Is thinking a race is superior, racist?

[MarcATL]

Every thread is about white racism to you. Hell, you probably think the Teletubbies are about white racism.

Lemme see if I can get this palooka to think a little...

Tim Wise, by your own wording, uses facts he can cite. His argument is that there's a white supremacy system that by DEFAULT is oppressive to blacks.

Candace Owens, by your own wording, is using nothing more than opinion, aka literally talking out of her ass, and she says to stop being a victim.

Tim Wise, et all, is saying there's a SYSTEM of RACISM/OPPRESSION

Owens, et al, is saying "stop being a victim"

I should stop there, but to make it crystal clear to you I'll add, victim of what?

Victim of their own thoughts about others, or the racist system?

Let's see what you come up with next.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If there were laws that treated a certain race unfairly, wouldnt it be challenged? Isnt it illegal at the federal level to have laws unequal to all races? Hell you cant even disperse some types of your own private property unequal to races...
Our current system is not the system we had back in the day, people. Its not. We just have shitty individuals in the system. That will ALWAYS be a problem. Always..

There were laws that treated the black race unfairly and it was challenged in court and this is what the court had to say (emphasis mine). This is what I was trying to explain to you yesterday when I said the first step was to get the laws changed, however changing the law did nothing to change the hearts, minds, attitudes or actions of the racist whites in the U.S.

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Abolitionists were incensed. Although disappointed, Frederick Douglass, found a bright side to the decision and announced, "my hopes were never brighter than now." For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery's ultimate destruction.​

 

[MarcATL]

Who do i share views with, specifically?
I bet you share some view of some sort with adolf hitler. Does that make you a NAZI? That type of thinking is not only a fallacy, it is also lazy as hell.
As for the rest of that bullshit? Fuck you

How old are you?

 

[TNHarley]

Who do i share views with, specifically?
I bet you share some view of some sort with adolf hitler. Does that make you a NAZI? That type of thinking is not only a fallacy, it is also lazy as hell.
As for the rest of that bullshit? Fuck you

How old are you?

Shut up faggot.
Im done with you.

 

[MarcATL]

Shut up faggot.
Im done with you.

That's what I thought.

 

[TNHarley]

Shut up faggot.
Im done with you.

That's what I thought.

You thought i would get tired of talking to an ignorant, generalizing ball of fallacy and bigotry? You bet

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I am asking for examples from TODAY. Not 5 fucking decades ago.
You assholes keep whining about systematic oppression and cant post ANYTHING relevant

Just because your understandinng of how our legal system works is not up to par is no reason to call us assholes especially because the following link refers to a case by the Supreme Court from just a couple of years ago. You don't have to believe us but surely a SCOTUS ruling is good enough?

Disparate Impact
Supreme Court: Institutional Racism Is Real
In extending ‘disparate impact’ reasoning to housing cases, the court acknowledges that discrimination comes from more than just individual bad actors.

Jay Michaelson
06.25.15 6:30 PM ET

June 25 will be remembered as a crucial day for civil rights—not because of the Obamacare decision, and not because of the not-yet-announced marriage decision. It’s because on Thursday the Supreme Court saved a crucial part of civil rights law.

You’d be forgiven for not knowing much about it. The principle, after all, is an obscure-sounding bit of legalese: “disparate impact.” But those words divided the court 5-4 on ideological lines, with Justice Kennedy writing to preserve, but restrict, the doctrine.

Here’s why it matters.

Most cases of discrimination—whether against women, African Americans, LGBT people, or other protected groups—are rarely as clear as they are in the movies. In media portrayals, discrimination is about evil individuals who fire someone because of who they are. But in real life, there’s rarely a smoking gun.

First, racists are usually not dumb enough to leave records of their prejudice. They find some other reason to fire the employee, or keep the family out of the neighborhood.

Second, and more importantly, discrimination is often systemic and structural, not individual. Often, not only is there no smoking gun, but there’s often no individual “bad actor.” Even neutral requirements—a high-school diploma for employment, a family-size limit for housing—can have huge de facto discriminatory effects, which may or may not be intentional.

That’s where “disparate impact” comes in. Under some civil rights laws, plaintiffs can prevail even without evidence of a specific discriminatory intention if they can show a disparate impact on the affected group.

