Racial Tension in the U.S.

[TyGuy]

Which is why we shouldn't just skip over Articles because they have a headline we don't like. Gour had a very good post on this a few posts upthread. The Article itself doesn't really mirror the Headline at all.

Perhaps if they don't want to confuse people they should t use such a click bate headline that is misleading?

We agree that the headline is projecting guilt, yes?

I don't dedicate myself to this cause, so I don't like being called a problem by extension.

 

[Whittaker]

I ask my fellow white people, how much worse is it going to have to get before we take accountability for our racism

Talking about race is fine.
This article says because I am white I have to take accountability for our racism.
"Our" means "mine and yours".
To that I say "Screw You The Conversation With You Is Over".

You wanna talk to me? Don't falsely accuse me of despicable behavior and then act like its an innocent icebreaker.

It has the same honestly as "When did you stop beating your wife?.

 

[Tlyons]

Perhaps if they don't want to confuse people they should t use such a click bate headline that is misleading?

We agree that the headline is projecting guilt, yes?

I don't dedicate myself to this cause, so I don't like being called a problem by extension.

Yea, I can't stand click bait either. But at the same time it must work because outlets just keep doing it. I think that title itself can be seen as projecting guilt. It depends on who is reading it imo.

 

[Jack Brickman]

For someone who shits on sources religiously, it seems like you frequently post sources and delete chunks of things that end up using to counteract your point.

Are you saying that Q-Tip is fake news?

 

[gourimoko]

Perhaps if they don't want to confuse people they should t use such a click bate headline that is misleading?

The headline sucks..

We agree that the headline is projecting guilt, yes?

Sure, depends on who's reading it as @Tlyons said, but yeah; won't argue with you there.

I don't dedicate myself to this cause, so I don't like being called a problem by extension.

I think you may be reducing the point of the article far too much for it to really be meaningful. If you read the article, it makes a great deal of sense. She's talking largely about the problem of silent majorities, and how such silence itself can help perpetuate racism. It's a complex and nuanced issue that really isn't conveyed in the click-bait title, or in a kneejerk reactionary criticism of the article itself.

 

[Tlyons]

Talking about race is fine.
This article says because I am white I have to take accountability for our racism.
"Our" means "mine and yours".
To that I say "Screw You The Conversation With You Is Over".

You wanna talk to me? Don't falsely accuse me of despicable behavior and then act like its an innocent icebreaker.

It has the same honestly as "When did you stop beating your wife?.

I disagree with the "our" part for sure. I also don't think you should run for the Hills at that point though. And you also have to realize this is huffpost. They are going to be a bit more edgy as it pertains to this topic.

 

[Whittaker]

You one upped the I have black friends line to I have an ancestor who fought for the North.

Not feeling guilty about that either.
We are talking racism and I mentioned a person who fought against racism in a very dangerous and honorable way.
I would be interested to know if anyone on this board has suffered more in the fight against racism than him.
But I can't mention him. Because I should feel guilty about.....something.
LOL!
Throw your whiny race-baiting barbs somewhere else. This cat ain't apologizing for the color of his skin, the color of his friends or the color of his ancestors who fought for the freedom of every person in this country.

 

[Tornicade]

Lers start here.

1. Do you disagree with the statistics i referenced? If so, how? If not, you are a racist by your own logic.


2. I posted 30 articles of anti white racism to whivh you could not come up with a response. Respond to it. White genocide. Is shtick shtick when backrd with black and white evidence? How can you hold the opinion there isnt popular anti whitr racism when i took 3 minutes and sourced 30 articles and a professor at drexel wishing for genocide and literally mtv giving new yeard resolutions for white people?

3. Find me a quote that prefaces my opinion with "dont mean to sound like a jerk but". If you cant, youre a liar.

4. Find me a quote about fucking "guns and property" or youre a liar who has no idea what he's talking about.

5. Espousing stuff like that? Well i dont even talk about that stuff ever, so how do i espouse it and how are you concluding that an opinion i dont share is old and tired?

6. "No one in this thread that has defended black lives matter, has every brought up getting rid of white people, yet this is something that you have brought up multiple times. It is a classic racist fear. "If we give them power, can you imagine what they will do to us?!!"

