[Pants-of-dog]

No ... it's a clear indication that his comments are reportable.

His comments were reportable because they were racist.

This has nothing to do with the fact that many people find his racism socially acceptable.

———————————

What? Prove it. What existing laws exempt a police officer from murder, let alone racially motivated murder?

The usual legal excuses are that the cop felt threatened or that the person shot was resisting arrest.

Nor should they be.

As longnas we agree that open displays of racism are perfectly legal and socially acceptable.

The government also appropriates land from whites. It's called eminent domain. Does this prove that the government is racist against white people?

Let us look at this. When governments enact eminent domain, they are required to provide a rational basis for the appropriation. For example, a new road or installation of infrastructure.

What is the basis for the appropriation of indigenous lands, complete with the ethnic cleansings, and imprisoning them on reservations, etc.?

You also failed to answer my question about whether or not you merely recognize the possibility (not believe, but simply recognize the possibility) that racial injustices can result from incidental causes.

Of course they can. We just discussed how the cops could have supported the racist actions of the violent cop because of reasons other than racism.

If you only look at the outcome, then you would have to believe that a drunk driver who accidentally runs over a person of color is a tacit supporter of racism. If that's your definition of racism, then it is utterly vacuous.

Since manslaughter from drunk driving is not an act of racism, this seems like a weird strawman or misunderstanding of my argument.

Please note that I am not defining racism. I am pointing out that tacit support for overt racist acts is still support for racism regadless of why the tacit support is offered.

You're dodging the question again. It is a simple "yes" or "no" question. The fact that you can't even give a straight answer here speaks volumes about your cognitive dissonance.

And it is patently false that the doctor's actions would have negligible social impact, as I'm sure you do not believe that the existence of Neo-Nazis is not a negligible issue for minorities.

No, the doctor’s actions are not racist or supportive of racism.

Your point is wrong because, as I've pointed out just now, there exist further checks and balances to which the victim here has appealed to.

.. and these further checks and balances would not have worked if the supposed offender had not done the incredibly odd task of approaching the prosecutor himself. Do you think it is a normal and designed limit of power when a criminal activley works with the prosecution?

This seems more like an exceptional circumstance used to go around traditional avenues.

Anything and everything is akin to tacit support for racism by the government going by your absurdly loose definition of racism. I could easily apply the same reasoning to prove you're a Nazi because you don't do everything possible to support the existence of a Jewish state.

This seems like a weird strawman or misunderstanding of my argument.

Please note that I am not defining racism. I am pointing out that tacit support for overt racist acts is still support for racism regardless of why the tacit support is offered.

——————————

I'm responding to this because I think it's relevant to my argument.

This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Are you arguing that these boosts in popularity are just coincidentally popping up right after he says these things?

————————————

According to their laws. Why are we obligated to recognize their laws?

I never said we were obligated to follow,their laws. I said that it was their land.

I'm clear on the definitions. Cultural liberalism just threw a guy in jail for teaching his dog nazi salutes. That's how it starts.

You're confusing political liberalism with cultural liberalism.

Oh, I see, you are using the US definitions and not the ones usually used in political debate.

Well you certainly don't get any points for intellectual honesty here.

It's not a "secret conspiracy by all progressives", it's a political strategy devised by neoliberal political managers. And the motivations are obvious, it divides people with common interests into identitarian factions which is just a classic divide and conquer technique, and it serves as cover for neoliberal economic disenfranchisement.

Please post evidence for these claims. Thanks.

The justice system didn't force the trial to have an all white jury, and an all white jury doesn't almost guarantee an acquittal. Would an all native jury be more fair in your opinion?

Since the lawyer for the defendant was able to exclude all non-whites from the jury, the prosecution was forced to try the case in front of an all white jury. A mixed jury would have been best for this trial.

I notice you ignored the request for evidence about Boushie’s supposed wrongdoings.

They're trained by people like you to think of themselves as victims so that's not surprising.

So you think that over 80% of blacks in the US are too stupid or lazy to do anything except mindlessly follow people like me.

Interesting.

I'm familiar with the history. But how does that help your case or rebut my argument?

Okay.

