Racist POTUS; MAGA revealed

Whats not fair about it? Shouldn't a debate be civil? Should it not discuss ideas rather than simply insulting people? If not, I would ask you elaborate so I may understand the other side as it were.

Kelrax Lorcken wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: First off, the BBC hid a known pedophile for years. Their articles aren't without bias..

As for voting, it's weak. Americans have the legal right to abolish their govermnents..

Also, as a man with his eyes open, there is no real privilege. Unless you count the difference between house a field slaves privilege..

I don't expect white folks to not take care of their own. The problem is black folks don't do each other like that..

I've been reading your posts, scratching my head, and than in this one you talk about your "eyes are open" and frankly it explains a lot.

Well, I'm sorry if I don't believe the Zeitgeist they've been feeding the public. It doesn't make much sense to me... They're covering up another pedo just so one or some of your favorite politicians don't get outted..

Idk what you THINK it explains, but it's probably not even the half of what's really going on..

Deimos wrote: Whats not fair about it? Shouldn't a debate be civil? Should it not discuss ideas rather than simply insulting people? If not, I would ask you elaborate so I may understand the other side as it were.

Well, OP is pretty good about setting there own guidelines and stuff- he's pretty good at debate. Better than me, certainly, but that's a low bar. I just notice things from time to time and call attention to them.

Like how you start out presenting yourself as uncomfortable or uninterested in the discuss, but decide to hop in, anyway? That's a feint; you want to give the impression of not being invested, which wrongly assumes the outcome of a debate or discussion doesn't/shouldn't matter, so why get emotional over it?

But you already lose that when next you move right into "why can't I tell racist jokes?" ignoring the obvious answer of: context. A black man saying something critical of the black community to get a laugh or find a humorous way to commiserate is a different context than anyone telling a joke that get's a laugh at the expense of that community. We're also supposed to ignore the implication of your wording: You can't tell the difference between those things?? You even describe it as racist, yourself, again, either because you can't see a difference through context and nuance, or you're alluding to it being racist simply for being said by a white person, which is a pretty popular nonsense argument. Criticism is not the same as racism. I'm speculating, here, but you seem to have set up a frame work to actively prevent people from making an "acceptable" argument; a shield against criticism.

You're full of opinion, yourself, your open shows that, but you want to avoid "discussing opinions"? Ideas and opinions are pretty closely tied, if we're going to be honest, especially in an emotionally, as well as politically charged topic as this, so why try to make that distinction? Speculating, again, it's another attempt to shut-down discussion before it's even started. You have set conditions that ideally prevent argument, or give you an out to dismiss dissenting argument without having to consider it.

admitted fools such as myself like to call this a "rigged game". Your guidelines that you hope to impose on someone else's discussion are noticeably one sided, and either hypocritical or simply lacking in self-awareness. And when the debate doesn't go your way, you can safely walk away with a "well, obviously we can't have a reasonable discussion, here. Enjoy your echo chamber."

I was a little confused while reading, so if I have misread, please correct me.

I'll admit I should have clarified. I'm not here to persuade you into thinking Trump isn't racist, cuz maybe he is. More so, I'm trying to understand your reasoning for having that thought on the matter. My reason for this is because, in the past, the people around don't really seem to have an argument per say. They bring up points, but then seem to back out almost immediately, and in one instance when my friend made as post saying "it's okay to be white", presumably in response to the "I am proud to be _____" phase if you will. That being said, he was quickly called a Nazi, albeit not outright, and I questioned that claim, to which I was then called a Nazi. This is why I say ideas should be discussed rather than simple name calling without sustenance . And you are right that ideas are related to opinions, and I wasn't trying to say they aren't. But if we did resort to name calling without reason, then no progress can be made.

Going to the white people making racist jokes, that was more so to clear up what his side was, as I've met people who literally say people who aren't white can't be racist. Even if they say what would be a racist joke if a presumably white person said it. I apologize for the confusion, as I wasn't fully awake when I initially posted.

