Reason First: Should Racism Be the Norm?
Are you racist?
The government should not be involved in anything that doesn’t involve protecting individual rights. For instance, if a music festival such as AfroFuture Fest wishes to overcharge whites or “non-POCs” or “non people of color,” the state should recognize their right to discriminate. Now, with that being said, whites, people of color, and anyone else with a rational brain in their skull should repudiate the festival and deny monetary support for the organization. The clearly racist act even brought out white supremacists which made this a clusterf–– of irrationalism. AfroFuture’s stupidity in trying to charge white people more than other races should be protected by the government. If they want to be idiotic and boost the price for people lacking a certain concentration of melanin, that’s their business. They should be free to be as bigoted as ever without any worry of force being imposed against them. The group extended that price break to “Black and Brown people.” But what about red, yellow, and yes, white people? Shouldn’t the color green be the ruling hue in this whole mess? Artist Tiny Jag, a person of color, denounced AfroFuture for their dim-witted actions. She took to Twitter to voice her disdain for the vicious ideas that AfroFuture has espoused. The young artist clearly said that she will not be playing the event and that their actions, “don’t reflect the views of the Tiny Jag Team.”
In a fully free society, these sorts of things would be legal, permissible, and recognized by the State without reproach. It would most likely be a scant amount of people attending these events as the realization of the irrationalism involved would drive people away in great numbers. People ought to be as racist as ever. Other people should have the right to reject such ideals and keep their money from events like this. They should be able to demonstrate and tell other Americans that some racist group is attempting to stage an event.
Eventbrite, the ticketing site who managed AfroFuture Fest, said that they disregard any organization that denies people admission to shows based on race and ethnicity. Why should the state muddy up any of this? Private citizens resolved this whole matter without one politician, law enforcement officer, or judge’s hands on this one. For once, the government didn’t need to be shoving its weight around and could focus on protecting individual rights. The very thought of doubling ticket prices based on the color of one’s skin is against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream, and it was dreamed up by black and and brown people. This is not reverse racism, it is just racism. The idea that people who have had relatives and ancestors repressed and oppressed now turning around and doing the same thing to whites is just as evil.
But they should be allowed to do it. It is ugly and cruel but it ought to stay completely legal and expanded to establishments. And in this case, artists and businesses enabled themselves to speak out against AfroFuture. Their cries of viciousness rang out and drove media attention to focus on how racist black and brown people can be. Ticket prices are just the beginning. There should be blacks-only schools, browns-only auditoriums, yellows-only car lots, whites-only restaurants, and reds-only hospitals. They should be able to turn away anyone based on the color of their skin with no government interference accept to protect the rights of individuals to be morons. The brutish reality of racism should be viewed as a weakness in the minds of people. But as long as they’re not violating the rights of anyone, they should be given free-range. Eventbrite doubled down on standing against the discrimination by saying that if AfroFuture does not comply to their outline of including all colors for the same price, they would drop the event from their site. So, let racism reign, but don’t expect anyone to support such wrongheaded ideas.
About the Creator
Skyler Saunders
I will be publishing a story every Tuesday. Make sure you read the exclusive content each week to further understand the stories.
In order to read these exclusive stories, become a paid subscriber of mine today! Thanks….
S.S.
Keep reading
More stories from Skyler Saunders and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Smartystan
The gleam from the streets of Smartystan sparked the brain. Platinum and diamond streets always seemed to drive thought in the city-state-nation. It meant that vehicles could rove over the avenues and boulevards with ease and become not a distraction but a reminder of how clean and well-kept even the alleyways and back lots had been.
