MovieChat Forums > Civil War (2024) Discussion > It's Not about War nor Politics (spoiler...

It's Not about War nor Politics (spoilers)


That's the reason why the political divisions are purposely muddled. There are a few themes from the director/writer Alex Garland:

1.
President is a fascist dictator. His political party is irrelevant. He has betrayed the Constitution and has sent the U.S. military to kill citizens which harms all of us and destroys our country.

2.
The political alliances (ex. California & Texas) don't make sense because they're not important.

Unity over political partisanship in the face of a fascist government is important. Country over party.

3.
There is a warning about our political divisions. Fascist leaders exploit and deepen divisions to gain and maintain power. A democracy needs compromise and cooperation to survive.

"Every time I survived a war zone, I thought I was sending a warning home. 'Don't do this.' But here we are."

4.
The movie is from the point of view of journalists, the 4th pillar of democracy. They are there to record the events while remaining completely impartial. Their values and experiences are part of the main focus. It's not an accident that the president has forbidden all journalists in D.C. since tyrants fear the truth, criticism and exposure.

This movie is a tribute to the war photojournalists who risk their lives to bring us information and images.

reply

Fascist leaders exploit and deepen divisions to gain and maintain power.

That sounds political to me, especially considering the upcoming US presidential election.

The movie is from the point of view of journalists, the 4th pillar of democracy.

You mean the additional control of wealth over public opinion and political systems. None other than the 1% own media and journalists, that pillar is made of wealth.

reply

Yep - and don't forget all the censorship on the 1% owned platforms.

reply

Exactly.

Once Elon Musk promised to give twitter real speech, 26 NGOs backed by other billionaires including Warren Buffett sent an open letter against him buying twitter, and look what the governments were doing to him, he even had to make a post saying he was absolutely never going to commit suicide.

So far according to him twitter is still cooperating with FBI censorship team, so not only corporate censorship, there is also government censorship on most social media platforms.

reply

Removing child rape, rape in general, war crimes and terrorists spreading their word is your form of freedom? Happy world!

reply

If there are things clearly illegal there will be court orders to remove them, Musk never said he was going to break the law. That is why Europe is changing laws and creating new "fake news" laws, because what Musk was planning to allow was not illegal.

What they are really doing is political censorship, most social media platforms participate it. They are also widely reported, and facebook is the most frequently mentioned on removing pro-Russia and pro-China content, and anything US establishment is against, and those things were not against the law, at least not yet.

But columnist Gordon Chang told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo that blood-drinking Chinese fighters have secretly entered the United States, and that is still on facebook.

And facebook is allowing scams and it is the most active scammer platform, so much so some Australian billionaires are suing facebook because a lot scammers using their images to fake their endorsements, and there have been quite a lot of victims in Australia. And compare to political content facebook has been very reluctant to remove those, not without court orders, so I doubt the law and crime is what they care.

Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/26/eu-warns-elon-musk-that-twitter-x-must-comply-with-fake-news-laws
https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/28/22954451/facebook-twitter-remove-misinformation-network-russian-propaganda-ukraine-invasion
https://abcnews.go.com/International/facebook-twitter-remove-accounts-chinese-government-undermine-hong/story?id=65065795
https://www.rawstory.com/fox-news-chinese-drinking-blood/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral
https://www.facebook.com/MorningsMaria/videos/maria-and-gordon-chang-discuss-the-latest-on-chinas-threat-to-the-us/900941520818321/?locale=ms_MY
https://cointelegraph.com/news/aussie-billionaire-sues-facebook-over-crypto-scams-with-ag-s-consent
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/laws-may-need-to-change-gina-rinehart-lashes-facebook-over-scam-inaction-20240417-p5fkmt.html

reply

Mainstream journalism is DEAD. These people make up lies, and then report on their lies until everyone believes their lies.

Thank God for independent media that is free from having to regurgitate the lies of MSM!! Hail Rumble!

reply

What do you consider truth? Which side stream source tells the most truth?

reply

You should know by now that all news are propaganda. They are what the elites created by selecting and arranging information in a way to form the narratives suit them.

And that is when the main stream media being honest, if no fact suits them they will create things out of thin air by quoting an anonymous source, or a manufactured report/analysis from NGOs/think tanks.

We can only piece together the truth from more sources, sources not selling the same narratives, to get the omitted information, and form our own views.

For example in terms of the Ukraine war I always check out Russian news outlets as well, trying to see a different view. Because neither side is going to tell you the complete truth.

Try to look for facts and evidence, not opinions, bias or baseless lies.

reply

You didn't answer the question.

1)What do you consider "truth"? What are true things?

2)Which SIDE STEAM media would you consider the most credible? Which Newsmax? A particular YouTuber?

"Look at le both sides" is what everyone is told. However it sounds like you're treating them all as equal levels of credible because "they are all bias"

reply

1) Truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth.
2) Didn't you hear me say, all media are propaganda, if you ever think there is a news outlet credible, that means they successfully lied to you. The media only ever tell the truth and facts objectively when there is nothing in it for them to lie.

Just think why there are left or right wing media, are the people working there all left wing or right wing? Of course not, the news outlet is left or right wing because of the editors, and the owners who hired them.

You often hear the brave journalists telling the truth, no, they can only tell the truth if the editors allow them. Journalists are censored every day, and that is called media freedom, and ironically that censorship is free speech.

When the media are left or right wing, you should already know they are going to tell you nothing but narratives.

reply

1) Truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth.

What does this even mean? What are 5 political truths you don't believe the media is reporting about?
2) Didn't you hear me say, all media are propaganda, if you ever think there is a news outlet credible, that means they successfully lied to you. The media only ever tell the truth and facts objectively when there is nothing in it for them to lie.

Did you miss the part where I said "MOST" creditable? That doesn't mean it IS creditable. Just that they tell the most truth relative to the others. Why are you so afraid to actually say something? At least give some names and and your thoughts on their specific coverage. Not just saying "the media"
Just think why there are left or right wing media, are the people working there all left wing or right wing? Of course not, the news outlet is left or right wing because of the editors, and the owners who hired them.

You often hear the brave journalists telling the truth, no, they can only tell the truth if the editors allow them. Journalists are censored every day, and that is called media freedom, and ironically that censorship is free speech

This is a huge misunderstanding of how media works. In reality, it's just giving what the audience would want to hear. Anything else would just result in poor viewership. This becomes abundantly clear when the media makes the mistake of not going with what the viewer's narrative occasionally.

An example of this is when Fox News was court-ordered to stop lying about voter machines. All that did was make their audience move to other conservative media outlets (Newsmax and OANN).
When the media are left of right wing, you should already know they are going to tell you nothing but narratives.

Maybe, but not necessarily all the time. Bias=/=incorrect.

reply

Do you really need examples? Just look at what the media were reporting about China in recent years.

Like columnist Gordon Chang told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo that blood-drinking Chinese fighters have secretly entered the United States. And that is the mainstream media.

I will give you another example in Australia, there is a government backed think tank in Australia called ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute), which in recent years became almost entirely a factory of anti-China contents, and most Australian media actively quoting those contents, and I think some US media as well.

But a lot of ASPI's funding was actually from US, notably from US defence giants (Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon), US state department and US department of defence, and that is something we never heard a beep about on any mainstream media.

Source:
https://www.rawstory.com/fox-news-chinese-drinking-blood/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral
https://johnmenadue.com/follow-the-money-aspi-is-a-front-for-us-propaganda/

reply

Wait, so you don't like "the mainstream media" (whatever that means), but then think Raw story and John Menadue is are reliable sources?

reply

They are for you. I watched the video on Gordon Chang's interview, and I checked the information and references provided by the John Menadue article.

Like I said before I don't trust the media.

ASPI's source of funding is on ASPI website: https://www.aspi.org.au/about-aspi/funding it is not some big secret. We are not hearing it definitely is not because those information was hard to get.

reply

"I personally like the source so that means it's unbiased"
Lol

reply

What are you even talking about?

What I listed are undisputed facts, Gordon Chang's interview on Fox is a fact.

ASPI listed it's own funding sources, or do you think they lied about that?

None of the above is about personal preference.

Or are you starting to make things up because you are losing an argument?

reply

It's not about who is telling the most truth, its the most truths you can corroborate from as many sources as possible.

If I read something from MSM...let's say CNN. Then I proceed to see the complete opposite in the form of articles, X posts, videos, eyewitness accounts, etc...

What am I supposed to believe? 1 article from a corrupt system that considers themselves a branch of the government, or a metric fuckton of proofs from everywhere else?

reply

Reading your reaction (here and elsewhere) to this perfectly legitimate and accurate post regarding the film and the reality we live in has really highlighted the type of posters (you!) who are actually suffering from the TDS.

You see, the "derangement" is not subject to those who discuss current, historical events, or prior Executive leaders. It's actually held by those who have constructed and adopted a ready-made narrative of phantom conspiratorial and malign intentions permeating through society. "The Establishment" "The Elites" "The Deep State" "Globalists"

These are Trump's authoritarian trademarks, which he's used as a campaign tactic for 8 or 9 years now. So, who's symptomatic of being overtaken by this nonsense? It's you. And many others. You're sick, son.

Photo-journalists are regular people. Some maybe who succumb to an adrenaline rush, now and again, God bless them. But the service they provide as they put themselves out there to bring us images and stories (and do so at the expense of their own safety) is valuable. Here, you are instead looking to Alex Jones and Ben Shapiro in the cozy home-studio mansions... & just plain parroting idiots who are invested in branding themselves as opposed to public service. Some on the Left, no doubt, as well.

You're saying *they* bring the truth. Junior, the folks bringing the truth are the ones content to examine the "nitty-gritty" of the thing without sucking all the oxygen outta the room with their own blatant and shameless self-promotion. Much of this is MSM with resources and staff and networking clout.

"Propaganda" is the inverse.

It's what made... this relevant:

https://gdb.voanews.com/71276D22-1977-4095-A28D-9D47C40740FC_cx4_cy0_cw96_w1200_r1.jpg

And you ate it up like yesterday's sloppy joes. Someone get this lad some medication for his TDS.

reply

I think that he means "not about Politics" is "not about the today's US politics ...

"That sounds political to me, especially considering the upcoming US presidential election."

Not really, both side of today's political sides could turn fascist.

"You mean the additional control of wealth over public opinion and political systems. None other than the 1% own media and journalists, that pillar is made of wealth."

Yeah, and in other systems the median is controlled by the government, regardless of orientation.

The main idea is: controlled media (regardless of whom) is a bad idea.

Plus: in today's America both political partie control chunks of media.

reply

Yeah, and in other systems the media is controlled by the government, regardless of orientation.

The main idea is: controlled media (regardless of whom) is a bad idea.

That is why I was saying all media are propaganda, wherever they are.

Plus: in today's America both political partie control chunks of media.

