• 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!

Only black reporters allowed in Mayoral race event

ecofarm said:
So cute. Yes. I have removed my mask and revealed myself to be a lizardman in the service of the leftist agenda and deep state.

I've no delusions. I'm not winning points with the anti intellectual crowd. I wasn't attempting to convince you. I was drawing a line, for intellectuals, at which slop is not worthy of debate.
Click to expand...

Special exemptions from standards applied to everyone else based on the color of your skin or someone's heritage IS racism, by definition.
 
tres borrachos said:
Can someone please fill me in on the rules of engagement?

A baker doesn't want to work with a gay couple, and he's awesome! A black church doesn't want to work with white reporters, and it's awful!

Pick a side and stick to it.
Click to expand...

You bring up a great point. Many people on here argue that a place, business, etc.. should be allowed to discriminate for whatever reason they want and not have to serve or be open to everyone.

My stance remains the same that something like this or a business should be open to everyone. I did argue though many a time that those people that promote legal discrimination are for it until they are being discriminated against and looks like I was right.

Funny though how they don't see the irony about them complaining people would blow a gasket if the race on the paper was reversed without even realizing they are blowing a gasket over it.
 
americanwoman said:
You bring up a great point. Many people on here argue that a place, business, etc.. should be allowed to discriminate for whatever reason they want and not have to serve or be open to everyone.

My stance remains the same that something like this or a business should be open to everyone. I did argue though many a time that those people that promote legal discrimination are for it until they are being discriminated against and looks like I was right.

Funny though how they don't see the irony about them complaining people would blow a gasket if the race on the paper was reversed without even realizing they are blowing a gasket over it.
Click to expand...

You were exactly right. Thanks for understanding my point.
 
tres borrachos said:
Can someone please fill me in on the rules of engagement?

A baker doesn't want to work with a gay couple, and he's awesome! A black church doesn't want to work with white reporters, and it's awful!

Pick a side and stick to it.
Click to expand...

I agree that some people here are thoroughly exposed by this topic and thier hypocrisy is hilarious but your example doesn't quite work but the point of hypocrisy is definitely valid
a baker is a public access buinsess a church is not so there is a difference though.

there have been stories here about white churches not allowing black members or even marry blacks that our members. While i personally disagree i totally support the right of a church to do so.

but again back to your main point anybody that is upset over the bakers not allowed to break the law and or violate the rights of others should never be upset over this since its totally legal and violates zero rights
 
americanwoman said:
You bring up a great point. Many people on here argue that a place, business, etc.. should be allowed to discriminate for whatever reason they want and not have to serve or be open to everyone.

My stance remains the same that something like this or a business should be open to everyone. I did argue though many a time that those people that promote legal discrimination are for it until they are being discriminated against and looks like I was right.

Funny though how they don't see the irony about them complaining people would blow a gasket if the race on the paper was reversed without even realizing they are blowing a gasket over it.
Click to expand...

nobody educated and honest would be upset over this if the race was reversed because churches have this right. there was a story on here about a white church that wouldnt marry black member's, while people didnt agree most understood thats the churches right.

but your point is spot on, those to ignorant to understand actual rights and laws do often show thier hypocrisy in these cases and thier bigotry is easily exposed.
 
OlNate said:
No it's not...

Racism | Definition of Racism by Merriam-Webster
Click to expand...

racism noun
rac·​ism | \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi- \
Definition of racism

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b: a political or social system founded on racism

3: racial prejudice or discrimination
Click to expand...

You don't believe that '<Insert Color Here> Press only' doesn't institute '3: racial prejudice or discrimination' ?
That this would be an acceptable policy if:
'Black Press only'
'White Press only'
'Hispanic Press only'
'Asian Press only'
. . . . .
??

Or are you saying that all over above with the exception of 'White Press only' is acceptable?
Which would certainly seem to be discrimination based on skin color.
 
ecofarm said:
So surprised you put lame platitudes on both sides of that white nationalist fart. Well, in front was mostly insane rambling. You closed with a lame platitude.

But you can't hide that fart. It's pungent.
Click to expand...

And you have just went "Nanna nanna boo boo you're a Nazi racist. And your farts smell." with your phd. I am not sure if I were in your shoes I would claim that.
 
ecofarm said:
Normal or educated white people don't get upset. It's not supremacist.
Click to expand...

