RE: A leopard can't change its spots.
September 14, 2011 at 4:42 pm
(This post was last modified: September 14, 2011 at 4:45 pm by bozo.)
(September 14, 2011 at 4:03 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:(September 14, 2011 at 3:56 pm)bozo Wrote: I'm very old but I can still just about spot inaccuracies in putting a sentence together.
And yet you cannot differentiate between "charge" as in "being charged by the courts" (legal terminology) and "charge" as in "people charge that so-an-so doesn't care about blacks" (not legal terminology, but colloquial).
I know what he wrote and I know what he meant.
(September 14, 2011 at 4:10 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:(September 14, 2011 at 4:03 pm)bozo Wrote: It has a history in racist terms. I'm not surprised you didn't immediately grasp the connection, because its popularity as a " harmless toy " has wained over the decades since racism was more in-your-face than it is today.
So? The Swastika was appropriated by the Nazis and now holds (even more) meaning as a "Racist symbol".
And yet both are still used, like the sauvastika in "Blade of the Immortal"
Guilt by association is such a tired trope, bozo.
Though it does stand to state that for Blade of the Immortal, on each English tankoubon, there is a brief cover-your-ass explanation of the differences between swastika and sauvastika (mirror versions of each other).
Look it's quite simple, the woman has been charged. Her case will be heard. A verdict will be returned. Either she will be found guilty of racial harassment or not. If she had displayed a teddy bear in her window she wouldn't be facing a charge. Do you understand?
![Huh Huh](https://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/huh.gif)