The left and right wing are all backed by billionaires, I think their fight is about billionaires have different opinions on how to run the country.

reply

Yup. You seem one of the few understanding what the movie is about.

reply

Thanks.

reply

That's usually what gets said when a movie sucks.

reply

So true.

reply

Saw this last night at the IMAX and really enjoyed it. The movie is as apolotical as is possible, and I think Alex Garland was smart to do it that way.

reply

1. that references Joe when he said you will need F15's and nuclear weapons to take on the federal govt.

2. thousands of people are moving from California to Texas. soon Texas will be a blue State.

3. this references the current Dictatorship of the Joe Biden Regime. spreading lies and trying to jail his political opponent.

4. all news today is 99% controlled by liberals. if anyone disagrees with it, it is labeled fake news or you are a dissenter and will be jailed.

reply

JoWilli, you are 100 percent correct, but just wait until you see all the fools who will contradict you.

reply

thanks, I thought it was a fair synopsis.

I dont get many people trying to contradict me much anymore. maybe I post too many facts. lol

reply

I think that sometime we see in things what we want to see in things and we get the message that we want to get, not the one that the author intended.

reply

President is a fascist dictator. His political party is irrelevant. He has betrayed the Constitution and has sent the U.S. military to kill citizens

1.fascism is a right winged ideology, so no its which political party that would be.
2.You're confusing "fascist dictator" with a Tyrant. Fascism implies there's some sort of ultranationalist undertone in his words.
3.There's a reason why people keep thinking it's Donald Trump instead a random person like Alex intended.
The political alliances (ex. California & Texas) don't make sense because they're not important.

Except if it's a civil war, then the states would absolutely matter. Otherwise, they just shouldn't be mentioned at all. When people think of California or especially Texas, it's clear what they are thinking politically. Alex just wants us to ignore his obviously bad world building at least
There is a warning about our political divisions. Fascist leaders exploit and deepen divisions to gain and maintain power. A democracy needs compromise and cooperation to survive.

It's dumb as warning then because fascism/Tyranny is not something you can just "talk" through. You can't ask an authoritarian to stop as the answer will always be no. Personally, I'm not going to "ask" you to give me my freedoms. They aren't yours to be discussing. Any other response is anti-American given the fact that the country was started off a war to take back freedoms.
The movie is from the point of view of journalists, the 4th pillar of democracy. They are there to record the events while remaining completely impartial.

Except Alex neither understands war journalism or American journalism so it doesn't work. Also Alex is 30 years behind as his analysis completely ignores social media. ALSO also, no the media shouldn't try to be entirely "impartial" when one side is a clearly evil. Imagine trying to "impartially" cover the Holocaust.

reply

Fascism and Nazism are Leftist, not "Right-wing" Philosophies -- Conservative = "Right-wing" is another Big Lie

Nazism and fascism are left wing movements -- the polar political opposites of socialism. Fascists and Nazis employ appeals to traditional morality to gain support. Conservatives deplore fascism and always have. Fascists support Government overreach. Biden is a fascist.

reply

What do you think fascism is?

Conservatives deplore fascism and always have.

That doesn't mean it isn't right winged. Just that fascism is more authoritarian than conservativism

reply

Couple of points.

1. "fascists" are not the only ones that exploit and deepen divisions between us. Any type of bad actor can do that. The dem party does it EVERTIME they play the race card, for one example. That is dividing US.

2. reporters today are part of the problem. The MSM has taken sides. In any warzone of any possible US civil war, the reporters would be on one side and targeted by the other.

reply

People like to use words as magic spells to cover their actions....even when those actions are just as evil as the ones they supposedly fight against.

reply

they play the race card, for one example. That is dividing US.


Are you saying that racism isn't dividing the country, but pointing out racism is?

reply

The nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 60s.

EVERY Presidential candidate from teh main political parties since then, has had a platform that was committed to that though law and policy.

And the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of WHITE Americans, if that is something you need specificed, supported that, at least though... acceptance.

So, yes, since then, "racism" ie, white racism against blacks has NOT been dividing the country. We have been UNITED against it. The debate has solely been on how to achieve it.

So, when the DEMS, "play the race card" and tell a significant portion of the population that another significant portion of the population is "out to get them", yes that is dividing the country.


reply

Lol again with this tired argument. Basically what it translated from you is white people can play the race card but no one else can. If someone else does you will dismiss it by pointing to a statistic. White people are the only victims in your world.

In what world do we live in where the race which makes the most money on average gets to play the victim. I've never been impressed my whole life and I'm white. I make s great living for myself and have never been overlooked for any job I've desired. So I fail to see that you are talking about.

reply

Racism is a problem, and there most certainly are whites that are "out to get" minorities. Not everyone who is white is racist, but it's dishonest and disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Passing laws helps, but not every act of discrimination is illegal.

It's unfortunate that racism (and sexism and other forms of discrimination) exists at all, but burying your head in the sand and pretending that those who bring attention to it are the problem is only going to result in making things worse.

Denial is not your friend.

reply

Teh vast majority of whites support the bi-partisan national consensus on equality for blacks and other minorities.

The very few whites that might be "out to get" minorities are fringe people with little if ANY power, and who are living in a society that is very hostile to them.

Why do you want to insult the vast majority of whites today AND of the past 60plus years, by pretending that they support(ed) racism when their actions and policies and laws and votes show the exact opposite?

reply

[deleted]

Ok, that's what I said. Part of it, what's your point?

reply

Pointing out racism isn't the problem. Denying that racism against non whites exists, is the problem.

reply

"Exists" is a cowardly cop out. THe question is is our society racist or not. Are white people AS A GROUP, or generally speaking, racist.

Or even are the GOP racist.


The answer is obviously NOT.

Any serious discussion of racism or racial policy should open with a Kumbah ya moment of acknowledging that the both parties have been supportive of racial equality for minoriteis since the mid 60s.

That would be UNIFYING.

Pretending the white racism against minorities is a serious force in our society today, turns minoritiies against whites, and liberal whites against more conservative whites.

And pisses off conservative and non-racist whites against all the fucktards who talk shit about US.

reply

"Exists" is a cowardly cop out. THe question is is our society racist or not. Are white people AS A GROUP, or generally speaking, racist.


I've never felt like that was the question. I don't believe all whites are racist any more than I believe all blacks are criminals or all Muslims are suicide bombers or all men are sexist.

If someone assumes you're racist because your white, that's on them. Prove them wrong, but do so in a positive way. Don't complain. Be better!

Any serious discussion of racism or racial policy should open with a Kumbah ya moment of acknowledging that the both parties have been supportive of racial equality for minoriteis since the mid 60s.


That would be great, but you have to deal with racism whether this happens or not. So deal with it. Don't run a way from it and complain because you feel like you are being blamed for the actions of others. How do you think minorities feel about always being considered less than by some whites? How do you think they feel about some always assuming they're not qualified or they'll just cause trouble or they're stupid or lazy? It stinks! Be better!

Pretending the white racism against minorities is a serious force in our society today, turns minoritiies against whites, and liberal whites against more conservative whites.

And pisses off conservative and non-racist whites against all the fucktards who talk shit about US.


People complain that racism exists because racism exists. Stop making it about you and try to do something positive to change things.

The people outside the US who look down on the US were always going to look down on the US. That's not a reason to stop TRYING TO DO BETTER!!!

reply

I'm not "making it about me".

My point was that the use of the "race card" is divisive. (in the context of the above discussion)

DO you really think that my reference to the "Race Card" is a reference to legitimate examples of people who were actually victims of real racism?


Or do you think that my reference to "race card" was a reference to unfair or completely false accusations of racism, that might serve a political or financial agenda, but are false and thus hurt good people that get smeared unjustly as racists for no good reason?




reply

I personally believe you have ill intent. I think you will throw anyone under the bus to protect any conservative at all costs.

reply

This country has had a bi-partisan consensus in favor of equality for blacks since the mid 60s.

That is my point that you and the other poster are disagreeing with. That is what this discussion is right now.

How is that throwing anyone under the bus, to protect any conservatives?

reply

Didn't disagree with that. You use that as an excuse to bypass cases of individual racism. Tell me is it fair that white people assume blacks are not qualified for a job just because they are black and hold that job? I've seen many assumptions by white people that if a black person has a job they got it off of some diversity quota. Is that right?

Also like I said before, just because that bipartisan agreement was reached does it mean the effects of the past disappeared over night. You don't care about the effects you care about the agreement because it gives you a nice scapegoat.

reply

1. YOu say you don't disagree. Ok.

2. I do not use it as an excuse to "bypass" individual cases of racism.

3. Is it fair for white people to assume blacks are not qualified...? NO.

4. Never said "over night". That is a you thing that, you just say, over and over again, like spam.

5. Scapegoat? WTF are you even talkign about?

reply

No I don't disagree.

Yeah you do.

Then why do some of them do it with pride?

Ok so then why do you only talk about the agreement and not the effects? You spam the agreement like crazy. So i can't spam the effects?

reply

1. So, to recap, we agree. This nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on anti-racism since before we both were born.

2. No, I don't. YOu just assume that, to give yourself a rationalization to be an ass to me.

3. Obvious answer is, that they have seen plenty of examples of unqualified blacks getting jobs based on "diversity" and they know about the national policies and laws about "divesity" and "inclusion" and "anti-discrimination" and so they assume that this is another example of that. What is your point about this? It doesn't contradict anything I have said.

4. Because the reality of the consensus, that you agree with, is constantly denied by people that do not agree with it. There are whole hosts of issues and polices that we cannnot have any rational discussion about, because they exist on a foundation of a delusion. That needs to be discussed for vast numbers of discussion to have any rational... anything. Effects are generally used to be emotional justifications for bad ideas, or to distract from the big picture.

reply

First you are guessing how old I am. However yeah in this case you assumed correctly.

I feel you do. However ok fine let's say you don't. I find it mighty funny how you cite that very thing at any hint of someone pointing out something racist. Not all claims of racism are false fyi.

So that makes it perfectly ok to assume anytime you see a black person at a job that they didn't get it on their own legit merits? Seems like an excuse to be a bigoted piece of trash to me. I don't make those assumptions because often times plenty of black people work the job by their own merits like everyone else. You don't like people discussing white privilege even when it existed. Even during the 1950s your golden era white privilege existed. So would you like it if I assumed that no white person during that era worked hard? Or did a legit job and assumed they got a free pass for everything due to that privilege?

Funny so you can cite an agreement but discussing the effects of injustices is off the table. Interesting logic.

reply

1. This nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on anti-racism since before we both were born.

2. Nearly every accusation or claim of racism I see or hear, is made without any attempt at support as though I am supposed to just accept it. IN the face of that pointing out that the vast majority of people support anti-racism, is valid.

3. I expressed stated it was not right.

4. I have often discussed effects with you. Please drop the shit talk. Be serious.

reply

You already said this. Yep agreed.

Nearly? So you have seen a legit claim of racism. Why haven't you talked about the effects then?

Ok so then why do I only see you get upset when people do that to whites?

