and quality of leftist violence which has plagued the nation for quite some time, as documented here and at other blogs and websites and news commentaries.
"IF the research showed that violence increases in neighborhoods with gun stores, would you agree it's reasonable for neighbors in a residential area with schools, churches, synagogues all around to be concerned?"
If that fairy tale could somehow be proved true, perhaps. It's an absurd speculation.
"Associating this story with race is just low-level race-baiting on the part of conservatives."
No. It's an interesting observation, the logic of it evidenced by the constant bleating of your kind in support of most anything a minority person does, including criminal behavior, unless and until the black person turns out to be conservative or in this case, a gun shop owner.
Well, if Dan hasn't heard much/anything about this story, then it is clearly not important in the least. It is strange that Dan seems to think that he (as someone who lives there) brings some special insight to a story he's almost entirely ignorant of. As if he thinks that proximity to news stories somehow confers expertise, as long as it's him.
Dan, I have no doubt that the race of the store owner is a factor. It's just not the primary factor. I've seen way too many examples of how white liberals respond to black folks who stray from the path of liberal orthodoxy. But your mischaracterizing my comment in an attempt at disguising a shot at me as a "compliment" is unnecessary and cowardly.
I'm going to point something out that I've alluded to elsewhere.
Dan has an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is. He has a local opportunity to publicly stand up for this business owner, who happens to be black, and against the prevailing ASPL sentiment in the neighborhood. Has has, with very little effort or risk, the opportunity to demonstrate that his actions somewhat match his words.
Similarly, he has the ability to hop in his car, or catch a bus or plane, to MSP and put himself on the front lines of the struggle. It's ( about an 11 hour drive and probably $100 in gas each way) surely he could manage to sacrifice a few days and a couple hundred bucks for this important cause. But I think that we all know what he'll do (or not do), and I think we all can anticipate his excuses. Dan seems, to me, like someone who's walk doesn't quite align with his talk.
Craig...
Dan, I have no doubt that the race of the store owner is a factor.
And I have no doubt you are, at best, a latent racist, misogynist and lean towards white nationalism.
So, there's that.
Yeah, he's made comments suggesting that no "oppression" will take place in his vicinity in a decidedly "over my dead body" tone. Tough guy.
You have absolutely no reason whatsoever to suggest such a thing. But then, liars like you say all sorts of shit.
So, there's that.
Based on his online presence, I suspect that there is plenty of "oppression" happening in his vicinity that goes unnoticed. Much of that "oppression" that goes unnoticed is because it's folx on his side of things engaging in "oppression".
If you "have no doubt" about this, then you are either choosing to believe a lie or incredibly stupid. I've seen how the ASPL responds to black folk who wander off of the "liberal plantation" (their words, not mine). I've seen the attacks, the racial epithets, and the vitriol aimed at black folk who don't toe the liberal line.
So, yeah, I absolutely have no doubt that the race of the owner is a factor. As noted earlier, it's probably not the primary factor and probably not a factor for everyone, but it seems unlikely that a black man opening a gun store in a liberal neighborhood is going to be welcomed.
What is interesting about the whole "racist" thing that Dan and his ilk love so much is how absurd it is. Our generation was raised on the MLK "color or skin/content of character" thing. We believed it, because it fit our experience growing up with people of various "races". Beyond that, we taught it to our kids, and they accepted it as normal. Yet somehow in the 30-40 years since then, we've gone back to this "anyone who doesn't agree with me is racist" garbage. It's simply bullshit.
My objection to BLM, and the various immigrants being deported, and the Somalis who've stolen billions, isn't their skin color, it's their lack of character.
Certainly what constitutes "oppression" in DanWorld is subjective.
I would not be surprised that black gun shop owner would be less welcome than a white gun shop owner in a primarily leftist white neighborhood.
Now if it was a black health food store owner, maybe not so much.
Charges of racism by progressives is always preceded by noting low character behaviors of POCs. It's a lot easier than addressing the character or detrimental lifestyle issues which are the true causes of the "oppression" allegedly suffered by favored minority groups.
Evaluating by character is so much easier than imputing negative things to people because of their skin color.
I'd argue that in danworld, anything other than someone getting exactly what they want is "oppression". The reasons for them not getting what they want are immaterial.
I think that you make a good point. As long as a black person stick to the ASPL script, they will be welcomed. If they deviate from that script or color outside the lines of ASPL orthodoxy, they will be excoriated.
Craig, said, guessing...
As noted earlier, it's probably not the primary factor and probably not a factor for everyone, but it seems unlikely that a black man opening a gun store in a liberal neighborhood is going to be welcomed.
And, while you're guessing with ZERO data, how many people in the neighborhood knew the owner was a black man? Just a wild guess. 10%? 1%?
