The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....

[Ghost of a Rider]

Why didn't you just show the whole definition? All you did was copy and paste. How hard could it have been to copy and paste two additional sentences?

Here, Mr. Merriam-Webster.. Read!
See yet? A definition equals one ("whole") meaning of a term. When 3 ("whole") definitions are provided for a term I tend to pick the first. Why? Already answered, plus why risk confusing you even more than you're determined to be already.

It doesn't matter if you pick the first definition you idiot, the other definitions still apply. And even if what you say is true, then "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" (Dictionary.com), and "Racial prejudice or discrimination" (Merriam-Webster's) are part of the whole definition, are they not? If they're not then what the **** are they doing there? If racial prejudice is not racism then why does the dictionary also list this definition or this part of the definition?

Do you really not understand that the dictionary is saying that racial prejudice is also racism? Do you really not understand that if IM2 assumes I lied because I'm white, that this constitutes racism as per the dictionary? Are you really not grasping this simple concept? Are you really not getting any of this or are you just arguing to argue?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, you believe a lot of horseshit.

Call me racist all you want without any factual evidence to back it up. It changes nothing.

I showed you the proof. Gaslighting doesn't work on me son.

On the contrary. The left's been gaslighting you since you were born.

Explain how the left has been gaslighting me since I was born. I was born in 1961. The left didn't stage the BirminGham church bombing, the killing of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Bloody Sunday, The dogs in Birmingham, Goldwaters speech in 1964, Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage, Abner Louima, the racism I have personally face or Sean Bell. I can keep going.

LOL blacks from his own group killed Malcolm X.

Another lie. Malcolm left the NOI at the time of his killing. The FBI paid for the hit. But let's not allow facts stand in the way of the retarded sgt's denial of white racism. Funny how you mention X, but the other events you don't want to deal with.

LOL the FBI did no such thing if they had we would know it because by now it would be released. The others were killed by either racist assholes or delusional retards. Funny how when a black man goes around murdering whites we never hear how it was racism but as soon as some white man murders a black it is all our faults and we are all racist. Blacks are individuals and when one does something you never blame the group but one white guy represents all white to you every single time. That is why I call you a racist. Because you see skin color in all things you make excuses for blacks while blaming all whites for the acts of one.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Ghost won't tell us if he ever turned in white workers for the same thing. Again as I stated, he will claim the whites always wore their gloves to justify himself.

You really need to pay more attention. I just told Grumblefish today that I have had white coworkers removed from the vessel. In fact, every one of them was white.

And, for the thousandth time - pay attention because this will be on the test - I DID NOT TURN HIM IN FOR NOT WEARING THE GLOVES. I didn't turn him in at all. He was being difficult and acting like an asshole because he thought I was picking on him when I spoke to him about the gloves. So I asked the supervisor to sit down with the both of us to resolve the situation and try to convince him that I was not picking on him.

Why do you insist on getting this wrong every ******* time even after having told you what happened a hundred times?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ghost won't tell us if he ever turned in white workers for the same thing. Again as I stated, he will claim the whites always wore their gloves to justify himself.

You really need to pay more attention. I just told Grumblefish today that I have had white coworkers removed from the vessel. In fact, every one of them was white.

And, for the thousandth time - pay attention because this will be on the test - I DID NOT TURN HIM IN FOR NOT WEARING THE GLOVES. I didn't turn him in at all. He was being difficult and acting like an asshole because he thought I was picking on him when I spoke to him about the gloves. So I asked the supervisor to sit down with the both of us to resolve the situation and try to convince him that I was not picking on him.

Why do you insist on getting this wrong every ******* time even after having told you what happened a hundred times?

Because he only sees you are white, he is racist everything a white guy does is AGAINST a black guy to him. Did you see how he excused black slavers how he made excuses for blacks owning slaves and made excuses for why blacks sold blacks to white slavers? He even defended current day slavery among blacks because golly gee they let you buy back your loved one.

 

[Grumblenuts]

even if what you say is true, then "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" (Dictionary.com), and "Racial prejudice or discrimination" (Merriam-Webster's) are part of the whole definition, are they not?

No! There are multiple definitions. There is no "the whole definition" unless only one is provided. The first definition provided is intended to be the most common usage or understanding of the term. That is important to those who wish to best understand what others are trying to say to them.

If they're not then what the **** are they doing there? If racial prejudice is not racism then why does the dictionary also list this definition or this part of the definition?

Because it's a secondary meaning or usage of the term.

Do you really not understand that the dictionary is saying that racial prejudice is also racism?

Some significant amount of people have been using the term that way, thus it appears as a secondary definition.

Do you really not understand that if IM2 assumes I lied because I'm white, that this constitutes racism as per the dictionary?

I understand that you use the term that way. I don't. To make it that simplistic is to render it superfluous imo. IM2 speaks for himself as should you.

Are you really not grasping this simple concept? Are you really not getting any of this or are you just arguing to argue?

Sounds like you projecting you onto me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

even if what you say is true, then "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" (Dictionary.com), and "Racial prejudice or discrimination" (Merriam-Webster's) are part of the whole definition, are they not?

No! There are multiple definitions. There is no "the whole definition" unless only one is provided. The first definition provided is intended to be the most common usage or understanding of the term. That is important to those who wish to best understand what others are trying to say to them.

If they're not then what the **** are they doing there? If racial prejudice is not racism then why does the dictionary also list this definition or this part of the definition?

Because it's a secondary meaning or usage of the term.

Do you really not understand that the dictionary is saying that racial prejudice is also racism?

Some significant amount of people have been using the term that way, thus it appears as a secondary definition.

Do you really not understand that if IM2 assumes I lied because I'm white, that this constitutes racism as per the dictionary?

