What exactly do republicans have to offer blacks?

[Ghost of a Rider]

First let me point out that you and IM2 are apparently not in agreement as to whether or not blacks can be racist. So why you guys discussed this?

That said, why is the primary potential reason for his spitting on me is that I said or did something racist?

You have no clue what me and IM2 agree on. That much is obvious.

I know enough to know that the two of you disagree on this one point. I've been debating with the both of you for months and in that time I've learned that you think blacks can be racist - which you just said in this thread - and that IM2 thinks blacks can't be racist at all.

I think thats already been pointed out to you. Black people dont just go around spitting on people unless they are mentally ill or you did something to them.

So young black men will join gangs and murder other black men for control of drug territory but spitting on people is morally beneath them?

You just said in this thread that blacks can be racist but it never occurred to you that he might have spit on me for that reason?

Not really sure why you think we disagree or why its important to you if its true?

This question is called a informal fallacy. Tidy it up if you want a serious answer.

Since you haven't been able to figure it out, my point is that it is more important to you guys to make whites wrong than it is to come to agreement between yourselves on what exactly makes whites wrong.

We dont have to agree on what makes whites wrong. Who told you we had to agree? IM2 is a different person than me. He most likely has different experiences with whites than I do as a result. Of course we share some experiences and conclusions but I am sure there is more than one thing we dont agree on. Besides we dont have to make whites wrong. Thats already a fact.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats silly talk. There are a whole host of reasons that could explain why you got spit on. The primary one being you said or did something racist.

First let me point out that you and IM2 are apparently not in agreement as to whether or not blacks can be racist. So why you guys discussed this?

That said, why is the primary potential reason for his spitting on me is that I said or did something racist?

And what? We are supposed agree on everything?

Nope. That's not my point. The point is that the two of you disagree on a fundamental aspect of racial issues: the ability or possibility of blacks being racist. Now, if I were any less jaded than I am about how some blacks approach racial issues, I would wonder why this point never came up between you. But, being as jaded as I am from debating the two of you, I know exactly why it never came up.

You want to make a claim in order to build straw men based on false equivalences. But like I said, for you to even try making blacks racist, you have to deny whites have a continuing 400 year practice of racist behavior and that what blacks are doing is a reaction to that behavior.

How do you know if we have never discussed this point before?

I don't. I'm just making an assumption which is what you guys do to me all the time.

Who told you we disagree?

If by "disagree" you mean having discussed it, no one. But if by "disagree" you have a difference of opinion, well, you do.

If we do disagree what made you think its something fundamental?

You don't think that the question as to whether or not blacks can be racist is fundamental? Seriously?

It is a fundamental distinction because if the black person cannot be racist then the white person is always at fault or always the racist in every situation. If, however, the black person can, in fact, be racist, it changes the rules and parameters of the entire game. This then allows for the possibility that the black person citing racism just might be wrong. It also allows for the possibility that a black person can practice racism by denying a white person a job or show favoritism to black students or employees or whatever. But this is a possibility that people like IM2 just can't entertain.

Thats good. As long as you understand its just an assumption i will allow it.

So neither of us have told you that we disagree. Why do you think we disagree then?

Correct. Blacks being racist or not has zilch to do with white racism. My posts on racism have absolutely nothing to do with a Black person being racist. Its always about how whites are racists due to various insecurities that have caused them to legislate themselves a head start because they cant compete without assistance. This system is called racism.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

A black property owner can practice racism by not renting to whites because of race. A black employer can practice racism by not hiring whites because of race. A black traffic cop can practice racism by writing white people tickets and black people warnings when he makes traffic stops. Not all control of "the system, its resources and opportunities" are in the hands of white people. There are lots of blacks that have the power to practice racism.