Um yeah and your solution was suspect. Don't compensate anybody who got screwed. Hey once the law changes be happy with that and move on. Emmit Till's mom needs to suck it up and move on.

reply

1. It is the reality of the situation. I don't want anyone to forget it, as we move forward. This nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on anti-racism since before we both were born.

2. What is to discuss? YOu show me a white guy that say, suckered punched a black guy, because racism, I support him being arrested. As there is general agreement, what is there to discuss? You want to talk about how the black guy's injury is healing?

3, You want me to get upset when people assume a black guy got a job despite being unqualified? What am I supposed to do? Have him arrested for having bad think?

4. So, taht bit where you said I don't discuss effects, what was that then? You clearly knew it was not true. So, what was the purpose of saying it?

reply

You are talking to me. You made this point hundreds of times. Quit stating it to me, I agreed. Drop it.

Because you are more then willing to talk about the effects of racism against whites. You only want it one way.

No the fact they get to make that assumption and just go with it. You wouldn't tolerate people doing this to whites even during the time white privilege existed. It's an asshole move.

You won't discuss it unless I bring it to you. You never yourself bring it up. I wasn't talking about you discussing it with me.

reply

1. Mmm, no. YOu repeat shit all the time. I think this needs repeating. You want unity and not division? Let's keep in mind, that in reality, we are on teh same page. Those who claim we are not, are lying. This nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on anti-racism since before we both were born.

2. Well, racism against whites is huge and systemic and supported by law and policy and culturally celebrated, while racism against blacks is illegal and taboo. So, imo, racism againsst whites is a massively bigger problem, and one that needs more attention.

3. in every case I have seen this, the scenario was, some black person is being an asshole, some white people around that person, notice that he is an asshole and speculate that he got his job not because of qualifications, but because of "affirmative action". And that is the end of it. That is them "going with it". It is not an asshole move. This is not someting to whine a lot about. If this makes your list of "racism", then you need to think about the larger ramifications of that.


4. So, what you said was a major exaggeration. It is not that I don't discuss effects, it is that I don't bring it up myself. Big difference there. BIG. Almost like on some level you know that you have to... spin shit quite a bit to defend your position. Why do you think your brain thinks that? MMMMMMMMMM? inquiring minds want to know.

reply

Ok since you want to go that route I can go that route also. The effects of racism did not disappear once that bipartisan agreement was reached. This needs repeating also. The effects were in place and still had a profound impact long after the agreement.

First of all racism gets celebrated against blacks to. You just are claiming by majority or agreements. That doesn't mean it doesn't get celebrated. Whites are not facing anywhere close to the oppression blacks did in the past. I've never been a victim of racism and I'm a straight white male. Never had an issue being discriminated against and I have a great career. Whites make more money on average and have more jobs. That's a fact you can't argue against.

Bullshit! Plenty of white people make that assumption without a black person doing anything. It gives an excuse to be an asshole. My point stands you wouldn't like if someone assumed all white people didn't do anything legitimately during the time white privilege was a thing. So it's ok for you to pull that move but no one else can.

No it was me stating that you don't bring it up. You don't discuss it outside of me. You only started because I forced you to confront it. So no that's not twisting it.

reply

1. No, it doesn't. No one is claiming that the effects disappeared overnight. That is a pathetic and stupid strawman brought up only by dishonest people.

2. Racism against blacks is a huge TABOO, not celebrated. What you just claimed is absurd. AND if contradicts what you already admitted, ie the generations long consensus in favor of equality for blacks.

3. What is your solution for the issue of some white people assuming some black people got their position because of race not qualifications?

4. No, you stated that I do not discuss it. That is not true. You felt a need to exaggerate the truth, to bolster your position. That is you, at some level, realizing that your position is false.

4.

reply

There will always be examples of people doing the wrong thing are claiming discrimination where it doesn't occur. The best thing you can do in those cases is walk away.

Racism is very real. Discrimination is very real. Focusing on the select few who either exploit it or have a victim mentality is never going to make things better.

You have to be part of the solution, not make the problem worse. If you assume that everyone who claims to be a victim of racism is actually playing the race card, you are about as far from Kumbaya as it gets.

Stop spreading hate. Be better.

reply

Are you sure about that?

It is rare that one can just "walk away" from a false accusation of racism. We build national policy and craft laws, and ENFORCE them on people against their will, based on accusations of racism. Telling people to "just walk away" is not nearly good enough.

You are still refusing to address the central point.

THe common view, that you are pushing, is that our nation is generally speaking, still quite racist, so we need massive and constant effort in fighting that racism and discrimination.

Yet, as I have truthfully pointed out, that makes no sense. This nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on anti-racism since the mid 60s. The few white racists left, have no voice in national policy or government.


You want me to be "part of the solution" but you refuse to even discuss the problem. You insist that I just accept your view of the problem as a premise.

I don't.

reply

THe common view, that you are pushing, is that our nation is generally speaking, still quite racist, so we need massive and constant effort in fighting that racism and discrimination.


Not exactly. I wasn't looking at this from the perspective of how should the government deal with racism. I was speaking more on the personal level. Racism exists, and there are many times when individuals face discrimination. Some of that is only going to change if we start standing up for others. Governmental policy is not always the answer.

My point is that there is racism, and when you say someone is "playing the race card," you are dismissing them and their experience. You might feel as those most of the people who cry racism are really crying wolf, but that attitude is not helping. Assuming people are insincere is just as bad as always assuming what they are saying is completely accurate. You have to try to find the middle ground where you take people seriously and give them a chance to tell their story, while also allowing for the possibility that some people are going to lie or exaggerate. But it's a mistake to assume that everyone is lying or exaggerating.

This nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on anti-racism since the mid 60s. The few white racists left, have no voice in national policy or government.


I cannot believe you could honestly type that with a straight face! Most of the "fear mongering" in politics is really about white males not wanting to lose their power.

you refuse to even discuss the problem


What do you think the problem is that I'm refusing to discuss?

I was just pointing out the fact that mentioning racism is not the same thing as playing the race card.

reply


This nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on anti-racism since the mid 60s. The few white racists left, have no voice in national policy or government.


"I cannot believe you could honestly type that with a straight face!"



Why not? It is true.

Make your argument as to why you think that is not true.

reply

The few white racists left, have no voice in national policy or government.


Are you trying to say that there are no racist members of Congress?

reply

Are you trying to pivot away from a point that you know is true, but that you don't want to admit?

I said that the "few white racists left, have no voice in national policy or government".

If you disagree, which I ASSUME you do, then the thing for you to do, is to show some national policy that serves the interests of the few remaining white racists.

If you CAN'T, then it seems that I am completely correct. So... why can't you just admit that?

Why is it a problem for you that white racists have no voice in national policy?

reply

Why is it a problem for you that white racists have no voice in national policy?


Wouldn't be a problem if it were true. Sadly, there are still members of Congress, who are racists, who have a voice in national policy.

But, again (for at least the 3rd time), you are not addressing my point, which is that calling out racism is not the same thing as playing the race card.

reply

1. It is true. As you demonstrate by not even trying to explain the policy(s) that represent white racists' interests.

2. Your point is moot. Nothing I said indicated that I though that "calling out racism" is the same thing as "playing the race card". YOU are the one pretending to be confused about that, not me.

reply

1. Ever heard of immigration policy? A wall, perhaps?

2. Actually, you did. You said that you believed that most of the time when someone says something is racist, they are just playing the race card.

I'm just saying, you don't seem like the most empathetic person. I think it would be nice if you would try putting yourself in someone else's shoes before you judge them.

reply

1. Yeah, sure. Our immigration policy, that for over 50 years has been to import over a million non-white people a year. If you think that the white racists of this country feel represented by that, you need to try harder to empathize with their point of view.

2. Wow. Exactly. Most of the time people "call out racism", it is a FALSE CLAIM, which thus makes is a RACE CARD play. INSTEAD of actually calling out racism. It is one thing to discuss disagreements. It is another is all you have is to pretend to not understand something really simply like that.

3. Ziggy. If I am right, and most claims of racism are FALSE, then a LOT of good people are getting their names dragged though the mud, or losing jobs or who knows what, for no good reason.
YOU don't seem to have too much EMPATHY for them, now, do yah?

How about instead of you talking shit that is based on you wanting me to accept your unsupported premise as fact, you start supporting it, or admitting that you cannot.

reply

I disagree with your conclusions.

reply

I can see that.

I can also see that your world view, your vision of America, especially WHITE Americans as racist,


is based on blind faith that you are completely unable to defend from even a moments scrutiny.


You ever ask yourself WHY you want to believe the worst about your nation and your people?



reply

I disagree with these conclusions, as well.

Racism exists on both sides, but that doesn't mean it does not exist on either side. Meaning, admitting that anit-white racism exists is not the same thing as owning it personally. Admitting that racism agains minority exist is not the same thing as racism against whites never exists.

Rather than discussing the root of the problem and trying to deal with that, you want to blame minorities and say that any claims of racism is simply "playing the race card." (I realize that you admitted that is not true in every case, but you do believe that it is most of the time, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise.)

I don't believe the worst about the United States or its people. I simply acknowledge that the United States has honest problems that you are attempting to dismiss or ignore.

I thought I was being kind by simply saying that I disagree with you. We are probably never going to agree on this issue, but we are not arguing facts, we are arguing perspective.

I thought you might try to see things from a different perspective and possibly reevaluate your position, but I do know that you are open minded enough to do that.

reply

YOu've given me no reason to reevaluate anything.

The moment that I started to seriously challenge your asertions or beliefs you shut down.

reply

Round of applause. You said it beautifully!

reply

Wow!!! Thank you :-)

reply

Seriously good job! I wish both sides would do better. Corruption should be called out on both ends. We can be the bigger people.

reply

That's exactly what you are doing. Anytime someone voices the effects that racism had afterwards will make you state that point again. So you can keep staying that point and I will keep bringing up how the effects still carried on after the agreement. I'm not letting you muddy the waters. The point stands the effects of racism didn't go away after the agreement was reached. People need to know that.

Nope it is celebrated among certain groups. You are full of shit. Again just because a consensus was reached does it mean it's taboo for certain groups to still be racist.

I can throw this right back on you. What do you think of people who assume black people got their job because of affirmative action when that isn't the case? Should anything be done to them for doing that? Should that be tolerated? Should society not shame them for making a wrong assumption? If someone did this to white people during the time white privilege was a thing you would call them assholes that are racist.

Nope I meant exactly what I said. In general you don't discuss it. Only with me and you barely glazed over it. So nope my statement lines up buster.

reply

1. It is not what I do. You are allowing your preconconceived notions about what you think bad people who oppose you must think, to muddy YOUR thoughts.

2. No, it's not. YOu are being silly. AND you are demonstrating why I need to keep repeating my point about the consensus. Because the basis of the anti-racism policies that we have in our society is based on... beliefs abour our society that are just not true. White racism is massively taboo in our society. One of the many ways that that consensus that we agree on, have manifested has been massive and constant indoctrination of white people in the idea that white racism is... evul and stupid and taboo.

