calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Sorry, but your post was a big fail. I have never been a Democrat. I have been a Republican until MAGA/Dixiecrats took over the party. I would ask MAGA like you to own your own history. Dixiecrats renamed as MAGA have hijacked the Republican party.

---

I see, There's no reason to worry, the Mitt Romneys and Mitch McConnels of the Republican Party are still there and have a strong grip on the Republican Party.

Dixiecrats were still a small number in comparison to the overall number of Democrats in the south. Richard Nixon, the man who is often credited with creating the Southern Strategy, lost the Deep South in 1968. In contrast, Democrat Jimmy Carter nearly swept the region in 1976 - 12 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And in 1992, over 28 years later, Democrat Bill Clinton won Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia. Republicans didn't hold a majority of southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.

BearHunter said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Own your present. You support the party that protects Confederate statues while trying to suppress teaching racial history.

---

There is a debate over the whole tearing down of statues thing, I don't have a strong position either way. I never lived in the south but I don't think it's right to see people destroying public property either.

---

Like books that discuss race in America?

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Sorry, but your post was a big fail. I have never been a Democrat. I have been a Republican until MAGA/Dixiecrats took over the party. I would ask MAGA like you to own your own history. Dixiecrats renamed as MAGA have hijacked the Republican party.

---

I see, There's no reason to worry, the Mitt Romneys and Mitch McConnels of the Republican Party are still there and have a strong grip on the Republican Party.

Dixiecrats were still a small number in comparison to the overall number of Democrats in the south. Richard Nixon, the man who is often credited with creating the Southern Strategy, lost the Deep South in 1968. In contrast, Democrat Jimmy Carter nearly swept the region in 1976 - 12 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And in 1992, over 28 years later, Democrat Bill Clinton won Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia. Republicans didn't hold a majority of southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.

---

Forget the parties. Think about what those in the deep south wanted / what even Bernie Sanders wanted in the 80s and what MAGA wants. The Republican party was about commerce, free trade, strong military with US influence around the world to enhance our position in global markets, strong legal immigrations, competition, small government without regulation impacting businesses or personal life, and globalization. The Dixiecrats, Bernie Sanders of the 80s, and deep south democrats wanted nationalism, tariffs, restrictions on immigration with strong hints of racism, protection of manufacturing in the US, restriction on personal freedom, and social welfare for the rural areas. MAGA is not in any way Republicans. They are the true RINOs. They have taken the southern, racist, rural, anti-commerce democrats / nationalist ideals and infected the republican party. What you pejoratively call the old democrats are the new MAGA.

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Own your present. You support the party that protects Confederate statues while trying to suppress teaching racial history.

---

There is a debate over the whole tearing down of statues thing, I don't have a strong position either way. I never lived in the south but I don't think it's right to see people destroying public property either.

---

Like books that discuss race in America?

---

Which ones?

BearHunter said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Own your present. You support the party that protects Confederate statues while trying to suppress teaching racial history.

---

There is a debate over the whole tearing down of statues thing, I don't have a strong position either way. I never lived in the south but I don't think it's right to see people destroying public property either.

---

Like Capitol Hill?

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Own your present. You support the party that protects Confederate statues while trying to suppress teaching racial history.

---

There is a debate over the whole tearing down of statues thing, I don't have a strong position either way. I never lived in the south but I don't think it's right to see people destroying public property either.

---

Like Capitol Hill?

---

Absolutely. Destruction of public property and trespassing. Not seditious conspiracy. You nailed it.

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Own your present. You support the party that protects Confederate statues while trying to suppress teaching racial history.

---

There is a debate over the whole tearing down of statues thing, I don't have a strong position either way. I never lived in the south but I don't think it's right to see people destroying public property either.

---

Like Capitol Hill?

---

Absolutely. Destruction of public property and trespassing. Not seditious conspiracy. You nailed it.

---

You know, they are not mutually exclusive, right? It was not bunch of teenagers vandalizing a statute. I wonder what was happening in the Capitol building at the time of destruction of public property, trespassing and assault and battery of law enforcement (I guess blue lives matter only when they are not threatening it). Does government business happen in the Capitol building? Or was the trespassing just a coincidence with the certification of election?

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Own your present. You support the party that protects Confederate statues while trying to suppress teaching racial history.

---

There is a debate over the whole tearing down of statues thing, I don't have a strong position either way. I never lived in the south but I don't think it's right to see people destroying public property either.

---

Like Capitol Hill?

---

Absolutely. Destruction of public property and trespassing. Not seditious conspiracy. You nailed it.

---

You know, they are not mutually exclusive, right? It was not bunch of teenagers vandalizing a statute. I wonder what was happening in the Capitol building at the time of destruction of public property, trespassing and assault and battery of law enforcement (I guess blue lives matter only when they are not threatening it). Does government business happen in the Capitol building? Or was the trespassing just a coincidence with the certification of election?

---

If you're interested in J6, start a thread, there are so many unanswered questions. Meanwhile, thanks to Tucker and no thanks to the rest of the corporate media for not doing their jobs, your favorite QAnon shaman has been released early from prison.

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Own your present. You support the party that protects Confederate statues while trying to suppress teaching racial history.

---

There is a debate over the whole tearing down of statues thing, I don't have a strong position either way. I never lived in the south but I don't think it's right to see people destroying public property either.

---

Like Capitol Hill?

---

Absolutely. Destruction of public property and trespassing. Not seditious conspiracy. You nailed it.

---

You know, they are not mutually exclusive, right? It was not bunch of teenagers vandalizing a statute. I wonder what was happening in the Capitol building at the time of destruction of public property, trespassing and assault and battery of law enforcement (I guess blue lives matter only when they are not threatening it). Does government business happen in the Capitol building? Or was the trespassing just a coincidence with the certification of election?

---

If you're interested in J6, start a thread, there are so many unanswered questions. Meanwhile, thanks to Tucker and no thanks to the rest of the corporate media for not doing their jobs, your favorite QAnon shaman has been released early from prison.

---

Well, you can now meet your idol outside of prison. Congratulations. I guess we all need heroes. To me, it is just another idiot criminal our prison let out too early to the detriment of society.

Here is Jordan Neely openly attacking the gay community, drag queens, and using homophobic slurs before physically assaulting a man.

Where do liberals go from here? pic.twitter.com/c5dSMXMwsS

— Amiri King (@AmiriKing) May 5, 2023

Michael Jackson wasn't very nice, he was arrested 42 times before.

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Own your present. You support the party that protects Confederate statues while trying to suppress teaching racial history.

---

There is a debate over the whole tearing down of statues thing, I don't have a strong position either way. I never lived in the south but I don't think it's right to see people destroying public property either.

---

Like Capitol Hill?

---

Absolutely. Destruction of public property and trespassing. Not seditious conspiracy. You nailed it.

---

You know, they are not mutually exclusive, right? It was not bunch of teenagers vandalizing a statute. I wonder what was happening in the Capitol building at the time of destruction of public property, trespassing and assault and battery of law enforcement (I guess blue lives matter only when they are not threatening it). Does government business happen in the Capitol building? Or was the trespassing just a coincidence with the certification of election?

---

If you're interested in J6, start a thread, there are so many unanswered questions. Meanwhile, thanks to Tucker and no thanks to the rest of the corporate media for not doing their jobs, your favorite QAnon shaman has been released early from prison.

---

Well, you can now meet your idol outside of prison. Congratulations. I guess we all need heroes. To me, it is just another idiot criminal our prison let out too early to the detriment of society.

---

Don't worry, he should pose no threat your idol, Mitch McConnell.

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Own your present. You support the party that protects Confederate statues while trying to suppress teaching racial history.

---

There is a debate over the whole tearing down of statues thing, I don't have a strong position either way. I never lived in the south but I don't think it's right to see people destroying public property either.

---

Like Capitol Hill?

---

Absolutely. Destruction of public property and trespassing. Not seditious conspiracy. You nailed it.

---

You know, they are not mutually exclusive, right? It was not bunch of teenagers vandalizing a statute. I wonder what was happening in the Capitol building at the time of destruction of public property, trespassing and assault and battery of law enforcement (I guess blue lives matter only when they are not threatening it). Does government business happen in the Capitol building? Or was the trespassing just a coincidence with the certification of election?

---

If you're interested in J6, start a thread, there are so many unanswered questions. Meanwhile, thanks to Tucker and no thanks to the rest of the corporate media for not doing their jobs, your favorite QAnon shaman has been released early from prison.

---

Well, you can now meet your idol outside of prison. Congratulations. I guess we all need heroes. To me, it is just another idiot criminal our prison let out too early to the detriment of society.

---

Don't worry, he should pose no threat your idol, Mitch McConnell.

---

Well, I think you worry about McConnell a lot more than I do.

But weird that MAGA are so into criminal justice, letting people out of prison early and attacking law enforcement. Again, RINO.

BearHunter said:

---

Here is Jordan Neely openly attacking the gay community, drag queens, and using homophobic slurs before physically assaulting a man.

Where do liberals go from here? pic.twitter.com/c5dSMXMwsS

— Amiri King (@AmiriKing) May 5, 2023

---

Never would have thought you were so passionate about gay rights. Glad you have such strong principle and not just engaged in tribalism. I personally think we play too much identity politics, but if you want to focus your attention on being an advocate for the gay community, that is your right. I just don't care about the color of a person's skin or his/her sexual orientation. I only care about their character, or the lack thereof.

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Own your present. You support the party that protects Confederate statues while trying to suppress teaching racial history.

---

There is a debate over the whole tearing down of statues thing, I don't have a strong position either way. I never lived in the south but I don't think it's right to see people destroying public property either.

---

Like Capitol Hill?

---

Absolutely. Destruction of public property and trespassing. Not seditious conspiracy. You nailed it.

---

You know, they are not mutually exclusive, right? It was not bunch of teenagers vandalizing a statute. I wonder what was happening in the Capitol building at the time of destruction of public property, trespassing and assault and battery of law enforcement (I guess blue lives matter only when they are not threatening it). Does government business happen in the Capitol building? Or was the trespassing just a coincidence with the certification of election?

---

If you're interested in J6, start a thread, there are so many unanswered questions. Meanwhile, thanks to Tucker and no thanks to the rest of the corporate media for not doing their jobs, your favorite QAnon shaman has been released early from prison.

