This is just mind-blowing in America in 2017, when adults are insulting children. And the comments by some who are actually defending such actions is just as equally devistating in this day and age.

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/c ... /99249796/

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.

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. We don't need a thread every time it happens.

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?

Since your Racists in Chief that he can´t easily fit his racist slurs into 140 characters, he refrains from using twitter for that. But in his speeches he is openly racists and he is supporting violence against minorities. If not calling terror strikes carried out by muslim exremists terrorstrikes "Islamic terror" is supporting them, not even acknowledging or condemning right wing terror sure is hell is support for those terrorists. Trump is not just a racist, he is a terror supporter on top.

Guys racism exists and will forever. On both sides.

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

a thread every time it happens.

just as much as we need a thread for every terror strike that happens.

best regards
Thomas

Hillis, I totally understand your frustration but you should realize you are in for a marathon not a sprint. Save your energy for 2018 and 2020

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

I think it's just the targets and forms of racism which are changing, rather than racism actually losing ground. 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.

pvjin wrote:

Globally there's an increasing amount of hate speech towards white people, a

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

best regards
Thomas

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.

Globally, there's very little hate speech towards white people. It's infinitesmal compared to what people of color put up with. There's few examples of hate speech against whites in nations that are predominantely not white. I don't see stories from India, or China, or the Middle East, even, of acts directed at people because they are white. That's not to say that people of color cannot be racist. They can. But abject racism on a massive scale seems to be, in large part, something that whites have and do practice on this planet. The U.K. was like that during the height of that Empire. We have such examples that are fairly recent in South Africa and Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. We have the history of slavery in the U.S. against African-Americans, and the slaughter of the Native American.

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.

Hillis, I think your post is against a.net's policies. It is truly over the line, and appears to be hate speech. I suggest that you remove it. But, I am not going to censor you.

Edit: well I am not offended anymore, I just feel sorry for you.

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.

Uh, whatever.

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.

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.

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. Racism is a specific action taken by a person(s), not a generality. Saying all whites in Texas are racist towards hispanics ( with no specific example) isn't true and makes the person making the claim, prejudice, but saying Hillis (a specific person) is raciest towards white people (using the quote from your post above as confirmation ) is correct and true.

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 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.

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. Here it is:

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.

Not the words, "many, many whites". In other words, not all whites are racists. Conversely, anyone telling you that there are no racists among people of color are incorrect. But looking over the landscape of American history, and how the U.S. is now, I'll stand by my statement that there is no widespread racism against whites, and that far too many whites still can't get over skin color.

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.

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.
"Many African Americans have a below average education" would be racists per your definition as well, while it is merely a statistical fact.

Do you deny that there are white supremacists in the US? If not, he could even say there are too many white racists, and still not make a racist comment.

If he said "majority of whites", it would still not be racist, just very likely wrong.

Best regards
Thomas

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

So if Trump said many blacks are lazy, that wouldn't be racist since he excluded some??? Haha. Cute. And nonesense

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.

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.

All you have proven is those in the groups are racist. Maybe try learning about blanket statements: A blanket statement is a vague and noncommittal statement asserting a premise without providing evidence (such as specific numbers).

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.

Best laugh I've had in a while.....thanks!

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

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:

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?

I won't give you credit for anything. Into the blocked bin you go. I don't have time to deal with mental midgets.

KWexpress wrote:

So if Trump said many blacks are lazy, that wouldn't be racist since he excluded some??? Haha. Cute. And nonesense

Well, it is a quite captain obvious sort of statement since there will be many lazy people in any group. So, no, that statement would not by itself be racist.
And yes, I know, many will throw a tantrum if he did, but no, that is just a fact.
Many blacks will be racist too you know.....

Best regards
Thomas

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.

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.

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.

There is no such thing as hate speech. People are using their freedom of speech. They should have the right to bigotry. And equally, it is your right to not be offended.

Signed, the usual right wing conservative think tanks.

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.

Amen Bro. Trump IS the POTUS. Hillis can post as many threads as he wants (and lets be honest, they are becoming really boring) but Donald Trump is still the President. Do I agree with a lot of Trump's statements? Hell no. But these daily threads from Hillis are ruining the non aviation forum.

Safe space. I'm amazed I didn't see the word snowflake

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:

There is an ongoing FBI investigation as to why Trump won.

