Is thinking a race is superior, racist?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

He’s wrong, it doesn’t exist.

SCOTUS is not a "he".

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

No matter how much you try to twist this into you not looking like a jackass, you still do.

We're done. You said it, you couldn't prove it, you whined for someone else to do the work for you, EXACTLY like you handle everything else in your life. You're not a failure because you're "oppressed by racism"; you're a failure because you're lazy, stupid, and a bitch, and "racism" is just the excuse you use to justify those things.

I think you'll find that when you stop being a shrieking virago and actually contribute something useful to the world around you, you'll find that the "racism" you encounter will largely vanish.

Your comments to me are entirely uncalled for and the behavior of an uncouth low classed individual. So this is your notice to cease and desist all conversation to me or about me. I consider this matter concluded unless you persist in being verbally abusive.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Individually whites should incinerate their notion of supremacy induced by an massive insecurity complex and go seek mental health help. This one step is vital to curing themselves of the disease of being racist.

You of all people should know that I am trying, but I do agree. Just saying "Jesus was black" causes a fucking shit-storm.

Collectively whites should understand and back the notion that the US has wronged the Black race and therefore the US should pay reparations to the descendants of the enslaved and those that suffered through the Jim Crow era. This would wipe out the wealth gap immediately.

The only problem with that is that doing so forces white folks, on an individual bases, who did not benefit from slavery to pay reparations to folks who were never slaves. Maybe we do a 10-year tax holiday for black folks or something like that. I don't know. I am not against reparations as long as doing so does not burden the innocent, because believe me, that will do NOTHING but stir hatred.

All white owned companies that profited from, help facilitate, or were involved with slavery and Jim Crow should divest itself and use the money to start up a fund to give full scholarships to Black youth

Maybe make them pay out damages over time. Why dry up those cows when you can milk them for a decade, then turn them lose?

The legal system should be reviewed by Black people and every discriminatory law or sentencing guidelines should be removed.

Removing discriminatory laws is good. As long as it doesn't start adding laws.

Cops should be fired that have a pattern of abuse or too many (2) complaints against them of racist behavior.

Change it to being twice found guilty of abuse or specific behavior indicating racial prejudice in administering or enforcing the law.

We could get every cop in America fired in a week if it was based solely on allegations or complaints.

I think we could work something out.

You and I should be in charge.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Racism is the belief that one's traits are determined by race, and therefore implies that one race is superior to another based on those traits. Racism is entirely, 100% contained within the mind and cannot be definitively proven unless someone admits to it.

And the United States of America crafted and passed racially discriminatory laws based on the belief of white superiority and black inferiority creating a system of "institutional racism" which was supported by court rulings that enforced these racially discriminatory laws that violated the human rights of the entire African American race.

We know 100% what was in their minds because they put it down in writing, in the laws they drafted, in the court rulings made, in the protests signs, in the bombings and lynchings committed against black people. The only reason I believe that they have toned things down is because while they could openly and with confidence commit these crimes in the past without placing themselves in jeopardy they can no longer be sure that they will escape punishment today.

Any animus that may be felt against those who instituted this form of racial oppression and the individuals involved is not the same thing as racism on the part of those who have been oppressed. It a natural reaction to being abused and the natural reaction to individuals who attempt to pretend that this wasn't done to people of African descent, or to discount it's impact and also to pretend that it doesn't exist and isn't continuing to be done today by certain individuals including the ones doing the ridiculing.

Most human beings have the capacity to emphasis with those being wronged irrespective of their race, gender, circumstances, etc. Just on this message board and others I have frequented there seem to be a lot of soulless and brainless individuals who revel in their ignorance like pigs in the mud.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes racism should be ended. Immediately. The problem is that we know whites cant give it up. Its against their own best interests.

You mentioned above that racism is an institution of our societal systems. When you say "give it up" what should we give up? What are you referring to?

Individually whites should incinerate their notion of supremacy induced by an massive insecurity complex and go seek mental health help. This one step is vital to curing themselves of the disease of being racist.

Collectively whites should understand and back the notion that the US has wronged the Black race and therefore the US should pay reparations to the descendants of the enslaved and those that suffered through the Jim Crow era. This would wipe out the wealth gap immediately.

All white owned companies that profited from, help facilitate, or were involved with slavery and Jim Crow should divest themselves and use the money to start up a fund to give full scholarships to Black youth

The legal system should be reviewed by Black people and every discriminatory law or sentencing guidelines should be removed.

Cops should be fired that have a pattern of abuse or too many (2) complaints against them of racist behavior.

Stupid, racist trolling - again.

 

[JGalt]

If blacks hate our unjust big govt so much, why do they vote for a party that wants to expand it constantly?
In what world does that even make sense?

Democrats don't hate blacks, unlike Republicans.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

Democrats don't really love them either. They just exploit them to get votes and to gain power.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Let me ask you this then: Given the actions of the white colonizers, did the Rwandans have no control over future events? Would they have been compelled to commit the genocide even if they hadn't wanted to? Was the genocide of 1994 an assured outcome thirty years that no one could have avoided after the end of colonization?

I dont see the value in your question to be honest.

Which translates to: "I don't want to answer your question because the right answer will blow a Rwanda-sized hole in my argument."

You know goddamn well what the answers are to these questions and since you're too afraid to answer, I'll answer them for you:

1.) Yes, the Rwandans had control over future events.
2.) No, they would not have been compelled to commit genocide even if they didn't want to.
3.) No, the genocide was not an assured outcome (predestined) that could not be avoided.

However, let me ask you this question which in turn may give some guidance in regards to your question . Given the actions of the Pope. Would europeans have poured forth from the european continent and committed genocide if the Pope had not issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas?

"“We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”."

You refuse to answer mine but you want me to answer yours? Are you fucking kidding me?

You dont have to answer my question on the thread I just wanted to turn a lightbulb on in your head.

You said: "However, let me ask you this question..."

If you weren't asking a question then why did you pose it as a question?

Looks like from your emotionally laced tirade

"emotionally laced"? Because of what, my saying "fucking"? Are you fucking kidding me? Look, another emotionally laced tirade. Feel free to show it to your friends to get a chuckle over the emotional white guy.

I did what I set out to do.

If you mean you set out to avoid the truth of the questions I asked then yes, you did what you set out to do.

