POLL: Which scenario spreads racism more quickly?

[IM2]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

How about a system built on racism and maintained now for 242 years?

While strictly refraining from applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century views and beliefs, explain how the American foundation is "built on racism".

I won't be accepting that excuse since we are ruled by an 18th century document.

 

[IM2]

Racism was spread by the implementation of a national system of laws and policies. These ;laws and policies were based upon beliefs. So laws and policies must be mad to penalize those who continue such beliefs. Not paying attention to an event isn't going to stop the spread of anything. So lets say no one pays attention to a racist march. What then happens to the racist who decides not to give a black entrepreneur a loan, while giving a white one the loan? Is ignoring that event going to stop the next white cop who believes the fake news of black violence from shooting a unarmed black man or woman?

"Complex issues have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers."

​

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

How about a system built on racism and maintained now for 242 years?

While strictly refraining from applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century views and beliefs, explain how the American foundation is "built on racism".

I won't be accepting that excuse since we are ruled by an 18th century document.

Which has been amended by the mandated process 27 times to keep up. Ideas and adjustments which are valid make for successful amendments.

Notable obvious exceptions are the Democrat-fueled 16th and 18th amendments.

 

[IM2]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

How about a system built on racism and maintained now for 242 years?

While strictly refraining from applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century views and beliefs, explain how the American foundation is "built on racism".

I won't be accepting that excuse since we are ruled by an 18th century document.

Which has been amended by the mandated process 27 times to keep up. Ideas and adjustments which are valid make for successful amendments.

Notable obvious exceptions are the Democrat-fueled 16th and 18th amendments.

Look idiot, I'm not as dumb as Kanye West. The republicans are no better and todays republican party is the racist party.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

How about a system built on racism and maintained now for 242 years?

While strictly refraining from applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century views and beliefs, explain how the American foundation is "built on racism".

I won't be accepting that excuse since we are ruled by an 18th century document.

Which has been amended by the mandated process 27 times to keep up. Ideas and adjustments which are valid make for successful amendments.

Notable obvious exceptions are the Democrat-fueled 16th and 18th amendments.

Look idiot, I'm not as dumb as Kanye West. The republicans are no better and todays republican party is the racist party.

Your insanity is fueled by error.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Racism was spread by the implementation of a national system of laws and policies.

None more notable than the Democrat constructs affectionately known as "Jim Crow".

 

[sealybobo]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

1 will because the white racists have privacy to recruit and show up. No one wants to be on tape.

Howard stern puts racists on the air. Do you think that ignorant racist he puts on is recruiting people? No. He’s exposing how ignorant he is.

 

[Mac1958]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

1 will because the white racists have privacy to recruit and show up. No one wants to be on tape.

Howard stern puts racists on the air. Do you think that ignorant racist he puts on is recruiting people? No. He’s exposing how ignorant he is.

So you're saying that the amount of racists who will show up and sign up at a local event will outweigh the amount who see the media & internet frenzy and coverage across the country, all over the world, and will be even more motivated?

Okay, well, I appreciate your vote.
.

 

[sealybobo]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

1 will because the white racists have privacy to recruit and show up. No one wants to be on tape.

Howard stern puts racists on the air. Do you think that ignorant racist he puts on is recruiting people? No. He’s exposing how ignorant he is.

So you're saying that the amount of racists who will show up and sign up at a local event will outweigh the amount who see the media & internet frenzy and coverage across the country, all over the world, and will be even more motivated?

Okay, well, I appreciate your vote.
.

Did that Charlottesville event help kkk recruiting?

Shine a light on it

 

[sealybobo]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

1 will because the white racists have privacy to recruit and show up. No one wants to be on tape.

Howard stern puts racists on the air. Do you think that ignorant racist he puts on is recruiting people? No. He’s exposing how ignorant he is.

So you're saying that the amount of racists who will show up and sign up at a local event will outweigh the amount who see the media & internet frenzy and coverage across the country, all over the world, and will be even more motivated?

Okay, well, I appreciate your vote.
.

I might attend a private klan rally but not one with cameras.

 

[Mac1958]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

1 will because the white racists have privacy to recruit and show up. No one wants to be on tape.

Howard stern puts racists on the air. Do you think that ignorant racist he puts on is recruiting people? No. He’s exposing how ignorant he is.

So you're saying that the amount of racists who will show up and sign up at a local event will outweigh the amount who see the media & internet frenzy and coverage across the country, all over the world, and will be even more motivated?

