I'm pretty sure we have a Black president. Does that mean that Blacks hold the majority position in politics? Fuck no. Likewise, just because there's one Black professor does not mean there is a majority of Blacks in power at the university.


Whites are not subject to racism is a true statement. Whites are not subject to discrimination is a false statement. Racism = discrimination, but discrimination =/= racism. Racism is impossible to be perpetuated against the race in the majority position, majority being defined by having the majority of power. Discrimination is possible to members of the majority position.

And by being passive in a racist institution, you are supporting the racist practices of that institution. A large portion of Whites in America believe that racism is over, when it's not. It's that ignorance that allows the institutional racism in America to continue. And again, when you hold positions of power, you're already the advocacy group. Advocacy groups are formed to deliver power to people who have none. When your race already holds all the cards, they don't need to be dealt additional cards.


If race is part of the reason for circumstance, than an implication that race is a factor is a justified assumption.

If everyone assumes that all Asians are benefiting from being Asian, then the natural belief is that Asians don't need any help. But since Asians is such a large group, it's preposterous to assume that every Asian fits into this standard mold. The "model minority" label, which you are essentially describing, is a curse on every minority who receives it, because statistically they will have greater standards placed on them, even compared to Whites. There's a glass ceiling on Asians in the corporate ladder, because Asians aren't seen as good leaders, they're seen as good workers. Asians pay more for a degree that earns them less compared to a White person. Asians have higher admission standards into college because people assume that all Asians are brilliant, when the likelihood of intelligence is equal among all races. The exact same person who instead says they're White would get accepted, while saying they're Asian could result in denied entry. This is a system discriminating against a population solely because of race.

Where does China and HK do most of their business with? Europe and America. Where do most of their products and services go to? Europe and America. Who benefits more from the wealth that Chinese and HK companies develop from performing business? Europe and America.

If I remember correctly, China still has one of the highest poverty rates in the world because the majority of their population works for less than a dollar a day. But if you're going to let the worth of a couple billionaires who made their money exploiting such labor eclipse that, then go ahead.

But again, if you let the efforts of a minority within the minority be the example of the entire minority, then you're doing something horribly, horribly wrong. It's called tokenism, and it's incredibly racist.


What dictates class? Having money.

What's required to get into college? Having money.

Who can't enter college? Poor people.

Who can? Rich people.

What do you get from going to college? The opportunity to make more money.

I'm sorry, but how is it so hard to understand that by putting a system in place where you need money to get more money is inherently designed to promote class segregation? The meritocracy that post-secondary education was originally designed for was crushed long ago.


Name as many black scientists as you can. Name as many white scientists as you can.

Now what would that say to the black child looking at the history of scientists? All you hear about is successful White scientists, but you never hear about a successful Black scientist. Why would that be the case? To a young mind, that could very well be assumed that it's because Blacks can't be successful as scientists. So why would you spend your entire life trying to become a Black scientist if all evidence seems to point towards a destined failure.

Role models are used as indicators of success. When more Blacks become successful scientists, you will almost certainly see a rise in Blacks applying to the field of science. Opportunity makes itself when people believe that opportunity exists.

As an example, Neil de Grasse Tyson, astrophysicist and Black man, was told in college to stop studying space and focus on boxing, because he was more likely to be successful as a boxer than a scientist (according to them, at least). And practically everyone he knew told him this, White, Black, whatever, you name it. What this indicates is that it is a cultural pressure to conform to where your race is perceived as successful. A few outliers will occur, and it's hopeful that those outliers will result in a change of cultural perception, but until then, Blacks will only have rappers and athletes as their only beacons of success.


First, increase in college enrollments still put Blacks well under-represented in post-secondary education. And it's definitely not for lack of intelligence, because it's been proven that there is no race difference in intelligence, only environment differences. And environment differences can be attributed to social stigmas placed on race. Again, see redlining and discriminatory practices against Blacks in real estate.

Second, median incomes are poor evaluations for distribution of wealth. Take the mean, and blacks are still well below everybody else. Heck, take the median anyways, and you'll see Black males earn even below White females in term of median income, and below them are Black females. So no, there is no change that has occurred. If anything, using median income, white females now earn more than Black males in recent years. So there's been a drop in equality among the races.