I'll admit that I don't particularly like Trump, but I do give credit when it's due, such as with the economy. That being said, questioning someone who doesn't like him, especially when I personally don't understand their side but would very much like to, isn't a bad thing. If you don't wish to discuss further, that is fine. Otherwise, I'm all ears man. If you want anything cleared up for arguments sake, feel free to call it out.

Uzima Moto wrote: First off, the BBC hid a known pedophile for years. Their articles aren't without bias..

As for voting, it's weak. Americans have the legal right to abolish their govermnents..

Also, as a man with his eyes open, there is no real privilege. Unless you count the difference between house a field slaves privilege..

I don't expect white folks to not take care of their own. The problem is black folks don't do each other like that..

Well... first off... with all due respect... The BBC is not a single organism. Saying "news outlet X" made a mistake so it must have been on purpose only displays that you have a bias against that corporate entity in search of evidence. It's not the same as a single person who has a history of saying/doing the same things multiple times. And even worse... faulting a news outlet for a story they didn't cover or missed... there are always going to be missed stories because there are many many stories and it is up to the editor to decide which ones get airtime and which ones are further pursued. On top of this... reporters have to have an interest in order to write about a story. How do they choose? Do they all write the same story that a single consumer wants to know about? This is like going to McDonald's and getting upset that they don't have Tacos. They 'could' have tacos if they wanted to. But its not their job to serve tacos just because you want tacos. So trying to use the lack of tacos to discredit chicken nuggets is something that defies my limited understanding.

Secondly, you say voting is weak. Would you prefer a strong leader that didn't allow voting or voice heard? What is it, in your opinion, that makes it weak? How should it be? In my opinion it is strong because of exactly what you said next. You said Americans had a right to abolish their government (kinda). But we don't. Why? Because we see voting as a more sensible option to violence. Imagine if republicans and democrats replaced voting with guns. Which style of government would win and for how long? The other side would constantly be trying to take control and both sides would forever be "the other side". Democracy isn't perfect, but it beats pure chaos and anarchy.

The difference between House negro and field negro is a matter of perspective. (And yes, I can fully comment on this being the descendant of both) The fact is that tribal societies have had indentured servants for generations before slavery came to America. I think we all know that it wasn't a new concept, but rather how it was practiced was new. In the Torah you could keep a man's wife as a slave and if he wanted to keep his family together he would be physically marked as a sign that he would be a slave for life. Joseph, by the same token, works 7 years for one wife, gets tricked, and then works another 7 for the other. You might say this is different because it was a choice. And yes, he could have settled for "the ugly one". Many people are in debt today. How free do they feel to either work or not work? How much of a choice is there if they have a family? Your freedoms go about as far as your money. Control of that money is like control of time. Long argument short, there is a difference if you choose to see it, that's why African Americans and their ancestors have fought for every right and freedom we now possess on the road to equality.

Black folks would have no need to "take care of our own" if it wasn't for whites doing it. It's a reactive response that is provoked by our environment. We seek to change that environment to the degree that the response is no longer necessary. So in other words, it isn't unreasonable that one day Affirmative Action can be taken away. We should all be working for that day by leveling the playing field. Right now the playing field is slanted. Black QB throws a pass for 40 yards (or acres) and its still 3rd down. White QB throws a pass for 5 yards and its a touch down and they get the ball back and the QB is also the ref who throws a flag on the 40 yard pass. And to be clear, no race is a monolith. So it's not natural that black people "take care of other black people based on race" because race isn't a natural occurrence. And by the same token whites do not take care of each other simply or even primarily based on race either. Racists WANT them to, but those with power and wealth don't tend to share it simply based on color. They're not loyal like that. Racists want other whites to be loyal so they can get more jobs and opportunities. Racists are louder now because they're not exactly getting what they want. That doesn't mean the system is fixed. It's just not as bad as they want it to be; as bad as it used to be.