---

Well, you can now meet your idol outside of prison. Congratulations. I guess we all need heroes. To me, it is just another idiot criminal our prison let out too early to the detriment of society.

---

Don't worry, he should pose no threat your idol, Mitch McConnell.

---

Well, I think you worry about McConnell a lot more than I do.

But weird that MAGA are so into criminal justice, letting people out of prison early and attacking law enforcement. Again, RINO.

---

The reason why you're confused is because your facts are wrong. Capitol police escorted him around the Capitol the entire time but he was sentenced to 41 months in prison. The DOJ and FBI had the video evidence but it was recently released. Make no mistake, you're living in a bubble.

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

If you start with race plays role in EVERYTHING you possess the bandwidth to see this tragedy for what it is murder.

A white person took the opportunity to murder a Black man

---

LBJ said it all:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

---

Dems understand racism better than anybody, they built all the confederate statues.

---

If you are talking about the Dixiecrats who built the statutes, they are all MAGA now, are they not? Do you see a lot of liberal Democrats protecting confederate statutes? I assume you focus on substance and not just labeling. Antifa, even if they chose to call themselves Republicans, would be offensive to you, right?

---

I'm just here for facts. Politifact me bro

---

The beliefs of the Dixiecrat who built the statutes are now the beliefs of MAGA. That is a fact. So you found what you came here for. You're welcome.

---

Sorry, nice try. Own your history. You support the party that founded the KKK and owned slaves.

---

Own your present. You support the party that protects Confederate statues while trying to suppress teaching racial history.

---

There is a debate over the whole tearing down of statues thing, I don't have a strong position either way. I never lived in the south but I don't think it's right to see people destroying public property either.

---

Like Capitol Hill?

---

Absolutely. Destruction of public property and trespassing. Not seditious conspiracy. You nailed it.

---

You know, they are not mutually exclusive, right? It was not bunch of teenagers vandalizing a statute. I wonder what was happening in the Capitol building at the time of destruction of public property, trespassing and assault and battery of law enforcement (I guess blue lives matter only when they are not threatening it). Does government business happen in the Capitol building? Or was the trespassing just a coincidence with the certification of election?

---

If you're interested in J6, start a thread, there are so many unanswered questions. Meanwhile, thanks to Tucker and no thanks to the rest of the corporate media for not doing their jobs, your favorite QAnon shaman has been released early from prison.

---

Well, you can now meet your idol outside of prison. Congratulations. I guess we all need heroes. To me, it is just another idiot criminal our prison let out too early to the detriment of society.

---

Don't worry, he should pose no threat your idol, Mitch McConnell.

---

Well, I think you worry about McConnell a lot more than I do.

But weird that MAGA are so into criminal justice, letting people out of prison early and attacking law enforcement. Again, RINO.

---

The reason why you're confused is because your facts are wrong. Capitol police escorted him around the Capitol the entire time but he was sentenced to 41 months in prison. The DOJ and FBI had the video evidence but it was recently released. Make no mistake, you're living in a bubble.

---

Oh, I see. You are just obsessed with your idol and you were not talking about others who were engaged in seditious conspiracy and attacking law enforcement. If you were only focused on the your shaman idol in a vacuum, i don't think he was individually attacking law enforcement or engaging in conspiracy with his spirit animal.

calbear93 said:

---

Never would have thought you were so passionate about gay rights. Glad you have such strong principle and not just engaged in tribalism. I personally think we play too much identity politics, but if you want to focus your attention on being an advocate for the gay community, that is your right. I just don't care about the color of a person's skin or his/her sexual orientation. I only care about their character, or the lack thereof.

---

This post has all the classic earmarks of RINO projection.

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Never would have thought you were so passionate about gay rights. Glad you have such strong principle and not just engaged in tribalism. I personally think we play too much identity politics, but if you want to focus your attention on being an advocate for the gay community, that is your right. I just don't care about the color of a person's skin or his/her sexual orientation. I only care about their character, or the lack thereof.

---

This post has all the classic earmarks of RINO projection.

---

Glad you have so much self-awareness. I may misjudged you as a deluded MAGA/Dixiecrat.

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Never would have thought you were so passionate about gay rights. Glad you have such strong principle and not just engaged in tribalism. I personally think we play too much identity politics, but if you want to focus your attention on being an advocate for the gay community, that is your right. I just don't care about the color of a person's skin or his/her sexual orientation. I only care about their character, or the lack thereof.

---

This post has all the classic earmarks of RINO projection.

---

Glad you have so much self-awareness. I may misjudged you as a deluded MAGA/Dixiecrat.

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Never would have thought you were so passionate about gay rights. Glad you have such strong principle and not just engaged in tribalism. I personally think we play too much identity politics, but if you want to focus your attention on being an advocate for the gay community, that is your right. I just don't care about the color of a person's skin or his/her sexual orientation. I only care about their character, or the lack thereof.

---

This post has all the classic earmarks of RINO projection.

---

Glad you have so much self-awareness. I may misjudged you as a deluded MAGA/Dixiecrat.

---

---

Again, you are more focused on McConnell than I am.

From my perspective, he showed too little spine when confronted with Trump, and he is still showing too little spine pushing back on the MAGA RINOs. He may think he will live forever, but maybe he should start thinking about his legacy and not only about staying in power.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Nothing I've said is "racist" against whites. You might think it's an unfair generalization or that it's evidence of some anti-white prejudice but it's pretty dang far from racism.

I object to any false equivalence between what some people consider "racism" against whites (eg acknowledging the historical and continuing actual racism by whites) and actual racism faced by people of color. Actual racism can be perpetrated by people of all types and skin colors, but in the US (and many other places) it is fundamentally a construct of European oppression, as G4R correctly points out.

There is a lot of prejudice and hate crimes in the US and it can go in any direction. That's what you seem to be focused on but it's not the same type of racism which G4R and I are discussing. Hate crimes are abhorrent and negatively impact victims and communities but not in the same pernicious ways that historical institutional racism has impacted entire groups. G4R points out individual hate crimes to shed light on the larger problem. People of color have been oppressed by white racism for generations and it has had a massive negative impact on them.

I think you are smart enough to recognize the false equivalence and not think that the impacts on the black community from centuries of slavery and beyond are exactly the same as all other hate crimes in impact.

If you think I'm being racist against white people, we just have a very large difference of opinion about what racism means.

---

At this point, I think you and I are talking past each other.

Couple of reasons why I think we are missing the mark in our respective responses.

I never stated that you are racist against white. I wrote that the problem of racism is not exclusive to whites. As such, racism is not limited to white or a white-only problem.

I also never stated that the simple act of recognizing the existence of continuing impact of past racism is in itself discrimination against whites. Recognizing that this society in large part still contains in pockets the remnants of prior shameful history of racism is not racism against white. It is not controversial, and we address that by fixing the gap and not by excusing race discrimination against other races.

What is racism against whites is grouping all white people in a stereotypical fashion as it happens here often as if the color of our skin imputes negative and inevitable characteristics. Referring to whites as "you people" or "all white people" or "white problem" is racial discrimination and dehumanization. And that behavior seems to be excused by many here because of the existence of institutional racism. Saying that about any other race or religion would be problematic not because of institutional racism but because it dehumanizes people based on skin color or belief.

So, yes, you and I have a very different opinion on what racism means. My view is based on the underlying human stain of needing to push someone down based on something irrelevant and imputing negative character based on skin color. Your view on racism is based on power and societal foundation. As long as we are using the same words to discuss different things, we will never be truly communicating.

---

I think this is a worthwhile discussion even though we may have started talking past each other.

I would like to separate lingustically two different concepts that I believe you are mixing together and treating comprehensively. Let's call what I consider racism to be Problem A (treatment of people of color by europeans, chattel slavery, all of the baggage, etc.) and what you are talking about as anti-white racism as Problem B.

We both seem to agree that Problem A is a significant problem. A real problem that should be addressed and needs to be discussed. A whole lot of people are trying to make it harder to discuss problem A and one of the common tactics is to talk about Problem B in the context of Problem A. To make them equivalent. I'm not saying you are doing that by the way. You seem to be bringing it up because Problem B is something you personally really care about and you consider Problem A and Problem B to be related for a variety of reasons. However, the impact is unfortunate.

I want to be clear that I believe it's a false equivalence. Problem A impacts every person of color in America and has for a really long time. Problem B is annoying for some white people. It personally doesn't bother me I can't think of any meaningful negative impact it's had on my life. Didn't make it harder for me to get to where I am and never really held me back. I can't imagine very many black men like G4R saying the same about Problem A.

Do you understand why I feel the way I do? I would love to hear from G4R but I'm guessing he and I are aligned here.
So I would suggest that we separate these two topics. Whether you want to call both of them racism is up to you, but they aren't the same problem, not in origin, not in individual impact and not in scale.

This incredible individual somehow conquered the chains of chattel slavery and rejected 185+ offers to land at Cornell. Nice job young man.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/05/us/dennis-barnes-college-decision-cornell-university/index.html

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Nothing I've said is "racist" against whites. You might think it's an unfair generalization or that it's evidence of some anti-white prejudice but it's pretty dang far from racism.

I object to any false equivalence between what some people consider "racism" against whites (eg acknowledging the historical and continuing actual racism by whites) and actual racism faced by people of color. Actual racism can be perpetrated by people of all types and skin colors, but in the US (and many other places) it is fundamentally a construct of European oppression, as G4R correctly points out.

There is a lot of prejudice and hate crimes in the US and it can go in any direction. That's what you seem to be focused on but it's not the same type of racism which G4R and I are discussing. Hate crimes are abhorrent and negatively impact victims and communities but not in the same pernicious ways that historical institutional racism has impacted entire groups. G4R points out individual hate crimes to shed light on the larger problem. People of color have been oppressed by white racism for generations and it has had a massive negative impact on them.

I think you are smart enough to recognize the false equivalence and not think that the impacts on the black community from centuries of slavery and beyond are exactly the same as all other hate crimes in impact.

If you think I'm being racist against white people, we just have a very large difference of opinion about what racism means.

---

At this point, I think you and I are talking past each other.

Couple of reasons why I think we are missing the mark in our respective responses.

I never stated that you are racist against white. I wrote that the problem of racism is not exclusive to whites. As such, racism is not limited to white or a white-only problem.

