I've yet to get an answer to this question. Why is racism even a bad thing? It's no different from someone being an asshole. You just ignore them and move on with your day. You don't go and start a whole movement because some dude cut you off in traffic or didn't hold the door open for you.
On an institutional level, I understand why racism should be addressed. But that's not what's at discussion here.
>you're a nigger
>ok
Why can't liberals and blacks understand this?
that minority your keeping down could end up being one of those great scientists etc.
ill extend you an olive branch tho , they way the democrats go about combating racism only makes it much much worse
Because they were conditioned to believe that racism,even in your form,is a crime.
The jews/reptilians worked really well on that.
There's a difference between actual racism, i.e. writing off an entire group of people because of their race, and edgy internet "lol you are a le nigger xD" racism that you see here on Veeky Forums.
No there isn't
>he still thinks racism on Veeky Forums is just satire/edgy humor
Nice argument.
>call someone a nigger because you believe that they're a literal subhuman who should be out picking cotton
>call someone a nigger because you're on the internet and you disagree with them and they happen to be black
Back to /pol/ drumpflet.
Racism being bad has been shilled by jewish elites as a self-defense mechanism.
The problem is that it is ultimately bad for society as a whole because it encourages to ignore racial differences in cognitive ability, and as a result makes it impossible to formulate sound social and immigration policies.
Back to Africa.
You first. We are all Africans.
Speak for yourself.
I wish /pol/ would fuck off. Stop ruining our board
>How is racism a bad thing?
>It's no different from someone being an asshole
But being an asshole is also a bad thing. Historically, people have been voted out of office, exiled, and even executed for being assholes.
>g-get out my safe space :(
Because people are so retarded that unless you're constantly reminding them that racism is bad, they'll drift towards institutionalized racism again.
Just take a look at this place, where freedom of speech is allowed and nobody has anything to fear due to anonymity. It's now a piece of shit site were delusional /pol/tards spread their disease.
So, racism is basically a natural instinct and the only way to overcome it is through nonstop brainwashing. I mean you said it yourself.
I don't think you understood the point of my post. What I'm trying to say is that both of those are equally as trivial. Who gives a shit. They are an asshole. Just ignore them like any other asshole
> Nothing wrong with a lynch mob from the next town over dragging you out of your home for no reason.
> Nothing wrong with law enforcement being perfectly ok with it.
> Nothing wrong with the jury voting to acquit because the perps were the same race as they were, and you weren't.
Well, murdering and raping people on impulse is also a natural instinct.
Why do you think racist people don't want institutional and social change? Besides, being cut off in traffic is not the same as being confronted and insulted in real life.
>calling someone a nigger is the same as lynching someone
It really isn't unless you're a nigger.
forgot picture
>for no reason.
I dunno how to explain it man. I'm white and I would not care if blacks or other races started calling me honkey or cracker. I'd just think to myself "dumb nigger" and move on with my day. Why can't they do the same?
Because their great-great-great-great-great-great grandpappy was forced to pick cotton and you're basically reintroducing slavery by saying nigger.
Not really. I'm being an inconsiderate asshole by using a term reserved for a despicable part of American history, but that's it. Nothing more nothing less
>It really isn't unless you're a nigger.
fucking kek you're dumb
I don't know about you Jamal but here in white countries we don't have a natural urge to rape other people.
You just said racism. In US history, lynching is heavily interconnected with racism. 75% of lynching victims were black, which is an astounding number if you think about it. The other 25% mostly happened in the west, where law enforcement had less influence, or were white "race traitors" lynched for helping blacks.
If you know the state of US law enforcement, then you should also know that if a black person committed a capital crime, the cops would throw the book and likely a couple round at the perp. So the "law enforcement failed to punish" aspect of lynching goes right out the window.
> thinks "racism" is about calling names but note "divide and conquer"
I live in a white country too but unlike you im not a retard
More blacks are shot dead by other blacks each year than the total number of blacks who were ever lynched.