.0001?
Your guesses are cute. Your standing by and voting for overt racists and felons and misogynists and sexual predators? Not so much.
January 21, 2026 at 5:07 PM
What's "cute" is your nasty tone, which obviously is another manifestation of "embrace grace", you disrespect in asserting that Craig votes for racists, felons, misogynists and sexual predators with far less evidence than we have for the false diversity/inclusion of your kind. Not only did your kind balk at Abbott and DeSantis shipping "immigrants" to Martha's Vineyard, neither those fine upstanding progressives, nor any others of which I'm aware, invited any to live amongst them. Biden didn't covertly fly illegals to his neighborhood, or to Pelosi's neighborhood, and I've little doubt that when Trump's efforts to remove illegals have ended, the Tampon Tims and Jacob Freys won't be celebrating and praising illegals anymore.
And speaking of disrespectful comments...which you are quick to label as such whatever causes you to face your own failings at your Blog of Lies and Perversions...you again ignore my rule against unsupported slanders against a far better man than yourself, your president Donald J. Trump.
But such is the well known cut of your jib. "Do as I say, not as I do."
Dan, perhaps you missed the word "probably" (used multiple times) in the quote you used. For most people that would be a significant clue to my meaning. You, on the other hand, believe that you've figured out some hidden secret. The problem you have is in failing to recognize that my conclusion is based on more than just a "guess". It's based on the voluminous examples I've posted over the years of how white liberals treat black folks who stray from the "liberal plantation" (their term, not mine). That you tend to do the same (although without the racist derogatory terms (Uncle Tom/House Ni###r) isn't a surprise at all.
Strangely enough, your big response to what you present as my "guess", is simply a "guess" of your own.
That you've simply gotten to the point where you parrot what I say about you back ("cute") and flat out lies, indicates that you've given up any claim to any moral high ground or originality.
It's strange that you literally are supporting those who are trying to interfere with the arrest and deportation of actual felons, misogynists, sexual predators, pedophiles, and liars while denigrating those trying to remove these vile humans from our streets. You support those who are freeing these vile humans to prey o the innocent.
It's cute that you, who bitches abut lies/slander so frequently, are left with nothing but lies/slander.
It is wild that Dan can’t see what’s right in front of him.
He sees, because it's impossible not to see. He just refuses to accept that which is true if what is true conflicts with his personally pleasing inventions.
There is none so blind, as those who will not see.
JUST POSTING THIS HERE BECAUSE DAN KEEPS DELETING ME AT HIS BLOG OF LIES AND PERVERSIONS, and no doubt he'll delete this, too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Saying "I done done it" IS NOT PROVING IT."
I've said "I've done it" because I've done it. You know I have. You just don't have any legitimate, honest, evidence supported way to counter the supportive evidence I've provided, such as the verses I've presented in this thread. So lacking that, you simply continue telling me to "PROVE IT!" You posture as one who values "respectful, adult, good faith" dialogue, but you act like a small child who asks, "Why?" and when given an explanation, responds, "Why?" and follows the next explanation with, "Why?" and on and on and on. You demand "proof", received supportive evidence and demand proof for that.
I've not "lost", little girl. You're just bouncing about on the bloody stumps which used to be your legs before being cut off and pretending you're winning. I know the Bible is fiction for you, like Harry Potter. But to actual Christians it's the Word of God revealed to us through the various authors of the 66 books.
You don't understand this, but that's not fine at all. Clearly your corruption is too deeply ingrained, as God has clearly given you over to it. But you have to stop lying and admit I've provided evidence which clearly supports the doctrine of PSA and the ball's been in your court on this issue for a couple of years at least, and because you've no honest, evidence-based way to counter what's been provided at your demand, you pretend none has been given. Thus, saying, "Saying "I've done done it" IS NOT PROVING IT", while submitted as proof, is indeed a statement of fact and remains so until you can prove it isn't. Continually defaulting to "Scripture never mentions Penal Substitutionary Atonement" isn't evidence. It's a premise you haven't supported unless you're addled enough to think anyone has ever said the "NAME" given the doctrine is mentioned in Scripture, which NO ONE ever did.
You've lost, girl. You just aren't honest enough to admit it, or you're not bright enough to understand the Scripture you claim to love and have "seriously and prayerfully" studied.
Do yourself a favor. Find yourself an actual Christian church with an actual Christian pastor who can guide you to actual Christian educational options. Then you can truly be a better man and an actual Christian, too.
Why are you surprised? Dan has a documented history of deleting comments, even comments that answer his questions or provide the DATA he demands. That he'll lie about things is, again, a forgone conclusion.
Post a Comment