I also never stated that the simple act of recognizing the existence of continuing impact of past racism is in itself discrimination against whites. Recognizing that this society in large part still contains in pockets the remnants of prior shameful history of racism is not racism against white. It is not controversial, and we address that by fixing the gap and not by excusing race discrimination against other races.

What is racism against whites is grouping all white people in a stereotypical fashion as it happens here often as if the color of our skin imputes negative and inevitable characteristics. Referring to whites as "you people" or "all white people" or "white problem" is racial discrimination and dehumanization. And that behavior seems to be excused by many here because of the existence of institutional racism. Saying that about any other race or religion would be problematic not because of institutional racism but because it dehumanizes people based on skin color or belief.

So, yes, you and I have a very different opinion on what racism means. My view is based on the underlying human stain of needing to push someone down based on something irrelevant and imputing negative character based on skin color. Your view on racism is based on power and societal foundation. As long as we are using the same words to discuss different things, we will never be truly communicating.

---

I think this is a worthwhile discussion even though we may have started talking past each other.

I would like to separate lingustically two different concepts that I believe you are mixing together and treating comprehensively. Let's call what I consider racism to be Problem A (treatment of people of color by europeans, chattel slavery, all of the baggage, etc.) and what you are talking about as anti-white racism as Problem B.

We both seem to agree that Problem A is a significant problem. A real problem that should be addressed and needs to be discussed. A whole lot of people are trying to make it harder to discuss problem A and one of the common tactics is to talk about Problem B in the context of Problem A. To make them equivalent. I'm not saying you are doing that by the way. You seem to be bringing it up because Problem B is something you personally really care about and you consider Problem A and Problem B to be related for a variety of reasons. However, the impact is unfortunate.

I want to be clear that I believe it's a false equivalence. Problem A impacts every person of color in America and has for a really long time. Problem B is annoying for some white people. It personally doesn't bother me I can't think of any meaningful negative impact it's had on my life. Didn't make it harder for me to get to where I am and never really held me back. I can't imagine very many black men like G4R saying the same about Problem A.

Do you understand why I feel the way I do? I would love to hear from G4R but I'm guessing he and I are aligned here.
So I would suggest that we separate these two topics. Whether you want to call both of them racism is up to you, but they aren't the same problem, not in origin, not in individual impact and not in scale.

---

I understand how you feel.

However, based on your post, I would say it is a three part disagreement between us.

Racism B that you identify implies that there are only two players or two races as if other races are irrelevant. There is racism against other groups that reflect how race-based bigotry is a human issue and not just a black and white issue. As I made clear in my prior posts, this isn't just about racism against one race or by one race. When we just blame one group, it disguises the same disease we all have.

Second point is the dismissive and cavalier attitude you have toward racism against non-blacks. It is not just an annoyance. It is dehumanizing. Just like using the N-word is not just an annoyance or an insult. It is minimizing the human worth of an individual down to the color of one's skin. I cannot take one seriously about racial justice when the same person is minimizing the negative impact of racial discrimination against any race.

Third point is your focus on impact or result instead of principle. For me, unless we start with principle, we are lost. We get to the point that ACLU got to in deciding not to defend the far right's freedom of speech because of the impact. Or how we may justify lack of due process for an accused murderer through rationalizing that loss of one killer is no loss for the society. There is significant cost to our society when we lose our principle and judge based on subjective value of the impact. Discrimination based on race is the core principle we need to stand against. Not just the impact. If it is wrong, then it is wrong. We need to all agree to that. So that we don't go down the slippery slope of a situation when a person is discriminated against and killed by the police because he is black but we rationalize that he was committing a crime anyway. I don't want us as a society to go down that path of condoning racial discrimination based on subjective determination of impact. The only black and white I want to see is whether we as a society hold to the principle that people should not be judged or discriminated based on the color of a person's skin.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Nothing I've said is "racist" against whites. You might think it's an unfair generalization or that it's evidence of some anti-white prejudice but it's pretty dang far from racism.

I object to any false equivalence between what some people consider "racism" against whites (eg acknowledging the historical and continuing actual racism by whites) and actual racism faced by people of color. Actual racism can be perpetrated by people of all types and skin colors, but in the US (and many other places) it is fundamentally a construct of European oppression, as G4R correctly points out.

There is a lot of prejudice and hate crimes in the US and it can go in any direction. That's what you seem to be focused on but it's not the same type of racism which G4R and I are discussing. Hate crimes are abhorrent and negatively impact victims and communities but not in the same pernicious ways that historical institutional racism has impacted entire groups. G4R points out individual hate crimes to shed light on the larger problem. People of color have been oppressed by white racism for generations and it has had a massive negative impact on them.

I think you are smart enough to recognize the false equivalence and not think that the impacts on the black community from centuries of slavery and beyond are exactly the same as all other hate crimes in impact.

If you think I'm being racist against white people, we just have a very large difference of opinion about what racism means.

---

At this point, I think you and I are talking past each other.

Couple of reasons why I think we are missing the mark in our respective responses.

I never stated that you are racist against white. I wrote that the problem of racism is not exclusive to whites. As such, racism is not limited to white or a white-only problem.

I also never stated that the simple act of recognizing the existence of continuing impact of past racism is in itself discrimination against whites. Recognizing that this society in large part still contains in pockets the remnants of prior shameful history of racism is not racism against white. It is not controversial, and we address that by fixing the gap and not by excusing race discrimination against other races.

What is racism against whites is grouping all white people in a stereotypical fashion as it happens here often as if the color of our skin imputes negative and inevitable characteristics. Referring to whites as "you people" or "all white people" or "white problem" is racial discrimination and dehumanization. And that behavior seems to be excused by many here because of the existence of institutional racism. Saying that about any other race or religion would be problematic not because of institutional racism but because it dehumanizes people based on skin color or belief.

So, yes, you and I have a very different opinion on what racism means. My view is based on the underlying human stain of needing to push someone down based on something irrelevant and imputing negative character based on skin color. Your view on racism is based on power and societal foundation. As long as we are using the same words to discuss different things, we will never be truly communicating.

---

I think this is a worthwhile discussion even though we may have started talking past each other.

I would like to separate lingustically two different concepts that I believe you are mixing together and treating comprehensively. Let's call what I consider racism to be Problem A (treatment of people of color by europeans, chattel slavery, all of the baggage, etc.) and what you are talking about as anti-white racism as Problem B.

We both seem to agree that Problem A is a significant problem. A real problem that should be addressed and needs to be discussed. A whole lot of people are trying to make it harder to discuss problem A and one of the common tactics is to talk about Problem B in the context of Problem A. To make them equivalent. I'm not saying you are doing that by the way. You seem to be bringing it up because Problem B is something you personally really care about and you consider Problem A and Problem B to be related for a variety of reasons. However, the impact is unfortunate.

I want to be clear that I believe it's a false equivalence. Problem A impacts every person of color in America and has for a really long time. Problem B is annoying for some white people. It personally doesn't bother me I can't think of any meaningful negative impact it's had on my life. Didn't make it harder for me to get to where I am and never really held me back. I can't imagine very many black men like G4R saying the same about Problem A.

Do you understand why I feel the way I do? I would love to hear from G4R but I'm guessing he and I are aligned here.
So I would suggest that we separate these two topics. Whether you want to call both of them racism is up to you, but they aren't the same problem, not in origin, not in individual impact and not in scale.

---

I understand how you feel.

However, based on your post, I would say it is a three part disagreement between us.

Racism B that you identify implies that there are only two players or two races as if other races are irrelevant. There is racism against other groups that reflect how race-based bigotry is a human issue and not just a black and white issue. As I made clear in my prior posts, this isn't just about racism against one race or by one race. When we just blame one group, it disguises the same disease we all have.

Second point is the dismissive and cavalier attitude you have toward racism against non-blacks. It is not just an annoyance. It is dehumanizing. Just like using the N-word is not just an annoyance or an insult. It is minimizing the human worth of an individual down to the color of one's skin. I cannot take one seriously about racial justice when the same person is minimizing the negative impact of racial discrimination against any race.

Third point is your focus on impact or result instead of principle. For me, unless we start with principle, we are lost. We get to the point that ACLU got to in deciding not to defend the far right's freedom of speech because of the impact. Or how we may justify lack of due process for an accused murderer through rationalizing that loss of one killer is no loss for the society. There is significant cost to our society when we lose our principle and judge based on subjective value of the impact. Discrimination based on race is the core principle we need to stand against. Not just the impact. If it is wrong, then it is wrong. We need to all agree to that. So that we don't go down the slippery slope of a situation when a person is discriminated against and killed by the police because he is black but we rationalize that he was committing a crime anyway. I don't want us as a society to go down that path of condoning racial discrimination based on subjective determination of impact. The only black and white I want to see is whether we as a society hold to the principle that people should not be judged or discriminated based on the color of a person's skin.

---

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that we should focus most of our energy on problems that most need solving. You can talk about principle and in some cases that is paramount, but here focusing on "principle" really just means derailing any discussion of a very important problem.

I'm sorry that you feel that you've been dehumanized by anti-white racism during your life. I think that if you think that your experience in any way mirrors or parallels the dehumanizing experience faced by people of color in America, and particularly black people, either you are extremely sensitive, extremely out of touch with the challenges black people face or you have personally had a very different experience than most Americans. I have a really hard time believing your dehumanizing experience is anywhere close to the same magnitude facing black Americans.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Nothing I've said is "racist" against whites. You might think it's an unfair generalization or that it's evidence of some anti-white prejudice but it's pretty dang far from racism.

I object to any false equivalence between what some people consider "racism" against whites (eg acknowledging the historical and continuing actual racism by whites) and actual racism faced by people of color. Actual racism can be perpetrated by people of all types and skin colors, but in the US (and many other places) it is fundamentally a construct of European oppression, as G4R correctly points out.

There is a lot of prejudice and hate crimes in the US and it can go in any direction. That's what you seem to be focused on but it's not the same type of racism which G4R and I are discussing. Hate crimes are abhorrent and negatively impact victims and communities but not in the same pernicious ways that historical institutional racism has impacted entire groups. G4R points out individual hate crimes to shed light on the larger problem. People of color have been oppressed by white racism for generations and it has had a massive negative impact on them.