One, who was routinely on top in terms of slavery, even through out history? Statistically, if you were White, you were more likely to be the slave driver than the slave.

Second, even if the outcome was situational, does that justify the outcome? No, it doesn't. And maintaining the outcome when it is morally corrupt is just as bad as having created it.

You're arguing semantics about the entirely wrong point. It's not important whether people have owned slaves. It's the magnitude of which one race has taken advantage of another race, and how they still take advantage of other races.


Again, semantics about the wrong thing. It comes down to choice, yes, but the important fact is that the choice is more likely to be made because of poverty rather than race. But he's attributing the cause to race by calling it "Black crime".

You're running circles entirely off the circuit. This is a race issue we are talking about, but you're trying to portray it otherwise.


And look at what happened to their colonies. They ravaged the environment, and most of their colonies have only just recently begun to fix the damage that blind colonialism caused.

It's not important what happened to the country of origin, because the country of origin benefited massively from colonialism at the expense of the colony. You're attributing the colony and the country of origin as though they are equal, when they are clearly not. Hispanic does not mean they benefited from Spain or Portugal's reckless expansionism. Hispanic, if anything, indicates that they were abused by Spain or Portugal, and then left to pick up the scraps of their country.


When you see a police sign saying "targeting speeding cars" they are targeting something that is already committing a crime. When you say you are targeting "Black crime" you are targeting a race for being assumed guilty at committing a crime. They are not equal comparisons because a speeding car is already breaking the law, a Black man is not.

And why would they need to target specifically "Black crime" if they are against all crime. What should be important, if it wasn't about race, was the fact that a crime was committed. But they are putting emphasis on the fact that it's Blacks committing the crime. THAT'S the racist part of it. Statistics can say that Blacks are committing the majority of crime, but to emphasize the Black part of the crime, rather than the actual crime, is what's racist. 100% of all crime is committed by human beings, so I don't see why he says he's targeting "human crime". That would be an even more effective blanket to cover all crime perpetuated.

It's an objective observation being used for a subjective, and intolerant, position. That's what's wrong with it. The observation is by itself not racist. It's what he's doing about it that's racist.


USA specific is justified considering locale in question.

And guess what, I've already talked about how these other groups, except Muslims, experience discrimination, or have experienced slavery. Natives has routinely been subjected to slavery by an invading population, and Australia was no different. Now look at their situations. Speaking from my own knowledge, I have no idea what Australian Natives are going through right now, but I do know that Aboriginal "conversion" schools were still legal, and functioning, in Australia up into the 70s. The Australian government actively tried to convert Australian Natives into the "White culture" so that they would be more acceptable. Because that's not racist discrimination at all. In the process, countless Natives were displaced and, ultimately, discriminated against for looking Native despite whatever indoctrination they received.

South East Asian Natives are Asian, Cow. Did you know that? Because you seem to like lumping them up with other Asians, then saying they aren't discriminated against, and are actually benefiting from being Asian.

American Indians also are discriminated against just about as worse as Blacks are. But I'm not touching their situation, which is just as large, because otherwise I would literally have absolutely no time for anything else. As a brief overview though, they have reservations, rather than owning America, which is rightfully theirs, they are subject to environmental racism, as their lands are routinely exploited for their resources and used as dumping grounds for toxic waste, and earn less than Whites, and slightly more than Blacks.

Muslims are discriminated against in America all right. But again, entirely different situation, and it will be incredibly difficult to fit their situation in great detail. But again, overview. Muslims and people of Middle-Eastern descent have faced wide-spread discrimination through most of American history, considering there was a large population of Muslims brought over during it's early years to work as slaves. But what most people would recognize as modern discrimination has been occurring from as early as the 90s, when people of Middle-Eastern descent were unjustly spied on and harassed by the U.S. Government. After 9/11 shit got worse because, not only did government oversight increase, but public hate crimes skyrocketed. Said discrimination still occurs to this day for people of Middle-Eastern descent because Americans are idiots. It's also worth noting that only White people were surprised about 9/11. Blacks were not surprised that a symbol for White, capitalist, supremacy was attacked by a disgruntled minority who were upset about foreign intervention. Only Whites were shocked because their bubble of privilege prevents them from noticing the widespread misery to inflict on other people.

