Reply to Racism Discussion (Because there isn't enough of that. :L)

[Big Brother]

You can't really argue with that since there is an established definition and that is an opinion held of what the definition should be. 

What you seem to be really saying is in fact individuals can't be racist as they hold no power for the most part. Only a group can be racist as they have the power and if one group is larger than the other then the smaller one can't be racist unless it has more power than the larger group. 

 

If we're to consider that the better definition of racism then blacks would be racist if they held the power in majority black areas of a white country if whites were the minorities in those areas and held little to no power. 

 

I can certainly argue with that, and you don't seem to have read my entire post. It clearly says that: "The use of racism to mean "prejudice plus power" by however many academics does not disqualify other definitions of the term any more than psychiatrists defining the term "depression" as a specific disorder disqualifies using it to mean being extremely sad. "Prejudice plus power" as used by some academics is what is called a stipulative definition[wp], used primarily for academic research to simplify discussions and text, not to "replace" other definitions of the word in common usage."

 

..Which means, like it says, that this definition does not disqualify other definitions (like the ones you adhere to). It's a stipulative definition, used for academic discussion and text, and is not supposed to replace any other common definition of the world.

 

You are right about your conclusions as to what this means, if you follow the definition of racism = prejudice + power, meaning that racism as a concept is prejudice + power, then no group or individual without the backing of institutional power can be racist, per this definition.

 

I don't anyone implied that you were being racist against your own race? You did a pretty good job of failing to address our points though

 

Pretty sure Clarke did imply that, but whatever, I could be mistaken. If you think I didn't address you with that post, you didn't get it. I'm not trying to replace the definition you posted yourself and as for your racial discrimination example, if the prejudice + power definition is utilized, then those cases are not cases of racism. For those who don't know, this is what a stipulative definition is:

 

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently-existing term is given a specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. Because of this, a stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect"; it can only differ from other definitions, but it can be useful for its intended purpose.^[1][2]

 

We're basically arguing over nothing here, I'm not in any way opposed to any established definition of racism as much as I'm supplying an alternate point of view.

 

Honestly, white people moaning about reverse racism are complete babies. White people, and white men in particular, have been at the top of the world's social hierarchy for centuries upon centuries, we hold the most power, we're the most privileged, we're the least discriminated against, and our societies are designed to cater to our needs, wants, beliefs and culture (at least in the West).

 

Even considering the cases of supposedly "racial discrimination" against white people, while terrible and bad, are utterly insignificant and nothing at all compared to all the hardship, rampant discrimination and abuse black people, Asian people, Native Americans, and so on, have suffered at the hands of white people for too many years. Whatever cases of "racial discrimination" that exist towards white people completely pale in comparison, and discrimination against white people, especially white men, is much less of a problem than the institutional racism that has been afflicting black people in the United States and Muslims/people from the Middle East in Europe, for decades and centuries.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Big Brother

[Pocci]

1. What do you guys consider racist?

Anything that has to do with judging people based on their race.

2. Do you believe there a such thing as racism against whites?

Yes, no doubt about it.

3. Do you find the Confederate Flag offensive?

No, the civil war was fought for state's rights not slavery. The Confederate Flag is a symbol of Southern Pride.

4. Thoughts on racial stereotyping?

There are distinct differences between races, anyone who says all races are equal and believe it is only skin color are only fooling themselves, however no one chose to be their race, so equal rights should still be carried throughout all races.

5. Should racism be banned, or is it a necessary downside of free speech?

No. Free Speech is the right to say whatever you want, if someone wants to call a black person the N-word go ahead, they only alienate themselves for it anyway.

[Clarke]

I mean to say we the people can't really argue as there is an established accepted definition, it's the definition and that is all. Why would it be changed to another definition. Definitions shouldn't change to appease people, if you want a word with that definition then make up a new word.  

 

 

Which means, like it says, that this definition does not disqualify other definitions (like the ones you adhere to). It's a stipulative definition, used for academic discussion and text, and is not supposed to replace any other common definition of the world.