3. Whoa buddy. First of all, you didn't answer my very simple question, ie what do you want to do about it, and second of all, you moved the goal post. Suddenly you are ADDING the qualifier that the white people in question HAVE TO BE WRONG about the black person getting the job because of race. That raises a host of questions.

Answer teh question. What do YOU want to do about this issue, ie assuming Affirmative Action hiring instead of qualifications?

4. NOw you are just talking shit. You said I don't discuss it, that you stand by it, while you are admitting in teh same post, that I do discuss it.

reply

I think it is. Regardless though the same way you think it's important for people to recognize the consensus was reached, I think people need to know the effects were still present even afterwards.

I said certain groups. You are hung up on pointing to a majority. The point stands among certain groups racism against blacks is celebrated and not considered taboo. I never once said the country as a whole is racist. I said among certain groups racism is not taboo against blacks.

Nope I asked you a question you didn't answer. Why should I answer yours? I think that behavior should be discouraged it's an asshole move to always assume that. I just answered now answer my question. It paints the narrative that all black people achieved anything only because of affirmative action. You don't like this done to white males. Therefore it should be discouraged.

Only barely glazing over it. And only once I pointed it out. Never once did you did do it until I forced you to. So no you really don't discuss it. And you don't even want to discuss it now.

reply

1. There is a huge denial of the consensus against white racism. Thus it makes sense to make that point. No one claims that the effect of racism disappreared overnight. So, that point is a strawman.

2. You are hiding in vagueness. White racism is not celebrated by any sizable group, it is completey taboo. You are trying to muddy the waters becasue you know that a realistic look at society and it's issues, means that you cannot defend your positions on those issues.

3. Here is my take on it. You were using vagueness AGAIN, to try to put the onus on white people, glossing over the fact that sometimes the black person DID get the job or position because of race not qualifications. If the white person in question has a decent reason to suspect that, there is nothing wrong with suspecting it. And considering that the vast majority of the time, there is NOTHING that the white person in question can do about it, nothing needs to be done. My answer would be to stop racist discrimination in favor of black people so that black people who succeed, will be known to have earned it.

4. It is worth noting that your answer, would be putting pressure or "discouragement" on white people who might be completely correct in their conclusion about the black person getting the job because of race.

5. Your words contradict themselves. You say I discuss it, then you claim I don't. Then you claim I don't WANT to discuss it. It's all shit talk. You are talking nonsense.

reply

Oh bullshit plenty of people do that. So I will make sure that it is not forgotten.

Nope I said certain groups to begin with. You attributed that to me saying the majority of people are racist against blacks. So no that was you misunderstanding what I said. That's on you.

Nope not what I talked about. I asked if it was fair to assume a black person benefited and got anywhere because of affirmative action? Plenty of people without any research at all will assume that about any black person who gets that position. That's an asshole move and you know it. I didn't say anything about if they had a reason that was actually legit ,I said if they just assumed it. Which many assume without any basis for the assumption. Notice how you attempted to twist my words there? You are doing that because you know I am right. So that means a black person is free to assume that all white people who got in positions of success was due to white privilege back then correct? I guarantee you wouldn't stand for that bullshit.

Nope. I said assuming it you could be wrong. If you are wrong it should be discouraged to throw out an assumption like that. Not all blacks got to where they are because of affirmative action. Like I said you wouldn't like this done to whites. If I was to assume all whites benefited from white privilege back when it existed you would call me out.

Like I said you don't discuss it. That point stands.

reply

1. No one does that. What actually happens is that you are asked to support your claims.

2. I did not claim you said that. You are again using vagueness to confuse the issue. You say "Groups". That could mean, all white people as a whole, or the few hundred formal members of the Klan. It is vague to the point of being meaningless. To be RELEVANT to the discussion, you would have to be meaning that it is at least sizable or significant groups. And it is not. That is the point. Please stop the shit talk and address this issue seriously.

3. The whites in question know that some blacks get their positions becasue of race. And they are almost never in a position to have the facts of the hiring. SO, you want them to just quietly ignore the real possibility that the asshole making problems in their life is an unqualifed asshole? NOPE, that is not a reasonable suggestion.

4. Except I do discuss it. As you have admitted repeatedly. Your... shit talk is the result of muddled and irrational thinking.

reply

Wrong people do in fact do that. Funny when asked to support your claims you say people are fags playing troll boi games. Since you didn't backup your claims you need to just take my claim or else you are playing troll boi games according to your logic.

Nope my original pony was clear. I said certain groups. That in no way implied I said the country was racist as a whole. Certain groups could be lots of things not just white people.

Key word there some but not all. So because you don't have facts it's ok to assume things about someone? Interesting would you want someone to assume you were guilty of something simply because you were on a suspect list? You want to make it ok for someone to assume all black people got their accomplishments by affirmative action just because others may have. That's an asshole move. So I'm going to assume your ancestors got it easy because they existed during the time when white privilege existed. I'm ok to do that right? I'm not an ignorant fool like you. I realize that assumptions aren't facts. I only say someone got that when I have the facts to claim it. Otherwise you could make an ass of yourself if you are wrong. Which you do constantly I bet.

Nope as I said before you only touch on it you don't discuss it.

reply

1. No one does that. I am not asking you to support your assertion, becuase everyone knows it is nonsense.

2. It could mean a few dozen skin heads in the woods drinking beer or it could mean ALL white people, or anything inbetween. iT was vague to the point of nonsense. Teh reality is that the type of white racism you want to pretend is a serious force in our society, has been reduced to the fringe for generations.

3. I have repeatedly stated it is wrong. I did not say it was right. I pointed out that it leads to NOTHING. Some people bitch about a possible injustice. It doesn't change anything. That you are making a big issue about it, is because you have no real white racism to cite.

4. You said many conflicting things. On some level you know that you cannot defend your position, so you throw out a lot of shit to try to muddy the waters and confuse the issue.

reply

Bullshit yes people do. I am asserting that and since you don't backup yours I don't need to backup mine.

If I was agreeing about the consensus you should be smart enough to know I wasn't talking about the majority. So no my point stands.

Um no it's a big issue. It encourages bigotry and racism. So you can assume something and when wrong nothing happens? It doesn't even get discouraged? Yeah no it needs to be discouraged. That's not unreasonable to discourage that type of behavior. You don't like when men are painted in a bad light now fo you? So no that's bullshit and whoever does it deserves to be ridiculed for being an asshole.

Nope my point stands. You don't discuss things, you mildly will touch on them. Learn what discussion means.

reply

1. No one does that. You project that. You have done that with me. It is your mind rationalizing your postion, so that you can hide from how irrational it is.

2. Or you could just drop the vagueness and state how sizable or relevant these "groups" you are discussing/imaging are. IF htey are a serious political force, that means one thing. If you were for some reason bringing up the interests of completely irrelevant fringe, that means something else. So, what the fuck was you actual meangin then?

3. It is not a big issue. THe people in question have no power and can do nothing about it. THey have to just suck it up, and deal. What encourages racism and bigotry, IS THE ACTIVE RACIST DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF BLACKS. If not for that, there would not be a reasonable question as to whether or not a black guy really earned his place.

4. You refuted your own point, when you repeatedly contradicted yourself. YOur stonewalling on this is only showing how dishonest you are.

reply

Nope I actually have proof of someone doing that. So no you are full of shit.

You act as if because the majority isn't like that, that racism is totally gone or no stress at all. It exists. Whether it's small or big it should be addressed when it occurs.

In my book it's a big issue. They don't shut up and deal. They often encourage harassment as well as many other things black people have to deal with. You like they just move on and that's the end of it, no it isn't. You don't like when people make fun of men in this country. Yet it's not ok for black people to get offended at an untrue assumption? In what world do you live in?

Nope learn what discussion means.

reply

1. Your primary example of that has been ME, and that example of false. It simply isn't true, and you use this lie to support a false narrative of this country as racist. Despite your supposed admission that this country has a long standing non-racist consensus.

2.NO, I don't. What I do is stop you when you CONSTANTLY exaggerate or at least imply an exaggeration of the level of racism, to justify and defend your position. I've discussed and you've agreed on the consensus. Your...comeback is that "some groups" are racist. OK buddy. WHAT GROUPS, are you talking about? HOW BIG are they? Are you talking serious political forces or fringe groups having drum circles in the deep woods playing with themselves?

3. White people in this country know that complaining about black people is... problamatic. They have been terrorized into keeping it down. No one wants to be called a racist. Your pretense that voicing A COMPLETETLY REASONABLE POSSIBILITY that hte black guy in question, might have gotten hired because of the massive and widespread policies of affrimative action and diversity and such shit, leads to serious action on their part, is simply not true. You are exaggerating or inventing white behavior to shift the discussion away from where it needs to be.


4. Dude. This is nothing but a form of stonewalling from you. ON some level you know that your support of anti-white racism is indefensible, so you have developed rhetorical devices to prevent discussion from ever... getting anywhere.

reply

Wrong, I actually have proof of several people doing just that. I could backup the claim but I don't since according to you asking for someone to backup a claim is a troll boi game. So nope bullshit I actually have proof.

Yes you do. I didn't exaggerate once. That is you projecting. You asking which groups or how big they are is you playing troll boi games. The point stands there are still racist groups out there.

Ha nope! I didn't say questioning, I said making an assumption without it being proven. Nice twist of my words you stupid incel. Questioning is different from making an assumption. Lots of whites assume a black person who got any success did it by affirmative action. That's different than questioning.

Another lie from you. I don't support racism of any kind.

reply

1. I refuse to back up things that should be granted as premises, such as HOLLYWOOD DOMINATED BY LEFTARDS. You are refusing to back up shit that is clearly false. That you equate the two is your pretense of rationality falling before your emotional commitment to positions that you know are wrong.


2. And again, you refuse to clarify what groups or how big they are, becuase if you do so, it will reveal that they are insignificant. Thus, your use of them to try to maintain the narrative of white racism as a still serious problem is shown to be a form of stonewaling. Especially since you refuse to be clarify. This is you stonewalling because you know that your positions cannot stand up to real scrutiny.

3. LOL. Your focus on slight variation of wording is an attempt to distract from the point. ie that this issue you presented as though it was a serious issue, is actually NOT. Meanwhile you bog down the discussion in... various ways, while ignoring much larger and more serious problems.

4. YOu clearly support anti-white racism. Your denial is a waste of time.

reply

No anytime someone asks you to backup anything you don't do it. You are full of shit. So since you take that approach I will do the same. I never asked you to backup that specific claim about Hollywood fyi. If I ask you for any proof of any kind about any claim you say it's a troll boi game..

Any type of racism is significant whether it's big or small. I could list many groups, but notice I never said the country as a whole was racist, I said racism still exists. That point stands.