Okay, well, I appreciate your vote.
.

Did that Charlottesville event help kkk recruiting?

Shine a light on it

Of course it did, yes. It not only hardens the beliefs of the crazies, it brings in new crazies.

From everywhere. We're not scaring, we're not changing minds, we're helping them. They love this. They absolutely need this.

How do you think this is happening? How do you think word is getting out?
.

 

[ATL]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

1 will because the white racists have privacy to recruit and show up. No one wants to be on tape.

Howard stern puts racists on the air. Do you think that ignorant racist he puts on is recruiting people? No. He’s exposing how ignorant he is.

So you're saying that the amount of racists who will show up and sign up at a local event will outweigh the amount who see the media & internet frenzy and coverage across the country, all over the world, and will be even more motivated?

Okay, well, I appreciate your vote.
.

Did that Charlottesville event help kkk recruiting?

Shine a light on it

Of course it did, yes. It not only hardens the beliefs of the crazies, it brings in new crazies.

From everywhere. We're not scaring, we're not changing minds, we're helping them. They love this. They absolutely need this.

How do you think this is happening? How do you think word is getting out?
.

Because the leaders of the Charlottesville rally last year have either been fired from their jobs, or have relocated because of public ridicule. That only comes from being on video and media coverage.

It seems like white nationalists and their apologists are the only ones concerned about the media covering their events....I wonder why... no, I really don't, I know exactly why.

 

[Mac1958]

It seems like white nationalists and their apologists are the only ones concerned about the media covering their events....I wonder why... no, I really don't, I know exactly why.

Well, I voted for Hillary and lean Left. I think we should starve them of the attention they need, instead of obediently giving it to them whenever they ask for it, standing by at their beck and call, spreading their message worldwide in an instant upon demand.

Where do I fall?
.

 

[ATL]

It seems like white nationalists and their apologists are the only ones concerned about the media covering their events....I wonder why... no, I really don't, I know exactly why.

Well, I voted for Hillary and lean Left. I think we should starve them of the attention they need, instead of obediently giving it to them whenever they ask for it, standing by at their beck and call, spreading their message worldwide in an instant upon demand.

Where do I fall?
.

Saying you voted for clinton or that you lean left, really has no relevance to a debate on the internet. There is no way to prove your voting record, and many people say they are one thing so they can try to appear to be a voice of independence and objectivity.

Anyhow, taking you at your word, it doesn't matter because I do not agree with your premise, because I have seen the comments made during events like Ferguson, Baltimore, and OWS, and at no time did I ever see anyone suggest the media not cover those events. In fact, I saw most say that the needs to be more coverage. Did you create a thread then to ask if covering those events created more racism or not?

 

[Mac1958]

It seems like white nationalists and their apologists are the only ones concerned about the media covering their events....I wonder why... no, I really don't, I know exactly why.

Well, I voted for Hillary and lean Left. I think we should starve them of the attention they need, instead of obediently giving it to them whenever they ask for it, standing by at their beck and call, spreading their message worldwide in an instant upon demand.

Where do I fall?
.

Saying you voted for clinton or that you lean left, really has no relevance to a debate on the internet. There is no way to prove your voting record, and many people say they are one thing so they can try to appear to be a voice of independence and objectivity.

Anyhow, taking you at your word, it doesn't matter because I do not agree with your premise, because I have seen the comments made during events like Ferguson, Baltimore, and OWS, and at no time did I ever see anyone suggest the media not cover those events. In fact, I saw most say that the needs to be more coverage. Did you create a thread then to ask if covering those events created more racism or not?

My specific positions on the issues can be found in the link at the end of the 2nd line of my sig.

Looks like we disagree. I don't know how anyone can look at the two scenarios I provided, and conclude that Scenario 1 is more likely to spread racism.

To your question, yes, that has much to do with it. And another point I've made is that I think there are many people on the Left who actually are not trying to improve race relations, people who are fine with this current situation. For pure, cynical, political advantage. And that's why they like the behaviors and coverage.
.

 

[Olde Europe]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

You appear to believe that racism needs to be spread, when, as America's birth defect, it's rather pervasive in U.S. society.

The task at hand isn't to prevent the spread, it's to dissuade people from acting on their racism. A way to do that is to demonstrate through appropriate coverage that acting on one's racism is frowned upon.