One person doesnt make a system. There has to be a majority. For example If all the white banks decided to not loan to Blacks (sound familiar?) Black people would be severely affected. If all the Black banks decided not to loan to whites no one would even notice. If some whites did notice they could pass a law or put the Black banks out of business. Racism is the execution of power designed to provide benefits to the people that have the power and provide obstacles to the people that dont.

So then what you're saying is that if a white guy denies a job to a black person for a white person it's practicing racism, but if a black guy denies a white person a job in favor of a black guy, it is not practicing racism because the black guy's race doesn't have control of the system?

Bingo. The white guys actions fall in line not only with the control dynamic but also with the prevalence of denying Blacks a job in favor of whites.

And the black guy's do not? Does the black employer not have control?

Basically what you're saying is that practicing racism is okay but practicing a lot of racism is morally wrong. Does that about sum it up?

Correct. The Black guy can be put out of business by whites easily. His business exists in the system controlled by whites.

Don't be stupid. A black employer has control over his company, ergo, he can practice racism.

Nope. Thats actually only something an idiot would suggest. Practicing racism is something only whites can do and like most things whites do its wrong.

You're an ignorant racist pig.

 

[Asclepias]

One person doesnt make a system. There has to be a majority. For example If all the white banks decided to not loan to Blacks (sound familiar?) Black people would be severely affected. If all the Black banks decided not to loan to whites no one would even notice. If some whites did notice they could pass a law or put the Black banks out of business. Racism is the execution of power designed to provide benefits to the people that have the power and provide obstacles to the people that dont.

So then what you're saying is that if a white guy denies a job to a black person for a white person it's practicing racism, but if a black guy denies a white person a job in favor of a black guy, it is not practicing racism because the black guy's race doesn't have control of the system?

Bingo. The white guys actions fall in line not only with the control dynamic but also with the prevalence of denying Blacks a job in favor of whites.

And the black guy's do not? Does the black employer not have control?

Basically what you're saying is that practicing racism is okay but practicing a lot of racism is morally wrong. Does that about sum it up?

Correct. The Black guy can be put out of business by whites easily. His business exists in the system controlled by whites.

Don't be stupid. A black employer has control over his company, ergo, he can practice racism.

Nope. Thats actually only something an idiot would suggest. Practicing racism is something only whites can do and like most things whites do its wrong.

You're an ignorant racist pig.

Youre being an idiot. Unless a Black employer doesnt have to abide by the rules of the white owned system then he doesnt have control over his company hence he cant practice racism. Even if he did one Black employer doesnt a system make.

Dont get frustrated. Get a better, more logical argument.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I know enough to know that the two of you disagree on this one point. I've been debating with the both of you for months and in that time I've learned that you think blacks can be racist - which you just said in this thread - and that IM2 thinks blacks can't be racist at all.

So young black men will join gangs and murder other black men for control of drug territory but spitting on people is morally beneath them?

You just said in this thread that blacks can be racist but it never occurred to you that he might have spit on me for that reason?

Not really sure why you think we disagree or why its important to you if its true?

This question is called a informal fallacy. Tidy it up if you want a serious answer.

Since you haven't been able to figure it out, my point is that it is more important to you guys to make whites wrong than it is to come to agreement between yourselves on what exactly makes whites wrong.

We dont have to agree on what makes whites wrong. Who told you we had to agree? IM2 is a different person than me. He most likely has different experiences with whites than I do as a result. Of course we share some experiences and conclusions but I am sure there is more than one thing we dont agree on.

The ghost rider is desperate A.

I think its fucking with his head that we're both his intellectual superiors.

This coming from the guy who calls people stupid fucker, dumb bastard, bitch, punk, etc. when you disagree with him. This from the guy who can't remember who he's talking to half the time. This from the guy who is so eaten up by his own racism he can't see the irony in "trying" to put an end to racism by saying an entire race is morally weak.

 

[Asclepias]

You have no clue what me and IM2 agree on. That much is obvious.