 

So if this new definition still labels racists as racists no matter what race they're then was exactly is the point in changing it? If it's just for academic purposes it seems more wise to simply create a new word and to not change an existed accepted word. 

 

 

Pretty sure Clarke did imply that, but whatever, I could be mistaken. If you think I didn't address you with that post, you didn't get it. I'm not trying to replace the definition you posted yourself and as for your racial discrimination example, if the prejudice + power definition is utilized, then those cases are not cases of racism. For those who don't know, this is what a stipulative definition is:

 

I was going to imply something of the sort but decided not to. You might have thought this was aimed at you...

"Your explanation is a perfect example of how racism against whites is actually mainstream now and much more prevalent as you can be openly racist to white people with your logic."

 

But that was speaking more general where non white people can be abusive and make racial remarks and such as it is generally accepted or no one calls them racist for their racist remarks. I speaking more about the media and entertainment though where it has the same culture that only whites are racist and white racists are reported more than blacks racists (if even reported at all). Basically being a non white racist means you don't take any damage for your hate. 

 

 

Overall this definition being proposed here will only distract from the actual definition of racism and stupid people will use it an argument to support their views that only whites can be racist as they as a group have more power which will ultimately reinforce the current trend in the media that only whites are racist. 

 

 

Honestly, white people moaning about reverse racism are complete babies. White people, and white men in particular, have been at the top of the world's social hierarchy for centuries upon centuries, we hold the most power, we're the most privileged, we're the least discriminated against, and our societies are designed to cater to our needs, wants, beliefs and culture (at least in the West).

 

Yeah now I would say you have white guilt so yeah that's implying it to some degree. I'll avoid talking about colonies for now but Europe has a white majority and even more so in the past. Does every white person in the world have to accept racism as part of life because most African and Asian countries weren't as successful and couldn't challenge the European powers. I'm Irish, my country was basically taken by the English for centuries before England even controlled most of the world so clearly not everyone in Europe was at the top of the world's social hierarchy and certainly not my people. 

The biggest part that irritates me is that white people don't hold power, rich people hold power and they just happen to be mostly white because white countries happen to be most successful for a long time there. Basically you're opposed to the rich 1% being mostly white.

Who are "you" taking this out on? Normal white people who have no power. 

 

 

Even considering the cases of supposedly "racial discrimination" against white people, while terrible and bad, are utterly insignificant and nothing at all compared to all the hardship, rampant discrimination and abuse black people, Asian people, Native Americans, and so on, have suffered at the hands of white people for too many years. Whatever cases of "racial discrimination" that exist towards white people completely pale in comparison, and discrimination against white people, especially white men, is much less of a problem than the institutional racism that has been afflicting black people in the United States and Muslims/people from the Middle East in Europe, for decades and centuries.

 

 

Everyone got abused. The Arabs enslaved countless millions of Africans for over a thousand years so racism isn't unique to white people as mass slavery started well before the European powers even became so successful. You can only really defend Native Americans as they were separated from powers in Asia, Africa and Europe who were abusing both other races and their own. I wouldn't say too much on the subject but whites were kept as slaves by raiders from Africa and the middle east for centuries as well. 

So yeah this last post is oozing with white guilt.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Clarke

[Big Brother]

I mean to say we the people can't really argue as there is an established accepted definition, it's the definition and that is all. Why would it be changed to another definition. Definitions shouldn't change to appease people, if you want a word with that definition then make up a new word.

 

No one is trying to change the definition to appease anyone, I simply posited the prejudice plus power definition as a more apt definition of racism, not a replacement. If you'll recall, racism first originated as a term to describe the atrocities of Hitler's government. If we look at what was actually going on during the Third Reich, you'll see that it fits the prejudice plus power definition perfectly, he was in charge of a prejudiced government that used the state (institutional power) as a tool to systematically oppress people of "subhuman" races. Now, considering these actions are what caused the term to come into existence, that these actions are what "racism" was used to describe, it only makes sense that the most suitable definition is prejudice plus power.