Here's the thing, the papal bull you cited does not vex me in the least because I recognize and understand that these people were responsible for their own actions and it has nothing to do with me. I see and acknowledge any and all atrocities committed by whites throughout history and I condemn every one of them. The difference between you guys and myself is that I don't blame the Holocaust on the anti-Semitism that was taught and festered throughout Europe for centuries before the 30s, I blame the Nazis and Germans who, of their own freewill, chose to round up Jews like cattle and gas them and stick them in ovens. They are responsible for the Holocaust, not the racist rhetoric of their forebears.

The anti-Semitism in Europe did not cause or predestine the Holocaust just as white colonization did not cause or predestine the Rwanda genocide.

I assume that you and others here would like to see an end to racism, correct? This is why you talk about the history of white racism all the time, right? If your goal is not an end to racism then either you wouldn't bother or you are just flogging whites with their racist history as punishment instead of rehabilitation or enlightenment.

So, in order to see an end to racism we then must be able to recognize that a racist's heart can be enlightened and changed, yes? So how is it that a white American racist's heart can be changed but the Rwandans' hearts could not?

If we cannot allow that a heart can be changed then the fight against racism was doomed from the start.

Where did I say I wasnt asking a question? I even put the word "question" in my response to you when I said you didnt have to answer.

You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question...". I took that to mean you were asking me a question. Silly me.

Yes emotionally laced. No I am not kidding you. You are full of emotions.

A single sentence response with the word "fucking" in it constitutes an emotional tirade to you?

If you want to know how to do emotional tirades right, watch IM2. Get good and pissed off and riddle your post with misspellings and colorful language such as "stupid fucker", "white ass", "punk ass", "bitch" and "dumb bastard". Now that's a right and proper emotional tirade.

No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do.

You didn't "make" me do anything. And did you not see my response? I believe, just as with the Rwandans, that the people who obeyed the Pope's edict and took it upon themselves to kill pagans are guilty by their own choices, not what the Pope said.

Yes racism should be ended. Immediately. The problem is that we know whites cant give it up. Its against their own best interests.

If that's true then why do you bother?

 

[Asclepias]

I dont see the value in your question to be honest.

Which translates to: "I don't want to answer your question because the right answer will blow a Rwanda-sized hole in my argument."

You know goddamn well what the answers are to these questions and since you're too afraid to answer, I'll answer them for you:

1.) Yes, the Rwandans had control over future events.
2.) No, they would not have been compelled to commit genocide even if they didn't want to.
3.) No, the genocide was not an assured outcome (predestined) that could not be avoided.

However, let me ask you this question which in turn may give some guidance in regards to your question . Given the actions of the Pope. Would europeans have poured forth from the european continent and committed genocide if the Pope had not issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas?

"“We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”."

You refuse to answer mine but you want me to answer yours? Are you fucking kidding me?

You dont have to answer my question on the thread I just wanted to turn a lightbulb on in your head.

You said: "However, let me ask you this question..."

If you weren't asking a question then why did you pose it as a question?

Looks like from your emotionally laced tirade

"emotionally laced"? Because of what, my saying "fucking"? Are you fucking kidding me? Look, another emotionally laced tirade. Feel free to show it to your friends to get a chuckle over the emotional white guy.

I did what I set out to do.

If you mean you set out to avoid the truth of the questions I asked then yes, you did what you set out to do.

Here's the thing, the papal bull you cited does not vex me in the least because I recognize and understand that these people were responsible for their own actions and it has nothing to do with me. I see and acknowledge any and all atrocities committed by whites throughout history and I condemn every one of them. The difference between you guys and myself is that I don't blame the Holocaust on the anti-Semitism that was taught and festered throughout Europe for centuries before the 30s, I blame the Nazis and Germans who, of their own freewill, chose to round up Jews like cattle and gas them and stick them in ovens. They are responsible for the Holocaust, not the racist rhetoric of their forebears.

The anti-Semitism in Europe did not cause or predestine the Holocaust just as white colonization did not cause or predestine the Rwanda genocide.

I assume that you and others here would like to see an end to racism, correct? This is why you talk about the history of white racism all the time, right? If your goal is not an end to racism then either you wouldn't bother or you are just flogging whites with their racist history as punishment instead of rehabilitation or enlightenment.

So, in order to see an end to racism we then must be able to recognize that a racist's heart can be enlightened and changed, yes? So how is it that a white American racist's heart can be changed but the Rwandans' hearts could not?

If we cannot allow that a heart can be changed then the fight against racism was doomed from the start.

Where did I say I wasnt asking a question? I even put the word "question" in my response to you when I said you didnt have to answer.

You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question...". I took that to mean you were asking me a question. Silly me.

Yes emotionally laced. No I am not kidding you. You are full of emotions.

A single sentence response with the word "fucking" in it constitutes an emotional tirade to you?

If you want to know how to do emotional tirades right, watch IM2. Get good and pissed off and riddle your post with misspellings and colorful language such as "stupid fucker", "white ass", "punk ass", "bitch" and "dumb bastard". Now that's a right and proper emotional tirade.

No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do.

You didn't "make" me do anything. And did you not see my response? I believe, just as with the Rwandans, that the people who obeyed the Pope's edict and took it upon themselves to kill pagans are guilty by their own choices, not what the Pope said.

Yes racism should be ended. Immediately. The problem is that we know whites cant give it up. Its against their own best interests.

If that's true then why do you bother?

I'm going to let you reread your first sentence so you can see what you just did.

"You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question..."."

Yes.

Obviously I did. First you said you werent going to answer my question then you wrote a paragraph. You did exactly what I set out to make you do.

Why do I bother what?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Didn't read the whole thread, but people often get the definitions of words mixed up, especially when it's politically expedient to.

Racism is the belief that one's traits are determined by race, and therefore implies that one race is superior to another based on those traits. Racism is entirely, 100% contained within the mind and cannot be definitively proven unless someone admits to it.

Prejudice is just another way of saying "pre-judging", or pre-determining what you think of someone or some people based on something, which could be or include race. This is what people today commonly refer to as "racism" when it's really not. I might pre-judge someone based on how many tattoos they have, how they're dressed, what hair style they have, etc. And the reality is that everyone does this numerous times daily. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and also can't be proven definitively unless someone cops to it, just like racism. It becomes a bad thing when you use to to justify:

Discrimination. This is when prejudice acts upon someone who's be prejudiced against. Exclusion from something, unequal treatment, violence, and so on. Obviously the word has a negative connotation, and when used in this sort of context, naturally so. But it doesn't have to be negative. Someone who's responsible about their love life will naturally discriminate as not to make a bad decision. But discrimination within a group context is almost always a bad thing.

