MovieChat Forums > Will Smith Discussion > Stats on Black Crime

Stats on Black Crime


According to the US department of Justice, in 2019 there were 11,060 murders, whites committed 5,070 of these crimes and blacks committed 5,660!

The thing is, whites make up 76% of the population while blacks make up 13% !

Furthermore, this violent minority group committed 39,000 robberies compared to 32,000 by whites!

The statistics speak for themselves.

So when they say that the Will Smith slapping perpetuated a 'violent sterotype' I would say that it is not a stereotype. Its a fact.

We need to have a conversation in America why this minority group is killing and robbing people on a scale hugely disproportionate to their numbers!

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2

reply

Do you have the statistics of the percentage of black people under poverty line, and vs white people?

That would make the explanation a bit clearer.

My theory is that the poor people steal and rob, and probably kill people in the process, rich people don't usually do that.

And because of thinking like yours, they and their children are more likely trapped in poverty, in poor neighborhoods and under funded public education.

reply

In 2019, the share of Blacks in poverty was 1.8 times greater than their share among the general population. Blacks represented 13.2% of the total population in the United States, but 23.8% of the poverty population.

Now, that 1.8 times still doesn't explain the statistical differences here, which is many, many, many times the population!

reply

Your number is about black people vs general population, not white people.

reply

OK. I dug a bit more:

According to: https://www.statista.com/statistics/200476/us-poverty-rate-by-ethnic-group/

In 2020, 19.5 percent of Black people living in the United States were living below the poverty line. This is compared to 8.2 percent of White people, and 8.1 percent of Asian people.

According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
Non-Hispanic White 57.9%
Black or African American 12.1%

So you match these numbers, you get:
White people under poverty line: 4.7396% of population
Black people under poverty line: 2.3585% of population

So roughly twice as much of white people under poverty line than black people in absolute numbers.

According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
"According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 41.1%, and "Other" 3.0% in cases where the race was known."

So the number is high for black homicide offenders.

"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2002, robberies with white victims and black offenders were more than 12 times more common than the opposite."

The number for robbery is pretty bad as well.

Assaults they mostly give the race of victims rather than offenders. But
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in 2008, black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws, and drunkenness.

So you might actually have a point there. At least my theory did not work.

reply

I realize that these racist idiots completely ignored your research. I appreciate the knowledge though so it’s not for nothing. You educated me.

reply

Thank you. You are very kind.

reply

Jinx is a beautiful person.

One of my favourite contributors here x

reply

So you match these numbers, you get:
White people under poverty line: 4.7396% of population
Black people under poverty line: 2.3585% of population

Of the total population, yes. But remember this: 13.1% of all Americans live below the poverty line. 19.5% of all blacks live below the poverty line. This means blacks are overrepresented among the poor by a factor of 1.49. They are also overrepresented in robberies by a factor of 1.8, so that is pretty comparable. When you additionally account for things not easily quantifiable, such as what expectations society at large has of you, to what extent they fear you, and not least how likely it is for then it is for the police to target you (this is a feedback loop), it is small wonder that they overrepresent certain felony arrests as much as they do.

reply

You are not doing it right. You used relative numbers when you talked about poverty, you used absolute numbers when you talked about crimes.

There are about twice as many whites under poverty than blacks in absolute numbers, about twice as many black robbery offenders than whites in absolute numbers, that is what the numbers were saying.

I thought it was all about poverty too, but clearly that was not the case.

reply

Poverty is an important factor, and proof of this is because concentration of poverty=concentration of crime. But it doesn't give the full picture. The thing about being a minority is that you are very visible, which is a very real hindrance to social mobility. If you're white, it's a lot easier to go from rags to riches than if you are any kind of marginalised minority. Most poor white people still won't, but they know intuitively that they have the possibility if they apply themselves properly. Black people, on the other hand, have the intuitive knowledge that doors are shut to them, so they are less likely to try and more likely to harbour resentment for their situation. Simply belonging to a rich or poor culture does a lot to affect your general disposition.

Moreover, those crime numbers do not reflect the amount of crime taking place, but are the numbers of arrests. Not crimes reported, not convictions, but arrests - which is not the best stat to use. After all, a single crime can have multiple arrests before they happen to arrest the right one - if they even get that far. And the police does not have infinite resources; most petty crime won't even lead to any arrests at all. In order to facilitate as many arrests as they can, however, the police profile areas and people.

There's also the fact that there are differences between various levels of poverty as well. You don't necessarily live in abject poverty just because you live under the poverty line, but the next threshold in the statistics is homeless. But you can be absolutely destitute and still belong to the same official category as people who are poor but still manage to make ends meet.

Poverty remains the biggest factor when it comes to certain types of crime, but of course it doesn't tell the full story.

reply

The thing about being a minority is that you are very visible, which is a very real hindrance to social mobility. If you're white, it's a lot easier to go from rags to riches than if you are any kind of marginalised minority.

I think that is an important factor as well.

When started as high crime race, it becomes difficult to shake that image, could even create a negative feedback loop.

I think Asian communities are less affected mostly because it was embedded in their culture to respect law and authority, even their gangs are a lot more structured and hierarchy-ed, at least that is what I learned from movies.

Rap and hip-pop became a significant part of black culture did not help either, from what I understand a lot of those singers are linked to gangs and violence, also a lot of them have been promoting life styles of extravagance, partying, sex and drugs, not something can be achieved or sustained through ordinary jobs, especially if you are black. I think that contributed to the crimes of the black youth as well.

I know those to be true to some extent, but how much I don't know, they are hard to quantify. I don't think there are statistics could prove the extent of those effects.

reply

I think Asian communities are less affected mostly because it was embedded in their culture to respect law and authority, even their gangs are a lot more structured and hierarchy-ed, at least that is what I learned from movies.

For Asian communities, there is also a positive feedback loop, as they are expected to be successful above boards. This is also true of Jewish communities, but they are usually simply lumped together with whites in these kinds of statistics.

reply

Oh yes, they're trapped. Give me a fucking break. This is America, no one is "trapped" in poverty, especially blacks. People like YOU making excuses for them is perpetuating the problem.

reply

Like I said that was my theory, though after going through the numbers it did not seem to work.

reply

Ever heard of redlining districts? Read about the history of 20th century Chicago and how it's affluent citizens sectionalized Chicago to keep black citizens in poverty to the south side of the city away from the more wealthy northside.

reply

How is that relevant to this discussion?

reply

We're talking about blacks being marginalized/stuck below the poverty line. I listed Chicago to illustrate one example of a root cause of it.

reply

The discussion seems centered around why blacks, who make up 13% of the population, commit 51% of murders, etc. I understand that 100 or so years ago, some parts of Chicago, and other cities, were limited to whites, but I don't see a connection between that and modern-day crime. More recently than redlining, Japanese-Americans were pulled out of their homes and stuck in concentration camps for years, and returned to find their homes now belonged to others, and yet Japanese-Americans aren't committing lots of crimes.

Another poster pointed out that twice as many white people are living below the poverty line, so if it really is a matter of living below the poverty line leads one to commit crimes, shouldn't whites commit twice as many crimes as blacks?

Something else is at work here, and I don't think redlining, or any other past acts of racism are to blame.

reply

Redlining neighborhoods has a lot to do with it. I am speaking to support fc31's earlier point about how privileged society for years has been suppressing blacks by zoning them out of good neighborhoods and keeping them in ghettos with a lack of opportunity to advance out of them with poor schools which lead to perpetual crime and violence from an early age cycling into gangs and prison.

reply

So redlining happened in some areas, but it wasn't the practice in most places, and it was outlawed 54 years ago. Is it reasonable to blame the massive discrepancy in crime stats on that? Wouldn't the myriad boosts given to African-Americans like hiring quotas, affirmative action, hate crime laws, and such at the very least outweigh the effects of redlining?

What you seem to be saying is that because over 50 years ago a small percentage of black home-buyers were subtly forced to buy homes in black neighborhoods, it makes sense that blacks are committing a lot of crimes today, and that even though all blacks have benefited from laws and rules in the meantime, the effects simply aren't enough to outweigh the redlining. That doesn't make any sense to me.

reply

It's rooted in that but in many ways it hasn't changed much from the 20th century. You sound somewhat naive. Discrimination still exists that negatively affects minority segments of the population to this day. Bank loans, home appraisals, job opportunities above the minimum wage scale. The deck has been stacked against minorities for some time and those crumbling neighborhoods still exist in many parts of the US.

reply

Yeah, 2022, same as 1953. lol!

reply

It's unclear to me how the deck is stacked against them. One can make the case the deck is stacked in their favor, with all the extra protections and benefits written into the law on their behalf, as well as all the societal pressure to bend over backwards on their behalf.

However, if we take what you say at face value, why aren't other immigrants suffering? Plenty of people come here from China, India, and other places with nothing but the clothes they are wearing, with no money, and no job, and cram 15 to an apartment, working minimum wage or less, and within a generation many are millionaires. Don't racists hate them, too? Aren't they also being denied opportunities based on race? And weren't they being denied based on race for 50+ years?

reply

If you believe those protections really help then you should talk to the people on the street to see if it helped or not. I would say not. There is still much to be done to level the playing field. There has been a long history of discrimination against black citizens in the U.S. which has been rooted in slavery. I also talked about redlining as an example of a root cause of poverty for generations. Racism/poverty/violence doesn't go away with the snap of a finger or fresh ink due to affirmative action/reparation laws. With China there is a history too but less so compared to black America, Native Americans too. India? Muslims you can argue to an even lesser extent than the Chinese.. but ultimately, you are getting off-topic with your broad commentary of different races.

The point this thread is trying to make is how the long oppression of blacks in the U.S. could cause folks like Will Smith to act out in extreme ways in the presence of a big audience. How it perpetuates the stereotypical view that blacks are more prone to violence than other races or, in the OP's view, the "fact" of it due to the recorded percentages backing it up.

reply

More to do with cultural differences in parenting. Asians are authoritarians, Blacks are more "laissez faire".

reply

Redlining, maybe - if not a bit overblown. Zoning? No. That's reaching as fuck.

reply

Yeah, I agree. Seems like a lot of the posters here are trying to come up with some sort of justification for robbing and murdering people. And the sad thing is, I’m not surprised or shocked at all.

reply

Pretending that poverty is the reason is just enabling the black criminal. The reality is there are a lot more poor people than their are robbers or murders so clearly simply being poor doesn't equate to a life of crime.