What the hell are you even referring to?

Cut

I get it. Youre mad at arguments you made on your own and assigned to me. Dont get mad at arguments i didnt make. Thats moronic. Its your own fault and lack of comprehension that got you here.

sorry David but talking about statistics rating intelligence and crime rates then using those statistics to show there is no racial divide .... can certainly be construed as racism.

especially when you know IQ scores are more a product of environment than actual intelligence.

The research you keep referencing doesn't show that blacks as a clture are more prone to violence because they aren't as smart as more affluent whites.

only shows the reasons for the divide need to be addressed.

and people stop responding to you not because " You win" they either get bored or see it as pointless to continue the discussion or they don't feel te need to have the last word and let their prior post stand on their own.

after spending a few weeks harping on intelligence you then start arguing that whites are victims of racism. Its a pattern. the posters on here are regular posters they don't just remember your last 2 post.

You personally might not be racist but some of your statements and data interpretation is the same stuff typically heard from the Aryan Nation.

 

[David.]

sorry David but talking about statistics rating intelligence and crime rates then using those statistics to show there is no racial divide .... can certainly be construed as racism.

especially when you know IQ scores are more a product of environment than actual intelligence.

The research you keep referencing doesn't show that blacks as a clture are more prone to violence because they aren't as smart as more affluent whites.

only shows the reasons for the divide need to be addressed.

and people stop responding to you not because " You win" they either get bored or see it as pointless to continue the discussion or they don't feel te need to have the last word and let their prior post stand on their own.

after spending a few weeks harping on intelligence you then start arguing that whites are victims of racism. Its a pattern. the posters on here are regular posters they don't just remember your last 2 post.

You personally might not be racist but some of your statements and data interpretation is the same stuff typically heard from the Aryan Nation.

i dont understand how you guys dont understand basic logic.

all racists wear shoes. all shoes are therefore racist. all people who wear shoes are racist.

this is aproblematic way to look at things. its not even just problematic, its demonstrably stupid. its unintelligent. and that isnt MY problem, that is a problem within YOU. if you cant understand somethign that simple, it speaks to your character, not mine.

there are facts. Good people use facts and bad people use facts.

especially when you know IQ scores are more a product of environment than actual intelligence.

actually, no. thats not been concluded. there is disagreement, and most researchers say there is at least 50% heritability in intelligence, and many go up to 80%.

talking about statistics rating intelligence and crime rates then using those statistics to show there is no racial divide .... can certainly be construed as racism.

sorryk what are you referring to here? be specific, because when you cloud peoples statements up and 'paraphrase' them, you paraphrase them completely out of the persons actual opinion. no, that isnt my fault. its YOURS. and its either 1. dishonest or 2. faulty logic.

The research you keep referencing doesn't show that blacks as a clture are more prone to violence because they aren't as smart as more affluent whites

thats great! because i never made the argument that it does. so you have just proved my point that it wasnt at all an argment that I made. at all. so stop propagating the egregious lie that I made a racist argument that I didnt make. or iintend to make. and stop getting mad at an argument i didnt make.

i actually didnt reference any research. what research are you claiming i 'keep referring to'? you wanna show your work before I call you a liar as well?

and people stop responding to you not because " You win" they either get bored or see it as pointless to continue the discussion or they don't feel te need to have the last word and let their prior post stand on their own.

well i dont know what youre addressing. me and cavatt? cavatt makes awful points consistently and exclusively and ignores my points and continues to make claims that have already been answered by the points I've made. and then he makes up a bunch of arguments that i didnt make like 'property and guns' and claims i talk about it all the time (what a pattern) and that its not new. yea ok, its also not my argument. so why am I bothering to talk to someone who doesnt show the even the lowest amount of respect and has shown that he cant understand my position time and time again?

after spending a few weeks harping on intelligence you then start arguing that whites are victims of racism. Its a pattern. the posters on here are regular posters they don't just remember your last 2 post.

im not sure what you mean here bud. Those two things are related how? i just showed you 30 articles of anti white racism. rather than addressing the point, you use it as a case for racism. thats rich. why cant you just respond to the obvious existence of racism? how does your brain turn that into dave is a racist because he is providing evidence of anti white racism? like what the actual fuck, are you kidding me?

tell me how the argument that 'all white people are privileged and all black people are the victims of racism' is any different than 'there is an acceptance of anti white racism''? and when considering the difference, you conclude that the LATTER argument, which is evidenced with logic, reasoning and empirical data, is racist and the first one isnt racist and you have yet to provide data to support it.

