African slaves 'mutilated and cooked like kebabs' by Libya gangs

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Actually, DDM is right. The stuff you say does sound racist to me. Let me flip the script a bit and you decide if it’s racist or not if applied to black people:

“And I never said I oppose black people things, I said I oppose violent/murderous people who are criminals. And most of the time, the violent and criminals are black”

Might as well just say:

“I’m not racist, I LOVE rap music (and I have black friends).”

^^^ That point has also already been addressed several times.

The groups that deserve to be shined a spotlight on and to have their feet held to the fire are the corrupt wealthy and the corrupt powerful. NOT the poor, not the poverty-ridden and not the poorly educated.

It is a well supported fact that crime and violence are a result of poverty and poor education.

And I was just refuting the claim that I “hate white people things” so...

Quote function’s not working.

That doesn’t address anything at all.

“Shining the spotlight” only means that you are ignoring the reality of the world just to focus on one issue while ignoring the rest. It from my perspective, you might just singling out one specific case because, well you’re racist.

Why are the poor/uneducated less responsible for their actions as the rich and powerful?

Following your logic: It is also an established fact that power corrupts. So (using your logic’ maybe blame the corrupting nature of power rather than the ppl corrupted by it?

Edit. Note: I’m not white. I’m Asian. So I don’t have any personal stake at defending white ppl. You just come out as racist to me, too.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
The OP is a piece of shit firstly, I didn't bother criticizing him because he's just so obviously vile.

DD wasn't the one who started this discussion actually, when Robtard said the problem shouldn't be racialized, Squall attacked him and called him out for having a double standard for racializing issues with white people, such as making a big deal about the skin color of the perpetrator whenever a white person commits a mass shooting, and suggesting that there's something about being "White American men" that is endemic to the problem.

Had Firefly expressed only the opinions he explicitly stated that would be one thing, but he started this entire dialogue by jumping to Robtard's defense and displaying solidarity with his actions on the forum:

Here's the thing right, Robtard's racialization of white mass shooters, and disproportionate emphasis of alt-right protesters of anti-minority hate speech and hate crimes... the vast majority of these white people are not in positions of wealth or societal control, and for the most part are people situated in life in a not particularly extraordinary way, and again this conversation started with Firefly expressing solidarity with Robtard and defending him from criticism and explaining why Robtard's difference in the way he treats white shit and black shit is justifiable. Almost none of Robtard's criticism of white people where he brings their race into it has to do with particularly wealthy or powerful white individuals.

So once again, if Firefly's stance against DD was divorced from a defense of Robtard you'd have much more of a point, but the fact that it was indeed a defense of Robtard means that his stance is still something myself and DD are justifiable in finding disagreeable and your defense of him doesn't really answer my point of contention.

It's possible that Firefly agrees with Robtard's statements and is defending them because of this, it's possible that Firefly acted on impulse to defend what was perceived as an attack on his position without really being fully aware of what he was tying himself into defending and that his defense of Robtard was a miscalculation that doesn't accurately reflect his own points of principle. If he wants to clarify that it's the latter I'm willing to concede and walk back my statement.

Given that on the first page he explicitly defended criticizing white shooters more harshly or being more cautious about criticizing non-white killers however, it seems his views are rather in line with Robtard's.

Here's the thing though, even aside from the defense of Robtard, his own explicit words expressed a double standard.

His post in reply to Surtur at the bottom of page one expressed that anti-white racism and anti-minority racism or anti-islam sentiment should be held to different standards based on the aggregate of identity groups as a whole rather than the specifics of the individual or the specifics of the action or statement being made.

His post in reply to NewGuy also expressed a double standard whereby he expressed a stance that the latter of these two statements was racist while the former was not:

The fact of the matter is that he defends the first statement as not racist by fractionating it to the point of the white individual and saying "people in positions of power doing bad shit should be criticized as individuals and they just happen to be mostly white, nothing to do with criticizing the race or individual for their skin color." But the problem with this is that the statement about black people being structured the exact same way could also be fractionated down to the individual black person in the exact same way "people in committing should be criticized as individuals and they just happen to be mostly black, nothing to do with criticizing the race or individual for their skin color."

Both sentences bear the exact same structure, and you could interpret either statement in a way that draws it down to the level of the individual rather than a criticism of people specifically for their skin color. Therefore, him regarding one statement as racist and the other as not racist is a double standard, and you could argue the source of the underlying issue as Firefly does but at the most favorable interpretation for you and him it would only make the latter statement ill-informed not racist.

And then of course there's the fact that calling the latter of the two statements is a commonly regressive left-wing talking point used to shut down counters to the notion that cops are systemically unjustly killing black people and that the police force as a whole is inherently racist. The fact of the matter is black people are disproportionately shot because they disproportionately commit crime, you can argue that this is symptomatic of issues such as poverty and poor education and shit that should be addressed, but that doesn't change the fact that this statement is correct as a defense of the police force not systemically killing black people.

Quite frankly Rocky that you think you "rekt" me is a joke, and just because you feel a sense of moral satisfaction when you defend other lefties on here doesn't actually mean you hold a position of either moral or intellectual superiority.

Anti-white racism and anti-minority racism are both bad, but it has a much more pronounced effect on minorities than it does on white people. And that is due to the power difference between them.

And criticism of the corrupt elites is not the same as criticizing white people. In fact, the corrupt elites are the cause of racial friction between the lower classes.

Edit.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Edit.

That’s been addressed too

So how do we solve a problem like the crime rate in black communities? Trump and his MAGA pals weaponize cops and talk about martial law in the inner cities and bullet proof robocops to solve the problem, as if more violence will solve violence. All the while, they slash public education funding and fuk with education programs for the poor, and sh!t on welfare and try to destroy PBS.

These are primarily white people who have had much more opportunity in their lives, a better education, a head start you could say, and they are pushing a platform that strangles the policies designed to bring the black community out of poverty. And these white people are the scummiest because they are ultimately screwing over their own supporters, poor white people are suffering too. Unfortunately, poor white people ally themselves with the rich white people instead of the black community.

If any group deserves to be attacked it's those who have privilege and power, but use it corruptly and inappropriately.

And I’ve noticed your conservative tendencies. It’s always rich when traditionalists and conservatives call others racist.

Originally posted by Firefly218
This reasoning is a bit more sober and sensible. I would argue that the two statements are not equivalent, as I have been arguing throughout this entire thread.

Anti-white racism and anti-minority racism are both bad, but it has a much more pronounced effect on minorities than it does on white people. And that is due to the power difference between them.

And criticism of the corrupt elites is not the same as criticizing white people. In fact, the corrupt elites are the cause of racial friction between the lower classes.

So both are bad? Soooo don’t do either?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
So both are bad? Soooo don’t do either?

Originally posted by Firefly218
2. You'll find crime rates are high among poor whites as well as poor blacks as well as poor latinos. So crime is a problem beyond just skin color.

facepalm

Yes, white and latino criminals exist. As it happens, wealthy blacks and latinos exist, too. I'll give you another chance: why you are willing to make one a race issue, and not the other?

Actually, I consider myself in between.

I’m pro gun control. I am all for racial equality. I am extemely for renewable power and preventing climate change. And I hate Trump.

I’m pro-life and against persecution due to one’s religion. And that’s it.

So I don’t know what you are talking about.

The rest of hour post is irrelevant. This is NOT about excusing black or white ppl from the bad stuff they do. It is about you being a racist. Which, to me, you seem to be.

Your use of “If any group deserves to be attacked...” to justify your white hate is a clear indication of it.

No one deserves to be attacked UNLESS they are the specific individual committing said act to be attacked for. Don’t blame white ppl for the bad shit other white ppl do.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Dude nobody is promoting racism against white people

You don’t really see it. Just as any racist wouldn’t.

But you are.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
facepalm

Yes, white and latino criminals exist. As it happens, wealthy blacks and latinos exist, too. I'll give you another chance: why you are willing to make one a race issue, and not the other?

Originally posted by NewGuy01
facepalm

Yes, white and latino criminals exist. As it happens, wealthy blacks and latinos exist, too. I'll give you another chance: why you are willing to make one a race issue, and not the other?

Furthermore, Firefly didn't make it a race issue, he simply said there's nothing unreasonable about the most critiques revolving around white people when white people have the most instutional power and hence can do the most harm. He's not saying white people as a whole should be attacked, he's saying that people crying that white people are being treated unfairly because more white people get criticized than black people are ignoring that white induviduals make a larger portion of america than black people do.

I don’t get you “unresolved issues” thing. Pls elaborate. Which one is casued by unresolved issues and which one isn’t?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I don’t get you “unresolved issues” thing. Pls elaborate. Which one is casued by unresolved issues and which one isn’t?

I don’t get you “unresolved issues” thing. Pls elaborate. Which one is casued by unresolved issues and which one isn’t?

As a result, issues like poverty, our fcked criminal justice system, and unequal education all disproportionly affect black people. When you're raised in terrible conditions, you're going to have a much harder time avoiding becoming a terrible person. As America has placed black people in disproportionately terrible conditions, it makes sense that crime is commited disproportionately by black people.

Better than I said it ^

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Centuries of segregation, slavery, discrimination put black people in a systematic hole. While the government has stopped actively digging that hole deeper, they haven't pulled black people as a whole in the hole that America put them in.

As a result, issues like poverty, our fcked criminal justice system, and unequal education all disproportionly affect black people. When you're raised in terrible conditions, you're going to have a much harder time avoiding becoming a terrible person. As America has placed black people in disproportionately terrible conditions, it makes sense that crime is commited disproportionately by black people.

Yet the point is to put responsibility on the individual (regardless of skin color) committing the crime and not the race as a whole?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yet the point is to put responsibility on the individual (regardless of skin color) committing the crime and not the race as a whole?

Originally posted by Firefly218
This reasoning is a bit more sober and sensible. I would argue that the two statements are not equivalent, as I have been arguing throughout this entire thread.

Originally posted by Firefly218
And criticism of the corrupt elites is not the same as criticizing white people. In fact, the corrupt elites are the cause of racial friction between the lower classes.

If both of these things were miscommunications that don't reflect your actual views then I'll gladly walk back my stance.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Anti-white racism and anti-minority racism are both bad, but it has a much more pronounced effect on minorities than it does on white people. And that is due to the power difference between them.

And I do not agree that racism against blacks is any more egregious than racism against whites, as a matter of principle both are equally contemptible and the idea that they should be held to different standards is not an idea I agree with. Particularly since it's not black people who are frequently slandered with some collective guilt by the MSM, and that it's not black people who are discriminated against by affirmative action policies, and that it's not blacks who some college professors are slandering as inherently guilty of racism by dint of birth. I'm not whipping my dick out here and thrusting it into a measuring contest of whose oppressed how much but the idea that anti-white racism can be ignored because its inconsequential is absurd.

So from a logical and moral standpoint creating a distinction between how bad racism is based on the target is not something that makes sense to me, and I also don't think it's practical in the interest of protecting minorities.

The reason I don't think its practical is because you can't separate anti-white and anti-black racism for each other. I hate the alt-right, I think their vile pseudointellectual pieces of shit with a very twisted and warped sense of principles. That being said the quickest way for the alt-right to grow and anti-minority sentiment to grow is to have university faculty spreading the idea that white people are collectively guilty of racism and black people are collectively innocent, to have affirmative action and diversity hiring policies that discriminate against black people (and someone high up in the DNC saying they were looking for someone who was specifically in a "marginalized" identity category to hire for positions), to have people cheering at the idea of white people becoming a minority, to have people publish anti-white shit in MSM, and to have people be apologists for this shit and say it should be ignored.

You can't incur or allow racial sentiment to exist in either direction and expect there not to be reciprocal backlash. It's why I criticize the intersectional people who claim to act in the interests of minorities for their bullshit anti-white crap that drives up the amount of support the alt-right gets, and that's why I criticize the people who backlash against this SJW BS by joining the alt-right because they're just feeding into the narrative that there's a bunch of fascists and that white people are evil. It's why I'm not hesitant at all to call out any form of racism, and that's why I'm not eager to differentiate which types of racism are better or worse based on the group on the receiving end, because I don't think that's helpful. Both of these things are responsible for the state of race relations and racial tensions, and it's not helpful to ignore/downplay or be an apologist for one of these things.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
The OP is a piece of shit firstly, I didn't bother criticizing him because he's just so obviously vile.

DD wasn't the one who started this discussion actually, when Robtard said the problem shouldn't be racialized, Squall attacked him and called him out for having a double standard for racializing issues with white people, such as making a big deal about the skin color of the perpetrator whenever a white person commits a mass shooting, and suggesting that there's something about being "White American men" that is endemic to the problem.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Quite frankly Rocky that you think you "rekt" me is a joke, and just because you feel a sense of moral satisfaction when you defend other lefties on here doesn't actually mean you hold a position of either moral or intellectual superiority.

I find it funny the person attacking my character is trying to accuse me of claiming moral high ground.

If you weren't just cherrypicking parts of the discussion to fuel your attempt at calling out non existent hypocrisy, you might have noticed I twice critcized Firefly for
A. accusing New Guy of racism
B. trying to equate attacking people on the basis of an ideology as attacking people on the basis of race

I have no interest in defending "leftists", my only interest here is to defend stances that are right, and attack arguments that are wrong. I also try to defend people from unjustified character attacks.

Not once did Firefly ever say anything racist, and hence Double D's repeated insistence of Firefly's racism is nothing more than baseless ad hominem that you jumped in on.

If you plan on responding, try and focus on my arguments.