I understand that you use the term that way. I don't. To make it that simplistic is to render it superfluous imo. IM2 speaks for himself as should you.

Are you really not grasping this simple concept? Are you really not getting any of this or are you just arguing to argue?

Sounds like you projecting you onto me.

IM2 is racist because he believes whites as a group are all racist or accept racism. If a white guy kills a black person then to IM2 most whites did it. He may make exceptions for some liberals but only grudgingly. If you disagree with IM2 you are either racist or if black an Uncle Tom. That is racism. He blames all whites for racism even liberals. He makes excuses for bad black behavior and none for white behavior, we just had a conversation about slavery he claims all whites are guilty of slavery and that blacks practicing slavery or selling blacks into slavery are FORCED to do it by whites. Again racism.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I will accept IM2's opinions from their source. Some of your apoplectic attempts to summarize his views are somewhat entertaining to read. I'll grant you that much.

 

[daveman]

I've been repeatedly assured that unverifiable anecdotes are not allowed.

Meanwhile, the left has told you (and I've explained this many times before, and I don't expect you to accept it this time) that blacks aren't good enough or smart enough to succeed on their own without help. Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards, etc.

Conservatives believe everyone is good enough and smart enough to succeed without help.

But you believe liberals and call conservatives racists.

You been gaslit af.

The left has not said that. The right has.

Really? Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards -- not conservative policies.

Liberals say you can't succeed without their help -- and you kiss their ass.

No self-respect. Pathetic.

Funny how you don't want to talk about the 189 years whites got affirmative action before the executive order.

Yawn.

I understand your fear son. Because your little white delusion of grandeur will be deconstructed if you chose to even try getting into such a discussion. So go on to sleep before I put you there.

Threats from a ***** like you who's scared of words are less than credible.

 

[IM2]

The left has not said that. The right has.

Really? Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards -- not conservative policies.

Liberals say you can't succeed without their help -- and you kiss their ass.

No self-respect. Pathetic.

Funny how you don't want to talk about the 189 years whites got affirmative action before the executive order.

Yawn.

I understand your fear son. Because your little white delusion of grandeur will be deconstructed if you chose to even try getting into such a discussion. So go on to sleep before I put you there.

Threats from a ***** like you who's scared of words are less than credible.

Being offended is far different from being scared son. But since I am such a *****, I guess that means you will engage in a discussion of white racism after slavery.

 

[katsteve2012]

I did not "select" any circle of friends. I have the same circle of friends for the most part that I had growing up.

Obviously at my age, a few have died.

I brought up education only because there happen to be some very bright people that I are friends from all races, and truthfully none of them, back them saw the humor in that show.

Probably because none of them were raised in or lived in the geographical region that waved the Confederate flag.

I was in a Rust Belt high school at the time of the show. It was wildly popular among my age group. The boys loved the fast cars and Daisy Duke,and the girls loved the Duke Boys, and dressed like Daisy Duke.


None of them were from the South. IF you missed this, it suggests a very inward looking circle of friends. Your weird belief that the audience was limited to the south, makes no sense. On many levels. I mean, really, your thinking makes no sense.

If what I am saying makes no sense to you, it is probably because your circle of friends and life was in a rust belt high school during the time of the show around people that identified with the characters.

It is not abnormal for people to identify with a program that they can relate to, in fact, people who like certain shows, usually do for that reason.


It is commonly referred to as a "target audience" in entertainment marketing, with producers and script writers considering who will most likely watch a given program that is on the air.


I was long past high school during that time and was on the west coast in a completely different kind of non rural environment, around people that DID NOT identify with that kind of show, or its characters.

It seems quite simple to me, and rather narrow minded of you, not to be able to understand that.

12 Types of Target Audience

Yes, I understand that. I addressed it several times with references to how in my peer group and family and friends there was fans and not fans.


You initially assumed it was a show with limited REGIONAL appeal. Now you are trying to down play it as one with a limited target audience appeal.



The Dukes of Hazzard - Wikipedia


The show topped out in it's third season as the SECOND highest show of the year, with over 21 million viewers.


It was a family friendly action comedy. With widespread appeal.


That your circle of friends didn't include anyone that liked it, is your circle of friends being limited.



You should read some of these. I only read the first couple. These are old fans remembering good clean fun stories. Not one mentions the Confederate flag or racism, that I saw. Many of them discuss how nice and good the characters were, and how nice it was to watch with family.


This fits my perception of the show. Your perception of it, not.


"And you could always appreciate the country values the Dukes always espoused ... be good to your neighbor, thank the Lord before meals, don't lie or cheat or steal.

"The Dukes of Hazzard" is not rocket science, it's not deep or profound or socially redeemable or whatever else. It's just plain heckin' fun!!!!"


"Eight years after Fred Silverman's infamous "rural purge", this show burst on the scene and instantly became a hit. Even though the show did get a lot of heat for the outlandish plots, simplistic characters and scantily clad women, especially Daisy, this show struck a chord with the American public during the late 70's/early 80's. Also, you could tell that this show was done very tongue in cheek and that the cast had a lot of fun doing it."



"I remember being eight years old when I started watching this show. I would anxiously await the Friday line up that included The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Falcon Crest and this one. That was a great Friday line up, highlighted of course by the Dukes. What was so appealing about this show to so many people was it's virtue. I'm sure parents wanted their kids to watch it because you couldn't have a better show for their kids to watch. It was safe. The Dukes were polite, virtuous and church going. How could they not like that? How could a parent object to anything like that? But of course as kids we liked it for different reasons.

Stunts, fast cars, Daisy, Boss Hogg and Roscoe. The Dukes of Hazard was so absurd sometimes but it always entertained you and more often than not it made you laugh. Could you imagine what the script must have looked like when they first pitched it to studio? Could you imagine how silly Roscoe must have looked on paper? I mean how do you write in his ridiculous laugh? How do you write all of his idiosyncrasies? Or was that all James Best? I don't know, but it sure was funny."