No it isn't a word variation. Assuming and questioning are two completely different things. You failing to understand that is on you.

No I don't. It's why I criticize groups such as BLM and others. The difference is I call out racism no matter where it comes from. You only call it one way.

reply

So I will take that as you having no retort then?

reply

Everything in your post was shit talk.

Clearly you're done with any pretense of discussion, so... why are you acting suprised that it's over?

reply

Not actually wasn't. You just realize that when you get shutdown you call it shit talk.

If you don't backup your claims don't get upset when others don't backup theirs.

Bottom line the point stands assuming and questioning aren't the same thing. You thinking they were was you being an idiot.

reply

No, the bottom line is that your policy positions are built on the FALSE premise that white people in this country are racist against blacks (and other minorities),

and you avoid serious discussion which you know will reveal that that premise is completely false.

reply

Nope never said this country as a whole was racist. I said certain groups still are and that it exists.

You avoided serious discussion by saying assuming and questioning were the same thing. Also by wanting people to backup claims when you don't do it yourself.

You know deep down your position is false. It's why you don't like anybody challenging it.

reply

You don't SAY it, because unlike many of your ilk, you realize that that would make you look like a retarded fool.

BUT, your positions are BASED on it, and you constantly imply and hint that racism is a significant force.


On some level you know that your beliefsf are harmful nonsense.

That is why you shut down the discussion that was taking place. It was getting to close to home and you were running out of shit to say to hide behind.

reply

I don't say it because that's not what I meant. What happened is you don't comprehend well and when you get called on it you get upset.

You are the one that thought assumptions and questioning were the same thing. That's your problem not mine.

reply

It is clearly what you mean.

reply

No it's what you want that to mean. This say it makes attacking me easy for you. If I meant that I wouldn't agree with the bipartisan agreement. You are a liar and you project.

reply

I wasn't attacking you I was asking you a simple question. WHAT FUCKING GROUPS were you talking about?

You were being vague as hell. Are you talking about all white Americans? The GOP? The South? Texas? The NRA?

You refused to answer.

SO, if you have nothing to say, stop posting.

reply

Funny I ask you a question to backup a claim and you assume I'm attacking. Ok so if I provide the group are you going to stonewall or will you acknowledge it?

reply

Said thee man that still won't say what groups.

AND, I addressed that other point too.

ALL you have, is various forms of shit talk.

reply

Funny you want me to backup my claims but you throw a fit when someone asks you. Nick Fuentes, the clan which is hidden are openly racist. As there are cases of law enforcement officers doing shady things to black people. Isolated incidents not as a whole buy it should be called out and addressed.

Also bullshit. You didn't address it. Assuming and questioning are not the same thing.

reply

Nick Fuentes and the klan are fringe with zero power. For you to cite them in this context is... stupid.

FOr you to stonewall on it, is asshole.

The reality is, that white racism is fringe with no power. Nearly all the whining about it, is fearmongering with the INTENT of dividing Americans against each other and to give political cover for the policies of ANTI-WHITE RACISM, which you support.

reply

Doesn't matter if they have power the point stands. Also Nick Fuentes does have some influence even if it's minimal.

Nope I don't support that you are full of shit. Now are assuming and questioning the same?

reply

1. It does matter and they have NO power. ZERO. As a society we are all on the same page when it comes to equality for blacks and other ethnic minorities.

2. You claim you do NOT support anti-white racism? Do you support the lowering of University standards in an attempt to increase black enrollment in ivy league schools? As an example for discussion purposes.

reply

No it doesn't. My original claim was certain groups wre racist and existed. You just conceded that they exist. That was my point. Also they don't have zero power they just are not the majority. Just because you don't have majority power does not mean you have none. So bullshit and lies from you.

Nope answer my question first. Is assumption the same thing as a question? I answered you about the groups you wanted. Now answer my question prick.

reply

1. The groups you FINALLY specificed, are tiny to the point of irrelevance.

Thus, my point, that when you deny that we as a society are on the same page with regards to equality for ethnic minorities, you are being divisive and unfair to people, is thus seem to be true.

2. My god you are a fag. In the context of the statement and the way they were being used, they were close enough that anyone not a fag, would not whine like a fag about it.

reply

I didn't deny we as society were on the same page dumbass. I said certain groups are racist and still exist. Just because they are the majority doesn't mean they can't have some power or influence.

Nope they were not. You got caught contradicting yourself dumbass. Assuming and questioning are not the same. I caught you you lying prick.

reply

1.They are not just NOT in the majority, they are an irrelevant fringe. The VAST majority of this country is on the same page. Thus, those that pretend we ARE not, that some policies are desinged to discriminate against racial minorities, or that a major poliitcal party panders to racists, is FALSE and DIVISIVE.

2. You are whining like a fag over nothing to shut down the discussion. What was the big fucking deal, that you are whining about like it is a big fucking deal?

reply

We aren't discussing other people we are discussing what I said. And no any type of racism is not irrelevant. Just because it's not in power does it mean it shouldn't be called out.

No I'm calling you on your bullshit. You said I was calling people wrong for questioning if a minority got a job legitimately. When I said no assuming a minority got a job by critical race theory is an asshole move. You got caught you piece of filth. You can question but when you assume that's an asshole move that I'm willing to bet you have pulled. Many people like yourself don't question you assume which are two different things.

reply

1. The public discourse we have is a FUCKING SNIPEHUNT, looking for "Racism" so that hte "anti-racist" people can justify all their fearmongering and abuse of power.

That is and has been tearing this nation apart, setting groups against each other.

This is the reality you are trying to avoid, with your vague shit talk.


2. Yes, in that usage, the two words mean pretty much the same thing. THe person "questions" how the black guy got hte job. Or they "assume" it. There is a slight difference, but the difference is mostly one of spin and/or individual variation. You are being a complete fag here. A completee fag. It is like you are sucking a whole bucket of dicks while typing your posts. You could not be more of a fag right now if you were .... well, never mind. I don't want to HELP you derail the thread out of fag-ness and cowardice.

reply

What I said stands. Racism exists and I listed the groups. They are relevant even if in the minority.

No it isn't the same dipshit. It's different and you lied. It's worlds apart.

reply

1. How are they relevant? Give the biggest example of impact in the last... 20 years.

2. No, it's not. You have a group of people who suspect/question whether a certain black asshole got his job based on qualifications or becasue of his skin color. The ones that say anything lean towards question to assumption. It is a varied group of individuals with many individual variations. That is the meaning of the usage of slightly different terms. That should have gone without saying. Was ANY of it really NEWS to you? Because if it was, that was fucking stupid of you. IF it wasnt, then you were a fag for making an issue of it.

reply

I went over this with law enforcement. Many isolated incidents of blacks being mistreated. When this occurs people often will dismiss it and downplay when a cop is in the wrong.

Yes it is. When someone questions if a person got a job off race theory it's them wondering. Assuming is making that conclusion without knowing for sure. You are honestly are one stupid son of a bitch. If you assume someone is guilty of murder you have come to a conclusion. If you question it that is you saying it's possible they murdered but not for certain. The fact that I have to explain that to you shows your stupidity.

reply

1. BUt it that racism or disgust with criminals, regardless of color? Why do you assume racism? Especially in light of the generations long national bi-partisan consensus against white racism.

2. Some one could question it, and be completely objective and neutral towards the eventual answer. Or one could "question it" and be "assuming" that he got it despite being an unqualifed retarded fag.

You are having a hissy fit over semantics. Which is very common with lefties, who know that they cannot honestly defend their positions.


3. The crux of the matter is, you are letting Nick Fuentas, and the Klan define America while I want to define America by the vast majority that support the bi-partisan consensus. In doing what you are doing, you are on teh same page, as the hard core, far left, race baiters who say fag shit like "the nuclear family is white supremacy" or "They are coming for hte children", ect.

We could have ANY discussion of any issue that you wanted, but if we are doing in the context of knowing that we are discussing fringe groups or isolated individuals, then there is nothing DIVISIVE about that.

It is when the narrative that is pushed that define America by it's tiny, tiny, fringe of white racists that we end up getting divided.

Ethnic minorites are told to be afraid or angry against whites who are racist.

While whites are getting fucking done being blamed for bullshit that has nothing to do with us, or reality.


reply

I can provide you clips of cops being busted stating that they hate black people while brutalizing them unaware they are being recorded. That's pretty obvious when I see that on video that they are racist. No plausible deniability there. Nice try though.

No wrong. You either are neutral and objective or you assume. There is no in between. Assuming is an asshole move. Questioning is reasonable, assuming isn't. Period. I find it funny you are backpedaling here. Initially you told me it was wrong to do that now you are trying to gaslight me into thinking it's ok. This is a common tactic when someone knows they are wrong.

Again all of that is irrelevant bullshit. You want to ignore racism and only go by the majority. I want to address it all regardless of it's large or small.

reply

1. Your scenario already defined the actual incidences as "isolated". Your actual complaint, as it was presented in the context of this thread was actually about "the people" dismissing it or downplaying it.

You seemed to be assuming that their motive was racism.

Hence my reply that addressed that. ie that it could just be generalized, not racial disgust with criminals.


2. Of course there is an "inbetween". One person could be slightly supisious of the black asshole, while the one standing next to him is slighting more supicious, ect ect, down the line to you get to the other end of the spectrum where you have the people that might be using the semantics of "Questioning" but they are certain the black asshole was hired due to race.

And yes, it is wrong to ASSUME the worst of someone.

But it is completely reasonable to question whether or not a black asshole got a job due to the national practice of "affrimative action" and "diveristy" and "inclusion".


3. It's not irrelevant. Are we a society that has a massive bi-partisan consensus supporting racial equality for ethnic minorities, or are we a society defined by Nick Fuentas and the Klan, where vague "Groups" have the power to... do something that you are vague about, if any incident happens?

Clearly the way the converation should be held will vary a lot between the two.

reply

In the isolated incidents I have there is no plausible deniability, it's blatant and people still downplay it. No assumption here about observation of blatant racism on video.

Being suspicious whether it's more or less isn't an assumption. Assuming is you have come to a conclusion. So no still not an assumption and it's wrong to assume. Which often people have done to bld k people or any others. I don't make ill assumptions about anyone it's an asshole move. Questioning is fine assuming is not. Period.

Irrelevant again. You go by bipartisan as if it's always honored or followed. It gives you an out anytime someone spots racism. I caught onto your bullshit and it's not going to work with me.





reply

1. So, what is to be done about the people that downplay the isolated incidents?

2. How widespread do you think that the hiring of less or unqualified black people IS, in our society?

3. How does it give me an out?

reply

What do you think? You are always asking me. When I provide an answer you don't accept it so you tell me? If someone down plays blatant racism what should be done to them?

I don't have the numbers in front of me. What's the point of this question? I said questioning is fine but assuming isn't.

