Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
zkojq wrote:Not surprising really. When someone at the top tweets/retweets messages that are explicitly or implicitly racist, the behaviour eventually becomes normalised and will start to be used by people further down the social hierarchy.
NIKV69 wrote:zkojq wrote:Not surprising really. When someone at the top tweets/retweets messages that are explicitly or implicitly racist, the behaviour eventually becomes normalised and will start to be used by people further down the social hierarchy.
Could you provide a tweet from "someone at the top" that is implicity racist?
Guys racism exists and will forever. On both sides.
a thread every time it happens.
tommy1808 wrote:wrong. Racism is losing ground since just about ever. Things left wing liberals said a 100 years ago now get right wingers kicked out of positions of power. And that is exactly why we need
pvjin wrote:Globally there's an increasing amount of hate speech towards white people, a
pvjin wrote:Globally there's an increasing amount of hate speech towards white people, and then on the other hand many leftist progressives are using racist terms like "racialization" when talking about people of colour. Racism is still racism even if your intentions are good, any form of ideology or talk where people are seen primarily as members of some race rather than individuals is racist.
Flighty wrote:Hillis, I think your post is against a.net's policies. It is truly over the line, and appears to be hate speech. I am offended, and I suggest that you remove it. But, I am not going to censor you.
tommy1808 wrote:being in your fantasy world again? Your are just falling for a cognitive bias http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication% ... o-105-49(2)_20215a4d-e73b-48e9-8de7-f6862054e552.pdf
Hillis wrote:But abject racism on a massive scale seems to be, in large part, something that whites have and do practice on this planet.
Hillis wrote:Whites in America have been the most powerful group of being ever to walk this earth, and you're complaining that it's so tough to be white is simply indicative of the fact that many whites fear losing their dominance over others.
Hillis wrote:And it's also indicative of the fact that people like you know there is NOTHING that you can do to change the demographic changes that are marganilizing the political, social and economic dominance of the white race.
Hillis wrote:As a white man, I do not fear these changes. I don't understand why so many whites are scared to death about it.
Hillis wrote:pvjin wrote:Globally there's an increasing amount of hate speech towards white people, and then on the other hand many leftist progressives are using racist terms like "racialization" when talking about people of colour. Racism is still racism even if your intentions are good, any form of ideology or talk where people are seen primarily as members of some race rather than individuals is racist.
This narrative that you, mham001 and a few others are trying to push on here that you're so put-upon because you're white is a form of racism in and of istelf. It's simply a means to deflect from the fact that many, many whites, in the United States, still can't get over skin pigmintation. Whites in America have been the most powerful group of being ever to walk this earth, and you're complaining that it's so tough to be white is simply indicative of the fact that many whites fear losing their dominance over others. And it's also indicative of the fact that people like you know there is NOTHING that you can do to change the demographic changes that are marganilizing the political, social and economic dominance of the white race.
As a white man, I do not fear these changes. I don't understand why so many whites are scared to death about it.
KWexpress wrote:Claiming an entire class of people (white) are racist towards others, based simply on the fact they are white is a racist claim in and of itself. .
KWexpress wrote:Claiming an entire class of people (white) are racist towards others, based simply on the fact they are white is a racist claim in and of itself.
Hillis wrote:It's simply a means to deflect from the fact that many, many whites, in the United States, still can't get over skin pigmintation.
tommy1808 wrote:KWexpress wrote:Claiming an entire class of people (white) are racist towards others, based simply on the fact they are white is a racist claim in and of itself. .
While I agree, he didn't do that. He wrote "many" whites, not all. Which is arguably true.
Best regards
Thomas
KWexpress wrote:Claiming "any" number people are racist, without proof isn't proving racism. it's proving the person making the claim is prejudice toward said people.
KWexpress wrote:tommy1808 wrote:KWexpress wrote:Claiming an entire class of people (white) are racist towards others, based simply on the fact they are white is a racist claim in and of itself. .
While I agree, he didn't do that. He wrote "many" whites, not all. Which is arguably true.
Best regards
Thomas
Claiming "any" number people are racist, without proof isn't proving racism. it's proving the person making the claim is prejudice toward said people.
Hillis wrote:KWexpress wrote:tommy1808 wrote:
While I agree, he didn't do that. He wrote "many" whites, not all. Which is arguably true.
Best regards
Thomas
Claiming "any" number people are racist, without proof isn't proving racism. it's proving the person making the claim is prejudice toward said people.