And a lesser of two evils is still evil. Justifying slavery because slavery is better than perpetual war is probably one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.


Again magnitude of occurrence is more important than the actual occurrence. You fail to recognize this, and then try to mock somebody because you can't understand it's importance. The fact that all races have experienced slavery is not as important as the fact that Whites have benefited more from slavery than any other race, while Blacks have benefited the least from slavery.


I care because the 500 people can hold more power individually than the 5 million (5 billion is definitely a hyperbole. Let's be logical here, if we took every Asian on the planet and took their median income, I can safely say that it will be well below every other race).

The fact that there is a disproportionate number of Whites in positions of power is what's important. Overall equality means that everybody has equal opportunity, but over representation of Whites in positions of power indicates a lack of equal opportunity. That's why mean is important.


Do I honestly have to explain this again? There is more genetic diversity between Africans and other Africans than there is between Africans and any other race. Literally, you will find a more genetically different person among the same "race" than you will from a different "race". Race is a social construct, not a biological one. Race sciences have been debunked now for almost 40 years. Seriously, get with the times.

And a semantics argument, because you seem so fond of them. Which of these things are influenced by society: Income, Life Expectancy. If you say life expectancy, then you're an idiot. Yet you're arguing that society rewards females by giving them a longer life expectancy. Biology dictates it, not society. Likewise, society dictates income, not biology.


Do you know why they came up with that? Because it's already established that indirect racism is still racism. Using your logic, if I accidentally kill somebody, then I didn't actually kill them because it wasn't my intent.

And no it wouldn't be. You don't hear about anything about racial discrimination in American schools until you reach the Civil Rights Era in history class. And then you only hear about the most socially acceptable activist from the time, Martin Luther King Jr. You rarely hear about any of the other Black activists at the time, or any of the Black activists from before the Civil Rights Era. The history that is taught in American schools is a history that focuses exclusively on Whites, ignores minorities or mentions them as afterthoughts, and practically ignores international history outside of wars that America participated in.

I have no problems with teaching White history. It's the fact that you ONLY learn White history is the problem. Like I said above, there is no other side presented. You only hear about how Whites did everything in American history, and you basically only hear about Blacks as either slaves in early times, or activists in modern times. And you learn practically nothing about international history in American schools. The first time I was even offered a course on anything international history was college. Not even African history, or Australian history, or South American history. The closest I got to it was Western Civ. Which was basically a circlejerk class about how Europe was the test subject for American democracy and society.


> "Settled" by Europeans
> Built by Africans and Natives
> Told by Whites

Because that doesn't seem to be ignoring the big picture at all.

And again, U.S. history classes are jokes because they literally are just circlejerks. You barely touch upon slavery or the racial discrimination that plagued America throughout its history, and instead spend the vast majority of class time learning about how 'Murica won the wars hurr durr.


And again, White interests need no defender because society already defends them through institutional practices and social discrimination. Black interests are routinely pressured by said practices and discrimination. It's the fact that he proposes that Whites even NEED a defender for their interests that screams indirect racism. He believes Whites are on the receiving end for discrimination now, when Whites STILL hold all the keys to power and STILL oppress people of color.

Ok I saw this and it made me mad.
Blacks in college sporting being basketball so what who cares,but then you went and said they have gang memberships.
So do whites,Hispanic and Asians. So wherever your getting statistics please show me.
ANNNNDDD Hispanic and Asian gangs are bigger in members being asian/hispanic than black gangs.

If you don't think society is inherently weighted in favor of white males, I'm not sure what to tell you. You will never have to deal with as much racism or sexism as a white male. Not understanding this is extraordinarily naive or deliberately belligerent.

I'm not sure whether you watched the video, but the group is simply founded on assuming criminals are black and that they need to patrol, searching for black people committing crimes.

He's got a confederate flag hung up in his room. Watching you defending him is very amusing, if slightly off-putting.