Because if someone points out a legit case of it you will downplay it or be skeptical right away. There are claims of false racism but... There are also cases of people ignoring blatant racism as well.

reply

1. I think that the primary flaw of modern policing is applying Hot Spot Strategy INCORRECTLY, and that should be discussed and fixed.

2. Well, a big question here is, is the REASON that the people are asking the question or ASSUMING the answer, "Racism" or a valid possibility, OR, are they just completely correct. After all, if say, in 80% of the instances when some white person questions or assumes about a black asshole, they are completely correct, that the person in question was a un or less qualified asshole, that is very different than if it happens say... 3% of the times.


3. I don't understand, you are still describing what you think my behavior would be, but...

In either case, whether I say that or not, you were planning to SUPPORT your claim of racism, riight? In either case, I'm not just ACCEPTING your claim of racism without any evidence to support it.

So, knowing that the nation is massivey in favor of equality for ethnic minorities, all it does is sort of MORE strongly support the presumption of innocence of the accused.

You weren't just expecting me to accept your accusations without question like some sort of brain damaged lemming, were you?

reply

Police reform needs to happen. Thing is you have people who think cops can do no wrong. I don't think all cops are bad but I don't think all are good either.

You are trying to gaslight and make it okay to assume and be an asshole. Assuming is not acceptable. Like I said questioning is fine but you aren't getting me to budge and to say assuming is ok. It is not, period.

I don't expect you to accept it without evidence. It's why I offer to backup my claims. You want someone to accept your assumption without questioning it. If someone questions it you throw a fit. You do this about Hollywood. Oh since it's left leaning I can throw the assumption that they are racist against whites. Unless you can prove it I'm not going to take that assumption from you as a fact sorry. You can say you think that's the case but don't expect me to accept that assumption you have as a fact in every scenario like you want.

Funny you want me to accept your claims without proof. So no I didn't expect that but don't get mad when others don't take your claims as truth without questioning them. I have evidence of racism in law enforcement and you tried to deny that.

reply

1. Agreed. But, you don't get to just assume that the people that trust the cops do so because racism.

2. The white people in question worked with the asshole black. You seem to want to ignore the very real possibility that they noted a lack of qualifications in their coworker, or boss and CORRECTLY identified the problem as the loudly celebrated policy of the organizations' of "diversity" and "inclusion".

Before we judge them harshly, we need to consider the possibilty that they are correct. You do agree that that is certainly something that DOES happen, right? You seem to just want to ASSUME racism as a reason for their behavior, when it could just be, that they are in a position to see and judge the person correctly.


3. Ok, so if you were planning to support your accusations anyway, then I still don't see how my mentioning the consensus is a problem for you. That led to you having such a .... concern.

4. Yes, I expect a good faith person to accept some obvious truths such as Hollywood dominated by lefties. Meanwhile in situations that are less obvious, it is asshole to expect to have claims accepted without proof.

It is unbelievable that I needed to explain that to you. If we were part of interstellar multispecies civilization, I would be accusing you of being an ALIEN, trying to "PASS" as human at this point.

reply

I didn't. I have isolated incidents of people downplaying blatant racism and denying it. In those cases people also are saying racial slurs cheering on the police doing that. That isn't an assumption that is an observation of racist people. I didn't say all people who trust cops are racist. I said often times people blindly support cops and think they can do no wrong. Not all who support cops like that are racist but it does show blind faith in something or someone. I would claim the same for people who hate all cops.

Nope you don't get to gaslight me. It doesn't matter if you worked with a black asshole who did get by based on that. You don't get to assume that of all black people. I claimed it to be an asshole move, I didn't claim it to be racist but it is an asshole move to assume. You can question, you don't get to assume.

Because you expect people to support their claims but you get mad when people expect that out of you. It's hypocritical.

You don't just want to accept a truth. You go a step further. Oh since
Hollywood is generally left that means any swap of a character is racist against whites. You want that assumption to be accepted not just Hollywood being left. Again what did I say before? You can question you don't get to assume. If it's racist against whites I want proof not a generalization or assumption. This is no different than assuming a black person got a job because of critical race theory. You don't get to assume the worst.

reply

1. Recall that the reason you brought up this, was to give the best example of the last twenty years of the "impact" of those "groups" that celebrate racism.

And, it's... weak as shit. It's vapor. "isolated incidents"? Not policy, not laws, not widespread practices, or behavior.

Kind of proves MY point.

2. No gaslighting Grift. THe point is clearly valid. YOu seem to want to ASSUME that everyone who questions or assumes is wrong. But, if they are CORRECT, then is it really racism, to be unhappy that an underqualified blacck asshole got the job because his skin color?

Hint: THe answer rhymes with blow.

3. So, that's it? All that whining is because you think I'm hypocritical? It has nothing to do with the actual issue?

OK.... wow. So, wow. What a waste of fucking time that was then.

4. Said the man that claims he intends to support his accusations of racism, but hasn't actually done so yet.

reply

I never said it was policy or laws. Thing is simply because they aren't you want to say it's insignificant. No amount of racism is insignificant in my book. I backed up my claim by listing those groups. Law enforcement also has a huge impact on society. It's pretty bad even if isolated incidents are wasting our tax dollars like that. Your point got proven wrong actually. Since you tried to claim I said the country was racist and I never did. So that's a loss for you sorry bud.

Nope you are gaslighting. Just because an assumption might be correct does it give you an excuse to assume the worst. Questioning is ok assuming is not. You seem to not want to face the fact that their assumption could be wrong. If they assume and it's wrong is that bad?

I don't think I've literally proven that you are hypocritical.

Oh I will. I just know to idiots like you no proof will be good enough.

reply

1. I didn't say that you said it was policy or laws. My point in mentioning that was that the impact of these isolated racists is minor. And it is.

Society is not defined by a few isolated racists, but by the behavior of the group as a whole and the society of that group.


2. What the fuck are you talking about? I've repeatedly discussed at length the possiblity that such questions or assumptions could be wrong.

3. You've proven you are a whiner. All that hissy fit over... nothing.

4. Ahh, so you weren't going to offer any proof. YOu just want to assert it and have teh ASSUMPTION of racism, even though you pretend to agree that the nation is NOT racist,

which fits with the behavior of the rest of the lib herd.

You talk a good game, grift, but it is all shit talk. When the rubber meets the road, you go along with the mob like a good little drone.

reply

Minor doesn't mean insignificant, which is what you attempted to say. I never said stuff wasn't minor but that it exists and it's not insignificant. So you took a loss on that one. Any type of racism needs attention brought to it. Yep but as a whole society did not completely remove the effects of racism after the bipartisan agreement. So right back at you.

So then assuming the worst isn't correct. My point stands, questioning is fine assuming is not.

No you got proven to be a hypocrite. Notice you can't refute it.

Oh no actually here you go. https://youtu.be/qeMLm2pIKGo?si=FQNmCKfauSpfpsYi

Lol I was waiting for your smug attitude and ego to kick in. Refute that boy! Checkmate!

reply

1. You are shit talking. YOU offered this as your best example of the vague white "Groups" that have impact or influence. And all you have, is isolated incidents. That does nto define America. The CONSENSUS does.

You want to inflate the importance of the... shreds of actual white racism that you can find, to justify the massive and intrusive and DIVISIVE "civil rights" laws and institutions and policies and practices.

2. Dude. YOu are talking in circles and talking shit. The end result of this "Questioning/assumptions is NOTHING.

You are desperatingly trying to find some shit to smear white Americans with, because you NEED to inflate and exaggerate white racism.

3. BLAH, BLAH, FUCKING BLAH. YOU have been proven to be a hysterical woman.

4. So, why the faggoty whining then?

reply

I never said isolated incidents define America for the billionth time! I said racism still exists and isolated incidents are not insignificant. The end, my point stands.

You shouldn't assume the worst the point stands. Questioning is fine but assuming isn't. Would you like it if I assumed all white people were racist before the bipartisan agreement was reached?

Hypocritical is what you are.

Because I had proof the whole time. You couldn't refute it. Get that ego back in check. When someone asks to me to backup my claim I do it! Unlike you bitch! That's how it's done bitch! Oh I love putting arrogant punks in their place. Thought I didn't have anything huh? I can keep going, I'm just getting started.

reply

1. If everytime something of race and America is discussed, you insist on dismissing the consensus and bringing up these minor "Groups", then you are defining America not by the massive consensus but by the fringe. And that is what you do.

2. You want to make a mountain out of some white people complaining about some black assholes.
Even though the impact is nothing.

Do you give a fuck about the white people that didn't get the jobs or promotions becuase of the black assholes that got promoted becuase of skin color?

3. Hysterical woman is what you are.

4. i never denied that you could find a few racist cops. Considering the huge number of cops in our huge country, one would have to be a fucking moron to do that.

So, you've proven, that you can have a hissy fit for no reason and that....

Well, that is all you proved.

reply

No it's just not ignoring the isolated incidents like you want to. Nice try but I can see through your bullshit.

The impact encouraged racism and bigotry so no it's not nothing. I unlike you care about racism anywhere.

Hypocrite is what you are.

So you just conceded when before you said that I couldn't backup my claim and that i expected you to just take my assertion dipshit. So no I don't expect people to take my assertion as truth I unlike you provide undisputable evidence. I didn't complain that you wanted proof like you do when asked for it.

reply

1. This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 1960s. THe debate has been not on whether to have said equality but how to get there.

NOthing about that says, we want to ignore isolated incidents of actual racism.

If everytime someone tries to build up America, you bring up the radical fringe to COUNTER that buildup, you are fighting against defining America by it's majority and it's BETTER angles, and instead defining it by a few radicals.

2. Wow. That's terrible. What should be done to such people?

3. Hysterical woman is what you are.

4. SO, why all the whining like a fag because I mentioned the overwhelming consensus in favor of black equality?

reply

Yep you are like a broken record. I agreed with that but it doesn't address when the effects of racism of those laws ended. You are afraid to have that conversation cause it doesn't suit your narrative. And in your case you want to ignore that stuff because you said it's insignificant. No amount of racism is insignificant.

No when I disagreed with you about the golden age you claimed I was taking it from you. Disagreeing isn't saying you can't think that. You are a dense braindead idiot.

You asked this already. Asked and answered.

Hypocrite is what you are.

I didn't whine about that. I whine because you expect things out of people things you won't do. You make assertions then when people ask for proof you throw a bitch fit. You asked me to backup my assertion and I did. That's how debating works.

reply

1. I say something nice about this country and it's citizens and YOU feel a need to push back.

I'm fine having that conversation. But I want to have it with a realistic appreciate of the reality, not a pretense that this is 19 fucking 20.

And an insignificant amount of racism, is an insignificant amount of racism. YOU want to have a hissy fit about every to justify your political agenda.

2. Dude. The reality is that this country has had a bi-partisan consensus in favor of equality for blacks since hte mid 60s. SO ANY CLAIM OF WHITES BIENG RACIST, they should have the presumption of innocence and the charge has to be supported before any action is taken.

