You...you know that different words can refer to the same thing, ri-right?
...Right?
It uh, oh man, wow, I have to explain this, it isn't wrong to describe prisons as historically public institutions. It's the opposite of wrong, even. It's actually necessary and helpful to do so to frame them within the appropriate historical context of American law.
And I also think the idea that only the Brotherhood can be racist is utterly absurd, but that's totally missing the point...again.
Ele Moderated Message: |
Useless post: Rule B, Sections 2+3 |
Prison is a public institution, not all public institutions are not prisons.
Stop trying to reframe what you said, you specifically said "prisons".
Ele Moderated Message: |
Rule C violation: Attack the points, not the person |
But it's not wrong to call a prison a public institution, so telling me how the category "things the government runs" includes other stuff (I'm aware) is kind of beside the point....again.
And in any case, ALL public institutions WERE racially segregated. I don't know why you've bothered to play this silly semantics game where you can't quite grasp the idea of "different words" referring to the same thing, but it's a totally meaningless argument.
While most other prison gangs are racially based as a result of the long standing establishment of racially differentiated prisons
Actually, that seems to be a trend. When you can't really argue with an idea (such as that the Brotherhood's radical ideology of racial supremacy and activities that reflect that, e.g. murdering people for their skin color, sets them apart as a hate group), you hide behind meaningless platitudes and false equivalencies like "racism is racism," and "other gangs are racist too" or tear apart straw men like "only the Brotherhood can be racist" or make a complete asspulls like "they're really just a weekend social group."
And all of this comes from the problem that you have no clue what you're talking about but still want to tell other people how right you are, which is why you cite something like metapedia; because when the entirety of academia unequivocally agrees your ideas are stupid, the only way to defend them is dishonestly.
Ele Moderated Message: |
Rule C violation: Attack the points, not the person |