UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how is that racism?
the 2020 democratic candidate (and VP)
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How was "Get to the back of the bus!" racism?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
was jane elliot racist too, berntard?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Here's an example of exactly what I've been talking about
"Get to the back of the bus!" is racist when white people say it, but "Get to the back! [of the group]" isn't when black people say it, to those on the far left
To provide a valid point you have to be consistent. Racism is racism, regardless of the nationality of the people involved. One group of people denying access to the front of a bus based on the race of the people involved is exactly as racist as another group of people denying access to the front of a crowd based on the race of the people involved. You saying "nuh-UH!! You racist!!" is what turns people off to your message, because it lacks any reasoning
But the 'berntard' thing was kind of clever
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
You've gone completely off the deep end.
Enjoy the Trump you helped create with your ignorance.
Fucking cuck...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
ok, but was jane elliot racist too?
and thanks. i added "tard" to the end of "bern" to signify mental retardation from bernard fanbois.
You're just mad because Sanders had what Clinton wanted..no amount of cheating, media blackout would make his base waiver.
The 'come to Jesus' moment she was counting on never materialized.
7 MILLION DIDNT SHOW..why? You've never come up with a good explanation.
That's a pretty strong message..sent and received!
And you STILL support her.
So when you think about it..who's the 'tard', Buck?
Last edited:
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
Probably. I was just using buckles logic there. In a different thread I asked if the people advocating killing cops and beating up white people in the BLM movement should be called out, and he justified it because according to him it's only .0001% of the movement doing that kind of stuff.
I don't imagine there's a higher percentage of white folks that hate black folks, than there are black folks that hate white folks?
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Ignorance is an equal opportunity condition and so, yes, there are all sorts of biases out there. The difference is in the raw numbers and economic power. Which is why a racially biased black person doesn't have the same threatening effect as a racist white person. There is a yuuuuuuuge difference between racially motivated violence by a black person and malignant racism by some white people. Its not even close.
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. Violent racist acts are deliberate intimidation or assertion of racist power. Using your BLM movement analogy, I question that the perpetrators were acting on racism vs fear or anger. BLM is first and foremost, a nonviolent movement acting in defense of black people from racist police actions. It's quite likely that the violence at a BLM rally -- and I don't know the details but am speaking in general terms -- came from something other than racism, probably anger at something said or done during the rally. One or a few bad actors at a BLM rally is hardly able to project power or intimidate in the same way that firebombing a black church does or beating a black person by skinheads. So, no, I wouldn't call the violence at a BLM rally a racist act..
Nor was that video of the wacked out black woman in @Padawanbater2 's post an example of a racist act. Numbers and history add meaning to that speech. She didn't project power, threaten or intimidate anybody. A white person doing the same thing in front of the DNC would have.
I also think that the real issues of the day are about containing the economic elites from the corridors of power, economic well being of the population of the US, securing the defense of this country and creating a society where everybody feels safe and secure. The kerfluffle between you and UB is not even close to these issues, although it touches on the last one.
Last edited:
Should've voted Sanders.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
Some good points there. I don't disagree with anything you said...although I must say that I have little tolerance for discrimination in any form, wether its labeled as racism or not. As pada rightly pointed out, if you're going to bemoan discrimination you have to be consistent in doing so in order to be taken seriously.
This is why I can't take the likes of buck and London seriously. They run round here with their hair on fire every day over social injustices, and then in the next breath shame and bully females over their appearance. Trump does exactly this, and it's bad. They do it, and it's ok. The very definition of hypocrisy.
MisterBouncyBounce
Well-Known Member
BLM is not a militant group, nor can they contain every idiot or crazy or imbecile from doing things in their name or claim an inspiration by them.
everyone can see how the police have become militarized. that effects everyone down the line. and who is going to get the brunt of the effect of militarized police other than the those with the least among us, ie, power to fight back, power to stand your ground and push back.
in this country we have a mix of those people, people of all kinds. and the largest number by percentage is black people. that's just a fact.
so they have been and still are taking the brunt of that more than anyone else. it's natural that organizations would form to marshal some power to stand up and push back.
if you don't think the problem with black people is genetic, that they by nature aren't smart enough or won't hard enough and all that. then the real question is then why is it that black people still make up much of the lower class? if it's not genetic then it MUST be something external.
what could that external factor look like? racism. it has to be a major part of the answer.
there is another external answer.
why are there still ghettos in this country?
why are they usually black predominant?
the economic system we live under by design creates poor people. that's why decades after decades nothing changes for the better in the same rural and innercity areas. it's not because the people there are just too stupid by nature ever change things.
in other words, in this capitalism, ghettos just come with the scenery. if there were no black people, someone else would be living in Watts and leading the bloods and crips.
but there are black people, and they are the easiest to squeeze into those areas and keep them there.
black people are not genetically inferior. so it must be something else. and so how could there not be a Black Lives Matter?
and how can we not hear their simplest basic cry or to deny it, even if there is a cacophony of other things.
no one can argue that black people on the whole, don't get the short end of the stick.
so the point isn't "this guy did this" and "yadda yadda also matters", the point is why are they getting the short end?
that's all they are trying to point out.
everyone can see how the police have become militarized. that effects everyone down the line. and who is going to get the brunt of the effect of militarized police other than the those with the least among us, ie, power to fight back, power to stand your ground and push back.