How are you able to say "black ppl are victim of racism" without having to provide any evidence whatsoever, and when i provide blatant examples of racism to support the claim that "white people are victims of racism" that is somehow racism? It is literally the same statement but with the color of skin switched, and evidence was supported for one of them. This.. Lacks principle. Entirely. Obviously. You do realize youre saying its ok to claim racism against one group of people but not another based on th3 color of their skin? Do you really not know that that is literally racism?

 

[David.]

Well, here's an example:

White People, If You’re Not Part of the Solution, You’re Part of the Problem

I ask my fellow white people, how much worse is it going to have to get before we take accountability for our racism and actively engage in dismantling it? As hard as this may be to hear, we, white people, are the originators of racism in America. While we do not have an exclusive monopoly on racism, we sit at the top of the racism food chain, and we are the ones with the power to end it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen...tion-youre-part-of-the-problem_b_7665452.html

i posted 30 articles. dont waste your time.

 

[David.]

#1 No I don't agree that more Black people are criminals than white people. I think they get caught more often because they are more likely to get convicted and are more likely to get pulled over. Ever have a story where you did something wrong and the cops let you go? I know you do because you told it here before.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/black-people-more-likely-wrongfully-convicted

#2 This is one of your 30 racist articles. I think it makes a pretty convincing point. I think you should really read it if you think "White pride" isn't racist

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/09/5_reasons_white_pride_is_always_racist_partner/

#3 You said that racism against whites was the most pressing kind of racism, and then you repeatedly say you are not racist. I really don't know how you are going to find anyone to back you up on that that doesn't also believe in white genocide. That's my opinion of how you conduct yourself.

#4 "I was reading up on either zimbabwe or south africa (latter I believe) and a political candidate literally (paraphrase) said he's coming for white peoples property. Thats a direct fucking threat. I would move before I thought to fight a movement so perniscious if I thought it was large enough to legitimately be a problem. I would move. My genuine response."

Hysteria

#5 Just the fact that BLM is a racist organization in your eyes but anytime anyone interferes with Richard Spencer you are quick to his defense. It is bad optics for you. Free speech important for Spencer, but not for those racist BLM guys. YIKES

#6 What are the goals of racism against whites? What would be the point. If the racism that whites have is to keep power than what is the goal of people who are racist against whites? Answer that your most pressing issue, and you will have your answer.

1. if you cross reference the victims of crime, their reports corroborate the crime statistics(perp by race) reported by collecting crime stats from criminal caught by the system. so thats incorrect. Its not even close cavatt. Black people commit 4x more violent crime per capita. Thats a fact. From the doj, cavatt. Facts arent racist, they just have a tendency of destroying your narrative apparently.

you want to talk anti science? you have mounds of data looking at you and you dont accept it. is it a hoax created by whitey? incredible. your politics have confused you so much that you cannot accept empirical data. you are an ideologue. you do not have the capacity to look at issues rationally. im telling you flat out - that is making it absolutely impossible to have a conversation wiht you. if you cant accept facts, which those are, how can you have a conversation with someone about racial tension?

2. you did not address the fact that I literally posted 30 articles of obvious anti white racism. It clearly exists as I have posted 30 instances. how do you not understand that its popular and accepted? its staring at you in black and white. cognitive dissonance?

3. you did not address an argument. you stated two facts. 'you have said whites are victim of racism.' yes. 'you say you are not racist.' yes. how on earth do you get 'must be racist' out of that? cavatt, this is.. concerning. it seems youre so indoctrinated that you have walls built to prevent you from understanding really simple concepts, and to not be able to define what racism is.

