Racism or Freedom of Speach

You make a false assumption, in your examples you seem to imply that it is white making the decisions from the HR person to the waitress (waiter). Isn't that a form of racism? Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

In the examples I gave, yes, the assumption would be that if racism was a factor, the decision makers would be white. There are racist blacks or other races of people, as well in positions that make hiring or other decisions. They could also favor one candidate over the another based on race. Given the majority of people are white, if such discrimination does occur, it more than likely will happen in the direction of the initial example. Acknowledging racism exists is not racism. That's silly.

And lib-retards who keep bragging that they have such a great grasp on "science" don't know which bathroom to use. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I B don't forget that leftist praised scientific genius, clock boy

or that favorite scientific leftist cure for what ails society, forcing boys to play with dolls and little girls with trucks

and of course the greatest scientific denial of all time as to when life begins

In the examples I gave, yes, the assumption would be that if racism was a factor, the decision makers would be white. There are racist blacks or other races of people, as well in positions that make hiring or other decisions. They could also favor one candidate over the another based on race. Given the majority of people are white, if such discrimination does occur, it more than likely will happen in the direction of the initial example. Acknowledging racism exists is not racism. Originally Posted by grean

A flaw in your assumption (or example) is that a decision not to hire a person of another "race" is based on "race." Just like the "assumption" in 2008 and 2012 if a person voted for someone other than Obaminable then it was "racism." As a consequence the slur and disparagement tossed at people is watered down to the point of it being nothing more than a tactic to quiet them or change their behavior.

That's what is attempted on this board and in this forum.

Another flaw of your "analysis" is statistically based "logic." Statistically, more crime is committed by "White" people than Black or other minorities. There are more "White" people than Black or other minorities. So using your "logic" if a crime is committed then it is more likely to be a "White" person than a "Black" person or other minority.

It avoids the reality of a higher percentage of the Black population commit crimes than the "White" population, and a higher percentage of the prison/jail population in this country are "Black" than the "Black" community represents as to the whole population. Is that because the criminal justice system is "racist"? Or is that because persons who are "Black" are more likely to repeat their criminal behavior and have their community supervision revoked and/or commit a subsequent offense that prohibits them from being eligible for community supervision?

The same type of person who looks at the criminal justice system superficially with a knee-jerk response of "racism" is the same kind of loon who believes the Earth will end in 10 years if we don't ground airplanes, ships, trains, and motor vehicles IMMEDIATELY! They have NO COMMON SENSE and are unfamiliar with REALITY!

As to the "loonism" of the End of the Earth scenario ....

... the FOOL is ALSO GOING TO LEGISLATE that the rest of the world, e.g. China, will get rid of airplanes, ships, trains, and motor vehicles IMMEDIATELY!

And why would the rest of the World get rid of their entire transportation system while the U.S. starves itself into oblivion ...? Or has the fool "thought" about that?

In the examples I gave, yes, the assumption would be that if racism was a factor, the decision makers would be white. There are racist blacks or other races of people, as well in positions that make hiring or other decisions. They could also favor one candidate over the another based on race. Given the majority of people are white, if such discrimination does occur, it more than likely will happen in the direction of the initial example. Acknowledging racism exists is not racism. That's silly. Originally Posted by grean

Are you sure the majority of people are white? An assumption like that is racist.

Americans still have issues discussing controversial subjects such as sex, religion or race
The Liberals cant handle any of it because they lost control

I don't think your interpretation is the intended meaning of the term.

Privilege is a product of racism.

For example, if a police officer isn't racist, black, white, brown or whatever colored people, all have an equal chance of getting a ticket, a warning, or shot, all depending on the persons actions, not the prejudices of the officer.

If the police officer is racist, he may let a white person off with a warning for the same violation he gave a black person a ticket.

Likewise, I think it exist the other way around as well. Because whites are the majority, it definitely makes it appear like, "white privilege" is all that exists.

Because you & I are white won't put us in the front of the line unless a racist person puts us there. Nothing you or I did or didn't do gave us that privilege. It could mean we get served last if we go to a bar where the bar tender isn't a fan of white folk. Originally Posted by grean

If I interpret your example to be one in which all races can be guilty of racism then I'm less inclined to hate the usage of the term white privilege.

Further, it supports my belief that owing to innate prejudices present in all large population groups and each groups struggle to control resources to their own benefit, we will never "all just get along" and we need to divide back apart.

Notice how you failed to knowledge that it is possible that no citizens were qualified or wanted the job. Especially since those of your ilk seem to detest academics and science. Since that individual now has a job that person is contributing to society and more importantly to the economy in a positive manner. I operate on the premise it is more efficient and cost effective to give immigrants a hand up then help them intergrate into society.