"The Dukes of Hazzard is to me, a great southern series with comedy and adventure. It's actually nice to take a breather from all the dramas and shows where stories take place in either New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And this show delivered. Tom Wopat and John Schneider were excellent as Bo and Luke Duke and their real life friendship provided the perfect chemistry for their characters, which is why I felt the show was so popular and this friendship was established before they auditioned together.

Daisy Duke is truly a super beautiful girl and very nice in real life, since I've had the honor of meeting Catherine Bach as well as the other surviving cast members. Even I loved Daisy Duke and it's hard to imagine a guy growing up back then who didn't feel that way.

Denver Pyle as Uncle Jese was truly the backbone of the series. I also fondly recall watching him as Mad Jack on Grizzly Adams as well as Pa Darling on the Andy Griffith Show. He was also a good example of a Christian man since he was also the moral backbone of the series as well.

Sorrell Booke was what I call a comical villain. He wasn't even a real villain for that matter. Although he and Uncle Jesse were enemies, they were also old friends. Boss Hogg was hilarious in those ridiculous white outfits and all that eating he did. I couldn't even think about eating all that he had.

James Best. There's not enough complimentary words to describe him. He has to be one of the funniest and most talented actors in history. Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane made me laugh more than any other character. His sputtering and all those sayings of his like Cuff em and Stuff em! are now legend. Whoever heard of a stupid sheriff? Watch this show and you'll see him in action. I also loved his Bassett Hound Flash."





You should watch a few episodes. Or at least read a LOT of the reviews. Your view of the world, and the people in it, are just plain wrong.


This family friendly, fun, tone, and perception WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF YOUR VIEW OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND SOUTHERN PRIDE WAS CORRECT.


It is valid for you to hold the position, that the "rebranding" was wrong.


But for you to pretend it did not happen, and to judge people (or shows) as though it did not happen, is not reasonable.


Indeed, it puts you in the position of being an asshole.


You really want to call these people, like the one who was EIGHT when he was fan, watching the show with his dad, you want to call him out for being a fan of tv heroes that had a Confederate Flag on the roof of their car?



EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA KNEW IT WAS JUST A FUN TV SHOW. IF YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS DID NOT, THERE WAS/IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.

No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me.

I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did.

For you to question my personal preferences as far as television shows, truly makes you someone who clearly has too much time on their hands.

You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.

That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.

We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.

You are an extremely small and petty individual.

Your position is that the symbol(s) represent racism and slavery and secession.


IN a society, where the symbols have, at least until recently, been widely accepted, as demonstrated by my example of the Dukes of Hazzard, this is not a "petty" point.


If you are correct, then we live in a society, where until very recently extremely racist symbols, and thus, the racism they symbolize was widely accepted and celebrated.


If I am correct, then we live in a society where, until very recently, symbols of regional pride, and thus the regional pride they symbolize were widely accepted and celebrated.


My use of the show, to examine this point, is brilliant. You should read the reviews. They are a window into the people who liked the show and what they were and who they are.


They are not racist or bad people, as would be expected, in your world.


I am going out on a limb in saying this, btw, I only looked at the first 5 or 6 reviews.


Maybe if you read them all you can find that further down, the vast majority are from Evul White Men who loved the public celebration of Evul Racism, for the Evulness of it all., or something like that that would support your world view.


If you find that, you could really crush me. If you are confident in your worldview, I would think that you would expect to find a good deal of that, in the reviews.


So, are you going to look? Or do you prefer to just make assumptions about people you don't know, and don't like?

My "position" is one of someone who did not just read in passing in an old history book about symbols of oppression. I actually saw them in effect as realities, unlike you.

The same filthy animals that threw urine and feces on my parents at a PEACEFUL civil rights march down south in the 60's were waving confederate flags.

In the context of historic timelines, it was not that long ago that I experienced what I did, so for you to speculate about and then attempt to judge what MY perception is of something that was offensive to ME and many others in an environment that you did not experience during a time when you were not even born is not "brilliant" by any means.


Using a television show, that I did not watch nor had an interest in as a means to justify your defense of this symbol is nothing more than you expressing your opinion.

If "everyone in America" was as accepting as you claim of the "symbol" that you are so determined to defend as "harmless" the independent networks would still be running syndicated episodes of it.

But obviously there were enough people who resented the shows use of a Confederate flag caricature to prompt even reruns of the show to be cancelled.

This is just you defending what you casually view as a symbol of "regional pride", which you are certainly entitled to do, just as I am entitled as many others are to view it as I do.

I read your cut and pasted reviews of the show, and like any other show, it had a following by a certain audience, and also,like any other show, it appealed to SOME people, but not ALL people.


For different reasons.

By your own admission, your views and platform of reasoning revolves around defending everything that you believe to be related to the values of white society in America, no matter what.

But it also appears that anyone who has self interests based on their life experiences that are not aligned with your views, you seem to perceive as a threat to your defense of what you believe in.

That is what I am referring to as being "small and petty".

Your belief system is yours to support, however you are in no position to judge my life experiences and beliefs, or those of others as an assault upon yours.

That has nothing to do with me "making assumptions about people that I don't know of dislike" as you claim.

I do not have any emotional investment to contribute towards "liking or disliking" complete strangers whose beliefs happen to be different than mine, but I do reserve the right to not share their views for my own reasons.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...ukes-of-hazzard-yanked-from-tv-land/29571785/

 

[IM2]

even if what you say is true, then "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" (Dictionary.com), and "Racial prejudice or discrimination" (Merriam-Webster's) are part of the whole definition, are they not?