(Read this in a Zero Punctuation tone of voice)
Say what you will about him Mister Boredpayne but the man can speak. Reminds me of a certain man in power right now(Will not name him in fear of being called racist. You silly people you and your righteousness)

Where was I? OH YES, in the simple terms just because he has a confederate flag makes him a bad person I want you to talk with my friend Bishop, he himself has a confederate flag on his car but is the coolest person in the world not only to me but all of the minority groups in school. See with that statement you are not only being racist but making prejudices on what he was about. Now you may counter the argument with "But he made it clear in his speech" that he may have but on the regular basis though he also said "He does not want ANY CRIME on campus" Now obviously you are taking text to help your point of view but so is he. What makes you better then him?

Also to the person who responded to the gangs thing Cow said. It's true all of us have gangs, White's have the KKK (I'm assuming is a gang) or the mafia for extra measures (organized crime yay ) the Blacks have the Blood's and Crips (Hooray for publicity) the Asians have the Triads (Hooray for history over like 2000 years) and the Mexicans have MS-13 (Hooray for us fence jumpers) You racist fuck Josh you... oh I crack myself up sometimes. Simple fact is we do have gangs, all of us. But who's fault is it really that we focus so much on the Black ones? Because according to Gangland (Yes I love dat show bro) They focus on every gang (White, Black, Hispanic/Mexican, Asian, I think I saw an Indian gang once, but I digress.) so for the other media to do so, eh a bit biased and perhaps racist if you will (more like discrimination you pesky left siders) but who's fault is it really when the community itself doesn't do much other then say that them personally are not for it? It's one thing to say hey I'm not this, it's another thing entirely to try and fix it so you don't have to put up with all the stupid gits that call you it because of some bad apples.
It's like saying all White Corp leaders are evil, which is not true so why can I say that not be racist but the second a rough looking African American walks my way am I all of a sudden racist if I comment on his du-rag?

There is racial discrimination, there has always been racial discrimination, and there always will be racial discrimination. We like to believe that we will achieve racial equality, but there will always be someone who believes one race is superior to another. In my opinion, we should just let people think what they think. All we would be doing by trying to stop them is create more arguments.

racism isn't real becuz historical and economic contexts aren't real lolz

Chozo Moderated Message:

say no to free speech

Here in Manchester people from london have come down to protect whites because a gang of muslims attacked a white women.. police are involved, white gangs a coming down and the bad things im black....i have to go past the area this is happening to get to school

Thanks for editing my post and changing it.

There is a difference between something happening to a body of people, and something happening to a body of people BECAUSE of their race.

If I say "you are an idiot" I am not being racist. If I say "you are an idiot because you are black" that is racist.

Enslavement in Africa by whites happened only because Africa already had a large slave trade and were willing to export large volumes of slaves. It wasn't an active act of "oh hey these guys look different let's make them our slaves". If you want to argue racist at that time period, it would be better to talk about popular opinion that blacks are the descendants of Cain...


YMMV, Australian law works this way, if you punch a black guy, that's assault, if you punch a black guy BECAUSE he is black, that's a racially motivated assault and is treated differently.

The confederate flag is a symbol of a body of states that went to war over the right to keep black people disenfranchised and enslaved. Your friend being nice to minorities doesn't make this less true.

Could you please not refer to that guy as my friend? Thanks...


I don't think you can say "he supports the confederates therefore his actions in trying to stop crime are motivated by racial hatred". Like I said before, he does well to hide if it if that is his aim, and the show didn't actually say the race crime ratios, so his "90% of crime in the area is committed by black people" figure went unchallenged.

I think there are a lot of people in the south that don't necessarily want to reinstated slavery, but have confederate souvenirs because they think it's a part of their cultural heritage.



And for the record, just so we are clear, I don't support slavery, the confederates, nazis, etc. However I also don't support counter-racism as a way to 'balance' the situation. I think focusing on similarities and removing differences is a much better solution - movements like black student unions or feminism only inflame relations and highlight differences, and often become platforms for counter-discrimination rather than aiming to remove discrimination. That is my opinion.