You should look at the MLK's speech "Things we must do" from 1957. The following is snippet from it and it is just as true today as it was back then with only numbers being slightly different today. The problem unfortunately is that the typical black kid has the "I had a dream" speech battered into their heads and the more important and meaningful "Things we must do" is forgotten.

"Let us be honest with ourselves, and say that we, our standards have lagged behind at many points. Negroes constitute ten percent of the population of New York City, and yet they commit thirty-five percent of the crime. St. Louis, Missouri: the Negroes constitute twenty-six percent of the population, and yet seventy-six percent of the persons on the list for aid to dependent children are Negroes. We have eight times more illegitimacy than white persons. We’ve got to face all of these things. We must work to improve these standards. We must sit down quietly by the wayside, and ask ourselves: “Where can we improve?”

reply

If you read on you would find I also realized poverty was not the main issue.

But what the exact issues are we only have theories, and if we don't know what the problems are, we don't know how to fix it.

reply

If you read MLK's speech he explains the problem... it's black culture. Pretty fucking plain as day, what everyone with half a brain already knew but what the woke warriors throw a hissy fit about as soon as someone brings it up.

reply

The speech is a theory, you think it makes sense, that does not mean it does. Unless there is a way to prove it, it remains a theory.

Just like my theory, I thought it made sense, but the data said otherwise.

reply

Then show the data that shows the theory that black culture is to blame is incorrect. You can't. So you have two choices here your choice which you admit has been disproven or the one that black culture is to blame which has not been disproven... Pretty fucking clear now, unless you have a better option.

reply

You are not making any sense. You can't prove a negative.

Maybe you should try to prove god does not exist. That should make you understand my point.

reply

https://www.splcenter.org/2018061

The idea that black people are wantonly attacking white people in some sort of quiet race war is an untruthful and damaging narrative with a very long history in America.

Executive Summary
On a Wednesday night in June 2015, a 21-year-old white man walked into a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, and gunned down nine black parishioners taking part in a weekly Bible study group.

Dylann Storm Roof sat quietly with the group for about an hour before taking out his Glock pistol and firing 70 rounds, stopping five times to reload.

Court testimony revealed that during the shooting Roof said, “Y’all are raping our white women. Y’all are taking over the world.”

How this horrific violence came to take place traces back to a particularly destructive idea, one as old as the United States itself and rooted in the country’s white supremacy: that black men are a physical threat to white people.

The narrative that black men are inherently violent and prone to rape white women, as Roof said during his rampage, has been prevalent for centuries. This idea has served as the primary justification for the need to oppress black people to protect the common — meaning white — good.

Roof saw himself as a victim standing up for oppressed whites, not as an aggressor. He had a racist “awakening” spurred by online research he did about the 2012 murder of the black high-school student Trayvon Martin.

As he wrote in his manifesto, the Martin killing “prompted me to type in the words ‘black on white crime’ into Google, and I have never been the same since that day.”

Roof’s internet search quickly led him to the website of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that claims to document an ignored war against whites being waged by violent black people. Google led Roof down a rabbit hole of hate, leaping from one hate site to the next, many filled with “evidence” that black people are pillaging, raping and murdering white people.

reply

What does Will Smith have to do with robbery and murder?

reply

He was trying to say Smith did that because he was black, and because black people are violent by nature, typical racist stuff.

But the numbers he used did reflect an unflattering trend of disproportionate amount of violent crime offenders are black, more so than the proportion of black people living in poverty, so my theory did not seem to work, maybe you have better ones.

reply

It’s an interesting culture of poverty. A kind of poverty that white people have never experienced. When slavery was abolished they had no way of taking care of themselves, no money, no ability to buy land or make money other than working for the people that enslaved them.

White people think that they are oppressed living in trailer parks over power lines, black people had to work up to that. It doesn’t go away in a few generations.

They started having to commit crimes in order to SURVIVE because they couldn’t afford anything, so there is a reputation and they all get painted with the same brush even if you live like a friggin’ saint. So if you put yourself in their position, you get treated like a thief and a criminal even when your not. The thieves are at least getting something out of the situation so what motivation would you have to be law abiding in that situation.

It’s pervasive. It’s working with the situation you’re put in. In a situation like that all a man can do is Look out for himself and his family.

reply

That is a sensible theory. The diminished career prospects due to racism turned black people to gangs and crimes, though the effect of that is hard to quantify.

reply

There were NO career prospects, just imagine you are a slave one day and then the next people are like "You're free!" What do you do? Where do you go and how do you provide for yourself and your family? It's literally an impossible situation.

How do you make money? Who's going to give you a job, where are you going to live? Just thinking about that is harrowing.

reply

Asains didn't seem to have any problems after the war ended. You know when there homes, jobs and money were taken by the state after they were put into literal concentration camps.

You can't keep blaming the past for the problems of today.

There are many people of all coulours and creeds and who are improverished and struggling and they don't turn to crime.

reply

The history of Asians in this country is NOTHING like what African American's went through.

The past has everything to do with today. Progress grows slower than a tree my friend.

reply










oh bull.

reply

I posted this elsewhere, it's relevant here.

"What is needed is a fundamental change in the black culture that creates these monsters. No more absentee fathers. No more "baby-daddy" culture. No more celebrating the thug lifestyle. Get a job. Support your family. Teach them right from wrong. Take responsibility for your own future, work for a living and stop blaming whitey. Take advantage of the opportunities you have. Grow the fuck up."

reply

What does Will Smith slapping Chris Rock have to do with: thug lifestyle, getting a job, supporting your family. Do Smith or Rock do these things or blame whitey?

reply

Nothing but did you read the OP?

reply

What does Will Smith have to do with "black crime"?

reply

Ask the OP.

reply

I did.

I asked you too.

reply

He's not responsible for it.

reply

Well, at the very least, he's contributing to statistics...

reply

Are you comparing robbery, murder, and shootings to what happened at the Oscars?

reply

These people are friggin' nuts.

reply

I don't think black people would like you talking about them like that you racist.

reply

Our species is doomed.

reply

lol, that's pretty racist that you associate robbery, murder and shootings as typical black crimes.

All I'm saying is, if you boil what happened at the Oscars down, it was black crime. There's nothing racist or nuts about that factually correct statement whether you can accept that or not.

reply

He violently assaulted another black guy or did you miss it?

reply

"violently" lol - great hyperbole

reply

it's fact bonehead

reply

What would the conversation be though? Is it even useful to say blacks commit more crime? Let’s pretend blacks were responsible for 100% of all crime. Ok so what? What could even be done to correct this? How do we even use this information? I don’t really understand how to fix big picture problems like this. I think it all starts with a stable home with a loving mom and dad. But if we’re saying look it’s all because of this group of people… well ok what are we supposed to do with that knowledge?

reply

If you don't admit the real problem, there is zero chance of fixing the problem.

And I agree, the stable family is where it starts.

The decades we have spent blaming white wacism or poverty, has prevented us from actually doing ANYTHING to address the actual problem.

reply

Yeah I think we pretty much agree on all parts. Where we pry differ is I just feel like there is no mass solution that can be implemented. If it all boils down to the family and individual choices, how do you fix individual black households, or anyones household other than your own or the people close to you? From my perspective I have 100% control on how I conduct myself, raise my kids, treat my wife, etc. how I choose to handle all those things will have a major impact on how my kids will turn out. But it’s all by my choice, based on my conscience formed from my own upbringing. But we can’t control piece of shit moms and dads that are ruining their kids minds with their shitty choices. Maybe i sound heartless but I’m content on concerning myself with my own family/friends/LOCAL community and letting everyone else fend for themselves because I feel that’s all I can do.

reply

Step one, stop celebrating single moms.

reply

No absolutely not. Sometimes single parent households are more stable than two parent households. Way to dismiss poverty also. Poverty leads to crime buddy.

reply

And there we go, avoid making hte hard choices, and just keep COPING, with the problems, instead of actually doing ANYTHING to make them better.

And just keep counting the dead.

reply

Your suggestions won't do anything. Everyone has a better chance coming from a loving family that's stable. Unfortunately there is no way to guarantee that happens. Sometimes single parent households are more stable than two parent households.

reply

Guarantee? NO. Much more likely, yes. Dealing with that fact honestly could save lives in the thousands a year.

Stop celebrating single moms.

reply

Yeah no. Sorry disagree.

reply

You disagree that, generally speaking, two parent families do better than single parent families?

That is just you denying science and documented facts.

reply

Better in what way?

reply

In the "way" we were discussing. I reject your pretense that you need to be told ever sentence what the topic is. If your memory is that bad, you need to stay out of forums that discuss matters over periods of days. Look into twitter maybe. If it is just some stupid dodging game that libs play, then color me bored, and drop it.

reply

Nope you just said better as a blanket statement. Your stats don't account for everything. Let me ask can you analyze an NBA game by just looking at a stat sheet?

reply

So, you're standing by your pretense that you are too stupid to understand that I was still talking about the same thing, from one post to the next?

Let's just agree to disagree. You claim to be retarded, and I just don't believe you. NOthing more to be said.

reply

Nope the issue is again you want people to go off generalizations or assumptions. That doesn't work with me. Your concession is noted.

reply

Dude. NO ONE HERE, believes you are as retarded as you are pretending to be. You are obviously just playing silly word games to avoid dealing with the point I made.

reply

You made no point, that is the issue lol.

reply

Dude. I made a point. YOu pretended to not know what it was in reference to. So that you could derail the thread to a moronic debate on semantics or some such shit.

Standard lib defense tactic . When they know they are defending an indefensible position.

reply

And I refuted it by saying that sometimes a single parent household is more functional than a two parent household. What is your retort? That we should stop applauding single parent households?

The issue is you want to make a blanket statement and pretend there are no exceptions to a generalization. Time to get educated.

reply

My retort was to ridicule you for denying that two parent families don't generally do far better than single parent families.

They do, and increasing two parent families as opposed to single parent families, would be the best and most obvious way to decrease black crime.