So we need to continue doing the things that upset them until there is no more of them to upset; changed by exposure to multiculturalism and the prosperity of all. Because that prosperity negates the racist argument that other races, especially black, are less prone to prosper without their intervention. However, if there is intervention on anyone's behalf, including theirs (like when blacks provided labor without receiving the value of that service) there is an unfair advantage given. And we still need to further undo that advantage before everyone can start complaining about how Affirmative Action is unfair in the other direction.

Deimos wrote: I don't know why this is on a Jediism site to begin with, but here we go. I think the reason why jobs are primarily occupied by white people is because we make up 76.5% of the country. And in regards to the racist jokes, you only mention white people making racist jokes. What about black people? Or asian people? If they made the same joke, wouldn't they be considered racist? Because it seems to me that no definition has been established yet in this forum. I define it, for example, as any decision and/or judgement based solely on race. I'm open to debates like these as long we establish a base line and keep it civil, and discuss ideas rather than people's opinion and simply attack people willy nilly. Sound fair?

It's on a Jediism site because I put it here. I know that was supposed to be rhetorical but I choose to answer because I found such rhetoric ridiculous and wondering why it exists on a Jediism site to begin with.

Secondly, you're making a mathematical error. When we talk about jobs and fairness we're speaking in terms of "proportions" and not sheer volume. Everyone knows whites are in the majority which is why blacks are called "minorities". We all know how that works and the disadvantages associated. Let's move on.

Racist jokes. Interesting sidebar. So you're looking for a definition of racism in order to justify offense at others being offended. Alright. This may come off condescending but I'm really not trying to be. I just think there is a certain amount of education that is useful to many people potentially struggling with this issue. It's not in any way targeted at you because many people feel the same way you do and unfortunately I cannot talk to them all at once.

The comedian Dave Chappelle wore make up several times on his award winning show to make himself look white. He changed his voice to make himself sound white. He put on a wig. Were whites offended by this? There are no doubt some who were. However, did he specifically do this in order to denigrate whites as a race? No. Did he overly exaggerate the color or facial features to make fun of said color and facial features? No. Is there a past history of blacks in power, using "white face" to make fun of white people simply for being white and having European features? Were such features displayed on products and other marketing pieces, toys, dolls, etc. to mock and reinforce the mocking of white people? No. Much of comedy is exaggeration. You'll find white comics who tell black jokes. However, there's a difference between telling black jokes and telling racist black jokes; a racist black joke being one in which one is portraying the race as inferior.

warning: don't watch if you're sensitive.


The reason why you've heard that blacks can't be racist is because it depends on which definition you're operating from. The 1965 Race Relations Act refers to less favorable treatment on grounds of color, race, or ethnic or national origins. This definition implies the party doing the treatment is doing so from a position of power unfairly leveraged against the victim. Another definition you are probably unaware of comes from Dr. Frances Cress Welsing.

By Frances Cress Welsing, M.D., Psychiatrist, Washington, D.C.

RACISM (white supremacy), is the local and global power system and dynamic, structured and maintained by persons who classify themselves as white, whether consciously or subconsciously determined, which consists of patterns of perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, speech, action and emotional response, as conducted simultaneously in all areas of people activity (economics, education, entertainment, labour, law, politics, religion, sex and war); for the ultimate purpose of white genetic survival and to prevent white genetic annihilation on planet earth – a planet upon which the vast majority of people are classified as non-white (Black, Brown, Red and Yellow) by white skinned people, and all of the nonwhite people are genetically dominant (in terms of skin coloration) compared to the genetic recessive white skin people.”

Let's also look at the definition of "Structural Racism"
(https://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf)

Definition: Structural Racism in the U.S. is the normalization and legitimization of an
array of dynamics – historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal – that routinely
advantage whites while producing cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for people
of color. It is a system of hierarchy and inequity, primarily characterized by white
supremacy – the preferential treatment, privilege and power for white people at the
expense of Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Arab and other
racially oppressed people.