That’s what happened in this case, Texas v. Inclusive Communities Project. A Texas state agency distributes tax credits given to developers to build low-income housing. The Inclusive Communities Project, a nonprofit, noticed that 92 percent of the credits ended up going to mostly non-white neighborhoods. And while about half of the applications in those neighborhoods were approved, the approval rate for mostly white neighborhoods was only 37 percent.

The end result? Public housing got built in black neighborhoods, and not in white ones.

That’s a classic case of disparate impact. The ICP didn’t have to go hunting for overt racism, which would be extremely hard to prove. Now, under disparate impact reasoning, the Texas agency had to prove that there were no better (i.e. non-discriminatory) alternatives—which it could not do. So, even without a specific smoking gun, the statistical data itself was enough for the policy to violate the Fair Housing Act—if disparate impact reasoning is allowed.

Why wouldn’t it be? Well, because the statute never says so. Neither did the two other statutes where disparate impact reasoning has been allowed, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Rather, as the two dissenting opinions (one by Justice Thomas and the other by Justice Alito) emphasize, this doctrine was created by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1971 case of Griggs v. Duke Power, which held that it barred acts “fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.”

Yes, disparate impact comports with the statute. Yes, every circuit court has applied it in FHA cases. And yes, it was tacitly approved by Congress when it subsequently amended the FHA and rejected attempts to eliminate disparate impact. But the fact remains that it is not explicitly mentioned.

That’s why the court was so divided on the issue, and why Justice Kennedy was long assumed to be the swing vote. Taking an expansive reading of a civil rights law, implying words that aren’t actually there, is simply not within the judicial philosophy of the court’s conservative members.

Indeed, Justice Thomas suggested that Duke Power, itself, was wrongly decided—a radical view that is of a piece with other radical views he holds (such as that states should be able to establish official religions).

But if Justice Kennedy and the liberals do not have language on their side, they do have reality.

For example, why is it that, even today, there is a 33 percent economic differential between blacks and whites? Is it because corporations are racist and won’t hire African Americans for higher paying jobs?

Mostly, no. Over 80 percent of the time, as Harvard economist Roland Fryer has shown, it’s because black applicants lack the very specific skills to get the better job—and that’s because communities of color are woefully undereducated in underperforming schools. Indeed, the best predictor of one’s subsequent economic success is one’s skill level in eighth grade.

That’s the kind of structural racism that disparate impact reasoning addresses. You might not find any individual racist, but the system is stacked against people of color. That’s how privilege and oppression are maintained—not by villains like Dylann Roof, but by silent, macroeconomic factors that are structural in nature.

Likewise in housing contexts. For decades, the practice of “redlining”—banks and realtors “encouraging” blacks not to move into white neighborhoods—perpetuated segregation and urban blight. And even when overt race-based policies were abandoned, majority-POC neighborhoods were locked in cycles of crime, under-education, and neglect by “neutral” policies regarding public housing, zoning, business permitting, and highway development.

To be sure, the Texas department of housing may still ultimately prevail, and Justice Kennedy went out of his way to suggest that it might. For example, the department might show that it has a policy preference to revitalize inner city neighborhoods, and that justifies the disparate impact. Or it could point to market factors driving developers to build public housing in less affluent neighborhoods.

But it has to show something.

Had Justice Kennedy gone the other way, this case would have caused a sea change in civil rights law. Not only would disparate impact reasoning not extend to housing, it would be suspect in cases of employment as well. As long as there isn’t an obviously race-, gender-, or age- based restriction—which there almost never is—facially neutral practices that just so happen to disadvantage some people would be extremely hard to challenge.

That’s why this case, with all its legalistic discussions of statutory language and methods of judicial reasoning, was so important. Whatever happens to the Texas housing policy, disparate impact reasoning remains a powerful, if controversial, tool for fighting the kind of discrimination that is often silent, systemic, and insidious.​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The prison system is not the private sector.

You didnt elaborate on the "prison" comment.
I just figured you gave up again LOL
Explain how the prison system oppresses black people and not white people

Gave up on what? I answered your question. I'm not going to waste time elaborating on anything because I know you'll just deny it.

I asked you to explain about the prison system and you post links about hair.
Get the fuck outta here

I already told you I wasnt going to go into detail. Your silly white mind will just reject the facts. I posted the other links as examples of systemic bias from whites. If you dont like that then get you get the fuck outta here.

So we are going from oppression to bias?
I thought we were talking about the govt. Goddamn, you are all over the place!
Why would you want to get into detail? There is nothing to explain.

