Kinda of crazy that 2 shows had a scene about a fictional race massacre that never happened and was made up in the 1990s within a year of each other
>>222138775Fuck the watchmen show. Jewish agprop to serve only leftists. Fuck the bug people that enjoyed it too.
>>222138775I hate jewish historical revision so much, fucking liars.
>>222138775No, it's perfectly normal:>a fad comes in>then to the dustbin of history
>>222138775And they both came out pre floyd.
>>222138816>Fuck the bug people that enjoyed it tooDon't worry, nobody watched it (canceled after 1 season)
>>222138927Not an accident, it was a part of a big propaganda push to gin up those race riots. They'd tried a few times earlier with other retarded fake martyrs and even that book buck breaking as well.
>>222138775there was nothing fictional about it
>>222139067>no there was a cathulu and a black guy who didn't wear clothes who could phase through walls en sheet
>>222139094the race massacre, retard
>>222139167there's literally no evidence the race massacre ever happened and there aren't any accounts or documentation of it until the 1990s, retard. Literally everyone who tried to sue over it saying it was real lost in court
>>222139305he knows, he's just trying to push a lie because he's jewish
>>222138775Just because your ass didn't learn about it in school doesn't mean it was made up.
>>222139900see>>222139305
>>222139305wrong. there are contemporaneous newspaper reports even in the white papers of the time
>>222138775>Won a ton of Awards and both 2nd Seasons got cancellednobody said a word
>>222139067>>222139167There was no "race massacre". It was a "race RIOT", of which there have been many in the history of the world. End up until just a couple years ago this was pretty much universally understood.
>>222140021*AND up until just a couple years ago The fuck is up with my AutoCorrect?
>>222139970See: >>222140021I'm not seeing anything in that newspaper confirming that it was a "race massacre" rather than a "race riot".
>>222138775>fictional race massacre that never happened>>222139970Go back to your wooden doors posts, Eustace
>>222140063>I'm going to split hairs over the definition of 'massacre' nowHave you ever fucked another person in your life or legally purchased alcohol
>>222140021>>222140063
What's your favorite fake race-based grievance-event that historical revisionists have tried to push recently in order to agitate racial hatred/violence, /tv/?I think mine might be those "mass graves" for non-white children they claimed were found under historical schools in Canada, implying that Canadian schools in the 1800's were some kind of hub for genocide against non-white children, but then actual investigation produced zero "mass graves" and barely even any bodies in general, and the few human remains they found were not exclusively children, were not exclusively non-white and could not even be proven to be connected to any sort of historical trend.
>>222138775oh cool it's one of those "chuds deny history" threads which belong on /pol/
>>222140143Also now they have an entire holiday based on a blatant lie and a bunch of churches got burned down because of it
>>222140144while not actually explaining anything the series switched that was historically incorrect, just fixating on whether one scary word or another is a more accurate description
>>222140021>There was no "race massacre". It was a "race RIOT"Okay so then the OP that said>>222138775>fictionalwas incorrect. It might have been exaggerated or sensationalized, but something happened, so it wasn't fictional or fabulized.
>>222140085>>222140129That's not "splitting hairs", retard. The term "riot" and the term "massacre" have two very different political and ethical implications in how the historical event is to be interpreted. "Riot" implies that it was a conflict where more than one side was participating in the violence, which is accurate. "Massacre" implies that it was one side (i.e. one race, i.e. specifically White people, of course) acting as the aggressor and inflicting violence against an "innocent" recipient, like a mass-lynching. You naturally want the latter, because it demonizes white people and gives non-whites yet another supposed historical grievance to morally justify violence and aggression on their part in the present. That's why ALL THE WAY up until the late 2010's it was referred to as the "Tulsa Race Riot", and never the "Tulsa Race Massacre", until there was a concerted effort made by revisionists to change the name and thus the context and perception of the event.If that's not true, and the terms are TOTALLY equivalent like you claim, let's stop referring to the 2020 Floyd Riots by that name and start calling them the "2020 Floyd Race Massacre" instead. You'd be fine with that, right, since you don't want to split hairs over the difference between a "riot" and a "massacre"?
>>222139970that GayI
>>222140212The fact that it was a "race massacre", i.e. a one-sided act of racially-motivated violence by Whites against innocent black victims as the narrative goes, is what is fictional.Not even OP implied that the Tulsa Race Riot was "fictional" or that NO event took place, but rather that the supposed "Race Massacre"/mass-lynching the narrative postulates was fictional. Which it is.
>>222140144>>222139970>it was history inside my headliterally everyone who tried to sue over it lost because it's not real
>>222140212it was fictional. there's no evidence it happened
>>222140144>chuds
>>222138775everything's made by the same small community that all talk to each other, so it's not that weird
>>222139970Sounds like it was a real Tulsa Doom.