I think you are smart enough to recognize the false equivalence and not think that the impacts on the black community from centuries of slavery and beyond are exactly the same as all other hate crimes in impact.

If you think I'm being racist against white people, we just have a very large difference of opinion about what racism means.

---

At this point, I think you and I are talking past each other.

Couple of reasons why I think we are missing the mark in our respective responses.

I never stated that you are racist against white. I wrote that the problem of racism is not exclusive to whites. As such, racism is not limited to white or a white-only problem.

I also never stated that the simple act of recognizing the existence of continuing impact of past racism is in itself discrimination against whites. Recognizing that this society in large part still contains in pockets the remnants of prior shameful history of racism is not racism against white. It is not controversial, and we address that by fixing the gap and not by excusing race discrimination against other races.

What is racism against whites is grouping all white people in a stereotypical fashion as it happens here often as if the color of our skin imputes negative and inevitable characteristics. Referring to whites as "you people" or "all white people" or "white problem" is racial discrimination and dehumanization. And that behavior seems to be excused by many here because of the existence of institutional racism. Saying that about any other race or religion would be problematic not because of institutional racism but because it dehumanizes people based on skin color or belief.

So, yes, you and I have a very different opinion on what racism means. My view is based on the underlying human stain of needing to push someone down based on something irrelevant and imputing negative character based on skin color. Your view on racism is based on power and societal foundation. As long as we are using the same words to discuss different things, we will never be truly communicating.

---

I think this is a worthwhile discussion even though we may have started talking past each other.

I would like to separate lingustically two different concepts that I believe you are mixing together and treating comprehensively. Let's call what I consider racism to be Problem A (treatment of people of color by europeans, chattel slavery, all of the baggage, etc.) and what you are talking about as anti-white racism as Problem B.

We both seem to agree that Problem A is a significant problem. A real problem that should be addressed and needs to be discussed. A whole lot of people are trying to make it harder to discuss problem A and one of the common tactics is to talk about Problem B in the context of Problem A. To make them equivalent. I'm not saying you are doing that by the way. You seem to be bringing it up because Problem B is something you personally really care about and you consider Problem A and Problem B to be related for a variety of reasons. However, the impact is unfortunate.

I want to be clear that I believe it's a false equivalence. Problem A impacts every person of color in America and has for a really long time. Problem B is annoying for some white people. It personally doesn't bother me I can't think of any meaningful negative impact it's had on my life. Didn't make it harder for me to get to where I am and never really held me back. I can't imagine very many black men like G4R saying the same about Problem A.

Do you understand why I feel the way I do? I would love to hear from G4R but I'm guessing he and I are aligned here.
So I would suggest that we separate these two topics. Whether you want to call both of them racism is up to you, but they aren't the same problem, not in origin, not in individual impact and not in scale.

---

I understand how you feel.

However, based on your post, I would say it is a three part disagreement between us.

Racism B that you identify implies that there are only two players or two races as if other races are irrelevant. There is racism against other groups that reflect how race-based bigotry is a human issue and not just a black and white issue. As I made clear in my prior posts, this isn't just about racism against one race or by one race. When we just blame one group, it disguises the same disease we all have.

Second point is the dismissive and cavalier attitude you have toward racism against non-blacks. It is not just an annoyance. It is dehumanizing. Just like using the N-word is not just an annoyance or an insult. It is minimizing the human worth of an individual down to the color of one's skin. I cannot take one seriously about racial justice when the same person is minimizing the negative impact of racial discrimination against any race.

Third point is your focus on impact or result instead of principle. For me, unless we start with principle, we are lost. We get to the point that ACLU got to in deciding not to defend the far right's freedom of speech because of the impact. Or how we may justify lack of due process for an accused murderer through rationalizing that loss of one killer is no loss for the society. There is significant cost to our society when we lose our principle and judge based on subjective value of the impact. Discrimination based on race is the core principle we need to stand against. Not just the impact. If it is wrong, then it is wrong. We need to all agree to that. So that we don't go down the slippery slope of a situation when a person is discriminated against and killed by the police because he is black but we rationalize that he was committing a crime anyway. I don't want us as a society to go down that path of condoning racial discrimination based on subjective determination of impact. The only black and white I want to see is whether we as a society hold to the principle that people should not be judged or discriminated based on the color of a person's skin.

---

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that we should focus most of our energy on problems that most need solving. You can talk about principle and in some cases that is paramount, but here focusing on "principle" really just means derailing any discussion of a very important problem.

I'm sorry that you feel that you've been dehumanized by anti-white racism during your life. I think that if you think that your experience in any way mirrors or parallels the dehumanizing experience faced by people of color in America, and particularly black people, either you are extremely sensitive, extremely out of touch or you have personally had a very different experience than most Americans.

---

We will definitely disagree on this. And you need to stop making it about you or me as if we are the only people in the world. Anyone who dismisses the impact of racism or belittles the dehumanization of race-based bigotry loses credibility on social justice. If it were only about personal experiences, both you and I need to shut our mouth on black experience or racism. But since you feel comfortable talking about the experience of others, it is clear to me you understand that it is not just what I or you feel or experience

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Nothing I've said is "racist" against whites. You might think it's an unfair generalization or that it's evidence of some anti-white prejudice but it's pretty dang far from racism.

I object to any false equivalence between what some people consider "racism" against whites (eg acknowledging the historical and continuing actual racism by whites) and actual racism faced by people of color. Actual racism can be perpetrated by people of all types and skin colors, but in the US (and many other places) it is fundamentally a construct of European oppression, as G4R correctly points out.

There is a lot of prejudice and hate crimes in the US and it can go in any direction. That's what you seem to be focused on but it's not the same type of racism which G4R and I are discussing. Hate crimes are abhorrent and negatively impact victims and communities but not in the same pernicious ways that historical institutional racism has impacted entire groups. G4R points out individual hate crimes to shed light on the larger problem. People of color have been oppressed by white racism for generations and it has had a massive negative impact on them.

I think you are smart enough to recognize the false equivalence and not think that the impacts on the black community from centuries of slavery and beyond are exactly the same as all other hate crimes in impact.

If you think I'm being racist against white people, we just have a very large difference of opinion about what racism means.

---

At this point, I think you and I are talking past each other.

Couple of reasons why I think we are missing the mark in our respective responses.

I never stated that you are racist against white. I wrote that the problem of racism is not exclusive to whites. As such, racism is not limited to white or a white-only problem.

I also never stated that the simple act of recognizing the existence of continuing impact of past racism is in itself discrimination against whites. Recognizing that this society in large part still contains in pockets the remnants of prior shameful history of racism is not racism against white. It is not controversial, and we address that by fixing the gap and not by excusing race discrimination against other races.

What is racism against whites is grouping all white people in a stereotypical fashion as it happens here often as if the color of our skin imputes negative and inevitable characteristics. Referring to whites as "you people" or "all white people" or "white problem" is racial discrimination and dehumanization. And that behavior seems to be excused by many here because of the existence of institutional racism. Saying that about any other race or religion would be problematic not because of institutional racism but because it dehumanizes people based on skin color or belief.

So, yes, you and I have a very different opinion on what racism means. My view is based on the underlying human stain of needing to push someone down based on something irrelevant and imputing negative character based on skin color. Your view on racism is based on power and societal foundation. As long as we are using the same words to discuss different things, we will never be truly communicating.

---

I think this is a worthwhile discussion even though we may have started talking past each other.

I would like to separate lingustically two different concepts that I believe you are mixing together and treating comprehensively. Let's call what I consider racism to be Problem A (treatment of people of color by europeans, chattel slavery, all of the baggage, etc.) and what you are talking about as anti-white racism as Problem B.

We both seem to agree that Problem A is a significant problem. A real problem that should be addressed and needs to be discussed. A whole lot of people are trying to make it harder to discuss problem A and one of the common tactics is to talk about Problem B in the context of Problem A. To make them equivalent. I'm not saying you are doing that by the way. You seem to be bringing it up because Problem B is something you personally really care about and you consider Problem A and Problem B to be related for a variety of reasons. However, the impact is unfortunate.

I want to be clear that I believe it's a false equivalence. Problem A impacts every person of color in America and has for a really long time. Problem B is annoying for some white people. It personally doesn't bother me I can't think of any meaningful negative impact it's had on my life. Didn't make it harder for me to get to where I am and never really held me back. I can't imagine very many black men like G4R saying the same about Problem A.

Do you understand why I feel the way I do? I would love to hear from G4R but I'm guessing he and I are aligned here.
So I would suggest that we separate these two topics. Whether you want to call both of them racism is up to you, but they aren't the same problem, not in origin, not in individual impact and not in scale.

---

I understand how you feel.

However, based on your post, I would say it is a three part disagreement between us.

Racism B that you identify implies that there are only two players or two races as if other races are irrelevant. There is racism against other groups that reflect how race-based bigotry is a human issue and not just a black and white issue. As I made clear in my prior posts, this isn't just about racism against one race or by one race. When we just blame one group, it disguises the same disease we all have.

Second point is the dismissive and cavalier attitude you have toward racism against non-blacks. It is not just an annoyance. It is dehumanizing. Just like using the N-word is not just an annoyance or an insult. It is minimizing the human worth of an individual down to the color of one's skin. I cannot take one seriously about racial justice when the same person is minimizing the negative impact of racial discrimination against any race.

Third point is your focus on impact or result instead of principle. For me, unless we start with principle, we are lost. We get to the point that ACLU got to in deciding not to defend the far right's freedom of speech because of the impact. Or how we may justify lack of due process for an accused murderer through rationalizing that loss of one killer is no loss for the society. There is significant cost to our society when we lose our principle and judge based on subjective value of the impact. Discrimination based on race is the core principle we need to stand against. Not just the impact. If it is wrong, then it is wrong. We need to all agree to that. So that we don't go down the slippery slope of a situation when a person is discriminated against and killed by the police because he is black but we rationalize that he was committing a crime anyway. I don't want us as a society to go down that path of condoning racial discrimination based on subjective determination of impact. The only black and white I want to see is whether we as a society hold to the principle that people should not be judged or discriminated based on the color of a person's skin.

---

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that we should focus most of our energy on problems that most need solving. You can talk about principle and in some cases that is paramount, but here focusing on "principle" really just means derailing any discussion of a very important problem.

