'WHITE GUILT' Video Shown to High School Students

[paulitician]

White Christian Male gotzta go yo!!!

Sums up Hussein's entire tenure. He's an asshole. Nuff said.

 

[Correll]

Americans did not force blacks into slavery.

Lol, what native black tribesmen were captured and forced into slavery in the US, idiot?

Reggie

Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofus

And that means slavery was voluntary, right?

You sure do love your strawmen, don't ya.

 

[Theowl32]

Americans did not force blacks into slavery.

Lol, what native black tribesmen were captured and forced into slavery in the US, idiot?

Reggie

Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofus

And that means slavery was voluntary, right?

When the left wing patronizing racist argument loses, rely on the puppet strings.

Such a ******* loser

 

[ClosedCaption]

Lol, what native black tribesmen were captured and forced into slavery in the US, idiot?

Reggie

Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofus

And that means slavery was voluntary, right?

You sure do love your strawmen, don't ya.

You said it wasnt by force. If it wasnt by force it mustve been voluntary, right?

 

[Theowl32]

Lol, what native black tribesmen were captured and forced into slavery in the US, idiot?

Reggie

Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofus

And that means slavery was voluntary, right?

You sure do love your strawmen, don't ya.

You said it wasnt by force. If it wasnt by force it mustve been voluntary, right?

Holy shit

 

[Correll]

Lol, what native black tribesmen were captured and forced into slavery in the US, idiot?

Reggie

Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofus

And that means slavery was voluntary, right?

You sure do love your strawmen, don't ya.

You said it wasnt by force. If it wasnt by force it mustve been voluntary, right?

Wow. Look, a lib defending his strawman with dishonest word games.

How shocking fresh and orignialz[pao9eij

Oh, sorry, fell asleep and my head hit the keyboard.

 

[Theowl32]

Reggie

Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofus

And that means slavery was voluntary, right?

You sure do love your strawmen, don't ya.

You said it wasnt by force. If it wasnt by force it mustve been voluntary, right?

Wow. Look, a lib defending his strawman with dishonest word games.

How shocking fresh and orignialz[pao9eij

Oh, sorry, fell asleep and my head hit the keyboard.

He still thinks white men trapped and kidnapped blacks to be slaves. Yes, he thinks he is smart.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Reggie

Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofus

And that means slavery was voluntary, right?

You sure do love your strawmen, don't ya.

You said it wasnt by force. If it wasnt by force it mustve been voluntary, right?

Wow. Look, a lib defending his strawman with dishonest word games.

How shocking fresh and orignialz[pao9eij

Oh, sorry, fell asleep and my head hit the keyboard.

Word games? You mean the opposite of forced is...a word game?

Thats what happens when you say stupid stuff. You spend the rest of the time going "Wow, OMG" because you cant make sense of what you said

 

[JoeB131]

Nonsense.

No one every gave me anything for being white and/or male.

Thanks for dismissing all my hard work and a lifetime of accomplishments and risk taking.

Well, first, I don't know you've ever accomplished anything. You could be the head Possum Catcher of Redneck County, and I guess that impresses you (them Possums can be risky!!!!). Reality, though. Being white and male is a great gig in this country.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

Oh maybe I didn't make it very clear, but if you look at my post, I was saying that they became "susceptible to racism". The indication is that if similar incidence occurs frequently, they may really believe the blacks are born with "violence gene" or stupid stuff like that. Of course I was not accusing my friends of being racist...

I doubt it.

I have been a "racist" according to the SPLC for nearly a decade now ever since joining Stormfront in 2008, but the only people I have ever made the case for inherent inferiority are the white liberal sellouts who insist that Susan Sontag was right, even after being gang raped and beaten by the black and brown racists whom they claim don't exist. Without white guilt lunatics racial relations would be a lot better.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

What do you call someone who looks at all the hard work you have done in your life, and all you have accomplished and dismisses it?

Sensible. A lot of people work hard. Not all of them get the big hand up they get for being white and male in this society.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Reminds me of Trump saying he got a small loan of a million dollars. He's in such a bubble that a cool million is considered a little help.

 

[Correll]

Nonsense.

No one every gave me anything for being white and/or male.

Thanks for dismissing all my hard work and a lifetime of accomplishments and risk taking.

Well, first, I don't know you've ever accomplished anything. ...

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.

What type of person is willing to be so incredibly offensive without any concern about if they are in the right or the wrong?

Hint: it rhymes with Bass.

 

[Correll]

What do you call someone who looks at all the hard work you have done in your life, and all you have accomplished and dismisses it?

Sensible. A lot of people work hard. Not all of them get the big hand up they get for being white and male in this society.

Can you support in any way, your absurd claim of a "big hand up" for being white and male?