No! There are multiple definitions. There is no "the whole definition" unless only one is provided. The first definition provided is intended to be the most common usage or understanding of the term. That is important to those who wish to best understand what others are trying to say to them.

If they're not then what the **** are they doing there? If racial prejudice is not racism then why does the dictionary also list this definition or this part of the definition?

Because it's a secondary meaning or usage of the term.

Do you really not understand that the dictionary is saying that racial prejudice is also racism?

Some significant amount of people have been using the term that way, thus it appears as a secondary definition.

Do you really not understand that if IM2 assumes I lied because I'm white, that this constitutes racism as per the dictionary?

I understand that you use the term that way. I don't. To make it that simplistic is to render it superfluous imo. IM2 speaks for himself as should you.

Are you really not grasping this simple concept? Are you really not getting any of this or are you just arguing to argue?

Sounds like you projecting you onto me.

IM2 is racist because he believes whites as a group are all racist or accept racism. If a white guy kills a black person then to IM2 most whites did it. He may make exceptions for some liberals but only grudgingly. If you disagree with IM2 you are either racist or if black an Uncle Tom. That is racism. He blames all whites for racism even liberals. He makes excuses for bad black behavior and none for white behavior, we just had a conversation about slavery he claims all whites are guilty of slavery and that blacks practicing slavery or selling blacks into slavery are FORCED to do it by whites. Again racism.

Actually I have stated on many occasions that all whites are not racist. I stated and linked to an IPSOS poll done in 2017 shows that still today 31 percent of all whites hold white supremacist views. That is not all white people. So you're lying.

You have chosen to dismiss the overall impact of white racism on people of color. The documented evidence shows what it does relative to the slave trade. Now how about the years after blacks ere freed? Did we create jim crow too?

You are up against a man who has studied these things for the last 35 years retarded sgt. You don't stand a chance repeating your alt right bullshit.

 

[IM2]

You see, retarded sgt dismisses things such as the psychological impact of racism and coping mechanisms used to combat racism. He conflates bad behavior by blacks(never seeing good behavior) and so he comes to simplistic conclusions based upon his racial biases.

He's is too ignorant to understand that what whites like him have done has involved every form of abusive behavior there is. Now today they are trying to continue the mental abuse by employing gaslighting. This history of continuing abuses causes a wide variety of behaviors among those who are the abused.

Definition of fact: 1 a : something that has actual existence ·space exploration is now a fact b : an actual occurrence ·prove the fact of damage 2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality ·These are the hard facts of the case. 3 : the quality of being actual : actuality ·a question of fact hinges on evidence 4 : a thing done: such as a : crime ·accessory after the fact b archaic : action c obsolete : feat

Definition of opinion:1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter ·We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium. b : approval, esteem ·I have no great opinion of his work. 2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge ·a person of rigid opinions b : a generally held view ·news programs that shape public opinion 3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert ·My doctor says that I need an operation, but I'm going to get a second opinion. b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based The article discusses the recent Supreme Court opinion.

Definition of delusion:1 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated ·under the delusion that they will finish on schedule, delusions of grandeur b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ·the delusion that someone was out to hurt him; also: the abnormal state marked by such beliefs 2 : the act of tricking or deceiving someone the state of being deluded.

Definition of empirical:1 : originating in or based on observation or experience ·empirical data 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory ·an empirical basis for the theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment ·empirical laws 4 : of or relating to empiricism

I present these definitions because so much of racism is based in delusions yet it has been shown that if something is said often enough and not challenged, people will believe it whether true or not. This has been the foundation on which racism has been built. In this post you will be shown examples based on something that has actual existence, originating in or based on observation or experience: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory, and capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

Racism Is Abuse

“Abuse is a form of mistreatment by one individual that causes harm to another person.”
National Adult Protective Services Association

When looked upon critically, racism is a form of abusive behavior based upon a belief in racial superiority.


“Bryant-Davis and Ocampo (2005) noted similar courses of psychopathology between rape victims and victims of racism. Both events are an assault on the personhood and integrity of the victim. Similar to rape victims, race-related trauma victims may respond with disbelief, shock, or dissociation, which can prevent them from responding to the incident in a healthy manner. The victim may then feel shame and self-blame because they were unable to respond or defend themselves, which may lead to low self-concept and self-destructive behaviors. In the same study, a parallel was drawn between race-related trauma victims and victims of domestic violence. Both survivors are made to feel shame over allowing themselves to be victimized. For instance, someone who may have experienced a racist incident may be told that if they are polite, work hard, and/or dress in a certain way, they will not encounter racism. When these rules are followed yet racism persists, powerlessness, hyper vigilance, and other symptoms associated with PTSD may develop or worsen (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005).”


Monnica T. Williams Ph.D.


The psychological impact of racism must be paid attention to if there is ever going to be a true and logical reduction in the behavior. This is mainly due to a refusal to accept that certain behaviors done by nonwhites are caused by white racism. Racism causes chronic stress. Understanding this has serious implications for health outcomes in the black community. While I am not a doctor, what I have read by medical professionals explains how constant stress will create unhealthy outcomes. The continuing racism blacks face keep blacks stressed out and creates chemical imbalances within our bodies causing a wide variety of health problems.

If you study abuse, it has been shown that specific types of abuse can cause different types of behaviors ether positive or negative. I’ve done like many others and have discussed racism with whites in person to person interactions, public social gatherings, online forums, message walls, chat rooms and other social media. I have tried to inform on the impact of racism from the perspective of being black. What I discovered is that a lot of whites really don’t have an understanding about what racism can do to a person. For example, you try explaining to a white person that blacks riot in their communities because of racism and the first thing you hear is, “Come on man white racism did not cause that.”