In American politics racism is and always has been the proverbial carrot on a stick used to bait lower-class white people into fighting against their own self-interest. In the past it was slave-owning Southern aristocrats convincing poor whites who'd never owned and never would own a slave to fight and die in the interest of saving slavery. Nowadays poor whites are voting for candidates who want to simultaneously keep immigrants out while sending jobs overseas.
>murdering and raping people on impulse is also a natural instinct.
"natural instincs" are perhaps eating, sleeping, kin selection and avoiding predators. I've never had a natural desire to kill or rape anyone.
Good point.
If someone walking past throws an insult my way it's not a big deal.
If someone walks up to me and starts insulting me i'm going to feel physically threatened.
I know you'll say "but what if some guy does it for another reason" personally this has never happened to me unless i was impolite to them first, i'm not liable to be targeted at random for something i can't change or hide.
en.wikipedia.org
> During the murder trial, Bryant testified that Till grabbed her hand while she was stocking candy and said, "How about a date, baby?"[28][29] She said that after she freed herself from his grasp, the young man followed her to the cash register,[28] grabbed her waist and said, "What's the matter baby, can't you take it?"[28] Bryant said she freed herself, and Till said, "You needn't be afraid of me, baby,"[28] used "one 'unprintable' word"[28] and said "I've been with white women before."[28][30]
> In 2017, author Timothy Tyson released details of a 2008 interview with Carolyn Bryant, during which she disclosed that she had fabricated the most sensational part of her testimony.[2][3] Tyson stated: "she said with respect to the physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual, that that part isn't true".[110] She also said: "nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him"
That's just the "liberal" interpretation. The "conservative" interpretation would be that low-class white people, unlike upper class white liberals/upper class jews who usually formulate this "liberal" interpretation, actually live in close proximity with blacks/other immigrants, and that their tendency to support "racist" legislation such as immigration restrictions is based on personal experience.
>The "conservative" interpretation
I think you mean the "retarded" interpretation, call it what it is.
>natural = good!
Are you retarded too?
Ofc it's natural, we're fucking apes. But just because it's natural, it doesn't mean we should sustain such a system. We have to elevate ourselves above our animal minds
Yes, you're way smarter than everyone, because you have all the correct opinions.
en.wikipedia.org
> It is unknown what took place between Tusken, Sullivan and the workers. Later that night Sullivan claimed to his father that he and Tusken were assaulted, and that Tusken was raped and robbed by five or six black circus workers, who were part of the crew.
> Sullivan's claim that Tusken was raped has been questioned. When she was examined by her physician, Dr. David Graham, on the morning of June 15, he found no physical evidence of rape or assault.[3]
> But newspapers printed articles about the alleged rape; rumors spread in the white community about it, including that Tusken was dying from her injuries. That evening a mob of men estimated between 1,000 and 10,000[3] formed outside the Duluth city jail. The Duluth Commissioner of Public Safety, William F. Murnian, ordered the police not to use their guns to protect the prisoners.
> The mob seized Elias Clayton, Elmer Jackson and Isaac McGhie. They took them out and convicted them of Tusken's rape in a sham trial. The mob took the three men one block to 1st Street and 2nd Avenue East, where they beat them and hanged them.
en.wikipedia.org
> The riot began over a Memorial Day weekend after a young black man was accused of raping a young white female elevator operator at a commercial building.
> A group of armed Black men rushed to the police station where the young suspect was held and a white crowd had gathered, to prevent a lynching. A confrontation developed between blacks and whites; shots were fired, and some whites and blacks were killed. As this news spread throughout the city, mob violence exploded. Thousands of whites rampaged through the black community that night and the next day, killing men and women, burning and looting stores and homes. About 10,000 blacks were left homeless, and property damage amounted to more than $1.5 million in real estate and $750,000 in personal property ($30 million in 2017).
There are no correct opinions. There are, however, stupid opinions.
Of course it's natural to fear/hate things that are different to us.