I'm sorry that you feel that you've been dehumanized by anti-white racism during your life. I think that if you think that your experience in any way mirrors or parallels the dehumanizing experience faced by people of color in America, and particularly black people, either you are extremely sensitive, extremely out of touch or you have personally had a very different experience than most Americans.

---

We will definitely disagree on this. And you need to stop making it about you or me as if we are the only people in the world. Anyone who dismisses the impact of racism or belittles the dehumanization of race-based bigotry loses credibility on social justice. If it were only about personal experiences, both you and I need to shut our mouth on black experience or racism. But since you feel comfortable talking about the experience of others, it is clear to me you understand that it is not just what I or you feel or experience

---

I guess I misunderstood, so you are just saying in theory that anti-white racism (as you call it) is dehumanizing, not that you've experienced it.

I think your statements around social justice and the impact of racism, while continuing to equivocate "on principle" anti-white racism and racism against people of color, show that we can't really have a productive conversation. I studied CRT in law school, so perhaps I come at this with a different starting point than you do, but I think this sort of discussion isn't very interesting. I don't think the solutions to the thing I care about are necessarily related to or relevant to the solutions to the thing you want to talk about.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Nothing I've said is "racist" against whites. You might think it's an unfair generalization or that it's evidence of some anti-white prejudice but it's pretty dang far from racism.

I object to any false equivalence between what some people consider "racism" against whites (eg acknowledging the historical and continuing actual racism by whites) and actual racism faced by people of color. Actual racism can be perpetrated by people of all types and skin colors, but in the US (and many other places) it is fundamentally a construct of European oppression, as G4R correctly points out.

There is a lot of prejudice and hate crimes in the US and it can go in any direction. That's what you seem to be focused on but it's not the same type of racism which G4R and I are discussing. Hate crimes are abhorrent and negatively impact victims and communities but not in the same pernicious ways that historical institutional racism has impacted entire groups. G4R points out individual hate crimes to shed light on the larger problem. People of color have been oppressed by white racism for generations and it has had a massive negative impact on them.

I think you are smart enough to recognize the false equivalence and not think that the impacts on the black community from centuries of slavery and beyond are exactly the same as all other hate crimes in impact.

If you think I'm being racist against white people, we just have a very large difference of opinion about what racism means.

---

At this point, I think you and I are talking past each other.

Couple of reasons why I think we are missing the mark in our respective responses.

I never stated that you are racist against white. I wrote that the problem of racism is not exclusive to whites. As such, racism is not limited to white or a white-only problem.

I also never stated that the simple act of recognizing the existence of continuing impact of past racism is in itself discrimination against whites. Recognizing that this society in large part still contains in pockets the remnants of prior shameful history of racism is not racism against white. It is not controversial, and we address that by fixing the gap and not by excusing race discrimination against other races.

What is racism against whites is grouping all white people in a stereotypical fashion as it happens here often as if the color of our skin imputes negative and inevitable characteristics. Referring to whites as "you people" or "all white people" or "white problem" is racial discrimination and dehumanization. And that behavior seems to be excused by many here because of the existence of institutional racism. Saying that about any other race or religion would be problematic not because of institutional racism but because it dehumanizes people based on skin color or belief.

So, yes, you and I have a very different opinion on what racism means. My view is based on the underlying human stain of needing to push someone down based on something irrelevant and imputing negative character based on skin color. Your view on racism is based on power and societal foundation. As long as we are using the same words to discuss different things, we will never be truly communicating.

---

I think this is a worthwhile discussion even though we may have started talking past each other.

I would like to separate lingustically two different concepts that I believe you are mixing together and treating comprehensively. Let's call what I consider racism to be Problem A (treatment of people of color by europeans, chattel slavery, all of the baggage, etc.) and what you are talking about as anti-white racism as Problem B.

We both seem to agree that Problem A is a significant problem. A real problem that should be addressed and needs to be discussed. A whole lot of people are trying to make it harder to discuss problem A and one of the common tactics is to talk about Problem B in the context of Problem A. To make them equivalent. I'm not saying you are doing that by the way. You seem to be bringing it up because Problem B is something you personally really care about and you consider Problem A and Problem B to be related for a variety of reasons. However, the impact is unfortunate.

I want to be clear that I believe it's a false equivalence. Problem A impacts every person of color in America and has for a really long time. Problem B is annoying for some white people. It personally doesn't bother me I can't think of any meaningful negative impact it's had on my life. Didn't make it harder for me to get to where I am and never really held me back. I can't imagine very many black men like G4R saying the same about Problem A.

Do you understand why I feel the way I do? I would love to hear from G4R but I'm guessing he and I are aligned here.
So I would suggest that we separate these two topics. Whether you want to call both of them racism is up to you, but they aren't the same problem, not in origin, not in individual impact and not in scale.

---

I understand how you feel.

However, based on your post, I would say it is a three part disagreement between us.

Racism B that you identify implies that there are only two players or two races as if other races are irrelevant. There is racism against other groups that reflect how race-based bigotry is a human issue and not just a black and white issue. As I made clear in my prior posts, this isn't just about racism against one race or by one race. When we just blame one group, it disguises the same disease we all have.

Second point is the dismissive and cavalier attitude you have toward racism against non-blacks. It is not just an annoyance. It is dehumanizing. Just like using the N-word is not just an annoyance or an insult. It is minimizing the human worth of an individual down to the color of one's skin. I cannot take one seriously about racial justice when the same person is minimizing the negative impact of racial discrimination against any race.

Third point is your focus on impact or result instead of principle. For me, unless we start with principle, we are lost. We get to the point that ACLU got to in deciding not to defend the far right's freedom of speech because of the impact. Or how we may justify lack of due process for an accused murderer through rationalizing that loss of one killer is no loss for the society. There is significant cost to our society when we lose our principle and judge based on subjective value of the impact. Discrimination based on race is the core principle we need to stand against. Not just the impact. If it is wrong, then it is wrong. We need to all agree to that. So that we don't go down the slippery slope of a situation when a person is discriminated against and killed by the police because he is black but we rationalize that he was committing a crime anyway. I don't want us as a society to go down that path of condoning racial discrimination based on subjective determination of impact. The only black and white I want to see is whether we as a society hold to the principle that people should not be judged or discriminated based on the color of a person's skin.

---

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that we should focus most of our energy on problems that most need solving. You can talk about principle and in some cases that is paramount, but here focusing on "principle" really just means derailing any discussion of a very important problem.

I'm sorry that you feel that you've been dehumanized by anti-white racism during your life. I think that if you think that your experience in any way mirrors or parallels the dehumanizing experience faced by people of color in America, and particularly black people, either you are extremely sensitive, extremely out of touch or you have personally had a very different experience than most Americans.

---

We will definitely disagree on this. And you need to stop making it about you or me as if we are the only people in the world. Anyone who dismisses the impact of racism or belittles the dehumanization of race-based bigotry loses credibility on social justice. If it were only about personal experiences, both you and I need to shut our mouth on black experience or racism. But since you feel comfortable talking about the experience of others, it is clear to me you understand that it is not just what I or you feel or experience

---

I guess I misunderstood, so you are just saying in theory that anti-white racism (as you call it) is dehumanizing, not that you've experienced it.

I think your statements around social justice and the impact of racism, while continuing to equivocate "on principle" anti-white racism and racism against people of color, show that we can't really have a productive conversation. I studied CRT in law school, so perhaps I come at this with a different starting point than you do, but I think this sort of discussion isn't very interesting. I don't think the solutions to the thing I care about are necessarily related to or relevant to the solutions to the thing you want to talk about.

---

You have a tendency to make it personal. Not sure why in multiple post, my discussion on racism as a principle is turned around by you into saying I am super/hyper sensitive white man. Can we not discuss social issues unless we have experienced it directly? Are you writing about black experience from your experience as a black man even though you are white? You can do better than make a snide personal comment when you are not winning through persuasive argument.

1. I never call it anti-white racism. In fact, in almost every single post, I clarified that racism is not a white or black thing but something that human race has struggled with in all human history. But you keep making it about my experience or my stance on anti-white racism.

2. If you are starting from a theoretical concept or forced outcome as opposed to basic principle and value, then yes, we are approaching this from a different starting point. And unless you and I agree on what the problem is (not just fixing who has power or equalizing outcome for only one race as if past racial discriminatory laws didn't impact other races - I prefer Justice Roberts' focus on fighting against the baser nature of racial discrimination), we cannot even talk about a solution.

So, yes, this is going nowhere.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Nothing I've said is "racist" against whites. You might think it's an unfair generalization or that it's evidence of some anti-white prejudice but it's pretty dang far from racism.

I object to any false equivalence between what some people consider "racism" against whites (eg acknowledging the historical and continuing actual racism by whites) and actual racism faced by people of color. Actual racism can be perpetrated by people of all types and skin colors, but in the US (and many other places) it is fundamentally a construct of European oppression, as G4R correctly points out.

There is a lot of prejudice and hate crimes in the US and it can go in any direction. That's what you seem to be focused on but it's not the same type of racism which G4R and I are discussing. Hate crimes are abhorrent and negatively impact victims and communities but not in the same pernicious ways that historical institutional racism has impacted entire groups. G4R points out individual hate crimes to shed light on the larger problem. People of color have been oppressed by white racism for generations and it has had a massive negative impact on them.

I think you are smart enough to recognize the false equivalence and not think that the impacts on the black community from centuries of slavery and beyond are exactly the same as all other hate crimes in impact.

If you think I'm being racist against white people, we just have a very large difference of opinion about what racism means.

---

At this point, I think you and I are talking past each other.

Couple of reasons why I think we are missing the mark in our respective responses.

I never stated that you are racist against white. I wrote that the problem of racism is not exclusive to whites. As such, racism is not limited to white or a white-only problem.

I also never stated that the simple act of recognizing the existence of continuing impact of past racism is in itself discrimination against whites. Recognizing that this society in large part still contains in pockets the remnants of prior shameful history of racism is not racism against white. It is not controversial, and we address that by fixing the gap and not by excusing race discrimination against other races.

What is racism against whites is grouping all white people in a stereotypical fashion as it happens here often as if the color of our skin imputes negative and inevitable characteristics. Referring to whites as "you people" or "all white people" or "white problem" is racial discrimination and dehumanization. And that behavior seems to be excused by many here because of the existence of institutional racism. Saying that about any other race or religion would be problematic not because of institutional racism but because it dehumanizes people based on skin color or belief.