in this country we have a mix of those people, people of all kinds. and the largest number by percentage is black people. that's just a fact.
so they have been and still are taking the brunt of that more than anyone else. it's natural that organizations would form to marshal some power to stand up and push back.
if you don't think the problem with black people is genetic, that they by nature aren't smart enough or won't hard enough and all that. then the real question is then why is it that black people still make up much of the lower class? if it's not genetic then it MUST be something external.
what could that external factor look like? racism. it has to be a major part of the answer.
there is another external answer.
why are there still ghettos in this country?
why are they usually black predominant?
the economic system we live under by design creates poor people. that's why decades after decades nothing changes for the better in the same rural and innercity areas. it's not because the people there are just too stupid by nature ever change things.
in other words, in this capitalism, ghettos just come with the scenery. if there were no black people, someone else would be living in Watts and leading the bloods and crips.
but there are black people, and they are the easiest to squeeze into those areas and keep them there.
black people are not genetically inferior. so it must be something else. and so how could there not be a Black Lives Matter?
and how can we not hear their simplest basic cry or to deny it, even if there is a cacophony of other things.
no one can argue that black people on the whole, don't get the short end of the stick.
so the point isn't "this guy did this" and "yadda yadda also matters", the point is why are they getting the short end?
that's all they are trying to point out.
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
London and Buck pick their subjects for derision via body shaming based upon other differences. It's not as if they are doing this to every woman as a real sexist such as Trump would do. So, not the same thing. I dive into that end of the pool sometimes myself so I can't claim purity either.
In the case of London's and UB's fat and slut shaming of @Flaming Pie , the verbal ripostes by them are justified because Pie supports truly vile sexist and racist politicians and by doing so supports their vile sexist policies. To me, the turnabout is fair, Pie disputes politically correct culture and says false, vile things about Muslims and Democrats, they go after her physical, sexual and mental failings which by Pie's own words are all true.
I don't understand London's attitude towards @schuylaar and I don't claim to understand Sky at all.. London and Sky agree on more than they disagree so I look at it all as more of a friendly but rough conversation between two people who know each other.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Why aren't you guys uncomfortable with the fact that the largest group and most vocal group of people still butt hurt over Bernie's loss is young white men and not young people in general? And then you two show up all in a rash over PC culture. As if moderate democrats are the ones who created racism and identity politics. As if identity politics are something new. Do you know who are the largest group that contributed to results in the recent presidential election? White men over 40.
Makes me think the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948
How Bernie Sanders Exposed the Democrats’ Racial Rift
Though it might offend his uber-progressive supporters to hear this, the Sanders insurgency is largely a white revolution. All the talk about Sanders representing the future of the Democratic Party because of his overwhelming popularity among young people leaves out an important caveat: He couldn’t persuade minority voters to sign on. In many ways a Sanders victory, propelled by the least diverse states in the nation, would have been a step backward in American race relations.
.............
Sanders coming from seemingly nowhere to seriously challenge Clinton while drawing historically large and enthusiastic crowds has soaked up much of the attention in the Democratic race, making it feel as though he’s hit a chord that resonates throughout the party. But his brand of idealism has been rejected by the majority of minority voters—Clinton won every contest with at least a 10 percent black population, except Michigan, and each state where Latinos make up at least 10 percent of eligible voters, except Colorado, according to Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight.com. On top of that, they have been mocked by some Sanders supporters for supposedly “voting against their self-interest” because they refuse to believe a political revolution is at hand. That has been particularly galling to black voters who had to endure claims from conservatives in 2008 that they were voting for Barack Obama only because of race—even though they had spent their entire adult lives voting mostly for white presidential candidates. Now their preference for Clinton’s brand of pragmatism, something they’ve seen result in real progress time and again, is being questioned as well, this time by fellow Democrats.
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
There are other ways of looking at generational and racial differences, of course. People often talk about under-30s, or Millennials, as a politically distinct group, and polling shows Sanders is even stronger with this group than under-45s overall. There are also very real differences between – and within – the ethnic and racial groups contained in “non-white”. But using simply these four larger groups provides more reliable data and goes some way to illuminate one of the most important demographic cleavages of the primary.
For example, the Sanders campaign's inability to connect with older voters in the same way as younger voters, whatever their race, helps to explain how he came up short – in exit polls, the over-45s often apprached or even exceeded 60% of the Democratic primary electorate. But the rapid growth of his support across a diverse range of young people is also a reminder of how important the Sanders coalition to the future of the Democratic Party.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/06/07/age-and-race-democratic-primary/
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't make it right. You can't claim a moral high ground and then stoop to that level yourself. Pie, Rosey, and sky are all attacked on a regular basis. If they say something objectionable, or hold a view that you feel is immoral, then by all means call them out on THAT. But, when it carries on to "you're fat, and ugly, and dumb, and slutty" then you're now engaging in the same type of intolerance that you claim to dislike.
As an example, 70% of African Americans voted for prop 8 in California which banned same sex marriage. I find that abhorrent...but just because I disagree with them, and find that to be intolerant, I'm not about to start making fun of their physical appearance, or call them stupid, or whatever.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Me and Sky thing is a little personal. We do agree on some things, but sometimes she can say a lot of bigoted shit. Plus she is the leader of the Bernie Babies. That can be a little annoying. Sky has secrets. She likes chocolate but scared to eat it, so the defense gets her on the wrong side. It was a learned behavior from her family and ex hubby.