4. hysteria? dude wtf? explain how literally a quote from a political candidate: "im coming for your property, white people" is hysteria? So quoting someone who is racist against a people of a skin color to provide evidence of racism is now racist? ..fucking hell cavatt..

Hysteria? What the fuck does that make you?do you get a pass bc youre unable to source any actual racism? Is that the loophole here?do you want to address the context of my quote too? because it was a response to the question 'what would you do if there were a political movement that put people of a race in danger?' so nonviolence is hysteria, and violence is...? This is the shittiest version of 1984 ive ever heard of. ..you write a one word response to that? 'hysteria?" can you just give me a stream of running consciousness? because its really difficult to understand how your thought process works.

5. no. YOU dont understand what people do in this thread and their agendas. ive literally had to explain to you personally that condemning violence isnt the same as supporting richard spencer, but it seems like you dont have an easy time grasping things. After the 5th time of explaining it to you like youre five, its no longer my issue. Its yours. You have a problem. I dont care what it is, i just know that ive been more than patient with you and its not me, its you. at this point, im done trying ot be nice to you. it just seems like you have a hard time understanding really simple concepts and im not benefitting from conversation with you. You have nothing to teach, refuse to learn, and are motivated to fabricate bullshit and find racism in everything, ESPECIALLY where it doesnt exist.

6. i dont understand what youre saying, at all. it sounds like youre saying 'white people have the power and we need to overthrow them?' i dont know what youre saying, and your answer doesnt really address my question in the first place.

im trying hard with you, and it seems like the mjore I explain, the harder of a time you have understanding.

 

[DJTJ]

1. if you cross reference the victims of crime, they mirror the crime statistics reported by collecting crime stats from criminal caught by the system. so thats incorrect. you want to talk anti science? you have mounds of data looking at you and you dont accept it. is it a hoax created by whitey? incredible. your politics have confused you so much that you cannot accept empirical data. you are an ideologue. you do not have the capacity to look at issues rationally. im telling you flat out - that is making it absolutely impossible to have a conversation wiht you. if you cant accept facts, which those are, how can you have a conversation with someone about racial tension?

2. you did not address the fact that I literally posted 30 articles of obvious anti white racism. It clearly exists as I have posted 30 instances. how do you not understand that its popular and accepted? its staring at you in black and white. cognitive dissonance?

3. you did not address an argument. you stated two facts. 'you have said whites are victim of racism.' yes. 'you say you are not racist.' yes. how on earth do you get 'must be racist' out of that? cavatt, this is.. concerning. it seems youre so indoctrinated that you have walls built to prevent you from understanding really simple concepts, and to not be able to define what racism is.

4. hysteria? dude wtf? explain how literally a quote from a political candidate is hysteria? do you want to address the context of my quote too? because it was 'what would you do if there were a political movement that put people of a race in danger?' you write a one word response to that? 'hysteria?" can you just give me a stream of running consciousness? because its really difficult to understand how your thought process works.

5. no. YOU dont understand what people do in this thread and their agendas. ive literally had to explain to you personally that condemning violence isnt the same as supporting richard spencer, but it seems like you dont have an easy time grasping things. at this point, im done trying ot be nice to you. it just seems like you have a hard time understanding really simple concepts.

6. i dont understand what youre saying, at all. it sounds like youre saying 'white people have the power and we need to overthrow them?' i dont know what youre saying, and your answer doesnt really address my question in the first place.

im trying hard with you, and it seems like the mjore I explain, the harder of a time you have understanding.

Only touching 6; he's saying that what reasoning is there to be racist towards whites? Racism towards a minority, as you'd likely confirm IF it were to happen, is likely due to personal opinions and bias.

If someone went on an anti-white diatribe, what would they use? Slurs? Stereotypes? Or would it be a power-themed, expletive laden discussion?

Flip it. If someone doesn't like Black people, what's that going to sound like?

 

[David.]

Only touching 6; he's saying that what reasoning is there to be racist towards whites? Racism towards a minority, as you'd likely confirm IF it were to happen, is likely due to personal opinions and bias.

If someone went on an anti-white diatribe, what would they use? Slurs? Stereotypes? Or would it be a power-themed, expletive laden discussion?