 

But that was speaking more general where non white people can be abusive and make racial remarks and such as it is generally accepted or no one calls them racist for their racist remarks. I speaking more about the media and entertainment though where it has the same culture that only whites are racist and white racists are reported more than blacks racists (if even reported at all). Basically being a non white racist means you don't take any damage for your hate.

 

No one accepts the abuse or racial remarks of non-white people, that's not something that happens. Just because people don't agree that it's racism, doesn't mean that they accept wrongful actions and let people get away with discrimination. I don't know where you're from but if we use the United States as an example, the media would in fact be correct in their assessment that only white people are or can be racist in the United States. If there's any reason for why white people are reported for discrimination (in the United States) more than black people, it's that white people are the people who actually have the power and the capability to discriminate and get away with it. The United States has a history and culture ingrained with racism committed by white people, and white people continue to follow their old habits. Regardless, anyone who discriminates to the point of breaking the law, that gets caught and has a fair trial, will take damage for their hate, regardless of whether or not it's considered to be racist.

 

Overall this definition being proposed here will only distract from the actual definition of racism and stupid people will use it an argument to support their views that only whites can be racist as they as a group have more power which will ultimately reinforce the current trend in the media that only whites are racist.

 

Incorrect, if anything the definition proposed is more apt to describe what racism actually is. And by following this definition, it would be correct to state that only whites are racist (at least in countries where white people hold institutional power). The only stupid people I'm aware of are the people living in the United States or other white majority countries who actually believe that reverse racism exists.

 

Yeah now I would say you have white guilt so yeah that's implying it to some degree. I'll avoid talking about colonies for now but Europe has a white majority and even more so in the past. Does every white person in the world have to accept racism as part of life because most African and Asian countries weren't as successful and couldn't challenge the European powers. I'm Irish, my country was basically taken by the English for centuries before England even controlled most of the world so clearly not everyone in Europe was at the top of the world's social hierarchy and certainly not my people. 

The biggest part that irritates me is that white people don't hold power, rich people hold power and they just happen to be mostly white because white countries happen to be most successful for a long time there. Basically you're opposed to the rich 1% being mostly white.

Who are "you" taking this out on? Normal white people who have no power.

 

You have completely failed to understand.

 

Who's talking about every white person accepting racism as part of life? Do you know why most African countries and a lot of Asian countries didn't develop as quickly as Europe? Because European powers invaded, enslaved, exploited and oppressed them.

 

When talking about social hierarchies, you have to look at the big picture. Sure, some few people are or have been in control, but that doesn't mean they're the only people who hold power. In the context of the world population, white human beings are at the top. Some are higher up than others, but the top of the pyramid consists of white people. No matter how poor or powerless your Irish ancestors were, they had a higher social standing than non-white people.

 

You say that regular, working class white people don't hold power, which only shows me that you have no idea what power or institutional power actually means. In societies that are dominated by white men, where the founding laws were made by white men, where the law is dictated by white men, where the majority of government members and leading politicians are white men, the entire society, social, economical and political system caters to, you guessed it, white men. This is power in itself. The white men in control sympathize and support "regular" white men and/or white people, they back them with the the power they possess and yield this power to other white people. In countries suffering from institutional racism, the ruling majority empower themselves at the expensive of other minorities. In just societies, all citizens are empowered, in unjust societies, a specific, dominant demographic is empowered, like in the United States.

 

Regardless, I'm not "taking this out" on white people without power. Regular citizens aren't to blame for the cause of racism, like you correctly stated the people at the very top are to blame, and this shows that prejudice + power is a suitable definition.

 

Everyone got abused. The Arabs enslaved countless millions of Africans for over a thousand years so racism isn't unique to white people as mass slavery started well before the European powers even became so successful. You can only really defend Native Americans as they were separated from powers in Asia, Africa and Europe who were abusing both other races and their own. I wouldn't say too much on the subject but whites were kept as slaves by raiders from Africa and the middle east for centuries as well. 