Racism includes and has included these things:

• Emotional/Psychological abuse
• Financial abuse
  
• Physical abuse
• Sexual abuse
• Verbal abuse
• Spiritual abuse
  

Tremendous psychological damage has been inflicted on nonwhites because of the racist policies and individual actions by whites in America and worldwide. But some whites seem to think that racism is simple and that it carries no psychological consequences to those who are the victims of it. And they do so because they see nonwhites coping the best way they can with it. Secondly, they tend to look at things based on their perspective, meaning that when they see blacks acting violent they look at it from their experience as whites, never factoring in the damage at every level caused by past and continuing white racism.

“On occasion, the emotional weight of racism can lead African Americans to engage in maladaptive coping, such as remaining in denial, engaging in substance use, aggression, self-blame – even in extreme cases suicide (i.e., Black Lives Matter activist Marshawn McCarrel) and terrorism (i.e., Dallas shooter Micah Xavier Johnson). These responses are harmful and lead to negative, long-term consequences.”
Monnica T. Williams Ph.D.



“Proactively Coping With Racism, Getting back to our lives in the aftermath of racial violence in the media.”, Ryan C.T. DeLapp, MA, and Monnica T. Williams, PhD, Psychology Today,com July 18, 2016


J. Worell, Encyclopedia of Women and Gender Vol I (2001) p. 603


Weiten, W. & Lloyd, M.A. (2008) Psychology Applied to Modern Life (9th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.


Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer.


Comas-Diaz, L., and Jacobsen, F. M. (1991). Clinical Ethnocultural Transference and Countertransference in the Therapeutic Dyad. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(3), 392-402.


Fryberg, S. M. (2010). When the World Is Colorblind, American Indians Are Invisible: A Diversity Science Approach. Psychological Inquiry, 21(2), 115-119.


https://www.healthyplace.com/abuse/abuse-information/types-of-abuse-what-are-the-different-forms-of-abuse/


Camara Jules P. Harrell, Tanisha I. Burford, Brandi N. Cage, Travette McNair Nelson, Sheronda Shearon, Adrian Thompson, and Steven Green, Multiple Pathways Linking Racism to Health Outcomes, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health


Charles S. Carver and Jennifer Connor Smith,“Personality and Coping"(2010), The Annual Review of Psychology


https://www.racialhealthequity.org/blog/racism-is-a-public-health-issue


Dennis R. Upkins, Denying Racism And Other Forms Of Gaslighting, Aug 24, 2016, Mental Health Matters, derived from: https://mental-health-matters.com/denying-racism-and-other-forms-of-gaslighting/


Pike, Karen D, “What is Internalized Racial Oppression and Why Don't We Study It? Acknowledging Racism's Hidden Injuries”, December 1, 2010, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 53, Issue 4, pp. 551–572


Internalized Racism Among Asians Internalized Racism Among Asians

 

[katsteve2012]

It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.

No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.

I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.

But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.

You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.

That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.

We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.

You are an extremely small and petty individual.

You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.

Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.

What RW says to another poster, is his business, not mine.

I'm not a moderator here, so what is your point?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL you keep coming up with excuses for why you, a racist , are not in fact a racist. And it all boils down to you are black so can not be racist. What a crock of shit. Remind us again how blacks selling slaves was FORCED on them. The mean old White man forced blacks to sell other blacks. Remind us again how black slave owners are better then white slave owners cause they might sell their slaves to a family member.

 

[IM2]

LOL you keep coming up with excuses for why you, a racist , are not in fact a racist. And it all boils down to you are black so can not be racist. What a crock of shit. Remind us again how blacks selling slaves was FORCED on them. The mean old White man forced blacks to sell other blacks. Remind us again how black slave owners are better then white slave owners cause they might sell their slaves to a family member.

Definition of fact: 1 a : something that has actual existence ·space exploration is now a fact b : an actual occurrence ·prove the fact of damage 2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality ·These are the hard facts of the case. 3 : the quality of being actual : actuality ·a question of fact hinges on evidence 4 : a thing done: such as a : crime ·accessory after the fact b archaic : action c obsolete : feat

Africans did NOT sell their own people into slavery

The Liverpool Museum website has a firsthand account of the story of an African boy, Ouladah Equiano violently forced into a life of slavery. It reads in part, “Generally, when the grown people in the neighbourhood were gone far in the fields to labour, the children assembled together in some of the neighbours’ premises to play; and commonly some of us used to get up a tree to look out for any assailant or kidnapper that might come upon us; for they sometimes took those opportunities of our parents’ absence to attack and carry off as many as they could seize...One day, when all our people were gone out to their works as usual, and only I and my dear sister were left to mind the house, two men and a woman got over our walls, and in a moment seized us both, and without giving us time to cry out, or make resistance, they stopped our mouths, and ran off with us into the nearest wood.”

The young man was thus taken from his country and taken to lands he had not seen before, sold for hundred and seventy two white shells and after six to seven months, arrived at the sea coast. A lot of Africans were kidnapped in this manner, others captured in battles, some sold off into slavery as payments for debts, and more sold as a punishment for crimes committed. They were then traded for goods which reduced them to no more than a commodity. The story of most African-Americans starts in a setting quite similar to Olaudah Equiano’s in Western Africa. It is a story of violence and dehumanisation that can never be forgotten or pushed under the rags of conciliatory denial.

Beginnings
The Portuguese are remembered as the first people to start enslaving Africans. They took captured Africans to Europe and the Spanish joined the growing industry, taking Africans to America in 1503. This marked the beginning of what was a macabre commercial enterprise dealing in people. BBC says, “Traders would export manufactured goods to West Africa where they would be exchanged for slaves from African merchants. The slaves were then transported across the Atlantic and sold for huge profits in the Americas.” It was an illustrious business that made many people but the victims rich. Traders in Africa were enriched just as merchants from the West also benefitted. What has been forgotten is how African communities resisted the trade in persons. The deliberate omission is an attempt to make the communities that remained culpable in a dirty system that only stole their loved ones from them.

