'WHITE GUILT' Video Shown to High School Students

[ClosedCaption]

Mr Accuse, when you have nothing. Try anything. Lol

 

[bripat9643]

Then what's it about, asshole?

History.

Don't like it?

Too late.

What about history? What's the point of the video? You're obviously afraid to say it in plain English. That's because you know it's a race baiting pile of crap.

What do you mean what about history? Does there need to be some magnanimous reason for history? Or only with blacks?

Lol...only during black history do you guys say we shouldn't discuss blacks or history lol.

The word "history" by itself conveys no useful meaning. Try giving a little more detail, dumbass.

Ok, when I say history what I mean is stick it up ass sideways and go fuck yourself. You don't guide me, fool.

That's what I figured you meant. What you were actually doing is bleating like some witless sheep.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

I think everybody has a line defining racism in their mind. If you don't cross that line, nobody blame you as a racist.
I'm curious about where you draw that line. Let's say: if someone frequently claims that, for example, "the blacks are stupid and tend to commit crime", would you say that he is a racist?
Also, if a professor claims that he has found through scientific research that the whites are "genetically smarter" than the blacks, would you mark the professor as a racist?

I would be fine with calling blacks stupid today based on their current culture and mindset, but at the same time I think all white teenagers and the 20 somethings who grew up on MTV are idiots for the same reason. I also think the "tend" helps soften the message enough for my taste in regards to talking about blacks committing crimes.

If a professor claimed whites were smarter inherently I would obviously need to see this research and study up on the science behind it before I believed it or not. I certainly wouldn't just dismiss the professor outright as a racist.

These two cases were actually presented to us in a high school class several years ago. I thought they were quite interesting.
You might notice that the claims have different level of factual support.
One of them has partial support (i.e. SOME blacks are stupid and tend to commit crime), and the other has, hypothetically, full scientific support. The question is, however, does it matter how much support they have? One answer is: based on solid factual support, any comment is not racism and should be allowed, because people have the freedom of speaking the truth (and take actions accordingly). Another opinion is that even with factual support, such comment shouldn't be allowed because it hurts the feelings of others and lead to hatred and mistrust. Apparently, you tend to choose the first answer while many people from the left believe in the second. Naturally, you guys draw that line at different places to strengthen your preferred answer. Nevertheless, what really matters is to understand the implication of these answers - they both have traps and rewards waiting for their believers. After all, the argument on the definition of racism is essentially an argument on how we should behave.
Just some thoughts...

My problem is that both questions present a narrative which doesn't exist. One extremely respected scientist said that white people have higher IQs on average than blacks, and he was destroyed for it despite all the years of DNA breakthroughs he contributed to. On the other hand you have lunatics like Francis Cress Welsing being allowed to work with children for many years despite writing a book that is the black equivalent of the movie "Birth of a Nation" called "The Isis Papers".

There isn't really an honest debate on the morality of racism and racialism, it is all about beating white people down every time they stop displaying the typical symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome.

That professor you mentioned certainly chose the first answer and fell into its trap: when you make claims like that, scientific or not, you hurt a group of people so badly that the society cannot tolerate it. Consequently, the professor was punished although he may be telling the truth. At that point, the negative influence outweighs his personal freedom of research and speech. Had he expected that, he probably would have switched to another research topic, because the society is not ready to digest something like that. Sometimes, it is advisable to take the consequences of such actions into consideration before exercising our freedom.

The world will never be "ready" for something like that. This world has been make-believe for a long time and it will only get more outlandish from here on in.

If a black scientist made the opposite claim it would be much better received and eventually made mainstream, just like other racial studies that favor blacks(see studies on black infants for an example) This whole "tolerance" schtick is a sham because the "left" has racialized the political spectrum and the right is too stupid to understand what has happened, much less challenge it.

Have a little faith, sir. I hope and believe it'll get better.
On the other hand, I would never conduct a research like that even if I had the resources. The reason is that the results can and will be used against many people, be it black or white. I choose to exercise my right not because I have them but because I think by doing so, I can benefit myself or others.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, it was huge. The Arabs captured millions of Europeans, and millions of blacks.

Frontpage magazine isn't a valid source.

You do realize that the chattel slavery practiced against Africans was a lot worse than anything that had been practiced before it, right?

 

[Correll]

And yet you feel comfortable dismissing any accomplishments I may or may not have made, and all the work it took me to accomplish them no matter how extreme the effort may have been.

Yup. Reading your posts, it is easy to dismiss your "accomplishments', or that you have an IQ above room temperature

AND dismissing the hard work and accomplishments of ALL WHITE MALES.

You are a fucking asshole.