Disagree with the definition of racism. Racism is a system (ism) predicated on race. Racist or racialistic is more along the lines of what you are talking about.

Um, no. In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the suffix "-ism" has many definitions and "racism" falls under definition 1c: Prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a (specified) attribute <racism>.

The definition you're referring to falls under 3a and 3b and reads: 3a: Doctrine: Theory: Cult <Buddhism> 3b: Adherence to a system or a class of principles <stoicism>.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Which translates to: "I don't want to answer your question because the right answer will blow a Rwanda-sized hole in my argument."

You know goddamn well what the answers are to these questions and since you're too afraid to answer, I'll answer them for you:

1.) Yes, the Rwandans had control over future events.
2.) No, they would not have been compelled to commit genocide even if they didn't want to.
3.) No, the genocide was not an assured outcome (predestined) that could not be avoided.

You refuse to answer mine but you want me to answer yours? Are you fucking kidding me?

You dont have to answer my question on the thread I just wanted to turn a lightbulb on in your head.

You said: "However, let me ask you this question..."

If you weren't asking a question then why did you pose it as a question?

Looks like from your emotionally laced tirade

"emotionally laced"? Because of what, my saying "fucking"? Are you fucking kidding me? Look, another emotionally laced tirade. Feel free to show it to your friends to get a chuckle over the emotional white guy.

I did what I set out to do.

If you mean you set out to avoid the truth of the questions I asked then yes, you did what you set out to do.

Here's the thing, the papal bull you cited does not vex me in the least because I recognize and understand that these people were responsible for their own actions and it has nothing to do with me. I see and acknowledge any and all atrocities committed by whites throughout history and I condemn every one of them. The difference between you guys and myself is that I don't blame the Holocaust on the anti-Semitism that was taught and festered throughout Europe for centuries before the 30s, I blame the Nazis and Germans who, of their own freewill, chose to round up Jews like cattle and gas them and stick them in ovens. They are responsible for the Holocaust, not the racist rhetoric of their forebears.

The anti-Semitism in Europe did not cause or predestine the Holocaust just as white colonization did not cause or predestine the Rwanda genocide.

I assume that you and others here would like to see an end to racism, correct? This is why you talk about the history of white racism all the time, right? If your goal is not an end to racism then either you wouldn't bother or you are just flogging whites with their racist history as punishment instead of rehabilitation or enlightenment.

So, in order to see an end to racism we then must be able to recognize that a racist's heart can be enlightened and changed, yes? So how is it that a white American racist's heart can be changed but the Rwandans' hearts could not?

If we cannot allow that a heart can be changed then the fight against racism was doomed from the start.

Where did I say I wasnt asking a question? I even put the word "question" in my response to you when I said you didnt have to answer.

You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question...". I took that to mean you were asking me a question. Silly me.

Yes emotionally laced. No I am not kidding you. You are full of emotions.

A single sentence response with the word "fucking" in it constitutes an emotional tirade to you?

If you want to know how to do emotional tirades right, watch IM2. Get good and pissed off and riddle your post with misspellings and colorful language such as "stupid fucker", "white ass", "punk ass", "bitch" and "dumb bastard". Now that's a right and proper emotional tirade.

No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do.

You didn't "make" me do anything. And did you not see my response? I believe, just as with the Rwandans, that the people who obeyed the Pope's edict and took it upon themselves to kill pagans are guilty by their own choices, not what the Pope said.

Yes racism should be ended. Immediately. The problem is that we know whites cant give it up. Its against their own best interests.

If that's true then why do you bother?

I'm going to let you reread your first sentence so you can see what you just did.

"You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question..."."

A mistake on my part. What I should have said was that you did not indicate in any way in the original post that you were not expecting an answer to the question. You only told me that in your response when I said I wouldn't. So again, you said "Let me ask you a question..." which I took to mean you expected me to answer the question. Given the wording of the post, why would I assume otherwise?

Yes.

Obviously I did. First you said you werent going to answer my question then you wrote a paragraph. You did exactly what I set out to make you do.

You said you set out to make me consider the question. If that's true then I did exactly what I wanted to do with you also when I asked the questions about Rwanda. You considered the questions at least long enough to determine that to answer the questions truthfully would have destroyed your argument. Thus, in a pseudo-intellectual manner, you said "Hmph", stuck your nose in the air and deemed them to be without value. What a crock.

Why do I bother what?

Bitching to whites all the time about white racism, what else?

 

[Asclepias]

You dont have to answer my question on the thread I just wanted to turn a lightbulb on in your head.

You said: "However, let me ask you this question..."

If you weren't asking a question then why did you pose it as a question?

Looks like from your emotionally laced tirade

"emotionally laced"? Because of what, my saying "fucking"? Are you fucking kidding me? Look, another emotionally laced tirade. Feel free to show it to your friends to get a chuckle over the emotional white guy.

I did what I set out to do.

If you mean you set out to avoid the truth of the questions I asked then yes, you did what you set out to do.

Here's the thing, the papal bull you cited does not vex me in the least because I recognize and understand that these people were responsible for their own actions and it has nothing to do with me. I see and acknowledge any and all atrocities committed by whites throughout history and I condemn every one of them. The difference between you guys and myself is that I don't blame the Holocaust on the anti-Semitism that was taught and festered throughout Europe for centuries before the 30s, I blame the Nazis and Germans who, of their own freewill, chose to round up Jews like cattle and gas them and stick them in ovens. They are responsible for the Holocaust, not the racist rhetoric of their forebears.

The anti-Semitism in Europe did not cause or predestine the Holocaust just as white colonization did not cause or predestine the Rwanda genocide.

I assume that you and others here would like to see an end to racism, correct? This is why you talk about the history of white racism all the time, right? If your goal is not an end to racism then either you wouldn't bother or you are just flogging whites with their racist history as punishment instead of rehabilitation or enlightenment.

So, in order to see an end to racism we then must be able to recognize that a racist's heart can be enlightened and changed, yes? So how is it that a white American racist's heart can be changed but the Rwandans' hearts could not?

If we cannot allow that a heart can be changed then the fight against racism was doomed from the start.

Where did I say I wasnt asking a question? I even put the word "question" in my response to you when I said you didnt have to answer.

You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question...". I took that to mean you were asking me a question. Silly me.

Yes emotionally laced. No I am not kidding you. You are full of emotions.

A single sentence response with the word "fucking" in it constitutes an emotional tirade to you?