Are you denying that "any" number of people are racists? Oh, say like the KKK, Aryan Nation, the litany of White Supremacist groups that have popped up like weeds in the last 5 years? Are you denying that?
tommy1808 wrote:KWexpress wrote:Claiming "any" number people are racist, without proof isn't proving racism. it's proving the person making the claim is prejudice toward said people.
Haha. Cute. And nonesense. The moment you exclude a large Chunk of a group, your are not racist against the group anymore.
KWexpress wrote:
Those "groups" have been proven racist, by specific actions they took. The difference between what you and Thomas are claiming and these groups, are facts. One can be proven by specific acts of racism that took place and the other is a general statement of blanket racism.
Hillis wrote:KWexpress wrote:
Those "groups" have been proven racist, by specific actions they took. The difference between what you and Thomas are claiming and these groups, are facts. One can be proven by specific acts of racism that took place and the other is a general statement of blanket racism.
And those "groups" have been proven white, is that not also correct? And if that's the case, then why do you find fault with my statement that "many many whites" are, indeed racists?
And a blanket statement, on this subject would have been worded: "All whites are racists". And that's not the case. Since it isn't the case, and since I didn't say that, you have no leg to stand on here.
Hillis wrote:KWexpress wrote:
Those "groups" have been proven racist, by specific actions they took. The difference between what you and Thomas are claiming and these groups, are facts. One can be proven by specific acts of racism that took place and the other is a general statement of blanket racism.
you have no leg to stand on here.
KWexpress wrote:. One can be proven by specific acts of racism that took place and the other is a general statement of blanket racism.
tommy1808 wrote:KWexpress wrote:. One can be proven by specific acts of racism that took place and the other is a general statement of blanket racism.
Only that many x is not a general statement anymore that "many clovers have 4 leaves" is racist on 3 leafed clovers.
"Many" can only be racist if you are factually wrong in your statement, since there are white groups have, as you put it, proven specific acts of racism, calling few/some/many whites are racist is a statement of statistical fact.
Heck, many, since it is not all or most, isn't even a generalization. And racism is willfully using a generalization in ignorance of facts. You agreed that there are racist whites, so saying that some/many whites are racists is mathematically correct, therefore a fact, and facts can not be racist by definition.
Best regards
Thomas
KWexpress wrote:tommy1808 wrote:KWexpress wrote:. One can be proven by specific acts of racism that took place and the other is a general statement of blanket racism.
Only that many x is not a general statement anymore that "many clovers have 4 leaves" is racist on 3 leafed clovers.
"Many" can only be racist if you are factually wrong in your statement, since there are white groups have, as you put it, proven specific acts of racism, calling few/some/many whites are racist is a statement of statistical fact.
Heck, many, since it is not all or most, isn't even a generalization. And racism is willfully using a generalization in ignorance of facts. You agreed that there are racist whites, so saying that some/many whites are racists is mathematically correct, therefore a fact, and facts can not be racist by definition.
Best regards
Thomas
I give your credit for trying and not giving up. Also for dodging, speaking of which, before we move on.... why don't you answer my question above?
KWexpress wrote:So if Trump said many blacks are lazy, that wouldn't be racist since he excluded some??? Haha. Cute. And nonesense
Hillis wrote:KWexpress wrote:tommy1808 wrote:
Only that many x is not a general statement anymore that "many clovers have 4 leaves" is racist on 3 leafed clovers.
"Many" can only be racist if you are factually wrong in your statement, since there are white groups have, as you put it, proven specific acts of racism, calling few/some/many whites are racist is a statement of statistical fact.
Heck, many, since it is not all or most, isn't even a generalization. And racism is willfully using a generalization in ignorance of facts. You agreed that there are racist whites, so saying that some/many whites are racists is mathematically correct, therefore a fact, and facts can not be racist by definition.
Best regards
Thomas
I give your credit for trying and not giving up. Also for dodging, speaking of which, before we move on.... why don't you answer my question above?
I won't give you credit for anything. Into the blocked bin you go. I don't have time to deal with mental midgets.
pvjin wrote:tommy1808 wrote:being in your fantasy world again? Your are just falling for a cognitive bias http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication% ... o-105-49(2)_20215a4d-e73b-48e9-8de7-f6862054e552.pdf
The increase in hate speech towards whites is a very real thing in South Africa. Also elsewhere in the west there's a clear increase in the kind of narrative where white heterosexual men are seen as evil creatures who are responsible for all bad in the world. It's not a case of cognitive bias, but a reality. Also, I can't seem to get your link to work, even though I pasted the remaining portion of it.Hillis wrote:But abject racism on a massive scale seems to be, in large part, something that whites have and do practice on this planet.