So, which scenario leads to more racists realizing that their racism does not enjoy universal agreement? Also, in order to do this, amend scenario 1 to include the mouthbreathers' cellphones and the triumphant, unopposed coverage they themselves will be generating, along with a slew of tweets, along with presidential re-tweets alleging that there were "good people" marching that day.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

You appear to believe that racism needs to be spread, when, as America's birth defect, it's rather pervasive in U.S. society.

The task at hand isn't to prevent the spread, it's to dissuade people from acting on their racism. A way to do that is to demonstrate through appropriate coverage that acting on one's racism is frowned upon.

So, which scenario leads to more racists realizing that their racism does not enjoy universal agreement? Also, in order to do this, amend scenario 1 to include the mouthbreathers' cellphones and the triumphant, unopposed coverage they themselves will be generating, along with a slew of tweets, along with presidential re-tweets alleging that there were "good people" marching that day.

I agree on all points. I also wonder why posters would advocate the media putting their thumbs on the scale. If the media shouldn't report white nationalist gatherings, due to their potential influence, why should it report provocative, dishonest, or bigoted tweets from the CinC? Do media critics think every report, story or interview should be examined in light of those who may be influenced by the report? If so, no more coverage of shootings, riots, sexual misconduct, or hate crimes.

That should leave the media right where Trumpeters want them - printing happy news and recipes.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

It’s a great question. I’ve often made the arguement to starve these racist dipshits of the attention they so desire. By counter protesting and giving nonestop media coverage they pour gas on the fire.

I’ve had many conversations about this and understand the counter point to my argument. If there are systemic racial problems in this country like many black people feel, then the protest needs to not be whispered but yelled to actually see change.

We saw a spike in racial tensions during Obama’s presidency which just shows that there was a lot of shit festering below the surface which floated up after a black man won the office. We can choose to play the Long game and let that racism fester and hope it dies out after a few more generations... or we can bring it to the surface and attack, fight and condem.

I’m a white male so I am the least qualified to decide what is right and wrong here. I don’t feel the day to day hate discrimination and bias that many do feel. It’s easy for me to say “just ignore those assholes”... but the reality for those who have been and still feel oppressed is quite different. We should all listen with open minds which is what I’m trying to do.

Good post. If not for that first word in the second sentence of the second paragraph, we might agree completely.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The OP assumes that a person who is not a racist will become a racist if he or she is confronted by stories about racists in the media.

How likely is that to happen? Do stories about racists in the media push the OP toward racism?

 

[Slade3200]

Tell me which scenario will spread racism more quickly, which scenario will recruit more racists, and why, please:

Scenario 1
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. No one gives a shit. No media shows up, no protestors show up. A few tourists laugh and take pictures as if they're seeing monkeys at a zoo. The dummies get bored after 40 minutes of chanting and go home.

Scenario 2
22 mouth-breathing, ignorant racists gather at Town Square to chant ignorant, shallow racist talking points. The press descends on the area, actually outnumbering the actual mouth-breathing, ignorant racists six to one. Three different left wing groups arrive to hold up signs and scream. Several scuffles break out, with the press desperately trying to get good shots for the evening news. 11 people are injured, six of them the mouth-breathers, two of whom have to go to the hospital for stitches. The fights are recorded and go viral online. MSNBC and CNN hold a multitude of "panel discussions" that include four left wingers and one right winger, discussing how the 22 racists are making America worse.

So. Which scenario is more likely to spread racism and recruit more racists?

Or do you even care?
.

It’s a great question. I’ve often made the arguement to starve these racist dipshits of the attention they so desire. By counter protesting and giving nonestop media coverage they pour gas on the fire.

I’ve had many conversations about this and understand the counter point to my argument. If there are systemic racial problems in this country like many black people feel, then the protest needs to not be whispered but yelled to actually see change.

We saw a spike in racial tensions during Obama’s presidency which just shows that there was a lot of shit festering below the surface which floated up after a black man won the office. We can choose to play the Long game and let that racism fester and hope it dies out after a few more generations... or we can bring it to the surface and attack, fight and condem.

I’m a white male so I am the least qualified to decide what is right and wrong here. I don’t feel the day to day hate discrimination and bias that many do feel. It’s easy for me to say “just ignore those assholes”... but the reality for those who have been and still feel oppressed is quite different. We should all listen with open minds which is what I’m trying to do.

Good post. If not for that first word in the second sentence of the second paragraph, we might agree completely.

I personally feel that there are very potent racial problems in the USA without a doubt. I used “if” in that sentence because I was presenting a “if/then” argument. Thanks for the reply