That you fight against even discussing that, is... just insane.

reply

To which I pointed out that there is an exception to that generalization. You want to pretend that there is not. Okay then how you do you make families stick together? Tell me how you govern that? Elaborate.

reply

Why does that matter though? Corbell stated the fact that children are generally better off in a traditional nuclear family, and they are. Not only are you not disagreeing with him but your point is mostly insignificant. The exception to the rule does not disso9lve the rule.

reply

Who wouldn't agree that kids are better off from a stable loving family? Problem is there isn't a way to guarantee that. Also it's foolish to assume that just because there is two parents in a house that it's functional. You are better off with a functional one parent household than a two parent household that is dysfunctional. See the issue is you guys want to say they are better off but offer no way to gurantee that occurs. Unfortunately we get dealt certain cards and we have to deal. Teaching people how to cope with what they are dealt is important. Not idealizing situations because that's not how life works.

reply

Thanks sparky. And Moviefanatic? None of us are claiming that anything "GURANTEES" that the children will do better. That is just something you made up to avoid dealing with the facts.

And teh fact is, if we want to improve "black crime stats" the best way to do it, is to encourage two parent families and discourage single parent families.

We can do that. It can be an improvement that will save lives and improve lives.


Sure, we can't really change the families that already exist, but we can change the families of the next generation and the ones after that.

reply

It has been encouraged and it's not working... So no wrong again. Also plenty of functional people come from single parent families. Therefore nope I disagree. How about teaching people to cope with the cards they are dealt? As opposed to acting like life will be ideal.

reply

1. HOw has it been encouraged?

2. No one is claiming that every child of a single mom is doomed to be a criminal. We all agree that plenty of good people manage to carve a nice path for themselves despite coming from a single parent home. So, you can stop beating that dead horse.

3. "Acting like life will be ideal"? What are you talking about? How are any of us doing that?

4. The point remains. If we significantly raise the rate of two parent homes, it will save lives and lower crime. Potentially A LOT.

reply

In many areas. Social media locally etc.

Which proves my point that sometimes a single parent household is more functional than a two parent household. Don't make blanket statements pretending there aren't exceptions to the rule.

Because ideally a person comes from a loving stable family. Who wouldn't agree with that? So then let me ask what's better coming from a two parent household that's a gay couple or a single parent household of a heterosexual?

Okay then how do we do that? I want to hear your plans on making sure that occurs. You have the floor.

reply

1. Give me your best example.
2. The rule still stands. That is way to reduce crime.
3. Errr, wtf? That was not even the question.
4. STOP CELEBRATING SINGLE MOTHERS.

reply

One prime example is religion. Christianity is widespread thought the world. That heavily encourages marriage and a two parent household.

Okay but how do you encourage it more so than it already is? Give me your pitch.

That's the issue when you say two parent household. You just gave a blanket statement.

Ok then give me your solutions then.

reply

1. Saying "Christianity" is you failing.

2. I just did. STOP CELEBRATING SINGLE MOTHERS.

reply

You wanted an example I gave you one. Does it or does it not promote a two parent household?

Oh is that all you need cool. So then don't celebrate drug abuse and there will be no more drug issues. Nice logic.

reply

1. It is NOT us as a society, actively promoting two parent families.

2. It is not "ALL THAT WE NEED", but it is certainly a good and important first step.

reply

Religion is a big part of society so wrong.

Once that occurs let me know what's next.

reply

It won't. We celebrate and encourage single motherhood and the crime will stay high and people will continue to die by the thousands a year.

reply

You never were able to counter my point about religion. That is widespread and encourages two parent households.

reply

Our culture and government and media are all dominated by secular liberals. Policy and culture support and celebrate single mothers. Christians are...old fashioned and made fun of.

reply

LOL guarantee? There are no guarantees in life, nor did anyone here say there was, so who are you arguing with? The bottom line is that more times than not kids are better off with both parents in their lives. The exceptions to the rules (included here would be any ideas of guarantees) do not negate the rule. Therefore it is in the best interest of children to promote a traditional family unit and cease glorifying single moms.

We are having to repeat ourselves here since you don't seem to be processing them. are you one of those 'debaters' that think so long as they are the last ones in the argument that they won?

reply

Exactly my point. There are no guarantees. You can encourage it as much as you want that doesn't mean it's going to even improve anything. The public discouraged drug abuse tell me has that helped?

reply

In this context though that is a non sequitur since no one suggested there were any guarantees.

reply

Okay but even setting that aside did discouraging drug abuse help drug addiction?

reply

I'm sorry that deviates even further and is not germane.

reply

No retort as I thought.

reply

He is totally that. He is pretending we are saying something that we not only did not say, but have repeatedly told him we did not say.

reply

These people don't care for facts

reply

What are you expecting to happen by implementing that?

reply

What I would like to see, would be a decline in single motherhood, leading to more healthier families and in the next generation, a decline in numerous social ills from crime, to drug abuse to dropping out of school to poverty, and depression and ect.

And for that, anytime I mention it, I am viciously attacked and smeared.

AND, thanks for asking. It is amazing how rarely people ask real questions. Or constructive questions that move the discussion forward.

reply

There are a lot of confounding variables throughout this thread. A disproportionate share of Blacks live in the South, where violent crime is generally higher. Relatedly, you have to contend with the fact American Black culture is heavily influenced by a Scots-Irish tradition of "honor" (which translates into significantly more violence).

Then there are negative feedback loops. Consider the family. If a high percentage of Black men are imprisoned, then the ratio of available Black women to available Black men is thrown out of whack. Available Black men will be even less inclined to marry as they have so many options -- and cycles of family formation worsen.

Similarly, it's amusing when conservatives charge "Hollyweird" suffers from an impoverished culture lacking in family values. Imagine you're a male movie star -- wealthy, good-looking, and famous. You also spend long stretches of time away from your wife and children. It's going to be much more difficult to remain faithful. Norm Macdonald had an amusing bit about this comparing himself to Tiger Woods.

As for the Will Smith thing -- would have slapped a woman? An elderly person? A *white* comedian? An important factor in solving crimes and punishing people involves the race (and gender) of the victim. The vast majority of Black violence is directed at other Black people, which is not prioritized (compare with young, photogenic white women).

reply

i can understand the terrible trials and tribulations that the rich and famous movies stars have,

but they are still a cess pit.

reply

That's all well and good, but we're trying to understand causality. Regardless of how we view the morality of Hollywood, or a Black underclass, are we going to explain either primarily on ideas (they don't have religion, their culture is impoverished, etc.), or might it be rooted in material circumstances?

If you have a dude who is ugly and poor, but religious, is he faithful to his wife primarily because of his religious beliefs? Or maybe because he does not have many options, religious restrictions are far more tolerable, and even meaningful.

reply

Understands is good. But only the first step. The goal is what to do about it, or how to use it. With Hollywood I would suggest not letting them push their degraded morals in the entertainment they produce, with the black "underclass" I would suggest NOT celebrating or encouraging single motherhood.

reply

[deleted]

Responding up here since thread got too long. Religion is widespread and encouraged a two parent household. Media being that way is irrelevant. You said it wasn't encouraged and it is even today. You just want right wingers to have complete dominion over everything.

reply

I've not seen one religious person in this thread, talking about how the bible teaches Two Parents.

What I have seen, is you and people like you, defending and celebrating Single Parent families.

We as a society, send a clear message and it is not the Traditional Christian one.

reply

The world is bigger than this website genius. Do you know how widespread religion is across the world?

I defend them because I'm not going to let idiots like you shame them or paint them in a negative light.

reply

1. Wow. Sure, that was my intent. That this website was the whole world. Thanks for clearing that up. Dumbass.
Meanwhile, my point stands. Christians don't run this society, libs like you do, and they celebrate single moms constantly.

2. And that is why the status que will continue and thousands will die a year, that don't need to, and many more will have their lives ruined in one fashion or another. Cause God FOrbid we hurt someone's feelings.

reply

How wide does that religion spread? My point stands.

That will occur even with your method. So fail yet again.

reply

1. We just witnessed a battle between Traditional Christian Morality and you Secular Liberals on gay marriage. How did that work out? You people are in charge of the culture and the shit that results is your fault.

2. AND you people just demonstrated that culture can be changed, if we choose. So your claim that it is impossible, is stupid.

reply

You can swing this door another way. You conservatives believe in the war on drugs how did that work out? Since you guys got your way there you are responsible and to blame for the disastrous results of the drug war. So let me ask then you against gay marriage? I'm not liberal fyi I can't stand Biden I was for Sanders over both Trump and Biden. I think both those idiots are trash.

If we choose yep which is why the war on drugs is a joke. Simply not celebrating single moms isn't going to change anything you braindead idiot. Maybe actually helping people beyond empty words could help.

reply

Yes, any policies that conservatives support, I'm happy to discuss their policies and the results...

Oh. I see. You expected me to play silly games, to dodge points that might be...challenge my world view or something.

LOL. My point stands. Gay Marriage shows that we can change society if we choose to. And by "we", I mean you, as you libs have demonstrated that you hold that power, not us.

And instead of trying to improve the black family and thus save thousands of black lives, you choose to focus on gay marriage and pronounds.


reply

Good then you need to blame their failures the same way you do the other way. Plenty of conservative ideas have been terrible. The drug war being a prime example. Another one is healthcare.

We can choose to change but just like the drug war or healthcare conservatives dig their heels in just as bad as liberals do. Your suggestion is to encourage that doesn't do anything. Drug abuse is discouraged did that stop drug addiction? Also I'm not a liberal I just disagree with you. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal.

You brought up gay marriage not me. I'm focused more so on the drug war and healthcare. So nope fail again. You are trash at debating buddy.



reply

Wow, you are great at declaring yourself a winner.

Meanwhile in teh real world, yes, I agree that conservatives should be held responsible for the results of policies they support. That you thought that point had to be made, says a lot about you, not me.

My point stands. We can change our culture. And by we, I mean you people who control the culture, primarily entertainment, and media. And that you choose to NOT do that, is your choice.

We could be pushing to change the high rate of single parent families and instead you people are fighting to keep it high, if not grow it, even though it is terrible for society adn the people involved.

reply

I'm not in charge of the media or the entertainment industry genius. After all you considered the batman to be racist against whites. That's quite telling for someone to make that claim considering the main hero of that film is a rich straight white man. Remember though you guys are so oppressed.

You aren't offering how to change a thing. You simply said don't encourage. Okay again my point stands. Did discouraging drug use stop drug abuse? Yes or no?

I'm not part of the liberal group. You simply don't like that I disagree with you about the methods you take. Someone can disagree with you and not be a liberal.

reply

1. Cool. Now you are pretending to not know that " you people" is a plural reference to a group. Good dodging. You must be very afraid.

2. NOT encouraging is the first step of change. Hell, being honest about the problem is really the first step, something that is obviously beyond you.