Did you read anything about the abuse of kids at these schools?

[Zamuel]

:?: His comments were reportable because they were racist.

No, his comments are reportable because he's the President... ... zzzzz

Zam

[Sivad]

I never said we were obligated to follow,their laws. I said that it was their land.

The earth doesn't belong to anyone. They had no right to exclude others from settling here.

Oh, I see, you are using the US definitions and not the ones usually used in political debate.

That's what they call themselves. They're really not liberal, liberal implies tolerant, good faith pluralism, which they definitely do not hold to. They're about as liberal as you are socialist.

Since the lawyer for the defendant was able to exclude all non-whites from the jury, the prosecution was forced to try the case in front of an all white jury. A mixed jury would have been best for this trial.

Maybe, but that doesn't show structural racism. It wouldn't have mattered anyway in this case, the prosecution didn't have anything solid to work with. Really there shouldn't even have been a prosecution, Stanley was clearly well within his rights. The state only brought charges due to the politicization of the incident.

I notice you ignored the request for evidence about Boushie’s supposed wrongdoings.

I ignored it because none of those facts are in dispute and the facts are there for anyone to lookup. If I'm wrong you shouldn't have any trouble proving it. Where are your facts?

So you think that over 80% of blacks in the US are too stupid or lazy to do anything except mindlessly follow people like me.

I think a lot of black people don't buy SJW nonsense, and the ones that do are full of shit.

Did you read anything about the abuse of kids at these schools?

What about it?

[Pants-of-dog]

No, his comments are reportable because he's the President... ... zzzzz

Sure.

Please note that you have repeatedly ignored my point about how a large percentage of society finds his racism not only accpetable, but laudable.

——————————

The earth doesn't belong to anyone. They had no right to exclude others from settling here.

So you are one of these open border libertarians where no one should ever be stopped at any border?

You believe that all the illegal immigrants in the US are just as worthy of living in the US as citizens.

That's what they call themselves. They're really not liberal, liberal implies tolerant, good faith pluralism, which they definitely do not hold to. They're about as liberal as you are socialist.

I am not interested in your rationalizations for why you ignore accepted definitions and misuse words as insults.

Maybe, but that doesn't show structural racism. It wouldn't have mattered anyway in this case, the prosecution didn't have anything solid to work with. Really there shouldn't even have been a prosecution, Stanley was clearly well within his rights. The state only brought charges due to the politicization of the incident.

It does show structutral racism becuase the defense was then able to use these structural guidelines in order to populate the jury with people who would make their decision based on their racism against indigenous people.

And it worked.

I ignored it because none of those facts are in dispute and the facts are there for anyone to lookup. If I'm wrong you shouldn't have any trouble proving it. Where are your facts?

This is not an off topic forum. Please provide evidence for your claims, or they will be dismissed as unsupported.

If the facts are there for anyone to look up, then do so.

I think a lot of black people don't buy SJW nonsense, and the ones that do are full of shit.

So that is a yes. You do think that over 80% of blacks in the US are too stupid or lazy to do anything except mindlessly follow people like me.

Do you see how this is a racist argument?

What about it?

So you do not know how the abuse started, despite your claim that you did.

[Sivad]

So you are one of these open border libertarians where no one should ever be stopped at any border?

You believe that all the illegal immigrants in the US are just as worthy of living in the US as citizens.

There are rational justifications for borders but ownership claims aren't among them.

[Pants-of-dog]

There are rational justifications for borders but ownership claims aren't among them.

So, why are indigenous land claims irrelevant but land claims by white nations are perfectly fine?

This seems like another racist argument.

[Sivad]

So, why are indigenous land claims irrelevant but land claims by white nations are perfectly fine?

This seems like another racist argument.

It has nothing to do with race. You're the one that makes everything about race, not me.

[Pants-of-dog]

It has nothing to do with race. You're the one that makes everything about race, not me.

Then answer the question: why are indigenous land claims irrelevant but land claims by white nations are perfectly fine?

[Sivad]

I did answer the question. If you want a better answer you'll have to ask an intelligent, honest question.

[Pants-of-dog]

I did answer the question. If you want a better answer you'll have to ask an intelligent, honest question.