So, yes, you and I have a very different opinion on what racism means. My view is based on the underlying human stain of needing to push someone down based on something irrelevant and imputing negative character based on skin color. Your view on racism is based on power and societal foundation. As long as we are using the same words to discuss different things, we will never be truly communicating.

---

I think this is a worthwhile discussion even though we may have started talking past each other.

I would like to separate lingustically two different concepts that I believe you are mixing together and treating comprehensively. Let's call what I consider racism to be Problem A (treatment of people of color by europeans, chattel slavery, all of the baggage, etc.) and what you are talking about as anti-white racism as Problem B.

We both seem to agree that Problem A is a significant problem. A real problem that should be addressed and needs to be discussed. A whole lot of people are trying to make it harder to discuss problem A and one of the common tactics is to talk about Problem B in the context of Problem A. To make them equivalent. I'm not saying you are doing that by the way. You seem to be bringing it up because Problem B is something you personally really care about and you consider Problem A and Problem B to be related for a variety of reasons. However, the impact is unfortunate.

I want to be clear that I believe it's a false equivalence. Problem A impacts every person of color in America and has for a really long time. Problem B is annoying for some white people. It personally doesn't bother me I can't think of any meaningful negative impact it's had on my life. Didn't make it harder for me to get to where I am and never really held me back. I can't imagine very many black men like G4R saying the same about Problem A.

Do you understand why I feel the way I do? I would love to hear from G4R but I'm guessing he and I are aligned here.
So I would suggest that we separate these two topics. Whether you want to call both of them racism is up to you, but they aren't the same problem, not in origin, not in individual impact and not in scale.

---

I understand how you feel.

However, based on your post, I would say it is a three part disagreement between us.

Racism B that you identify implies that there are only two players or two races as if other races are irrelevant. There is racism against other groups that reflect how race-based bigotry is a human issue and not just a black and white issue. As I made clear in my prior posts, this isn't just about racism against one race or by one race. When we just blame one group, it disguises the same disease we all have.

Second point is the dismissive and cavalier attitude you have toward racism against non-blacks. It is not just an annoyance. It is dehumanizing. Just like using the N-word is not just an annoyance or an insult. It is minimizing the human worth of an individual down to the color of one's skin. I cannot take one seriously about racial justice when the same person is minimizing the negative impact of racial discrimination against any race.

Third point is your focus on impact or result instead of principle. For me, unless we start with principle, we are lost. We get to the point that ACLU got to in deciding not to defend the far right's freedom of speech because of the impact. Or how we may justify lack of due process for an accused murderer through rationalizing that loss of one killer is no loss for the society. There is significant cost to our society when we lose our principle and judge based on subjective value of the impact. Discrimination based on race is the core principle we need to stand against. Not just the impact. If it is wrong, then it is wrong. We need to all agree to that. So that we don't go down the slippery slope of a situation when a person is discriminated against and killed by the police because he is black but we rationalize that he was committing a crime anyway. I don't want us as a society to go down that path of condoning racial discrimination based on subjective determination of impact. The only black and white I want to see is whether we as a society hold to the principle that people should not be judged or discriminated based on the color of a person's skin.

---

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that we should focus most of our energy on problems that most need solving. You can talk about principle and in some cases that is paramount, but here focusing on "principle" really just means derailing any discussion of a very important problem.

I'm sorry that you feel that you've been dehumanized by anti-white racism during your life. I think that if you think that your experience in any way mirrors or parallels the dehumanizing experience faced by people of color in America, and particularly black people, either you are extremely sensitive, extremely out of touch or you have personally had a very different experience than most Americans.

---

We will definitely disagree on this. And you need to stop making it about you or me as if we are the only people in the world. Anyone who dismisses the impact of racism or belittles the dehumanization of race-based bigotry loses credibility on social justice. If it were only about personal experiences, both you and I need to shut our mouth on black experience or racism. But since you feel comfortable talking about the experience of others, it is clear to me you understand that it is not just what I or you feel or experience

---

I guess I misunderstood, so you are just saying in theory that anti-white racism (as you call it) is dehumanizing, not that you've experienced it.

I think your statements around social justice and the impact of racism, while continuing to equivocate "on principle" anti-white racism and racism against people of color, show that we can't really have a productive conversation. I studied CRT in law school, so perhaps I come at this with a different starting point than you do, but I think this sort of discussion isn't very interesting. I don't think the solutions to the thing I care about are necessarily related to or relevant to the solutions to the thing you want to talk about.

---

You have a tendency to make it personal. Not sure why in multiple post, my discussion on racism as a principle is turned around by you into saying I am super/hyper sensitive white man. Can we not discuss social issues unless we have experienced it directly? Are you writing about black experience from your experience as a black man even though you are white? You can do better than make a snide personal comment when you are not winning through persuasive argument.

1. I never call it anti-white racism. In fact, in almost every single post, I clarified that racism is not a white or black thing but something that human race has struggled with in all human history. But you keep making it about my experience or my stance on anti-white racism.

2. If you are starting from a theoretical concept or forced outcome as opposed to basic principle and value, then yes, we are approaching this from a different starting point. And unless you and I agree on what the problem is (not just fixing who has power or equalizing outcome for only one race as if past racial discriminatory laws didn't impact other races - I prefer Justice Roberts' focus on fighting against the baser nature of racial discrimination), we cannot even talk about a solution.

So, yes, this is going nowhere.

---

Just to be clear, we disagree on this topic. Because we disagree on this topic, I'm trying to understand why we differ which often requires a personal inquiry.

You seem to think that approaching this from a principles-based or theoretical angle is more appropriate whereas I clearly think that a practical approach makes more sense.

I do understand that linguistically you believe that racism encompasses a number of things which I don't consider to be relevant when discussing racism. That's why I separated it into Problem A and Problem B. Obviously you reject that construct which probably is where the conversation should have ended.

No hard feelings from my end.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Nothing I've said is "racist" against whites. You might think it's an unfair generalization or that it's evidence of some anti-white prejudice but it's pretty dang far from racism.

I object to any false equivalence between what some people consider "racism" against whites (eg acknowledging the historical and continuing actual racism by whites) and actual racism faced by people of color. Actual racism can be perpetrated by people of all types and skin colors, but in the US (and many other places) it is fundamentally a construct of European oppression, as G4R correctly points out.

There is a lot of prejudice and hate crimes in the US and it can go in any direction. That's what you seem to be focused on but it's not the same type of racism which G4R and I are discussing. Hate crimes are abhorrent and negatively impact victims and communities but not in the same pernicious ways that historical institutional racism has impacted entire groups. G4R points out individual hate crimes to shed light on the larger problem. People of color have been oppressed by white racism for generations and it has had a massive negative impact on them.

I think you are smart enough to recognize the false equivalence and not think that the impacts on the black community from centuries of slavery and beyond are exactly the same as all other hate crimes in impact.

If you think I'm being racist against white people, we just have a very large difference of opinion about what racism means.

---

At this point, I think you and I are talking past each other.

Couple of reasons why I think we are missing the mark in our respective responses.

I never stated that you are racist against white. I wrote that the problem of racism is not exclusive to whites. As such, racism is not limited to white or a white-only problem.

I also never stated that the simple act of recognizing the existence of continuing impact of past racism is in itself discrimination against whites. Recognizing that this society in large part still contains in pockets the remnants of prior shameful history of racism is not racism against white. It is not controversial, and we address that by fixing the gap and not by excusing race discrimination against other races.

What is racism against whites is grouping all white people in a stereotypical fashion as it happens here often as if the color of our skin imputes negative and inevitable characteristics. Referring to whites as "you people" or "all white people" or "white problem" is racial discrimination and dehumanization. And that behavior seems to be excused by many here because of the existence of institutional racism. Saying that about any other race or religion would be problematic not because of institutional racism but because it dehumanizes people based on skin color or belief.

So, yes, you and I have a very different opinion on what racism means. My view is based on the underlying human stain of needing to push someone down based on something irrelevant and imputing negative character based on skin color. Your view on racism is based on power and societal foundation. As long as we are using the same words to discuss different things, we will never be truly communicating.

---

I think this is a worthwhile discussion even though we may have started talking past each other.

I would like to separate lingustically two different concepts that I believe you are mixing together and treating comprehensively. Let's call what I consider racism to be Problem A (treatment of people of color by europeans, chattel slavery, all of the baggage, etc.) and what you are talking about as anti-white racism as Problem B.

We both seem to agree that Problem A is a significant problem. A real problem that should be addressed and needs to be discussed. A whole lot of people are trying to make it harder to discuss problem A and one of the common tactics is to talk about Problem B in the context of Problem A. To make them equivalent. I'm not saying you are doing that by the way. You seem to be bringing it up because Problem B is something you personally really care about and you consider Problem A and Problem B to be related for a variety of reasons. However, the impact is unfortunate.

I want to be clear that I believe it's a false equivalence. Problem A impacts every person of color in America and has for a really long time. Problem B is annoying for some white people. It personally doesn't bother me I can't think of any meaningful negative impact it's had on my life. Didn't make it harder for me to get to where I am and never really held me back. I can't imagine very many black men like G4R saying the same about Problem A.

Do you understand why I feel the way I do? I would love to hear from G4R but I'm guessing he and I are aligned here.
So I would suggest that we separate these two topics. Whether you want to call both of them racism is up to you, but they aren't the same problem, not in origin, not in individual impact and not in scale.

---

I understand how you feel.

However, based on your post, I would say it is a three part disagreement between us.

Racism B that you identify implies that there are only two players or two races as if other races are irrelevant. There is racism against other groups that reflect how race-based bigotry is a human issue and not just a black and white issue. As I made clear in my prior posts, this isn't just about racism against one race or by one race. When we just blame one group, it disguises the same disease we all have.

Second point is the dismissive and cavalier attitude you have toward racism against non-blacks. It is not just an annoyance. It is dehumanizing. Just like using the N-word is not just an annoyance or an insult. It is minimizing the human worth of an individual down to the color of one's skin. I cannot take one seriously about racial justice when the same person is minimizing the negative impact of racial discrimination against any race.