3. Yeah, I don't believe you. Everything about you, reeks of being a liberal.

reply

You lumped me into a group therefore it's only fair I do it to you also.

Did not encouraging drug abuse solve drug problems? Notice you won't answer this because it undermines your claim.

I don't care if you believe me. I believe you are a racist bigot.

reply

1. Your response did not address what i said, and instead addressed something that was the opposition of my previously stated position.

2. IMO, as a society we have sent a very mixed message on drugs. Sure, drugs are illegal, but they are also presented as glamorous in music and movies and such.

3. The difference is my opinion is based on your actual behavior, while yours is just you being an asshole.

reply

No I did address what you said. I told you I am not in charge of the media or entertainment genius. That goes so far past anyone it is ignorant you would think I have control over that.

In your opinion key word there. In public schools they did the dare program for years. Also remember those anti-marijuana commercials they made back in the early 2000's? Those ads were plastered all over tv. You could not have a tv and not know what that is. So no I think you are wrong. Only movies that glamorize that would be adult films. Kids should not be watching movies that are that dark until someone is of a mature enough age to understand deeper things in life. Drug addiction is not just because of being influenced by entertainment it runs much deeper than that.

Oh no my opinion is based off your behavior as well. Look at the things you have said. You claimed the Batman to be a racist film against whites. That narrative gets undercut considering the hero is a rich white heterosexual male. What was that about whites being oppressed again?

reply

1. Word game done.

2. My understanding is that plenty of those programs had good results. But those programs were limited, not an united message from the culture as a whole. Kids should not be watching adult films? Cool. you say that as though your words make it so. It is funny the way you libs think.

3. Yeah, nothing about that is wacist. You disagree, which is fine, but then you assume ill motive, which makes you an asshole. My conclusion is based on your behavior, not stuff I make up about it. Completely different you lunatic.

reply

Translation can't refute my claim.

The war on drugs has good results? Lmao! You are deluded. Where did I say my words made it so? Lots of kids or people do things they shouldn't. It's a parents job to raise their kids correctly. Unfortunately lots of them don't. You thought that by encouraging two parent households it makes it so. Lol pot meet kettle.

Nope you are a racist I pulled your claims as proof.

reply

1. No translation. i respectfully decline your invitation to play a word game.

2. My words were clear. And it was not the strawman you just posted. See, the fact that you had to post my supposed statement, before you responded? That is you putting forth your strawan. It is a nice strawman. I can see that you are proud of it. It has nothing to do with me or anything I said. I can see that you are afraid of my actual words.

3. "Racism" is a word with real meaning. None of my statements or claims you cited met that meaning. YOu are just... being an asshole now.

reply

No you couldn't refute my claim. I responded to your words directly. I have no control over media or entertainment. It's cute you think I have that kind of power.

The drug war has been a failure. Remember those anti marijuana ads back in the 2000s? They didn't work drug use actually became worse. Maybe instead of treating drug abuse as a legal issue we should treat it as a mental or medical issue? Weird thought huh?

Nope I took your exact words. Did you or did you not claim America to be racist against whites? You made this claim don't deny that you did. You also said the batman is a racist film. Then I countered by saying the dark knight is racist against blacks and you got all salty. You are a prick who deserves every amount of hate you get. I have no respect for you. I'm happy your entertainment gets destroyed it makes me love it even more. Leave the country since you dislike it. Since it's racist against you you are free to leave. If you are objective honest and fair I wouldn't be rude. You get what you give.

reply

1. Any time you want to address anything I actually said, go back and reply to before you made up shit. Until then, play with yourself.

2. As I said, that is a nice strawman you have built. I respectfully decline your invitation to play with it. It is all yours. Anytime you want to actually address what I said, go back and reply to my actual post. Until then, play with yourself.

3. It is not racist to discuss the polices of racial discrimination against whites. That you pretend it is, is you being a dishonest asshole. Meanwhile my conclusions based on you acting like a liberal, is based on your actual actions, not shit I assume. You can go fuck yourself.

reply

Okay cool since you can't refute that stuff we will go ahead and bypass those empty statements.

You proved nothing when I asked you to provide proof of your claims. I asked for proof for your claim that Kravitz was a political hire. You couldn't and now are mad at me. I bet you are a joy to your wife. I feel bad for her to have a piece of trash like you. I didn't assume either your actions proved you were a racist bigot. Own up to it I would have more respect for you if you did.

reply

I'm not mad at you. Oh, you are referring to me calling you an asshole? Standard lib tactic, you act like an asshole, and then pretend that me treating you accordingly, is somehow something wrong with me. LOL.

Nope. Save your gaslighting for someone dumb enough to give your games any credibility.

Anywho, Even if you were correct, that I was "unable to provide proof", that would, at most, be me being mistaken.

That is not "racist". And that you pretend it is, is you being an asshole.

See, how I don't call you an asshole based on something I made up, but on actions you are clearly doing? That is why I am not an asshole, but you are.


reply

Oh it's obvious that you are. You wouldn't show those signs of aggression if you were not. I admit you irritated me because I don't like people like you. Unlike you I am honest about my feelings. I will be like you now. Deflect, deny, dismiss or dumbfound standard conservative tactic.

Nope I pointed out a contradiction and you know it.

It wasn't just that as to why I called you racist. You asked me to provide a whitewashed character in the last decade I did with Tigerlily. You softened your stance but this proves you are only looking for it when it goes against your race. See I actually can be honest about something if it's too far left. I dislike Ghostbusters 2016 and I didn't think power of the dog was as good as it was being touted. I thought the harder they fall and old Henry were better films. So nice try I supplied more reasons as to why you are a racist bigot than that only incident. Cute though I will give you credit for effort.





reply

Don't be silly. Someone acts like an ass as much as you do, calling them names BACK is not a sign of anger, but just...being normal.

That it strikes you as "Aggression" is because you are used to be coddled like you are a child.


It is worth noting that going off topic and making every thread an accusation of wacism?

Is a standard lib tactic. Mr Not a Lib.


lol.

reply

You acted like a prick first. I give what I get.

Nope I'm not used to be coddled at all. I just know a prick when I see one. You are just a cloaked bigot is all.

I see through the disguise.

reply

Nope. You called me names based on nothing but you being an asshole.

It is worth noting that NONE of the examples you are cited, as proof of wacism, is actually proof of wacism.

Thus, you are calling me a very vile name, based on just you being an asshole.

reply

Nope it was because of the hypocrisy and double standards you have.

I only provided two. There are several other things you have said that prove racism.

Way to bypass how you only notice when white people are targeted. You did not even notice Tigerlily. For shame. Go get laid out it might knock some sense into you.

reply

It is clear that you have no clue what wacism is.

You seem to think it is just a smear to be used against your enemies.

Which, btw, is exactly like liberals.

BTW, you are still an asshole. Fuck you.

reply

Correct I do not know what wacism is I do know what racism is though.

You race baited first. Remember you claimed America was racist against whites. If that is the case why don't you leave the country?

Not a liberal.

Yes let the hate flow through you.

reply

You are full of shit. You are just talking shit.

I challenge you to give a definition of wacism, in your own words.

You asshole dumbass.

reply

I give what I get. Some people earn the respect others earn the hate. We know what type of person you are.

Can't find a definition for wacism I can find one for racism though. I have no authority over the English language. I go off the dictionary's definition of racism. There is my answer lol.

Love you too bud.

reply

Said the shit talker that did NOT post his definition of wacism.

Just like a liberal would NOT do.

reply

policies, behaviors, rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/racism

There you go. It is not my definition it is the dictionary's definition. See this is what providing proof is. This is what you failed to do when asked to prove your claim.

reply

Wow. That is a shit definition that you found. And still nothing I have every said, fits it at all.

reply

How is it bad when that is the dictionary definition? You really that dense? Oh no you have said plenty that proves you are racist. You only notice when you feel white people are slighted but say nothing the other way. I will call out corruption where I see it where as you will downplay racism on the white side.

reply

Funny how you didn't point out any harm to anyone based on race. Just like a liberal.

reply

Um where did I do that? I call out racism where I see it. I do not pick and choose like you do.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. My complaint was about the motive for the change. My desired response was for Hollywood to stop doing shit like that for political reasons. That is reasonable and valid. You are being an asshole.

4. That is your irrelevant opinion. My motive is based on MY perceptions. My intent was/is to save black lives. My LOGIC is fine. Your complaint is a lie from a proven lying asshole, ie you.

5. YOu are teh one trying to move on, from the fact that you have revealed yourself to be a lying asshole, when you claimed that me not knowing an exact date was an admission of being wrong. You are a lying asshole. That matters.

6. You are a hateful person that wants to see violence inflicted on people, who dare to disagree with you. YOu are an asshole. ANd you have been proven to be a liar.

reply

Nope.

Nope.

You didn't provide evidence for the motive of the change. You got upset I didn't take your assumptions as gospel truth. You provided nothing concrete that Hollywood did this only assumptions. If it ain't white it ain't right.

Bullshit your intent is clear. You are pretending to care about black lives but in reality you couldn't care less.

You are a prick. I meet asshole with asshole. I provided evidence when you asked for it. I gave you Tigerlily you gave me nothing.

I lied about nothing. You lied about America being racist against whites. I think you need to get educated. It's okay though morons like you don't get your way and it makes me happy.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. You didn't ask for any. You made your opposition a matter of principle that would not have been effected by evidence. So... you should cease your whining.

4. YOu say that, but we've established that you are a lying asshole. So, it is more likely that you are just saying that, to have an excuse for your shit behavior.

5. You claim that, but we have established that you are a lying asshole. So, it is more likely that you are just saying that to have an excuse for your shit behavior.

6.Sure you did. You pretended that not having an exact date something happened, was me admitting to being wrong. And you were a piece of shit while doing it. THat makes you a lying asshole.

reply

Nope.

Nope.

I did ask for proof and you failed to provide it. Who is the liar now?

Nope I don't lie that's your bag not mine. I provided evidence when given a stipulation you did no such thing. I will give you another chance provide evidence. I will wait.

Nope I simply see through your behavior. I give what I get.

It is. You claim things but offer no proof for your claim. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. Eventually. And then you were weird and evasive in other ways. So... we never got around to it. So cease your whining.

4. I said I don't know the exact date and you claimed I admitted I was wrong. That is you being a liar and a fucking asshole. Thus, we have no reason to believe any of your claims.

5. Your various excuses for your asshole behavior, are just more bullshit and lies.

6. An exact date is not evidence. You are a fucking liar. and an asshole.

reply

Nope.

Nope.

You are saying that because you knew you couldn't provide proof. Your dishonesty is noted and dismissed.

Nope it is you not knowing what you are talking about. Like before you couldn't provide any proof for your claim.

Nope I give what I get.

It is actually. Thing is there is none.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. You are guessing as to why I said something. Your guess is wrong.

4. Asking for an exact date on a gradual change is not a serious question. What? You want to make the debate about whether a change took place in 1961, or 1962, when you don't believe it ever happened? YOU ARE JUST BEING AN ASSHOLE.

5. No, you don't. YOu are an asshole and a liar.

6. It is not. You are just talking shit.

reply

Nope.

Nope.

Nope it is correct. The fact that you won't provide proof indicates I am correct.

I don't believe whites are oppressed and you have provided no evidence to convince me of that.

Yep I give what I get.

No proof. I don't believe you.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. We are talking now about my reasons for saying something. You are welcome to go fuck yourself.

4. So, your request for an exact date on when it started, as i said, was just you being an asshole and not a serious question. GO FUCK YOURSELF.

5. No, you don't. You are lying.

6. Belief has nothing to do with it. You lied and you were an asshole about it. GO FUCK YOURSELF.

reply

Dude. You posted your definition. NOw explain how anything I have done, hurts anyone based on race. Or admit that you cannot and that you have just been an asshole shit talker. And then apologize. A lot.

reply

That is the dictionary's definition not mine. When you ignore the racism against blacks or other races it does hurt people. You ignored the whitewashing of Tigerlily. Admit you ignored the whitewashing of Tigerlily.

reply

I asked you yours. You said you follow teh dictionary definition. The one you posted, requires a rule or something that hurts people, based on race.


And wow. YOur example of that, is not me doing something, but my reaction to other people doing something....


I think I have made my point. Thanks for making it easy for me.







reply

I did prove what you did that hurts people genius. All that's necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. You ignored whitewashing. You can't even refute it. There is no other definition to go off of since I nor you have authority over the English language.

You ignored whitewashing that's not what other people did you did that.

Thanks I proved my point.

reply

So, nothing I do myself. All your whining about my positions on Hollywood and various movies, and suddenly when you finally post a dictionary definition of what the word really means,

you drop all of that shit and come up with new shit.


Pathetic. If you had any balls at all, this is where you would apologize to me, and take the L.

reply

I proved you only care about racism towards whites. You don't care about racism towards other races.

Why should I when I proved my point?

Take a loss when I proved you wrong? Nah I don't think so.

reply

1. ALL the whining you did about my complaints about Catwoman and you did not cite it. LOL.

2. And your big "proof" is that in your opinion, I am more sensitive to racism that hurts me and mine? Wow. What a crime. At most, if true, that would be me being self centered. Whoop dee freaking do.

3.AND, to spell it out for the slow kids in the class, that does NOT fit the dictionary definition that YOU POSTED, you loser. Which, was a shit definition any way.

4. The definition you actually use, is the standard lib definition, ie, a smear to use against anyone you don't like.

reply

Funny you mean the same way you didn't provide proof for your claim when asked?

It shows you only care when white people are discriminated against. I get upset no matter who is discriminated against. This is a form of racism.



It does actually. Also how is it a bad definition when it is in the dictionary? You claiming the dictionary to be stupid now? Lol you are more ignorant than I thought.

It's the dictionary's definition not mine or a liberals. Try again. Is everything that doesn't agree with you liberal by default?

reply

1. No. The two situations are completely different. You whined for weeks about my complaint about catwoman being wacist, and then when challenged to actually back up your whines with an example, you dropped all your previous whines and tried some new shit.

2. That is your opinion what it shows. And no, that is not a form of racism. Not even by the shitty definition you found. Racism involves thinking a racial group is superior or inferior. Being more sensitive to harm to your group is not that.

3. It does not and yes, that dictionary definition was weak as shit. My understanding that is not being "ignorant". It is having a very good grasp of the situation. I suspect the people at the dictionary were afraid of the woke mob.

4. a. I asked for YOUR usage. b. No, it is the lib one, because I have seen libs use it that way, for decades. Dumbass.

reply

I also asked you for proof that Kravitz hiring was due to political reasons and you couldn't provide any. If it ain't white it ain't right. You also said Catwoman was race swapped even though I proved you wrong in pointing out her race isn't essential. In order for a race swap to occur her race would have to have been essential. It's time to own up to being wrong.

No it is racism. You only care when it's done to your group. You couldn't care less if it's done to another race. That is racist.

So now you have authority over the dictionary. Wow you conservatives have no limit to your ignorance huh? Okay so then tell me since you have authority over the dictionary what is racism then?

And I gave you the definition. The dictionary isn't liberal you idiot.

reply

1. And when I challenged you to give an example of my supposed wacism, you ignored the shit you had been whining about for weeks to invent new accusations.

2. YOu listed a complaint and then declared it wacist. What you did not do, is explain HOW it fits your posted definition. Seriously, it's like you don't understand how words work.

3. Authority? No. But I can certainly give a better definition than the one you found. That is not "ignorance" that is confidence in my understanding of the issue. Again, you just use words like a monkey throwing shit.

4. And that is not the definition you are using. Neither in your actions, nor when you explain how something is supposedly wacist. Which you don't actually do, you just declare shit.

reply

When you can't provide a reason to support your claim about a race swap that never occurred it's safe to assume you are a racist. And I just did point out how you are. You only care when racism occurs against whites but couldn't care less if it occurs against another race.

If someone doesn't care about a certain race getting mistreated or discriminated against that is a form of racism. I proved you only care when it's done against whites. Boom there is your proof.

Ok then give me the definition wise one.

You realize there are many ways you can be racist correct?

reply

1. No, it's not. That is just you looking for excuses to cry wacism, like a retarded and ill mannered child. My motive was clearly hostility towards Hollywood. That you assume wacism, is you being an ass.

2. No, it's not. Not even by your own stated definition. Even if you were correct, which you are not. It would be, at most, callousness, or selfishness. You are an ass.

3. Racism is the belief that a racial group is inferior or superior to other racial groups, based on genetic traits inherent to those groups and that it is thus appropriate to discriminate for or against individuals based on that.

4. DUde. You call people wacist at the drop of a fucking hat. You are a fucking joke. Or you would be, if policy was not being set based on such idiocy and people ended up getting fucked, because some jack ass cried wacism, like a retarded child.

reply

No if it were you would be upset about the whitewashing of Tigerlily. You ignoring that proves it's not hatred towards Hollywood. You are just saying that to disguise your racism.

I am correct and wrong it is racism. Don't lie.

Which you do because you are only upset when whites are done wrong. Which indicates you think they are superior.

Nope I call racism where I see it. Either way okay let's even drop that. You couldn't prove your claim when I asked you to prove it. Also no race swapping occurred. Even without racism attached you were proven wrong. Honestly get laid out dude. It will serve you well.

reply

1. IMO, Hollywood is not hostile to American Indians, so, no, that is not wacism. Dumbass.

2. By your own definition, there is no harm from me to anyone. Thus, not wacism. Dumbass.

3. It indicates that I am more focused on what hurts me and mine. That makes no judgment on inferiority nor does it hurt anyone. You are a dumbass.

4. I thought that any reasonable person would just accept my premise that Hollywood is hostile to people like me. Because they are. But you are an asshole. You made it a point of principle that you would always give a benefit of a doubt, so "proof" was pointless. Dumbass.

reply

You didn't clarify that and are only doing so now. You said Hollywood in general. See but that's it you think it's only ever been racist towards whites. Which shows you are an ignorant fool. Every race has been a victim of discrimination by Hollywood. However since you want to play that game I will play it like you. IMO Holywood has not been racist towards whites.

Not my definition the dictionary definition. And yes you are racist I proved it.

Which means you only care when it's your race which is a form of racism. The fact that you can't see this is quite telling.

Your premise doesn't get to accepted as truth without proof. Not how it works idiot! How are they hostile when the majority of action heroes or big stars are white? That's like me claiming the NBA is racist against blacks when the majority of the NBA is black. Whites are the majority in Hollywood even to this day. Nope proof isn't pointless. I didn't take any stance. I just take it in a case by case basis. You operate off of assumptions I do not. Especially when someone provides no proof. You want respect earn it. You are not entitled to it when you provide no proof.

reply

1. I never said that. You are being an ass making up shit now.

2. The definition you claim you use, but that you failed to explained how my actions met it. Saying the two things close together, is not a supporting argument. Dumbass.

3. No, it's not. And you can tell because it does not meet EITHER of our definitions of racism, you dumbass.

4. If you were a man of good faith, it would. It is clearly true. But I took it when you refused and did not build on it. What more do you want, dumbass?

reply

You just said IMO Hollywood is not hostile against Indians. Therefore I am going to use that same logic in my corner. IMO Hollywood is not hostile against whites.

I proved how your actions met it genius. The only time you care about a race being done wrong is when it is your race. You could not care less if another race is done wrong because you believe the white race to be superior. That is racism.

Yes it is. Our definitions? You realize there are many ways a person can be racist right. You simply are a cloaked racist is all.

I am a man of good faith if you offered proof and backed up your claim I would offer you respect and hear you out. You offered no proof and wanted respect without earning it. I want proof nimrod and you did not provide any. You wanted your assumptions to be taken as gospel truth. You sound like a spoiled kid. You must be a joy to be around.

reply

1. Except, everyone knows that Hollywood is hostile to people like me. But when you proved to be an ass, I was happy to drop the matter. You are the one that keeps bringing it back up.

2. Except you didn't. You said nothing explaining how you thought it met it. You are just asserting it, over and over again. Just like liberals do.

3. The fact remains. All you've done is cry wacism, over and over again, like a retarded child.

4. So, agree to disagree on that. Why do you keep brining it up? You are not making any sense.

5. And let's keep in mind what THIS thread is about. My position is that we should try to improve the black family to reduce black crime and thus save thousands of black lives a year, and you are attacking me for wanting that. And you are calling me wacist a lot. Like a retarded child.

reply

No you realized you had no proof to offer which is why you were willing to drop it. Also no everyone does not know or agree Hollywood is hostile towards you, do not assume. As I said I not believe Hollywood to be hostile towards whites. I also do not think the world revolves around idiots like you.

No I did explain it. You only get upset when you think there is hostility towards whites. You do not care about hostility towards other races because you think whites are superior.

Nope I cited the dictionary definition.

I have no respect for people who will not admit to being wrong.

Encouraging does nothing. People encourage people to not use drugs yet there is still drug abuse. So no I disagree.

reply

1. I like the way you imagine what goes on in my brain. It shows how utterly you fail to understand me at all.

2. Being more vocal about harm to me and mine, does not imply that I think me and mine are superior. That you said that, was you making up shit. You are a shit talker. And an asshole.

3. Sure. You cited it. And then did not use it. At all, or in any fashion. You do cry wacism a lot, like a retarded child. Did I mention that you are an asshole?

4. I asked you to grant a premise that I thought you would accept, because it is clearly true. When you refused, that was the end of it. You seem to think discussing that at length means something. You are an asshole.

5. You do more than disagree. I think it is telling that your response to me wanting to save black lives, is to call me wacist. You are an asshole.

reply

When you fail to provide proof and back away from an argument what am I supposed to assume? You make assumptions yourself do not get upset now.

It shows you only care when your kind are done wrong.

I did use it and you couldn't counter it.

I told you what I would accept. Show me where Matt Reeves specifically wanted Kravitz for a political reason. You couldn't do it.

Nope I simply disagree. Learn that people are allowed to disagree with you. Seriously get laid out it will serve you well.

reply

everyone forgot about Will

#sad

reply

1. That I was respecting your statement of principle and dropping that line of discussion. Like I explained repeatedly. You made quite a firm statement of ignoring patterns of behavior, and insisting on proof of ill intent each and every time, so.... like I said fine. That you keep harping on this, is something wrong with you.

2. Nope. I agreed that it was wrong to whitewash other characters such as Whistler. And vocal does not equal care. And even if it did, where is the harm required by your definition? You really just throw words out there, without any concern with them making any sense, don't you?

3. You did not use it. All you do it keep asserting it, like a fucking asshole.

4 I don't remember you saying that. I remember you being a fucking weirdo when I asked you what you would accept. I also remember you making a statement of principle that you would ALWAYS ignore a pattern of behavior. The pattern was what I wanted to make a point about, and since you made it clear that you would never consider it, that line of discussion was pointless. That this is confusing to you, is hard to credit. I think you are just an asshole.

5. No, this obsessive attacking you are doing, right here? Is far more than simple disagreement. You are attacking me for wanting to save black lives. And calling me wacist for it. There is something deeply wrong with you.

reply

No you are assuming that Kravitz casting fit into other incidents. If something is racist against any race I will call it. You wanted to apply this to this incident despite having no proof. You eventually had to concede that Catwoman's race is not essential to her character. Catwoman was portrayed by Eartha Kitt in the past and was not white in the Year One comic book. This undercuts your narrative to a baffling degree.

Remember you ignored the Tigerlily whitewash. You told me okay give me a character in the last decade that was whitewashed. Without hesitation I gave you Tigerlily. Vocal does equal care. No it fits my definition.

I did use it you are simply too ignorant to see that I did. Okay but lets say for the sake of argument I did not. You were proven wrong. You made an empty statement you could not backup. The one making the claim has the burden of proof. Forget racism you could not prove your claim.

I have it saved in my inbox, I specifically said that. Nope I also said I call racism where I see it. You just want to claim that white people are the victim in every scenario. Tell me how are whites oppressed in Hollywood when they are the majority and have dominion? Are blacks oppressed when it comes to the NBA by that logic? I think you are a prick that needs to get punched dead in his face. I would love watching someone do it to a prick like you. I would sit and laugh watching you get laid out.

Nope I am attacking bad logic and behavior. You do not want to save black lives, you just want to zero in on them when there is negativity. Seriously leave the country buddy.

reply

1. My point was about the pattern. You refuse to accept the pattern. Soo, I dropped that line of discussion. I did not "have to concede" that Catwoman was not essentially white. I agreed with you on that. Seriously, wtf do you even think you are doing?

2. I was UNAWARE of that example. I conceded that you met my challenge. I admitted that. That is what people of good faith do. If this is your example off vocal equaling caring, you are thus wrong. In this case, not vocal equaled unaware. You are a fool.

3. You never explained the "harm" that came from my attack on Hollywood. Christ, that I have to spell it out for you like you are a retarded child. What an asshole you are.

4. I understand that you are full of hate. My point stands. I recall you getting weird as hell, when I asked what you would accept. You are a violent asshole.

5. No, you barely touched on my logic, and moved straight to attacking me as a person, and are now fantasizing about violence against me. You are a hater and an asshole.

6. TO be clear, what I would like to see is this thread dominated by people of good faith, talkinga bout ways that the black community could become better and safer. I am disappointed that you have made it about me. YOu are the downer here, not me. ANd you are an asshole.

reply

No I just do not assume the pattern always takes place. I acknowledged that Ghostbusters 2016 and Power of the Dog are far left films. You just want to apply that anytime a character is not portrayed as white. If she was not essentially white then why did you claim a race swap occurred? A race swap only occurs if the race is essential to the character.

You were unaware of that example because you only notice it when it is done against whites. You only care when whites are the ones getting the short end of the stick.

The harm comes because then bigots think that Catwoman can only ever be portrayed as white. If she is not white then it has to be a political or racist reason. This is bad because it fuels the fire for people who are racist against other races. People like you conveniently ignore Eartha Kitt and the Year One comic book.

I listed my stipulation and you tried to lie and say I did not give you a stipulation. I do not respect liars.

No I dismantled your logic. Nice how you side stepped my point about whites being the majority and having dominion in Hollywood. Since that is the case I will play your game. The NBA is racist against blacks. That is how foolish you sound.

I can tell you how we can improve the black community. End the drug war. That will do more good than encouraging a two parent household.



reply

1. I disagree with your definition of race swap and I never claimed the pattern was 100%. Why do you keep talking such shit?

2. I noted the race swap on The Ancient One in Dr Strange and thought it was bad. For ONE off the top of my head example. So you are wrong. It is pathetic that you are stuck on this shit.

3. Except I did not ignore Eartha Kit. And I do NOT think that catwoman can only ever be portrayed as white. There very well could be political or racist reasons for the swap. That is the discussion that you refused to have.

3b. As to the wacism you fear it might fan, I doubt it. That seems very weak.

4. You are talking shit.

5. You throw a lot of shit, like a monkey. It is the Gish Gallope Logical Fallacy, and that I do not address every single turd you put out there, is not a side step. You asshole.

6. End the drug war? Perhaps. There are many steps that could be taken that might improve things. The point is, that you are attacking me and calling me wacist, for supporting the most obvious one.

reply

Lol of course you disagree because you know you can't come against it. You said we can always assume Hollywood is against your kind. Your words chief. Always is 100%. Good grief you are a fool.

You only did this after I backed you into a corner. Had I let you slide you would have never mentioned it. Also this contradicts your point about whitewashing not occurring in the last decade. Lol you just stuck your foot in your mouth. So not only is it not just Tigerlily but also the ancient one.

So then why is it we have to take your assumption that Kravitz is a political hire when Eartha Kitt and the Year One comic exist?

No it will come out. If it ain't white it ain't right.

I gave you a stipulation and you could not meet it. This is not trash talking it is facts.

Okay then answer that is the NBA racist against blacks?

Which shows I care more about black people than you do.

reply

1. What do you mean, "can't come against it"? That makes no sense in this context. And "barring strong evidence to the contrary".

2. I noticed that when I first saw the movie. The woman is a great actress but it was a stupid casting call.

3. For the reasons I covered many times before. Not sure why you are pretending that we did not cover this all before. Are you suffering memory issues? And why do you care?

4. You are crying wacism, like a retarded monkey throwing shit. FUCK YOU.

5. i have no idea. I am not familiar with the NBA. What point are you trying to make, you race baiting asshole?

6. LOL. Is this a contest now? My point stands. I want to improve the situation for the black community, saving thousands of black lives a year, and you attack me for it. You are an asshole.

reply

So then race swapping only occurs when the character differs to what they are portrayed as typically? Is that how that works? Also you still did not ever prove that Kravitz was a political hire.

Yet you only said it when I backed you into a corner. Hmm?

No you gave no proof only you should accept my words just because. I am not accepting your assumptions as gospel truth. Either prove your case or shut up.

Nope I am calling racism where I see it.

Who race baited first? Oh right it was you! You claimed Hollywood to be hostile against whites despite them having dominion and being the majority. With that logic the NBA is racist against blacks.

Nope your point gets dismantled when I bring up that encouraging people not to use drugs did not help. This shows simple words of encouragement are not enough to make a difference. Boom your point gets debunked right there. I want to save millions of lives by ending the drug war.

reply

1. Correct. As we discussed months ago.

2. I asked for an example, and you gave one, and I conceded the point. That is the way it is supposed to work.

3. I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up. That would be you. You are the one that derailed this thread, not me. Weirdo.

4. I like the way you pretend the situation is vastly simpler than it is. Shows that you are a deeply dishonest person. Or stupid. Or both.

5. Errr, the examples you cited were often successful, just too small. Why are you like this?

reply

I do not agree with that at all. So nope.

No I also gave you a stipulation and you could not meet it. I gave you evidence for my claim you did not for yours.

You brought it up first. Do not try and turn this around.

Nope I just apply your dumb logic to a similar scenario.

No they were not! So then is drug abuse up or down after those commercials in the early 2000's?

reply

1. That you feel you NEED to control the language, is your brain dealing with the fact that in general, it knows you are in the wrong.

2. What are you even talking about now?

3. LOL. In this thread? Or are you being vague so that you can be deceptive?

4. The situations are not the similar.

5. Cool. I claim that they were "too small" and you respond by setting as large a bar for judging it as you can. That is you covering your ass.

reply

Not controlling the language i just disagree with your definition of race swapping.

You asked for an example of whitewashing in the last decade I provided it. I asked for proof of your claim and told you the stipulation, you provided nothing.

In general buddy.

Yep they are similar wrong.

No drug abuse got worse. You denying this is you flat out lying.

reply

1. Controlling the language and being an asshole about it.

2. Yeah, my point was about the pattern. You made it clear that you would not open to discussing the pattern. So I dropped it. Now you are whining about it. Why?

3. Yeah, I brought it up months ago in another discussion. You are bringing it up now. Are you really too stupid to see that you are the one being obsessed with it?

4. No. They are not. Hollywood and the NBA are not similar.

5. This is you attacking me for wanting to save black lives. What a weirdo you are.

reply

Funny didn't you try to control the language earlier? You called the dictionary's definition stupid.

Okay and you ignored the whitewashing pattern. As evident that you were unaware of Tigerlily.

Yep and I proved you wrong.

NBA and Hollywood are similar wrong. And since they are I'm going to use your logic. The NBA is racist against blacks.

Because your methods do not work. Come up with good methods.


reply

1. Not at all. Wanting a good definition, is not the same as wanting a self serving definition.

2. Ignore? I was happy to discuss it, and when you made a valid point and supported it, I conceded the point and adjusted my position accordingly. Seriously. something is deeply wrong with you.

3. No, you refused to grant my premise. That is not proving me wrong.

4. How, in your mind, is Hollywood and the NBA similar?

5. That is a reason to respectfully disagree. YOu are radiating hate and fantasizing about me being physically beaten. Because I want to save black lives. There is something really wrong with you as a person.

reply

How is the dictionary definition a bad definition? Explain that.

My original point was correct about you. You only notice us it when whites get the short end of the stick. That was evident by me having to point out Tigerlily to you.

Yep it is considering you could provide no proof for your claim.

Because both are racist. I'm using your logic here. Since Hollywood is racist against whites the NBA is racist against blacks. Sounds dumb huh?

Your methods aren't in good faith. I don't believe you when you say you want to help them. I think you know your methods are trash and want to zero in on black people. Since America is racist against whites like you claim leave the country. I mean since you guys are the victims you need to be helping them out since they are oppressed. So either help out your people or leave the country.

reply

1. Because racism primarily is an idea about race. Your definition was purely about actions with certain effects.

2. i didn't see the movie. YOu are an idiot.

3. That is not my logic. YOu are just talking shit.

4. You are just spouting unsupported shit now. You are an asshole. FUck you.

reply

You have no authority over the dictionary definition. Sorry that is not how it works.

You did see doctor strange though. You ignored that until you got backed into a corner. How convenient you didn't see it right... You did see Blade also and was unaware of that one also. What's your excuse on that one?

Nope it's me using your logic.

I'm making an assumption about you. I got it from someone I encountered on here. You might know the idiot I learned it from.

reply

1. Not claiming authority, I'm making a criticism. My point stands. The definition your found was shit.

2. "Backed into a corner"? How dramatic. You reminded me of that example and I agreed it was wrong. You have quite an active fantasy life, don't you?

3. Dude. You've done NOTHING to support your claim that Hollywood and the NBA are similar. YOu are fucking nuts.

4. Your lame ass excuse for your asshole behavior is dismissed. My point stands. YOu hate me and are attacking me for wanting to save black lives. You are an asshole.

reply

You do not get to critique the dictionary sorry bud. You have no point when you discard the dictionary.

You also saw Blade. You only noticed the whitewashing in that film once I pointed it out to you. This proves you only notice when it is your kind. That is pathetic.

Just take my assumption that they are similar. Remember how you wanted me to take your claim without proof? Just apply that same logic here and you should be fine.

Your attitude is dismissed as well. I have no respect for cloaked bigots.

reply

1. Sure. i do. Racism is a belief. Your definition ignored that. It was shit.

2. I didn't recall a secondary character from a comic I didn't read from decades ago, and that "proves" something in your mind? You are full of shit.

3. My premise was reasonable and true, and yours is not. Dumbass.

4. SO you hate yourself? That explains a lot. Go fuck yourself.

reply

Nope the dictionary trumps you. You do not get to dismiss the dictionary.

Nope I just notice you only notice when it goes against your camp.

If it was reasonable and true you would have no problem proving it. When asked for proof you backed away because you could not provide any.

Nope I unlike you am honest about how I feel. I dislike people such as yourself.

reply

1. Any definition of racism that does not include the concept of it being an idea, is a shit definition. And it is worth noting, that you did not follow your own posted definition.

2. The moment you told me of the race of the whistler character in teh comic from the 79s, that I did not read, I granted you that it was wrong of htem to flip the race of the character. That you are still whining about this, is just you being a drama queen.

3. I did not try to prove it, because you stated your opposition as a blanket principle. As I have repeatedly explained you dishonest asshole.

4. My purpose in this thread was to talk about steps to take to improve black crime stats and to thus save black lives. You derailed this thread, to talk about your obsession with hating me. YOu are a fucking asshole.

reply

Nope that is your opinion. I did follow the definition I posted actually. You just are too dense to follow.

See but this is just it. I honestly did not give a rat's ass! I love the movie Blade. The character is not that big a deal and honestly I thought the movie was good. You will not do that. You will not let a movie like The Batman be good because all you focus on is wah Catwoman got race swapped wah! What about the cinematography, editing, writing acting etc? So since you took that approach I will take it as well.

I asked you to prove Matt Reeves casted Kravitz due to a political reason. You could not do it.

I do not believe you want to save black lives, it is why I think your suggestion is not in good faith. If it was in good faith you would come up with a solution that actually does something.

reply

1. That is my well supported and reasoned argument. You just saying "no" over and over again, without addressing the points I made, is you being a retarded asshole.

2. I get that you think that I should not criticize movies. I can see that it upsets you. You don't really explain why. You talk a lot, but don't say much. So, whatever.

3. Eventually. And then you got really weird when I asked you what you would accept as proof. You pretended it was wrong of me to ask that. You are a weird asshole.

4. That is just you being a narrow minded asshole. My intent and my statements were clear. You are the one that derailed this thread, like an asshole troll.

reply

I am standing on the fact that the definition is in the dictionary. No argument is going to overrule the dictionary bud sorry.

I did not say you could not criticize movies. I said I think your methods are stupid. I like the movie Blade. Do I have some critiques yep but in the end I do not care that there was a race swap. It honestly was not a big deal. For you though if a white role gets changed hell hath no fury!

But I provided the stipulation and you could not meet it. Accept the fact that you failed to meet the stipulation because you made a weak point.

Nope I just see through a bigot. You are a bigoted moron who I love seeing get taunted. I love that you your entertainment is getting destroyed.

reply

1. Any definition of racism that ignores the fact that it is an idea, is a shit definition, dictionary or not.

2. BOth of us make assumptions. The difference is, that if my assumptions is challenged, I will listen, while you just talk more and more shit. LIke you are doing now.

3. Eventually you provided the standard. You did try pretending that it was wrong of me to even ask. You are a fucking weirdo. By then I had realized that you were not a good faith debator, so no matter what I provided, it would not really matter. You are just a hater.

4. You see what you want to see, to justify your hate. Meanwhile what you have done is shut down a discussion of how to save black lives, so that you can express your hate. You are an asshole.

reply

Your opinion I disagree.

Ha no you did not listen. You got all obstinate when I did not accept your assumptions about Kravitz being cast as Catwoman was a political reason. Do not lie now.

Own up to the fact that you could not provide the proof. I gave the stipulations and you failed to meet them.

How do I see what I want to see when I saw things you refused to acknowledge?

reply

1. Any definition of racism, that doesn't define it as an idea, is shit. You calling that opinion, is not refuting it. You don't try to defend it, because you can't. THere is no defense for such a shit definition.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. You can take your spin on it, and use it to fuck yourself.

4. Because you are seeing things that are not there, but give you an excuse to be a complete fucking asshole.

reply

I do not need to defend it. It is a fact that it is a dictionary definition. You not liking the definition does not mean it is not a definition. Sorry bud.

Nope the second I did not accept your assumption you got obstinate. You are the one lying here now.

Translation you had no proof and now are upset because I called you on it. Your concession is noted you entitled prick.

So Tigerlily was not whitewashed then?

reply

1. It's not about like. It's about the fact that racism is an idea, a fact that was left out of the dictionary definition you found. THat is my point. Your refusal to address that, is you being a coward.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. Don't "translate" my words you ass. My words were clear. Take your spin and go fuck yourself.

4. Did I mention that specifically? No. YOu can guess again, if you want. Or you can ask me. Or you can just stop being a fucking asshole. Whatever. The fact remains. This thread WAS about how to save black lives and now you have turned it into a personal attack on me, because you are an asshole.

reply

Doesn't matter it's in the dictionary definition. You want to discredit it because you don't like the definition. That's not the way it works.

Nope.

So where is that proof for your claim?

Honest question why aren't you worried about whites? You claim America is racist against whites right? So don't they need your help more since they are the oppressed ones?

reply

1. I want to discredit it, because it is a shit definition that deserves to be discredited. Racism is an idea. Any definition that tries to limit it to the realm of policy and results is shit. You saying "dictionary" is not a valid argument. You lose.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. You were such an asshole and clearly not a good faith debator, that I dont' even remember what happened. You just disgusted me with what an asshole you were/are.

4. Man. That question reveals that you do not understand me or even my positions, at all. Not even a little bit. Seriously. Let me turn it around a little bit. What conflict do you imagine there is, between helping blacks and helping whites?

reply

Nope if it's in the dictionary I am free to cite it as a definition. It goes no further you lost this point. You not liking it does not make it magically disappear from the dictionary. Deal with it.

Nope.

Translation I am too stupid and can't refute the point.

First answer my question.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. Err, you asked a question, and my answer was, I don't remember. Your response to that was utterly retarded.

4. I don't understand why you think that anything I have said, in any way implies that I am not "worried" about whites. I am worried about whites, soooo the rest of your post becomes moot.



reply

You have no authority over a dictionary smart guy. That's only your opinion. Nothing more.

Nope.

Where is your proof that Matt Reeves casted Kravitz for political reasons? You have the floor. Your move.

If you are so worried about them why not think of ways to get them out of oppression? If whites are oppressed why do they have more money and Dominion over Hollywood?

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. i never bothered to go looking for it. I don't recall exactly how we never got to that point. You were really evasive and weird about shit. That ate up a lot of time.

4. Who says I don't?

5/ Because, as we discussed before, "whites" are not an unified, coherent group, that operates in an united way towards a shared goal. HOLLYWOOD, is more dominated by the group, LEFTIES, than by WHITES.

reply

Okay I will continue copy and pasting as well. Nope.

Nope.

Okay so now go get that proof. You won't because you don't have any.

I say you don't.

Whether most whites are left or right wing makes no difference. The fact is that have dominion over Hollywood. Yet you claim they are oppressed.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. Why?

4. LOL. Well, you are incorrect. Shocking.

5. To have dominion, they would have to be operating as a group, towards shared goal(s). They don't. BUT, as LEFTIES, they do. This is my answer to your question. Would you like to address it, or are you going to keep pretending to be too stupid to understand it?

5.

reply

Nope.

Nope.

To support your claim.

You were also incorrect about your assumption.

Lol see you are contradicting yourself again. You said Hollywood was not the same back in the day despite it always being liberal. So when did Hollywood turn anti-white? What was the year? I find this funny because even today most heroes of cinema are heterosexual white males. Yet you claim they are oppressed.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. That implies that you are open to new information. At this point, i have complete faith that is not the case.

4. So, to be clear, you are accepting that your question has been answered, ie, that I both want to save black and white lives?

5. I am not contradicting myself. you are just too stupid to understand my position, in the context of linear time. I have seen tnis often with liberals.


reply

Nope.

Nope.

I said this way before this thread. Do not play dumb.

I see your answer but I do not believe you want to save black lives. I think you are playing like you care about their lives when you really do not.

Yes you are actually. Has Hollywood always been liberal or not? This is typical of conservatives to get salty anytime something is not in favor of whites completely.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. Nothing I said, implied that the issue was that this was new. My point was that the point of presenting information is that it will be received. I believe that your mind is completely closed.

4. You asked a question about white lives. Now you are evading it. Are you truly this incoherent or are you purposefully being an asshole?

5. No, I'm not. I do not know if Hollywood has ALWAYS been liberal. It has been dominated by liberals for a long time. THe anti-white racism, was either not there, or was less in the past. That you saw what you thought was a contradiction and immediately went asshole over it, is because you are just looking for excuses to be an asshole and to let your hate flow.

reply

Nope.

Nope.

And I think your mind is completely closed about Kravitz. I do not think any evidence would change your opinion on her casting.

I did ask a question and I do not believe your answer to be sincere. I do not believe whites are oppressed like you do.

Provide the year this occurred and proof. I will wait.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. Nope. If, for example, you had been able to show me that the casting call had been open to all races, and that several white actresses were seriously considered, I would have admitted that I was wrong. You are projecting your own assholeness on to me, when I am a very different person than you, ie I am not an asshole, you are.

4. Whether or not YOU believe it, is irrelevant to your question about my actions. Indeed, that you even brought that up, is fucking retarded. i answered your question. Now you are evading even admitting that. Seriously wtf is wrong with you?

5. That is an asshole move. I reference a long term change in a population and you ask for an exact date, like someone flipped a switch. FUCK YOU.

reply

Nope.

Nope.

Bullshit I do not believe you. You made a claim and I told you the stipulations and you could not prove it. Had you been able to prove it with those stipulations I would concede. I do not believe you for one second.

I acknowledged you answered it, I just reject and do not buy your logic.

Concession noted. Do not make statements and can not provide evidence you clown.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. You are projecting your assholeness. I am not an asshole. You are. If you can't grasp that, you are completely delusional and disconnected from reality.

4. What "logic" are you rejecting? My answer was simply that I worry about both white and black lives. How can you reject that based on the logic? WTF are you talking about? And why where you evasive instead of just fucking saying that?

5. And once again, you prove yourself to be a liar. Not knowing the exact date something happened is not admitting that it did not happen. Only a liar and an asshole would pretend it did. See number 3. You are the asshole here, not me. You need to understand that.

reply

Nope.

Nope.

Nope you proved to be a piece of trash by race bating in the first place. I disagreed with your assumption and you could not handle it.

I am rejecting the notion you care about black lives, I think it is quite obvious you only care about white lives.

Just like how you have no date as to when white privilege ended. Honest question you ever think about getting your iq tested? You seem a little dim. Like I said I could not be happier that you are mad at your entertainment getting destroyed. It makes me giggle and jump for joy. Now honestly I like Kravitz as Selina Kyle more than any other version just for this reason.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. Your claim that I race baited is the type of lie one would expect from an asshole.

4. You said you rejected it based on the "logic". That was you just talking shit. In reality, you need to deny it, because you need to paint me as a bigot to justify your asshole behavior to yourself.

5. Bad enough you asked for an exact date for a gradual change. But when you pretended that I was admitting i was wrong about it, that you demonstrating clearly, that you are teh asshole here, not me.

6. Seriously, we can have a far more productive discussion, if you stop denying the obvious fact that you are the asshole and your words are often just an asshole talking shit, while I am not, and my words should be given far more weight than yours.

reply

Nope.

Nope.

Who brought up the fact that there was a race swap and was all upset about it? Was that me or you?

The logic makes no sense. Why wouldn't you suggest better things to save black lives like I originally said? Like you know ending the drug war?

And you could not provide a single date. Rather pathetic isn't it?

You are not getting your way. The Batman is getting a sequel and nothing you say or do can change that fact. Deal with it. Be a man and grow up. I give what I get in this world. You were the one who got an attitude and obstinate first. Therefore I meet asshole with asshole. If you would like we can start all over again and have a civil debate.

reply

1. Racism is an idea. Any definition, no matter where you find it, that says otherwise, is shit.

2. You are delusional or lying. I was disappointed that you were not honest, but that was the end of it.

3. A valid complaint about a change to a character, is not "race baiting". Your insistence is was, was you being an asshole.

4. Because I think the biggest single problem driving the bad numbers for blacks, is the lack of fathers in families. That you disagree with me does not mean that my logic is flawed. You are just looking for excuses to be an asshole.

5. Let's not just move on, asshole. You have demonstrated clearly that you are a lying asshole. This is relevant to everything you say. For example. Your position that you think that whites dominate Hollywood. That could be an asshole lie from a lying asshole. And I think that is likey.

6. Everything you just said, is bullshit. You are a lying asshole. Nothing I have done, justifies that. You crying wacism, like a retarded and ill mannered child, is not a justification.

5.

reply

Nope.

Nope.

The complaint isn't valid. Characters get changed all the time. Deal with it.

The drug war causes more problems than that does. Educate yourself.

Nope we aren't moving on until you provide proof for your claim. Also I don't have to lie. It's a fact that there are more white actors and white heroes in cinema than any other race. Go ahead and look it up.

Ha nope you know I'm right. The batman is getting a sequel and you acted like an entitled jerk first. I honestly would love to see you get laid out it's what you need. It would knock some sense into you.

reply

"Is it even useful to say blacks commit more crime?"

Is it useful to perpetuate the unproven and highly contentious claim that black Americans are still disadvantaged today due to historical oppression? What good does inspiring victimhood do anyone? If there was actually "institutional racism" built into our laws then something should indeed be done about that, but where's evidence of that exactly? Manipulative people throw that rhetoric around all the time and many people unthinkingly nod in approval, as if it's obvious and intuitive, all evidence to the contrary. Everyone in the USA has the freedom to choose to get educated and pursue a profession that appeals to them in one way or another. Any individual may fail in that pursuit and settle for work that they don't like, but welcome to everybody's reality. The whole "equity" rhetoric is divisive garbage designed to irritate some people and extort from others. Conservatives have the right philosophy in this regard: it's equality of opportunity that a society must strive for, not equality of outcome. The latter is impossible, in my opinion, and anyone pushing that is trying to rig the game to their advantage under the guise of social justice. BLM leadership provides many textbook examples of this.

reply

To be fair though, Chris Rock helped dispel the stereotype by not fighting back and handling the slap in a calm and measured way.

reply

For sure

reply

Not really. Will Smith's attack and lack of self control is the main issue. They don't really come close to a counterbalance.

reply

How very “Christian” of you Connie.

You nasty fraud.

reply

True statistics .... ERROR!!! 🤣

reply

Being a Christian does't mean closing your eyes to the Truth.

Christianity is all about TRUTH.

The TRUTH shall set you free!

reply

Well the TRUTH, as I see it, is that you are a deeply prejudiced person who uses this forum to broadcast hateful ideals about minorities on celebrity profiles whom have nothing to do with the complaints you are making (here linking Will Smith to crime statistics for black people and similarly on Timothee Chalamet’s profile with your anti-gay statements).

You think your God is going to judge you kindly for that? Good luck with it.

reply

Me and God are good. Thanks for your concern!

reply

"1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." MJudge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Matthew 7:1-5

reply

Many modern racists of the new alt-Reich age are giving up on the pretense of a Christian deity & are embracing the fact that their only true religion all along was white supremacy.

White supremacists frequently like to manipulate crime statistics in order to claim that nonwhites, particularly black Americans, are far more crime-prone and the source of most violent crime against whites.

Indeed, it is a core belief that this is the case, and many white nationalist ideologues ram this down each other's throats as often as they can.

reply

Most people who are below the poverty line never commit robberies or murders. Poverty is a bogus excuse.

reply

Most people who are below the poverty line never commit robberies or murders. Poverty is a bogus excuse.

But MORE people who are below the poverty line commit robberies and murders than those above. Poverty is a very real causal factor to crime.

reply

Then based on the stats shown above whites should be commiting double the robberies and crime due to poverty and they are not.

reply

Then based on the stats shown above whites should be commiting double the robberies and crime due to poverty and they are not.

Why? Whites are less likely to be poor than anyone else, except Asians.

reply

White people under poverty line: 4.7396% of population
Black people under poverty line: 2.3585% of population

reply

That's of the total population and tell us nothing on their own, because blacks and whites do not constitute equally large segments of the population. Check these numbers out instead:

11.4% of all Americans live under the poverty line.
8.2% of all whites live under the poverty line.
19.5% of all blacks live under the poverty line.

So you are more than twice as likely to be poor if you're black as opposed to white.

reply

19.5% of all blacks live under the poverty line

And hisapnic are 17%. So why are they not commiting crimes at the same rate as blacks then.

Of the 9,468 murder arrests in the US in 2017, 53.5% were black and 20.8% Hispanic

At some point black people need to take responsibility for there actions and stop blaming others.

Asians during World War 2 had there homes, jobs and finances removed and were put literally into concentration camps just because they looked the same as who America was fighting. Now they are the wealthiest group in America. How can that be if the mythical white oppression bogeyman keeps you down.

reply

I think it might also have to do with your location. Poor in a city is a lot different than poor in the country.

reply

The statistics speak for themselves.

No, they don't. Every time you let statistics speak for themselves, they lie. Context is key. For example:

How big a portion of the white population is poor? How big a portion of the black population is poor? When you answer all questions, including questions such as these, then you will understand why marginalised minorities are always going to be overrepresented in crime statistics.

reply