By Skyler SaundersExclusive • about 24 hours ago
Two Wounded in a Shooting with U.S. Federal Agents in Portland, Oregon
Portland, Oregon, once again found itself at the center of a national debate after two people were wounded in a shooting involving U.S. federal agents in early January. The incident, which unfolded in a residential area of Southeast Portland, has raised serious questions about the role of federal law enforcement in American cities, the use of force during immigration operations, and the growing divide between federal agencies and local governments. As investigations continue, the shooting has become more than a single law-enforcement encounter. It now symbolizes deeper political, legal, and social tensions that have been simmering for years in Portland and across the United States. What Happened in Portland According to initial reports, the incident occurred during what federal authorities described as a targeted enforcement operation. Agents from the Department of Homeland Security, including officers connected to Customs and Border Protection, attempted to stop a vehicle in Southeast Portland. Federal officials claim that during the stop, the situation escalated rapidly. They allege that the driver attempted to use the vehicle as a weapon, placing agents in immediate danger. In response, at least one federal agent discharged a firearm, striking two individuals inside the vehicle. The wounded individuals later sought medical assistance, prompting local Portland police to respond. Importantly, city police confirmed they were not involved in the federal operation itself and only became aware of the incident after emergency calls were made. Both individuals were transported to a hospital and were reported to be in stable condition. One of the wounded was later taken into federal custody following treatment. Conflicting Narratives and Unanswered Questions As with many high-profile law-enforcement shootings, competing narratives quickly emerged. Federal authorities framed the shooting as a matter of self-defense, emphasizing that agents faced a life-threatening situation. They also suggested that the individuals involved may have been connected to organized criminal activity, though these claims have not been independently verified in court. Local leaders and civil rights advocates, however, expressed alarm. Portland officials questioned why heavily armed federal agents were conducting operations in residential neighborhoods without coordination with local law enforcement. Critics argue that such actions increase the risk of violence and undermine public trust. At the heart of the controversy is transparency. Many residents are demanding the release of body-camera footage, clear explanations of the agents’ authority, and answers about whether de-escalation tactics were used before gunfire erupted. Reaction from City and State Leaders Portland’s city leadership responded swiftly. The mayor and several city council members publicly called for a pause on federal immigration enforcement operations within city limits until a full investigation is completed. Oregon’s governor echoed those concerns, describing the shooting as “deeply troubling” and emphasizing the need to protect community safety while respecting the rule of law. The state attorney general announced an independent review to determine whether the federal agents acted within legal boundaries. This pushback reflects a long-standing tension between Oregon’s state policies — which emphasize sanctuary protections — and federal enforcement strategies that prioritize aggressive immigration operations. Community Response and Public Protests The shooting sparked immediate protests across Portland. Demonstrators gathered near federal buildings and downtown streets, holding signs calling for accountability and chanting against what they described as the “militarization” of immigration enforcement. For many community members, especially immigrants and people of color, the incident intensified existing fears. Advocacy groups warned that federal operations conducted without local oversight can create a climate of fear, discouraging residents from reporting crimes or cooperating with authorities. Protesters also linked the Portland shooting to a broader national pattern, citing other recent incidents involving federal agents and civilians. To them, the shooting was not an isolated case, but part of a systemic issue demanding national attention. A Broader National Debate The Portland incident comes at a time when the United States is deeply divided over immigration policy and federal power. Supporters of strong federal enforcement argue that agents must be allowed to act decisively to combat serious crime, including gang activity and human trafficking. They contend that restricting federal operations would leave dangerous individuals free to operate. Opponents counter that aggressive tactics often blur the line between law enforcement and military action. They argue that without accountability and local cooperation, federal agents risk violating civil liberties and escalating routine encounters into deadly confrontations. Legal experts also point out that holding federal agents accountable can be challenging due to complex jurisdictional rules and legal protections, further fueling public frustration. What Happens Next Investigations into the shooting are ongoing, with federal and state authorities reviewing evidence, witness statements, and operational protocols. Whether disciplinary action, policy changes, or legal consequences will follow remains uncertain. What is clear is that the shooting has reignited a conversation Portland knows well — about who holds power, how it is exercised, and at what cost. For now, the city waits. Residents, activists, and officials alike are watching closely, aware that the outcome of this case could shape the future of federal enforcement not only in Portland, but across the country.
By Muhammad Hassan4 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.