The anti-discrimination laws apply to both the public (government) and private sector. There are federal, state and sometimes county, city and municipal versions as well.

 

[TNHarley]

You didnt elaborate on the "prison" comment.
I just figured you gave up again LOL
Explain how the prison system oppresses black people and not white people

Gave up on what? I answered your question. I'm not going to waste time elaborating on anything because I know you'll just deny it.

I asked you to explain about the prison system and you post links about hair.
Get the fuck outta here

I already told you I wasnt going to go into detail. Your silly white mind will just reject the facts. I posted the other links as examples of systemic bias from whites. If you dont like that then get you get the fuck outta here.

So we are going from oppression to bias?
I thought we were talking about the govt. Goddamn, you are all over the place!
Why would you want to get into detail? There is nothing to explain.

The anti-discrimination laws apply to both the public (government) and private sector. There are federal, state and sometimes county, city and municipal versions as well.

indeed they are. PA laws are discrimination though. Not sure why you call them anti-discrimination..

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

They're terribly traumatized by the knowledge that ancestors whose names they don't even know were unhappy. God knows, I'm kept up nights by the oppression I feel over my ancestors being raided by Vikings back in the day.

Racism is alive and well, obviously.
But there is no systematic racism. There are racist individuals.
There is a HUGE difference between the two.

The systemic racism that was cemented into place by our laws has not been completely dismantled.

To help you wrap your mind around it imagine the following - someone does something to you that causes you harm be it financial, loss of a job, loss of a loved one, your home, etc. Now imagine that you have no recourse whatsoever because due to your race, none of those things are considered unlawful or wrong even though they're unlaw or wrong when committed against people of a race to which you don't belong.

Changing the law was only the first step.

How about instead of saying, "I'm right because imagine I'm right", you cite some ACTUAL evidence of systemic racism currently in effect? I don't know about anyone else here, but I have no intention of dignifying your imagination by defending against it, let alone feeling shamed by it.

Damn, don't you all EVER get tired of being wrong? What about feeling ashamed about the inability to conduct a simple internet or Google search?
Is thinking a race is superior, racist?

 

[Cecilie1200]

They're terribly traumatized by the knowledge that ancestors whose names they don't even know were unhappy. God knows, I'm kept up nights by the oppression I feel over my ancestors being raided by Vikings back in the day.

Racism is alive and well, obviously.
But there is no systematic racism. There are racist individuals.
There is a HUGE difference between the two.

The systemic racism that was cemented into place by our laws has not been completely dismantled.

To help you wrap your mind around it imagine the following - someone does something to you that causes you harm be it financial, loss of a job, loss of a loved one, your home, etc. Now imagine that you have no recourse whatsoever because due to your race, none of those things are considered unlawful or wrong even though they're unlaw or wrong when committed against people of a race to which you don't belong.

Changing the law was only the first step.

How about instead of saying, "I'm right because imagine I'm right", you cite some ACTUAL evidence of systemic racism currently in effect? I don't know about anyone else here, but I have no intention of dignifying your imagination by defending against it, let alone feeling shamed by it.

Damn, don't you all EVER get tired of being wrong? What about feeling ashamed about the inability to conduct a simple internet or Google search?
Is thinking a race is superior, racist?

I'm not unable to conduct an Internet search. I'm just not fucking doing it, because it's not MY assertion that systemic racism is currently in effect; it's YOURS. That makes proving and substantiating it YOUR fucking homework, Chuckles, not mine. You know how I verify YOUR statement? I look at your post, and say, "Well, she didn't offer any proof, so she's obviously bullshitting." End of story.

Don't YOU ever get tired of sounding like a hysterical whiner? How about feeling ashamed about the inability to conduct a simple conversation about your positions?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I'm not unable to conduct an Internet search. I'm just not fucking doing it, because it's not MY assertion that systemic racism is currently in effect; it's YOURS. That makes proving and substantiating it YOUR fucking homework, Chuckles, not mine. You know how I verify YOUR statement? I look at your post, and say, "Well, she didn't offer any proof, so she's obviously bullshitting." End of story.

Don't YOU ever get tired of sounding like a hysterical whiner? How about feeling ashamed about the inability to conduct a simple conversation about your positions?

A simple "I was mistaken" will do.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Im not always on their side. There are some shitty cops killing people unnecessarily. I also believe cops have a right to life and most are justified.