He won because a lot of American people liked him more than the alternative, and the American electoral system favoured him. No need for FBI investigation.

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

Why? The FBI, the same bloke, investigated Clinton and now it turns out, the FBI is investigating the Trump - Russia link. Seems fair. But now you are crying for his replacement? Seems a bit hypocrite.

Just wait for it. This is the typical modus operandi of the Trump administration.

I have given up taking Trump serious after the first months of his Twitter presidency, the fake news, the spying microwaves and the bad hombre Obama.

seahawk wrote:

Just wait for it.

you mean the Trump administration is going to mengel into a criminal investigation?

A little closer to the topic at hand...:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39327743

No direct link again, of course, but another very likely syndrome of the politically-encouraged animosity towards foreigners or, worse, those who look like foreigners...

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?

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

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.

pvjin wrote:

Made up bullcrap, yeah right.

Yes, load of horse shit. That is all you got. If you check out for how little his husband was almost impeached, you know that we would know if she has as much as aan unpaid parking ticket.

Just because Clinton is a female doesn't mean she's an angel.

Nobody say that

Anybody with half a brain can see that she is a corrupt member

You got that wrong, only people with half a brain can see that.
The Republican witch hunters spend what, about 100 million US dollar on investigating the Clintons with nothing to show for.

of the very same establishment which has caused so much war an destruction all around the world.

So? Is that illegal? Apparently not...

And calling Hillary names is quite cute from Trump supperters, that is very happy throwing his own voters under the bus. Heck, Trump is the f*cking bus.



Best regards
Thomas

On the bright side of the Trump effect:

Trump is now not just the least popular President this early.in his presidency as any other since polling exists, he is now also less popular than Obama was at any time during his whole 8 years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallu ... roval.aspx

Best regards
Thomas

Hillis wrote:

Globally, there's very little hate speech towards white people.

So? Doesn't mean there isn't racism toward them. The media will never report on it and it's never on social media. To try to infer that it's a one way street is so ignorant and ridiculous. At a hotel yesterday I had a black woman go out of her way to let me know she didn't care for me because I am white. I didn't run to my keyboard to start a thread that Obama has created the "Obama effect" I just chalked it up to another person like yourself that has been brainwashed by Van Jones.

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.

Aaaaah........ the defense of a demagogue (I have already checked the definition to see if it fairly applies to you. It does).

NIKV69 wrote:

Hillis wrote:

Globally, there's very little hate speech towards white people.

So? Doesn't mean there isn't racism toward them. .

In deed it doesn't mean that. Whites may start to see the same level of racism than evey other group had to endure for long, long time.

It is not that fun on the receiving end, is it?

Best regards
Thomas

BobPatterson wrote:

Aaaaah........ the defense of a demagogue (I have already checked the definition to see if it fairly applies to you. It does).

buy a real dictionary...

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.

From Oxford dictionary

Is he a leader? Nope
Does he want power? Not that it is apparent
Does he appeal to prejudices, beyond the prejudice facts entail? Where?

Best regards
Thomas

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?

Ouch!

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.

Interesting and I believe it. Trump certainly has been talking about it but the policies of identity politics have been going on far longer than he has been in the political spotlight. This can easily be seen on college campuses with the calls for white male-free "safe zones" and the incessant media noise in my region about the audacity(!) of Apple having a 52% white workforce, for example. I also see it commonly in my children's school curriculum. Trump did not begin this, he is the result of it. There are white people who refuse to feel guilty for their skin color, I would be one of them. I am told this alone makes me racist, but if my skin is brown or black, then it should be Celebrated! and their children, even those of FOB's and illegals, should be placed at the front of the line for educational and employment opportunities because of it. This is the noisy nonsense that Hillary embraced and a large reason why I voted Trump.

As for racism in the US, no German has any business lecturing anybody about racism. And Hillis is apparently not well traveled if he thinks US whites are ANY more racist than other races of the world. Crap, you should hear the Chinese I lived with for years. They hate and look down on everybody not like them.

mham001 wrote:

As for racism in the US, no German has any business lecturing anybody about racism.

You need to explain this statement. You can't possibly be saying that a current German's opinions should be suppressed because of something that happened 75 years ago before they were even born. Or are you saying that?

BTW
You express all the attitudes and incorrect beliefs about race that bigots embrace, you should have no complaint about anyone here calling you a bigot.