Then explain why indigenous land claims are not worth considering when looking at immigration, but other borders should be respected.

[One Degree]

@Pants-of-dog
Do you support secession as a means of the indigenous making their claims? Just curious as this seems to be a conflict many have that I don’t understand.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog
Do you support secession as a means of the indigenous making their claims? Just curious as this seems to be a conflict many have that I don’t understand.

I am ignoring this because it is off topic.

[Sivad]

but other borders should be respected.

Borders, like authority, should only be respected insofar as they serve the greater good.

[Pants-of-dog]

Borders, like authority, should only be respected insofar as they serve the greater good.

Then why are indigenous efforts to control their own borders not supportive of the greater good, while others are?

[Sivad]

Then why are indigenous efforts to control their own borders not supportive of the greater good

Never said they weren't. All I said was ownership claims aren't a valid reason for exclusion. Now if the natives excluded the settlers on the grounds that the settlers were violent ignorant chauvinists that if allowed in would ultimately kill most of the native people and put the survivors through hell for generations, that would be a rationally enlightened justification for exclusion.

[Zamuel]

Please note that you have repeatedly ignored my point

I agree ...

It's absurd and very tiresome ... Zzzzzzzz....

I did answer the question. If you want a better answer you'll have to ask an intelligent, honest question.

I'll second that ...

Zam

[Seeker8]

Boris Johnston, the British foreign secretary makes bigoted and racist comments and is still very popular with half the country, and the prime minister doesn't have problem with it, she gave him one of the best jobs in the cabinet.

Example: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jan/23/london.race

And half of America is quite clearly happy with Trump's racism. So no, to say racism has ended is ludicrous.

[One Degree]

Boris Johnston, the British foreign secretary makes bigoted and racist comments and is still very popular with half the country, and the prime minister doesn't have problem with it, she gave him one of the best jobs in the cabinet.

Example: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jan/23/london.race

And half of America is quite clearly happy with Trump's racism. So no, to say racism has ended is ludicrous.

Your link is a good example of sensationalizing racism. I find it doubtful pickaninny referred to African children in the context it was said. The article conveniently omits the context of ‘watermelon smiles’. Apparently their sensationalizing worked better without the actual context.
Anyway, Trump and those like him are not popular because of racist comments, but because they refuse to alter their language to please the politically correct. Our enjoyment is not found in the racism you choose to see, but in the consternation it causes you. That is hugely different from endorsing racism.

[Seeker8]

Well, in what context could referring to black people with those slurs not be racist?

Anyway, Trump and those like him are not popular because of racist comments, but because they refuse to alter their language to please the politically correct. Our enjoyment is not found in the racism you choose to see, but in the consternation it causes you. That is hugely different from endorsing racism.

Ok, I shouldn't have said they all love his racism, that was unfair. A lot of the people living in grinding poverty who voted for him probably had bigger priorities than caring about his racist comments. But it was pretty obvious a lot of his other voters loved it.

If it was down to the likes of Trump voters, racist laws in America would never have been changed. It was those "politically correct" types that you dislike who changed things.

[One Degree]

Well, in what context could referring to black people with those slurs not be racist?



Ok, I shouldn't have said they all love his racism, that was unfair. A lot of the people living in grinding poverty who voted for him probably had bigger priorities than caring about his racist comments. But it was pretty obvious a lot of his other voters loved it.

If it was down to the likes of Trump voters, racist laws in America would never have been changed. It was those "politically correct" types that you dislike who changed things.

I can only speak from my personal experience. I grew up in central Illinois and now live in central Indiana. Two places that could be considered your ‘racist strongholds’. I don’t know these people you are talking about. I don’t know anyone who thinks discrimination is a good idea. I don’t know anyone who wants to repeal equal rights. I know a lot of people who want those rights interpreted on a local or state level. We see this as a fairer method due to our cultural differences. The objection is the dictation of how we should live based upon idealistic concepts. Most conservatives don’t live by idealism, or they would be liberals.
Conservatives will judge you by what you, as an individual, bring to the table. This does not mean racist tendencies do not exist, they just don’t get the priority liberals give it.