Third point is your focus on impact or result instead of principle. For me, unless we start with principle, we are lost. We get to the point that ACLU got to in deciding not to defend the far right's freedom of speech because of the impact. Or how we may justify lack of due process for an accused murderer through rationalizing that loss of one killer is no loss for the society. There is significant cost to our society when we lose our principle and judge based on subjective value of the impact. Discrimination based on race is the core principle we need to stand against. Not just the impact. If it is wrong, then it is wrong. We need to all agree to that. So that we don't go down the slippery slope of a situation when a person is discriminated against and killed by the police because he is black but we rationalize that he was committing a crime anyway. I don't want us as a society to go down that path of condoning racial discrimination based on subjective determination of impact. The only black and white I want to see is whether we as a society hold to the principle that people should not be judged or discriminated based on the color of a person's skin.

---

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that we should focus most of our energy on problems that most need solving. You can talk about principle and in some cases that is paramount, but here focusing on "principle" really just means derailing any discussion of a very important problem.

I'm sorry that you feel that you've been dehumanized by anti-white racism during your life. I think that if you think that your experience in any way mirrors or parallels the dehumanizing experience faced by people of color in America, and particularly black people, either you are extremely sensitive, extremely out of touch or you have personally had a very different experience than most Americans.

---

We will definitely disagree on this. And you need to stop making it about you or me as if we are the only people in the world. Anyone who dismisses the impact of racism or belittles the dehumanization of race-based bigotry loses credibility on social justice. If it were only about personal experiences, both you and I need to shut our mouth on black experience or racism. But since you feel comfortable talking about the experience of others, it is clear to me you understand that it is not just what I or you feel or experience

---

I guess I misunderstood, so you are just saying in theory that anti-white racism (as you call it) is dehumanizing, not that you've experienced it.

I think your statements around social justice and the impact of racism, while continuing to equivocate "on principle" anti-white racism and racism against people of color, show that we can't really have a productive conversation. I studied CRT in law school, so perhaps I come at this with a different starting point than you do, but I think this sort of discussion isn't very interesting. I don't think the solutions to the thing I care about are necessarily related to or relevant to the solutions to the thing you want to talk about.

---

You have a tendency to make it personal. Not sure why in multiple post, my discussion on racism as a principle is turned around by you into saying I am super/hyper sensitive white man. Can we not discuss social issues unless we have experienced it directly? Are you writing about black experience from your experience as a black man even though you are white? You can do better than make a snide personal comment when you are not winning through persuasive argument.

1. I never call it anti-white racism. In fact, in almost every single post, I clarified that racism is not a white or black thing but something that human race has struggled with in all human history. But you keep making it about my experience or my stance on anti-white racism.

2. If you are starting from a theoretical concept or forced outcome as opposed to basic principle and value, then yes, we are approaching this from a different starting point. And unless you and I agree on what the problem is (not just fixing who has power or equalizing outcome for only one race as if past racial discriminatory laws didn't impact other races - I prefer Justice Roberts' focus on fighting against the baser nature of racial discrimination), we cannot even talk about a solution.

So, yes, this is going nowhere.

---

Just to be clear, we disagree on this topic. Because we disagree on this topic, I'm trying to understand why we differ which often requires a personal inquiry.

You seem to think that approaching this from a principles-based or theoretical angle is more appropriate whereas I clearly think that a practical approach makes more sense.

I do understand that linguistically you believe that racism encompasses a number of things which I don't consider to be relevant when discussing racism. That's why I separated it into Problem A and Problem B. Obviously you reject that construct which probably is where the conversation should have ended.

No hard feelings from my end.

---

No problem.

Our debate is not new. That is the main debate between those who believe CRT and racism as a social construct that needs to be remedied through forced outcome vs racism as a principle with solution being ending all race-based discrimination. Same debate even in the Supreme Court.

No hard feelings from my end either. Thanks, U2. Have a great weekend.

So, I was digging dirt today.
What did you guys do???

OneKeg said:

---

concordtom said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Here in an America …

Tell me how descendants of chattel slavery have power(economically /politically/legally/financially/religion) over white people ?

---

Why do you often refer to it as "chattel" slavery, which for me conjures up the comparison of black slaves to farm animals (cattle)?

It was a disgusting era with messed up values. Your people are far mightier than that and deserve to be discussed in mightier terms. Is it possible to discuss the wrong of slavery without mentioning "chattel"?
I dunno, you tell me. Do I have my vocabulary misunderstood?

---

I'm not g4r, and certainly not a historian, but as I understand it, chattel slavery has a specific meaning, with chattel being a specific adjective describing a specific type of slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

"As a social institution, chattel slavery classes slaves as chattels (personal property) owned by the enslaver; like livestock, they can be bought and sold at will."

"As a social institution, chattel slavery classes slaves as chattels (personal property) owned by the enslaver; like livestock, they can be bought and sold at will. While it was not present at all times and places in the classical world, chattel slavery did exist in ancient times and was practiced in places such as the Roman Empire. Chattel slavery reached its modern extreme in the Americas during European colonization."

So while all slavery is horrific, chattel slavery describes a specific type of slavery which (allegedly above) reached its zenith during the European colonial period in the Americas. Your comparison to cattle is (tragically) apt since chattel slaves could be bought and sold like livestock, separating families, children etc. as often happened in the US prior to Abolition. In other forms of slavery historically, this aspect has not necessarily been true. I think that is why g4r uses the chattel descriptor when speaking of slavery in the US.

---

What other types of slavery is there?

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Nothing I've said is "racist" against whites. You might think it's an unfair generalization or that it's evidence of some anti-white prejudice but it's pretty dang far from racism.

I object to any false equivalence between what some people consider "racism" against whites (eg acknowledging the historical and continuing actual racism by whites) and actual racism faced by people of color. Actual racism can be perpetrated by people of all types and skin colors, but in the US (and many other places) it is fundamentally a construct of European oppression, as G4R correctly points out.

There is a lot of prejudice and hate crimes in the US and it can go in any direction. That's what you seem to be focused on but it's not the same type of racism which G4R and I are discussing. Hate crimes are abhorrent and negatively impact victims and communities but not in the same pernicious ways that historical institutional racism has impacted entire groups. G4R points out individual hate crimes to shed light on the larger problem. People of color have been oppressed by white racism for generations and it has had a massive negative impact on them.

I think you are smart enough to recognize the false equivalence and not think that the impacts on the black community from centuries of slavery and beyond are exactly the same as all other hate crimes in impact.

If you think I'm being racist against white people, we just have a very large difference of opinion about what racism means.

---

At this point, I think you and I are talking past each other.

Couple of reasons why I think we are missing the mark in our respective responses.

I never stated that you are racist against white. I wrote that the problem of racism is not exclusive to whites. As such, racism is not limited to white or a white-only problem.

I also never stated that the simple act of recognizing the existence of continuing impact of past racism is in itself discrimination against whites. Recognizing that this society in large part still contains in pockets the remnants of prior shameful history of racism is not racism against white. It is not controversial, and we address that by fixing the gap and not by excusing race discrimination against other races.

What is racism against whites is grouping all white people in a stereotypical fashion as it happens here often as if the color of our skin imputes negative and inevitable characteristics. Referring to whites as "you people" or "all white people" or "white problem" is racial discrimination and dehumanization. And that behavior seems to be excused by many here because of the existence of institutional racism. Saying that about any other race or religion would be problematic not because of institutional racism but because it dehumanizes people based on skin color or belief.

So, yes, you and I have a very different opinion on what racism means. My view is based on the underlying human stain of needing to push someone down based on something irrelevant and imputing negative character based on skin color. Your view on racism is based on power and societal foundation. As long as we are using the same words to discuss different things, we will never be truly communicating.

---

I think this is a worthwhile discussion even though we may have started talking past each other.

I would like to separate lingustically two different concepts that I believe you are mixing together and treating comprehensively. Let's call what I consider racism to be Problem A (treatment of people of color by europeans, chattel slavery, all of the baggage, etc.) and what you are talking about as anti-white racism as Problem B.

We both seem to agree that Problem A is a significant problem. A real problem that should be addressed and needs to be discussed. A whole lot of people are trying to make it harder to discuss problem A and one of the common tactics is to talk about Problem B in the context of Problem A. To make them equivalent. I'm not saying you are doing that by the way. You seem to be bringing it up because Problem B is something you personally really care about and you consider Problem A and Problem B to be related for a variety of reasons. However, the impact is unfortunate.

I want to be clear that I believe it's a false equivalence. Problem A impacts every person of color in America and has for a really long time. Problem B is annoying for some white people. It personally doesn't bother me I can't think of any meaningful negative impact it's had on my life. Didn't make it harder for me to get to where I am and never really held me back. I can't imagine very many black men like G4R saying the same about Problem A.

Do you understand why I feel the way I do? I would love to hear from G4R but I'm guessing he and I are aligned here.
So I would suggest that we separate these two topics. Whether you want to call both of them racism is up to you, but they aren't the same problem, not in origin, not in individual impact and not in scale.

---

I understand how you feel.

However, based on your post, I would say it is a three part disagreement between us.

Racism B that you identify implies that there are only two players or two races as if other races are irrelevant. There is racism against other groups that reflect how race-based bigotry is a human issue and not just a black and white issue. As I made clear in my prior posts, this isn't just about racism against one race or by one race. When we just blame one group, it disguises the same disease we all have.

Second point is the dismissive and cavalier attitude you have toward racism against non-blacks. It is not just an annoyance. It is dehumanizing. Just like using the N-word is not just an annoyance or an insult. It is minimizing the human worth of an individual down to the color of one's skin. I cannot take one seriously about racial justice when the same person is minimizing the negative impact of racial discrimination against any race.

Third point is your focus on impact or result instead of principle. For me, unless we start with principle, we are lost. We get to the point that ACLU got to in deciding not to defend the far right's freedom of speech because of the impact. Or how we may justify lack of due process for an accused murderer through rationalizing that loss of one killer is no loss for the society. There is significant cost to our society when we lose our principle and judge based on subjective value of the impact. Discrimination based on race is the core principle we need to stand against. Not just the impact. If it is wrong, then it is wrong. We need to all agree to that. So that we don't go down the slippery slope of a situation when a person is discriminated against and killed by the police because he is black but we rationalize that he was committing a crime anyway. I don't want us as a society to go down that path of condoning racial discrimination based on subjective determination of impact. The only black and white I want to see is whether we as a society hold to the principle that people should not be judged or discriminated based on the color of a person's skin.