Scope: Structural Racism encompasses the entire system of white supremacy, diffused
and infused in all aspects of society, including our history, culture, politics, economics
and our entire social fabric. Structural Racism is the most profound and pervasive form of
racism – all other forms of racism.

As black people and other minorities can't really fulfill all these definitions, this is why I say it depends on which definition is in use and informing that person's perspective. It's hard to argue against these definitions mainly because the acceptance of such into a dictionary has a lot to do with social acceptance rather than some unbiased 3rd person disembodied voice telling us what ever thing is. Your definition may simply be racial discrimination but there's a difference between discrimination and preference. For example... there are white women who prefer to date black men and white women who discriminate against white men. Do you see the difference? The former may still date white men and could even marry the right one while the later never would. Of course even this discrimination is based on a stereotypical preference that somehow all white men are either the same or that the likelihood of finding one who isn't typical is minimal in that person's estimation. Most people wouldn't consider someone racist though if they don't find that other race physically attractive. So this leads us away from the common opinion that racism is just a common discrimination rather than something done from a position of power/authority in a way that disadvantages or causes some form of harm to people on the basis of race. A "racist" is someone working towards the advancement of their race above all others. Plenty of black people are working towards the advancement of their "race" but only as a reaction to solve the imbalance of what actual racists are doing. This doesn't mean there aren't some blacks who would very much like their race to be supreme but they do not possess the power necessary to cause harm to whites in order to make that a reality. The position of power is fundamental to the identification of "racist". I do believe black people can be racially insensitive and biased, and many can call this racist according to their own definition. I don't negate that. I'm simply telling you why many believe black people cannot be racist due to the definition they're speaking to.

In talking about Trump, I believe he is a racist speaking to other racists in order to secure their voting power for the presumed benefit of white supremacy which is basically what white nationalism equates to. The mistake I often see whites make is an urge to defend racists, unsure about whether or not they are racist due to commonalities between them and the fact that they don't consider themselves racist. It's like if you're not a wife beater but you see a guy beating his wife and you say "well maybe she pressed his buttons". Maybe she did. That's still not an excuse to beat your wife and not a reason to defend it. At the end of the day I believe much of the disconnect / disagreement is because there is a tendency for many to sympathize with the villain as opposed to the victim. Again... because of the person's ability to understand where the villain is coming from more so than the victim.

Uzima Moto wrote:

Kelrax Lorcken wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: First off, the BBC hid a known pedophile for years. Their articles aren't without bias..

As for voting, it's weak. Americans have the legal right to abolish their govermnents..

Also, as a man with his eyes open, there is no real privilege. Unless you count the difference between house a field slaves privilege..

I don't expect white folks to not take care of their own. The problem is black folks don't do each other like that..

I've been reading your posts, scratching my head, and than in this one you talk about your "eyes are open" and frankly it explains a lot.

Well, I'm sorry if I don't believe the Zeitgeist they've been feeding the public. It doesn't make much sense to me... They're covering up another pedo just so one or some of your favorite politicians don't get outted..

Idk what you THINK it explains, but it's probably not even the half of what's really going on..

How do you know this person(s) is a pedophile? How do they know the person is a pedophile? Were they prosecuted? If not, a news organization does have to be careful because they could be sued for defamation. This is why, even though Trump has a number of accusers, the media is not going to call him a pedophile either; even though he talked about going into pageant dressing rooms. And if people were being tried in the media a whole other group of people would be mad about that.

@_ZealotX

Oh, you've missed a lot. Mr. Epstein is a known pedo and is connected all over the elite class. From Trump to Clinton, there's quite a list of names in Jeff's black book. As far as the BBC is concerned, their higher ups covered up charges against a high profile British entertainer for years.. and none of this was due to incompetence..

Voting is the most indirect (weakest) vehicle for change in a constitutional republic. Especially according to the constitution of the American States. As a matter of fact, the first amendment actually secures your right to sue and abolish the govermnent. The right to "petition the govermnent for a redress of grievances" is not only used for the public to address their grievances of "legal injuries" to the govermnent. It's also the right for a redress AND remedy for those injuries. Under threat of seizure of office. Its roots and intent can be traced back to the Magna Carta 61..