The Untold Story of Resistance
It is a fact that there were certain African communities which worked hand in hand with Europeans to sell prisoners of war, criminals and even kidnap slaves for goods. Not much is then said of the resistance of such communities as Benin in what is now Southern Nigeria, and the Fante people of modern Ghana. Africa Speaks says Fante leader King Ansah had his people watch for ships and prevented them from coming ashore. In Benin, the people killed Europeans on sight while leaders in other parts of Africa only realised too late that the slave trade was really just exploitation and they gained little from it.

A Congolese king, Nzinga Mbemba wrote letters to the Portuguese after being awakened to the evil of slavery. In one letter he wrote, “That is why we beg of Your Highness to help and assist us in this matter, commanding your factors that they should not send here either merchants or wares, because it is our will that in these Kingdoms there should not be any trade of slaves nor outlet for them.”

https://www.africanexponent.com/pos...of-african-resistance-against-the-slave-trade

Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery: Misconceptions About the African Involvement in the Slave Trade

In the first place, the Portuguese initiated what eventually became the Trans-Atlantic slave trade mainly through slave raids along the coasts of Africa. The first of these raids came in 1444 and was led by Lançarote de Freitas. The problem with raiding for slaves was that it was extremely dangerous. For instance, the slave trader Nuno Tristão was killed during an ambush. Slave raiding proved to be an extremely dangerous way to obtain slaves, but buying slaves was much safer and took less effort on the part of the Europeans. Therefore, the first phase of the slave trade began not with a trade, but with a series of raids. This point is especially important because although the slave trade was on some levels based on a partnership between European buyers and African traders, the slave trade did not begin as such.

Moreover, the partnership between the traders and buyers was an uneasy one. The European slave traders often betrayed those who supplied them with slaves. A famous case of this was the African slave trader Daaga who was tricked and captured by slave traders. He was taken to Trinidad where he would eventually lead a mutiny. Another example is given by Anne Bailey in her book African Voices in the Atlantic Slave Trade. She mentions the story of Chief Ndorkutsu who had been providing captives to the European traders. Eventually some of the Ndorkutsu’s own relatives were tricked into boarding a slave ship and then taken as slaves to Cuba.

Typically wars in West Africa were relatively short affairs that left a small number of causalities. The introduction of European weapons made these wars more drawn out and destructive affairs. Moreover, the only way Africans could acquire these firearms was through the trade of slaves. A king of Dahomey once requested that Europeans establish a firearms factory in his nation, but this request went ignored. Firearms became necessary for African nations to defend themselves both from African rivals as well as from European intrusion, but the only way to acquire these weapons was through the slave trade. This situation only benefited the competing European powers that were able to play Africans against each other.

Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery: Misconceptions About the African Involvement in the Slave Trade | HuffPost

How Many Slaves Did Blacks Own?

So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.

It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."

Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones.

Did Black People Own Slaves?

Now would you like to discuss the years after slavery, or are you scared?

 

[Correll]

I was in a Rust Belt high school at the time of the show. It was wildly popular among my age group. The boys loved the fast cars and Daisy Duke,and the girls loved the Duke Boys, and dressed like Daisy Duke.


None of them were from the South. IF you missed this, it suggests a very inward looking circle of friends. Your weird belief that the audience was limited to the south, makes no sense. On many levels. I mean, really, your thinking makes no sense.

If what I am saying makes no sense to you, it is probably because your circle of friends and life was in a rust belt high school during the time of the show around people that identified with the characters.

It is not abnormal for people to identify with a program that they can relate to, in fact, people who like certain shows, usually do for that reason.


It is commonly referred to as a "target audience" in entertainment marketing, with producers and script writers considering who will most likely watch a given program that is on the air.


I was long past high school during that time and was on the west coast in a completely different kind of non rural environment, around people that DID NOT identify with that kind of show, or its characters.

It seems quite simple to me, and rather narrow minded of you, not to be able to understand that.

12 Types of Target Audience

Yes, I understand that. I addressed it several times with references to how in my peer group and family and friends there was fans and not fans.


You initially assumed it was a show with limited REGIONAL appeal. Now you are trying to down play it as one with a limited target audience appeal.



The Dukes of Hazzard - Wikipedia


The show topped out in it's third season as the SECOND highest show of the year, with over 21 million viewers.


It was a family friendly action comedy. With widespread appeal.


That your circle of friends didn't include anyone that liked it, is your circle of friends being limited.



You should read some of these. I only read the first couple. These are old fans remembering good clean fun stories. Not one mentions the Confederate flag or racism, that I saw. Many of them discuss how nice and good the characters were, and how nice it was to watch with family.


This fits my perception of the show. Your perception of it, not.


"And you could always appreciate the country values the Dukes always espoused ... be good to your neighbor, thank the Lord before meals, don't lie or cheat or steal.

"The Dukes of Hazzard" is not rocket science, it's not deep or profound or socially redeemable or whatever else. It's just plain heckin' fun!!!!"


"Eight years after Fred Silverman's infamous "rural purge", this show burst on the scene and instantly became a hit. Even though the show did get a lot of heat for the outlandish plots, simplistic characters and scantily clad women, especially Daisy, this show struck a chord with the American public during the late 70's/early 80's. Also, you could tell that this show was done very tongue in cheek and that the cast had a lot of fun doing it."



"I remember being eight years old when I started watching this show. I would anxiously await the Friday line up that included The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Falcon Crest and this one. That was a great Friday line up, highlighted of course by the Dukes. What was so appealing about this show to so many people was it's virtue. I'm sure parents wanted their kids to watch it because you couldn't have a better show for their kids to watch. It was safe. The Dukes were polite, virtuous and church going. How could they not like that? How could a parent object to anything like that? But of course as kids we liked it for different reasons.