 

[ptbw forever]

Yes, it was huge. The Arabs captured millions of Europeans, and millions of blacks.

Frontpage magazine isn't a valid source.

You do realize that the chattel slavery practiced against Africans was a lot worse than anything that had been practiced before it, right?

Except it wasn't...

I don't remember hearing or reading about black male slaves being turned into permanent eunuchs via mutilation in the west...

You are so anti-white you have gone retarded.

 

[ptbw forever]

I would be fine with calling blacks stupid today based on their current culture and mindset, but at the same time I think all white teenagers and the 20 somethings who grew up on MTV are idiots for the same reason. I also think the "tend" helps soften the message enough for my taste in regards to talking about blacks committing crimes.

If a professor claimed whites were smarter inherently I would obviously need to see this research and study up on the science behind it before I believed it or not. I certainly wouldn't just dismiss the professor outright as a racist.

These two cases were actually presented to us in a high school class several years ago. I thought they were quite interesting.
You might notice that the claims have different level of factual support.
One of them has partial support (i.e. SOME blacks are stupid and tend to commit crime), and the other has, hypothetically, full scientific support. The question is, however, does it matter how much support they have? One answer is: based on solid factual support, any comment is not racism and should be allowed, because people have the freedom of speaking the truth (and take actions accordingly). Another opinion is that even with factual support, such comment shouldn't be allowed because it hurts the feelings of others and lead to hatred and mistrust. Apparently, you tend to choose the first answer while many people from the left believe in the second. Naturally, you guys draw that line at different places to strengthen your preferred answer. Nevertheless, what really matters is to understand the implication of these answers - they both have traps and rewards waiting for their believers. After all, the argument on the definition of racism is essentially an argument on how we should behave.
Just some thoughts...

My problem is that both questions present a narrative which doesn't exist. One extremely respected scientist said that white people have higher IQs on average than blacks, and he was destroyed for it despite all the years of DNA breakthroughs he contributed to. On the other hand you have lunatics like Francis Cress Welsing being allowed to work with children for many years despite writing a book that is the black equivalent of the movie "Birth of a Nation" called "The Isis Papers".

There isn't really an honest debate on the morality of racism and racialism, it is all about beating white people down every time they stop displaying the typical symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome.

That professor you mentioned certainly chose the first answer and fell into its trap: when you make claims like that, scientific or not, you hurt a group of people so badly that the society cannot tolerate it. Consequently, the professor was punished although he may be telling the truth. At that point, the negative influence outweighs his personal freedom of research and speech. Had he expected that, he probably would have switched to another research topic, because the society is not ready to digest something like that. Sometimes, it is advisable to take the consequences of such actions into consideration before exercising our freedom.

The world will never be "ready" for something like that. This world has been make-believe for a long time and it will only get more outlandish from here on in.

If a black scientist made the opposite claim it would be much better received and eventually made mainstream, just like other racial studies that favor blacks(see studies on black infants for an example) This whole "tolerance" schtick is a sham because the "left" has racialized the political spectrum and the right is too stupid to understand what has happened, much less challenge it.

Have a little faith, sir. I hope and believe it'll get better.
On the other hand, I would never conduct a research like that even if I had the resources. The reason is that the results can and will be used against many people, be it black or white. I choose to exercise my right not because I have them but because I think by doing so, I can benefit myself or others.

You are doing nothing but encouraging more make-believe that will end up just causing a race war down the line.

 

[JoeB131]

AND dismissing the hard work and accomplishments of ALL WHITE MALES.

You are a fucking asshole.

hardly. Lot's of white males work very hard and have little to show for it when they die. Lots of white males get a pass because they are white males. And lots of women of color work very hard and are dismissed bythe old boys club who still promote one of their own.

Except it wasn't...

I don't remember hearing or reading about black male slaves being turned into permanent eunuchs via mutilation in the west...

You are so anti-white you have gone retarded.

How many slaves were turned into Eunuchs? And you really don't think castration was a thing in the Antebellum south?

 

[Correll]

AND dismissing the hard work and accomplishments of ALL WHITE MALES.

You are a fucking asshole.

hardly. Lot's of white males work very hard and have little to show for it when they die. Lots of white males get a pass because they are white males. And lots of women of color work very hard and are dismissed bythe old boys club who still promote one of their own.

YOur statements about being white and male and White Privilege certainly do dismiss their hard work and their accomplishments, as did the video.

"Old Boy CLub" my ass.

AND your statements completely pisses over those hard working whites who do NOT get ahead.

It's hard enough to work hard and have nothing to show for it, AND then have assholes telling you about how Privileged you are because you have white skin.

I'm surprised more libs don't get their asses kicked more often.