You, and your ilk, by default are always on the police side. You make up slogans like "Blue Lives Matter" and "Police Lives Matter", in your mind, to counteract Black Lives Matter.

Blue Lives Matter was not created to counteract Black Lives Matter, it was created to counteract the animosity and violence directed at the entire law enforcement community for the sins and mistakes of a few.

 

[Asclepias]

I ask because IM2 asslips and paul E always make out whites to be extremely superior to blacks.
Can you hate a race(because they obviously hate whites) for being superior and not be racist? Seems possible.
I mean, its kinda a compliment..

I've never made out whites to be superior. If anything they are inferior. They lack a lot of things but mostly they lack the ability to produce melanin in their skin.

The ass-clown blows another ignorant thought across the bow.

View attachment 206888

Thats not a white woman or she has African ancestry.

 

[IM2]

Jesus mother fucking Christ
TODAY not 75 years ago
This is fucking pointless!!!

Your post was fucking pointless. No one said anything about race making something illegal today.

Now imagine that you have no recourse whatsoever because due to your race, none of those things are considered unlawful or wrong even though they're unlaw or wrong when committed against people of a race to which you don't belong.

TODAY not 75 years ago you idiot.

I am asking for examples from TODAY. Not 5 fucking decades ago.
You assholes keep whining about systematic oppression and cant post ANYTHING relevant

We'll do that when you guys stop talking about things that happened om Africa 1000's of years ago.

How to argue like a white racist

Monday October 5th 2009 by abagond

Here in one place is the list of the most common arguments that white racists use on this blog, listed roughly from the most common to the least:

1. Anything but race – Racism is over. There must be some Logical Explanation that has nothing to do with race.
2. Blame-shifting – Blacks like to use the race card, crying racism and blaming whitey, but blacks are to blame for their own mess. Racism is so 1968.
3. ad hominem – question a commenter’s intelligence, character, age or motives.
4. Whites are individuals – so you cannot make general statements about whites. Besides, that would be racist.
5. “Blacks are racist too” – but they do not like to admit it. Find a case where a black person did something just as bad as what they are pointing out.
6. “You are the racist one” – turn the tables.
7. “I am offended” – how dare they call you a racist! You do not see a person’s colour – they could be purple for all you care!
8. Arab trader argument – whites are not as evil as black people like to think. For example, it was not just white people who traded slaves: Arabs did it too! Few blacks know that, so make sure to point that out whenever you can.
9. “But that happened to me too!” – whatever blacks complain about, try to find a case where a white person – you, a friend, someone in the news – experienced the same thing.
10. Point out how “ghetto” and disagreeable black people are – because they are and it needs pointing out. No wonder no one gets along with them!
11. Talk down to them – they are imagining things, they do not know what they are talking about. How dare blacks tell us what we are like. What do they know? Are they white?
12. straw man – argue against some stock position that is kind of like the post. That way you can copy your comments from another blog. Or from Ann Coulter.
13. Blacks need to be colour-blind – if they just stopped seeing race and talking about it so much then racism would go away!
14. Start quoting rape statistics – out of the blue, if necessary. Rates of imprisonment are good too.
15. The white inventor argument – whites invented everything so shut up already.
16. Demand proof – Make them prove it beyond a reasonable doubt with facts and figures. Find holes in whatever facts they present. Find counter-facts.
17. Make it about the past – and point out that your family never owned slaves. When are they going to stop living in the past?
18. Go back to Africa – if it is so bad here, then go back to Africa already!
19. Bootstrap – I made it on my own without help from anyone. Blacks expect something for nothing!
20. Some of my best friends are black – so there is no way I am racist!
21. Might makes right – all through history.

Most of these arguments take neither the truth nor the experience of black people seriously – because what matters most is white people and their feelings, particularly about feeling good living in a racist society.

How to argue like a white racist

 

[MarcATL]

Blue Lives Matter was not created to counteract Black Lives Matter, it was created to counteract the animosity and violence directed at the entire law enforcement community for the sins and mistakes of a few.

If you believe that to be true, then might I interest you in a bridge that I have for sale in Brooklyn...???

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Every thread is about white racism to you. Hell, you probably think the Teletubbies are about white racism.

Lemme see if I can get this palooka to think a little...

Tim Wise, by your own wording, uses facts he can cite. His argument is that there's a white supremacy system that by DEFAULT is oppressive to blacks.