Stunts, fast cars, Daisy, Boss Hogg and Roscoe. The Dukes of Hazard was so absurd sometimes but it always entertained you and more often than not it made you laugh. Could you imagine what the script must have looked like when they first pitched it to studio? Could you imagine how silly Roscoe must have looked on paper? I mean how do you write in his ridiculous laugh? How do you write all of his idiosyncrasies? Or was that all James Best? I don't know, but it sure was funny."




"The Dukes of Hazzard is to me, a great southern series with comedy and adventure. It's actually nice to take a breather from all the dramas and shows where stories take place in either New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And this show delivered. Tom Wopat and John Schneider were excellent as Bo and Luke Duke and their real life friendship provided the perfect chemistry for their characters, which is why I felt the show was so popular and this friendship was established before they auditioned together.

Daisy Duke is truly a super beautiful girl and very nice in real life, since I've had the honor of meeting Catherine Bach as well as the other surviving cast members. Even I loved Daisy Duke and it's hard to imagine a guy growing up back then who didn't feel that way.

Denver Pyle as Uncle Jese was truly the backbone of the series. I also fondly recall watching him as Mad Jack on Grizzly Adams as well as Pa Darling on the Andy Griffith Show. He was also a good example of a Christian man since he was also the moral backbone of the series as well.

Sorrell Booke was what I call a comical villain. He wasn't even a real villain for that matter. Although he and Uncle Jesse were enemies, they were also old friends. Boss Hogg was hilarious in those ridiculous white outfits and all that eating he did. I couldn't even think about eating all that he had.

James Best. There's not enough complimentary words to describe him. He has to be one of the funniest and most talented actors in history. Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane made me laugh more than any other character. His sputtering and all those sayings of his like Cuff em and Stuff em! are now legend. Whoever heard of a stupid sheriff? Watch this show and you'll see him in action. I also loved his Bassett Hound Flash."





You should watch a few episodes. Or at least read a LOT of the reviews. Your view of the world, and the people in it, are just plain wrong.


This family friendly, fun, tone, and perception WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF YOUR VIEW OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND SOUTHERN PRIDE WAS CORRECT.


It is valid for you to hold the position, that the "rebranding" was wrong.


But for you to pretend it did not happen, and to judge people (or shows) as though it did not happen, is not reasonable.


Indeed, it puts you in the position of being an asshole.


You really want to call these people, like the one who was EIGHT when he was fan, watching the show with his dad, you want to call him out for being a fan of tv heroes that had a Confederate Flag on the roof of their car?



EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA KNEW IT WAS JUST A FUN TV SHOW. IF YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS DID NOT, THERE WAS/IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.

No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me.

I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did.

For you to question my personal preferences as far as television shows, truly makes you someone who clearly has too much time on their hands.

You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.

That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.

We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.

You are an extremely small and petty individual.

Your position is that the symbol(s) represent racism and slavery and secession.


IN a society, where the symbols have, at least until recently, been widely accepted, as demonstrated by my example of the Dukes of Hazzard, this is not a "petty" point.


If you are correct, then we live in a society, where until very recently extremely racist symbols, and thus, the racism they symbolize was widely accepted and celebrated.


If I am correct, then we live in a society where, until very recently, symbols of regional pride, and thus the regional pride they symbolize were widely accepted and celebrated.


My use of the show, to examine this point, is brilliant. You should read the reviews. They are a window into the people who liked the show and what they were and who they are.


They are not racist or bad people, as would be expected, in your world.


I am going out on a limb in saying this, btw, I only looked at the first 5 or 6 reviews.


Maybe if you read them all you can find that further down, the vast majority are from Evul White Men who loved the public celebration of Evul Racism, for the Evulness of it all., or something like that that would support your world view.


If you find that, you could really crush me. If you are confident in your worldview, I would think that you would expect to find a good deal of that, in the reviews.


So, are you going to look? Or do you prefer to just make assumptions about people you don't know, and don't like?

My "position" is one of someone who did not just read in passing in an old history book about symbols of oppression. I actually saw them in effect as realities, unlike you.

The same filthy animals that threw urine and feces on my parents at a PEACEFUL civil rights march down south in the 60's were waving confederate flags.

In the context of historic timelines, it was not that long ago that I experienced what I did, so for you to speculate about and then attempt to judge what MY perception is of something that was offensive to ME and many others in an environment that you did not experience during a time when you were not even born is not "brilliant" by any means.


Using a television show, that I did not watch nor had an interest in as a means to justify your defense of this symbol is nothing more than you expressing your opinion.

IT IS NOT THE SHOW. IT IS THAT AMERICA AS A WHOLE ACCEPTED IT'S PORTRAYAL OF THE SYMBOLS AS HARMLESS AND NOT RACIST.

If "everyone in America" was as accepting as you claim of the "symbol" that you are so determined to defend as "harmless" the independent networks would still be running syndicated episodes of it.

Was accepting. Since then, you lefties have grown in power and intolerance and become more aggressive in The Culture War. But what happened in the more recent past, does not change the historical record of over 150 years of acceptance.

But obviously there were enough people who resented the shows use of a Confederate flag caricature to prompt even reruns of the show to be cancelled.

This is just you defending what you casually view as a symbol of "regional pride", which you are certainly entitled to do, just as I am entitled as many others are to view it as I do.

I read your cut and pasted reviews of the show, and like any other show, it had a following by a certain audience, and also,like any other show, it appealed to SOME people, but not ALL people.

Quite a lot of people. But more to the point, none of them, AND none of those that did not watch the show, seemed to have any problem with the depiction of the symbols as harmless regional pride.