Flip it. If someone doesn't like Black people, what's that going to sound like?

i guess im asking 'what difference does it make"? it exists. Ive shown it. so what difference does it make?

The reasoning really isnt important. What good reason is there to be racist? We trying to justify it? create a distinction without a difference? isnt racism.. just bad? are we dping mental gymnastics to give it a pass against white people? ..isnt this exemplory if the exact problem i stated earlier that I was lambasted for? doesnt this support my claim, open and shut?

i think youre going to be searching a LONG TIME to find the amount and strenght of evidence I provided with races switched. so it supports my statemetn. Anti white racism is literally on mainstream media. You would get fired for anything similiar if you were white and said something about a minority. Actually, check in with Tim Wolfe, or the harvard article i posted a week ago that literally everyone ignored entirely. In fact, people ignored it so they could perform a thought expirement on 'what would happen if whites killed blacks.'

seems to support my claim, entirely.

Tim was fired simply because he was white. he didnt even say or do anything disparaing against a minority. Activists got him fired because he was white. And then theres the 30 articles that I posted that took 4 minutes to source. Guess who has their jobs? Every single author.

Huffpo got in trouble when one of their journalists trolled them and wrote a piece that asserted we need to take voting rights away from white men. Didn't evem blink before publishing. The troll had to fucking explain to them that it was a troll job and he couldn't believe they actually posted it. How in the good fuck do you explain that not setting off even a single red flag? People would RIOT if they wrote an article pushing to take away black peoples right to vote. How.. Do you not understand this?

So tell me how this happens and you dismiss my claim that 'anti white racism is popular and accepted, and much stronger than any political movement againt minorities.' seems to support my claim entirely.


its absurd that literal evidence is staring at people and they do everything they can to dismiss it including killing the messenger and debasing him and ad homineming and poisoning the well, non serquiturs, and red herrings. its strange you cant have this conversation without people exclusively respoinding in logical fallacy. Meanwhile, i've asked for evidence of the opposite and these same people that cant accept facts cant provide it. And when I provide facts that explains it, they call it racism or disregard it.

People quite obviously are letting their biases cloud their judgement. A reasonable person wouldnt do this.

 

[DJTJ]

i guess im asking 'what difference does it make"? it exists. Ive shown it. so what difference does it make?

The reasoning really isnt important. What good reason is there to be racist? We trying to justify it? create a distinction without a difference? isnt racism.. just bad? are we dping mental gymnastics to give it a pass against white people? ..isnt this exemplory if the exact problem i stated earlier that I was lambasted for? doesnt this support my claim, open and shut?

i think youre going to be searching a LONG TIME to find the amount and strenght of evidence I provided with races switched. so it supports my statemetn. Anti white racism is literally on mainstream media. You would get fired for anything similiar if you were white and said something about a minority. Actually, check in with Tim Wolfe, or the harvard article i posted a week ago that literally everyone ignored entirely. In fact, people ignored it so they could perform a thought expirement on 'what would happen if whites killed blacks.'

seems to support my claim, entirely.

Tim was fired simply because he was white. he didnt even say or do anything disparaing against a minority. Activists got him fired because he was white. And then theres the 30 articles that I posted that took 4 minutes to source. Guess who has their jobs? all of them.

So tell me how this happens and you dismiss my claim that 'anti white racism is popular and accepted, and much stronger than any political movement againt minorities.' seems to support my claim entirely.


its absurd that literal evidence is staring at people and they do everything they can to dismiss it including killing the messenger and debasing him and ad homineming and poisoning the well, non serquiturs, and red herrings. its strange you cant have this conversation without people exclusively respoinding in logical fallacy. Meanwhile, i've asked for evidence of the opposite and these same people that cant accept facts cant provide it. And when I provide facts that explains it, they call it racism or disregard it.

People quite obviously are letting their biases cloud their judgement. A reasonable person wouldnt do this.

Don't know why you're responding to me... I was just trying to clarify his point better.

 

[CommD]

Tulsa cop not guilty in fatal shooting of unarmed black man

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/us/tulsa-police-shooting-trial/index.html?adkey=bn