What did he say this was so inaccurate?
Why are people mad at him for what he said? What was so inaccurate?
shareHe pointed out the fact that the majority of black people are racist and black people confirmed this with the way they answered questions in a poll.
You’re not allowed to speak truth to the Democrat party and it’s lemmings or you’ll be canceled. Gotta let them remain in their brain dead fantasy world.
Fun fact: the majority of blacks hate Mexicans and Asians too.
i never knew how much black people hate white until i go on social medias hahahahaha. i mean wow!!!
before i just watch film and tv that show black and white in harmonys (except in american south states) and think everything ok in america apart from mississipi but no hahahahahah
The biggest social catastrophe in the West was allowing university professors to redefine the word racism in such a way that all non-white people can now be racist while claiming it's impossible for them to be racist...
shareAdams rant was that half of the blacks polled by a conservative organization disagreed with the statement “it’s OK to be white.” The actual results for black respondents were
53% agree
26% disagree
21% not sure
Adams lumped the last two together to come up with his “half.”
It’s OK to be white started out as a 4chan troll campaign as a wink and a nod to white nationalism. Obviously not everyone uses it that way, but the context of the comment is likely well understood.
Unfortunately, the far-right are not *quite* as stupid as we make them out to be.
They're taking what are on the face-of-it entirely innocuous phrases like "It's OK to be white" and "All lives matter", which from a literal POV, no-one should have any issue with, but weaponising them to imply something different, and as a means of silencing Black people who highlight legitimate racial grievances.
The question is, how does the left respond? For the most part, I think we ignore the attempts by the far-right to get into this semantic rabbit-hole. The point at which it becomes a practical problem, is where such messages are posted across university campuses and other specific communities, as a means of intimidating other individuals (or even where that may not be the intent, but POC in particular feel, reasonably, threatened by such slogans).
But in publicly confronting such nonsense, we have to be careful and nuanced. A lot of ordinary voters aren't particularly educated or nuanced, or don't have very high IQs. That isn't a criticism by the way, but just something to bear in mind. So, when we criticise slogans like "It's OK to be white" and "All lives matter" we need to be clear that we're not arguing the opposite (i.e. that it isn't OK to be white, or that only some lives matter), but asking why we need such slogans to begin with? What good are they doing? Is anyone arguing otherwise? And pointing out who the groups are who are actually facing systemic bigotry (with specific and clear examples of where that bigotry manifests).
What part of "All" do you fail to comprehend? All lives includes black lives. It's just a rational response to the exclusionary "black lives matter". To be against saying "all lives matter" is racist.
shareBecause of the intent.
Why does anyone *need* to say that 'all lives matter'? Is anyone arguing otherwise?
Yes, literally-speaking the line is correct. All lives *do* matter, but as a de facto response to 'Black lives matter' it's clearly a means of diversion. It's a means of distracting us from grappling with any solution to those Black lives that have thus far been shown to apparently *not* matter.
Naturally, you could ask whites if "it's OK to be black" and you would probably get close to the same numbers. Maybe even more strongly in the negative.
shareNobody but deranged Lefties thinks “it’s OK to be white” is racist!
share