I know enough to know that the two of you disagree on this one point. I've been debating with the both of you for months and in that time I've learned that you think blacks can be racist - which you just said in this thread - and that IM2 thinks blacks can't be racist at all.

I think thats already been pointed out to you. Black people dont just go around spitting on people unless they are mentally ill or you did something to them.

So young black men will join gangs and murder other black men for control of drug territory but spitting on people is morally beneath them?

You just said in this thread that blacks can be racist but it never occurred to you that he might have spit on me for that reason?

Not really sure why you think we disagree or why its important to you if its true?

This question is called a informal fallacy. Tidy it up if you want a serious answer.

Since you haven't been able to figure it out, my point is that it is more important to you guys to make whites wrong than it is to come to agreement between yourselves on what exactly makes whites wrong.

We dont have to agree on what makes whites wrong. Who told you we had to agree? IM2 is a different person than me. He most likely has different experiences with whites than I do as a result. Of course we share some experiences and conclusions but I am sure there is more than one thing we dont agree on. Besides we dont have to make whites wrong. Thats already a fact.

Thank you for proving my point.

You never had a point. Grasping at irrelevant straws is not a point.

 

[Asclepias]

Not really sure why you think we disagree or why its important to you if its true?

This question is called a informal fallacy. Tidy it up if you want a serious answer.

Since you haven't been able to figure it out, my point is that it is more important to you guys to make whites wrong than it is to come to agreement between yourselves on what exactly makes whites wrong.

We dont have to agree on what makes whites wrong. Who told you we had to agree? IM2 is a different person than me. He most likely has different experiences with whites than I do as a result. Of course we share some experiences and conclusions but I am sure there is more than one thing we dont agree on.

The ghost rider is desperate A.

I think its fucking with his head that we're both his intellectual superiors.

This coming from the guy who calls people stupid fucker, dumb bastard, bitch, punk, etc. when you disagree with him. This from the guy who can't remember who he's talking to half the time. This from the guy who is so eaten up by his own racism he can't see the irony in "trying" to put an end to racism by saying an entire race is morally weak.

That just shows my vast knowledge of words. I always remember who I started talking to. Thats why when someone jumps into the conversation unannounced I sometimes think I am talking to the same person. I already told you that I am Black and as such cannot practice racism here in the US. Anything else is just mendacious propaganda.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

A black property owner can practice racism by not renting to whites because of race. A black employer can practice racism by not hiring whites because of race. A black traffic cop can practice racism by writing white people tickets and black people warnings when he makes traffic stops. Not all control of "the system, its resources and opportunities" are in the hands of white people. There are lots of blacks that have the power to practice racism.

One person doesnt make a system. There has to be a majority. For example If all the white banks decided to not loan to Blacks (sound familiar?) Black people would be severely affected. If all the Black banks decided not to loan to whites no one would even notice. If some whites did notice they could pass a law or put the Black banks out of business. Racism is the execution of power designed to provide benefits to the people that have the power and provide obstacles to the people that dont.

So then what you're saying is that if a white guy denies a job to a black person for a white person it's practicing racism, but if a black guy denies a white person a job in favor of a black guy, it is not practicing racism because the black guy's race doesn't have control of the system?

Bingo. The white guys actions fall in line not only with the control dynamic but also with the prevalence of denying Blacks a job in favor of whites.

And the black guy's do not? Does the black employer not have control?

Basically what you're saying is that practicing racism is okay but practicing a lot of racism is morally wrong. Does that about sum it up?

Your argument is based on hypotheticals. "But if a black guys does this" is not the same as " when a white guy did this." We are taking about a proven record of white racist behavior, you are arguing a bunch of what ifs.

White fragility.

My case was not hypothetical.

You called me liar at the outset. I'm never gonna let you forget that. Then you assumed I did something to provoke him. Then you told me he was just angry about white racism but never explained how that justifies his spitting on me if I was not racist towards him. Then, you expect evidence that his was a racist act but required none to accuse me of lying and none to accuse me of provoking him.

