CDZ Why is racism ok if the target is white?

So, being poor and white, I would like to tap into this hidden goldmine of white privilege. Did I miss something? I must have missed the gravy train. Opps. Could you rich white privileged people share the secret code with us poor whites.? Sorry, we are a little slow.
 
So, being poor and white, I would like to tap into this hidden goldmine of white privilege. Did I miss something? I must have missed the gravy train. Opps. Could you rich white privileged people share the secret code with us poor whites.? Sorry, we are a little slow.


I would be totally happy to donate my skin cancer to somebody in need of some good, old fashioned privilege!
 
Meanwhile, back at the ranch: Homeless whites demand the "right" to camp on sidewalks, parks or public spaces here in Denver. Because they are privileged and stuff. Yeah, like that. Please, explain that to me? Nevermind.
 
“Why is racism ok if the target is white?”

It isn’t.

And no one said it is.

The notion that racism is ever ‘OK’ is just another ridiculous rightwing lie.

So on Twitter one is banned because she used the word black in racist tweets and the other one is still in good standing in spite of her using the word white in her racist tweets. And they were the exact same tweets they just changed one word, from white to black.
 
“Why is racism ok if the target is white?”

It isn’t.

And no one said it is.

The notion that racism is ever ‘OK’ is just another ridiculous rightwing lie.

So on Twitter one is banned because she used the word black in racist tweets and the other one is still in good standing in spite of her using the word white in her racist tweets. And they were the exact same tweets they just changed one word, from white to black.
Well all I can say is:

 
“Why is racism ok if the target is white?”

It isn’t.

And no one said it is.

The notion that racism is ever ‘OK’ is just another ridiculous rightwing lie.

So on Twitter one is banned because she used the word black in racist tweets and the other one is still in good standing in spite of her using the word white in her racist tweets. And they were the exact same tweets they just changed one word, from white to black.

Please don't confuse Clayton with facts, Papageorgio.


All he needs to know is that conservatives are all big, bad racist poopyheads and leftists are the champions of all that is good and decent in the world.

That has served him for 30000 posts, now, and it will serve him for 30000 more.
 
“Why is racism ok if the target is white?”

It isn’t.

And no one said it is.

The notion that racism is ever ‘OK’ is just another ridiculous rightwing lie.

So on Twitter one is banned because she used the word black in racist tweets and the other one is still in good standing in spite of her using the word white in her racist tweets. And they were the exact same tweets they just changed one word, from white to black.

Please don't confuse Clayton with facts, Papageorgio.


All he needs to know is that conservatives are all big, bad racist poopyheads and leftists are the champions of all that is good and decent in the world.

That has served him for 30000 posts, now, and it will serve him for 30000 more.

I don’t understand the lack of reason.
 
Racism is an ugly thing, one that can have enormously harmful effects on society. One would hope that this would be recognized by people on all sides, but sadly this is not often the case.

In recent years, I have noticed an increase in racism. First, there has been an increase in antisemitic language on various sites that appear to be associated with people who identify as the alt-right. Second, there has been an increase in anti-white language from people, especially minorities, on the left.

Both trends are disturbing. But I find the latter trend to be more dangerous in one important way. While the racists on the alt-right are generally condemned by “respectable” society, the racists on the left are often tolerated by the left wing part of such society.

There is no justification for this differential treatment. Racism – hatred of racial groups rather than of individuals for their actions – is pernicious. Since humans are so group-oriented, racism appears to be tempting, but that means that social norms need to condemn it strongly and consistently.

The most recent, high visible toleration of left wing racism is by the New York Times, which hired Sarah Jeong. Jeong has a first-rate left-wing resume, but her Twitter feed is filled with outrageously racist tweets, such as “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men” and “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

If these were tweets of a white person or a right winger, the New York Times would never, ever hire that person. Why would they hire Jeong?

Her public apology for the tweets is very weak – it suggests she did it in retaliation of harassment, but it does not appear all of the tweets were in response to such actions.

This is sad. I am not one who looks back on a golden age of the New York Times when it was a neutral newspaper. But I have to admit things appear to have gotten much worse in recent years. This type of action not only harms society, but also harms the reputation of an institution which it is hard to respect, despite it being the “leading newspaper in the nation.”


The Racism of New York Times Reporter Sarah Jeong - Law & Liberty


Now I doubt that all Lefties support this any more than all righties support racism against anyone else, but still the NY Times hires this person? Anybody want to take a whack at explaining why this isn't highly hypocritical? Yes, the Times can hire whoever they want, but can you imagine the outcry if Fox News hired a person who said the exact same thing about any minority you car to name?


They would have you believe that there is only one race capable of being racist. And if that is the case, that race must be pretty damn reprehensible as a RACE and maybe then you can just do anything you want to them because they deserve it. Anything you would do to that race of course would not be considered racism.
it takes a couple hundred years for this kind of indoctrination to really set in, but i think future generations are really going to suffer because of what is being taught today.
 
I am confused here, with all these poor whites that are disaffected, and all those phony rich white elitist Liberals presume WE worship and adore this ...man. Nope, just the opposite. Why YOU
do think WE would vote for someone so corrupt if didn't mean we reviled and were so repulsed by anything "liberal" to the point we would rather cut off our nose to spite Liberals? Well, that's where I came from here. Mindless liberalism has got to go. We would vote for a flaming sword swallower from a no name circus from outer Mongolia. Just to get rid of this plague of liberalism.
 
Last edited:
It was foolish of the New York Times to hire her.

Nonsense!!! Any experienced HR person can tell you how very important it is to hire employees who are a good fit for the company values, goals, and how well the fit in with their current employees, so they will work well together to achieve the desired goals. In the case of the NYT, that means hiring psycho racist vermin who are also very comfortable around mindless diseased faggots, pedophiles, traitors, and violent racists, and other mentally ill scum.

Fashion and extreme conformity is everything in MSM careers and 'work' environments, especially left wing ones.
 
I live near what used to was 23rd Ave Park avenue in Denver. Here in Colorado. They renamed it "Martin Luther King Drive". It amazes me, renaming and being so politically correct. I still call it 23rd avenue. And well, MLK was never EVER here either. Why rename it? We see all the statues torn down in the south to historical figures that actually lived there being torn down and erased. Because it offends certain popular groups. Well, history isn't like that, it can't be rearranged to suit current political opinions. You can't just make inconvenient truths go away because it offends. Nope.
 
Last edited:
You obviously have a limited reading list.
9a00bc0dc6139508fe6765e375c15d9e.jpg
 
Why do you need to ask this question?

The regressive left have an Agenda. That Agenda is to eradicate white European culture they hate so much. So yea, of course racism against whites is OK.

Once you accept that fact, nothing the left does should surprise you.

I'm just wondering when this is supposed to happen. I spent all day today communicating in a European Language, eating European Food, listening to European/American cultural things. So man, this has to be the laziest eradication effort out there, right after the Muslim attempt to conquer the world that has been going on since 700 AD. Glaciers move faster.

How many neighborhoods and cities are already virtual no-go zones for whites in America? How much of the population speaks a language other than English in their homes?

But go ahead and deny reality, it’s what you are best at.
 
White privilege, ah, that magic unicorn of the deluded left. Mostly rich privileged white or black activists suffer from that delusion or mental defect. If I have this so called "white privilege", where can I find it? Because I can use all the help I can get.

You get it every time an HR person reads your resume and sees you have a white name, and you get a call when someone with a non-white name doesn't, even if they have the same qualifications.

You get it when a cop gives you a pass for going 5 MPH over the posted speed limit when a person of color gets pulled over and his car searched.
 

Forum List

Back
Top