So yeah this last post is oozing with white guilt.

 

Everyone got abused? Is that supposed to render what white people have done to others inert or be some kind of excuse? Ridiculous.

 

You are right, I do feel white guilt, any white person with a conscience should. You seem to be trying to use it as some sort of negative denominator to dismiss my opinion, which is honestly kind of funny. If you had a grain of empathy and any ability to look past yourself, you would feel guilty too, and you'd be right to do so.

 

You're a baby, who's whining about reverse racism because  suddenly after being oppressed into the ground for years and years, people who aren't white actually have the guts to speak out against our bull shit. Now that white people have to deal with crap, crap everyone else has been dealing with for a long time, and your feelings are getting hurt, you're suddenly anti-racist against a form of racism that doesn't even really exist. Boohoo, cry me a river. Good thing the world is going to keep spinning despite poor hurt white feelings.

[Odin]

Is that supposed to render what white people have done to others inert or be some kind of excuse? 

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Odin

[Clarke]

As I say there is nothing to argue about, simply make a new word to describe it accurately for academic purposes. It is a replacement as it disqualifies people who are racist from being racist based on their race. White people certainly don't have the power to discriminate and get away with it, at least normal white people who aren't rich who are being labelled as racist. Perhaps you should make a racist comment on Facebook or a tweet and see what happens. 

I'm confused, do you want that to replace the definition or you want it to be used just for academic purposes? I say that because maybe I'm mistaken but you seem to contradict yourself about what this change would do to the word racism with the fact you don't believe people can be racist against whites in white countries. It doesn't seem in line with it being a stipulative definition, you disagree with the definition you want it to be?

 

You clearly don't see whites in white countries as capable of being victims of racism and you even used the term reserve racism. I mistakenly copied it into my last post in reference to you but removed it when I seen it being used in my opinion to downplay racism against whites. Clearly anyway you think everyone in this thread who said "racism against whites is a thing" is stupid.

Perhaps you were insulting them because I said stupid people would use the changing of the definition to support their claims that only whites can be racist was being aimed at you, it was only being aimed at people who would use the altered definition out of the contexts you listed to say only whites can be racist as they have more power which wasn't what you were saying.

 

 

You have completely failed to understand.

 

Who's talking about every white person accepting racism as part of life? Do you know why most African countries and a lot of Asian countries didn't develop as quickly as Europe? Because European powers invaded, enslaved, exploited and oppressed them.

 

When talking about social hierarchies, you have to look at the big picture. Sure, some few people are or have been in control, but that doesn't mean they're the only people who hold power. In the context of the world population, white human beings are at the top. Some are higher up than others, but the top of the pyramid consists of white people. No matter how poor or powerless your Irish ancestors were, they had a higher social standing than non-white people.

 

You say that regular, working class white people don't hold power, which only shows me that you have no idea what power or institutional power actually means. In societies that are dominated by white men, where the founding laws were made by white men, where the law is dictated by white men, where the majority of government members and leading politicians are white men, the entire society, social, economical and political system caters to, you guessed it, white men. This is power in itself. The white men in control sympathize and support "regular" white men and/or white people, they back them with the the power they possess and yield this power to other white people. In countries suffering from institutional racism, the ruling majority empower themselves at the expensive of other minorities. In just societies, all citizens are empowered, in unjust societies, a specific, dominant demographic is empowered, like in the United States.

 

Regardless, I'm not "taking this out" on white people without power. Regular citizens aren't to blame for the cause of racism, like you correctly stated the people at the very top are to blame, and this shows that prejudice + power is a suitable definition.