You should do some traveling in Asia with a black guy. Most Asian countries are very racist towards people who look like African. And then there's Japan which is pretty racist towards everybody but the Japanese.Hillis wrote:Whites in America have been the most powerful group of being ever to walk this earth, and you're complaining that it's so tough to be white is simply indicative of the fact that many whites fear losing their dominance over others.
Yes, meanwhile we here in Finland lived in poverty and colonized by two foreign powers. Just because American whites were doing so good doesn't make all whites guilty of their actions.Hillis wrote:And it's also indicative of the fact that people like you know there is NOTHING that you can do to change the demographic changes that are marganilizing the political, social and economic dominance of the white race.
I don't really give a damn overpopulation is going to send the entire specie of ours to utter misery and destruction. The very demographic change which is marginalizing white people will eventually hurt non-white people equally much. Yet you choose to embrace it.Hillis wrote:As a white man, I do not fear these changes. I don't understand why so many whites are scared to death about it.
Maybe because: A) it increases the chances of them and their descendants falling into poverty B) It makes them more likely to be victims of a genocide, after all it's much easier for a majority to genocide a minority than other way around C) It leads to ever worsening overpopulation which hurts the entire biosphere.
KWexpress wrote:Hillis wrote:KWexpress wrote:
When someone you disagree with has facts and reason you block them...yes go to your safe space. And you still can't figure out why Trump won.
KWexpress wrote:And you still can't figure out why Trump won.
tommy1808 wrote:There is an ongoing FBI investigation as to why Trump won.
pvjin wrote:tommy1808 wrote:There is an ongoing FBI investigation as to why Trump won.
He won because a lot of American people liked him more than the alternativ.
tommy1808 wrote:KWexpress wrote:And you still can't figure out why Trump won.
There is an ongoing FBI investigation as to why Trump won.
best regards
Thomas
seahawk wrote:tommy1808 wrote:KWexpress wrote:And you still can't figure out why Trump won.
There is an ongoing FBI investigation as to why Trump won.
best regards
Thomas
Which shows the head of the FBI needs to be replaced.
seahawk wrote:Just wait for it.
tommy1808 wrote:KWexpress wrote:And you still can't figure out why Trump won.
There is an ongoing FBI investigation as to why Trump won.
best regards
Thomas
tommy1808 wrote:A minority preferred him over the alternative, which was sabotaged by your beloved Putin in possible collusion with the Trump campaign.People would call that an externally facilitated coup d'etat, possible act of war and treason on the side of the Trumpiskas Not that Hilary had a shot at being popular, but even with all the made up bullcrap coming her way, she ended still up more popular that Prince greasy hands.
The FBI investigation is in deed very necessary, since Russia may just have shifted gear from little green men to little hands man.
best regards
Thomas
pvjin wrote:Made up bullcrap, yeah right.
Just because Clinton is a female doesn't mean she's an angel.
Anybody with half a brain can see that she is a corrupt member
of the very same establishment which has caused so much war an destruction all around the world.
Hillis wrote:Globally, there's very little hate speech towards white people.
Hillis wrote:
I won't give you credit for anything. Into the blocked bin you go. I don't have time to deal with mental midgets.
NIKV69 wrote:Hillis wrote:Globally, there's very little hate speech towards white people.
So? Doesn't mean there isn't racism toward them. .
BobPatterson wrote:Aaaaah........ the defense of a demagogue (I have already checked the definition to see if it fairly applies to you. It does).
A leader of a popular faction, or of the mob; a political agitator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of the mob in order to obtain power or further his own interests; an unprincipled or factious popular orator.
PhilBy wrote:tommy1808 wrote:KWexpress wrote:And you still can't figure out why Trump won.
There is an ongoing FBI investigation as to why Trump won.
best regards
Thomas
He didn't wear a skirt during the election campaign?
jetwet1 wrote:An interesting topic, as part of my job, I get to see the human race when it is arguably at it's most honest, when it's been drinking, now in no way, shape or form is this scientific, but, across all races, I have seen an increase in what I would call racist comments, it does not seem to matter white on black, black on white, Asian on white, Asian on Asian, is Trump to blame ?
Hmmm not sure, but i'm certain there has been a shift in the mental thinking of the nation, maybe just the removal of a mental filter, though again, it's at work and alcohol is involved.
mham001 wrote:As for racism in the US, no German has any business lecturing anybody about racism.