There's only one explanation for any of that:

Black fragility.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

One person doesnt make a system. There has to be a majority. For example If all the white banks decided to not loan to Blacks (sound familiar?) Black people would be severely affected. If all the Black banks decided not to loan to whites no one would even notice. If some whites did notice they could pass a law or put the Black banks out of business. Racism is the execution of power designed to provide benefits to the people that have the power and provide obstacles to the people that dont.

So then what you're saying is that if a white guy denies a job to a black person for a white person it's practicing racism, but if a black guy denies a white person a job in favor of a black guy, it is not practicing racism because the black guy's race doesn't have control of the system?

Bingo. The white guys actions fall in line not only with the control dynamic but also with the prevalence of denying Blacks a job in favor of whites.

And the black guy's do not? Does the black employer not have control?

Basically what you're saying is that practicing racism is okay but practicing a lot of racism is morally wrong. Does that about sum it up?

Your argument is based on hypotheticals. "But if a black guys does this" is not the same as " when a white guy did this." We are taking abut a proven record of white racist behavior, you are arguing a bunch of what ifs.

White fragility.

I'm beginning to think that the reality whites subscribe to forces them to try and equate things that simply are not the same. They have trouble with simple concepts like history and facts.

Racism = racism. What's not the same here?

 

[Asclepias]

So then what you're saying is that if a white guy denies a job to a black person for a white person it's practicing racism, but if a black guy denies a white person a job in favor of a black guy, it is not practicing racism because the black guy's race doesn't have control of the system?

Bingo. The white guys actions fall in line not only with the control dynamic but also with the prevalence of denying Blacks a job in favor of whites.

And the black guy's do not? Does the black employer not have control?

Basically what you're saying is that practicing racism is okay but practicing a lot of racism is morally wrong. Does that about sum it up?

Your argument is based on hypotheticals. "But if a black guys does this" is not the same as " when a white guy did this." We are taking abut a proven record of white racist behavior, you are arguing a bunch of what ifs.

White fragility.

I'm beginning to think that the reality whites subscribe to forces them to try and equate things that simply are not the same. They have trouble with simple concepts like history and facts.

Racism = racism. What's not the same here?

Racism ≠ reaction to racism. Your equation is incorrect. Thats what is not the same.

 

[IM2]

Well, I've been entertained enough here in the racist forum. I know when reasoning with people is futile.

Kinda sucks when your argument doesnt consider the facts and reality obliterates your theory. As long as whites control the resources and opportunities in this system set up by and for the benefit of whites in the US, no other race can be said to practice racism

You guys are truly dumb. So let us look at reality, The black landlord will own property in the black communiy where no one white will go to rent a property. But you guys want to argue based on hypotheticals that do not exist in reality, claim your hypothetical serve as fact then claim your belief in the hypothetical situation is logical and reasoned thinking.

 

[IM2]

So then what you're saying is that if a white guy denies a job to a black person for a white person it's practicing racism, but if a black guy denies a white person a job in favor of a black guy, it is not practicing racism because the black guy's race doesn't have control of the system?

Bingo. The white guys actions fall in line not only with the control dynamic but also with the prevalence of denying Blacks a job in favor of whites.

And the black guy's do not? Does the black employer not have control?

Basically what you're saying is that practicing racism is okay but practicing a lot of racism is morally wrong. Does that about sum it up?

Your argument is based on hypotheticals. "But if a black guys does this" is not the same as " when a white guy did this." We are taking abut a proven record of white racist behavior, you are arguing a bunch of what ifs.

White fragility.

I'm beginning to think that the reality whites subscribe to forces them to try and equate things that simply are not the same. They have trouble with simple concepts like history and facts.

Racism = racism. What's not the same here?

What if describes an event that hasn't happened. When he did it describes events that happen.

 

[IM2]

You have no clue what me and IM2 agree on. That much is obvious.