I think that's a flawed but popular argument with no substance to it, they didn't develop as quickly simply because their culture wasn't promoting advancement. At least in Africa it was mostly warring tribes with no real source of unity. Considering how easily they were conquered by European powers it's pretty obvious they weren't unified. So I think it's unfair to say European powers halted their development, in fact without European intervention Africa would easily be still non-unified and would be tribes with no goals of advancement. Is there some evidence to suggest Africa was developing very well prior to the European influence? 

 

As I said white countries were the most successful for some time and the consequence is that richest most powerful people are mostly white. 

There was basically no none whites in Ireland so you're at the bottom of the barrel, can't really go any further down. I'm not even talking about the colonies but yeah eventually the Irish weren't treated like shit as much in colonies compared to blacks. It depends on time period you're referencing with social standing, are you saying only the current time period matters or only the time period for blacks? You use past tense and Ireland was abused over a period of ~800 years. 

 

Societies are dominated by who has power and how they influence the masses, to say the ordinary working person has power is to be ignorant of the truth they're irrelevant. They're powerless to change anything that people with power don't want to change, when the powerful want something to change then they call on the masses to embrace the change. 

 

 

 

Everyone got abused? Is that supposed to render what white people have done to others inert or be some kind of excuse? Ridiculous.

 

You are right, I do feel white guilt, any white person with a conscience should. You seem to be trying to use it as some sort of negative denominator to dismiss my opinion, which is honestly kind of funny. If you had a grain of empathy and any ability to look past yourself, you would feel guilty too, and you'd be right to do so.

 

You're a baby, who's whining about reverse racism because  suddenly after being oppressed into the ground for years and years, people who aren't white actually have the guts to speak out against our bull shit. Now that white people have to deal with crap, crap everyone else has been dealing with for a long time, and your feelings are getting hurt, you're suddenly anti-racist against a form of racism that doesn't even really exist. Boohoo, cry me a river. Good thing the world is going to keep spinning despite poor hurt white feelings.

 

You're quite mistaken, the point was everyone got abused so stop blaming only whites for the mistreatment in the world. You're no better than people who say whites did nothing wrong, its simply incorrect and an ignorant view. 

Any white person? My people were mistreated for centuries so I'm certainly not going to feel guilty someone else who got mistreated while my people were being oppressed. Do you see any Arabs who feel guilty about keeping blacks as slaves? 

Being guilty about things you didn't do and stuff your ancestors didn't do is simply moronic, if your ancestors did keep slaves I suppose you have a point to feel guilty about. But there again it was so long ago for those people as well it has no relevance to feel guilty about things that happened to people who died centuries ago. 

 

I'm a baby now? Yes I'm a baby because my country was oppressed for ages but because we weren't black it doesn't count and I should instead feel guilty for others. 

Honestly your entire last paragraph is just ignorance, I guess I "won" this "debate". 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Clarke

[Big Brother]

Right, dismiss it as ignorance and claim yourself as the "winner". It's much easier that way, isn't it?

 

There are no winners in these discussions, only disagreements and I've had enough of yours. You are clearly more interested in "winning" than you are in expanding your understanding and I sincerely doubt anything will penetrate your misconceptions. It looks like your opinions are doomed to be about as good as your abilities as an alliance leader.

 

So, you keep believing what you believe and you live in your imaginary world. Call me a quitter, and declare yourself the winner if you want, it's all the same to me. I'm not wasting any more of my time on you.

[Clarke]

Right, dismiss it as ignorance and claim yourself as the "winner". It's much easier that way, isn't it?

 

There are no winners in these discussions, only disagreements and I've had enough of yours. You are clearly more interested in "winning" than you are in expanding your understanding and I sincerely doubt anything will penetrate your misconceptions. It looks like your opinions are doomed to be about as good as your abilities as an alliance leader.

 

So, you keep believing what you believe and you live in your imaginary world. Call me a quitter, and declare yourself the winner if you want, it's all the same to me. I'm not wasting any more of my time on you.

I did use quotations but generally when someone starts babbling nonsense with no relevance its a good indication they have no clue and resorted to posting ignorance.