Probably careful about when and where they spew their vile nonsense.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, it was huge. The Arabs captured millions of Europeans, and millions of blacks.

Frontpage magazine isn't a valid source.

You do realize that the chattel slavery practiced against Africans was a lot worse than anything that had been practiced before it, right?

No, it wasn't.

Frontpage is as valid a source as any you're likely to use.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Correll and Jim Bowie want to get rid of history classes because its not about kids today

 

[Correll]

Correll and Jim Bowie want to get rid of history classes because its not about kids today

You are a lying asshole.

 

[Mac1958]

Correll and Jim Bowie want to get rid of history classes because its not about kids today

You are a lying asshole.

You'll never be able to have an honest conversation with someone like that.
.

 

[Correll]

Correll and Jim Bowie want to get rid of history classes because its not about kids today

You are a lying asshole.

You'll never be able to have an honest conversation with someone like that.
.

My part was completely honest.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Correll and Jim Bowie want to get rid of history classes because its not about kids today

You are a lying asshole.

Sorry, I meant only certain subjects

 

[Correll]

Correll and Jim Bowie want to get rid of history classes because its not about kids today

You are a lying asshole.

Sorry, I meant only certain subjects

Doesn't it seem strange to you that you have to lie constantly in order to even create an illusion of scoring a "point" in these conversations?

Liberals. All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Correll and Jim Bowie want to get rid of history classes because its not about kids today

You are a lying asshole.

Sorry, I meant only certain subjects

Doesn't it seem strange to you that you have to lie constantly in order to even create an illusion of scoring a "point" in these conversations?

Liberals. All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

Its strange indeed, but whats stranger is that whenever anyone asks you any question about your charge of lying you cant ever answer. Its perplexing, watch.

How, when or where did I lie?

Now watch this, you wont be able to answer but what you are good at is screaming "liar" like a pro. You must practice in the mirror

 

[ptbw forever]

AND dismissing the hard work and accomplishments of ALL WHITE MALES.

You are a fucking asshole.

hardly. Lot's of white males work very hard and have little to show for it when they die. Lots of white males get a pass because they are white males. And lots of women of color work very hard and are dismissed bythe old boys club who still promote one of their own.

Except it wasn't...

I don't remember hearing or reading about black male slaves being turned into permanent eunuchs via mutilation in the west...

You are so anti-white you have gone retarded.

How many slaves were turned into Eunuchs? And you really don't think castration was a thing in the Antebellum south?

Unless you are getting your history from a plagiarized fictional novel by Alex Haley, no, not really.
Why would castration be "a thing" when you would lose untold amounts of money and have to spend a lot more to get a new slave that was even comparable? Castration meant no new slaves to sell or use.

Castration was "a thing" in the Middle East because there was no need for breeding more slaves and they were not used entirely for labor. In the Arab slave trade they would create eunuchs to oversee the concubines, and that slave would literally not have any other purpose in life.

Chattel slavery was pretty much the most "progressive" type of slavery given the fact that the US was a struggling country throughout.

 

[Correll]

Correll and Jim Bowie want to get rid of history classes because its not about kids today

You are a lying asshole.

Sorry, I meant only certain subjects

Doesn't it seem strange to you that you have to lie constantly in order to even create an illusion of scoring a "point" in these conversations?

Liberals. All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

Its strange indeed, but whats stranger is that whenever anyone asks you any question about your charge of lying you cant ever answer. Its perplexing, watch.

How, when or where did I lie?

Now watch this, you wont be able to answer but what you are good at is screaming "liar" like a pro. You must practice in the mirror

Here is your answer that you claimed I would not be able to give.

"Correll and Jim Bowie want to get rid of history classes because its not about kids today"


Nothing I have ever said, supports any part of that.

YOu lied.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Correll and Jim Bowie want to get rid of history classes because its not about kids today

You are a lying asshole.

Sorry, I meant only certain subjects

Doesn't it seem strange to you that you have to lie constantly in order to even create an illusion of scoring a "point" in these conversations?

Liberals. All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

Its strange indeed, but whats stranger is that whenever anyone asks you any question about your charge of lying you cant ever answer. Its perplexing, watch.

How, when or where did I lie?

Now watch this, you wont be able to answer but what you are good at is screaming "liar" like a pro. You must practice in the mirror

Here is your answer that you claimed I would not be able to give.

"Correll and Jim Bowie want to get rid of history classes because its not about kids today"


Nothing I have ever said, supports any part of that.

YOu lied.

You're correct actually. I think Jim and one other loser were the ones saying they didnt want history taught because it had nothing to do with kids today. Congrats, thats the only "lie" you could produce. And its a whopper