If you want to know how to do emotional tirades right, watch IM2. Get good and pissed off and riddle your post with misspellings and colorful language such as "stupid fucker", "white ass", "punk ass", "bitch" and "dumb bastard". Now that's a right and proper emotional tirade.

No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do.

You didn't "make" me do anything. And did you not see my response? I believe, just as with the Rwandans, that the people who obeyed the Pope's edict and took it upon themselves to kill pagans are guilty by their own choices, not what the Pope said.

Yes racism should be ended. Immediately. The problem is that we know whites cant give it up. Its against their own best interests.

If that's true then why do you bother?

I'm going to let you reread your first sentence so you can see what you just did.

"You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question..."."

A mistake on my part. What I should have said was that you did not indicate in any way in the original post that you were not expecting an answer to the question. You only told me that in your response when I said I wouldn't. So again, you said "Let me ask you a question..." which I took to mean you expected me to answer the question. Given the wording of the post, why would I assume otherwise?

Yes.

Obviously I did. First you said you werent going to answer my question then you wrote a paragraph. You did exactly what I set out to make you do.

You said you set out to make me consider the question. If that's true then I did exactly what I wanted to do with you also when I asked the questions about Rwanda. You considered the questions at least long enough to determine that to answer the questions truthfully would have destroyed your argument. Thus, in a pseudo-intellectual manner, you said "Hmph", stuck your nose in the air and deemed them to be without value. What a crock.

Why do I bother what?

Bitching to whites all the time about white racism, what else?

You make a lot of mistakes. Think instead of being emotional.

Thats right. I set out to make you consider the question. You had to consider the question in order to write a paragraph about it. After you did what I wanted you to do you were then free to do as you liked..

Telling whites they are racist when they ask me a question or asking questions of whites to get their opinion doesnt mean I am bitching. Its called talking or discussion.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You said: "However, let me ask you this question..."

If you weren't asking a question then why did you pose it as a question?

"emotionally laced"? Because of what, my saying "fucking"? Are you fucking kidding me? Look, another emotionally laced tirade. Feel free to show it to your friends to get a chuckle over the emotional white guy.

If you mean you set out to avoid the truth of the questions I asked then yes, you did what you set out to do.

Here's the thing, the papal bull you cited does not vex me in the least because I recognize and understand that these people were responsible for their own actions and it has nothing to do with me. I see and acknowledge any and all atrocities committed by whites throughout history and I condemn every one of them. The difference between you guys and myself is that I don't blame the Holocaust on the anti-Semitism that was taught and festered throughout Europe for centuries before the 30s, I blame the Nazis and Germans who, of their own freewill, chose to round up Jews like cattle and gas them and stick them in ovens. They are responsible for the Holocaust, not the racist rhetoric of their forebears.

The anti-Semitism in Europe did not cause or predestine the Holocaust just as white colonization did not cause or predestine the Rwanda genocide.

I assume that you and others here would like to see an end to racism, correct? This is why you talk about the history of white racism all the time, right? If your goal is not an end to racism then either you wouldn't bother or you are just flogging whites with their racist history as punishment instead of rehabilitation or enlightenment.

So, in order to see an end to racism we then must be able to recognize that a racist's heart can be enlightened and changed, yes? So how is it that a white American racist's heart can be changed but the Rwandans' hearts could not?

If we cannot allow that a heart can be changed then the fight against racism was doomed from the start.

Where did I say I wasnt asking a question? I even put the word "question" in my response to you when I said you didnt have to answer.

You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question...". I took that to mean you were asking me a question. Silly me.

Yes emotionally laced. No I am not kidding you. You are full of emotions.

A single sentence response with the word "fucking" in it constitutes an emotional tirade to you?

If you want to know how to do emotional tirades right, watch IM2. Get good and pissed off and riddle your post with misspellings and colorful language such as "stupid fucker", "white ass", "punk ass", "bitch" and "dumb bastard". Now that's a right and proper emotional tirade.

No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do.

You didn't "make" me do anything. And did you not see my response? I believe, just as with the Rwandans, that the people who obeyed the Pope's edict and took it upon themselves to kill pagans are guilty by their own choices, not what the Pope said.

Yes racism should be ended. Immediately. The problem is that we know whites cant give it up. Its against their own best interests.

If that's true then why do you bother?

I'm going to let you reread your first sentence so you can see what you just did.

"You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question..."."

A mistake on my part. What I should have said was that you did not indicate in any way in the original post that you were not expecting an answer to the question. You only told me that in your response when I said I wouldn't. So again, you said "Let me ask you a question..." which I took to mean you expected me to answer the question. Given the wording of the post, why would I assume otherwise?

Yes.

Obviously I did. First you said you werent going to answer my question then you wrote a paragraph. You did exactly what I set out to make you do.

You said you set out to make me consider the question. If that's true then I did exactly what I wanted to do with you also when I asked the questions about Rwanda. You considered the questions at least long enough to determine that to answer the questions truthfully would have destroyed your argument. Thus, in a pseudo-intellectual manner, you said "Hmph", stuck your nose in the air and deemed them to be without value. What a crock.

Why do I bother what?

Bitching to whites all the time about white racism, what else?

You make a lot of mistakes. Think instead of being emotional.

What?

Thats right. I set out to make you consider the question. You had to consider the question in order to write a paragraph about it. After you did what I wanted you to do you were then free to do as you liked.

You know, I didn't even read the damn thing when you first posted it. After refusing to answer my question and then I read the words "Let me ask you a question...", I said to hell with that and didn't read any more of it. I didn't read it in its entirety until after about your second response to me.

Your question about the Papal Bull was in response to my questions about Rwanda, presumably because you wanted me to look at Rwanda from a different perspective or something. I read the question and the text of the bull and my opinion about Rwanda still stands and I say the Europeans were also responsible for their actions as well. In short, my position has not changed in the least so I don't know why you're gloating as if you won some kind of victory or something. You posted something on a discussion forum and somebody read it. Congratulations on your singular accomplishment.

Telling whites they are racist when they ask me a question or asking questions of whites to get their opinion doesnt mean I am bitching. Its called talking or discussion.

You refuse to answer my questions but you'll answer theirs to tell them they're racist. So tell me, have you ever responded to a question where the answer was not "You're racist" or "Whites are evil" or "Whites are the weakest race"?

Talking or discussing presumes some sort of back and forth and I've not seen that with you. You don't discuss, you preach, lecture, judge, berate and yes, bitch.

 

[Some Guy]

Didn't read the whole thread, but people often get the definitions of words mixed up, especially when it's politically expedient to.