I replied to pretty much everything you said, if there was something in your last paragraph that had a point that I didn't address then please do expand on it because I couldn't see it through the ignorance you displayed but on quick glance it seems it mostly a repeat of what you already said which I responded to. 

 

I'm not interested in winning, you tried to belittle me and you called everyone here stupid for thinking racism against white people is a thing. As I said I used quotations because I wasn't being serious in that I won, it was more referencing the fact you resorted to this...

 

 

You're a baby, who's whining about reverse racism because  suddenly after being oppressed into the ground for years and years, people who aren't white actually have the guts to speak out against our bull shit. Now that white people have to deal with crap, crap everyone else has been dealing with for a long time, and your feelings are getting hurt, you're suddenly anti-racist against a form of racism that doesn't even really exist. Boohoo, cry me a river. Good thing the world is going to keep spinning despite poor hurt white feelings.

Ignoring you calling people here stupid I highlighted these highly condescending words you used. It was clear to me you quit at that point. 

I mean you say you quit now but you pretty much gave up when you wrote that. 

 

Oh god and now you're acting even more pathetic, oh god lol. 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Clarke

[greatkitteh]

I did use quotations but generally when someone starts babbling nonsense with no relevance its a good indication they have no clue and resorted to posting ignorance.

I replied to pretty much everything you said, if there was something in your last paragraph that had a point that I didn't address then please do expand on it because I couldn't see it through the ignorance you displayed but on quick glance it seems it mostly a repeat of what you already said which I responded to.

 

I'm not interested in winning, you tried to belittle me and you called everyone here stupid for thinking racism against white people is a thing. As I said I used quotations because I wasn't being serious in that I won, it was more referencing the fact you resorted to this...

Ignoring you calling people here stupid I highlighted these highly condescending words you used. It was clear to me you quit at that point.

I mean you say you quit now but you pretty much gave up when you wrote that.

 

Oh god and now you're acting even more pathetic, oh god lol.

I vote for Clakre. There, Clarke wins! Edited February 4, 2016 by greatkitteh

[Clarke]

This is a good video on explaining the slave trade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA

[A-Dean-G]

[Moon Man]

I have an objection to these questions. You cant ask someone a question where if you answer it one particular way, even if truthfully, that you can recieve a ban.

Now this is all theoretical and I do not necessarilly agree to any and/or all of these particular views, this is just a hypothetical.

 

for question 4 if you answer that you think it 'is a good idea to racially stereotype because its true that ayyliens are biologically prone to committing more crimes, are less intelligent, and do not fit well within western white society' then they would be committing speech crime. I would recommend not including number 4 at all, since in practise there is only one answer that is allowed to be adequately discussed on this website.

 

Question 5 isnt quite so black and white as question 4, but I still think that it should be re-worded or something. If someone were to believe that racism shouldnt be banned because it serves society a greater good in keeping the races seperate, thus allowing those on the higher end of the bell curve to do better than if they shared facilities with those on the lower end of the bell curve ; than they could face repercussions. All in all I think this whole thread shouldnt even be here due to the limitations of free speech imposed by the site administrator.

 

Now for me: 1. I think that untrue racial stereotypes about a racial group that is completely unfounded by any real scientific discoveries is considered racist

 

2. Racism against whites is very real, see South Africa where white men are routinely gang raped in prisons, as well as the various other discriminations against white people in Africa. I also believe that Affirmative Action discriminates against white people unfairly, causing the poor white people to become even more disenfranchised. This also helps fuel more racism, another reason why many poor white people have a higher view on the ku klux klan

 

3. The confederate flag is amazing and I have one hanging above my bed. It represents the citizens right to rebel against the government, and since then the government has slowly been encroaching on our freedoms. There is nothing racist against the confederate flag, Maryland was a Union state yet still had slaves.

 

4. I believe that it depends on the situation. I would much rather have young middle eastern men be targeted for TSA searches than have poor old grannies frisked. I believe that there is proper statistics supporting it, than it is fine to do. I have a problem with unfounded stereotyping though.

