Not if the victim's White

[Zazzy]

I believe this incident goes beyond beyond simple name-calling and just someone getting their feelings hurt. We're talking about a guy who was possibly murdered because his skin was White.

If this is true, then it's a hate crime, and a terrible one, no question.

If the victim had been Black and the police changed their conclusions about the racial motivation you better believe that the race hustlers, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, would be organizing protests and street rallies as we speak.

And they would be right to do so.

Not to mention the far-left race fanatics on this forum posting what racists White people are.

I haven't seen that behavior here. I certainly have seen people acknowledging a stark fact: that there is much white-on-black racism that is very detrimental to society as a whole. I don't dispute that black-on-white racism exists- I've experienced it, although not violently. But white-on-black racism, while a bad thing, is hardly a major social ill. If you want to organize a street protest, go ahead, but it would seem that there are much larger social problems to spend your energy on.

There's a double standard among these guys when it comes to racial issues. Racism is racism no matter who it comes from and no matter how much someone tries to justify it.

True- racism is racism, and it's always harmful to society, even if it isn't bothersome to the victim. Putting it in perspective is useful, though. For instance, it is true that men are sometimes violently and harmfully raped by women. This is a bad and evil thing- a rapist is a rapist. But the context of the larger social ill- men raping women- means that in constructing our ethos, we put our energies behind the overwhelming social problem to try and end violence against women, or to try and end the damaging white-on-black racism that is still glaringly prevalent in our society. Should we ignore the raped man, or the murdered white man? Of course not. But the scales are tipped so extremely to the other end that calling it any kind of endemic "double standard" doesn't hold much weight.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I believe this incident goes beyond beyond simple name-calling and just someone getting their feelings hurt. We're talking about a guy who was possibly murdered because his skin was White.

If this is true, then it's a hate crime, and a terrible one, no question.

If the victim had been Black and the police changed their conclusions about the racial motivation you better believe that the race hustlers, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, would be organizing protests and street rallies as we speak.

And they would be right to do so.

Not to mention the far-left race fanatics on this forum posting what racists White people are.

I haven't seen that behavior here. I certainly have seen people acknowledging a stark fact: that there is much white-on-black racism that is very detrimental to society as a whole. I don't dispute that black-on-white racism exists- I've experienced it, although not violently. But white-on-black racism, while a bad thing, is hardly a major social ill. If you want to organize a street protest, go ahead, but it would seem that there are much larger social problems to spend your energy on.

There's a double standard among these guys when it comes to racial issues. Racism is racism no matter who it comes from and no matter how much someone tries to justify it.

True- racism is racism, and it's always harmful to society, even if it isn't bothersome to the victim. Putting it in perspective is useful, though. For instance, it is true that men are sometimes violently and harmfully raped by women. This is a bad and evil thing- a rapist is a rapist. But the context of the larger social ill- men raping women- means that in constructing our ethos, we put our energies behind the overwhelming social problem to try and end violence against women, or to try and end the damaging white-on-black racism that is still glaringly prevalent in our society. Should we ignore the raped man, or the murdered white man? Of course not. But the scales are tipped so extremely to the other end that calling it any kind of endemic "double standard" doesn't hold much weight.

I kind of like to look at this from the part of the blacks. And Black on White racism is likely to have little impact when taken under this context of violence or perhaps discrimination. But obviously black on white racism has already a large place in politics, more so than white on black racism, as Obama has also a large number of white supporters, but the black vote for the Republicans is generally negligible, is it not?
Is it a secret that blacks vote for Obama because he's black? I'm sure that not all blacks actually agree on or care about Democrat politics. But they voted on the accord of Obama being black. Racism is bad, you say? Ironically, it helped the "anti-racist" liberals to power.

[Zazzy]

But obviously black on white racism has already a large place in politics, more so than white on black racism, as Obama has also a large number of white supporters, but the black vote for the Republicans is generally negligible, is it not?
Is it a secret that blacks vote for Obama because he's black? I'm sure that not all blacks actually agree on or care about Democrat politics. But they voted on the accord of Obama being black. Racism is bad, you say? Ironically, it helped the "anti-racist" liberals to power.