 

[Correll]

Reminds me of Trump saying he got a small loan of a million dollars. He's in such a bubble that a cool million is considered a little help.

If you can't tell the difference between me and Trump,...

Well, really I find it completely believable that you are that dim.

 

[ptbw forever]

I doubt it.

I have been a "racist" according to the SPLC for nearly a decade now ever since joining Stormfront in 2008, but the only people I have ever made the case for inherent inferiority are the white liberal sellouts who insist that Susan Sontag was right, even after being gang raped and beaten by the black and brown racists whom they claim don't exist. Without white guilt lunatics racial relations would be a lot better.

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.

 

[ptbw forever]

Reminds me of Trump saying he got a small loan of a million dollars. He's in such a bubble that a cool million is considered a little help.

He is a billionaire, it is chump change to him.

Have you ever made several thousands of dollars into millions before?

 

[ptbw forever]

The biggest bunch of self-loathing leftist bullshit that I have seen in quite some time. It doesn't surprise me that Henrico county would stoop this low.

13% of our population commits nearly 70% of all our crime and nearly 80% of all violent crime. Blacks kill over 93% of other blacks. Cops kill less than 1% of blacks and this is often while being attacked and threatened while arresting. It's astonishing the number is not higher. Cops kill more whites than blacks. Blacks breeze into competitive programs and jobs simply because of the color of their skin (look at Med School, Law School, Business School (and now all STEM programs) statistics regarding applying/acceptance based in grades). If your REALLY informed, you don't have "white guilt".

The left will not stop folks. They simply will not stop. BTW, just in case you needed another reason to despise left wingers more today than you did yesterday.

Not surprising a racist piece of shit doesn't get it.

It's not about guilt. It's about calling out bigotry.

Go back to Stormfront Troll.

Stormfront does a much better job fighting bigotry than this video.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I told you why in that same post.

The rest of your post is nothing more than dishonest straw men, which is precisely what I expect from you.
.

Not one thing I said was dishonest but I expect that response everytime from you. It's your "thing" but instead you just rabble and pretend to be offended. Acting class.

Next your going to claim that me asking you what I lied about has "ruffled the PC police"

Wow, so in your mind, you perceive the following as "fact":

• "It's the PC police fault that slavery is considered a bad thing".

Thats called sarcasm. Slavery itself is a bad thing and you think by calling it PC it should be changed into something good. For your feelings

• "If only slavery and oppression was seen as a good thing...by golly then everything changes. Whites history would be good! White people would not feel guilty and everything would be awesome!"
• "All we have to do is fight the PC police's characterization that slavery was a bad thing. Once thats changed whites wouldnt feel guilty anymore and everything would be grand"

So here is the part where instead of saying "WOW" you actually list what I said and why its dishonest. You have a serious problem with that everytime I ask.

Those are your words, blatantly misrepresenting mine via straw man arguments. They're right there, on the freaking screen.

So instead of the rabble state what I said that was dishonest. Because if you consider sarcasm to be lies then you're exposed. If you pretend that what I said was true, you're exposed.

You don't even realize how dishonest you are.

That's how badly your thought processes have been distorted by your partisan ideology.

This is why you people are such a fascinating study. You literally can't tell truth from fiction. And you keep proving it for me.
.

Once again, you spend 90% of the time going "OMG OMG OMG LIAR" and the other 10% emoting. I asked you what I lied about and you said I presented a straw man. But by golly MAC where is the LIE? Where is the dishonesty? Are you claiming that I KNOW what you are thinking and therefore I should present the TRUTH?

Or will you just go "I CANT BELIEVE THE LIES" and slink back under your rock?

You clearly inferred things that I have never said and attributed them to me in order to advance your argument.

That's known as a "straw man", it's dishonest, it's a lie.

That's what hardcore partisan ideologues do, and it's why they/you have zero (0) credibility.

Dance around it all you want. It's what you do.
.

What you think I inferred and what is the truth are 2 different things. Once again, when pressed on the rationale behind your constant name calling all you can muster is suggestions of what you thought someone meant.

Just like Ray from Cleveland. You dont care about what the video says you only know that your precious feelings were hurt and think that being angry means something significant

When did I ever say my feelings were hurt? That's your opinion which of course is wrong as always.

My position is I don't want my kids being taught crap like this in a school that I pay taxes to. I pay you to teach my kids math, I pay you to teach my kids English, I pay you to teach my kids history, I don't pay you to try and brainwash my kid into your political or social views.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You don't have to say your feelings are hurt. When people cry you generally know that they aren't laughing. Again, you don't know WHY this one particular history is the only history yiu don't want taught, but we all know why that is. Tap dance all you like.

Speaking of tap...that's what you want taught. White were awesome, slavery was bad but totally not white people's fault and blacks should be buck dancing happy they had white people. Thank goodness