I looked. I was hoping to find some report of some small group that made a fuss and was ignored, and/or laughed at.

But I could find NOTHING. Not one peep.

By your own admission, your views and platform of reasoning revolves around defending everything that you believe to be related to the values of white society in America, no matter what.

Incorrect. Try again without the spin.

But it also appears that anyone who has self interests based on their life experiences that are not aligned with your views, you seem to perceive as a threat to your defense of what you believe in.

That is what I am referring to as being "small and petty".

Your belief system is yours to support, however you are in no position to judge my life experiences and beliefs, or those of others as an assault upon yours.

I do when they are an assault on my views and my heritage and my interests. Or, "or".

That has nothing to do with me "making assumptions about people that I don't know of dislike" as you claim.

I do not have any emotional investment to contribute towards "liking or disliking" complete strangers whose beliefs happen to be different than mine, but I do reserve the right to not share their views for my own reasons.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...ukes-of-hazzard-yanked-from-tv-land/29571785/

Do you admit that the people of the 1980s, who endorsed the celebration of the symbols of the Confederate Flag and The General Lee,

were doing so, in their view, as harmless symbols of regional pride, and thus for you to judge them, or treat them as though they were celebrating those symbols as though they agreed with YOU, that they were symbols of racism,


would be wrong of you?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

even if what you say is true, then "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" (Dictionary.com), and "Racial prejudice or discrimination" (Merriam-Webster's) are part of the whole definition, are they not?

No! There are multiple definitions. There is no "the whole definition" unless only one is provided.

You're the one who brought up "whole" definitions.

The first definition provided is intended to be the most common usage or understanding of the term. That is important to those who wish to best understand what others are trying to say to them.

And? It's still not the only definition of the word.

If they're not then what the **** are they doing there? If racial prejudice is not racism then why does the dictionary also list this definition or this part of the definition?

Because it's a secondary meaning or usage of the term.

But it's there, yes? "Prejudice or discrimination" are still valid even if the first definition is most often used, correct?

Do you really not understand that the dictionary is saying that racial prejudice is also racism?

Some significant amount of people have been using the term that way, thus it appears as a secondary definition.

But do you understand that the dictionary is saying that prejudice is also racism?

Do you really not understand that if IM2 assumes I lied because I'm white, that this constitutes racism as per the dictionary?

I understand that you use the term that way. I don't.

Whether you do or not is irrelevant; the dictionary still defines it as such.

To make it that simplistic is to render it superfluous imo.

You use the first definition and I referred to the second and third definitions. If I'm making it simplistic then so are you.

BTW, just to clear up any possible misunderstanding on your part, I also hold to the first definition and I think it's valid. I just don't think it covers every aspect of the meaning of the word.

IM2 speaks for himself as should you.

IM2 does not speak for himself and he most certainly did not speak for himself when he called me a liar. What do you think all this is about?

Are you really not grasping this simple concept? Are you really not getting any of this or are you just arguing to argue?

Sounds like you projecting you onto me.

Projecting what? I'm simply going by the dictionary definition that you cited, albeit partially.

Let's revisit Merriam-Webster's definition: "A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Racial prejudice or discrimination."

What this means is that if one believes that any one trait, ability (or lack thereof), flaw, etc. is endemic or characteristic of a particular race, that is a form of racism. Therefore, if I was to say something about blacks and fried chicken, you would say I'm a racist with no hesitation, without even ascertaining whether or not I think blacks are inferior, would you not?

By the same token, if IM2 prejudges me a liar then he did so because I'm white as there was no reason or evidence for him to make this assumption.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I will accept IM2's opinions from their source. Some of your apoplectic attempts to summarize his views are somewhat entertaining to read. I'll grant you that much.

If he was wrong about me concocting my story then it raises the obvious question: What else is he wrong about?

He consistently, persistently and insistently gets things wrong about my story despite being told numerous times what happened. Example: That I "narced" on my black coworker for not wearing gloves (I did not). That I said that blacks are lazy and incompetent (I did not). That I never reprimanded white coworkers the same way (I did).

Sorry, but IM2 has proven that his opinions are only as valid as his esteem of the person he is addressing. If he likes you and you generally agree with him and pander to his Blacks-can't-be-racist ideology, you get a lot of Thank You!, Agree, and Winner! ratings. But if he dislikes you or thinks you're racist or disagree with him on any aspect of race/racism, no matter how small, his assumptions and opinions are all over the map and usually wrong.

 

[Correll]

Here's what Google provides:

rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/

noun
noun: racism

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
   "a program to combat racism"
   • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
     "theories of racism"

Mirriam-Webster:

Definition of racism

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Sorry,

if a black man assumes I'm singling him out, because he's black and I'm white, simply for asking him to put gloves on

..does not appear.

Dude, you are being pathetic.

 

[Correll]

Ghost won't tell us if he ever turned in white workers for the same thing. Again as I stated, he will claim the whites always wore their gloves to justify himself.

You really need to pay more attention. I just told Grumblefish today that I have had white coworkers removed from the vessel. In fact, every one of them was white.

And, for the thousandth time - pay attention because this will be on the test - I DID NOT TURN HIM IN FOR NOT WEARING THE GLOVES. I didn't turn him in at all. He was being difficult and acting like an asshole because he thought I was picking on him when I spoke to him about the gloves. So I asked the supervisor to sit down with the both of us to resolve the situation and try to convince him that I was not picking on him.

Why do you insist on getting this wrong every ******* time even after having told you what happened a hundred times?

Because he knows that if he actually addresses what you actually said, his stonewalling, and thus him, will look even stupider than they already do.

Very normal behavior for liberals. They have to do that, all the time, to pretend to win arguments.