Racism is the belief that one's traits are determined by race, and therefore implies that one race is superior to another based on those traits. Racism is entirely, 100% contained within the mind and cannot be definitively proven unless someone admits to it.

Prejudice is just another way of saying "pre-judging", or pre-determining what you think of someone or some people based on something, which could be or include race. This is what people today commonly refer to as "racism" when it's really not. I might pre-judge someone based on how many tattoos they have, how they're dressed, what hair style they have, etc. And the reality is that everyone does this numerous times daily. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and also can't be proven definitively unless someone cops to it, just like racism. It becomes a bad thing when you use to to justify:

Discrimination. This is when prejudice acts upon someone who's be prejudiced against. Exclusion from something, unequal treatment, violence, and so on. Obviously the word has a negative connotation, and when used in this sort of context, naturally so. But it doesn't have to be negative. Someone who's responsible about their love life will naturally discriminate as not to make a bad decision. But discrimination within a group context is almost always a bad thing.

Disagree with the definition of racism. Racism is a system (ism) predicated on race. Racist or racialistic is more along the lines of what you are talking about.

You're wrong. You're subscribing to a politicized definition of racism.

 

[Asclepias]

Where did I say I wasnt asking a question? I even put the word "question" in my response to you when I said you didnt have to answer.

You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question...". I took that to mean you were asking me a question. Silly me.

Yes emotionally laced. No I am not kidding you. You are full of emotions.

A single sentence response with the word "fucking" in it constitutes an emotional tirade to you?

If you want to know how to do emotional tirades right, watch IM2. Get good and pissed off and riddle your post with misspellings and colorful language such as "stupid fucker", "white ass", "punk ass", "bitch" and "dumb bastard". Now that's a right and proper emotional tirade.

No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do.

You didn't "make" me do anything. And did you not see my response? I believe, just as with the Rwandans, that the people who obeyed the Pope's edict and took it upon themselves to kill pagans are guilty by their own choices, not what the Pope said.

Yes racism should be ended. Immediately. The problem is that we know whites cant give it up. Its against their own best interests.

If that's true then why do you bother?

I'm going to let you reread your first sentence so you can see what you just did.

"You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question..."."

A mistake on my part. What I should have said was that you did not indicate in any way in the original post that you were not expecting an answer to the question. You only told me that in your response when I said I wouldn't. So again, you said "Let me ask you a question..." which I took to mean you expected me to answer the question. Given the wording of the post, why would I assume otherwise?

Yes.

Obviously I did. First you said you werent going to answer my question then you wrote a paragraph. You did exactly what I set out to make you do.

You said you set out to make me consider the question. If that's true then I did exactly what I wanted to do with you also when I asked the questions about Rwanda. You considered the questions at least long enough to determine that to answer the questions truthfully would have destroyed your argument. Thus, in a pseudo-intellectual manner, you said "Hmph", stuck your nose in the air and deemed them to be without value. What a crock.

Why do I bother what?

Bitching to whites all the time about white racism, what else?

You make a lot of mistakes. Think instead of being emotional.

What?

Thats right. I set out to make you consider the question. You had to consider the question in order to write a paragraph about it. After you did what I wanted you to do you were then free to do as you liked.

You know, I didn't even read the damn thing when you first posted it. After refusing to answer my question and then I read the words "Let me ask you a question...", I said to hell with that and didn't read any more of it. I didn't read it in its entirety until after about your second response to me.

Your question about the Papal Bull was in response to my questions about Rwanda, presumably because you wanted me to look at Rwanda from a different perspective or something. I read the question and the text of the bull and my opinion about Rwanda still stands and I say the Europeans were also responsible for their actions as well. In short, my position has not changed in the least so I don't know why you're gloating as if you won some kind of victory or something. You posted something on a discussion forum and somebody read it. Congratulations on your singular accomplishment.

Telling whites they are racist when they ask me a question or asking questions of whites to get their opinion doesnt mean I am bitching. Its called talking or discussion.

You refuse to answer my questions but you'll answer theirs to tell them they're racist. So tell me, have you ever responded to a question where the answer was not "You're racist" or "Whites are evil" or "Whites are the weakest race"?

Talking or discussing presumes some sort of back and forth and I've not seen that with you. You don't discuss, you preach, lecture, judge, berate and yes, bitch.

I didnt ask you when you read my question. I just said I wanted you to read it and consider it. You did that and more. Its not a bad thing.

My point in having you do that was to show you that people can be manipulated into doing stuff they wouldnt normally do. Europeans set those two ethinic groups against each other when history shows they got along fine prior to european invasion. They stoked the fires of resentment by creating a social order that elevated one group over the other. They poisoned their philosophies with european norms and created the Rwandan crisis.

Whites ask a lot of dumb questions knowing full well the answer. I dont like playing your games. So if I dont answer a question then you can safely assume its because I think youre deflecting of full of shit. BTW yes I have answered questions without mentioning white flaws.

 

[Some Guy]

Racism is the belief that one's traits are determined by race, and therefore implies that one race is superior to another based on those traits. Racism is entirely, 100% contained within the mind and cannot be definitively proven unless someone admits to it.

And the United States of America crafted and passed racially discriminatory laws based on the belief of white superiority and black inferiority creating a system of "institutional racism" which was supported by court rulings that enforced these racially discriminatory laws that violated the human rights of the entire African American race.

We know 100% what was in their minds because they put it down in writing, in the laws they drafted, in the court rulings made, in the protests signs, in the bombings and lynchings committed against black people. The only reason I believe that they have toned things down is because while they could openly and with confidence commit these crimes in the past without placing themselves in jeopardy they can no longer be sure that they will escape punishment today.

Any animus that may be felt against those who instituted this form of racial oppression and the individuals involved is not the same thing as racism on the part of those who have been oppressed. It a natural reaction to being abused and the natural reaction to individuals who attempt to pretend that this wasn't done to people of African descent, or to discount it's impact and also to pretend that it doesn't exist and isn't continuing to be done today by certain individuals including the ones doing the ridiculing.

Most human beings have the capacity to emphasis with those being wronged irrespective of their race, gender, circumstances, etc. Just on this message board and others I have frequented there seem to be a lot of soulless and brainless individuals who revel in their ignorance like pigs in the mud.

Agreed entirely. But that doesn't change the fact that words have proper definitions. Racism is thought, prejudice is thought, discrimination/oppression/violence is action with a certain motivation that may or may not include racism/prejudice. What's happened to black people in America is a result of tribalism, us vs. them mentality and racism/prejudice.