 

5. Racism shouldnt be banned, ever. People IMO make such a big deal out of racism, like it is the one unforgiveable offence. Liberals are wanting to have pedophiles allowed back onto the streets, yet if you said a triggering word one time when you were getting sexually assaulted years ago, that you are worse than the pedo. I dont think that it matters if you say the most racist filth, you shouldnt be in trouble for it. Like if you call a black guy a certain word that rhymes with everybody's favorite winnie the poo character, people believe that it gives him the right to harm you. I disagree with that idea. If you are of a different race, dont be triggered, get thick skin.

[Lucius Optimus]

This is a good video on explaining the slave trade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA

Exellent exellent video. Thank you for this.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Lucius Optimus

[Jacobs]

Lol! At all the white tears. GET OVER IT. 

[Buorhann]

Lol! At all the white tears. GET OVER IT. 

 

Get over what?

[Jacobs]

Coming from a black guy, most of those comments on that thread were all white supremacist rhetoric, maybe from fox news or storm front?  

1. What do you guys consider racist?

Unlike MANY others, I know the actual definition of racism. Racism exists only when one group holds a disproportionate share of wealth and power over another group then uses those resources to marginalize, exploit, exclude and subordinate the weaker group. 

 

2. Do you believe there a such thing as racism against whites?

HELL NO! Well at least blacks can't. In order for a group to be racist against another they have to be able to have power and oppress others. Whites have been and continue to be the “dominant†race. Also, having a black president does not signal that racism no longer exists.

 

3. Do you find the Confederate Flag offensive?

Not offensive, but indeed racist. Just look at the Confederate Flag Designer he Said It Is A Symbol Of White Supremacy – Not Southern Heritage

4. Thoughts on racial stereotyping?

Yes blacks can have racial stereotypes towards whites. But guess what? That's only how far it goes! If you hold negative stereotypes about blacks. And ACT on those beliefs by practicing racism, something blacks can't do. You're a white supremacist! 

 

5. Should racism be banned, or is it a necessary downside of free speech?

I like to be specific and call it like I see it. I don't like using the word racism. Because it's too broad and many whites like to flip it and point the finger. Now white supremacist, for sure. Should be banned. And I'm not talking about the KKK, those are white extremist. BTW the KKK is a hate organization that should be infiltrated and gone already. Anything it takes to get rid of the KKK and any other white hate group should be done. Nothing like the black panthers and any other positive black group. If it wasn't for the KKK, the black panthers wouldn't exist. So blame yourselves and get over it!! If you don't want the black panthers, get rid of white supremacy. Now back to the question, white supremacy can't be banned. It must be infiltrated and taken down from within. Even if it takes using other whites to do this. It has to be done in order for the black race to survive. White supremacy is not a free speech thing, it's an action that impacts the lives of the global black majority on this earth. So yes, white supremacy should and will end. Whether any white supremacist likes it or not!

[Jacobs]

Get over what?

Need I say more? 

[Prezyan]

lol.

[Jacobs]

..

Edited February 22, 2016 by Jacobs

[Diocletian]

You was a failed troll when you were called "Christopher" and whatever else, you persist in that category. Pls stop.

[Jacobs]

You was a failed troll when you were called "Christopher" and whatever else, you persist in that category. Pls stop.

were? 

[fistofdoom]

there is too much wrong in your one post to explain in one more post

[Clarke]

Are you even black? 

[Franz Von Dietrich]

You call it Racism, I call it a different way of thinking! 

 

(i joke.)

[Ikhan]

Need I say more? 

Please, elaborate. And Yes, some of my ancestors owned slaves, but understand that not everyone in the south owned slaves, in fact, most of my family had it worse than African American's who were held as slaves. Now, do I think slavery is good? No, it is not, never has, and never shall be. But I can still respect my ancestors who fought for both the south, as I do for those who fought for the north, and you can not tell me otherwise.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Alexei Lysenko