You seriously believe that blacks voting for Obama is racist? Because if you do, we come from different planets.

And you als seriously believe that because of this, black-on-white racism is MORE prevalent than white-on-black racism in politics?

I invite you to visit Texas sometime.

[freedomfromforum]

I get racism is bullshit, but why the special emphasis on showing blacks as perpetrators? It looks...suspect.

Perhaps to demonstrate that this was indeed
racially motivated?

Nice enema bag BTW. Hot Pink!

[kılıç_mehmet]

But obviously black on white racism has already a large place in politics, more so than white on black racism, as Obama has also a large number of white supporters, but the black vote for the Republicans is generally negligible, is it not?
Is it a secret that blacks vote for Obama because he's black? I'm sure that not all blacks actually agree on or care about Democrat politics. But they voted on the accord of Obama being black. Racism is bad, you say? Ironically, it helped the "anti-racist" liberals to power.

You seriously believe that blacks voting for Obama is racist? Because if you do, we come from different planets.

And you als seriously believe that because of this, black-on-white racism is MORE prevalent than white-on-black racism in politics?

I invite you to visit Texas sometime.

Is it not? For your information, I personally do not use the word racist with a negative context, and I find it most natural and well, a sign of a racial/ethnic consciousness that people vote for their own "kind", even though that's a bit of a general statement in the US, where race is defined by the most superficial characteristics possible.
But well, since these are the standards that Americans have to work with, it is indeed quite acceptable and of course racist for African Americans to vote for Obama because he's black(or half black).

And well, its a vaguely detectable form of it, since the Democrat party isn't actually a party that is an exclusively minority party whose target audience is black.
As for Texas, I don't know, and frankly I really don't think its relevant as my point still stands, Obama came to power with the full support of the black community behind its back, while the Republican party does not enjoy such a commitment from white voters, meaning that race factor in politics is usually in favor of the Blacks.
This could have also been made possible if the parties put forward a candidate of another ethnic minority, such as the hispanics, though Obama is currently guaranteeing their votes with promises of immigration reform, meaning, he'll probably have a lot more voters in the future from the immigrants he legalized. Here again, race in politics. Minorities vote for parties that kiss their ass the most.

Whatever, I spoke of this just because I wanted to show how the liberal&leftists usually try to gain support by sucking up to minority groups when they are unable to convince the majority to vote for them.

[A Theist]

I believe this incident goes beyond beyond simple name-calling and just someone getting their feelings hurt. We're talking about a guy who was possibly murdered because his skin was White.

If this is true, then it's a hate crime, and a terrible one, no question.

If the victim had been Black and the police changed their conclusions about the racial motivation you better believe that the race hustlers, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, would be organizing protests and street rallies as we speak.

And they would be right to do so.

Not to mention the far-left race fanatics on this forum posting what racists White people are.

I haven't seen that behavior here. I certainly have seen people acknowledging a stark fact: that there is much white-on-black racism that is very detrimental to society as a whole. I don't dispute that black-on-white racism exists- I've experienced it, although not violently. But white-on-black racism, while a bad thing, is hardly a major social ill. If you want to organize a street protest, go ahead, but it would seem that there are much larger social problems to spend your energy on.

There's a double standard among these guys when it comes to racial issues. Racism is racism no matter who it comes from and no matter how much someone tries to justify it.

True- racism is racism, and it's always harmful to society, even if it isn't bothersome to the victim. Putting it in perspective is useful, though. For instance, it is true that men are sometimes violently and harmfully raped by women. This is a bad and evil thing- a rapist is a rapist. But the context of the larger social ill- men raping women- means that in constructing our ethos, we put our energies behind the overwhelming social problem to try and end violence against women, or to try and end the damaging white-on-black racism that is still glaringly prevalent in our society. Should we ignore the raped man, or the murdered white man? Of course not. But the scales are tipped so extremely to the other end that calling it any kind of endemic "double standard" doesn't hold much weight.

I haven't seen that behavior here.

