I Would Like to Talk (Civilly) About the Generalization of "White People"

[*PhilHos*]

(09-28-2016, 11:59 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I'm literally wandering who you are referring to.  I don't think that just because one belongs to a minority group excludes them from being a racist.

Francesca Ramsey (sp?) from MTV's Decoded series. She says that blacks (and other minorities) can be "prejudiced" but she has said they can't be racist. There are others that I've seen in various YouTube videos as well as various "news" shows that feature both sides of an issue as well as with some people in my community.

Basically, it boils down to them changing the definition of "racist". To these idiots, they basically attribute the definition of oppression as the definition of racism. They say that they can't be racist because a racist is someone who has power and authority behind them. It's moronic, but there are MANY who believe this

[*michaelsean*]

(09-28-2016, 11:59 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I'm literally wandering who you are referring to.  I don't think that just because one belongs to a minority group excludes them from being a racist.

I don't know if it is widely held, but I have heard some people say minorities can't be racist because they have no power.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-28-2016, 12:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Francesca Ramsey (sp?) from MTV's Decoded series. She says that blacks (and other minorities) can be "prejudiced" but she has said they can't be racist. There are others that I've seen in various YouTube videos as well as various "news" shows that feature both sides of an issue as well as with some people in my community.

Basically, it boils down to them changing the definition of "racist". To these idiots, they basically attribute the definition of oppression as the definition of racism. They say that they can't be racist because a racist is someone who has power and authority behind them. It's moronic, but there are MANY who believe this

Yeah I don't know who the MTV person is but I disagree with them.  Just because you belong to a minority group, doesn't mean you can't be racist.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-28-2016, 12:15 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Yeah I don't know who the MTV person is but I disagree with them.  Just because you belong to a minority group, doesn't mean you can't be racist.

Most people of all ethnicities understand this, I'm aware. But the fact that there are so many who don't kinda scares me.

[Rotobeast]

(09-28-2016, 12:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: They say that they can't be racist because a racist is someone who has power and authority behind them.

I have a 9v battery.
Does that count ?



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Wes Mantooth]

(09-28-2016, 12:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Francesca Ramsey (sp?) from MTV's Decoded series. She says that blacks (and other minorities) can be "prejudiced" but she has said they can't be racist. There are others that I've seen in various YouTube videos as well as various "news" shows that feature both sides of an issue as well as with some people in my community.

Basically, it boils down to them changing the definition of "racist". To these idiots, they basically attribute the definition of oppression as the definition of racism. They say that they can't be racist because a racist is someone who has power and authority behind them. It's moronic, but there are MANY who believe this

Yes, I've seen this thinking a whole bunch.  I think it's a pretty commonly held belief.  So common in fact that I'm sure it's taught in any number of universities, from all across the country.  They can't be racist for some stupid reason like they can't be racist in a society that is institutionally unfair to minorities or some bs.

It's crazy.  No matter times people simply provide the correct definition of racism it still gets repeated.  Some of what is being taught in schools today is bananas.  That's why Hofstra University had to have a sign that warned of triggers in front of a room that was showing the debate.  They even offered counseling and support for those who were hurt by what they saw.  (I mean, they're adults.  It's just a presidential debate, wtf?)

[*PhilHos*]

(09-28-2016, 12:51 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Yes, I've seen this thinking a whole bunch.  I think it's a pretty commonly held belief.  So common in fact that I'm sure it's taught in any number of universities, from all across the country.  They can't be racist for some stupid reason like they can't be racist in a society that is institutionally unfair to minorities or some bs.

It's crazy.  No matter times people simply provide the correct definition of racism it still gets repeated.  Some of what is being taught in schools today is bananas.  That's why Hofstra University had to have a sign that warned of triggers in front of a room that was showing the debate.  They even offered counseling and support for those who were hurt by what they saw.  (I mean, they're adults.  It's just a presidential debate, wtf?)

It's maddening to me that at the COLLEGIATE level, people who are technically adults are being babied to such a high degree. Guess what? The world is NOT going to give you trigger warnings. There will be very few safe spaces in the real world. Instead of coddling them, how about teaching them to handle things that upset them? You know, actually PREPARE them for the real world. What has happened to our universities? When did they stop TEACHING and started babysitting?

[Wes Mantooth]

(09-28-2016, 12:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: They say that they can't be racist because a racist is someone who has power and authority behind them.

Like the President of the United States of America?  You know, only most powerful person in the entire world?  The Attorney General.  A member of the Supreme Court.  A number of billionaires.  Countless mayors and polices chiefs, city councilmen...

What kinda power they talking?  Skulls and crossbones type of shat?  The Illuminati?  