What annoys me the most is when people politicize a word like "racism" for their own ends. Most people don't know what "racism" actually is, they only think they do. The term has been used to bucket a whole lot of stuff into it, most of which you highlighted above. So there's a lot of valid feelings and points but there's also a lot of actual racism, prejudice and discrimination in there as a result on behalf of people who supposedly can't be "racist." When a black person says that all white people are racist or think a certain way: that's actual racism. When white people are excluded from events for only black people (or whatever people) then that's discrimination. Just because some set of people have been historically oppressed as a result of racism/prejudice manifested against them isn't a valid justification to be racist, prejudiced and discriminatory in retaliation. That's a good way to ensure more unrest and war, not actual peace.

You want to point out the wrongs being done? The injustice built into a given system that favors people based on the color of their skin? Great, let's try to fix that. But calling white people racist and saying that white people need to pay for the sins of their father: that's nothing but hatred and revenge at work. That's seeing someone else as lesser/deficient/evil for nothing other than the color of their skin and that's wrong no matter who's doing it. I've said it a million times before but i'll say it again: the longer it takes people to see others as just people and not (color) people, (ethnicity) people, (sexual orientation) people and so on... the longer it'll take to achieve real progress.

 

[Asclepias]

Didn't read the whole thread, but people often get the definitions of words mixed up, especially when it's politically expedient to.

Racism is the belief that one's traits are determined by race, and therefore implies that one race is superior to another based on those traits. Racism is entirely, 100% contained within the mind and cannot be definitively proven unless someone admits to it.

Prejudice is just another way of saying "pre-judging", or pre-determining what you think of someone or some people based on something, which could be or include race. This is what people today commonly refer to as "racism" when it's really not. I might pre-judge someone based on how many tattoos they have, how they're dressed, what hair style they have, etc. And the reality is that everyone does this numerous times daily. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and also can't be proven definitively unless someone cops to it, just like racism. It becomes a bad thing when you use to to justify:

Discrimination. This is when prejudice acts upon someone who's be prejudiced against. Exclusion from something, unequal treatment, violence, and so on. Obviously the word has a negative connotation, and when used in this sort of context, naturally so. But it doesn't have to be negative. Someone who's responsible about their love life will naturally discriminate as not to make a bad decision. But discrimination within a group context is almost always a bad thing.

Disagree with the definition of racism. Racism is a system (ism) predicated on race. Racist or racialistic is more along the lines of what you are talking about.

You're wrong. You're subscribing to a politicized definition of racism.

No I am subscribing to the definition of ism. Just as sexism is a system based on sex so goes it with racism. A system built on race.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question...". I took that to mean you were asking me a question. Silly me.

A single sentence response with the word "fucking" in it constitutes an emotional tirade to you?

If you want to know how to do emotional tirades right, watch IM2. Get good and pissed off and riddle your post with misspellings and colorful language such as "stupid fucker", "white ass", "punk ass", "bitch" and "dumb bastard". Now that's a right and proper emotional tirade.

You didn't "make" me do anything. And did you not see my response? I believe, just as with the Rwandans, that the people who obeyed the Pope's edict and took it upon themselves to kill pagans are guilty by their own choices, not what the Pope said.

If that's true then why do you bother?

I'm going to let you reread your first sentence so you can see what you just did.

"You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question..."."

A mistake on my part. What I should have said was that you did not indicate in any way in the original post that you were not expecting an answer to the question. You only told me that in your response when I said I wouldn't. So again, you said "Let me ask you a question..." which I took to mean you expected me to answer the question. Given the wording of the post, why would I assume otherwise?

Yes.

Obviously I did. First you said you werent going to answer my question then you wrote a paragraph. You did exactly what I set out to make you do.

You said you set out to make me consider the question. If that's true then I did exactly what I wanted to do with you also when I asked the questions about Rwanda. You considered the questions at least long enough to determine that to answer the questions truthfully would have destroyed your argument. Thus, in a pseudo-intellectual manner, you said "Hmph", stuck your nose in the air and deemed them to be without value. What a crock.

Why do I bother what?

Bitching to whites all the time about white racism, what else?

You make a lot of mistakes. Think instead of being emotional.

What?

Thats right. I set out to make you consider the question. You had to consider the question in order to write a paragraph about it. After you did what I wanted you to do you were then free to do as you liked.

You know, I didn't even read the damn thing when you first posted it. After refusing to answer my question and then I read the words "Let me ask you a question...", I said to hell with that and didn't read any more of it. I didn't read it in its entirety until after about your second response to me.

Your question about the Papal Bull was in response to my questions about Rwanda, presumably because you wanted me to look at Rwanda from a different perspective or something. I read the question and the text of the bull and my opinion about Rwanda still stands and I say the Europeans were also responsible for their actions as well. In short, my position has not changed in the least so I don't know why you're gloating as if you won some kind of victory or something. You posted something on a discussion forum and somebody read it. Congratulations on your singular accomplishment.

Telling whites they are racist when they ask me a question or asking questions of whites to get their opinion doesnt mean I am bitching. Its called talking or discussion.

You refuse to answer my questions but you'll answer theirs to tell them they're racist. So tell me, have you ever responded to a question where the answer was not "You're racist" or "Whites are evil" or "Whites are the weakest race"?

Talking or discussing presumes some sort of back and forth and I've not seen that with you. You don't discuss, you preach, lecture, judge, berate and yes, bitch.

I didnt ask you when you read my question. I just said I wanted you to read it and consider it. You did that and more. Its not a bad thing.

No, it's not a bad thing but that wasn't the point. The point was that you were claiming to have "made" me read and consider the question before I had even read the entire post. My "emotional tirade", as you put it, was not in response to the question or the subject of the post but a response to the unmitigated gall of asking me a question when you refused answer mine.

My point in having you do that was to show you that people can be manipulated into doing stuff they wouldnt normally do. Europeans set those two ethinic groups against each other when history shows they got along fine prior to european invasion. They stoked the fires of resentment by creating a social order that elevated one group over the other. They poisoned their philosophies with european norms and created the Rwandan crisis.

Here's the thing, even if we could say that it wouldn't have happened without the Papal Bull, the principle of choice still applies, i.e. they chose to be manipulated. No one can be manipulated into doing anything of their own volition that goes against their better judgement and principles unless they choose to be. Also, the white colonizers in Rwanda only encouraged class division (that already existed there), not war. Even if we could lay some blame at the feet of the whites for encouraging class division, the Rwandans chose on their own to take it to the level of violence and genocide.

