- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 21,829
- Reaction score
- 16,444
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
And 45 has the blood of 22 people in El Paso who just happened to be shopping at Walmart when one of his cult heeded his calls.
This seems to be real enough and liberals dont seem to be bothered by it one bit even though the communists have far more blood on their hands than do the fascists.
Communist Party membership numbers climbing in the Trump era – People's World
Obviously not. The people in El Paso killed themselves.
And 45 has the blood of 22 people in El Paso who just happened to be shopping at Walmart when one of his cult heeded his calls.
I wouldnt be surprised either, but I used their numbers because even if grossly inflated, they demonstrate how inconsequential the Klan has become. 100 years ago, the Klan boasted a membership of 4,000,000. Now its 5000 in a country that has 200,000,000 more people in it today than it did then. And the Nazi party? Its a joke. Didnt they call for a rally in DC a year or so ago and have only about 25 people show up. Yeah, now theres an impressive movement :roll: White Supremacy is political rhetoric that mindless leftist see as truth. Kinda like Russian collusion. But liberals will literally fall for anything.
Without seeing the details, you can't determine if it's just an error, made out of anger or despair, etc., or outright defamation (a crime!).
If you assumed we are using racism in the broader context, you might agree that your quesiton itself likely indicates a racist remark, one made by the majority power (white). That likely bothers you, it bothers most people that don't understand racism. It bothered me for 15 years bubbagone, and then one day I figured it out.
And I do not use the term racism to mean: Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another.
I am thinking more like this:
"Scholars, also commonly define racism not only in terms of individual prejudice, but also in terms of a power structure that protects the interests of the dominant culture and actively discriminates against ethnic minorities.[49][50] From this perspective, while members of ethnic minorities may be prejudiced against members of the dominant culture, they lack the political and economic power to actively oppress them, and they are therefore not practicing "racism".[49][53][54]
" Racism - Wikipedia
There is a language problem at the root of this issue though. If some large % of white people think they are being told they are the first definition, they maybe rightfully are offended. even if it's explained to them, they may feel that in public discourse since they feel most people ALSO use that same definition, that it's still bad....even if they understand the broader definition. So I feel if there is to be progress on this beyond just a steady organic progress, that definition has to differentiate into two distinct concepts/words.
It's two separate concepts bubba. Surely you can strain your brain to comprehend it honestly?Ah. The "Scholars". You decided to go with that old trope that only the oppressors can be racist. That was always too obviously an effort to compartmentalize racist guilt for political purposes.
Louis Farrakhan can't be racist but David Duke is. Right. uh-huh.
And it's the more obviously applicable definition given it's the "power structure" that's tossing around the racism charge like so much spittle these days.
And using your preferred definition, since a power structure is using race to charge political opponents with racism based solely on the motivation to grow their own power, that power structure would at least be engaging in racial politics ... let's call it racism because that's what it is. Voila ... your definition is satisfied.
It's two separate concepts bubba. Surely you can strain your brain to comprehend it honestly?
David Duke is a racist and a prejudiced against non-whites
Louse Farrakkan is a prejudiced against whites because of racism
Farrakkan's message isn't going to subject the average white male in U.S. society to black on white "oppression".
Farrakkan's message is also in direct opposition to white majority power and the people and systems that perpetuate it in ways that are harmful to minorities.
I don't know anything about him really, but it seems obvious that would be what the case is.
As I wrote, if you refuse differentiate the two, labels aside, your message is racist (use whatever label you want), and dishonest.
Except he didnt say that
Clearly you are incapable of honest discussion or, well, anything. Take up your crap with the straw man yo just created.
Are they for different reasons?So they're both racists ... you just decided it's for different reasons.
A reason is not an excuse bubba, words matter.I don't excuse either of them.
Uh oh, now it's a justification, and an excuse, simultaneously? You appear confused.You found a justification to excuse one of them.
You haven't evidenced you understand the conclusion.I'm okay with that conclusion.
I have no idea what white faces and white voices means, or refers to, I would have no determination on it since I think it's nonsense.You never answered ... if someone said that white faces should be white voices, would you say it sounds racist? Or would you have to know who said it before you decide?
Too high brow for you?
Because the content was spot on.
The irony of the guy who declared president Truman a "racist war criminal" for ending the war and then fled in terror when called out on it trying to say anyone else is "incapable" is too ****ing funny :lamo
One guy does not a movement make
Are they for different reasons?
A reason is not an excuse bubba, words matter.
Uh oh, now it's a justification, and an excuse, simultaneously? You appear confused.
You haven't evidenced you understand the conclusion.
I have no idea what white faces and white voices means, or refers to, I would have no determination on it since I think it's nonsense.
The irony of the guy who declared president Truman a "racist war criminal" for ending the war and then fled in terror when called out on it trying to say anyone else is "incapable" is too ****ing funny :lamo
Well, the guy in El Paso is one, Trump is two, and you must have missed the "Jews will not replace us" parade, FBI investigations, Tim McVeigh, the guy in New Zealand, etc. True, it is not one organization, in fact it is pretty disorganized, but there is a movement of people upset with their countries' demographic changes.
Trump is not a white supremacist. Its stupid to even make such a claim. Do yourself a favor, turn off CNN
*camera staring continues* *snerk*
Well, the guy in El Paso is one, Trump is two, and you must have missed the "Jews will not replace us" parade, FBI investigations, Tim McVeigh, the guy in New Zealand, etc. True, it is not one organization, in fact it is pretty disorganized, but there is a movement of people upset with their countries' demographic changes.
Trump is not a white supremacist. Its stupid to even make such a claim. Do yourself a favor, turn off CNN
Sure...:lamo
Trump is not a white supremacist. Its stupid to even make such a claim. Do yourself a favor, turn off CNN
You had the two concepts explained to you, with citations, and you appear to be uncomfortable accepting those facts of reality. Sorry Bubb, you're running from this with your figurative tail between your legs. IN return, you've done nothing but insist strenuously that i'm wrong. Doesn't that make you feel weak in debate, when you can't really refute things and just repeating your original claim? It would irk me.You looked for an excuse to justify some racism and you found it in a very old theory that only very old Liberals and now angry young progressives would try to float.
Still baiting I see.Suppose I told you that the Mayor of Tuskegee had said "We don’t need any more white faces that don’t want to be a white voice". Does that sound like it could easily be racist?
Sounds like Antifa.
Dont think you are going to get it. Im not just making a jab, but think about it a little.
You had the two concepts explained to you, with citations, and you appear to be uncomfortable accepting those facts of reality. Sorry Bubb, you're running from this with your figurative tail between your legs. IN return, you've done nothing but insist strenuously that i'm wrong. Doesn't that make you feel weak in debate, when you can't really refute things and just repeating your original claim? It would irk me. Still baiting I see.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?