That's because you've only been a member of the forums since the 17th of September. Keep your eyes open, (in more ways than one that is).

I certainly have seen people acknowledging a stark fact: that there is much white-on-black racism that is very detrimental to society as a whole....

...or to try and end the damaging white-on-black racism that is still glaringly prevalent in our society.

Of course not. But the scales are tipped so extremely to the other end that calling it any kind of endemic "double standard" doesn't hold much weight.

...which is why there can never be a serious national conversation regarding racial issues because of the kind of sentiments you expressed above. Especially when it's a one way conversation about White racism only. Black racism exists. That's a fact. All races share the blame equally. Blacks included.

[Zazzy]

the kind of sentiments you expressed above. Especially when it's a one way conversation about White racism only. Black racism exists. That's a fact. All races share the blame equally. Blacks included.

I agreed with this in my post. You just excluded those parts to quote-mine me.

which is why there can never be a serious national conversation regarding racial issues

I don't know if there can be a serious national conversation, but if you're going to quote-mine me and pigeonhole me when I responded seriously and thoughtfully to your OP, then conversational prospects don't look good. If you really want conversation, thoughtfully explaining how you disagree with me would go a long way.

---

@ kılıç_mehmet

rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
noun: racism
1.
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

You appear to be redefining racism. That makes it hard to understand what you are talking about.

[Something completely different]

---

I believe this incident goes beyond beyond simple name-calling and just someone getting their feelings hurt. We're talking about a guy who was possibly murdered because his skin was White. If the victim had been Black and the police changed their conclusions about the racial motivation you better believe that the race hustlers, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, would be organizing protests and street rallies as we speak. Not to mention the far-left race fanatics on this forum posting what racists White people are. There's a double standard among these guys when it comes to racial issues. Racism is racism no matter who it comes from and no matter how much someone tries to justify it.

---

As expected you resort to the same nonsence as before, instead of listing your own crudentials?

What makes you so fucking smart?! What kind of knowlege does being a worthless redneck who abuses his kids give that makes you so supirior!?

None!

What makes you so fucking smart?!

I didn't say that I was smarter than everybody else. I said I was at least smarter than you...

nonsence

Should be spelled, nonsense.

crudentials

Should be spelled, credentials.

knowlege

Should be spelled, knowledge.

supirior

Should be spelled, superior.

Possibly some inbreeding in your case?

---

lol, the inbreed, cottonpicker hillbilly is also a grammer and spelling fascist.

And again he behaves like an 8 year old.

Since you dont add anything to any thread here other than the constant repeating of braindead redneck talkingpoints, why dont you just keep those for yourself and repeat them when you are abusing you children, beating your wife, picking cotton or whatever redneck activities you engage in and leave the forum discussions to people who actualy understand the concept of discussion.

[FlyingNarwhal]

I'd rather not have hate crimes as an option. Governments should punish criminals for their actions not their thoughts. It's obviously horrendous that anyone would be targeted for violence based on the color of their skin, but I also think it is horrendous that a government would lay out harsher sentences for what someone is thinking, regardless of how much I disagree with it.

[kılıç_mehmet]

You appear to be redefining racism. That makes it hard to understand what you are talking about.


1.the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Well, I have not really stated anything different than this definition.
I think the first part is correct, as is the second part.
However we differ where our conclusions lie, my friend. I don't view racism in a negative context.
I believe that every race has the right to claim superiority if it is able to exercise that superiority. Similarly, love for one's own race makes it a necessity to discriminate on that accord-meaning, I would be more inclined to marry my own kin, rather than a person of another race, similarly, vote for my own kin, or employ my own kin, and etc. and etc.
I'd discriminate in order to render service to my own, and those I've discriminated against, would probably do the same thing.

I'd rather not have hate crimes as an option. Governments should punish criminals for their actions not their thoughts. It's obviously horrendous that anyone would be targeted for violence based on the color of their skin, but I also think it is horrendous that a government would lay out harsher sentences for what someone is thinking, regardless of how much I disagree with it.

Well, I agree, crime is a crime, whatever the motivation. Though I think this makes you think. Can everyone live together?