Whites ask a lot of dumb questions knowing full well the answer.

Speaking for myself, of course I ask questions knowing the answers. The idea is to see if you know the answer or if you are willing to more critically scrutinize your position. Your refusal to answer told me everything I needed to know about how and why you hold your viewpoints on Rwanda.

I dont like playing your games.

Let me borrow something you said and make the appropriate modifications for my personal use:

Asking questions of blacks to get their opinion or to urge them to look at their views from a more logical perspective doesn't mean I am playing games. Its called talking or discussion

So if I dont answer a question then you can safely assume its because I think youre deflecting of full of shit.

Nope, not buyin' it. There was only one way to answer the questions I posed to you. Any other answers would have made you look like a self-delusional nutball. That's why you didn't answer.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm going to let you reread your first sentence so you can see what you just did.

"You put the word "question" in your response, not the original post. In the original post you said "Let me ask you this question..."."

A mistake on my part. What I should have said was that you did not indicate in any way in the original post that you were not expecting an answer to the question. You only told me that in your response when I said I wouldn't. So again, you said "Let me ask you a question..." which I took to mean you expected me to answer the question. Given the wording of the post, why would I assume otherwise?

Yes.

Obviously I did. First you said you werent going to answer my question then you wrote a paragraph. You did exactly what I set out to make you do.

You said you set out to make me consider the question. If that's true then I did exactly what I wanted to do with you also when I asked the questions about Rwanda. You considered the questions at least long enough to determine that to answer the questions truthfully would have destroyed your argument. Thus, in a pseudo-intellectual manner, you said "Hmph", stuck your nose in the air and deemed them to be without value. What a crock.

Why do I bother what?

Bitching to whites all the time about white racism, what else?

You make a lot of mistakes. Think instead of being emotional.

What?

Thats right. I set out to make you consider the question. You had to consider the question in order to write a paragraph about it. After you did what I wanted you to do you were then free to do as you liked.

You know, I didn't even read the damn thing when you first posted it. After refusing to answer my question and then I read the words "Let me ask you a question...", I said to hell with that and didn't read any more of it. I didn't read it in its entirety until after about your second response to me.

Your question about the Papal Bull was in response to my questions about Rwanda, presumably because you wanted me to look at Rwanda from a different perspective or something. I read the question and the text of the bull and my opinion about Rwanda still stands and I say the Europeans were also responsible for their actions as well. In short, my position has not changed in the least so I don't know why you're gloating as if you won some kind of victory or something. You posted something on a discussion forum and somebody read it. Congratulations on your singular accomplishment.

Telling whites they are racist when they ask me a question or asking questions of whites to get their opinion doesnt mean I am bitching. Its called talking or discussion.

You refuse to answer my questions but you'll answer theirs to tell them they're racist. So tell me, have you ever responded to a question where the answer was not "You're racist" or "Whites are evil" or "Whites are the weakest race"?

Talking or discussing presumes some sort of back and forth and I've not seen that with you. You don't discuss, you preach, lecture, judge, berate and yes, bitch.

I didnt ask you when you read my question. I just said I wanted you to read it and consider it. You did that and more. Its not a bad thing.

No, it's not a bad thing but that wasn't the point. The point was that you were claiming to have "made" me read and consider the question before I had even read the entire post. My "emotional tirade", as you put it, was not in response to the question or the subject of the post but a response to the unmitigated gall of asking me a question when you refused answer mine.

My point in having you do that was to show you that people can be manipulated into doing stuff they wouldnt normally do. Europeans set those two ethinic groups against each other when history shows they got along fine prior to european invasion. They stoked the fires of resentment by creating a social order that elevated one group over the other. They poisoned their philosophies with european norms and created the Rwandan crisis.

Here's the thing, even if we could say that it wouldn't have happened without the Papal Bull, the principle of choice still applies, i.e. they chose to be manipulated. No one can be manipulated into doing anything of their own volition that goes against their better judgement and principles unless they choose to be. Also, the white colonizers in Rwanda only encouraged class division (that already existed there), not war. Even if we could lay some blame at the feet of the whites for encouraging class division, the Rwandans chose on their own to take it to the level of violence and genocide.

Whites ask a lot of dumb questions knowing full well the answer.

Speaking for myself, of course I ask questions knowing the answers. The idea is to see if you know the answer or if you are willing to more critically scrutinize your position. Your refusal to answer told me everything I needed to know about how and why you hold your viewpoints on Rwanda.

I dont like playing your games.

Let me borrow something you said and make the appropriate modifications for my personal use:

Asking questions of blacks to get their opinion or to urge them to look at their views from a more logical perspective doesn't mean I am playing games. Its called talking or discussion

So if I dont answer a question then you can safely assume its because I think youre deflecting of full of shit.

Nope, not buyin' it. There was only one way to answer the questions I posed to you. Any other answers would have made you look like a self-delusional nutball. That's why you didn't answer.

No I never made that claim. Thats something you just made up. I said I made you consider the question. You did me one better and answered it.

No one makes a conscious choice to be manipulated. One can say that being manipulated means that choice is removed because the outcome is predetermined. Obviously you lack knowledge of what can be done. People are brainwashed all the time against their better judgement. Look at Drumpf supporters for example. Drumpf manipulates them with ease. Centuries of white brainwashing and overt white interference are the blame for the Rwandan crisis.

You arent smart enough to see if I know the answer which is the reason I didnt answer it until I was sure I understood your motives. So as you see, I manipulated you into answering my question prior to answering yours.

You dont have to buy it. There are a million ways to answer the questions. One being no answer at all for a weak or silly question.

 

[MarcATL]

And the United States of America crafted and passed racially discriminatory laws based on the belief of white superiority and black inferiority creating a system of "institutional racism" which was supported by court rulings that enforced these racially discriminatory laws that violated the human rights of the entire African American race.

We know 100% what was in their minds because they put it down in writing, in the laws they drafted, in the court rulings made, in the protests signs, in the bombings and lynchings committed against black people. The only reason I believe that they have toned things down is because while they could openly and with confidence commit these crimes in the past without placing themselves in jeopardy they can no longer be sure that they will escape punishment today.

Any animus that may be felt against those who instituted this form of racial oppression and the individuals involved is not the same thing as racism on the part of those who have been oppressed. It a natural reaction to being abused and the natural reaction to individuals who attempt to pretend that this wasn't done to people of African descent, or to discount it's impact and also to pretend that it doesn't exist and isn't continuing to be done today by certain individuals including the ones doing the ridiculing.