This is like telling your child it's natural be afraid of the dark and that makes the fear justified.
Racism isn't necessarily bad (though it's a bit stupid in my opinion).
Acting on racism is bad.
Now, back to /pol/ with you.
Hating someone based on skin color alone is pure ignorance.
It's basically the same shit that /pol/tards are crowing today, that "we must protect our helpless white women from the sexual predations of the sub-humans.
In both cases they were suspected of rape. Unfortunate accidents, but it's not as if they were lynched for "no reason".
>t. smug liberul
>mountains of evidence suggesting people of a particular skin color are dangerous
>formulating pre-conceived notions based on this evidence is "ignorant"
I really wish I could understand the liberal thought process. There is just something in the chain of events that is missing. A gap. Something is dropped from the equation in your head
>/pol/tards have the cognitive function of a country bumpkin in 1940s era flyover states
Yes, and?
It is. Veeky Forums is entirely satirical when you consider those poster indulge in trap anime.
They've been thoroughly brainwashed. They ignore facts, and if facts are presented to them they lash out violently.
One or two is unfortunate, 3 is a pattern, but 3500 recorded lynchings? not to mention all the un-recorded ones.
Then as it is now, it is supremely easy to manipulate White Trash. Just make up some shit about niggers coming after your white wimmin and watch them revert to their chimpanzee instincts and start defecating in their hands for use as projectiles.
The KKK and neo-nazis are all white.
Most genocide of native culture was conducted by Europeans during the Colonial Era.
Therefore all white people are klansmen, nazis, and colonists.
Your words, not mine.
And that somehow lessens how terribly lynchings were?
Additionally, lynchings were far worse in that oftentimes local authority, usually the police were entirely complicit in the act. It completely undermined the idea of due process and right to a fair trial.
What's that have to do with anything?
How can you live with yourself? How do you face evidence and decide not to take it in and simply veil it? How do you live knowing that everything that gets to you does so only if it already doesn't go against your views?
Isn't it both a sad and boring existence? Why do you even try? Wouldn't it be easier to just be and don't care?
Your kind of people really intrigate me.
>more blacks have access to weapons than there were blacks that existed in Jim Crow-era America
Try to actually construct an argument, dear.
>mountains of evidence suggesting people of a particular skin color are dangerous
fucking retard
>/pol/ claims that women are overreacting to the threat of being raped or that some women deserve to be raped
>/pol/ also claims that we need to protect our womenfolk from being raped by blacks
What did they mean by this?
Well, some black people commit crimes, therefore they're all criminals.
By that logic, some white people are in the Klan so all white people are right wing domestic terrorists.
>One or two is unfortunate, 3 is a pattern, but 3500 recorded lynchings? not to mention all the un-recorded ones.
1/3 of which were whites being lynched, for the same reasons as the blacks (being accused of crimes, especially rape). Even in your first wikipedia link, they say a finnish migrant was lynched, just because he dodged the draft for ww1.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not endorsing lynching, and am not saying that innocent blacks did not get lynched for crimes they did not commit. I am just trying to refute the narrative of the peaceful black who was sleeping in his bed when his house gets broken into by throngs of angry hood wearing whites who lynch him because he was trying to learn to read, or some shit.
Lynching was a form of frontier justice. You cannot claim with certainty that a great number of the lynched victims were not, indeed, criminals.
>Then as it is now, it is supremely easy to manipulate White Trash. Just make up some shit about niggers coming after your white wimmin and watch them revert to their chimpanzee instincts and start defecating in their hands for use as projectiles.
Now you're just being an anti-white racist.
>And that somehow lessens how terribly lynchings were?
It puts the proper context on their prevalence.
Seems like I caused a liberal to melt down.
How do I reboot you?
Also I bet I have more black friends than you, sweetie :)
I've come to the conclusion that "/pol/ is always right" because they say literally everything that pops into their minds.
Broken clocks are right twice a day and all that.