I know enough to know that the two of you disagree on this one point. I've been debating with the both of you for months and in that time I've learned that you think blacks can be racist - which you just said in this thread - and that IM2 thinks blacks can't be racist at all.

I think thats already been pointed out to you. Black people dont just go around spitting on people unless they are mentally ill or you did something to them.

So young black men will join gangs and murder other black men for control of drug territory but spitting on people is morally beneath them?

You just said in this thread that blacks can be racist but it never occurred to you that he might have spit on me for that reason?

Not really sure why you think we disagree or why its important to you if its true?

This question is called a informal fallacy. Tidy it up if you want a serious answer.

Since you haven't been able to figure it out, my point is that it is more important to you guys to make whites wrong than it is to come to agreement between yourselves on what exactly makes whites wrong.

Wrong. We know what makes whites like you wrong. White racism. You are here trying to make up a equivalent racism from blacks that just does not exist.

Thank you for making my point.

OK Bushwick Bill.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

First let me point out that you and IM2 are apparently not in agreement as to whether or not blacks can be racist. So why you guys discussed this?

That said, why is the primary potential reason for his spitting on me is that I said or did something racist?

You have no clue what me and IM2 agree on. That much is obvious.

I know enough to know that the two of you disagree on this one point. I've been debating with the both of you for months and in that time I've learned that you think blacks can be racist - which you just said in this thread - and that IM2 thinks blacks can't be racist at all.

I think thats already been pointed out to you. Black people dont just go around spitting on people unless they are mentally ill or you did something to them.

So young black men will join gangs and murder other black men for control of drug territory but spitting on people is morally beneath them?

You just said in this thread that blacks can be racist but it never occurred to you that he might have spit on me for that reason?

And whites have been practicing racist behavior consistently for over 400 years but that black man could not have spit on you because you said simethig racist or whites treated him like shit on that job.. The more you post the more I see that man had to endure a whole lot of white racism on that job. Because young white men join gangs and kill each other. On top of that, they provide the drugs to everyone else.

All of this is irrelevant to the idea of black men having too much morality and character to spit on someone but have no qualms about murdering other black men.

You always try to turn it into a contest but you're simply too short sighted to see that it's way more complicated than that.

I think you have hit on something with the "contest" For example, if whites have lynched 100 blacks due to racism, IM2 seems to believe that blacks get to lynch 100 whites +1 before the blacks can be racist.

What IM2 invariably does in these discussions is to, when all else fails, point out that whites practiced racism more often and for a longer period of time. In his contorted view, a black guy who spits on a white guy (this happened to me years ago) because the guy is white is not racism, but it is racism when a white person spits on a black person because more whites have spit on blacks for a longer period of time.

This is like saying that if I kill three people over the course of three days, it's not morally wrong because another guy killed a hundred people over a hundred days. There's no moral reasoning to this argument whatsoever. It's nothing more than morality by numbers. It is the most moronic thing I've ever encountered on a discussion forum.

 

[Asclepias]

You have no clue what me and IM2 agree on. That much is obvious.

I know enough to know that the two of you disagree on this one point. I've been debating with the both of you for months and in that time I've learned that you think blacks can be racist - which you just said in this thread - and that IM2 thinks blacks can't be racist at all.

I think thats already been pointed out to you. Black people dont just go around spitting on people unless they are mentally ill or you did something to them.

So young black men will join gangs and murder other black men for control of drug territory but spitting on people is morally beneath them?

You just said in this thread that blacks can be racist but it never occurred to you that he might have spit on me for that reason?

And whites have been practicing racist behavior consistently for over 400 years but that black man could not have spit on you because you said simethig racist or whites treated him like shit on that job.. The more you post the more I see that man had to endure a whole lot of white racism on that job. Because young white men join gangs and kill each other. On top of that, they provide the drugs to everyone else.

All of this is irrelevant to the idea of black men having too much morality and character to spit on someone but have no qualms about murdering other black men.