[Wes Mantooth]

(09-28-2016, 12:54 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It's maddening to me that at the COLLEGIATE level, people who are technically adults are being babied to such a high degree. Guess what? The world is NOT going to give you trigger warnings. There will be very few safe spaces in the real world. Instead of coddling them, how about teaching them to handle things that upset them? You know, actually PREPARE them for the real world. What has happened to our universities? When did they stop TEACHING and started babysitting?

You know, I've always thought the same thing.  That they're in for a rude awakening.  But now I'm starting to wonder.  As lot of this agenda gets pushed more and more I'm somewhat afraid that the real world will start to cater to these idiots.  At some point some of these little babies are going to be in position of power.  I dread the day when the boomers move out of the workforce and these morons are 30 and up.  Things could get really scary really quick.

This type of thinking (triggers, safe spaces, micro-aggression) is like the plague.  It just keeps spreading.  I keep waiting for common sense to prevail but it just keeps getting worse.  And if you say something enough times there's a lot of stupid who will just take it as fact.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-28-2016, 12:45 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I have a 9v battery.
Does that count ?



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Nope. You need more POWER. Please see my friend, Tim "the Toolman" Taylor if you need some assistance in this regard. 

(09-28-2016, 01:05 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: You know, I've always thought the same thing.  That they're in for a rude awakening.  But now I'm starting to wonder.  As lot of this agenda gets pushed more and more I'm somewhat afraid that the real world will start to cater to these idiots.  At some point some of these little babies are going to be in position of power.  I dread the day when the boomers move out of the workforce and these morons are 30 and up.  Things could get really scary really quick.

This type of thinking (triggers, safe spaces, micro-aggression) is like the plague.  It just keeps spreading.  I keep waiting for common sense to prevail but it just keeps getting worse.  And if you say something enough times there's a lot of stupid who will just take it as fact.

It worries me, too, but it helps to know that by then, I'll be old enough that I can get away with being racist, er, I mean, set in my ways.

[Wes Mantooth]

(09-28-2016, 01:09 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Nope. You need more POWER. Please see my friend, Tim "the Toolman" Taylor if you need some assistance in this regard. 


It worries me, too, but it helps to know that by then, I'll be old enough that I can get away with being racist, er, I mean, set in my ways.

Not me.  I'm going to have work with these idiots.  And most likely work for some of them too.    

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2016, 11:05 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Slavery was well established here long before the US was a sovereign nation and you know that.  Are you trying to deny the fact that fact it existed as long as it did?

I am stating this Nation could not have had slavery as an institution before it was a Nation. Any establishment we had prior to that was from another Nation. I really didn't think it was that hard. Who was our President before we had a Nation?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-28-2016, 01:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
I am stating this Nation could not have had slavery as an institution before it was a Nation. Any establishment we had prior to that was from another Nation. I really didn't think it was that hard. Who was our President before we had a Nation?

Seriously?

[GMDino]

(09-28-2016, 01:42 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Seriously?

Anything to minimize something they disagree with.

Next we'll have to to "define" something.  Country, President, something else...

[BmorePat87]

(09-28-2016, 01:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am stating this Nation could not have had slavery as an institution before it was a Nation. Any establishment we had prior to that was from another Nation. I really didn't think it was that hard. Who was our President before we had a Nation?

Do we start at 1774, 1775, 1776, 1781, or 1789?


Edit: To answer your question, John Hancock.

[Rotobeast]

(09-28-2016, 01:42 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Seriously?

We have to establish a proper date, in some regard.
I mean....considering white people immigrated here, do we count them and their ancestors who owned slaves, in their countries of origin ?
If we are going past our nation's established date, then we might as well take it back through the entirety of human history.
Speaking of which.... didn't we all start out "black" ?



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2016, 01:42 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Seriously?

Yep. Although you are not much for answering questions: when do you think we should start considering the U.S. a Nation?

(09-28-2016, 01:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Do we start at 1774, 1775, 1776, 1781, or 1789?


Edit: To answer your question, John Hancock.

Any input on when we should consider slvery begining in The United States of America

I'd go with July 4th 1776.

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2016, 02:33 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: We have to establish a proper date, in some regard.
I mean....considering white people immigrated here, do we count them and their ancestors who owned slaves, in their countries of origin ?
If we are going past our nation's established date, then we might as well take it back through the entirety of human history.
Speaking of which.... didn't we all start out "black" ?



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Anything to maximize something they disagree with.

[GMDino]

(09-28-2016, 02:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anything to maximize something they disagree with.

Anything to minimize slavery.

[GMDino]

(09-28-2016, 02:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep. Although you are not much for answering questions: when do you think we should start considering the U.S. a Nation?


I'd go with July 4th 1776.

That's the day those people considered themselves a nation.

No one else recognized it for a year (Morocco) and then France in 1778.

Please...continue to defend the slavery before 1776 and how that has nothing do with the same people on July 4, 1776.  Its FASCINATING!