Most human beings have the capacity to emphasis with those being wronged irrespective of their race, gender, circumstances, etc. Just on this message board and others I have frequented there seem to be a lot of soulless and brainless individuals who revel in their ignorance like pigs in the mud.

POWERFUL!!!

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

A mistake on my part. What I should have said was that you did not indicate in any way in the original post that you were not expecting an answer to the question. You only told me that in your response when I said I wouldn't. So again, you said "Let me ask you a question..." which I took to mean you expected me to answer the question. Given the wording of the post, why would I assume otherwise?

You said you set out to make me consider the question. If that's true then I did exactly what I wanted to do with you also when I asked the questions about Rwanda. You considered the questions at least long enough to determine that to answer the questions truthfully would have destroyed your argument. Thus, in a pseudo-intellectual manner, you said "Hmph", stuck your nose in the air and deemed them to be without value. What a crock.

Bitching to whites all the time about white racism, what else?

You make a lot of mistakes. Think instead of being emotional.

What?

Thats right. I set out to make you consider the question. You had to consider the question in order to write a paragraph about it. After you did what I wanted you to do you were then free to do as you liked.

You know, I didn't even read the damn thing when you first posted it. After refusing to answer my question and then I read the words "Let me ask you a question...", I said to hell with that and didn't read any more of it. I didn't read it in its entirety until after about your second response to me.

Your question about the Papal Bull was in response to my questions about Rwanda, presumably because you wanted me to look at Rwanda from a different perspective or something. I read the question and the text of the bull and my opinion about Rwanda still stands and I say the Europeans were also responsible for their actions as well. In short, my position has not changed in the least so I don't know why you're gloating as if you won some kind of victory or something. You posted something on a discussion forum and somebody read it. Congratulations on your singular accomplishment.

Telling whites they are racist when they ask me a question or asking questions of whites to get their opinion doesnt mean I am bitching. Its called talking or discussion.

You refuse to answer my questions but you'll answer theirs to tell them they're racist. So tell me, have you ever responded to a question where the answer was not "You're racist" or "Whites are evil" or "Whites are the weakest race"?

Talking or discussing presumes some sort of back and forth and I've not seen that with you. You don't discuss, you preach, lecture, judge, berate and yes, bitch.

I didnt ask you when you read my question. I just said I wanted you to read it and consider it. You did that and more. Its not a bad thing.

No, it's not a bad thing but that wasn't the point. The point was that you were claiming to have "made" me read and consider the question before I had even read the entire post. My "emotional tirade", as you put it, was not in response to the question or the subject of the post but a response to the unmitigated gall of asking me a question when you refused answer mine.

My point in having you do that was to show you that people can be manipulated into doing stuff they wouldnt normally do. Europeans set those two ethinic groups against each other when history shows they got along fine prior to european invasion. They stoked the fires of resentment by creating a social order that elevated one group over the other. They poisoned their philosophies with european norms and created the Rwandan crisis.

Here's the thing, even if we could say that it wouldn't have happened without the Papal Bull, the principle of choice still applies, i.e. they chose to be manipulated. No one can be manipulated into doing anything of their own volition that goes against their better judgement and principles unless they choose to be. Also, the white colonizers in Rwanda only encouraged class division (that already existed there), not war. Even if we could lay some blame at the feet of the whites for encouraging class division, the Rwandans chose on their own to take it to the level of violence and genocide.

Whites ask a lot of dumb questions knowing full well the answer.

Speaking for myself, of course I ask questions knowing the answers. The idea is to see if you know the answer or if you are willing to more critically scrutinize your position. Your refusal to answer told me everything I needed to know about how and why you hold your viewpoints on Rwanda.

I dont like playing your games.

Let me borrow something you said and make the appropriate modifications for my personal use:

Asking questions of blacks to get their opinion or to urge them to look at their views from a more logical perspective doesn't mean I am playing games. Its called talking or discussion

So if I dont answer a question then you can safely assume its because I think youre deflecting of full of shit.

Nope, not buyin' it. There was only one way to answer the questions I posed to you. Any other answers would have made you look like a self-delusional nutball. That's why you didn't answer.

No I never made that claim. Thats something you just made up. I said I made you consider the question. You did me one better and answered it.

Isn't that what I said? The only difference is that I said "..read and consider..." Here is what you said in post #518: "No I meant to make you consider my question. Looks like you did what I wanted you to do."

*shrug*

No one makes a conscious choice to be manipulated. One can say that being manipulated means that choice is removed because the outcome is predetermined.

Choice is never removed and outcome is never predetermined. If choice can be removed and outcome can be predetermined then how do you account for those who refused to participate in the genocide? What about the story of Paul Rusesabagina in Hotel Rwanda? Rusesabagina is Hutu and his wife is Tutsi. Both of them had been taught to hate the other tribe and yet they chose not to and chose to get married and have children. Rusesabagina harbored over a thousand Tutsi refugees in the hotel during the genocide, people he was told to hate.

If two people can make the choice not to hate and not to kill then anyone and everyone can make that same choice.

Another thing, in a previous post I brought up the fact that the white colonizers did not create the class division, they only exploited the class division that was already there. Unless you can prove to me otherwise, the whites never encouraged them to kill each other.

Obviously you lack knowledge of what can be done. People are brainwashed all the time against their better judgement. Look at Drumpf supporters for example. Drumpf manipulates them with ease. Centuries of white brainwashing and overt white interference are the blame for the Rwandan crisis.

The same might be said of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton supporters. But be that as it may, there's no manipulation going on here. Trump supporters support him because they agree with his ideals and policies. A person can only be manipulated if they are already predisposed towards the doctrine or ideal or whatever. This is why the Tutsis went along with the class division exploited by the whites: they were already taught that Hutus were a lower class. Furthermore, it was in their own best interests to play along because it afforded them more power and influence.

You arent smart enough to see if I know the answer which is the reason I didnt answer it until I was sure I understood your motives. So as you see, I manipulated you into answering my question prior to answering yours.

You apparently are not smart enough to see that I never even answered your question. Your question was:

"Would europeans have poured forth from the european continent and committed genocide if the Pope had not issued the Papal Bull Dum Diversas?"

I never answered your question, I only said that Europeans who obeyed the Pope did so of their own freewill.

You dont have to buy it. There are a million ways to answer the questions. One being no answer at all for a weak or silly question.

Not answering the question is not an answer, it's just a type of response.