In law and practice, THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

You know that, and you support it. THe rest of your talk is shit talk.

reply

No you aren't bullshit! Anyone can agree things have gotten better. Now when did the effects of racism end? Do you know?

reply

No one claims "the effect of racism ended".

When you talk like that, you are setting a bar of PERFECTION, to judge America and Americans by.

So, you can judge AGAINST us.

That is an insanely fucked up thing to do.

A better answer, would be something like,

"Yep. That consensus is a beautiful thing. It is one of the things I like best about this country."

PERIOD.


reply

Lol yeah like you would do that. You don't do that. I can agree while still pointing out the flaws. You want people to only praise something that way you can drown out a critique.

So then why did you pushback against assuming the worst? By this logic assuming the worst is wrong period. Yet you attempted to gaslight and make assuming the worst ok.

reply

Why can't you allow an American to say something good about American, without feeling a need to pushback?

reply

Interesting. I find that exact problem when talking good about mlk. I have seen countless times people pushback when someone states something good he did.

You want people to uphold to standards that your dude doesn't uphold. I actually did already.

I agreed with a topic you posted pointing out the positives in America. I agreed with no pushback. So yes I can. Can you do the same the other way?

reply

And the people that push back on MLK,


what do you think that says about them?

reply

Well it's lame but I'm not going to play all nice when that doesn't get done in return. So when in Rome. I've played nice that only lets people walk on you. I'm done with that.

reply

Grift. YOu brought up people that, when MLK is mentioned, something good he did, that some people "pushback" on that.

Imagine a person that not only did that, but did it EVERYTIME, something good was mentioned about MLK.

What would you think that revealed about that person?

reply

You are correct I wouldn't like it. Now what about where I agreed on a positive with no pushback?

reply

I didn't ask if you liked it. I asked what is revealed about those people.

Stop being a coward and answer the question.

reply

Here is the thing.

People celebrate things or events or other people.

In doing so they are saying something about what or who they are celebrating AND about themselves.

I am constantly surrounded by peopel who are celebrating things or people that I do not care about. My reaction is almost always one of respectful support. I don't care, but if you do, I wish you the best. Becasue I normally am not hostile to those people or to what they are celebrating.

I am generally HAPPY for them even.

Now, someone who sees other people celebrating and is HOSTILE to either those people or what they are celebrating, THAT is why you would feel a need to pushback on a celebration of someone or something.

We both know that. That is what you meant with your comment on MLK and the people that push back on him.

You think, probably correctly, that they are hostile to mlk AND TO WHAT HE STOOD FOR AND REPRESENTED.

Say one of the things you have said in the past that got pushback that you felt was... very revealing. I will give you my honest reaction.

reply

Ok then why should I not give pushback when they do it to things I like?

reply

If no one ever could let something get its credit it shows a form of bias from them. I didn't do that. I agreed without pushback of a positive thing you said about America.

reply

Your words, from right above.


"I agreed with that but it doesn't address when the effects of racism of those laws ended....."


You pretend to agree, but then immediately pushback, undermining the point of the agreement.

Give me an example of the pushback you have gotten on MLK.

reply

In that case but you said I always give pushback. I agreed with a positive post you made about America. I have no pushback to that post. You would pushback if someone called the drug war a failure. When in reality you can't dispute that. You will though.

Why do that? You know it happens. I've backed up an assertion I made. If this was you, you would say it's a troll boi game. You know this happens. I can do it if you are really pushing but I find it annoying at this point..

reply

1. But at any point where we try to apply the obvious truth of that consenus, then you do give push back. Always.

And very dishonest and stupid pushback like, "effects of racism ended".

You're clearly not serious about the agreement, you are serious about talking shit about America. Much like those guys that you referenced who always give pushback on MLK. They give pushbacck on saying positive things about him, because they are ANTI-him or/or what he stoood for.


2. Becasue I'm curious about what pushback they are giving and what it reveals about them.

reply

I give pushback because I get it on my end. I don't have time for people who only want to pony out the hood and ignore the bad. There are good things about this country but there are also some bad things as well. You want to stop the conversation at the consensus and walk away. It's like citing a stat and someone going well wait why? Then you want the conversation to stop there. That I feel is deceptive on your end. I don't feel you are doing for genuine reasons if you were genuine I wouldn't give pushback. I don't think you are.

Nope I don't pony out anything about America which isn't true.

Once you provide proof for your claims about Hollywood race swaps always being racist against whites I then will provide that for you.

reply

1. You are exaggerating the bad, having hissy fits about minor issues, to give a false impression that this country is a bad place, specifically racist, to justify your leftist agenda of massive government power and anti-white discrmination.

2. Asking for Proof of an opinion?ONce again showing what a dishonest piece of shit you are. Go fuck yourself.

reply

Nope I never said this country was bad as a whole. Nor did I say it was racist as a whole. The drug war is a gigantic failure and you gave pushback on that. You have a right wing agenda. You think there are no flaws with this country. Other countries rank higher in education than us also. So no these aren't hissy fits they are facts.

So wait if it's just your opinion that means I don't have to think a white race swapped character is done for racist reasons. Which means I don't have to take your opinion as fact. Go fuck yourself.

reply

1. I never said you SAID it. We have covered that point before. For you to play THAT tired fucktard ploy is just you being an asshole.
My point stands. YOu exaggerate the fringe of this ccountry and minor, really minor issues, to justify your support for your lefty agenda.

2. Big difference between demanding "proof" of an opinion and discussing it or arguing it. That you pretend to not know that, if you being a dishonest prick. YOU go fuck yourself.

reply

Your point doesn't stand. The drug war is a gigantic problem in this country as is our poor education. Those aren't minor. The fact that you want to make those minor issues is you being blind.

No anytime someone questions your opinion on this you immediately insult them. You want people to accept your opinion as fact. Go fuck yourself. You did this to me with black panther you scumbag.

reply

1. Enough. We got your side of this, ie America racist and bad against minorities. Let's flip it and look at what you are defending ie, the massive anti-white discrimination and oppression.

First, some more whining from you.

2. Enough of this shit talk. Let's move on, troll boi.

reply

Lol so you want to twist my words claim I'm saying America is racist and bad against minorities. Yet when I tell you I've never said that, you said I didn't say you said that. How does that work? You don't get to twist my words and then deny you are doing that. Let's get onto why you defended the drug war first.

Once you stop twisting words I will gladly move on prick.

reply

Ok, so massive pretty much every large employer I had had experience with has had publicly stated, formal policies of diversity and inclusion, and hiring minorities and promoting minorities.

Do you admit that this is anti-white discrimination and do you support or oppose it?

reply

So you want to twist my words and now you want to ask me the question? Interesting logic. I will answer but you know damn well you wouldn't do that in return. I am not for unfair discrimination of any kind.

Now let's flip it. If you only allow certain races to try out for a non essential race role is that discrimination? Do you support that racial discrimination?

reply

Wow. Pal, we spent weeks on your evidence of how "certain groups" and "isolated incidents" of racism", blah, blah, blah.

I'm glad you don't support it. How big of a problem do you think it is?

I've never seen any compreshensive study done of the impact, but it must be huge.

As far as I know, ALL major employers do it.

I did see this, which I think gives us an idea of the what the people in charge are like. You know sort of the flip side off those "certain groups" you talked about, only these people are in charge of employment policy in our country.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/blm-effect-94-of-new-jobs-at-s-p-100-corporations-went-to-non-whites-after-protests-report/ar-AA1hq1UN

reply

You avoided my question. Answer the question I provided and we will move forward. I answered yours now answer mine.

reply

Grift. We spent weeks looking at your side of the argument, where you had so much to say about how racist "Certain groups" were and blah, blab, blah.

So, now you want to spend ONE post discussing the other side and now you think it's time to start whining like a fag about anti-black racism again?

No Grift, it is time to take a look at what you are pushing as an ANSWER for the "certain groups"/


As per the link I posted, after the blm riots, big employers responded by giving NINETY FOUR percent of jobs to minoriites and only SIX percent to whites.

Over a period of a year, massive anti-white discrimination was done, across the country.

How many people reported on that? Admitted that htey were doing it? Where is the call to punish the racists in question?

reply

Nope bullshit! You accused me of supporting anti white discrimination and attempted to twist my words. I then said the effects of racism did not disappear because of the consensus. Your failure to understand that is your problem. I am not discussing anti black racism. I am discussing racial discrimination period. Notice I never said a specific race.

I asked if you only allow one race to try out for a non essential race role is that discrimination? No specific race was mentioned. Telling that you jumped to the black race... Again this is your problem not mine.

We won't be moving forward until you answer this question. Answer it or concede.

reply

The answer for the "effects of racism" is Affirmative Action and Diversity and all that shit, which you support.

That is anti-white discrimination.

You were happy to spend weeks whinign about "certain groups" and stalling while I dragged out from you an admission that they were tiny fringe groups, kind of sort of.

Now you want to pretend that that is balanced out by ONE post on the flip side and you want to get back to the important business of whining about racism that might impact BLACKS or other minorities, because "lingering effects, blah, blah, blah"?

Fuck no.

Its time to talk about the MASSIVE AND DIVISIVE AND OPPRESSIVE ANSWER you want to those "certain groups" and the "lingering effects of racism".

Do you like that in 2020, major employers gave 94% of new jobs to non-whites?

What does that say about the people running those companies? MOre like you, or more like me?

Who has more power in our society, those leaders who gave 94% of jobs to non-whites, or those fringe "certain groups" you spent WEEKS whining about and pretending that they were significant?

reply

Nope even with affirmative action taking place does it mean the effects of racism ended. That's the answer but it doesn't mean the effects were negated or nullified. Also nope I don't support it, again you twisted my words. I just unlike you don't think racism effects ended with the consensus.

You didn't drag anything out of me. I said from the jump they were tiny. You tried to say they were insignificant. No amount of racism from any group is insignificant. You also told me assuming and questioning were the same thing. I called you on that bullshit also.

Nope I want to talk about ALL racial discrimination. Which is why I didn't mention one specific race but all of them. So nice try but you failed hard here. I will spam this until you answer the question. Once you answer that I will be glad to answer that question of yours. Until then answer it or concede.

We won't be moving forward until you answer my actual question without twisting words. If you don't answer I will continue to ignore that question. Your choice.

reply

YOU don't support Affirmative Action and Diversity and such shit?

i find that very hard to believe, considering the way you whine about racism and the "effects of racism".

reply

I am not really concerned with what you believe. I gave my answer and now you don't accept it. Someone can be totally aware of the effects not ending after the consensus and not support those things. Inajdo never whined about racism that was you who did that.

Now answer my question or concede.

reply

1 SO, then what is your answer to the "lingering effects of racism"?

2. Do you see the ANSWER that we as a society have, ie anti-white discrimination and racism as WORSE than the "lingering effects of racism"?

reply

You asked this before. Asked and answered.

