• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Knock That White Boy Out’: Arrests Made After Mob Of Teens Attack Disabled Vet

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm talking about the actual definition of the word "racism".

You're talking about an understanding limited to PART OF the definition by way of ignorance and a lack of education.
 
You're talking about an understanding limited to PART OF the definition by way of ignorance and a lack of education.

Be quiet, you've made an idiot out of yourself enough by now. Take a rest.
 
You obviously then do not understand how hate crime legislation works. If they had attacked 10 disabled vets without mentioning they were in a wheelchair would that have been a hate crime? Yes. Regardless of whether or not disability based language was used. If they had attacked 10 white people without mentioning their race, would that have been a hate crime? Yes. Your ignorance on this subject is actually really entertaining. Tell us, what is the standard of proof for a hate crime? If you say "Whether the attacker is black or not" you'll look foolish simply due to statistics on sentencing for hate crime. Why don't you do us all a favor and scuttle off.

Ten disabled vets in wheel chairs were not attacked. Your attempt to obfuscate is a failure. One white vet in a wheel chair was attacked by black thugs. In the process of the attack he was verbally attacked for his race. "Just the facts mam".
 
Be quiet, you've made an idiot out of yourself enough by now. Take a rest.

Oh noes! Is NWO a grumpy little boy now? You were very happy I was around a minute ago. So sad. Go ask mommy if she'll read the dictionary with you. And don't forget to mention these mood swings to your shrink.
 
Oh noes! Is NWO a grumpy little boy now? So sad. Go ask mommy if she'll read the dictionary with you.

No, really: take a knee and pull security, buddy. You couldn't even correctly read a simple sentence of mine, this isn't your day.
 
2 is indeed dependent on 1. There is no indication that 1 is dependent on 2, however.

The first alludes to a desire to rule, not the reality of rule. And even then, it's hedged with "usually".

Well, yes. It is most commonly used. Because words have meaning.

So if someone asks "Can black people be racist?" and I didn't know what the word meant, I would first look up racism ("a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others") then I would look up racism, since that's where it points me. I would read the first one and think "I've heard of some black people believing that "inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement" and whether or not it has to do with "usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others" doesn't really matter.

That'd be enough on its own to answer "Yes, black people can be racist" but continuing on I'd probably find (in the US) that the second definition probably doesn't apply (although there are some cases where it conceivably could). Then I'd read the third definition, see that it applied, and it would be very clear. The only way someone can say that black people can't be racist is if they restrict the definition of the word for whatever reason, something you've already said is "nonsense".

This isn't really even a debate, although ecofarm's attempt certainly made for some great fun.

You're shifting your argument with ecofarm about racism to something about mine. I've stated that racism is power based and the dictionary agrees with me even with its weak definitions of the term. Words having standard definitions for the layman are irrelevant to me. A white guy calling somebody a chink, nigger, etc. is racialist and not racist. A black guy deciding not to hire white people? Racist. This incident? (Barring the presence of more assaults) a single-bias racialist incident not a full blown racist situation where the economics, culture or social dynamics of the individual will be irreparably changed. :shrug:
 
You just called me a weirdo and a liar. And then you say you don't have to call names. Apparently, your problem with reading goes beyond definitions. You can't even read your own posts!

Actually, he just called you a weirdo, he just implicated that you're also lying. :D
 
Ten disabled vets in wheel chairs were not attacked. Your attempt to obfuscate is a failure. One white vet in a wheel chair was attacked by black thugs. In the process of the attack he was verbally attacked for his race. "Just the facts mam".

You either did not understand what I wrote or you do not have the ability to reply to it. Which is it? I explained that even with the usage of language this does not constitute a case of racism. :shrug:
 
You're shifting your argument with ecofarm about racism to something about mine. I've stated that racism is power based

But it's not solely power based. And people who don't have institutionalized power (ie, black people in the US) can still "be racist". That's my point.
 
Actually, he just called you a weirdo, he just implicated that you're also lying. :D

No, he flat out called me a liar. It was during his capslock spam meltdown. If I recall correctly, it was in giant font and bold. It was during his delusional claims of victory.
 
Nonsense.

All I want is for you to admit that a black person being bigoted against whites carries different implications than a white bigoted against blacks. The former means nothing socially, the latter means lost jobs and other opportunities.

So one is perfectly fine, acceptable, understandable and almost laudable while the other isn't. Honestly, double standards drive me up a wall, I don't care how you try to justify them.
 
Maybe just a little racism showing here.

Seriously. After calling me a white bigot, he then went on to imply I was an Uncle Tom. Lied about things I said or thought at least twice. Ignored definitions he didn't like. Not a good day for our friend. :(
 
No, he flat out called me a liar. It was during his capslock spam meltdown. If I recall correctly, it was in giant font and bold. It was during his delusional claims of victory.

Well that would be because you lied about what I "thought". Do I need to link you again?
 
So one is perfectly fine, acceptable, understandable and almost laudable while the other isn't. Honestly, double standards drive me up a wall, I don't care how you try to justify them.

One isn't even racism, according to him.
 
Well that would be because you lied about what I "thought". Do I need to link you again?

Yes, NWO, give us the link again. There's nothing any of us like more than your hysterics supported by part of a definition and your delusional spittle-laced rants about victory.

We just can't get enough!
 
Option 3 is you are full of s***.:lol:

Your inability to compete with people of superior intellect is never ignored swayer. :) I asked you before but I'll ask again: Can you show us the burden of proof required for hate crimes?
 
So one is perfectly fine, acceptable, understandable and almost laudable while the other isn't. Honestly, double standards drive me up a wall, I don't care how you try to justify them.

X, you can do better than this. No one is claiming that black bigotry is fine. We're claiming it's not the same thing as bigotry backed up by the system.

Do you deny this?

Do you claim that a black bigot carries the same societal implications as a white bigot?
 
Yes, NWO, give us the link again. There's nothing any of us like more than your hysterics supported by part of a definition and your delusional spittle-laced rants about victory.

We just can't get enough!

hahaha excellent!

Well, I'm glad you're easily amused. I myself and just wondering how you can be so ignorant. That you would think a black person being bigoted is the same as a white person being bigoted is amazing.

That was the first time. The second is when you said that I wrote that I wouldn't call names. This is great! It's almost getting hard to keep up with your ridiculous. Do you often imply that people are racist when they don't agree with you? Imply that they're Uncle Toms?

"I myself and just wondering" he says, while accusing others of not being able to read.
 
Par for the course for you to take soundbytes and use them as you need. Read my post again in full context. Again, if you think the civil rights movement were about verbal aggression you simply do not understand what it was actually about. It was about institutional racism. Not some white guy who didn't like black people.

It my have been a 'soundbyte' but what an incredible soundbyte it was.

The fact is that Black people in the south were fighting for equal rights while Black people everywhere were fighting for equal respect. There s no reason n the world why respect and rights can't be fought for at the same time, and in fact that's what was happening and still is happening. Only a few White celebrities or genuine racists would use the "N" word. People learned from that era.
 
Seriously. After calling me a white bigot, he then went on to imply I was an Uncle Tom. Lied about things I said or thought at least twice. Ignored definitions he didn't like. Not a good day for our friend. :(

But not a bad day for learning what often lies just under the surface of many people, Black or White.
 
But then, of course, when I asked him to find where I said that, he just continued on, not even acknowledging his hilarious misstep. And he just continued on and on. Ignoring definitions he doesn't like, calling people white bigots, etc etc
 
hahaha excellent!

I'm glad your mood has swung back to being thrilled by my presence. It hurt me when you didn't want me around. Just don't forget to mention these mood swings to your shrink.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom