White people in the 80's
Remember when it was fun to be White?
https://x.com/9mm_smg/status/1788686269330989424
Remember when it was fun to be White?
https://x.com/9mm_smg/status/1788686269330989424
It's still fun being white. I wouldn't trade it for anything.
Crazy American liberals can lick my hairy bollocks.
You're still having fun. I'm still having fun. But a lot of White people are not having fun. We got to help'em ditch the White guilt and turn that frown upside down.
shareWhite guilt? 😂😂😂😂
shareA lot of White people hate themselves. They feel guilty for being superior to other races. They don't admit it to themselves but that's what they really think. That's why they feel guilty.
shareNah we really don't. Thanks for the laugh though
shareDo you speak for all White people?
shareI speak for 99.9999% of them who don't feel an ounce of guilt. Anyone with common sense knows that no one has a choice when and where they were born, and what race they were born into.
shareSo why are so many of them woke?
shareMost aren't
shareYou feel no White guilt and are happy to be White?
shareThere are clearly white people who dislike themselves, who dislike other white people for being white, and feel guilty about being white.
It's a shame because one thing they've accidentally done is increase the momentum of that by hiding the fact that less than 10% of the global population is white.
Repeat: in 2024, less than 10% of the global population is white.
So, instead of loving themselves, they go around teaching each other they must consider the "minorities" -- forgetting that they ARE a minority!
1. The solution is always more love.
2. More love STARTS with more love to yourself first. (Only after that you can start loving someone else)
3. This applies to all people.. and especially to the people who only represent 9.5% of the global population.
White people are committing cultural suicide.
shareCan you please identify the aspects of white culture that are being lost or dying?
shareWhen I'm talking about cultural suicide I'm mainly talking about it in the context of immigration. If your country is flooded by non-White thirdworlders, they bring in their own cultures and dilute White European culture. And because of mass immigration and low birth rates, Whites are becoming minorities in their own countries. If you want to see the degradation of White culture just take a look of some videos of Paris or London. If you haven't see those places in a while you'll probably be shocked to find out that they are now third world ghettos.
This is Paris today. It's fucking disgusting:
https://x.com/ModoAlt/status/1788566293504831977
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GP4xzeVbgAApfpt?format=png&name=900x900
https://x.com/ThevoiceAlexa/status/1809623571322257587
That's cultural suicide in action.
Simply existing beside other people with different cultural backgrounds is not suicide. If your culture doesn't endure, thrive or remain exalted except in vacuum then maybe your culture is unfit and weak to begin with. The visibility of other cultures is not a degradation of white culture.
I'll be fucked if I'm clicking a xitter link to something you exclaim "disgusting" but can't describe. Get real. I don't need to look at videos of London or Paris. They're close and I'm familiar enough with them to know that your videos are just cherry picked in order to scandalise people like yourself who don't know what the hell they are talking about.
You can't even identify or describe the white culture that you claim is disintegrating or dying.
White culture is everything from the way White people speak, to the way they look, to the art they produce, to cultural and societal norms that they practice.
Are you really going to be obtuse on purpose and pretend like you don't know what French culture is or what British culture is or what Polish culture is?
If you want to pretend to be a fool and you won't even click on the examples I provided you so you can see what I'm describing then what's the point of talking?
"The way that white people speak..." Is what you call a racist generalisation.
Why are you so keen to pigeonhole and diminish the white race. Effectively denying the diversity in "white culture" by boiling it down to "the" way they speak.
Look. You and the two or three other guys that operate the dozen or so dipshit accounts on here have too shallow a patter pool and the patterns of how you cope with others are getting easier and easier to spot.
I am a racist so...
And I only have one account. I had another account here a long time ago but I was banned. I returned after a year of exile and created this account. I don't use sock accounts. I think it's lame. I want everything that I write to be under my name, or at least my pseudonym. Ideally I would prefer to use my old account because that name is associated with me on the Internet.
People's unhappiness in the modern era (specifically white people) is down to alot of things, mental health crisis, social media use, drug use, terrible food we eat, terrible messages from the media, from musicians, actors, telling us we have to get plastic surgery or use ozempic to burn off fat, There are ENDLESS reasons for how unhappy people are now. I would say the main difference between now and the 80s/90s is social media/ the internet.
Endlessly comparing yourselves to other more attractive people on instagram, facebook, etc thinking you have to compete.
Putting it all down to "white guilt".. that's just a gross oversimplification and total cop-out.
Come on, now. I'm white, I don't have "white guilt"..
"White guilt"? Give me a break. That is just a conservative buzzword. They throw that phrase around alot. In specifically right-wing circles. It doesn't actually mean anything.
Like I said, we have a multitude of reasons for our unhappiness in modern society, and we are aware of them all. The economy for one, Which I didn't even mention. But putting it down to "white guilt" is just a weak surmise.
Hey chumbawampa
You made some goods points.
Compared to the 80s, I think mental health awareness has improved, which is good. However it has been pushed by the media and in some work forces to the point that feeling down is a trigger to seek professional help, which does far more harm than good and is promoting hypochondria.
Social media has advantages if you are a well adjusted person, however I agree there are downsides. The internet generally having a high population of the planet connected, means you open yourself up to people you would never talk to let along want to meet. Comparing yourself to other people is not a great idea on the internet, especially if you think perception is reality.
Most western countries economies are slowing down as world growth is moving east, this wasn’t the case back then, so the fact we do not have booming economies and are constantly reminded by it doesn’t help in the media.
Name one white person who hates himself for being white? You're the kind of loser that should be magically transformed into a minority so you can grow the F up.
shareRachel Dolezal
shareYou're projecting. From what I read about her she just identifie[sd] with being black, not necessarily hating herself for being white.
But if you are using her as an example of something to prove something ... she's just a bizarre one-off.
You asked for one, and that's the first one that came to mind. Of course I have seen many examples of White people who hate White people and are therefore self hating Whites, but I have no interest in going and finding them just to win an argument. They clearly exist, they are all over the place, most people have seen them, so either you are one of the few people who has never heard of one or you're being disingenuous and asking that stupid question in bad faith.
And what is it precisely that makes me a loser in your mind? Is it because I dared to say that White people should care about their own interests like every other group? And that maybe they should not allow themselves to be pushed around because of some misguided guilt for the sins of their ancestors? What is it?
This is an example of what I'm talking about. I see these all the time. This just popped in my twitter feed:
Eminem says being White is so embarrassing that it makes him want to kill himself.
https://x.com/AntiWhiteWatch1/status/1812589229572084079
Another day, another self hating White
Eminem or any celebrity are always pandering to their fan base and trying to sell more BS product, and their sponsors are always telling them how. I trust very few of them - or put it this way, I trust none of them, however, some of them can make some good points on occasion.
I don't even know what I am answering you I meant to block you because you are Nazi fascist racist jerk in your comments and posts, only here to provoke.
I'm not really a Nazi or a fascist. I just play one on TV. I do have some views that some would consider racist though.
shareEveryone does, but actual human beings try to be civilized and express it in an articulate way, not being a Nazi about it, because few really are. Apparently, you are the exception. Blocked
B1cKsurN
BKB
Bubbathegut
chilone
Corbell
CraigC
tvfan
curiousMInd101 - Nazi, racist online provocateur
DMT
Dsx2006
Gd5150
Golfaddict666
JoWilli
Keelai
KingBob
moviechatterer
Rorikon
SemiAnimus
Skavau
tvfan
WarrenPeace
Wow, aside from Keelai, I'm in pretty good company. Everyone on this list is based (except Keelai who is human garbage).
p.s.
I can't believe SemiAnimus was put on this ignore list. He's nothing but nice and reasonable. This just tells me that TrentnQuarantino is tool who wants to be in an echo chamber. Pathetic.
[deleted]
Yes, it's white guilt.
https://x.com/its_The_Dr/status/1629963543775772672
https://x.com/_WarHamster/status/1737130821759488009
https://x.com/RajaBar16891293/status/1734250983075786802
https://x.com/pjwshorts/status/1673936927613939712
https://x.com/iamyesyouareno/status/1737794126517559412
https://x.com/w_terrence/status/1271160115010420737
https://x.com/iamyesyouareno/status/1698732450669572187
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1699921234501242896
End Wokeness 🤮
shareYeah. Tell them it's other people's fault they are miserable.
That's a new tactic, not used by any asshole in history ever.....
I'm a fascist, didn't you get the memo? I'm single-handedly bringing about the fourth Reich. Now watch your mouth before you end up on a list and get rounded up with the rest of the undesirables.
Seig Heil!
o/
And that was in California, which was already well aboard the pozz train. In the saner parts of the country, white people were even more genial. It was a completely different, and far, far better country.
shareI remember the 80's. It was good times.
I'm not familiar with the term "pozz". Can you explain?
It comes from the practice of fags purposely infecting themselves with HIV (positive test result = poz) so that they could freely engage in promisuous fag sex without worrying themselves about their partner's HIV status.
In today's slang, it's used to describe a goup of people, an institution, or a landmass (country, region, state, etc.) that has actively embraced all the diseased causes of the left, from blank slate egalitariansim (DEI), to gender, to climate alarmism, and beyond.
For example, the NFL and just about every sportsball league in the world, is completely pozzed. Look at the Buffalo Bills website, every last story on it is a tale of how the franchise is concerned about queers, coloreds, and a host of other most favored victims. It's appalling.
https://www.buffalobills.com/news/bills-to-sponsor-national-gay-flag-football-league-chapter-in-buffalo
Ah that makes sense. Thanks for explaining. When I first read it I figured it must be some kind of slang term for "progressives", but knowing the etymology makes that much better. I'm going to use it from now on.
shareFor example, the NFL and just about every sportsball league in the world, is completely pozzed. Look at the Buffalo Bills website, every last story on it is a tale of how the franchise is concerned about queers, coloreds, and a host of other most favored victims. It's appalling.
https://www.buffalobills.com/news/bills-to-sponsor-national-gay-flag-football-league-chapter-in-buffalo
Go to the beach
shareWhich beach?
shareThe one where you get a tan
shareNo I mean where is the beech for White people only?
shareProud Boy Beach
You’ll fit right in!
Wasn't Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, a latinx?
A cuban black actually. So, yeah, when liberals talk about the proud boys being racist, they are living in la la land.
shareI stand corrected. Thank you sir.
shareWhat exactly would I apologize for? He admitted to being provocative. Which to me is being an antagonistic asshole. I have nothing to apologize for. You want to apologize to me? It's you who needs to think about an apology.
share"TO ME" is your shit talk.
He is clearly far more polite and open to discussion than you, who had a hissy fit and refused to address the issue for two fucking weeks.
Fine. You're not enough of a man to own your mistake.
You ready to try to engage him and ask him something NOT ASSHOLE and on topic?
LOL. I'm just kidding. I know that even if you TRY, you'll start whining like a fag about black people in two posts.
Polite by saying in one of his responses that whites are superior to other races and shouldn't be made to feel guilt about it? How is that a hissy fit? That's one of his responses you delusional fuckwit. That's polite? If I said that toward white people you would have a heart attack. You wouldn't be looking past that either.
What mistake? He openly admitted to being provocative.
I'm glad to discuss the issue. You say racist shit I'm calling you on it though. Which he did say racist shit.
I point out how reasonable he seems to be, and how he states he is open to discussion and your counter is to cite him having a belief you disagree with....
Please take a quick look at this image.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrhQjdu2o9mmwQA6dZXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3BpdnM-?p=image+hello+mcfly+anyone+home&fr2=piv-web&type=E210US739G0&fr=mcafee#id=0&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fvignette.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fbttf%2Fimages%2F9%2F97%2FMaxresdefault-0.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20160408192026&action=click
Upon his initial responses he was being provocative. You initially denied he was doing that. He openly admits he was doing it. That doesn't come off as polite and reasonable initially. So that eliminates your claim I was throwing a hissy fit over nothing. That's one.
Number two I did engage with him even after he pulled that bullshit. I engaged him honestly and he was more reasonable than you even though I still don't like him. So that second point debunks your claim I wouldn't engage him in good faith.
This sums up what you said. https://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0?si=AOxEkmY6Q-Q1mQC3
YOu engaged him? What did he say was his understood reason for the loss of hapiness?
shareNo we are not moving forward until you own up to being wrong about him being provocative and antagonistic. I said that initially. You denied it. He himself admitted he did that.
shareYour claim was that he was not open to real discussion. One can be provactive and antagonistic and still be completely open to real discussion.
YOU were the one that refused to even discuss what his issue might be, you just attacked him and me constantly and repeatedly for over two weeks before even addressing the actual issue.
And then you immediately started whining like a fag about BLACK problems, in a thread about white happiness.
Almost as though white people don't matter but black people do.
Yep but that also can be a sign they are not interested in a real discussion and that they only want to antagonize. Don't play dumb. You initially said he wasn't being antagonistic. Now you've moved the goal post. Now you are saying well yeah but he can be provocative antagonistic and still want an actual discussion. True but it's not so far out there for me to think he is just being an unreasonable asshole arguing in bad faith. You now realize I have him openly admitting to being an asshole so there is no plausible deniability on that front. So you moved to the other point of my statement of me saying he didn't want an honest discussion. Which even if he was open to it your claim is still wrong because you said he wasn't being antagonistic. I got him on record admitting it. Boom bitch!
His op was a bit provocative.
You were a complete asshole for over two weeks doing NOTHING but various types of logical fallacies such as ATTACKING THE MESSENGER.
Do you believe that because of "the legacy of past racism" that it is NOT ok for whites as a group to express ANY conflict of interests with any non-white group?
Because, that seems to be the foundation of your position as difficult as it has been to get you to... discuss it at all.
So you admit that it was provocative? Good so then my initial thought if him being an antagonistic asshole was not out of left field like you were trying to claim initially.
I was an asshole to an antagonistic asshole yeah. Guilty as charged. If he wanted an honest discussion he shouldn't have been an asshole first. I called out his behavior and it deserved to be called out. Had I done this you would have done the same to me.
Never said any of that. I'm discussing stuff with him now. Funny how you were wrong about that also huh? I just saw his antics and figured he was in bad faith.
Guess what even though I don't like him he's more logical than you are. He actually believes in ending the drug war. That right there puts him above your intelligence level.
Dude. You are full of shit and a shit talker.
Do you believe that because of "the legacy of past racism" that it is NOT ok for whites as a group to express ANY conflict of interests with any non-white group?
Because, that seems to be the foundation of your position as difficult as it has been to get you to... discuss it at all.
No I was just able to prove you wrong. He was an asshole who was antagonistic the point stands. You told me he wasn't an asshole or antagonistic and he himself admitted he was. You were wrong deal with it bitch.
Asked and answered. Not doing it again. Refer to my answer above.
ANd we get to the point where you refuse to engage in any real discussion.
The fact of the matter is, that you had a hissy fit, not becuase he was "provocative", but because you are racist against white people and the very idea that a WHITE MAN, would dare to voice a complaint against a NON-WHITE person or group, was Taboo in your racist mind.
No I'm just not going to let you slide on the lies and bullshit you tried to spout. Now you have conceded that he was provocative even though initially you denied that. Since that failed you've moved onto pulling the race card. You know that thing you hate so much when black people do it. The difference is I have him on record saying racist shit that even you can't gaslight your way out of. I have every right to call him racist for the comments he's made. You just don't like what I'm saying and are mad that I've called you on your bullshit.
Nope I have no racism against anybody voicing a concern for their group. I don't like antagonistic assholes. I engaged him honestly once the asshole routine was dropped. I proved you wrong on so many levels.
Dude. Take your shit talk and shove it up your ass.
The op voiced a complaint from a white man against POSSIBLY, non-white group(s) and you had a hissy fit. LIke the fag you are.
Not shit talk. You said he wasn't being proactive initially did you not?
Fag, I don't recall my exact wording, it's been like three weeks.
You are talking shit to avoid just admitting teh truth.
You don't believe that white people have the right to voice any complaints or conflicts of interests with non-white people.
How convenient! Funny you seem to have a detailed memory of what I said weeks ago but suddenly forgot what you said? Yeah I'm not buying that bullshit prick.
Nope also bullshit. I engaged him honestly and you said I wouldn't do that. Shove that up your ass also bitch. You got proven wrong twice bitch.
Dude, you want to play stupid nitpicking semantic games to avoid the real issue.
The real issue is that you don'tt think that white people have the right to voice any complaint about any conflict of interests with non-white people.
And you think that, becuase you a racist prick.
No I'm not letting you get away with being wrong you fuckwit. You don't want to own up to being wrong is my problem. It's not semantics you were flat out wrong and are denying it.
I called him antagonistic you denied that. You then said I wouldn't engage him honestly and I did that also.
Now you call me racist because you don't like that I've proven you wrong. Notice how you won't say shit to him about racism? Why? Oh yeah because it isn't towards whites therefore it's ok.
1. It is semantics. You are having a hissy fit about nothing to bog the discussin down.
2. I am calling you racist because you saw a white man make a complaint that you figured was directed against non-white people and you reacted as though, in your mind, that was illegitimate.
It is not semantics you are full of shit! You got proven wrong and are looking to bullshit your way out of it.
No you are playing the race card. I called him out for antagonistic behavior. You got proven wrong you vile piece of human garbage. You are mad that I proved him to be racist.
You whined like a fag to avoid discussing the issue, because you do not believe that a white person should be allowed to makea complaint against non-whtie people(s).
shareNope I called out antagonistic behavior. You said it wasn't antagonistic and I proved it was by his own admission. You aren't bullshitting your way out of that..
shareYou're whining like a fag over nonsense to avoid discussing the real issue, which is that you don't think that a white man should be allowed to make a complaint against any non-whtie people(s).
Nope I called out antagonistic behavior. You said it wasn't antagonistic and I proved it was by his own admission. You aren't bullshitting your way out of that.
I can play this game all day..I will gladly play the copy and paste game.
I actually didn't cut and paste the last one, it's just that you are stuck on talking shit, so, nothing is changing.
You are just focusing on stupid shit, to avoid discussing any real issues.
Then discuss the fucking issue. Drop your bullshit. I proved you wrong he was antagonistic and I also discussed with him in good faith the issues. Both things you got proven wrong on you piece of garbage.
Now present your evidence of whites unhappiness or fuck off. Give me the proof and I will respond..
You call me to discuss the issue, but all you want to do is whine like a faggot about your smear on the other poster.
You're just being a dick, to bog the thread down.
Because you have nothing real to justify your knee jerk hostility to the op.
Nope I call out how your ass got proven wrong on two accounts. First you said he wasn't antagonistic. He then by his own admission admitted he was being antagonistic. Second you said I wouldn't discuss it with him honestly in good faith, and I did just that. You got your ass whooped and are bitter about it. Eat shit I owned you there!
Now let's hear your proof. I'm giving you the chance go ahead. If you don't provide it that will show you are the one who wants to bog it down. Last chance.
You are whining like a fag about nothing, to avoid any real discussion.
Got it so you are not interested in debating your point in good faith. That counts as a concession. You lost epically.
shareDude. You are the one refusing to talk. Go fuck yourself.
shareHa no. I asked you to move onto discussing your proof of whites unhappiness and you didn't do it. You lost go fuck yourself.
shareAre you sure you aren't more interested in whether being provocative is the same as being antagonistic?
Cause you whined like a fag about that for weeks.
Do you know the definition of provocative? Tending or serving to provoke, inciting, stimulating, irritating, or vexing.
Antagonistic definition showing or feeling active opposition or hostility toward someone or something.
I'd say he fit both of those.
We are past that though. Provide your stats for whites unhappiness.
What stats? What are you even talking about now?
shareWhites unhappiness. I want the metric you used to come to the conclusion that's whites specifically are unhappy. I want how it's measured.
shareI gave you my answer on that weeks ago. Nothing has changed.
Oh, you are just stonewalling because you are a troll. Got it.
Um no you didn't. You dodged it. You provided no data at all for that metric so you unsupported claim is dismissed.
Your denial is concerning. Seek help.
Oh, so MY lived experiences and personal observations aren't good enough?
How strange.
is that a general rule or is there something special about me that makes my input less important than say, others?
Did you seriously just make that statement? No I'm not taking your word and experiences as the general rule or as a fact. Just like how I wouldn't expect you to do that for me. Provide me with a data sheet that isn't anecdotal that supports your claim. It isn't that your input doesn't matter it's that I don't trust anyone's personal observation I need facts to see that. I can say as a white man I've never had issues getting by job I've applied for. I've never experienced oppression personally. Would you take that and say it's a fact because I gave my personal experience and input?
A data sheet of happiness?
Does such a thing even exist?
Ok then what metric are we using to measure this? Your personal experience?
shareMy observations of white people.
Ok and what about mine?
shareWhat of them?
shareHow does yours hold more weight than mine? Why do you think whites are unhappy? I've given my observation I think it's the economy.
sharePerhaps instead of assuming that my position is that my observations hold more weight than your, and then whining like a fag about that,
why don't you share with us, what you have observed that leads you to think that white people as a group are NOT less happy than in the 80s?
We did this before... I think the economy has a gigantic impact on white's unhappiness.
shareThat's not an observation of white people, explaining why you think that they are not unhappy now.
That is you explaining WHY you think that they are unhappy now.
Are you admitting that white people are unhappy now, compared to the 80s?
That's what the topic was about. It's why they are unhappy now compared to the 80s. My answer is the economy was better in the 80s.
shareSo, all that whining like a fag about what metric I was using to measure white happiness,
that was just you being a fag?
Ok, well now that we are past that level of your fagginess,
what observations, because you whined like a fag about that too, what OBSERVATIONS OF WHITE people do you have, that makes you think that their unhappiness is caused by the economy and not say, the massive culture of anti-white discrimination and oppression that we live under?
Nope I was asking what you were using to measure whites unhappiness. I didn't think you were arrogant enough to think your observations nor experiences held that much weight. You only offer your observations or personal experiences which are worthless to me. Notice I don't use my personal experiences which is why I pointed to the economy. The economy being better in the 80s isn't a personal experience or observation, it's an objective fact.
I answered this already. The economy was better in the 80s. End of story. Asked and answered. I don't believe we live under white oppression. In my experiences or observations I've never faced discrimination for being white. So since you can use your experiences abd observations, I can use mine.
1. You have agreed with me on the observed decrease in happiness. So all that whining like a fag, was just yuo being a fag.
2. That is not an answer. What have you OBSERVED that leads you to think that the economy is a bigger factor than the massive anti-white racism thoughout our society and culture?
3. It is also worth noting that hte anti-white racism is PART of the reason for the shitty economy.
Yep because of the economy. I asked for the metric you used. You see white oppression and I disagree. I see bad economy.
In my personal experiences and observations I've experienced no white racism or oppression. Since you use your observations and experiences I get to use mine. I have a great job and have never been oppressed or discriminated against for being white. So the only thing left to point to is the economy
No I believe the drug war damages the economy. I disagree wholeheartedly.
1. Note when you say unhappiness because of the economy, don't ask "what metric" because I agree with the unhappiness. It is clear to see to anyone that has been paying attention and only a fag would challenge on something that is plain to see.
2. you might have just missed it, because the anti-white discrimination and oppression is nigh universal. Our stated national consensus is to discriminate in favor of non-whites while not discriminating against whites. This is retarded nonsense of course. It is a mathamatical impossibliity.
3. The drug war? Yes, fighting drugs likely does have an ECONOMIC cost. ON the other hand, the inability of our society to address any white concerns is a far greater problem. Note your personal reaction in this video. It is a good microsm of the culture as a whole, when confronted by a white man voicing a complaint. IE, complete faggot hysteria.
No bullshit. You just don't like being challenged. My point stands the economy is the main reason.
I've never experienced it..so I'm going to go with my observation and experience like you.
Nope the drug war I guarantee you has far more impact then what you are claiming. Your bullshit is dismissed. We can compare numbers if you would like. I promise I will win.
1.My point was I didn;t challenge you because if would have been retarded to do so.
2. But, like I said, you missing it, doesn't contradict my observations. It just doesn't SUPPORT them, it doesn't contradict them...
it is strange that I need to explain that to you. Are you retarded?
3. And note how you ignore my point to whine like a fag. Another demonstration of how this issue is prevents any real discussion of real problems, let alone solutions.
I ignored nothing. The point stands we measure a leader off of everything not just policies.
No I don't believe you do.
Answer my question please.
1. You ignored everything.
2. Moron. My constant point is the bi-partisan consensus and how it has FAILED. That you can't do the math on "BI" is you being a retard, not me.
3. I did. My opposition is not a matter of principle against the concept of compensation, but that this programe of compensation has failed miserably. Your desire to take the discussion to a...higher more abstract level, so you can try to avoid dealing with my point, is denied.
I ignored nothing.
Lol. Then why do you constantly mention the left when talking about being against whites interests?
Nope you didn't answer it. It's trying to pin you down. You know it defeats your long. Your bullshit is noted since you won't answer the question fuckwit.
1. You ignored everything.
2. Because the left is far harder in their support of blatant and overt anti-white racism, while the right is more still mired in the nonsense of discriminating in favor of while not discriminating against.
3. My positon is that THIS policy of compensation has failed. It is not a position against hte very principle of compensation. This is not me evading your question, but a matter of your vector of attack being badly aimed. DEAL WITH IT AND ADJUST YOUR ATTACK.
Nope I didn't.
Again I'm calling bullshit on that as well. I think you want things to favor whites is that I think. I will flip it I think the right tends to be more racist against minorities. Deal with that.
But... You said that compensating equals favoring. It's possible to compensate without favoring you realize that right?
2. I am calling for an end to anti-white racism. You are supporting anti-white racism. Your assumption that I want PRO-white racism is unsupported by anything other than you being a prick.
3. The "compensation" we are talking about is a massive spread of policies adn practices that give limited resources such as jobs or promotions or government funding to non-white people. That IS "favoring". You can use all the slightly different words you want. The reality is that you are supporting anti-white oppression.
It's not an assumption. You want to make it where artists can't cast who they want to. Artists are free to make Aerial a different race if they please. Nothing states that character has to be white. Only in your head. I don't support anti-white racism that's you not being able to handle me disagreeing with you. You don't own these characters they are fictional get over it.
Nope remember you said it started in the 60s. That's when the Jim Crow laws started. Which means any form of compensation even by those wronged you viewed as favoring. That right there undermines you completely. If you just said currently you would have better footing to stand on. You are against compensation of any kind even by those wronged. So no.
2. It is telling that you AGAIN make no distinction between legitimate role traits and simple racist hiring discrimination. So, your supporting argument for your claim that I want pro-white racism, is based on you playing retard. That's you lying.
When i point out that the currect policies of "compensation" that you support are anti-white racism and oppression, i am NOT lying. Nor am I playing retard to misunderstand something you said.
3. It is not my viewing it, that makes it "Favoring", it is the fact that it is "favoring" one group at the expense of another.
You give one group more of a limited resource, such as jobs or money, than you give to another, you are giving more to one group than to another as the cost of the other group.
This is not a matter of opinion. This is the reality of the situation.
Your denial of this is you denying reallty on a very fundemental level.
YOu are being insane.
A casting director is allowed to discriminate in order to find the right person for the role. They have in mind the traits and attributes they want for a role. It's no different than when they might want a white person for a role. Is that inherently discrimination because they want specific traits for a role? Is Aerial required to be white?
Compensating someone who was wronged isn't favoring. Period! See my prisoner example.
1 Your defense of anti-white racism in hiring is at this point, solely based on you pretending to be too retarded to undestand the difference between valid requirements for a role and just deciding to not hire whites because they are white.
2. Favoring someone for something is favoring them. That you think it is justified does not mean it is not happening.
You support it, but you are afraid that you cannot make the case for the cost, so you lie adn claim it is not happening, and your mechanism for doing this, is to try to gin up confusing over word choice, ie "Favoring" or "compensation" instead of more accurate terms like RACIAL DISCRIMINATION or RACIST QUOTAS.
No. You think you own these characters. If they are fictional are they not free to cast who they want? Some forms if discrimination take place for any role that's cast. Do you allow 70 year old women to audition for Aerial? If you don't allow them isn't that age discrimination?
Compensation is not favoring that's bullshit! So if my family was killed and I got locked up wrongfully in prison for 20 years and they tried to compensate me is that me being favored?
The issue with you I have is you think compensating those that were wronged is favoring. I disagree with that.
1. And again, you pretend to be too stupid to understand teh difference between a valid need of the role and simply deciding to discriminate against white people.
2. When you purposefully decide to give more jobs to non-whites, because diversity, you are "favoring" them at the cost of whites.
Your denial is you pretending to be retarded.
No I'm totally understanding it. So let's take Superman. He's a fictional character correct? Ok so you say I want a white guy with ideally dark hair, blue eyes who is tall and lean in later 20s or early 30s. Are you discriminating against Black people by doing that? The answer is yes it is discrimination against anyone who didn't fit that criteria. The casting director is looking for a specific criteria when they cast for the part. If they want a black person for their vision it's no different from someone wanting a white guy for Superman. Aerials race isn't essential. Some characters are but hers is not. You act like they race swapped Gandhi a real life figure.
Refer to my prison point please. Don't ignore my question or point I am sick of that shit! So is the guy who got compensated for being wronged favored yes or no?
Your evasion shows what a piece of shit you are.
1. Superman is an established character with an established fanbase. The character is white.
Yes, decideing to pick an actor from a pool of white actors is discrimiantion. It is valid discrimination done based on the needs of the role.
Deciding to cast a black guy, just to have more black people in the film, and thus picking the black actor from a pool of black actors, would be discrimination. Discrimination NOT done based on the needs of the role, but simply for the express purpose of racist oppression.
This is a simple concept. That bit where you pretend to not get it, is you pretending to be a retard.
2. No, YOUR denial that the way it is being done is FAVORING non-white and discriminating against whites, is showing that YOU are a piece of shit. A RACIST piece of shit.
you clearly know that it is racist discrimination. You just think that it is justified because of past... whine like a fag shit.
Be a man, if you can. HOnestly state your position and MAKE THE CASE FOR IT BEING WORTH THE COST.
Fag.
It doesn't matter if it's an established character or fan base. The artist is free to portray the character any way they deem fit. Characters in comics go through many different interpretations throughout history. I can cite you a long list of comic book characters who have changed drastically in comics through history even though they are established. Nick Fury used to be white in comics is he now? Was that racist them casting Samuel l Jackson as Nick Fury?
Same goes for white people. However someone is free to portray Aerial any way they choose. That characters race isn't essential get over it. You don't own her the artist does.
Nope answer the question. I'm not moving forward until you do.
1. And if they do it for reasons of the role, and the creative vision, that is legitimate.
If the do it just for "diversity" then that is racist discrimination and NOT legitimate.
That you pretend to be too retarded to understand this, is you being a fag.
2. There is nothing to move forward on.
YOu are stonewalling in pretending that favoring non-whites is not favoring non-whites. You are absurd. And a fag.
Good so you concede they can change it. Ok so how is the Nick Fury casting different from Aerial? Do you have proof that the actress who played Aerial was cast due to political reasons? How do I know that Samuel l Jackson as Nick Fury wasn't a political hire?
Not moving forward as I said bitch.
1. Concede? My posiiton has been unchanged for months. YOu are retarded.
2. YOu are stonewalling in pretending that favoring non-whites is not favoring non-whites. You are absurd.
Hope you don't mind me cutting in, but the difference between Aerial and Nick Fury is that when you are casting Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury you're not casting him because he's black, you're casting him because he's Samuel L. Jackson. You're casting him despite him being black. The decision is based on him being a star and not his color. Aerial on the other hand has no business being black. The only reason why you would cast an unknown black girl to play her is because of D.E.I. Because you want to make some kind of equity statement. It's cringe. And it's another example of White erasure through blackwashing. A phenomenon that is rampant in the entertainment industry. There are literally memes on Twitter about this. Here is the most recent one I seen just yesterday:
https://x.com/iamyesyouareno/status/1811302887659651504
It's not retarded to challenge you on a claim. I asked you what metric you used to measure whites unhappiness. You can ask me what metric I used and I can point to the economic data. I have much firmer grounds to stand on. It's not reliant on my personal opinion or observations it's based on facts. Yours is based on experiences or observations not facts.
Same goes to you with mine. I did not see it or experience it therefore I don't need to believe your observations.
Not ignoring your point. Let's compare the numbers.
1. In this context, economic data would not make sense as a metric to measure happiness. Do you not undertand this?
2. Well, there is actual academic studies tracking the scale of the anti-white discrimination. I'm sure you seen it cited before. So, my observations of anti-white discrimination are bolstered by hard data.
3. What numbers are you even talking about?
Why wouldn't it be? Typically people tend to be happier in a better economy.
And when I asked for this and you didn't provide it. Also I have hard line data which you have openly disagreed with it or flat out denied.
The drug war impact vs any white discrimination. Let's compare the numbers on what damages the economy worse and compare them. Ready?
1. YOu really don't grasp a difference between measuring unhappiness and measuring what you claim is the reason for the unhappiness?
OK. Well,... I can't think of how to explain that to you. Try thinking about it for a while and see if that helps.
2. But, you are already aware of it, right? Your asking for it is just you stalling and playing stupid games, right?
3. My concern about the cost of the anti-white discrimiantion is not a concern about ECONOMIC cost, but human cost in lost opportunities and families and HAPPINESS. i honesty don't give a damn even IF it has an economic cost, it is a massive violation of human rights and a terrible oppression inflicted on my people.
Are you serious that you didn't understand this? Because that is like....retarded of you.
It's rather simple actually. You yourself admitted the economy was better back then. You then claim whites today are not as happy as they were back then. So what's a big factor in happiness? The economy. You bypass that and just scream white oppression. You want to seriously swing that the economy has nothing to do with it? Sorry that's not getting by me. I think that's the entire reason.
Nope. Remember I said in my personal observations and experiences I've never seen or experienced white oppression. So no.
So you concede the drug war has a higher economic cost then? I will let you in on a secret if you don't concede. It absolutely has a higher economic cost. Also .. The drug war destroys families causes unhappiness and actually caused unhappiness for everybody! So looks like I just whooped your ass here. The drug war is worse on all counts. Take that and shove it up your ass.
1. You say "admission" as though it is you winning something. In reality my argument is not the economy is not a factor but that anti-white racism is a bigger factor. Especially as it is greatly to blame for the negative economy. The way you take things I say and then interprete then and just assume your interpretations are correct, AND THEN BUILD FUTHER ON THAT, is you being... a dick. Seriously.
2. You not seeing it doesn't mean it wasn't happening. I've made that point to you and you have ignored that.
3. Wow. NOthing I said in any ways referred to the economic cost of the drug war at all. NOTHING. For you try to spin it that way is you being retarded.
I am sorry I don't see it. I couldn't fathom how even if the white oppression did exist it being a bigger problem than the economy.
You claiming it exists does not mean it exists.
No I pointed out how the drug war tears apart families also. It hinders people getting jobs and that's inhumane. It covers all the basis of what you claim white oppression does and more. Yet you don't give a shit. You actively support it. It's hypocritical and ignorant.
1. Money is important. But so is your society being completely hostile to you. Also, anti-white racism has for 50 years prevented any discussion let alone fixing of white people problems. So, anti-white racism is part of the cause of the economic problems.
2. First of all, before I address that, are you admitting that your lack of seeing it does not contridict MY seeing it?
This bit, where you drop a point you are losing on and must move to another, without commenting on the point you lost on, is you being a complete asshole. Also, cowardly.
3. SOrry, I didn't get how what you just posted referred to what we were just discussing. It seems you just threw some shit against a wall. My point was that anti-white discrimiantion causes unhappiness for whites. Would you like to address my point?
So you are saying white racism started in the 80s? I don't believe society has been hostile to whites like you are claiming. I'm standing by it being the economy which causes the harm. It's interesting so has society been hostile towards gay people? What I find interesting is you claim hostility has towards a group has damaged the economy. It seems though you only want to factor that in one way. Now I'm staying on white's so don't pull the bullshit of me saying whites can't voice their opinion. So to be clear you are saying white racism started in the 80s is that your position?
Nope me not seeing contradicts you seeing it. You pulled that bullshit on me so that applies to you also. It's why I asked for proof of your claim and you wouldn't provide it. Provide proof. If other people claim they have experienced oppression or racism you would write it off and say well I didn't observe see it or experience it so meh. That's what you do..
I did address your point. Any white discrimination would cause that but I don't think it exists like you claim. You actively supporting the drug war those exposes hypocrisy if you care so much about hindering people's happiness and well being like you are trying to claim though.
1. No, I said nothing about when anti-white racism started. NOthing in your post made any sense in the context of this discussion.
2. No, it doesn't. i am seeing a cat right now. Do you see the cat? If you don't, that means nothing about my seeing the cat. That you don't get this is you stonewalling like a troll boi.
4. It clearly exists the way that I claim it exists. YOur denial is silly.
You said white anti-white racism for 50 years has prevented any discussion. That tracks back to the 80s. How did that not make sense in the context of the discussion?
So then who's observation and experiences holds more weight? See my point was this is why I don't like going off of personal opinions or experiences. I like going off of facts. That way it's objective, it doesn't boil down to any personal vested interest or bias.
No I don't think it does. I'm sorry.
1. ANTI-WHITE RACISM, not white racism.
2. I refuse to believe you are this retarded. Please stop the shit.
3. Your stonewalling is noted. It is absurd. You look like a complete fool. Also, you are thus suporting the anti-white racism.
That's what I meant. Come on dude. You said anti-white racism has prevented any discussion for 50 years. I said so it started back in the 80s? You then said that made no sense in the context of the discussion. How is that. So did anti-white racism start in the 80s then?
Prove your claim or I don't have to believe it.
Nope I just don't believe what you are claiming white oppression to be. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they hate a specific race. I've allowed you that liberty I deserve it also. I don't buy that you care about orioles happiness by the way. I think that's bullshit from you.
1. Since the 80s, any attempt to discussion white interests or complaints have been met with a chorus of brain damaged people crying racism.
2. Since the mid 60s the policy and law and culture has been to discrimination in favor of blacks and other minorities to make up for past discrimination. Are you really claiming to be unaware of this?
3. You are talking nonsense in defense of anti-white racism. That makes it reasonable to accuse you of anti-white racism.
Not what you originally said. You said originally that anti-white racism has prevented any discussion for 59 years. We are not talking about the discussion of whites interests we are talking about anti-white discrimination. I want to be clear here. Are you saying anti-white racism began in the 80s?
I don't believe that to be true either. The Jim Crow laws changed in the 60s. You had to have some type of compensation for those who were affected by the oast injustices. I wouldn't call that favoring those people affected by that stuff. It's like if someone gets ket out of prison for a wrongful crime and they served 10 years for nothing. Then you let them out and they get some sort of settlement. Is that favoring them considering they had to suffer from things that were not fault of their own?
No I just don't believe giving compensation for past injustices to those affected by that immediately translates into anti-white racism.
1. I am not interested in any fucktard nitpicking of semantics. My point stands. Since the 80s, any attempt to discussion white interests or complaints have been met with a chorus of brain damaged people crying racism.
2. Standard lefty insanity. YOu deny the anti-white discrmination and then you justify it. In reality, as I said, since the mid 60s, it has been policy and law and culture to discriminate in favor of minorities.
3. You are supporting anti-white discrimiation. Your pretense that anti-white discrimination is not anti-white racism is... you being delusional.
It isn't semantics you fucking idiot! So did anti-white racism start in the 80s then? Interesting wasn't Regan the president through most of the 80s? Didn't he have whites best interest at heart?
Nope. Compensation for wrongdoings done to them is not favoring them, the point stands. I find it funny you ignored my prison example. You did that because you know it debunked your bullshit.
My point stands aboot compensation.
1. You are whining like a fag about my exact wording and ignoring the point. Standard lefty shit when you call them out of their clear racism.
2. YOu are discriminating in favor of them. That is what you are doing. That you support it, and want to use weasel words is just you being you.
3. We have, as you are arguming in favor of, a clear regime of anti-white discrimiation and oppression and whites are not only supported to support it, they aren't even allowed to discuss it honestly without risking being figuratively lynched.
As you can imagine, that has a large negative impact on HAPPINESS.
Answer the question. I want to be clear did anti-white racism start in the 80s? Is that your position?
Nope compensation is not favoring someone that's bullshit from you.
You openly are saying that compensation is discrimination in favor of. That's how far your head is up your ass.
1. YOur whining about wording and semantics is you being a fag.
2. The "compensation" you are refering to, is FAVORING them in jobs and promotions and ect.
3. Dude. You cannot "favor" a person for a job, based on race, without DISCRIMINIATING AGAINST other people based on race. USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN.
I was trying to be clear on your position so I can respond to it asshole.
Not what I'm talking about and you know it. You said since the 60s which means you object to those receiving compensation and view that as them being favored.
So compensation for a prisoner wrongfully imprisoned is favoring them?
1. BULLSHIT. You are nitpicking so you can AVOID responding.
2. It is not that I "view" them as being favored. It is the law of the land to do so. Your denial is utterly retarded.
3. And now we are back to you justifying the discrimination or "favoring" that you are denying is happening.
I love it when leftards do this. The malfunction of their brains is never clearer to see than in times like this.
Nope I'm asking you to be clear on your position. Anyways you aren't going to answer so let's address it as if that's what you are saying. So did Regan not have white people's best interest at heart? He was the president for most of the 80s.
You said since the 60s it has been in favor of them. Which means even compensation you view as favoring.
Nope you just can't answer the question. So no compensation should have occurred got it.
1, No, Reagan did NOT have "white people's" best interests at heart. Reagan supported the bi-partisan consensus in favor of Affirmative Action.
2.Since the 60s, the primary mechanism for "making up for past injustices" has been Affirmative Action and it's various related activities.
3.The attempt to heal hte nation though this "Compensation" or "favoring" as you put it, has clearly failed. Instead of healing it has generated more racial conflict and strife.
So then why are you always gloating about how great of a president he was then?
So no compensation should have occurred then. That's a bit concerning yikes.
1. Other reasons that you would probably disagree with, so your request to derail the thread is denied.
2. We could quibble over whether or not there was a moral or practice case to be made for some type of "compensation" at the time of the giving up of actual policies and culture of anti-black racism. BUT, at this point in time, we can see that the results of the "compensation" has NOT been what was promised. It was supposed to heal or fix the problem and then we as a society were supposed to evolve into a harmonious multicultural society and live happily ever after. Instead we have seen the creation of a permanent systme of anti-white racism and oppression.
Got it so when you say Obama wasn't for white people and was against them it's interesting how you conveniently leave that out about Reagan. Your double standards make it hard to take you seriously. Anyways I'm glad to know you think anti white racism started in the 80s.
No you lost me when debating over compensation. You don't want it at all which tells me you are fine with someone being screwed over so long as it isn't your group. The conversation goes no further than that. You didn't want any compensation for Emmit Tills mother which is quite disgusting. I guarantee you would want compensation if you were in her shoes.
1. I don't think I have ever said that "obama wasn't for white people". My points tend to be about policy and issues. I AM a partisan republican, but in this, and many other issues, I am happy to admit the failiing of the Republican Party and/or individual republicans. So.... whatever.
2. No, what? Are you disagreeing that that there was decades of bi-partisan support for this "compensation"? Are you disagreeing with my view on what it was supposed to do? Are you disagreeing with my conclusion of how it has failed to do that?
Oh you have constantly talked about the democrats being against whites. Yet your own golden boy by your logic also was against whites. I just find it funny how you didn't mention this.
I am disagreeing with you thinking there should not have been any compensation.
1. I do talk about that yes...but I have also just as much, no MORE discussed the bi-partisan consensus on the issue. If you never made the connection, that is you not using your brain.
TO BE CLEAR, this country has had a BI-PARTISAN CONSENSUS on equality for black people since the mid60s. The way this was implemented was to set up policies and practices to discriminate in favor of blacks without discriminating against whites.
This was of course, an impossiblity.
Also, this movement, or concept has, imo, completely failed to deliever the results it was supposed to and we should end it immediately.
The GOP AND TRUMP are NOT there yet. THey are slowing coming down that path, but they are not there yet.
2. So, you agree on what the situation of anti-white racism and oppression has been, and what it was supposed to do, but you just disagree that it was bad.
Got it.
Nope you only mention liberals and leftists being against whites. I've never heard you state republicans are also against whites. You just now admitted Reagan was also against whites. See this is what's funny if I dare say a president was against blacks or even had disdain for blacks you would lose your marbles. I could even pull their own words to prove it but I know you would dismiss it.
Your twisting of my words is dismissed. Respond again with what I actually said. My point stands about compensation. Should Emmit Tills mom have been compensated yes or no?
1. If you stated that the president was against blacks I would cite the programs that he has in favor of blacks to show that your claim was false.
I have repeatedly stated that every administration since the concensus has supported the "civil rights movement".
My partisanship might make me more likely to attack dems on this issue than my own side, but I am happy to admit the failings of my own side on this issue, ANd several other issues.
2. What you said, ignored nearly everything about my point, you are DODGING my point and trying to bog the discussion down with faggot whining about blacks. Again, in a thread about white happiness all you want to do is whine like a fag about blacks.
Not everything is about blacks. Whites get to talk too.
Someone can support certain policies and still be against a specific race. So that's also bullshit from you.
You shouldn't attack one side more than another when your side is just as guilty on the particular issue you are talking about. That is you being a biased ass clown.
Nope it's me talking about compensation. Had a white person been wronged and it was flipped I would want compensation done for them as well. Oh and fyi blacks get to speak also not just whites. You want to be taken seriously? Quit mentioning how in the 60s anti white racism started. It makes it appear like you think things are better before the Jim Crow laws were in place.
1. If someone is supporting poicies that "favor" a certain race but is somehow... "Against" them... but his policies "favor" them...
in that case I thinnk that he is defined by his policies and actions.
2. I didn't say I though they were the SAME on the issue. Republicans support the concept out of various bad reasons. Dems seem to support it out of deep racist hate for me and mine. AND republcians are more open to being against the more extreme anti-white discrimiation and I think are on the path to realizing just what a bad idea it always was.
3. This thread is about whitee happiness and ALL you have wanted to do is attack the messengers and whine like a fag about blacks. WHITES GET TO TALK TOO.
We define people by many things, not just policies.
Still you fail to mention their support of it. You are loud about democrats supporting it. That's biased bullshit. I think republicans are hostile towards other groups that you say nothing about.
Nope. Get better rhetoric than that bullshit. The point stands compensation is not favoring. Those wronged by the past such as Tills mom deserved compensation. If someone doesn't think so they are a piece of shit.
1. Actions should have quite a bit of weight compared to... what? Feelings? Silent annoyances?
2. I mention it all the time. If you failed to draw the obvious meaning of what I meant by BI-PARTISAN, that was you being retarded.
3. This is a thread about WHITE peopel and once again, all you want to do is whine like a fag about BLACK issues. And you are too stupid or willifully blind to realize that you are demonstrating complete hostility to the right of whites to even VOICE their complaints.
Wow, you all are still going strong! I've been enjoying your discussion so far. This is exactly why I made my original post provocative—to spark conversations like this. These ideas need to be aired, but they're often suppressed out of fear of being labeled as racist. I hope that by sharing my thoughts, I've contributed to opening the door for meaningful discussions like the one you're having now.
shareWell, like you said, it an issue that needs discussed but almost never is, becuase of the use of the race card.
Grift has demonstrated the problem constantly.
CONSTANTLY having to be dragged to discussing anything for or abotu white people and constantly trying to turn the discussion to the needs and interests of black people.
Never said they don't hold weight but they are not the only thing we measure a person by. You want to make it the only thing we look at.
No you don't. That's a lie. It's always democrats or liberals you refer to when talking anti white racism.
I am addressing it. You think by giving compensation to another race that automatically is against white people. I call bullshit on that. Compensation in the 60s does not mean it hindered them in the 60s. S prisoner wrongfully imprisoned should be compensated. That's not favoring.
1. The formal policies enacted with the force of government and law behind them, is a lot more important defining a Presdient than.... what? Your imaginings about his secret deep feelings.
2. That you were too stupid to notice is not my fault.
3. Your position is that you are talking about white issues by asserting that discriinating against them is ok. That you think of THAT as letting whtie people talk about their problems shows how deep seated and vicious your anti-white racism is.
I didn't challenge that. I said we judge them by other things as well.
Yeah right. Everytime you mention anti white racism it's always a jab at the left.
So ok let me ask this. It's impossible to not favor somebody if you give someone who was wronged compensation? Is that your stance?
1. Thus, every President since the mid 60s has NOT had white people's interests' at heart.
3. That you were too stupid to notice is not my problem.
4. My position is that the massive programe of anti-white discrmination that we have had, has A. failed to achieve it goals and B. has bady hurt white people as a whole for generations.
Then don't be praising Reagan anymore. Bring that up when people praise him.
No you didn't do it. That's a lie but keep lying it's that you do.
Not my question. Is it possible to compensate someone wronged without favoring them?
1. And the lefty ignores the point. Typical.
2. Yes, I do. It is not my fault that you were too stupid to notice.
3. My opposition to the policy is not one of principle but simply one of noting that the policy has failed completely. And caused terrible harm to white people and the nation as a whole.
Wow, you all are still going strong! I've been enjoying your discussion so far. This is exactly why I made my original post provocative—to spark conversations like this. These ideas need to be aired, but they're often suppressed out of fear of being labeled as racist. I hope that by sharing my thoughts, I've contributed to opening the door for meaningful discussions like the one you're having now.
shareNo you originally stated that Superman was an established character and is therefore white. It was you implying he can only ever be portrayed that way. You had to walk that back. So was Nick Fury casting a political hire?
shareI stated that superman was an established character and was white.
That does not imply that he can only ever be portrayed that way.
That "implies" and I also expressly stated this many times for you, that any change should be done for a CREATIVE REASON, in order to be legitimate or justified.
If the only reason for the change is a desire to have more "representation" then that reason to "favor" non-whites at the expense of whites. Your refusal to admit this is you being willfully blind because it is the only way that you can defend your clear and obvious racism.
Nick Fury, I suspect, was a different matter. In our current culture, I think that the idea of a loud and overly assertive person like Nick Fury has generally been portrayed, is... not allowed for white people.
IMO, our culture, especially in liberal strongholds like hollywood, white people are more expected to be... quieter, more deferential.
I think that the racist white liberals doing the casting, looked at that character and the idea of a white guy that loud and confident, just seems, "racist" to them, no white person, especialy no WHITE MAN, should act like that in public.
So, it was just "not right" in their feelings, to cast a white guy in that role.
That is my guess.
I sincerely doubt you would be accepting if a different portrayal of Superman was done. You generalize and state it's not done for a creative reason. It's your job to prove that it's true. You don't get to use generalizations as your truth. By this logic we can call into question the Nick Fury casting as well. Since according to you this country as a whole has been racist against whites since the 60s. So by this logic that calls into question anything that's a different portrayal than white.
Then you have to prove that. You just admitted you suspect that about Nick Fury casting. Which means you don't know you are guessing. Loud and arrogant commanding leader who is a smart ass? Odd that sounds a lot like Tony Stark, or Starlord to me. Deadpool fits this bill as well. Yeah I think you are reaching here.
1. Bullshit. IN an environment where the nation as a whole and hollywood specifically is constantly celebrating the idea of anti-white discrmination, as stated formal policy and practice,
being generally supcious of such casting decisions is completely reasonable.
2. Why do I have to prove that? You askes me my opinon on it, and I gave it to you. I'm not the one that brought up nick fury, you are.
Nope sorry I'm not taking your assumption as a fact. That means that any casting change that is different from usual should be suspected of it. After all anti-white racism has been going on since the 60s.
Yep you have your opinion and I disagree with you. I said prove Aerial was cast due to anti-white racism not Nick Fury. You made the claim that Aerial was cast due to anti-white racism. I asked you how Nick Fury was different, you think he was cast due to anti-white racism also. Also funny how you ignored Tony Stark, and Starlord both loud leaders who are anything but quiet. Shove that up your ass you fuckwit.
1. Stated formal policies and practices is not an "assumption" of mine.
2. The differnces between Nick Fury and say... Tony Stark are real. It is not unreasonable to see one twinging hollywood's racist feelings and the other passing.
You having a hissy fit on this is just you being a fag.
So then by this logic anything before the 60s in Hollywood can be seen as racist against blacks correct? So the crows in Dumbo are racist against black people right? I am making sure that not just whites are allowed to have a voice in what you claim racism is. I'm making sure that every group is allowed to have this type of outrage. So then is your answer to not compensate those wronged by the Jim Crow laws? Just ok boom we reached equality so tough shit for the folks who were wronged? So it's over and boom we are good?
Not really. Tony Stark and Starlord are both loud leaders who are anything but quiet.
1. There is no connection between my post, and "this logic" that you are playing with. You are simply shit talking.
2. They are not nearly as alpha about it, as Nick Fucking Fury. I don't think the white lefty fags of hollywood felt that worked with a white guy.
Sure there is. You want only whites to be able to be outraged. When I take that logic and apply it elsewhere you don't like it. So can I assume the crows in Dumbo were racist given the time Dumbo was made?
Way to backpedal you dipshit. First you said they were quiet and non vocal now you say they just aren't as much as Nick Fury. That's also bullshit. Tony Stark is a womanizer, a smart ass billionaire who constantly belittles people and talks down to them. Nick Fury doesn't do that he's a far more humble leader. Fuck off you got schooled on this point.
1. I explained my reasoning, and my conclusion. You are making an assertion without any... anything. SO, lay out your "logic" or admit that you are just a shit talker.
2. You refuse to see it, doesn't mean I'm wrong. YOu can go fuck yourself fag.
No I'm going off your logic. So since the 60s this country has favored minorities over whites that's your position. So I can then say before the 60s this country favored whites. So anything which paints minorites in a bad light in older films needs to be banned effective immediately.
Dropped your bullshit on Tony Stark not being so loud alpha male. Shove that up your ass. You were wrong lol.
1. That is not my logic. I cited publicly stated policies and goals of the nation as a whole and the industry and studios more specifically. That is not what you are doing. So, you are talking shit.
2. You asked me about Nick Fury. I told you. So, what of it?
Nope I'm applying the logic you used elsewhere. So looks like certain old movies need to be banned. I can safely assume that sby movie made before the Jim Crow laws was racist against minorities. Funny how you claim they play the race card. You do it even worse than those lefties who cry wolf.
Yep and I dismantled that bullshit quick. The point stands Tony Stark is a loud, womanizing, smartass who talks down to others. Yet you claimed white leaders aren't allowed to be vocal and had to be quiet. Get fucked you prick.
1. I cited formal statements of intent to "favor" non-whites and connected that dot to the dot of a white role being race flipped.
You showed no such work. Try again, retard.
2. How do you imagine the decision to make the race flip went? You cuck fag.
No you didn't actually. You gave your thoughts and opinions on the reason Aerial was changed races. When I asked you to prove it was for political reasons you couldn't do it.
First you need to concede aout being wrong about Tony Stark bring a loud alpha male who is a womanizer. I proved you wrong. I think an artist is allowed to change the portrayal of a character. Until it's proven to me it's political I'm not going to operate off of generalizations or assumptions. Until you can prove it you can fuck off.
1. Do you want a link to some of the formal declarations of intent or policy?
'
2. Dude. YOu didn't prove anything, you just dismissed me like the arrogant asshole you are. A racist stereotype of white males is being QUIET while non-white especialy black males are allowed to be loud.
Tony Start is a dominate male, but he doesn't yell at people in anything the way Nick Fury does.
You are a just a fucking asshole. Go fuck yourself.
I want proof Aerial was cast due to political reasons. Not your generalizations or assumptions proof.
Tony Stark and Starlord don't yell at people? Pretty sure Starlord does and Tony Stark is always putting people down and belittling them. You said he was quiet. Tony Stark is anything but quiet you fucking moron! Just because someone doesn't yell doesn't mean they are quiet. Also you moved the goal post. First you said white males aren't aloud to be alpha or dominant and were quiet. Now you only have Tony not yelling at people. You got schooled get fucked loser.
1. Pointing out that the nation as a whole and hollywood more specifically have stated policies of "favoring" nonwhites, is not a assumption on my part.
2. Not that I recall. Certainly not like Nick Fucking Fury does.
Your denial here is kind of stupid.
Not what I mentioned. I also disagree but that's irrelevant, you mentioned Aerial was cast due to political reasons. That's an assumption. I want proof not an assumption.
Yeah no I recall Starlord yelling at plenty of folks. They are also anything but quiet. You were wrong here fuckwit accept it. Remember you originally said they were non vocal and quiet if they were white. You dropping that bullshit now?
1. I know it's not what you mentioned, it's what you want to pretend isn't real. But it is. As a society we celebrate and legally force anti-white dsicrimination, so you acting like it is so unlikely is you being a complete asshole.
2. I did not say non-vocal. And star lord was not alpha like Nick Fury was. You are playing retard again. Or would that be stiil, because lord knows, you are never NOT
Irrelevant. You made the claim now you prove it. Prove she was cast due to political reasons.
You did say non vocal. Also you said they couldn't be loud and confident. Lol. Both Stark and Starlord are both very loud and confident. Your right Starlord was far more alpha than Nick Fury was. You got fucked up here.
And the crickets proceed to chirp. Proving you wrong was a delight. You are welcome.
shareNo I have challenged your assertions and you can't handle it.
shareThis thread is about white people being unhappy and all you want to do is whine about non-white people.
White people are, or should be, allowed to discuss their issues too.
You are a racist prick.
Not true. I just don't blindly accept any point you try to make. Simply because I disagree with you does it mean i am a racist. Who is playing the race card again?
shareWhite people have a right to discuss their issues.
All you did was attack the messenger and try to change the subject to whine about black people,
Not everything is about black people, you racist prick.
Never said they did not.
Nope we went over this already. The poster of the op admitted he was being provacative and antagonistic which is what I called him out on. He admitted this with his own words. I can link you to it and you will deny it. If I link it to him admitting he was being antagonistic will you shut the fuck up about your words claiming he wasn't antagonizing?
Never said that. You are a bitch.
When you refuse to dsicuss their issues adn just want to whine like a fag about black people, you are showing that you don't think white people have a right to discuss their issues.
You stupid fag.
I didn't refuse to discuss it. We went over that already also. Him and I actually discussed it for real. I can link you to that also. That's where I got him to admit he was antagonizing and not arguing in good faith.
You got educated. I owned you had here.
ALL you did was attack the messenger and whine like a fag about black people.
You prevented any discussion of white people and/or their issues.
You are a racist fag.
Nope again I called him out for being antagonistic. He openly admitted he was being antagonistic. That's not attacking the messenger it's pointing out a fact. He openly admitted it dude. Give up you lost the debate I am sorry bro.
shareIt is attacking the messenger. Because you used that as way to avoid discussing white people or their issues.
Your denial is you being a fag.
Nope it's calling out him being antagonistic. Once he owned up to that we discussed the issue. If I was truly avoiding it like you said even after he admitted to being an antagonistic asshole I wouldn't have discussed it with him. Guess what I did. Wrong again. Admit defeat bud you lost.
shareSkimming through recent posts, it looks like you're dropping fags faster than a communal pack of cigarettes at a smoking bar.
What's with that?
Thanks for asking.
See I try to give people the same level of respect and civility that they show me.
Grift is one of those leftard assholes that think that NOT making a overt insult means that they are being polite, when in reality they are being complete and total assholes.
It takes a lot of work to return the level of respect that such people show.
I am not, naturally the kind of asshole that they are. I have on rare occasions mananged to mirror their behavior, sometimes with hilarious results,
but by and large, I cant really do that.
So, i try to compensate with a lot of vulgarity.
Don't leave out where you tell people to kill themselves as well. Which you won't be doing that again on here trust me. Then you want to dare talk about Christianity or being moral after that bullshit you pulled? Yeah please get a life dude. You lost all credibility once you did that. So someone being rude warrants telling them that? Wow! You are a snowflake.
Also no you don't show civility. The minute someone asks you for proof you immediately call them fag troll bois. Don't lie to the public now, be honest.
Go to the beach
shareThe only difference now is you cant lynch the negroes or segregate them or otherwise discriminate.
Also its no longer ok to beat up gay people, or slap women around.
If thats ruined the fun for you you'll get little sympathy
Mmmm, the heyday of lynching was in the late 1800s. By the 50s, it was down to one or two a YEAR.
This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 60s. The young people you saw in the video all grew up, in a culture where anti-black racism was just as taboo as it is today.
So, if something "ruined the fun for us", it's not that.
Want to try again, this time with less being a divisive, race baiting asshole?
I was only repsonding in kind to whatever the racebaiting asshole in the op was blathering about re "white guilt"
So, the answer to complaining about white guilt is to lie about the white people of the 80s?
That doesn't make sense.
What don't you like about hearing someone complain about white guilt?
first off I do not think any white people should feel guilty about slavery , or the treatment of black up until as recently as the sixties
But when people say "white guilt" they are referring to acts of equality they dont like.
"Oh you let black people on the bus now? - you've got White guilt!"
on a slightly different tack , what do think the point of the OP is?
What is he saying about the apparently happy care free 80s?
"Acts of equality"? Can you give a serious example?
I have to say that that has never been my observation of the use of the term.
So the starter of this thread isn't race baiting? You realize the starter of this thread only wants whites to be in America right? Remember we can't call that racist or rise we are playing the race card though. Rules for thee not for me.
shareCommenting on his perception that white people of the 80s were happier than white people today, I don't see how that is inherently divisive.
How do you imagine that it inflames racial tensions or divides people?
Walk me though your logic, that you think it is.
Lol remember when it was fun to be white? I'm sure his intent is totally genuine and sincere. Considering his history about only wanting whites in America I sincerely doubt his intentions in posting that were genuine.
Had this been a black person who had a history of that you wouldn't look past that. I am judging him based on his history. Notice how you haven't said one word to him about only wanting whites in America? You don't care so long as whites are the ones being racist.
So, when I ask you to explain how his post is race baiting, which is what you claimed,
All, you have is what you assume about his intentions based on your perceptions of his history...
You have NOTHING about his actual point, to support your counter claim.
Let me ask you something from a different angle. Do you agree with him that white people in the 80s where happier than white people today?
It's not an assumption or perception he literally said that's what he wanted. https://moviechat.org/tt12262202/The-Acolyte/6663c441f32efe7c97568ec9/26-audience-score-on-Rotten-Tomatoes?reply=666c80a37040b539935faba4
That is proof he openly said that. Watch you will turn apologetic and attempt to downplay him saying that.
Go ahead deny his own words. I just provided proof of him saying that. Let's see how you handle this. Your response and how you take this will show if you are genuine like you claim. Am I allowed to call what he said racist? Or is that me just playing the race card?
Why are you so committed to avoiding discussing the topic? What an asshole you are.
shareHow am I avoiding the discussion? I told you I didn't believe him posting that in the op was genuine. I told you I think he is race baiting. You said all I have is assumptions and or perception. I then provide solid proof of him wanting all blacks and other races deported from the country and that he only wants whites in America. You then say I'm avoiding the topic? Get the fuck out of here! If this was a Democrat or liberal doing this you wouldn't give any credibility to their words. You know I proved you wrong which is why you can't dispute the fact that he is in fact racist. No race card here that guy is a racist scumbag.
shareIF, your world, the world you have created for yourself, is such that a racist posting a racist post, is making a TRUE STATEMENT that you dislike but cannot even try to refute,
That is YOU putting yourself in an odd place.
I asked you already if you agree with him, that the white people of the 80s were happier than the white people of today.
You didn't answer me.
He has raised an issue and made a point about it. Attacking HIM, as the messenger is irrelevant to the point he made.
If his point is true, then it is true, no matter who or what he is.
I think white people of the 50's were happier than white people of today. The economy has a lot to do with the state of happiness. So um yeah can I state that they were happier in the 80s sure but they were happier in the 50s also.
I never said what he said was untrue. I said I don't think he is saying that for s genuine reason. Two things can be true at once.
So, why the hysteria if you agree with him?
Teh economy? YOu are upset because the economy in the 50s/80s were better than today?
That doesn't make a lot of sense GRift.
Why all the push back on somethiing you agree with the racist on?
Because as I said he is doing it for a shit reason. You do the same for people on the left that are pretending to talk about things when it's not genuine.
I'm not upset about the economy. I'm upset at him for pretending to be genuine. You are gaslighting dumbass..
Of course you are not upset about the economy. That is why your previous reasoning was bullshit.
Something about his point bothers you, but you are afraid to say it.
I think that you agree with the racist, both on the whites then being happier, and AS TO THE REASON they are less happy today.
The only difference is that the racist is willing to be honest about the reason and to be honest about his position and his reason for opposing that cause,
while you are not willing to be honest.
Because you are fine with the white today being unhappy. You are happy to support policies that you know are harmful to them, but you are not willing to be honest about that, and defend your positions seriously and honestly.
What previous reasoning? That I said he said it for not genuine reasons? Yeah nope my point on that is still consistent.
The point doesn't bother me, the reason he is posting about it bothers me. He is doing it with ulterior motives. You know it and I know it.
Nope bullshit. I don't support don't policy which is harmful to anyone. That's rich coming from a guy who supports the drug war. Comical irony alert!
What is the reason that you and the racist agree on?
Come on. It's not the economy. That would not explain your level of ire.
How am I supposed to know that? I don't have the ability to read minds. However I am not dumb. He is not stating that point for a genuine reason. There is some sort of ulterior motive behind him doing that.
I am angry because morons like you are too stupid to see through it. If a liberal stated something like this with some sort of agenda you wouldn't hesitate to call them on it. With this clown you say nothing.
Which goes back to rules for thee not for me.
1. Because he is pointing to a real issue. Since the issue is a real issue, you can both look at the issue and see and understand it. No mindreading, simply seeing gthe same issue and agreeing on what it is. He, like you, know the reason for the unhappiness. He is being coy because he wants to start a conversation on the issue and he knows that it will lead people to the reason. YOU agree with him on that too. Which is why you are engaging in "attacking the messenger". To STOP people from having a discussion on the issue.
2. I would be fine with a liberal starting such a discussion. Hell, I would WELCOME it, a liberal being coy trying to start a serious discussion of a real issue. Vastly superiour to the shit talk most libs do.
No wrong I don't know if I agree with him on the issue. I believe he has a hidden agenda for posting that. Also no he believes whites are the superior race. He thinks if whites having dominion over other races makes them happier then it should be applied. So um yeah no we don't agree on the reason.
Bullshit. Fuck off with your lies you deceitful piece of shit.
1. So, stop being coy. Clearly state what you think his "hidden agenda" is and how it relates to the decline in white people happiness.
2. There is nothing about anything I have ever said or done on this site, that would support your assumption that I would have a problem with a lib trying to start a conversation on an issue. That you think so, is.... merely a manifestation of how you DON'T THINK, at all.
Lol I'm good. I don't give two shits to share with you what it is. You don't care about my reason. Just like how you didn't care about me proving he was a racist piece of shit. I proved he was racist and you dismissed it. I see how you handle proof. That was a test and you failed it. Concede that I proved he was racist and then we can proceed.
Yeah nope. You had no intent on discussing the drug war when I brought that issue up. You clam up and dismiss any discussion regarding that. Then you get mad when people don't support something that targets a specific group yet are fine with the drug war. The drug war targets poor folks more so than it does rich people and you are perfectly ok with that. So I don't care to hear your bullshit on playing victim about your group being targeted when you don't give a shit about others.
1. His racism, is your attacking the messeger. You attacked the messenger becasue you are afraid of his message.
2. Your inability to think past your own assertions is incredible. I don't know if you are seriously that...fucked in the head or if it is part of your gaslighting. Either way, i have though of a way to test it. Would you like to? If you say yes, I will PM you my idea.
Nope I just don't buy his reasons for bringing up the message. His reasons have an agenda behind them. They aren't genuine.
I would like to discuss the drug war. I want you to honestly debate me. Not run away from facts and answer questions honestly.
1. His reasons? I don't recall him mentioning his reasons. Of course his reasons have an agenda behind them.
2 What a dumbass you are. I will pm you as I said. You dumbass.
He doesn't have to mention his reason to draw up it's for some sort of agenda. I believe the agenda has malice behind it. I have good grounds to think that considering his proven racism.
You are a dipshit.
Except, he believes that a discussion of the issue, will lead people to find and agree with HIS view of the problem and his solution.
That implies, very strongly that he believes that his views and his solutions are the best ones for the people reading, that if they understand them, that the readers will agree with him.
YOU, on the other hand, are trying, and succeeding in shouting him down with your little hissy fit, to PREVENT discsussion.
Which implies that you are AFRAID of any discussion of the issue. Becuase you are afraid that if people understand the issue that they will disagree with YOUR position on the issue and YOUR answer to it.
Which puts YOU in the position of the one operating from "malice".
And what's his solution? Oh yeah to deport all other races from America except white people. It's a form of gaslighting that you are too dumb to see. So no I just see through the bullshit. You think a racist is being genuine is what I find funny.
You oddly skipped over the cause of the unhappiness.
You also did nothing to address explain why you think that he is wrong about his view of the cause.
I think it is because you AGREE with him on the cause of the unhappiness.
You are afraid to discuss it, for fear that your own words will lend credibility and support to the racist.
And yes, he is clearly being sincere in his beliefs, while you are not.
From the OP you claim isn't race baiting.
".... they bring in their own cultures and dilute White European culture. And because of mass immigration and low birth rates, Whites are becoming minorities in their own countries...."
How does it feel to be an incorrect asshole all the time?
Thanks for seriously addresss my point.
It seems that your post is indicating that a white man having a negative opinion of non-white immigration is by definition "race baiting". or to express any conflict of interest with a non-white group.
Is that your intent?
It is worth noting that you are quite rude about it. Indeed, even an asshole.
Soooo, what's up with that, you find it personally offensive?
Explain why.
It's all bullshit.
"..dilute White European culture.." No such thing. It's like saying North Atlantic Ocean cultures..."
"Whites are becoming minorities in their own countries..." Nothing but a lie.
2050 is the projected date when whites will become a minority in THIS country and a lot of that is because of immigration. So, your claim that it is "race baiting" becasue it is false, is clearly not true.
In your worldview is it ok for a whit man to voice a conflict of interest that he feels he and/or his people have with a non-white group?
Your claim that his complaint about whities becoming a minority is YOU being incorrect.
You are also incorrect about whites not having culture(s).
So, considering that your supposed reasons for being prissy have been shown to be false, you will now agree that that man is correct?
LOL. of course not.
Because those weren't your real reasons.
Your real reason is that you do not believe that a white man should be allowed to make a complaint against non-white people(s).
I said the concept "white european culture" they are employing is meaningless. I didn't say that whites don't have culture.
Name on aspect of the culture of white European people (by which I assume you just mean white people born in America) that has been killed or is dying?
My real reason is that your screeching, pathetic self pitying shite is just your own hang up. There's only one type of person here anguished about being white and it's not who the OP claims it is.
That's a stupid waste of time.
You were clearly wrong about that and about the minority thing, yet your hostility to me and to the op has not change.d
THus, as I pointed out, those were not your real reasons.
My assertion is that your real reason is that you are against any white man being allowed to voice and complaint against any non-white people(s).
Grow some balls. Drop your shit talking points, and address lets have a discussion about how you really feel and your real reason.
How am I clearly wrong.
You simply cannot provide an example of what you are talking about.
If growing my balls means constantly crying about imaginary existential threats like you do then I'll stick with the ones I've got thanks.
Yes, lying. your points about no white culture and no white minority were too stupid to be serious.
So let's move on to your real reason for your hissy fit.
I have stated what I see in your behavior. Do you have a real response of just more stonewalling?
They're too stupid to be serious because they are "points" you invented that I never made.
Response to what? You have to provide proof. Not just hysterical obnoxious claims.
Your stated reasons for your being such an ass, was that whites were NOT going to become minoriteis in their own countries, and that the term used by the op to describe white culture was...soemthing.
That's fucking retarded shit.
Drop thte shit talk and tell us your real reason for being so offended by the op.
I think it is anti-white racism on your part. You saw a white man making a complaint possibly against non-whites and you were triggered.
Corbell is human trash keep schooling him.
shareNope we went over this before. The economy has a huge impact on mental health and happiness obviously. Whites in the 50's were happier also why is that?
I didn't attack the view I attacked the reason he is posting. Sorry man you aren't going to trip me up I was clear in what I said. You are angry because you can't dispute him being a racist. So now you are attempting to discredit the reason I think he posted about that topic.
Something can be true no matter who it comes from. But... You can see if someone is pointing out for genuine reasons or if it's an attempt to gaslight.
No I wouldn't say he's being sincere. See how that works? You just completely waved reasonable doubt of his reasons. He has a past history of being racist yet you don't question his reasons. That's scary dude. Seek help.
The economy is not the reason that he or you are thinking of.
Your cowardice is very sad.
Lol and you thinking his reasons are genuine is cowardly of you. That guy is a racist piece of shit and I proved it.
shareHow is it cowardly of me? That makes no sense.
And if he is racist, what does that say about you, who agrees with him?
And by that logic you agree with him also. Again I attacked his reasons not the point. Get the fuck out of here! It's cowardly because you know deep down his reasons are not genuine.
shareI repeatedly stated that I agreed with you both.
You are afraid to discuss the reason because you don't want to fix the problem.
He wants to fix the problem.
Why would I think his reason is not genuine?
No I am not. I just know his reasons are not genuine as I originally stated.
He wants to fix the problem? Yeah that's why he wants all blacks or races other than whites gone from America. I proved he stated that. Yet you think he wants to fix the problem? Wow this is a new low even for you. Go fuck yourself.
Correct. He wants to fix the problem. He wants white people to be happy like in the 80s.
What do YOU want?
I want all races to be happy not just one. So what's his solution genius? He said he wants all other races gone from America. I'd that the solution you agree with?
shareWhat is the problem that made white people unhappy?
And don'tt be a pussy. It isn't the economy. You wouldn't be having such a hissy fit if it was about economics.
Be honest, if you can.
You won't answer my question but want yours answered. What's his solution to making whites happy? Be honest now. See you are afraid to be honest about what his solution would be. That's because you know deep down it's a racist one.
shareYou already gave his answer repeatedly, ie deport all black people. So.... why are you asking me?
I'm certainly not afraid to be honest about whatt you say his answer would be. It is irrelevant to me whether or not it is racist.
It is just that it is stupid to argue about solutions when you are afraid to say what hte problem is.
You said he wants a solution! Yeah a racist one you braindead dipshit.
shareCorrect. He wants a solution to the problem.
You dont.
But, you both agree on what the problem is.
That's very telling.
No I do. I want all races to exist in harmony he does not.
I listed my solution you ignored it. Also so you are saying a racist solution is better than none? Am I hearing you right?
1. Do you support reparations?
2. I'm saying he wants a solution to the problem, thus sincere, while you want the problem to remain unaddressed and people to keep suffering, but you are not honest about that. THus, malicious.
I have a solution and you ignored it. You are the one who doesn't support reparations.
Improve the economy for everyone. You ignored that. Also and his solution isn't malicious? I want the drug war to stop and I want people to keep suffering? No that's your thing buddy.
1. So, was the NO you do not support reparations?
2. The economy is not the problem, so, that's simply you evading the discussion you are so afraid of.
I do for all races not just whites like you.
The economy is a big part of the problem. You are full of shit.
1. You're talking nonsense to avoid moving the discussion forward. Because you afraid of being honest.
2. The economy is not why you are having a hissy fit. It is not why you are afraid. What is the problem that you and the op agree is the problem?
Nope. You asked a question and I answered it. Move on..
Nope the point stands the economy was better back in the 80s.
1. I asked a question to show that you were not seroius about having all races live together. Your answer was a dodge, becuase you do not actually support that. If you are correct about the op, neither does he. Mmmm...
2. You are lying.
Nope I answered it. You didn't like my answer. Move onto your next point I answered it already. You are the one stalling the conversation.
Lol no it's a fact the economy was better back then. That point stands.
There has been no conversation.
You have shit all over the thread to avoid the topic.
You don't need to support reparations in order to hold to the idea that all races should live in harmony.
shareActually my point was that supporting reparations is demonstrating complete and total hostility to the idea of living in harmony. That is why the other lefty dodged the question. Because he knows that.
sharehttps://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/6674cc3c21c7f60be98cee1f/White-people-in-the-80s?reply=667aed19596e557a87a6c61e
Actually I did answer it. He is lying abd said I didn't. See how deceptive he is? There is the proof I answered.
"What is the problem that made white people unhappy?"
Are you getting him to confirm what you know
or actually asking?
are white people unhappy?
I for one dont really know wht the OP is talking about , becasuse as was pointed oput to me the race relations of Black and white is pretty much the same then and now .
but look at this little exchange from earlier , what does thta tell us?
Yatzo: Go to the beach
[–] curiousMInd101 (1015) 4 days ago
Which beach?
[–] Yatzo (1522) 4 days ago
The one where you get a tan
[–] curiousMInd101 (1015) 4 days ago
No I mean where is the beech for White people only?
i think basically the new troll in town threw some outrageous race baiting up , and you two are arguing about its validity
i mean look at the post below :
"It has ruined the fun. With no lynchings, what are me an the boys supposed to do on the weekends?"
I think the implication of the op, as supported by grifthunter, is that race relations have gotten WORSE, since the 80s,
and I would have to agree.
THe op might be a troll who has run off. But Grifthunter is a troll who is staying here, BECASUE HE MOSTLY AGREES WITH THE OP.
Oh wow I'm not the only who thought he was race baiting? Wow go figure! Get wrecked you deceitful asshole.
shareNope I mentioned a sincere reason. You not liking my reason does not mean my reason wasn't sincere.
shareCorrect.
Your stated reason was false to distract from the fact that you want the actual reason to remain unaddressed, that you do not want to solve the problem.
Thus your intention was insincere.
My point stands. And no my intent was sincere. I don't give a shit if you believe it of not. The point stands, the economy was better back then.
shareYour stonewalling is noted.
Your denial is noted. So how many times have I beaten you now? I defeated you and proved you Aliens was woke, I proved the op was racist, I actually answered your questions and proved you wrong there.
Let's debate the drug war and I will have no issue knocking your ass out on that issue also. You seem to think the 80s had no issue and that Reagan had no flaws. You realize things he said about other races right?
Your ability to talk shit is noted.
shareYour denial is noted again. Reagan was not some saint by the way. He like all of them had his dirt also.
shareDid I say ANYTHING about Reagan?
Well you glamorize the 80's so much I figured he was relevant. I love how I proved that Aliens was woke and you couldn't refute it. That was hilarious. Either way I love seeing you exposed whether it's by me or anyone else with half a brain on these boards.
shareIt is strange the way you are unable to stay on topic.
And by strange, I mean you just throw shit at the wall like a retarded monkey.
You ignore things constantly. The point stands I gave the reasons as to why whites were happier. You just didn't like my reason. You are stonewalling.
shareYour "Reasoning" is just you dismissing counterpoints you don't like.
And stonewalling on that, like a brainless turd.
I answered when you said I didn't. That's a lie.
shareBlah, blah, blah.
You talk, but you are not really engaging in any real dialog.
It's like talking to a bot. A dumb bot.
Lol and I'm the one stonewalling? I answered, you didn't like the answer.
You are an insecure deadbeat who I bet has nothing go on in life.
Your answer made no sense in this context.
You choose to not engage in discussion yet you still want to talk.
No it did make sense you just didn't like it. Anything you don't like doesn't make sense to you.
Even if that were true which it isn't but even if it were I gave an answer. So your claim I didn't answer was a lie on your end.
You're cleary not interested in a conversation so....
shareWhen you blatantly lie no.
Let's not lie and go from there. Sound good? So back to the original point. The guy's reason for posting the op was not genuine. He was race baiting.
Your excuse for your shit behavior is noted and dismissed.
It is worth noting that your post is an implicit admission that your beahvior has been shit.
Lying is shit behavior also. So you can do shit behavior but no one else can? Nice logic there.
The point stands you lied when you said I didn't answer.
Thank you for admitting your shit behavior.
YOur answer was not a real answer, not in the context of this thread.
You want to whine like a fag about the posters intent or call it race baiting?
I tried to get you to discuss his reasons, you refuse to.
Nope it was an answer you didn't like. I don't give a shit if you like it, it was an answer.
I appreciate you admitting to lying. It shows growth.
YOur bullshit spin is noted and dismissed.
i see you only mentioned the race baiting of the op as shit talk, no real follow up even when prompted.
Because what's the intent behind it? Is he honestly doing it for a genuine discussion? Or his he trying to rile up a fire and piss people off? Given his history I think that it is rather obvious what he is doing. If it was coming from a genuine person I would believe it's a genuine reason in his case I don't feel it's genuine. He's a racist.
shareI do think it was a genuine attempt at discussion. I think he thinks that a real and honest debate on the issue of WHY whites are now less happy, would be one that would support his agenda.
I think you think that too. Which is why you are so resistant to such a discussion.
YOu saying he is "racist" is not you saying he is wrong. He could be racist and he could be right about this issue.
No you don't, I call bullshit. You only question antics when it's done by people you personally don't like. An honest debate? He thinks whites are superior to other races, he thinks only whites should exist in America and everyone else should be deported.
You think someone of that mindset is going to debate honestly? The only thing he wants to hear is they are less happy because blacks and others fucked up their lives. You know that's what his endgame is and are too cowardly to admit that. I can debate all day on why whites are less happy. He only wants one narrative which is the one I mentioned. In one of the early responses he says whites feel guilty for being superior to other races. Yeah that's someone who really wants an honest discussion right?
Not talking about if he's right on the issue. My original point was his reason for bringing it up was antagonistic. You and I both know that. Don't play dumb.
"You think someone of that mindset is going to debate honestly? The only thing he wants to hear is they are less happy because blacks and others fucked up their lives. "
So, all that talk from YOU, how the reason was "the economy", and when I said that was bullshit talk from you, you are now admitting that that was, as I said, that was you talking "bullshit".
Good. About fucking time.
And, yes, I do think that someone like that would be ready to debate honestly. Becuase he really believes that.
You are the one not debating honestly, because you believe it too.
The only difference is that you are racist against white people so you are fine with policies that make them unhappy. So you don't see it as a problem, you see it as a good policy result.
Nope I still believe that. We aren't talking about why I think whites are less happy. We are talking about his reason for bringing up that issue. He did it as a means to race bait. He believes blacks and others ruined their lives that's not what I believe. Nice attempt at twisting things but the point stands.
Lol no you don't. He isn't going to listen to sound reason. He is a closed minded buffoon. If he wanted to debate it honestly he would be open to hearing the other side. He isn't. He only wants his view echoed back at him. You know that and are playing dumb. Deep down you know you lost and are throwing shit at the wall. It's ok it's your right to be wrong.
Nope bullshit. You have no idea the policies I support. I am willing to debate them. The thing is anyone who doesn't by default agree with your view is seen as racist. Anyways I proved he is a racist and I proved he won't debate honestly. I won that part of the debate. You lost it. Rubbing that in your face feels great. Now we can move onto discussing policies if you wish. I proved he is racist and unwilling to debate honestly.
You're cleary not wiling to debate your polices. Your behavior shows that.
Nope bullshit. Notice how you bypassed you getting proven wrong. I proved he was a racist, I proved he doesn't want a reasonable debate. His responses proved that. He only wants his points spit back at him. He isn't open to debating otherwise his responses wouldn't be things like saying whites are superior and are made to feel guilt about it. My whole point about him was he brought up white guilt as an antagonistic tactic to race bait. You know this deep down and are afraid to admit it.
I wasn't the only one to point this out. You just don't take issue with his bigotry or racism because it favors whites. If this was the other way you would sing a different tune. Stop lying and be honest for once.
I can eat you alive in debating. You are too chicken shit to man up and do it.
Such juvenile competitiveness.
We both know that without access to your books or precious internet IRL, you would be a shitty debater.
I never said he WASN'T a racist.
And your weird assumption that him being a racist "proves" he doesn't want a reasonable debate, is... you being very narrow minded.
He clearly believes that any real discussion will lead people do support his point of view.
Your behavior strong indicates that you fear that greatly, since you are doing so much to avoid any such discussion.
Nope I also showcased what his responses were. Anyone who responds the way he did indicates he is not in it for a real debate. He only wants his points echoed back at him. You know he isn't going to listen to sound reason. You just have dug yourself so deep that now admitting defeat would make you look foolish. So now you gotta dig your heels in.
I was able to prove he was racist beyond the shadow of a doubt. Remember you originally were trying to claim I couldn't prove it. Once I did you went oh shit it wasn't a race card and now are doing damage control. So here is a question. Why don't you call him out for being racist when you call tons of liberals racist? So it's ok for him to be racist then and not for liberals?
He brought up that topic as a means to stroke a fire. You don't believe for one second he wanted an honest debate. It was race baiting. Had a liberal done that you would call them out.
I don't know that. YOu said it, but I don't hold your opinion in very high regard.
You do know it. You are just too cowardly to admit it.
Next thing. Why don't you call him out on his racism? You have no issue calling out a liberal for racism. Why is he exempt from being called out on his racism?
And crickets... I proved my point. You are ok with racism against other races, you just don't like it against whites.
shareUh?Oh, sorry, I just didn't see anything there to respond to.
You saying "Racism" doesn't mean anything.
You seem to think that is a magic word that it has some sort of power to make ...something happen when you say it.
I didn't just say racism. I was able to prove he was racist. Aside from that I also drew up his responses. It showed him bringing up that point was not him wanting an honest debate.
You said he wanted an honest debate. I proved he didn't. He just wanted to stir the pot. Deep down you know that. You are too cowardly to admit it. I have you dead to rights and you know it.
You think woke is a magic word. I don't play the race card I can prove it lol. You play the woke card.either way don't be commenting on racism anymore when you refuse to call people out for it.
YOu didn't prove anything. You said your magic word and then claimed to have proved it.
Meanwhile you are constantly running away from any discussion of hte issues you admit that the op was hinting at.
Nope you asked for proof of him being racist. I provided it. He wants only whites in America and thinks they are the superior race. That is racism! Would you like the proof again?
Nope I attacked his reason for posting not the point itself. Comprehend what you read dumbass.
We are way past that. You mentioned it, YOu claimed stuff, I didn't care enough to check to see if you were telling the truth, cause it really didn't matter.
That hasn't been a point of discussion for days.
You didn't notice?
No bullshit. You didn't want to check because you knew it hurt your point. I provided proof and you ignored it. That proved he had no interest in a genuine discussion like you claimed.
No it was the entire point.
HOw does it hurt my point?
Do you even understand what my point is?
Because you claimed he was bringing it up for genuine discussion. I provided his responses. Are you honestly this dumb?
You say his complaints aren't invalid because he is racist. That wasn't the deal. You said he wanted an honest discussion.
No a piece of shit like him only wanted to stir the pot. Period!
What is the issue he wanted to discuss?
shareLet's not play dumb. He brought up how whites were happier in the 80's. Ok we established that. He said in his responses that whites are the superior race and are made to feel guilt about it. What did this imply? It implies whites would be happier if they had dominion over blacks because after all they are the superior race. Yet you claim he brought that up for a genuine discussion and debate? Quit playing games you idiot.
You know you are full of shit. He did that as a means race bait and stir the pot. In the early responses to the op he mentions how whites are the superior race. You are telling me he wasn't race baiting with a straight face?
What responses are you talking about? I don't recall him saying that. I recall you saying he said that in other threads, and I am tentatively willing to accept your claim.
Grift, do you understand that when someone does the ATTACK THE MESSENGER tactic, that is their brain dealing with the fact that they believe that the "messengere" is right on the argument. That that "someone" is attacking the "messenger" because THEY believe that that is the only way to create the ILLUSION, or a LIE, that they defeated the message,
when in reality they never even addressed it?
EVERY TIME, you attack the messenger in this thread, you are showing that you agree with the op on the FACTS, you just don't have the balls to admit it, and deal with the implications.
Dude... Are you serious? Ok I can literally prove this easily. Go to the op. In his second reply to Sweettooth43 this his exact quote verbatim. https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/6674cc3c21c7f60be98cee1f/White-people-in-the-80s?reply=6674d30d21c7f60be98cee9f
A lot of white people hate themselves. They feel guilty for being superior to other races. They don't admit it to themselves but that's what they really think. That's why they feel guilty.
11 days ago, him talking to someone else, and you are having a hissy fit becuase I didn't recall it?
My point stands.
Grift, do you understand that when someone does the ATTACK THE MESSENGER tactic, that is their brain dealing with the fact that they believe that the "messengere" is right on the argument. That that "someone" is attacking the "messenger" because THEY believe that that is the only way to create the ILLUSION, or a LIE, that they defeated the message,
when in reality they never even addressed it?
EVERY TIME, you attack the messenger in this thread, you are showing that you agree with the op on the FACTS, you just don't have the balls to admit it, and deal with the implications.
When I provided the proof and you ignored it? No I'm not giving you crap about not remembering, you ignored my claim even though I proved it. It shows you refused to look at proof I provided. It has nothing to do with your memory. You have the link right there. Refute it or concede. You know you can't and therefore make up stuff I am not saying because you know I won.
Nope your point got eliminated. So I will copy and paste just like you did.
You don't have to be tentatively willing to accept my claim. There is proof of him saying that exact quote. I made it easy for you by providing the proof. That isn't shooting the messenger. It is me calling out antagonistic behavior. His reasons by that reply prove he is only trying to stir the pot and race bait as I originally said.
So now with me proving he said that you going to drop your shit about him not being antagonistic and wanting a genuine debate? Or you going to keep being an apologist for this guy? You lost this debate and badly.
I proved he didn't want a genuine debate and was antagonistic. You claimed he wasn't antagonistic. Address him bring antagonistic with that reply or concede.
I didn't ignore it. I discussed how it was from 11 days ago and made fun of you for having a hissy fit about me not remembering a comment someone else made to someone else, in a section of a thread I was not part of.
Now, you seem to think that what he said was "magic word" and that him saying something "magic word" somehow supports your assertion that he was not interested in a genuine debate.
A person can be "magic word" and still be ready to engage in a real debate to try to advance his views.
Your... hysterical... rants and constant assertions do not...
they don't matter. THey are irrelevant noise.
You are just talking shit because you are afraid to discuss anything relating to race in this country honestly or seriously.
I provided the link. That was not eleven days ago when I provided the link. You asked where he says that therefore I provided it again. See you are attempting to change the subject because you can't refute what he said.
What he says wasn't me thinking it was racist. It literally was. Saying whites are the superior race is a racist claim. There is no way to spin that another way. He didn't just make a racist claim that was a response he had when someone challenged him. That shows what? If he was interested in genuine debate by that response it showed his mind was closed and the reason to bring it up was to race bait and to stir the pot.
Correct a person can but by his responses it showed he wanted to antagonize. He wasn't open to hearing the other side.
So now you going to concede that he was being antagonistic or you going to play dumb again? Oh ok willing to it's you who wanted me to blindly agree with a claim but not just a claim the reason behind the claim.
You lost the point about him. I'm willing to move onto why whites were happier back then with you. He however is an antagonistic racist that you failed to defend. So now ready to move on since I owned you about him?
YOu were having a hissy fit becuase I didn't remember the comment. THe comment was made 11 days ago, in a portion of hte thread I was not part of.
Admit that you are a hysterical little simp.
I provided the proof and it wasn't 11 days ago. Concede to that.
shareSimp. The comment was 11 days ago.
Admit you are a hysterical simp, drop this stupid "point" of yours and we can go back to your "attacking the messenger" nonsense.
My proof was not 11 days ago. You aren't getting past that.
shareDude. You are talking nonsense.
You cited a comment someone else made to someone else 11 days ago. I said that I didn't recall it, but that I would tentatively accept that he said it, for discussion purposes so we could move on.
You had a little hissy fit like a hysterical simp.
Now you gave a link a little bit ago and proved the comment.
Whoop Dee Freaking do.
I had already accepted you at your word.
Now, please admit that you had are an hysterical simp, drop this... retarded even for you whine, and we can get bacck to you whining like a fag about "magic word".
You didn't have to accept me at my word. Unlike you I can backup a claim with proof.
Now my point stands. The op was antagonistic and wasn't interested in genuine debate.
But I did accept you at your word.
I was happy to discuss any "point" that you wanted to build by citing that comment.
And I did.
Now please admit that you are a hysterical simp, so we can get back to your normal programing, ie whining like a fag about "magic word".
Then why did you ask where he said that?
shareBecause you mentioned that he said it in the thread and I didn't recall that.
You are having a hissy fit about shit that doesn't matter, becuase you are afraid to discuss the issue.
Actually, you are worse than that, you are afraid to let other people discuss the issue.
Now, please admit to being a hysterical simp so we can get back to your attacking the messenger because you are afraid.
And then you also said you were tentatively willing to accept my word. Implying you didn't fully believe it. So I provided proof. Boom get owned!
Dude. You have having a hissy fit to distract from the issue.
We both know this. You are not fooling anyone.
Admit you are a hysterical simp, and then let's get back to you whining like a fag about "magic word" to avoid discussing the issue that you know you are the bad guy on.
Nope your words bud. You said you were tentatively willing to take me at my word. So I provided proof so you didn't have to be tentative. You are welcome.
shareIt's moot. I accepted your words, and you had your hissy fit.
Now, I understand. On some level you understand that your lefty policies have been a disaster for white people and you are terrified of trying to defend them.
Thus, you have become the simp you are now.
Nope otherwise you would not have used the word tentative. Which by definition means not certain or fixed. I know you thought I missed you saying that l. I'm rather thorough in what I read. So nope fail from you. Next time try it on someone who doesn't comprehend what they read. That's not going to pass by me.
Nope I don't support any policy which hinders a race. I just don't agree with you about what hinders white people. The end. Noting more.
Oh and me a simp? I'm not the one who willingly gives money to ideologies I hate. That's you.
That's nice. I used the word repeatedly. I am glad you caught it. But accept your claim I did. Your little hissy fit is... just you being a pathetic simp.
And you do support policies that "hinder" white people. That is why you are having such a fit in this thread, desperate to shut down any discussion of the policies you support that "hinder" white people.
If you fully accepted the claim you wouldn't have used the word tentative. So no that was a fuck up on your end. Simp is you. You pay money to ideologies you oppose.
Nope I attacked the op for antagonistic behavior. He was y looking for an honest debate. You aren't fooling anyone. Deep down you know it and are too cowardly to admit it. I have opened you up to discuss it. You won't do it. Go ahead let's debate it.
1. Your whining like a fag is noted.
2. You are having a hissy fit becasue you are afraid that any real discussion would lead to you having to defend your anti-white policies.
Your attempt to negate your own words is noted.
Go ahead let's discuss it. Want to go first or you want me to? I'm giving you the chance to debate this. I proved the op was a dishonest bad faith racist scumbag. Now move onto discussion. Let's hear it.
1. YOur whingin like a fag is noted.
2. ? Ok sure, I'll play.
You support the massive anti-white discrimination that is our government policies and our cultural practices.
Your attempt to deny what you said is noted.
That's an accusation. Now let's try again do you want to discuss it or not? Me disagreeing with you didn't mean I support policies which hinders whites. So here is the second shot I'm giving you. Discussing things is different from lobbing accusations. Let's be a big boy now.
1. I denied nothing, i noted your whining.
2. Fine. You have nothing to say to my point? You go then.
I noted your attempt to deny and negate.
You made no point, you made an accusation. Ok so let's start with a question why do you think whites were happier in the 80s and the 50s?
1. i denied nothing. YOu are having a hissy fit.
2. In this context, the 50s were a period of a Golden Age, the 80s was a period of peace and prosperity and confidence, adn today we are torn apart by racial strife and oppression.
Your attempt to deflect is noted.
The laws favored whites over blacks in the 50s right? That was before Jim Crowe so? Ok now let's also look. Was the economy better in both those decades of the 80s and the 50s?
1. No deflection. I denied nothing. you are a whiny faggot.
2. I don't think that Jim Crow was the basis of the golden age, more about the massive increase in the middle class.
3. Yes.
Yeah you don't like that I hold you accountable for your own words.
I didn't say Jim Crowe was. I said whites did in fact have an advantage and had it better in the 50s. Ok so you agree the economy was better in both decades. Now doesn't a groups happiness rely pretty heavily on whether the economy is good or not?
1. There was no "accountability". You were just whining like a faggot.
2. So, you just said "jim crow" even though it wasn't relevant?
And no, I don't think the economy is really the difference. The 80s had a recession in them, but people were not down like they are now.
Nope there was accountability. Watch what you say if you don't like being held accountable.
No you said Jim Crow wasn't the basis of the golden age. That's different from saying it's irrelevant. The point stands whites had the advantage over black people in the 50s. I think the economy was the difference. The 80s had a recession but not like what we are having today. The point also stands the economy was better in both the 50s and the 80s and that has a huge impact on a person's happiness. You can't dispute that. Everyone is unhappy right now not just whites.
1. Nothing to account for. I accepted you at your word, and was willing to move forward in the discussion. You choose to have a hissy fit like a simp.
2. YOu are saying jim crow becuase you think that implying racism is magic. Your argument is "the economy", so saying jim crow makes no logical sense. It is just you, being stuck mentally.
3. On POINT, imo, in the 50s and to a lesser extent th e80s you still had a culture where it was...ok to be white. The whites of the 80s, were still buying into the lie of the civil rights movement, ie that we were building towards SOLVING A PROBLEM, instead of simply having a permanent anti-white culture.
Nope if that were true you wouldn't have used the word tentative. I know you can't get past what you said. I'm holding you accountable.
It's not implying racism. Before the civil rights it's a fact whites had the advantage over black people. I don't have to imply it, it literally was racist in the 50s. My argument is the economy yes but having an advantage over another group also leads to a certain race to be happier also. Two things can be true at once. That's you being stuck mentally.
Lol in the 50s it was more than ok to be white they had the advantage. Again after the civil rights the damage caused by racism didn't disappear. Even by the 80s that damage was not fixed. You think once the civil rights happened all effects were done as well. If it were up to you there would be no compensation to those effected by the racist laws. The country was not anti white after the civil rights era that's complete horse shit. I love this so you are fine with the country being anti black before the 60s but complain that after the 60s the country is anti white. You truly are a peach of s human being. Seriously grow up and seek help.
1. I accepted it. You are a fag.
2. Yes, you are.
3. In the 50s and 80s, it was still ok to be white. Today we realize that it is not. Today we realize that the end goal of the civil rights movement is not inclusion but forever strife and anti-white oppression.
Then why did you say tentative?
No I am not.
In the 50s it wasn't ok to be black. Try being black in the 50s. You made less money, had less jobs and had no right to vote. Current whites never faced that level of oppression and you want to pretend like they have. Try your bullshit on someone else. You consider the 50s the golden age so does that mean you are ok with going back to the way things were before the Jim Crow laws? The economy is why they were happier the point stands. It is perfectly ok to be white currently. I myself have never been denied any job I've applied for. I don't see it as a problem elsewhere either. Whites on average make the most money and have more jobs than blacks do. I'm failing to see your point here.
1. In case it turned out that you were lying.
2. SUre you are. You believe in magic. Your position is that it is all about the economy, but you HAD to say your magic word.
3. Blacks voting was suppressed in the SOUTH. Again, you are defining American by the bad actions of a minority and shitting all over the whites of the country that were SUPPORTING CIVIL RIGHTS OF BLACKS.
Today we have massively widespread anti-white discrimination in hiring and culture.
Which meant you didn't fully believe me or take me at my word. I provided proof and you didn't want to look. You didn't want to look because you couldn't dispute the proof. So thanks your concession is great
Nope. It is about the economy. It isn't a magic word. Racism was a big thing during your golden era.
Doesn't matter. My point stands. Blacks faced oppression that modern day whites don't even come close to. No I didn't mind the ones who supported blacks but not all of them did.
Nope I don't believe you. I have had no issues getting any job i applied for. So I will trust my personal experience over your bullshit you are trying to spout out. I have gotten jobs over minorites in my community and work a great job. You are a liar.
1. It means I didn't fully TRUST you. I accepted for discussion purposes and was happy to move forward based on that. The rest of your post is you being retarded.
2. If that was true, you wouldn't have mentioned jim crow at all. But you felt you had to, because you felt your weak ass position needed the MAGIC of the MAGIC word.
3. Good for you. For the rest of us, anti-white discrimination in jobs, promotions and culture is everywhere. Your denial is just you being a troll.
Which goes back to what I said. You didn't fully accept it like you were trying to claim. You lied and I caught you. You conveniently left out how you used the word tentative. That isn't you fully taking me at my word you dunce.
I mentioned it because that's a big thing which hindered blacks back then. It wasn't just the right to vote. Emmit Till got murdered and his murderers got away with it. The reason they got away with it was because it was easier to commit crimes against blacks people as well. There was a two tiered justice system and it favored whites. Not s magic word but sheer facts.
Yeah I don't believe you. I think you are using the magic woke word and thinking it makes your point for you. So what era were blacks the happiest? You know when whites were happiest what about blacks? Surely you have that information also correct?
1. But I did. And I allowed you to build on that for your argument. Such as it was.
My God, you are a whiny fag.
2. All that is irrelevent to your stated position, but it does let you draw on MAGIC WORD, to talk shit on America. Which is what you are about.
3. For generations now, our stated policy foundation on race has been to discriminate in favor of blacks, while not discriminating against whites. This is literally insane. And whites are waking up to it. And realizing how fucked we are. Your denial is just you being a troll.
Nope you used the word tentative. You lost this debate. I'm done on this point honestly.
Wrong completely relevant to my point. It wasn't the golden era for everyone in the 50s. You like that era because it favored whites. I like the era which is best for everyone not just one particular group.
I asked you a question. In what era were blacks the happiest? Once you answer that we will move to the bullshit you just said. You had no issues telling me when whites were the happiest. So surely someone who knows those numbers and statistics also knows when blacks were the happiest.
1. And I let you make your argument and addressed it. You whine like a fag.
2. It is irrelevant to your argument. You brought it up because you NEED to talk shit on America.
3. This thread is about WHITE PEOPLE being unhappy. Why are you trying to change the subject to black people? Do white people not have the right to even discsuss their issues?
You lost this debate. You used the word tentative. I won't be responding anymore on this point. You lost be a man and accept that you got beat. This case is closed.
So now bringing up facts is shitting on America? No it's part of the history you want to conveniently ignore. It was completely relevant to my point.
I'm well aware. However I question if you are throwing bullshit out and expecting it to stick. I don't believe you truly have the numbers you say you do about whites. So if we have measurements of when whites were unhappy we also must have measurements of other races also. Show me the statistics which are unbiased that show all races statistics and unhappiness. That way I will know it isn't some right wing biased site that only cares about whites. I will wait.
1. I used that word, and then let you make your arguemnt and addressed it seriously and honestly. You are whining like a fag.
2. The way you are doing it is. Your argument is ECONOMY, but you NEED to bring up negative shit about America, becasue you your entire movement is about hating America and Americans.
3. This thread is about white happiness. YOu are trying to change the subject to talk about blacks. We talk about blacks all the time. Do whites not have the right to talk about our issues? ANSWER THAT QUESTION YOU FAG.
You lost. Take it like a man.
Now it's the way I am doing it lol. Ok how would I bring up the historical facts without being anti American? The economy is the big reason why whites are unhappy. You are trying to deny that. I crushed your argument by pointing out how the economy was better in the 50s and the 80s. Both points in time you say whites were happier. You also agreed that the economy was better in those eras.
Provide the fucking stat sheet! Show me the unbiased stat sheet that shows whites unhappiness measured objectively.
1. No, I didn't lose. I accepted your claim at face value and allowed you to build your case on it. Such as it was. NOw you are just whining like a fag.
2. If your position is that it is all about the ECONOMY, you would NOT be whining like a fag about Jim Crow or such shit. That is how you would do it.
3. This thread is about white happiness today compared to the 80s. YOu first spent weeks attacking the messenger for even bringing up the issue, and when you FINALLY consent to address the issue, we are barely started and now you want to drop the topic and start whining like a fag about BLACK HAPPINESS.
Your behavior makes the case of the orginial op. It is NOT ok to be white, it is not even ok for white people to discuss their happiness or lack of it.
I made the assertion that we have a massivly anti-white culture today as part of the reason for today white unhappiness. You are demonstrating that anti-whiteness.
No you used the word tentative in case you couldn't dispute the point you could fall back on that. Nice try. You lost, accept it.
It is about the economy. Thing is I dispute you saying the 50s is the golden age of America. I don't ignore history, you want to ignore it.
I gave you the chance to give me the stat sheet of whites unhappiness. You are now stalling because you know you can't do it. Nope I didn't attack the messenger I called out his reasoning for bringing it up. We are past that point now. I proved him to be racist and a bad faith debater.
Provide the stat sheet. I'm waiting.
1. You are whining like a fag about nothing.
2. Not everything is about black people.
3. YOu did attack the messenger, and now you are trying to change the subject to past black injustices. Your deep hostility to whites is clear by your actions.
Nope you lost. Man up and admit it.
Correct but if we are talking about history you have to include it all. You don't get to cherry pick and only highlight the good while ignoring the bad. When you talk about the 50s it's quite convenient you only talk about the positives.
No I didn't. I attacked his antagonistic behavior. Ok dude I am giving you the chance to prove your point. Let's get back to what you were saying. I posted that question to show you only care about one race it's rather obvious. However forget all that. Let's go back to whites. Provide me the stat sheet which is unbiased and objective about whites. I'm waiting. You won't do it because you know you can't and are full of shit. This is the last time I'm asking you.
1. I never denied your claim. For you to claim I lost is you talking shit.
2. So, we are NOT allowed to talk about whites, without also talking about how blacks were oppressed and had it soooo bad.
Got it.
3. We don't need to bring in someone else's stats. You have demonstrated nicely our status quo which is anti-white racism and discrimination and culture.
Then you wouldn't have used the word tentative.
You mentioned the 50s as the golden era of America. If you are going to cite that you have to talk all aspect of the 50s not just for one group.
So you won't cite statistics that show whites are unhappy. Ok now move onto to the next thing then. By what metric are you measuring whites unhappiness then?
1. ....wait. Are you pretending to be so retarded that you don't know what tenative means? LOL.
2. No, I don't. I'm not you, I don't think that everything is about black people. That you think that, is your being anti-white.
3. We are past that. I made a point about the anti-white policy and culture that is causing the unhappiness and you were kind enough to demonstrate it. You still are.
So.... not really anything more to disccuss. Thanks for finally discussing the issue.
I cited the definition. You clearly don't know what it means.
Yeah you do. I include everyone when judging eras not just one group. You only care about one group so it shows you are anti black. I don't think everything is about white people that you think that makes you anti black.
Lol and this shows you are not interested in discussing. You want to make assertions and get upset when those assertions are questioned or challenged. You conceded and lost the debate. I asked you to backup your assertions with facts and you failed to do so. My point stands the economy was better in both those eras which is why whites were more happy back then. You offered no rebuttal to this fact. So your concession is apparent. Back up your assertion or concede. Oh and by the way I'm willing to discuss the issue which shows you lied about me willing to have a debate about it. You keep burying yourself it's sad.
1. You clearly don't understand it. You are retarded.
2. This thread is about white people and whether or not they are happy. The fact that that your response to that is to whine about past injustices to blacks, shows that you are hostile to whites.
3. I'm not upset. A man posted a n op about white happiness and you attacked him for two weeks and then when I finally dragged you into a discussion on the issue, you immediately pivoted to whining about blacks like a fag.
This is my point. Your behavior demonstrats that white people do not have the right to even discuss their issues in our modern culture.
Nope I cited the definition. Clearly I know and you don't.
Yep and I listed the economy being the reason they are unhappy. What you fail to realize is whites aren't the only ones unhappy currently. The point stands it's the economy.
A racist who is a bad faith debater posted it as a means to race bait. That op poster is a piece of shit and you know it. His reasoning was also bullshit and again you know it.
No I asked you cite a statistic you wouldn't do it. What metric are you using to prove whites unhappiness? Provide the metric not an assertion.
Dude. You are just talking shit.
Your entire presence in this thread has been insane, and mindless hostility to the very idea that whites should have the right to even voice a complaint.
I'm giving you the floor to present the metric you used for whites unhappiness. Present me with facts or I can dismiss it as a baseless assertion.
share1. My observations of living then and now.
2. And I think the reason is the anti-white culture you have just demonstrated where it is taboo for a white person to even state that the HAVE a group interest that they would like to discuss.
So it's based on your observations. Ok cool based on my observations it's because of the economy.
shareReally?
Well, i grew up/lived in the Rust Belt. The economy was pretty... harsh even in the upbeat 80s.
Yet, the overall tone was better.
And my point about your hostility to the very idea of white people being allowed to speak about their interests, that's a real thing, that'sa huge thing.
I get that from leftards ALL THE TIME.
Just because I'm hyperbolic and like to troll doesn't mean I'm a bad faith debater. My OP was made in earnest.
You can call me a racist all you want. It doesn't mean anything to me anymore. I will happily wear that label and even defend it. It is my way of resisting the woke cancer permeating throughout our culture. It is my form of civil disobedience.
And for the record, my reasoning was both valid and sound as are Corbell's arguments against you.
You are nothing but another woke anti-White retard. And we had just about enough of you. You and your ideology are quickly being pushed out to the fringes of society where you belong.
Oh yes it does. You are openly racist and only want to hear your racist views echoed back at you. That is not a good faith debater. If you were in good faith you would hear and consider the other side. You aren't interested in that. Wearing a label and being a bigot racist is just being that, it's not a way of defending your position. And no corbell like you is a known idiot on this site.
You are nothing but a racist conservative who is a cancer to society. You and your ideology are being pushed out of this world and need to be pushed against. You are human garbage.
YOu seem to think that calling him racist supports your assertion that he is not open to debate.
It doesn't. All you are doing is showing how terrified you are of letting him speak.
EVERYTHING you are doing, argues that you think he can make his case stronger than you can argue against it.
I have heard the arguments of the other side. I was on the other side. Not that long ago I was on the cultural left myself — just another Wokie. Not as brain-dead, not a cultist, but I used to advocate for blacks, queers, feminists, etc.
I still have respect for certain black left wingers who are socialists like me. And I still admire people like Malcolm X.
But over the years I saw how absurd and toxic the cultural left was becoming, and I started to find them repulsive. I've grown to hate them. And I took a sharp turn to the right. So now as far as culture goes, I'm on the far right (on economics I'm still sympathetic to socialism).
So yeah, I know all the arguments. I made them, I lived them. And I now know how morally and intellectually bankrupt the cultural left is. All I do now is expose them and laugh at them. They are nothing but a collection of self-righteous sanctimonious zealots. I hate them with every fiber of my being.
I grew up in the era as well where the economy dipped at points. But overall throughout the era whites were happier. That is due to the economy. No one is saying whites didn't experience sadness back then due to economy but overall the economy was better therefore didn't experience sadness on the level of today. It's quite simple to understand.
sharePeople can adjust to a shitty economy.
People can't do anything about a shitty anti-white racist culture and power structure.
It is the anti-white racism of people like you and the policy and culture implications that is bringing people, white people, down today.
I didn't just call him racist. One I proved he was racist. I like how you are trying to be slick and say I just played the race card when in reality I proved he was. Aside from that I didn't just prove he was racist. I gave you what his responses to someone challenging his positions were. Anyone who challenges him and doesn't think blacks are beneath whites he taunts and will berate.
If he was truly open to debate he would consider the other side and be open to changing his mind. If you berate people who don't bow down to your ideology immediately that's not being open to discussion.
Rather telling though that you are supporting an openly racist piece of shit. Yet you are telling me you aren't racist? Seems rather suspicious to me.
1. You clearly are just playing the race card and you seem to think that that proves something. So... yeah.
2. I see you reasserted your claim. How... interesting. And by "interesting" I mean boring as hell and my god you are a faggot.
3. Right now, YOU have bogged this discussion down on the very idea that a white guy(s) could have a complaint. At that level of discussion, I am on the side of the WHITE racist and against YOU, the clearly anti-white racist. IF the discussion ever really... got going, differences and disagreements between me and the white racist would quickly become appearent. YOUR racism is the issue that is dominating this thread so far. I would be happy to move on, and get into the issue more... well, LESS FAGGOTLY than you have demanded.
Are you ready to move on, or do you want to whine like a fag some about a white guy daring to voice a complaint?
If I can prove him to be racist which I did that isn't playing the race card. He is a racist svd I proved it. You know how you can tell?.You haven't even attempted to dispute him bring racist because you know you can't. I have you dead to rights..
Because you didn't challenge it. I judged the responses he gave to people challenging his positions. They were antagonistic and unopen to discussing.
Nope I attacked him for not being genuine in debating. You couldn't handle that. Explain his responses to me if he was being genuine.
Nope we tried that shit and you had no interest.
1. Yes, it still is.
2. You are antagonistic and unopen to discussing shit, and I'm not afraid to engage you. YOu are acting like you are terrifed on him, like the moment you allow him to serious address the issue, he will just destroy you and your entire world view.
3. No, you attacked him because he is a white guy that voiced a complaint that you assumed was directed at not white people. ANd that to you, is taboo. And that, is anti-white racism.
Nope it isn't. Especially when I pointed out his responses to their points as well. I didn't just say racist and walk away. I examined his responses as well l. So nice try bitch but no.
Oh no I would crush that clown in a debate. I showed he isn't open to discussing it by his responses. You couldn't dispute that because you are full of shit.
Lol no I attacked him because he is racist and antagonistic. I didn't assume, that's exactly what he was doing, you are simply too dumb and up his ass to see that. Show me any post I've posted like him saying blacks or other races are superior to whites like he did with blacks. I will wait.
1. Yeah, instead you said "Racist" and refused to discuss the issue. For weeks. And when you finally did get dragged to it, you immediately pivoted to whining like a fag about black people.
2. EVERYTHING you have said and done in this thread, shows that you do not believe that. You are clearly terrifed of that guy. Probably because you think what he says is the TRUTH.
3. "Racist"... there it is again. The magic word. It is all you have. Pathetic. And weak. My god you are so weak.
Nope I judged his responses as well. Your shit talk is dismissed.
Nope otherwise I wouldn't respond to him. He is an antagonistic piece of shit. I proved that.
Woke is your magic word. So likewise.
1. Your stonewalling is noted and laughed at. You are a fag.
2. Nope. I say woke and then I am happy to discuss it seriously and honestly. YOU are doing the opposite.
Your inability to grasp that, is just you being a stupid retarded fag.
Your shit talk is dismissed, my point stands.
Nope I gave you the chance to provide evidence of whites unhappiness and you refused to do it. So no that's bullshit.
Dude, you're still whining like a fag over my use of the word tenative.
Any metric I tried to use, you would dismiss because you are a dishonest troll fag. And you are racist against whites.
Because it contradicted your words.
Nope I asked to debate honestly. You won't provide it because you are full of shit and playing the race card.
You would crush me in a debate? Lol, is that what you think? Delusional. I used to debate people here for sport under my old account. In fact I used to debate both sides, left wingers on culture and right wingers on socialism, capitalism, and Marxism.
The only thing that would happen if we'd debate is you would call me a racist and a fascist the moment we'd disagree and like a fool and coward you'd claim that you won. LOL
I would beat the ever-loving shit out of you in a debate (metaphorically speaking) and you'd sprint away like a startled gazelle.
Now walk away Wokie before you embarrass yourself more than you already have.
Lol oh no. Oh so this is a sock account lol. So that implies you got destroyed on here so bad you had to create another account. You openly admitted to being racist and your comments are racist. Anyway I'm open to debate you on any topic. I unlike you can backup claims with facts. You down or you going to back away? Your choice.
shareWrong again bob. I used to slay woke retards on the internet for sport. I was not only effective but brutal. So brutal in fact that it was considered violence and it got me banned for a year. But now I'm back and ready to slay woke retards once again. The only difference is I have to hold back and pull my punches, otherwise it would be considered abuse of the mentally impaired.
So what is it that you want to debate and what would be the point? How about I'll save us some time and get right to the conclusion. Assuming it was in good faith, after a long and pointless back and forth we would both realize that our differences are not due to a disagreement about facts but a difference of values, tastes, and aesthetics, at which point we would find ourselves at an impasse. At best we would respectfully agree to disagree, but more than likely, based on your temperament and ideology, you'd walk away with the notion that I'm your enemy and that we can't coexist.
Yeah I'm not buying that bullshit. Calm your little ego down.
So you aren't open to debate then?
Of course you're not buying it, because you're afraid of what it would mean if it was true.
Why don't you ask the other members here. People who remember me from back in the day. They will tell you.
I'm open to an honest good faith debate. But what could we possibly debate that won't end up precisely as I have outlined in my post? If you have something I'm all ears.
No I just can spot an arrogant cocky buffoon from a mile away. I already asked you are a known clown on here. Even the mods think you are a joke.
Then tell me the subject. I will open with one how about the drug war?
No, I just like to troll retards like you on the internet for sport and the entertainment of the MovieChat denizens. Needless to say there are many people who hate me here and many who appreciate what I do. I like it that way. I like playing the villain. There is a reason why my profile pic is the grim reaper dressed as a court jester.
https://i.postimg.cc/wBxczRRN/waxsealstamp.jpg
That's me in nutshell.
With respect to our "debate", what about the Drug War? What is there to debate? The drug war is a moral and tactical failure. I believe all drugs should be legalized and provided to all adults by pharmacies without prescription limited to a certain dose. We already do this with pseudoephedrine.
No you have s cocky arrogant attitude. That is rather obvious.
I agree about the drug war. However you realize that the drug war is supported by the right correct? The left is against the drug war and the right actively supports it.
Yes, I like my posts to be entertaining to others when they read them. Being a little cocky and having an arrogant attitude helps.
I'm glad we agree on the drug war, but you seem to have the wrong impression of me. I don't fit in any neat little boxes. On some issues I'm on the far left, on others far right, sometimes I'm a libertarian, other times an authoritarian, sometimes a socialist, maybe even a commie, and other times a fascist. It depends on the issue. I have eclectic views and they are always evolving. I'm not married to any them (although I may feel strongly about some of them), I just wear them like a suit and argue for them to see if they fit. I'm guided only by my values which can sometimes be in conflict with each other, and that's where things get interesting.
Which shows when I responded to your open you were not looking for a good faith debate just to antagonize and troll.
I know but you constantly are demonizing the left. I have not heard you come after the right for supporting the drug war. Why not?
It was not in bad faith. Just because I argue with an attitude does not mean that I'm arguing in bad faith. My attitude also depends on the tone of the conversation. If the conversation is going well I will often drop the attitude. Aren't we having a genuine conversation right now? Do you feel like I'm being arrogant or trolling you?
The reason I am more focused on the demonizing the left is because I'm focusing more on cultural issues and those are where I and the cultural left clash.
If you saw my response on the minimum wage thread, you'll see that I'm the only leftist there defending the left wing position. On my old account, before I was banned, I would often joust with right wingers on economics and the welfare state, and helping the poor. I would argue for the far left position. I still hold many of the same views but I've been there and done that and am not interested in debating those ideas anymore. I have written whole essays on American Socialism, arguing in favor of Democratic Socialism. But like I've said, I've been there and done that.
It was in bad faith wrong. You don't argue with an attitude to start things off. You only get one if someone gets one with you. You didn't do that.
I don't believe you. I'm sorry.
If someone begins the interaction by calling me a bigot or a racist I will lean into it and treat them with contempt. But once I saw that you wanted to have a genuine conversation I think I've treated you quite fairly. Listened to your arguments and answered your questions as honestly and as best I can.
If you choose not believe me then so be it. Then there is no point in talking is there?
You don't agree to disagree though. You actively want to use the state to persecute people. You say you're not actually a fascist, and you merely ham it up for effect, but you have repeatedly, to various people on here voiced support for the state restricting people's lives who you disapprove of. Mostly LGBT people (and by that I specifically mean it in the broadest sense of "anyone who happens to be gay, or trans"
>At best we would respectfully agree to disagree, but more than likely, based on your temperament and ideology, you'd walk away with the notion that I'm your enemy and that we can't coexist.
But this is exactly what you do to others. That gay people exist and are public about it to you is apparently an affront. That black people exist and are public about it is an affront to you is apparently enough. You are projecting. I've never said you can't exist.
It depends on the person and the tone of the conversation. If it is an honest conversation in good faith I compromise, change my mind, or respectfully agree to disagree. Me and you will never get there though. I'll sneak in something honest and thoughtful here and there, but for the most part I can't talk to you without my fascist alter-ego taking over. You just have that effect on me. To put it simply, you just rub me the wroooong way.
shareYet I've seen you do it unprompted to others in agreement, as an instinctive first reply.
Also I'm led to believe, quite absurdly, that you've apparently been radicalied by TV shows and films. That is actually, if I'm right, genuinely laughable.
In a way, yes, I have been radicalized by woke TV shows and films. Maybe it wasn't the main reason but it certainly contributed to my hatred of the cultural left. It helped me see them for the deranged toxic zealots that they are. Don't get it twisted though (I know you want to), there is far more to my journey from a woke left wing liberal to a far right "quasi-fascist". But yes, if it wasn't for TV shows and films being woke I don't think I would be so aggressive and extreme.
shareBut you now apparently define "woke" as "I saw a black person". Like this just isn't really something people can take seriously.
shareAn example of woke is forced diversity. This means that if there is a black person in a TV show or movie it is likely that they're there only to fit a quota. So yes, simply having a black person can be an example of Woke. Now if you have a TV show like Mayor of Kingstown, there are plenty of black people, but it's not woke, because it makes sense for the story. It would be weird if the cast was all White.
share>An example of woke is forced diversity. This means that if there is a black person in a TV show or movie it is likely that they're there only to fit a quota.
You are ASSUMING that is why they were cast.
> So yes, simply having a black person can be an example of Woke. Now if you have a TV show like Mayor of Kingstown, there are plenty of black people, but it's not woke, because it makes sense for the story. It would be weird if the cast was all White.
Dude, you claimed that it makes no sense for a black person to be in Dark Matter... a show set in Chicago.
Yes, that is the problem with forced diversity, you will always assume that the black person is there to fill a quota, because more than likely, they are.
As for Dark Matter, my problem was the character he was playing and that he would be friends with somebody like the protagonist. It's just not believable.
And you don't have to lecture me about Chicago. I have lived in Chicago all my life (in the city), I know what it's like here.
Fun fact:
As unbelievable as this sounds, an hour ago, my black neighbor was just over my house for a beer and a quick chat. I told him about this website and showed him some of my posts and my conversations with you. He's an older gentlemen in his mid 50's, and he laughed his ass off. And when it came to you his exact words were "What's wrong with that boy?"
We really do live in the most absurd timeline.
>Yes, that is the problem with forced diversity, you will always assume that the black person is there to fill a quota, because more than likely, they are.
Do you have any data on this whatsoever?
Like you know there are a lot of experienced black actors around, right?
>As for Dark Matter, my problem was the character he was playing and that he would be friends with somebody like the protagonist. It's just not believable.
Why?
>As unbelievable as this sounds, an hour ago, my black neighbor was just over my house for a beer and a quick chat. I told him about this website and showed him some of my posts and my conversations with you. He's an older gentlemen in his mid 50's, and he laughed his ass off. And when it came to you his exact words were "What's wrong with that boy?"
And then everyone clapped, I'm sure. Did you tell him you want him expelled from the country?
No, I'm sorry, that data is classified and you don't have clearance.
>As for Dark Matter, my problem was the character he was playing and that he would be friends with somebody like the protagonist. It's just not believable.
Why?
And then everyone clapped, I'm sure. Did you tell him you want him expelled from the country?
>No, I'm sorry, that data is classified and you don't have clearance.
So you have no evidence then.
As I said: You know there are a lot of experienced black actors around, right?
>Because it strains credulity.
Why?
>I don't expect you to believe it. I wouldn't if I was in your place. But it really is true. And no, I didn't show him everything. Some of my posts might be a little harder to explain to him than others. But he knows my views about diversity in the media and he agrees. So there you go. It's not just us Whiteys complaining about diversity.
So how do you think he'd feel if he knew you wanted to ruin his life?
The evidence is on a need to know basis and you don't need know.
>Because it strains credulity.
Why?
So how do you think he'd feel if he knew you wanted to ruin his life?
>The evidence is on a need to know basis and you don't need know.
So I'll just assume you're full of shit. If you're evangelist about this, you're not going to convince anyone by saying this shit.
And as I said: You know there are a lot of experienced black actors around, right? Are you going to acknowledge this point?
>Because it contradicts my lived experience and my truth.
What "lived experience" somehow tells you that a white person in academia in Chicago couldn't possibly know someone who is black?
Here's some professors from the university of chicago:
https://biologicalsciences.uchicago.edu/faculty/ayodeji-adegunsoye
https://www.csu.edu/chemphysengin/faculty/abraha.htm
https://chem.uic.edu/profiles/ayitou-a/
>What the fuck are you talking about? How am I ruining his life? Just because I want blacks to go back to Africa doesn't mean I want to ruin there lives.
You would, if you could, make him by force upend his life here and move to an African country (in which I assume he's never lived).
>It's not like it's at gun point. Also, in his case, he could stay. He's too old to be upending his life and moving anywhere. He gets a pass. He can stay if he wants to.
It would be if you had it your way.
So I'll just assume you're full of shit. If you're evangelist about this, you're not going to convince anyone by saying this shit.
And as I said: You know there are a lot of experienced black actors around, right? Are you going to acknowledge this point?
What "lived experience" somehow tells you that a white person in academia in Chicago couldn't possibly know someone who is black?
Here's some professors from the university of chicago:
You would, if you could, make him by force upend his life here and move to an African country (in which I assume he's never lived).
It would be if you had it your way.
So here I am, genuinely engaging you honestly like you claim you want. Yet you're behaving like a child.
>I'm not acknowledging shit.
Really. So is Morgan Freeman only ever hired for diversity reasons? Or Idris Elba? Or Donald Glover?
>Did the black guy in Dark Matter look like a professor from academia? No. He was just a colored fag inserted into the script to check a diversity box.
What is "looking like a professor from academia" supposed to be? Apart from which he technically wasn't a professor. He had a PHD, then he made that company with Jason. More a tech entrepeneur In **one reality**. He was different in many other realities. As you know.
>No I would not. Who do you think knows more about what I would or wouldn't do? You or me? Maybe you should let me speak for myself instead of putting words in my mouth.
Oh, so you no longer want to use force to deport all black people from the USA?
I'm sorry. I'm trying. But honestly, and with all due respect, you are so exhausting to talk to. I can only bear so much and I have to be in a mood for it, and I'm just not up to it at the moment. I'm already drained.
So I'll just answer these two questions:
1. No I don't think that Morgan Freeman ticks a diversity box. Morgan Freeman is an established actor and a box office draw. People don't watch him or hire him because he's black, they watch him because he's Morgan Freeman.
So if he's in a movie it's unlikely that he is checking a diversity box.
2. And no, I don't want to forcefully deport black people from the country. I want to forcefully deport all the migrants that have come to the U.S. in the last decade. As for black people, I would want to create incentives for them to go back to Africa. It could be in the form of reparations. Go to Africa and get money to start a new life there.
Pro tip:
When I say things like "we should expel all coloreds" or "we should exterminate all queers" or "Hitler 2024" or "we should put leftists in concentration camps", etc. it is more than likely that I'm being just a teeny tiny bit hyperbolic. It's often just an expression of my frustration with someone or something in form of dark humor.
Hope that helps.
>1. No I don't think that Morgan Freeman ticks a diversity box. Morgan Freeman is an established actor and a box office draw. People don't watch him or hire him because he's black, they watch him because he's Morgan Freeman.
You have no idea about what black actors are diversity or not. You just assume they all are.
And there are plenty of other younger black actors out there just like him with great reputations who could have genuinely been chosen based on that reputation, and their acting quality.
>As for black people, I would want to create incentives for them to go back to Africa. It could be in the form of reparations. Go to Africa and get money to start a new life there.
And zero african countries would be interested in this at all. Their own people wouldn't fucking want millions of people coming in, who have never been there, who may not speak the language (English is not ubiquitous across Africa, and many have strong regional languages or just speak French dialects).
Also: What is "looking like a professor from academia" supposed to be? Apart from which he technically wasn't a professor. He had a PHD, then he made that company with Jason. More a tech entrepeneur In **one reality**. He was different in many other realities. As you know.
What Grifthunter doesn't seem to understand is that I only berate bad-faith brain-dead anti-White woketards. There are plenty of examples where I've had thoughtful conversations with many other members here. And like you said, if we had a long discussion I'm sure there would be things we disagree on, but I would listen to you in earnest and consider your point of view and I would be more than happy to compromise and change my mind. Unlike Grifthunter, I'm not a zealot. I'm not married to my beliefs. I'm always willing to change my mind.
shareYou willing to change your mind? LMAO! Nice joke! You want all races except whites deported from this country, you support white supremacy and Nazi ideology and gloat about it. Doesn't sound like an open minded person to me.
shareI am willing to listen, compromise, and change my mind. I'm not a zealot like you.
And FYI for the mentally retarded:
I'm not actually a Nazi (that would imply that I want to exterminate the Jews, which is not the case). What I actually am is a conservative socialist with fascism as my alter ego, which is just an exaggerated version of me and my reactionary politics.
A zealot who berated anyone who opposed having only whites in this country? I'm the zealot? Nice projection man.
You were openly gloating about how you were a Nazi. You backpedaling on that now?
When I joust with woke retards I will often say that I'm a fascist and sometimes a Nazi depending on how hostile they are. It's a way of disarming them. It tells them right up front that I'm a racist, homophobe, transphobe, sexist, ableist, fascist, and a Nazi and I'm proud of it. This way their woke rhetoric, mind games, guilt trips, domination tactics, etc. go right out the window. I don't care what they call me. I'm willing to wear those labels like a badge of honor.
shareI didn't get aggressive like that. I did however call you out on racist claims of only wanting only whites in this country. So you are projecting your bad experiences with others onto me? I guarantee if I was to say I'm anti white that would cause an uproar from your end. So notice how I don't resort to those antics even though I've had bad experiences with right ringers on here.
So to be clear are you walking back your bigot claims now?
Depends what you mean by bigoted claims. There are racist and bigoted things I say for the purposes of humor (which I will not walk back) and then there are ideas I hold and policies I support that left wingers would consider bigoted or racist. I don't consider wanting to have a country that is exclusive to your people and race to be racist. It does not mean we hate other races, or that we want to exploit them. It doesn't mean that they can't visit our country and experience our culture. It doesn't even mean that they can't live here, as long as it's in small numbers.
But left wingers won't accept this. For them if it's not a multicultural society it must be a racist society. Of course this only applies to White people. Nobody calls the Chinese racist for wanting to have a society that works for the benefit of Asian people.
So when you said you are ok with violating minorities rights was that a joke also?
Notice how you only want whites to live here? Whites were not the original ones in this country. Many other races are here before them so by that logic isn't it not your land? Oh yeah now since you hold the power you want to claim it to be your land. Oh and no it's not that you want only whites here as to why you are being called racist, it's what you want to do in order to make that happen.
You openly said you are ok with violating other race's rights to make this country all white. That's why you are being called racist smart guy.
What rights am I violating? I want to deport people that should not have been allowed in here in the first place (migrants coming here in the last decade). I also would like to incentivize Latinos to go back to their countries by working with them to improve their lands and economies. I would like to do the same with black people and encourage them to go back to Africa. Create a partnership with Africa, give them reparations, and help them start a new life there where they could be among their own people.
All I want is for each peoples to have their own lands. This is never a problem when we are talking about anyone else, but somehow becomes taboo as soon as it concerns White people. Well I'm in the business of demolishing cultural taboos. Especially when it comes to race and political correctness and other left wing bullshit.
Can you give me an example where I wanted to violate their rights where I wasn't trolling and being hyperbolic?
That's not what you said originally. You said you were ok with violating other race's rights to get what you want.
How do I know you aren't trolling or being hyperbolic? You are now playing a game. If you get called out on something you can't defend you will claim it's a joke. Cowardly way to debate you sack of shit. Anyways I think I've humored you long enough. Anything else or we done here?
You are now playing a game. If you get called out on something you can't defend you will claim it's a joke. Cowardly way to debate you sack of shit.
Anyways I think I've humored you long enough. Anything else or we done here?
No I think you are just an asshole looking for get a rise out of people.
The discussion ended fine but in the end I still don't think you are genuine. I think you like to antagonize and anytime you get cornered you will claim it's a joke. So anyways I appreciate it much more once you attempted to discuss honestly rather than be an asshole. I'm not interested in the game though. I shouldn't have to dissect everything you say then when I call you on it you play it off as a joke. That's where you lose me I'm sorry.
No I think you are just an asshole looking for get a rise out of people.
The way you talk is.... nothing but assertions. Yes, your behavior in this thread does make is clear that you are the zealot here.
And the racist. racist against whites.
Um no that's you bud.
Not racist against whites at all. Funny you calling out curiousmind for his racist claims or is that ok because it isn't whites?
1. No, it's you. YOu are the one that responded to the op, ie a white guy voicing a compalint, by having a multiple weeks long hissy fit.
2. HIs racism hasn't been an issue in this discussion. There is nothing to discuss. In what way has it been relevent? This thread is about white happiness or lack there of.
For antagonistic bad faith behavior yes.
But I brought his bad faith behavior also. You denied it and I proved he was bad faith. Whites are unhappy because of the economy end of story.
1. You mostly spoke to me, and I was completely willing to have a discussion about it, and you refused to even mention what hte issue was. YOu are insanely dishonest and you are an asshole.
2. Except you repeatedly and constantly bolstered your argument with whining like a fag about blacks. Your own behavior undermines your position. Your responses NEVER was to talk about how great the economy was in the 80s, but to whine like a fag how blacks were treated in teh 50s. You clearly are not open to discussing white issues at all.
Um... Liar liar pants on fire! I told you early on what his responses were and how it was bad faith. You looked past it you lying piece of shit.
No I questioned your golden era. And then I mentioned how the economy was the issue and you bypassed it.
You had a hissy fit over hte very idea that white people might have a complaint.
shareNope as I originally stated I called out him for his antagonistic behavior. And by the way I got him to openly admit he was trolling and being an asshole. Once I got past that, him and I actually had a decent conversation. We end things ok. So it destroyed your notion I didn't want to honestly debate. I still don't like him but he's far more reasonable than your dumb ass.
Want proof I got him to admit he was being an antagonistic trolling asshole? I can easily provide it. https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/6674cc3c21c7f60be98cee1f/White-people-in-the-80s?reply=6689d25e8eb029123f7a01df
Boom! So when you claimed me saying him being an asshole or antagonistic wasn't true I got him to openly admit it. Right from the horses's mouth. Checkmate!
Have you asked him, as teh fucking op, why he thinks that the white people of the 80s were happy and they are not today?
shareI did. How does it feel being wrong about him being an antagonistic asshole?
shareReally? I don't recall you doing that. When did you do that? What did he say?
shareYeah I did. Nope first concede that I was right about him being an antagonistic asshole.
shareDude, YOU'RE the antagonistic asshole.
You're refusing to disclose what the op was about. Right there, you're the one being an asshole refusing to discuss the topic.
He openly admitted to trolling and being an asshole! Are you denying his own words? Him and I discussed it dipshit. You denying his own admission?
shareHe also stated that he was open to a serious discussin and changing his mind.
You are the one that has been stonewalling since the op.
WHAT WAS HIS ANSWER, IF YOU REALLY ASSKED HIM.?
In the op? No he did not. He in one of his responses said we gotta not make whites feel guilty about being superior to other races. https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/6674cc3c21c7f60be98cee1f/White-people-in-the-80s?reply=6674d30d21c7f60be98cee9f
That wasn't antagonistic?
Once you concede that he was being an antagonistic asshole we will proceed.
He himself admitted it and you are trying to be an apologist for him. You were wrong learn some humility and admit you were wrong.
And the crickets are quite loud. So looks like you dropped it. Wise choice, since you got beaten.
shareHuh? Oh sorry, I just got so bored with your bullshit i kind of forgot about you.
Listen grift.
you spent over two weeks refusing to even discuss hte issue.
Clearly in your mind, whites are not allowed to voice any complaints, especially if they might reflect negagively on any POCs.
I called out his antagonistic behavior and tactics. He himself admitted to being an antagonistic trolling asshole. You know I proved you wrong. That's why you ignored it.
Whites can list complaints. He was not doing that. He was being an antagonistic asshole. You don't seem to grasp that. Has he been willing to openly discuss it I would gladly do it. His responses exposed how he was being antagonistic. You lost be a man and admit it. I have him on file admitting to bring an asshole that trolls. I provided you the proof are you denying his own words?
You SAY whites can list complaints but the OP was him listing ONE complaint, ie unhappiness and you had a hissy fit and did nothing but attack him for weeks.
Then, when you finally agreed to discuss the issue, you managed about one post then pivoted to whining like a fag about black complaints.
Nope it wasn't that he listed whites complaints. It was the assholish antagonistic nature in which he did it in bad faith. Get that through your thick skull.
Oh so you mean I argued in bad faith back? Funny so he's allowed to do something in bad faith but I can't. Nice logic.
You SAY whites can list complaints but the OP was him listing ONE complaint, ie unhappiness and you had a hissy fit and did nothing but attack him for weeks.
Then, when you finally agreed to discuss the issue, you managed about one post then pivoted to whining like a fag about black complaints.
Nope it wasn't that he listed whites complaints. It was the assholish antagonistic nature in which he did it in bad faith. Get that through your thick skull.
Oh so you mean I argued in bad faith back? Funny so he's allowed to do something in bad faith but I can't. Nice logic.
You SAY whites can list complaints but the OP was him listing ONE complaint, ie unhappiness and you had a hissy fit and did nothing but attack him for weeks.
Then, when you finally agreed to discuss the issue, you managed about one post then pivoted to whining like a fag about black complaints.
As the subject of this debate perhaps I can clear a few things up. When I posted my OP I was being provocative, if some want to call it being an asshole, then so be it. I would disagree with that characterization. As a White person I have many complaints. I am appalled at how accepted it is to degrade White people. And I am appalled at the large numbers of self-hating Whites who have been so brainwashed by woke anti-White propaganda that they actively work against their own interests out of some pathological guilt for the sins of their ancestors.
The point of my OP, as provocative as it was, was not in bad faith, but merely a way to show how it felt like to be White in the 80's and how different it is to be White today.
This is what I've said to Corbell but it applies to you too.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/6674cc3c21c7f60be98cee1f/White-people-in-the-80s?reply=668f325cbefbc978211ee4d2
Nope it wasn't that he listed whites complaints. It was the assholish antagonistic nature in which he did it in bad faith. Get that through your thick skull.
Oh so you mean I argued in bad faith back? Funny so he's allowed to do something in bad faith but I can't. Nice logic.
Fyi I am more than willing to do the copy and paste game. Just a fair warning going forward.
You SAY whites can list complaints but the OP was him listing ONE complaint, ie unhappiness and you had a hissy fit and did nothing but attack him for weeks.
Then, when you finally agreed to discuss the issue, you managed about one post then pivoted to whining like a fag about black complaints.
Nope it wasn't that he listed whites complaints. It was the assholish antagonistic nature in which he did it in bad faith. Get that through your thick skull.
Oh so you mean I argued in bad faith back? Funny so he's allowed to do something in bad faith but I can't. Nice logic.
It has ruined the fun. With no lynchings, what are me an the boys supposed to do on the weekends?
shareWhite people still have it the easiest in the West. They're the ones with political and social power.
shareAnd Chinese have power in China, Indians in India, Africans in Africa, Hispanics in most of South America, etc. What's your point? Furthermore, in none of the above have the native stock willingly abandoned power structures to the extent that Europeans have in their own lands.
shareNot anymore. White people are constantly demonized in this country and "people of color" have all the privileges. In Chicago, the Mayor is even talking about eliminating taxes for just people of color because of systemic racism or something.
shareYou have to be REALLY insane to believe that.
shareWhite people still have it the easiest in the West. They're the ones with political and social power
What's "white"? I'm Irish-Indigenous. Is how I look more important than my actual ancestry? If we do away with the notion of "white", "black", etc., particularly since it's immaterial once looking beneath the surface genetically, it can't be a thing anymore. Let's endeavor to take their power away from them, or at the very least stop feeding them more. Starve them, and they'll wither away.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Nah, I want to preserve what it means to be Irish. I want to preserve what it means to be indigenous. By mixing these two you are diluting the bloodline. If everyone did this, all races would disappear. We would all just be mystery meat. That may sound appealing to progressives but not to me. I think races are precious. Ironically, it's the diversity that I like. This is real diversity. separate races living separately. Where we can all admire each other's peoples and cultures. Where we can visit each other's lands and see something different and have our own land for our people that others can visit and experience. The progressive idea of diversity destroys all that. It will make every land the same. It will make all the people the same. That is not a world I want to live in.
shareThat's trying to prevent the inevitable. For example, many "Irish" have Scandinavian markers due to ancient Vikings injecting their genetics into the population long ago. Genetically speaking, some are barely distinguishable. Preserving "Irish" isn't about genetics. It's about culture. In fact, genetically speaking, the more diverse the healthier. The further away we get from inbreeding, the better off we are as a species. I get your inclination and don't completely disagree, but it has little to do with genetics. It's culture.
And to really boil it down to a foundation that applies to just about everything: it's about subverting naturally occurring entropy and maintaining civilization, language, etc. standards. Entropy produces needless change and chaos, while a framework of standards, introducing change in a measured, thoughtful manner only when beneficial, sustains stability. But constraining ourselves genetically only hurts us in the long run. From a genetics perspective, humans are already a mere 1% of what we once were due to ancient catastrophes that nearly wiped us out. Why further constrain ourselves by forcing the coalescing of genetic abnormalities?
it's never a good idea to put all your eggs into one basket, so to speak.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Race doesn't exist beyond the level of skin pigmentation?
So where are all the white sprinters? Where are all the black inventors? Where are...oh, forget it, you'll believe what you're programmed to believe because it flatters you to think we're all the same, requires no effort on your part. Meanwhile, sub-Saharan Africans have average IQs two standard deviations below Ashkenazi Jews, East Asians, and northern Europeans. Go ahead, ask those Africans to design, build, and pilot an airplane for you. Bon voyage!
Race doesn't exist beyond the level of skin pigmentation?"
It appears that it's human nature to group people and then discriminate.
Religion, region, language, political ideology, etc. are used for excuses to hate in places where only one race exists.
Furthermore, people may be wired differently. According to research, liberals are comfortable with diversity, debate and freedom. Conservatives are uncomfortable with diversity while enjoying homogeneity, rules and order.
No coincidence that most police and soldiers are conservative while most artists are liberal.
We must find a way to live together while respecting each other's differences and prevent politicians from exploiting bigotry for their own purposes. I've no idea how to do this since humans allow their emotions to rule them. - Spock
Explain why Europeans killed 6 million Ashkenazi Jews during the Holocaust!
shareWhat does that have to do relative IQs?
shareWhat did they do with the 6 million bodies?
If you provide a single link or quote, I will dismiss it as lies or propaganda.
Sorry, are you now a holocaust denier? Why are the many pictures, testimonies, documentation and video footage all incorrect?
You are literally asking him to prove the holocaust happened without being able to use any third-party data of any kind. How is it one would falsify your suggestion that the holocaust didn't happen?