You always try to turn it into a contest but you're simply too short sighted to see that it's way more complicated than that.

I think you have hit on something with the "contest" For example, if whites have lynched 100 blacks due to racism, IM2 seems to believe that blacks get to lynch 100 whites +1 before the blacks can be racist.

What IM2 invariably does in these discussions is to, when all else fails, point out that whites practiced racism more often and for a longer period of time. In his contorted view, a black guy who spits on a white guy (this happened to me years ago) because the guy is white is not racism, but it is racism when a white person spits on a black person because more whites have spit on blacks for a longer period of time.

This is like saying that if I kill three people over the course of three days, it's not morally wrong because another guy killed a hundred people over a hundred days. There's no moral reasoning to this argument whatsoever. It's nothing more than morality by numbers. It is the most moronic thing I've ever encountered on a discussion forum.

No its nothing like that. How you came up with that is bizarre.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

First let me point out that you and IM2 are apparently not in agreement as to whether or not blacks can be racist. So why you guys discussed this?

That said, why is the primary potential reason for his spitting on me is that I said or did something racist?

You have no clue what me and IM2 agree on. That much is obvious.

I know enough to know that the two of you disagree on this one point. I've been debating with the both of you for months and in that time I've learned that you think blacks can be racist - which you just said in this thread - and that IM2 thinks blacks can't be racist at all.

I think thats already been pointed out to you. Black people dont just go around spitting on people unless they are mentally ill or you did something to them.

So young black men will join gangs and murder other black men for control of drug territory but spitting on people is morally beneath them?

You just said in this thread that blacks can be racist but it never occurred to you that he might have spit on me for that reason?

And whites have been practicing racist behavior consistently for over 400 years but that black man could not have spit on you because you said simethig racist or whites treated him like shit on that job.. The more you post the more I see that man had to endure a whole lot of white racism on that job. Because young white men join gangs and kill each other. On top of that, they provide the drugs to everyone else.

All of this is irrelevant to the idea of black men having too much morality and character to spit on someone but have no qualms about murdering other black men.

You always try to turn it into a contest but you're simply too short sighted to see that it's way more complicated than that.

It is relevant, very much so. It is also tp say that you have no right to say he shit you did we whites di ad have dine far worse things. I know how complicated things are, you are the one who doesn't. That is why you hang on to this notion of black racism without considering the complexity of how 4 centuries of continuing white racism plays into the manner in which we react to whites..

I can tell when you get piqued because the misspellings increase.

Anyway, this may or may not explain the reason some blacks react to white racism the way they do but that in no way means that the reaction is right, moral or fair.

 

[Asclepias]

You have no clue what me and IM2 agree on. That much is obvious.

I know enough to know that the two of you disagree on this one point. I've been debating with the both of you for months and in that time I've learned that you think blacks can be racist - which you just said in this thread - and that IM2 thinks blacks can't be racist at all.

I think thats already been pointed out to you. Black people dont just go around spitting on people unless they are mentally ill or you did something to them.

So young black men will join gangs and murder other black men for control of drug territory but spitting on people is morally beneath them?

You just said in this thread that blacks can be racist but it never occurred to you that he might have spit on me for that reason?

And whites have been practicing racist behavior consistently for over 400 years but that black man could not have spit on you because you said simethig racist or whites treated him like shit on that job.. The more you post the more I see that man had to endure a whole lot of white racism on that job. Because young white men join gangs and kill each other. On top of that, they provide the drugs to everyone else.

All of this is irrelevant to the idea of black men having too much morality and character to spit on someone but have no qualms about murdering other black men.

You always try to turn it into a contest but you're simply too short sighted to see that it's way more complicated than that.

It is relevant, very much so. It is also tp say that you have no right to say he shit you did we whites di ad have dine far worse things. I know how complicated things are, you are the one who doesn't. That is why you hang on to this notion of black racism without considering the complexity of how 4 centuries of continuing white racism plays into the manner in which we react to whites..