Candace Owens, by your own wording, is using nothing more than opinion, aka literally talking out of her ass, and she says to stop being a victim.

What facts are required to express the opinion that blacks should stop being victims?

Tim Wise, et all, is saying there's a SYSTEM of RACISM/OPPRESSION

Owens, et al, is saying "stop being a victim"

I should stop there, but to make it crystal clear to you I'll add, victim of what?

Racism, what else?

You see, here is where you and IM2 go off the rails: Owens does not claim there is no white racism nor does she claim there are no victims.

In my humble opinion, what she is saying is that by playing victim all the time, you will remain a victim no matter what anyone does. It is a mental attitude that informs everything you do. Also, this victim mentality has resulted in a bunch of frivolous and meaningless charges of racism such as cotton plants and whites wearing dreadlocks.
Whites are being accused of racism at every turn for the stupidest fucking reasons and all this does is hamper any progress on race relations. We're being told even by people of our own race that we are wretched creatures that should be ashamed of our race and that we should kill ourselves (notice that the ones advocating racial suicide never follow their own advice). Lastly (this is just me talking), if you are a victim of racism then it is what it is. But stop playing victim when you are not.

Owens may be on track with this thinking or she may not be. But it is merely an opinion or outlook that does not contradict what Wise says in any way.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Blue Lives Matter was not created to counteract Black Lives Matter, it was created to counteract the animosity and violence directed at the entire law enforcement community for the sins and mistakes of a few.

If you believe that to be true,

Yes, I believe it to be true.

then might I interest you in a bridge that I have for sale in Brooklyn...???

If you have it to sell then that means you were stupid enough to buy it before me. You go ahead and keep it.

 

[Asclepias]

Every thread is about white racism to you. Hell, you probably think the Teletubbies are about white racism.

Lemme see if I can get this palooka to think a little...

Tim Wise, by your own wording, uses facts he can cite. His argument is that there's a white supremacy system that by DEFAULT is oppressive to blacks.

Candace Owens, by your own wording, is using nothing more than opinion, aka literally talking out of her ass, and she says to stop being a victim.

What facts are required to express the opinion that blacks should stop being victims?

Tim Wise, et all, is saying there's a SYSTEM of RACISM/OPPRESSION

Owens, et al, is saying "stop being a victim"

I should stop there, but to make it crystal clear to you I'll add, victim of what?

Racism, what else?

You see, here is where you and IM2 go off the rails: Owens does not claim there is no white racism nor does she claim there are no victims.

In my humble opinion, what she is saying is that by playing victim all the time, you will remain a victim no matter what anyone does. It is a mental attitude that informs everything you do. Also, this victim mentality has resulted in a bunch of frivolous and meaningless charges of racism such as cotton plants and whites wearing dreadlocks.
Whites are being accused of racism at every turn for the stupidest fucking reasons and all this does is hamper any progress on race relations. We're being told even by people of our own race that we are wretched creatures that should be ashamed of our race and that we should kill ourselves (notice that the ones advocating racial suicide never follow their own advice). Lastly (this is just me talking), if you are a victim of racism then it is what it is. But stop playing victim when you are not.

Owens may be on track with this thinking or she may not be. But it is merely an opinion or outlook that does not contradict what Wise says in any way.

The first fact should be that you have majority African ancestry. The second fact should be you know what youre talking about I. E. being specific in pointing out examples of victim hood. The third is not being a hypocrite. Anything else is intellectual laziness designed to win you points with white people.

 

[toobfreak]

I ask because IM2 asslips and paul E always make out whites to be extremely superior to blacks.
Can you hate a race(because they obviously hate whites) for being superior and not be racist? Seems possible.
I mean, its kinda a compliment..

I've never made out whites to be superior. If anything they are inferior. They lack a lot of things but mostly they lack the ability to produce melanin in their skin.

The ass-clown blows another ignorant thought across the bow.

View attachment 206888

Thats not a white woman or she has African ancestry.

Right, jackass, they painted the white skin on her, right? You've never seen white people with dark tans! YOU REALLY DON"T KNOW that melanin is merely nature's reaction to the sun and that given enough time, anyone exposed to an equatorial sun over time and generations would develop as much as is needed to cope with the UV?! I swear, you are SUCH A JERK, you'd argue that the Sun really rises in the west and white people spin the world backwards to fool us into thinking it was the east.