Answer my question or concede.

reply

Dude. I let you whine like a fag for WEEKS about "certain groups" and "lingering effects".

YOu don't get to have a hissy fit, and act like ONE POST balances that out.

1 SO, then what is your answer to the "lingering effects of racism"?

2. Do you see the ANSWER that we as a society have, ie anti-white discrimination and racism as WORSE than the "lingering effects of racism"?

reply

Nope. Consider this punishment for twisting my words.

Asked and answered.

So are you conceding?

reply

You talk shit about being against racism, yet you harped on "certain groups" which you eventually admitted where tiny fringe,


and yet, you want to give the other side, the massive anti-white discrimination and oppression that is the policy of the national government, and state governments and city governments, and all major corporations and non-profit employers, ect. ect. ect,

you want to give that ONE post and then move BACK to whining like a fag over something that might hurt a black guy....

YOu SAY you don't support anti-white racism, but your actions say otherwise.

reply

Nope I never admitted anything. I never said the group was big. Your bullshit is dismissed.

Also I want to talk about discrimination of all races not just blacks.

Now are you conceding then?

reply

Oh, now you are forgetting how often I discuss ed with you that you were being very vague about their size and how you were exaggerating their impact, because in reality they were a tiny fringe, which you eventually admitted.

THe way that you want to gloss over the massive anti-white discrimination that is our society's answer to the "lingering effects" of racism, to get back to your whining like a fag about any minor discomfort that might effecgt a black guy,

shows that you support the anti-white racism and discrmination, despite your claims otherwise.

reply

I never claimed them to be big or a majority. So no I never admitted anything.

Nope I'm not talking about racism against blacks. I was referring to discrimination of all races. You are ignoring this because deep down you know you are wrong. It's ok if I was as ignorant as you I would twist words also.

Your twisting of my words is noted. Consider your non sequitur out of hand and dismissed.

reply

All you want to do is spam neg shit about America, especially white Americans.

You whined about till's mom for weeks.

The entire nation, everyone looking job? YOu couldn't care less.

Your.... pathetic.

reply

Nope pointing out flaws isn't spamming negative things about America. You just can't take a criticism of America. That's how you shutdown the conversation.

I complained about an injustice done to her. I know screw me right?

I care which is why I want to discuss all forms of racism. You only want to discuss white racism.

You're is the correct way to say that about me not your. Stop twisting words.

reply

Nope. I discussed it at length and seriously and honestly.

When I asked you to balance that by looking at the cost of the answer, is the anti-white discrimiation we now do as policy,

YOU are the one that said, "Screw them", I want to talk about black actors who might lose out on a role.

reply

Nope you didn't. Twisting words is not discussing something honestly.

I was not willing to go there since you twisted my words.

I never said that.

reply

1. I said what I thought should have happened, and that it was wrong that the system faiied to deliver justice. You TWISTED those words to your end. I had no problem discussing that issue, or issues iike it, fully, seriously and honestly.

2. YOU gave the other side, ONE post and then wanted to get back to smearing America. That is you.

reply

And you also said that I supported discrimination against whites when I do not. You also stated that I was trying to go back to black people when I asked about discrimination period. You twisted the words.

Nope criticizing America is not smearing it. Since you as a white man feel unhappy here you are free to leave this country. Have fun you won't be missed. As it stands I have never personally been discriminated against or denied an opportunity. I have a great job and career.

reply

You talked about "certain groups" for weeks. I had to drag it out of you that you knew they were tiny fringe groups, and still you pretend that they have "influence" or some such shit.

Then, when I FINALLY flipped the script, you gave it ONE fucking post and then wanted to go back to whining like a fag about the terrible injustices that minorities face.

That is not reasonable, nor good faith, nor constructive criticism of America. That is smearing America.

AND, it is you supporting the answer we as a society have to the "lingering effects of racism", ie massive discrimination and oppression of white people.

reply

You are a seriously one foolish individual. I never once stated that the groups I was referring to were the majority. That never once left my mouth. You attempted to state that those groups were insignificant. No amount of racism or group that is racist is insignificant. You can argue them not having much power but insignificant is incorrect. You misunderstanding that or twisting my words is your problem not mine.

Also no I wanted to talk about racial discrimination. Not just to minorites but all groups, which is why I didn't specify one specific race. I asked you is it discrimination to allow only a specific race to audition for a non specific race role? You backed away from this and twisted my words. People who know they are wrong do this. You know I got you pinned. Therefore you misinterpreted my words purposely. This is you being an asshole and you know it.

I mopped the floor with you in this debate which is why you are twisting words. You are an idiot who thinks assuming and questioning are the same thing. Since you hate it here so bad here go ahead and leave the country. I personally have never been oppressed in this country and never been denied in any job I've tried to get. I will take my experiences over some little crybaby like you.

reply

DUde. THis is all I read.

"You are a seriously one foolish individual. I never once stated that the groups I was referring to were the majority."


WE've covered this. You might avoid EXPLICITLY STATING something, but your ACTIONS and BEHAVIOR show that that was your message.

You danced around refusing to be specific about what "Certain groups" you were referring to for weeks. You kept talking about them AS THOUGH they were significant and powerful with significant and power influence on events or policy.

Eventually you admitted that you were talking about people like "the clan".


I have two points to say to you.

1. For you to again trot out that shit talk of "i never said"? That is fucking retarded of you. I will NOT let that pass. YOU might think inside your head that that gives you a pass, but that is just you talking shit TO YOURSELF.

2. Someone like you that wants to spend weeks talking shit on America then wants to pretend that was balanced out by ONE post on dealing with the flip side of the issue and wants to get back to whining like a fag over racial injustices done to poor black people?

That person is an anti-American ass, that supports the anti-white discrimination that you are trying to avoid talking about.


reply

Nope you interpret my actions and behavior the way you want to help boost your narrative. So no we aren't going off that. You aren't credible.

No I was doing what you did. I wanted to not backup my evidence because you don't do it. When someone asks you to backup something you claim it's a troll boy game. Unlike you I backed up my claim. You also fail to understand the meaning of the word admit. Want me to cite the dictionary definition for you? Oh wait I forget you think you have authority over the dictionary definition as well. You thought assuming and questioning were the same. I won't ever let that go.

Oh yeah it stopped you from saying I said something. I'm not letting you pin something on me I did not say. The point stands I never claimed those groups to be the majority. Your twisting of my words is dismissed.

Lol nope I'm not letting you twist again. I was referring to all races not just one. So that goes as another win for me. Anymore twists you want to try or are you conceding you lost the debate? You twist again and it completely gives me the win. Your choice.

reply

"Nope you interpret my actions as behavior the way you want to help boost your narrative. So no we aren't going off that. You aren't credible."


Your words, "i never stated".

That is not you expressing disagreement with my interpretation, that is you FUCKING LYING, by pretending that I was saying you said something, when we have been all over that bitch.

Indeed, as you just admitted. You can't whine like a fag about me misinterpreting your actions, at the same time you whine like a fag that I said you said something.

NOt without looking like a completely fool.


reply

Lol that is that you are doing. You said I admitted something. Admitting is confessing to be true. If I was denying those groups were the minority then had to admit they are that would be an admission. I never said they were not the minority. So no it's you missing the meaning of what admit means. Learn the definition of admit before making yourself look like a fool.


So I saw through you twisting my words bitch boy. I got all day. Want to try again? I also have you on record stating assuming and questioning are the same. Your words chief. I also have you on record stating I was talking about a specific race when I asked about racial discrimination for an acting role. I can peel you like an onion. This will be a highlight reel seriously. Step up your game you are getting whooped.

reply

"Lol that is that you are doing. You said I admitted something. Admitting is confessing to be true. If I was denying those groups were the minority then had to admit they are that would be an admission. I never said they were not the minority."

You were purposefully vague about what "Groups" you were referring to, and completely silent about their size, and you were speaking of them as though they have significant impact on the nation as a whole and/or policy.

Thus, when I was finally able to drag some specifics out of you, I got you to ADMIT that the "certain groups) you were talking about, were fringe groups.


THat is what your behavior was. For me to call that an "Admission" is commpletely right and proper.

reply

I said from the start the groups were in the minority. So what am I confessing to? No I referenced the groups. That's it. Them being in the minority is irrelevant since from the start I said they were. They are not insignificant though, that's a lie.

So nice try but fail. So are you denying you said assuming and questioning were the same?

reply

"I said from the start the groups were in the minority."

1. No, you didn't.

2. And even when you did, you were still vague as hell. "minority" could have been the GOP, or The Rich, or ect.

3. And that still doesn't cover why the fuck you keep circling back to your shit talk of "i didn't SAY that". What kind of fag does that?

reply

Yes I did.

Nope I wasn't bullshit!

Notice you are evading what you said? You said assume and question were the same.

Remember when you threatened to get in my face if you met me?

reply

extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a people’s community, in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.

this pretty much defines the current democrat party. the old democrat party was moderate but the new dems have gone full fascist in the past 7 years.

they are weaponizing the judicial system to try and jail their opposition? sound familiar?
you have to agree with their views or you will be ostracized. people that questioned the vaccine or didnt want it were publicly called anti-vaxxers. Joe even went as far as mandating taking the vaccine or lose your job. could you imagine the outcry if Trump did that?

reply

Vaccines have been mandatory for generations backed by the Supreme Court decisions including a recent one. If you went to public school, then you received mandatory vaccinations. Therefore, stop blaming Biden for something that has existed since at least the early 1900s.

Your first paragraph was an excellent description of authoritarianism. Fascism is right-wing, but authoritarianism can be both right or left.

Democrats in power are mainly moderates although progressive left is noisier. Republicans in power are mainly authoritarian aka MAGA aka Trump aka extreme-right, but moderates are attempting to regain power.

Trump repeatedly broke the law. No one can be above the law in a democracy. I believe multiple investigations were slowed-down because they didn't want to deal with charging Trump. Cowardice on their part. Trials should've started years ago.

reply

Ah yes. The modern Democratic party is especially known for their militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy, and belief in "natural hierarchies".

"they are weaponizing the judicial system to try and jail their opposition? sound familiar?"
Uh...the Democratic party isn't responsible for the trials. The DNC, Biden or the Senate have nothing to do with Trump's trials.

reply

It's about...$20 for a ticket.

reply

I listened to an interview with director/writer Alex Garland on The Big Picture podcast and your post reflects his intentions practically verbatim.

reply

They're HIS views. I listened to a ton of analysis from different sources who discussed Garland. I added his name to the OP in order to credit him.

reply

Right.... missed that

reply

You didn't miss anything. I edited and credited Garland in my original post after I read your comment. I didn't want to take credit for his ideas. Sorry for the confusion.

reply

OK, great post as usual

reply

Thank you, yatzo376.

reply

What's funny to me is that some people (including, I think, Alex Garland?) see this as a tribute to war photojournalists, as you said--but many others understandably see it as an indictment of said journalists. Look at how irresponsibly they act, again and again.

reply