Americans DO have the right to Sue their govermnent for change under threat of abolition. The founders would've said otherwise if it weren't so..

@ZealotX

Oh no I don't find it condescending, rather I found it rather enlightening. No one even said there was a definition by Dr Frances, so I actually thank for bringing it up . I wish more people were willing to explain their views rather than just state them in a tone "this is right because I say so" kind of way.

From my experience part of the disconnect stems from the vapid usage of bigot, racist, sexist, etc. They've been used so much they've lost all the weight they had, at least in my opinion anyway. That's the part I take issue with primarily, hence why people who call people racist without backing it up irritate me so. Because I personally can't understand it, so my brain keeps circulating it in my brain until I do understand, or at least somewhat. So I genuinely thank you man

Uzima Moto wrote: @_ZealotX

Oh, you've missed a lot. Mr. Epstein is a known pedo and is connected all over the elite class. From Trump to Clinton, there's quite a list of names in Jeff's black book. As far as the BBC is concerned, their higher ups covered up charges against a high profile British entertainer for years.. and none of this was due to incompetence..

Voting is the most indirect (weakest) vehicle for change in a constitutional republic. Especially according to the constitution of the American States. As a matter of fact, the first amendment actually secures your right to sue and abolish the govermnent. The right to "petition the govermnent for a redress of grievances" is not only used for the public to address their grievances of "legal injuries" to the govermnent. It's also the right for a redress AND remedy for those injuries. Under threat of seizure of office. Its roots and intent can be traced back to the Magna Carta 61..

Americans DO have the right to Sue their govermnent for change under threat of abolition. The founders would've said otherwise if it weren't so..

Yes, Epstein is a horrific human being. However, knowing Epstein doesn't make other people pedophiles by association. It doesn't rule it out but its not the same. First and foremost, I think it is a safe assumption that the vast majority of pedophiles don't tell everyone that they are pedophiles. Telling the wrong person means creating a witness against yourself. It would also give any person leverage on you. You would have to trust those persons with your life not to black mail you and then tell on you anyway, or have enough leverage on them already that it doesn't matter if they know, or have so much power over them that you could ruin their lives if they told.

So even if his employees knew but were afraid to say anything that wouldn't be the same story for a Clinton or Trump. Trump is the only one of these powerful people to actually say that Epstein likes women and especially young ones. So did he know? Of course. The question is why didn't he say anything if he did. However, that's not reportable beyond that question. Again, media outlets can be sued for defamation. Trump is extremely litigious and even if he's guilty it wouldn't matter. If they cannot prove his guilt (or Clinton's or anyone else) they can't say anything. And that may sound like a cover up once you know more, like about Epstein, but they are not and cannot be in the business of spreading rumors. Even the appearance of such, that seems to affect a person's reputation in the slightest, could be extremely damaging to their entire industry. Look at what happened in the Hulk Hogan case. Trump blasts "fake news" all the time. Everybody reported on Epstein because he was found guilty already. Otherwise, most people will say "allegedly" and these companies all have an army of lawyers that also influence what they can and cannot say. I'm not trying to make excuses for the media but I just want us to have a realistic expectation of what it is that they can do and report.

As far as the entertainer you mentioned could you please provide more information? That's pretty vague. And speaking of which... look what happened in the Kevin Spacey case. Allegations aren't always true and even if they are if you can't prove it you could be liable for what you put out there.

As far as suing the government, good luck with that. Voting has consistently led to changes. We simply don't always like them. But there is a track record of changes caused by voting. On the other hand the federal government has sovereign immunity and cannot be sued unless it waives this right or consents to the suit; rendering any such attempt almost completely toothless and ineffective compared to voting. What lawsuits CAN do is utilize the power of the Judicial branch to put a check on the Executive. But that's not the same thing and isn't a replacement for passing legislation, which, comes about via the voting process.