Nobody is upset. People are just pointing out the hypocritical bull****. These people want inclusion till they dont.
 
eohrnberger said:
You don't believe that '<Insert Color Here> Press only' doesn't institute '3: racial prejudice or discrimination' ?
That this would be an acceptable policy if:
'Black Press only'
'White Press only'
'Hispanic Press only'
'Asian Press only'
. . . . .
??

Or are you saying that all over above with the exception of 'White Press only' is acceptable?
Which would certainly seem to be discrimination based on skin color.
Click to expand...

Racism includes a designation of inferiority. Unless you can prove that the white journalists were not admitted because they were deemed inferior because of their race, it's not racism by definition. :shrug:
 
OlNate said:
Racism includes a designation of inferiority. Unless you can prove that the white journalists were not admitted because they were deemed inferior because of their race, it's not racism by definition. :shrug:
Click to expand...

FYI thats actually and factually NOT needed for racism.

Definition of racism
Racism | Definition of Racism by Merriam-Webster
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
 
AGENT J said:
FYI thats actually and factually NOT needed for racism.

Definition of racism
Racism | Definition of Racism by Merriam-Webster
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Click to expand...

Right...driven by "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human trains and capacities and that racial difference produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".

Not sure you're disagreeing with me?
 
OlNate said:
Right...driven by "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human trains and capacities and that racial difference produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".

Not sure you're disagreeing with me?
Click to expand...

i disagree with "you" because facts and the definition doesn't support your claim as you are stating it. Nothing in definition 3 says anything that you are saying.
 
OlNate said:
Racism includes a designation of inferiority. Unless you can prove that the white journalists were not admitted because they were deemed inferior because of their race, it's not racism by definition. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I have to admit that I'm rather surprised that you'd be supporting a policy of discrimination based solely on race.
If is really not racism when a policy of discrimination is based solely on race?

I would have thought that you'd be against that sort of thing, but I guess you learn something new everyday about liberal's racism.
:shrug:
 
eohrnberger said:
I have to admit that I'm rather surprised that you'd be supporting a policy of discrimination based solely on race.
If is really not racism when a policy of discrimination is based solely on race?

I would have thought that you'd be against that sort of thing, but I guess you learn something new everyday about liberal's racism.
:shrug:
Click to expand...

:roll: If only something new could be learned about conservative victimhood...sadly it's always the same old exhausting story.

I never said I supported it, just that unless you can prove they were kept out because they were deemed inferior because of their race, it wasn't racism. Sounds like no one is commenting on the reasons behind it at the moment, maybe it was problematic, in which case it should be dealt with.

If it's gross, it's gross... :shrug: Prove it was. Either way, I'm utterly uninspired to become outraged over this. It's Georgia...if there is friction between white and black people, it didn't start here.
 
OlNate said:
Racism includes a designation of inferiority. Unless you can prove that the white journalists were not admitted because they were deemed inferior because of their race, it's not racism by definition. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Why weren't they admitted?
 
OlNate said:
:roll: If only something new could be learned about conservative victimhood...sadly it's always the same old exhausting story.

I never said I supported it, just that unless you can prove they were kept out because they were deemed inferior because of their race, it wasn't racism. Sounds like no one is commenting on the reasons behind it at the moment, maybe it was problematic, in which case it should be dealt with.

If it's gross, it's gross... :shrug: Prove it was. Either way, I'm utterly uninspired to become outraged over this. It's Georgia...if there is friction between white and black people, it didn't start here.
Click to expand...

What does no white reporters allowed in mean? Why was it necessary to keep them out? Does anyone know their reasoning?
 
trixare4kids said:
What does no white reporters allowed in mean? Why was it necessary to keep them out? Does anyone know their reasoning?
Click to expand...

All good questions... But as far as the article goes, I'm not sure there are answers yet. Honestly, I'm not sure it matters, as some seem to be content in their outrage, regardless of the fact that they don't have any, well....facts.

EDIT: Not saying you, btw...just in case you thought so.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't even know how to respond to stupid crap like that.
Click to expand...

now you know how we feel about things some of you say sometimes... several in this thread alone.
 
OlNate said:
Racism includes a designation of inferiority. Unless you can prove that the white journalists were not admitted because they were deemed inferior because of their race, it's not racism by definition. :shrug:
Click to expand...

that sounds like the BS definition of racism to me. either we strive to be equal as one species or we don't.

I reject the notion that treatment of anyone should be different in any way for the tone of their skin, good or bad.

now if you really think there is still systemic racism, prove it and we will work together to stop it. but no privileges or differences either way can be allowed to truly rid the world of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom