burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Great phrasing!!!!
Clues you are debating well on RIU.
- Thread starter burgertime2010
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So if Obama supporters call you racist, your arguments are clearly valid?
Sounds legit.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
despite a complete and utter lack of evidence (to the tune of 100% lack of evidence, aka 0% evidence to support his position), desert dude KNOWS obama is simply a product of affirmative action.
as clearly all black people must be, and all of it at the expense of more qualified white people.
this is the stance of desert dude, and despite the fact that he voluntarily and knowingly chose to join a white supremacy group, he is NOT racist.
to even point out that desert dude joined a white supremacy group shows that you are losing the debate rather than consulting history to inform your present day views.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Laughable. Especially from a democrat. First of all it was only one slur (supposedly)secondly it was only a slur to you...and your borg...."we are all buck" ring any bells?
The fact you pluralised slur in the quote above puts you squarely at odds with yourself
..Iam afraid since you already had zero political credibility with me on the issues this race thing puts you FIRMLY in the red.
Must be a democrat thing. Force it down someones throat and be nasty about it....just like dems did it way back when when they created their little white hooded bonfire parties.
I can't give you any rep right now either though, but that has nothing to do with politics and THAT, my little closet free market fanboy...is actual tolerance.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
my apologies.
you only called the president by one racial slur, not multiple racial slurs.
in my experience, those willing to degrade the president by reducing him to a mere racial slur are often willing to degrade him similarly with other racial slurs. i will take your word that you will only reduce him to his race by using a single, non-plural racial slur.
satisfactory apology?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
No. Once again this is a complete tapdance.
Calling the president black in the context of the thread you are using as your ammo is actually racist.
I merely pointed out obama is not black, and used the term mulatto to do so.
You call it racist because that is your opinion of it. Which is great everyone gets an opinion.
Only problem is I get one too...and its not a racist word ESPECIALLY in the context of the thread and other members from various cultural backgrounds jumped in to correct you as well.
But like always you simply ignore what you don't like.
Fine, whatever that's human.
But when you go around stating your OPINION as FACT you are in the wrong.
But in looking at you as a parent would a child....its obvious you are just BORED....and invent a "crisis" and assign yourself its savior.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
facts^^^^
here you confirm the facts^^^^
i wish it were my opinion that calling obama a mullato is a racial slur, but it is a fact that calling obama a mullato is a racial slur.
i am merely the messenger to folks like you.
don't take it so hard.
echelon1k1
New Member
Says nothing about racial slur here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mulatto
Nor here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
Nor Here http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mulatto
Guess you're just a dictionary unto yourself
Nor here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
Nor Here http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mulatto
Guess you're just a dictionary unto yourself
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
I don't think the use of mulatto once on a stoner forum is enough to label someone a racist...
BrewsNBuds
Active Member
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Laissez-Faire Racism (a.k.a. symbolic racism) is closely related to color blindness and covert racism, and is theorized to encompass an ideology that blames minorities for their poorer economic situations, viewing it as the result of cultural inferiority.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] The term is used largely by scholars of whiteness studies, who are critical of this theorized ideology, while no one does or would self-identify as holding it.
Dr. Lawrence D. Bobo, Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University, and Ryan Smith use this term to represent how the racial outlooks of white Americans have shifted from the more overtly racist Jim Crow attitudes—which endorsed school segregation, advocated for governmentally imposed discrimination, and embraced the idea that minorities were biologically inferior to whites—to a more subtle form of racism that continues to rationalize the ongoing problem of racial oppression in the United States. Laissez-faire racists claim to support equality while maintaining negative, stereotypical beliefs about minorities.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]
Katherine Tarca writes that laissez-faire racism is the belief, stated or implied through actions, that one can end racial inequality and discrimination by refusing to acknowledge that race and racial discrimination exists. Laissez-faire racism has two main ideas: first, the belief in the melting pot and America’s assertion of ideas of equal opportunity, regardless of race. Second, laissez-faire racism encompasses the ideology of how individual deficiencies explain the problems of entire social groups. Tarca explains that Whites tend to view laissez-faire racism as being beneficial to people of color, while many minorities believe that these ideologies contrast and ignore the realities facing many minorities in America.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Eduardo Bonilla Silva, who is a professor of sociology at Duke University, suggests that all groups of people in power construct these ideologies in order to justify social inequalities.[SUP][6][/SUP] For example, most racial ideologies today are more inclined to omit unfashionable racist language, which protects racial privilege by employing certain philosophies of liberalism in a more conceptual and decontextualized approach. These ideologies help to reinforce the existing condition of affairs by concentrating on cultural distinctions as the cause of the inferior accomplishments of minorities in education and employment. These ideas are primarily focused on the more darker-skinned minorities, such as, African-Americans, Asians and Latinos. Ideologies like these refuse to acknowledge the systematic oppression, such as the continuing school segregation or persistent negative racial stereotypes that continue to occur in American society
Dr. Lawrence D. Bobo, Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University, and Ryan Smith use this term to represent how the racial outlooks of white Americans have shifted from the more overtly racist Jim Crow attitudes—which endorsed school segregation, advocated for governmentally imposed discrimination, and embraced the idea that minorities were biologically inferior to whites—to a more subtle form of racism that continues to rationalize the ongoing problem of racial oppression in the United States. Laissez-faire racists claim to support equality while maintaining negative, stereotypical beliefs about minorities.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]
Katherine Tarca writes that laissez-faire racism is the belief, stated or implied through actions, that one can end racial inequality and discrimination by refusing to acknowledge that race and racial discrimination exists. Laissez-faire racism has two main ideas: first, the belief in the melting pot and America’s assertion of ideas of equal opportunity, regardless of race. Second, laissez-faire racism encompasses the ideology of how individual deficiencies explain the problems of entire social groups. Tarca explains that Whites tend to view laissez-faire racism as being beneficial to people of color, while many minorities believe that these ideologies contrast and ignore the realities facing many minorities in America.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Eduardo Bonilla Silva, who is a professor of sociology at Duke University, suggests that all groups of people in power construct these ideologies in order to justify social inequalities.[SUP][6][/SUP] For example, most racial ideologies today are more inclined to omit unfashionable racist language, which protects racial privilege by employing certain philosophies of liberalism in a more conceptual and decontextualized approach. These ideologies help to reinforce the existing condition of affairs by concentrating on cultural distinctions as the cause of the inferior accomplishments of minorities in education and employment. These ideas are primarily focused on the more darker-skinned minorities, such as, African-Americans, Asians and Latinos. Ideologies like these refuse to acknowledge the systematic oppression, such as the continuing school segregation or persistent negative racial stereotypes that continue to occur in American society
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
the case against OJ was shaky at best, revolving around circumstantial evidence, a poorly handled investigation, a glove and a sock.
the dearth of facts, and solid evidence, as well as ridiculous keystone cops incompetence was the downfall of the prosecution's case, not the silly rhymes and mark furhman's racial beliefs.
the evidence collection was pathetic, alleged blood evidence was "found" months after the crimes, allgedly in OJ's car, after it had been impounded, searched and released. other blood evidence was found months later on a fence, already tainted with blood preservatives, the one of the forensic scientists kept evidence in the trunk of his car (unlogged) for weeks, another was a trainee who wandered about with evidence (unlogged) in her pocket for nearly 24 hours before presenting it. the most damning "evidence", a bloody glove, duly observed and photographed,was found at the crime scene, the second was "discovered" in OJ's back yard by mark furhman, who just happened to be alone at the time, then when asked if he had planted any evidence, he took the fifth.
furhman's racist comments were NOT used as ad hominem, but as a trap to catch him lying on the stand.
he was asked if he ever called black people "Niggers", and insisted he had NEVER used that word, then the jury was played an audio tape of furhman repeating the slur 41 times in an interview. after that, furhman discovered the joys of taking the fifth, which is never good for the prosecution's chief investigator, and primary witness.
the prosecution's case was handled by clowns. OJ's lawyers used the FACTUAL failures of the prosecution to present the jury with reasonable doubt.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Wholly wall of unread info batman.
Noticed it said racist. Aren't you an eco-loon? Doesn't get more racist than that partner. To deny the developing world a come up by failing to realize that when ice melts in your cup it does not over flow is arrogant and racist.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Opinion, and exaggerated plural AGAIN. Did you go to one of those schools where even though you lost a game you got a trophy?
Water off a ducks back bruh.....simply the age old democratic bully in e-form. Nothing more.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Actually, it's something different imo. The developed world started out dirty - and learned the hard way how to harm various environments. From that knowledge comes directly the complementary consciousness of duty to our environment(s). Now that we as a world know, there is no moral leg for the next lot to stand on if they want to follow the same cheap, dirty but effective path.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
What's the immediate solution then? Burning dung to heat your home seems to be the answer when energy is unavailable in the now. Seems the moral leg would be to get a power line there and let the development commence.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
neither did i, i forgot all about it.
then this doucheknuckle comes back days later screaming out of nowhere about how he is totally not racist. i forgot he even said it.
kinda makes me wonder who he was trying to convince.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
I may be losing touch with the meaning of racism....seriously.