I can tell when you get piqued because the misspellings increase.

Anyway, this may or may not explain the reason some blacks react to white racism the way they do but that in no way means that the reaction is right, moral or fair.

You dont have the credibility to determine if its right, moral, or fair. Youre white. When Blacks subject you to centuries of racism come try that again.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You have no clue what me and IM2 agree on. That much is obvious.

I know enough to know that the two of you disagree on this one point. I've been debating with the both of you for months and in that time I've learned that you think blacks can be racist - which you just said in this thread - and that IM2 thinks blacks can't be racist at all.

I think thats already been pointed out to you. Black people dont just go around spitting on people unless they are mentally ill or you did something to them.

So young black men will join gangs and murder other black men for control of drug territory but spitting on people is morally beneath them?

You just said in this thread that blacks can be racist but it never occurred to you that he might have spit on me for that reason?

And whites have been practicing racist behavior consistently for over 400 years but that black man could not have spit on you because you said simethig racist or whites treated him like shit on that job.. The more you post the more I see that man had to endure a whole lot of white racism on that job. Because young white men join gangs and kill each other. On top of that, they provide the drugs to everyone else.

All of this is irrelevant to the idea of black men having too much morality and character to spit on someone but have no qualms about murdering other black men.

You always try to turn it into a contest but you're simply too short sighted to see that it's way more complicated than that.

I think you have hit on something with the "contest" For example, if whites have lynched 100 blacks due to racism, IM2 seems to believe that blacks get to lynch 100 whites +1 before the blacks can be racist.

Except Ghost rider is the one making this a contest. His blacks are racist too argument is exactly that.

This is not a contest for me and never was. I saw a lot of anger at whites when I came here and a lot of rhetoric suggesting that only whites can be racist. I did not agree with this view so I related my story as an example. That's when you started all this nonsense about power and authority and systems and the whole "blacks can't be racist because they don't have the power.." bullshit (after you first called me a liar without cause or evidence of course). Ever since then, no matter what I say, it's "400 years..." and "Blacks never made laws and policies..." "Blacks don't have control of...".

It has always been a contest of victimhood with you and is the very foundation of your entire view about whites and racism.

 

[Markle]

Your argument is based on hypotheticals. "But if a black guys does this" is not the same as " when a white guy did this." We are taking about a proven record of white racist behavior, you are arguing a bunch of what ifs.

White fragility.

As you were saying....

 

[justoffal]

A black property owner can practice racism by not renting to whites because of race. A black employer can practice racism by not hiring whites because of race. A black traffic cop can practice racism by writing white people tickets and black people warnings when he makes traffic stops. Not all control of "the system, its resources and opportunities" are in the hands of white people. There are lots of blacks that have the power to practice racism.

One person doesnt make a system. There has to be a majority. For example If all the white banks decided to not loan to Blacks (sound familiar?) Black people would be severely affected. If all the Black banks decided not to loan to whites no one would even notice. If some whites did notice they could pass a law or put the Black banks out of business. Racism is the execution of power designed to provide benefits to the people that have the power and provide obstacles to the people that dont.

So then what you're saying is that if a white guy denies a job to a black person for a white person it's practicing racism, but if a black guy denies a white person a job in favor of a black guy, it is not practicing racism because the black guy's race doesn't have control of the system?

Bingo. The white guys actions fall in line not only with the control dynamic but also with the prevalence of denying Blacks a job in favor of whites.

And the black guy's do not? Does the black employer not have control?

Basically what you're saying is that practicing racism is okay but practicing a lot of racism is morally wrong. Does that about sum it up?

Your argument is based on hypotheticals. "But if a black guys does this" is not the same as " when a white guy did this." We are taking about a proven record of white racist behavior, you are arguing a bunch of what ifs.

White fragility.

Um no.... Anti-stupidity .. ....