---

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that we should focus most of our energy on problems that most need solving. You can talk about principle and in some cases that is paramount, but here focusing on "principle" really just means derailing any discussion of a very important problem.

I'm sorry that you feel that you've been dehumanized by anti-white racism during your life. I think that if you think that your experience in any way mirrors or parallels the dehumanizing experience faced by people of color in America, and particularly black people, either you are extremely sensitive, extremely out of touch or you have personally had a very different experience than most Americans.

---

We will definitely disagree on this. And you need to stop making it about you or me as if we are the only people in the world. Anyone who dismisses the impact of racism or belittles the dehumanization of race-based bigotry loses credibility on social justice. If it were only about personal experiences, both you and I need to shut our mouth on black experience or racism. But since you feel comfortable talking about the experience of others, it is clear to me you understand that it is not just what I or you feel or experience

---

I guess I misunderstood, so you are just saying in theory that anti-white racism (as you call it) is dehumanizing, not that you've experienced it.

I think your statements around social justice and the impact of racism, while continuing to equivocate "on principle" anti-white racism and racism against people of color, show that we can't really have a productive conversation. I studied CRT in law school, so perhaps I come at this with a different starting point than you do, but I think this sort of discussion isn't very interesting. I don't think the solutions to the thing I care about are necessarily related to or relevant to the solutions to the thing you want to talk about.

---

You have a tendency to make it personal. Not sure why in multiple post, my discussion on racism as a principle is turned around by you into saying I am super/hyper sensitive white man. Can we not discuss social issues unless we have experienced it directly? Are you writing about black experience from your experience as a black man even though you are white? You can do better than make a snide personal comment when you are not winning through persuasive argument.

1. I never call it anti-white racism. In fact, in almost every single post, I clarified that racism is not a white or black thing but something that human race has struggled with in all human history. But you keep making it about my experience or my stance on anti-white racism.

2. If you are starting from a theoretical concept or forced outcome as opposed to basic principle and value, then yes, we are approaching this from a different starting point. And unless you and I agree on what the problem is (not just fixing who has power or equalizing outcome for only one race as if past racial discriminatory laws didn't impact other races - I prefer Justice Roberts' focus on fighting against the baser nature of racial discrimination), we cannot even talk about a solution.

So, yes, this is going nowhere.

---

Just to be clear, we disagree on this topic. Because we disagree on this topic, I'm trying to understand why we differ which often requires a personal inquiry.

You seem to think that approaching this from a principles-based or theoretical angle is more appropriate whereas I clearly think that a practical approach makes more sense.

I do understand that linguistically you believe that racism encompasses a number of things which I don't consider to be relevant when discussing racism. That's why I separated it into Problem A and Problem B. Obviously you reject that construct which probably is where the conversation should have ended.

No hard feelings from my end.

---

No problem.

Our debate is not new. That is the main debate between those who believe CRT and racism as a social construct that needs to be remedied through forced outcome vs racism as a principle with solution being ending all race-based discrimination. Same debate even in the Supreme Court.

No hard feelings from my end either. Thanks, U2. Have a great weekend.

---

Cheers! I hope you have a great one as well.

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

The conversation about which party historically supported slavery etc... is stupid and unnecessary. We should focus on what the parties have stood for in modern times.

---

Hear hear to that!

Here's where it's at for me:

Democrats: liberal (as in "seeking change") because the times are changing ever faster and so "change" is required. Progressive because progress (as in "moving forward") is also a good thing.

Republicans: conservatives (as in NOT seeking change) who want to hold on to how things used to be. They hold onto a believe in religion and social structure for eras long since passed by. Some have become seduced by the MAGA dark side, some are not into MAGA but still cling to their personal identity of "Republican" nonetheless - as a label they are comfortable with. And some might actually favor Democrats policy positions but have been so brainwashed by the label that they can't even see the issue on its own merits.

Who else wants a turn?

---

Modern times is the last 25 years.

What progressives consider progress isn't necessarily progress. Society has gone soft. People don't know the meaning of hardwork, and everybody thinks they deserve nice cars, smartphones, and 50" flat screens even if they don't work. The police are underfunded and will not chase criminals for fear of doing something wrong and facing discipline, liability, and public scorn. Property crimes aren't reported because they are hardly prosecuted. This isn't progress. I will not park my car outside for fear of catalytic converter theft.

---

Respectfully, our perspectives may be different because of age, too. I'm 55. Things have changed A Ton in my lifetime!!
I suspect you are decades younger than me.

But if you wanted to limit it to the last 25 years?

Obama, 1st black President.
Tiger woods, billionaire.
Lebron and Steph made $100M this year in salary and endorsements.
Cellphones have shown Americans the violence directed at blacks by cops. Back then, he only had 1 grainy Rodney King video. This new awareness is spawning massive changes for the better.
Car theft has always been a thing. Catalytic converter cages are the new Club.

Sure, I can't say EVERYTHING is better. But I'm watching nba pregame talk show and 3 of the 4 talking heads are black. That's another sign. Oh, here's a 4th, it's Mark Jones, with Doris Burke, a woman.

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

The conversation about which party historically supported slavery etc... is stupid and unnecessary. We should focus on what the parties have stood for in modern times.

---

Hear hear to that!

Here's where it's at for me:

Democrats: liberal (as in "seeking change") because the times are changing ever faster and so "change" is required. Progressive because progress (as in "moving forward") is also a good thing.

Republicans: conservatives (as in NOT seeking change) who want to hold on to how things used to be. They hold onto a believe in religion and social structure for eras long since passed by. Some have become seduced by the MAGA dark side, some are not into MAGA but still cling to their personal identity of "Republican" nonetheless - as a label they are comfortable with. And some might actually favor Democrats policy positions but have been so brainwashed by the label that they can't even see the issue on its own merits.

Who else wants a turn?

---

Modern times is the last 25 years.

What progressives consider progress isn't necessarily progress. Society has gone soft. People don't know the meaning of hardwork, and everybody thinks they deserve nice cars, smartphones, and 50" flat screens even if they don't work. The police are underfunded and will not chase criminals for fear of doing something wrong and facing discipline, liability, and public scorn. Property crimes aren't reported because they are hardly prosecuted. This isn't progress. I will not park my car outside for fear of catalytic converter theft.

---

Respectfully, our perspectives may be different because of age, too. I'm 55. Things have changed A Ton in my lifetime!!
I suspect you are decades younger than me.

But if you wanted to limit it to the last 25 years?

Obama, 1st black President.
Tiger woods, billionaire.
Lebron and Steph made $100M this year in salary and endorsements.
Cellphones have shown Americans the violence directed at blacks by cops. Back then, he only had 1 grainy Rodney King video. This new awareness is spawning massive changes for the better.
Car theft has always been a thing. Catalytic converter cages are the new Club.

Sure, I can't say EVERYTHING is better. But I'm watching nba pregame talk show and 3 of the 4 talking heads are black. That's another sign. Oh, here's a 4th, it's Mark Jones, with Doris Burke, a woman.

---

That's great. I never complained about Lebron making money or Obama being president. Theft where I live is way more rampant than it used to be because thieves are put back on the streets immediately. There is very little deterrence, and police are understaffed and unsupported in fighting property crimes. The pervasive attitude has gone towards favoring the property crimes criminal over the victim, often viewing the victim as someone who has taken advantage of people like the criminal and the he criminal needs the money more than the victim does. I took Criminal Justice at Cal, and I read No Equal Justice. I understand that older laws like three strikes were harsh. However, I seriously cannot park my locked, alarmed, empty car on the street. It is insane.

Of note, I was on a very crowded Metro the other day coming home from a soccer game, and a giant black guy was sitting on the handicap bench and yelled at anyone within 4 feet of him that they were homosexual fa*****s and he would kill them if they came near him. If anyone made near eye contact, he would lay into them. It was scary. It was mental illness. It was not racial. I was three benches away, facing him, and held my toddler son while my wife did the same to our daughter. Very difficult to explain what was happening. He threatened everyone near him loudly, aggressively, and angrily for about 20 minutes and locked onto and threatened a lady one bench away that seemed like she was trying to be kind to him. It was awful.

concordtom said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

concordtom said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Here in an America …

Tell me how descendants of chattel slavery have power(economically /politically/legally/financially/religion) over white people ?

---

Why do you often refer to it as "chattel" slavery, which for me conjures up the comparison of black slaves to farm animals (cattle)?

It was a disgusting era with messed up values. Your people are far mightier than that and deserve to be discussed in mightier terms. Is it possible to discuss the wrong of slavery without mentioning "chattel"?
I dunno, you tell me. Do I have my vocabulary misunderstood?

---

I'm not g4r, and certainly not a historian, but as I understand it, chattel slavery has a specific meaning, with chattel being a specific adjective describing a specific type of slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

"As a social institution, chattel slavery classes slaves as chattels (personal property) owned by the enslaver; like livestock, they can be bought and sold at will."

"As a social institution, chattel slavery classes slaves as chattels (personal property) owned by the enslaver; like livestock, they can be bought and sold at will. While it was not present at all times and places in the classical world, chattel slavery did exist in ancient times and was practiced in places such as the Roman Empire. Chattel slavery reached its modern extreme in the Americas during European colonization."

So while all slavery is horrific, chattel slavery describes a specific type of slavery which (allegedly above) reached its zenith during the European colonial period in the Americas. Your comparison to cattle is (tragically) apt since chattel slaves could be bought and sold like livestock, separating families, children etc. as often happened in the US prior to Abolition. In other forms of slavery historically, this aspect has not necessarily been true. I think that is why g4r uses the chattel descriptor when speaking of slavery in the US.

---

What other types of slavery is there?

---

CT - I am not an expert, but I provided you a link. Did you read it?

But to answer quickly, bonded labor and forced labor are examples of slavery that is usually not chattel slavery. There are some other areas (sex trafficking) that I don't even want to get into given that I am trying to enjoy my Friday afternoon and not become depressed.

Have a good weekend.

How the media works in Black and white

Louisvile Bank shooter kills 5 in mass shooting is humanized in headline

Homeless and suffering mental health crises is murdered on NYC subway and criminalized in headline pic.twitter.com/GAJpGRRDA5

— Kamau Franklin (@kamaufranklin) May 5, 2023