First you say immigrants don't want to work and create a drain on the social infrastructure then you reverse course and say immigrants are stealing all the well paying jobs from American citizens. For goodness sake make up your dang mind are immigrants lazy and working the system to avoid working or driven individuals with a exceptional work effort that enables them to steal all the well paying jobs from lazy Americans. So which is it? Originally Posted by Whisky_1

You have to admit you are guilty of stereotyping.

Some immigrants are good and some are bad. Some natural born citizens are good, and some are bad.

Some of the current citizens that have gone bad might have had better economic opportunities if US employers had hired them and made it worth their while to do a arduous job. Since a ready supply of cheaper and more compliant labor was available, those US employers sold their fellow citizens down the river in favor of cheaper immigrant labor, and in their despair and hopelessness, the spurned US citizens may have turned to drugs and crime - and this is legitimately another cost of immigration.

A flaw in your assumption (or example) is that a decision not to hire a person of another "race" is based on "race." Just like the "assumption" in 2008 and 2012 if a person voted for someone other than Obaminable then it was "racism." As a consequence the slur and disparagement tossed at people is watered down to the point of it being nothing more than a tactic to quiet them or change their behavior.

That's what is attempted on this board and in this forum.

Another flaw of your "analysis" is statistically based "logic." Statistically, more crime is committed by "White" people than Black or other minorities. There are more "White" people than Black or other minorities. So using your "logic" if a crime is committed then it is more likely to be a "White" person than a "Black" person or other minority.

It avoids the reality of a higher percentage of the Black population commit crimes than the "White" population, and a higher percentage of the prison/jail population in this country are "Black" than the "Black" community represents as to the whole population. Is that because the criminal justice system is "racist"? Or is that because persons who are "Black" are more likely to repeat their criminal behavior and have their community supervision revoked and/or commit a subsequent offense that prohibits them from being eligible for community supervision?

The same type of person who looks at the criminal justice system superficially with a knee-jerk response of "racism" is the same kind of loon who believes the Earth will end in 10 years if we don't ground airplanes, ships, trains, and motor vehicles IMMEDIATELY! They have NO COMMON SENSE and are unfamiliar with REALITY!

As to the "loonism" of the End of the Earth scenario ....

... the FOOL is ALSO GOING TO LEGISLATE that the rest of the world, e.g. China, will get rid of airplanes, ships, trains, and motor vehicles IMMEDIATELY!

And why would the rest of the World get rid of their entire transportation system while the U.S. starves itself into oblivion ...? Or has the fool "thought" about that? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Excellent points as always!

If I interpret your example to be one in which all races can be guilty of racism then I'm less inclined to hate the usage of the term white privilege.

Further, it supports my belief that owing to innate prejudices present in all large population groups and each groups struggle to control resources to their own benefit, we will never "all just get along" and we need to divide back apart. Originally Posted by friendly fred

True dat Brother. I don't see that as racism. Daily life and activities go much better when the races are divided. Sports, work, etc. can mix easier because everyone knows they are going home when they leave. Cultural differences aren't bad they are just different. We get along much better when we are seperated

I B don't forget that leftist praised scientific genius, clock boy

or that favorite scientific leftist cure for what ails society, forcing boys to play with dolls and little girls with trucks

and of course the greatest scientific denial of all time as to when life begins Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

How true.

Science is the upheld in all aspects of Liberal thought unless abortion comes up.

In the year 2019, they still tell young women that what is growing inside their womb is actually part of their body and if they wish to treat it like a tumor and cut it out, that is just fine.

The Left's true feelings have been coming to light in an even more extreme pattern. They are now adding "emotional stress" to the dangers of pregnancy. If a baby is laying on the table, the mother can simply say......"I don't think I can handle living with a baby"

Easy fix. A pair of scissors rammed into the back of the baby's head, problem solved.

After all. What's a few minutes. Ten minutes ago, it was still "part of her body".

What's the diff?

Science is the upheld in all aspects of Liberal thought unless abortion comes up.
Originally Posted by Jackie S

well Jackie, I would say there are many more things than abortion where the left does not uphold science

Let's not forget the "dismal science" of economics. They have never learned that if you tax something you get less of it like successful businesses, investments, and start-ups.

Let's not forget the "dismal science" of economics. They have never learned that if you tax something you get less of it like successful businesses, investments, and start-ups. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Lol. And let's not forget economics is a social science, not a natural one. Human behavior (and our ability to predict it) constantly changes. Laws of nature don't.

Let's not forget the "dismal science" of economics. They have never learned that if you tax something you get less of it like successful businesses, investments, and start-ups. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, acclaimed economists at Berkeley, are good examples. They determined that a 73% marginal income tax rate was optimal. Also, Elizabeth Warren's 2% to 3% annual tax on wealth is their brain child. What's all that going to do to businesses, investments and start-ups? They must be doing the same kind of mental gymnastics as Marxists to somehow "scientifically" justify their war on successful businessmen, investors and entrepreneurs.

Texas isn't in Iraq. You've always been bad with geography. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

When you were fighting in Iraq with the military.