Nice argument. Let me know when you're not going to lash out like a child and then maybe we can have a rational discussion rooted in logic and reasoning - although you might end up killing yourself by the end due to the cognitive dissonance of something as simple as 2+2=4 causes you
>Someone is mad that means I'm right
/pol/ logic
How can I argue against you? If your posts are just going to be emotion-filled tirades and not actual arguments, then yes I'm going to consider that I won the debate.
>Why is racism bad?
Its only bad if you can't back it up with facts
There's mountains of evidence that white europeans are dangerous.
Therefore every white person is dangerous.
>All black people are inherently the same and are all violent savages
You do realize that's complete bullshit, right? Look at the Igbo people of Africa for instance. They routinely perform just as well as westerns in intelligence tests.
Additionally, when you look at African immigrants to the states as opposed to native black Americans you'd see that they actually are more educated than the average white American, being twice as likely to have a college degree.
People put way to much emphasize on race and not enough on class. Poverty is a far greater cause of this shit than anything.
You're both strawmanning the opposition and stating falsehoods.
Read "The Bell Curve". I'm tired of having this debate over and over again.
/pol/ has somehow mastered the art of Orwellian Doublethink.
Wasn't the same person.
The actual guy you were responding to gave you evidence, you chose to ignore it in favor of your own bias. Any evidence you're given will be discounted by you. You don't want to learn, you want to agitate.
I see right through you.
>The actual guy you were responding to gave you evidence, you chose to ignore it in favor of your own bias
Where? Honestly I'm willing to respond to it in an honest fashion, but it seems to have gotten lost amidst the shitposts.
>You don't want to learn, you want to agitate.
I'd say that most importantly, I want to teach.
Let me spell this out for you. In the isolated context of violent crime in the United States, all available evidence suggests that blacks disproportionately commit significantly more than whites. Why is it such a thought crime to make note of this observation and try to have a discussion on it?
That was your argument actually.
>read a widely disproven, non-peer reviewed publication written over 20 years ago so that I don't get blown out like /pol/ has been throughout this thread
I love when /pol/ comes here. They really don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Like at all.
You argued that mountains of evidence indicated that a certain group of people based on skin color are dangerous. Logically, if we carry that over to other races we could argue based on historical evidence white people have committed perhaps the greatest atrocities in human history. Thus you could argue that white people would thus be more dangerous than black people in a more organized sense.
Realistically, it's a stupid, broad interpretation to make.
>all available evidence suggests that blacks disproportionately commit significantly more than whites
No one is arguing against this. What people are arguing against is the idea that the reason for this is because blacks are genetically predisposed toward violence.
>He thinks "The Bell Curve" has been disproved
>He thinks the field of psychometrics doesn't exist
Embarrassing. At this point there's really nothing I can do.
Don't ever read psychology journal articles about intelligence, you might get severely triggered.
you cant ignore their higher crime rate bro
Statistically white people are more likely to commit acts of domestic terrorism.
So why are we so tolerant of white people?
>thought crime
Oh dear...he's retarded.
No because what you are saying is not relevant. I'm taking a localized issue happening right now whereas you're citing some historic bullshit that happened during times where society and humanities have not yet developed. It's not even close to being the same thing.
Well that's retarded. The influence is obviously cultural
> Now you're just being an anti-white racist.
But what's wrong with being racist OP?
> Even in your first wikipedia link, they say a finnish migrant was lynched, just because he dodged the draft for ww1.
That is certainly true, but look at the big picture
> More than 85 percent of the estimated 5,000 lynchings in the post-Civil War period occurred in the Southern states.
That's certainly not "frontier justice". The South is long settled and not the frontier where the law is too far away to be effective. Indeed, law enforcement in the South were often complicit in the lynchings.
There are certainly non-racism related lynches in the US, particularly lynching of the most recent group of immigrant arrivals to "turk our jerbs"
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
But it can not be denied that the largest proportion of lynches were racially motivated, and that racism was a large factor in these lynches.
> The stated ideology of whites about lynching was directly connected with denial of political and social equality, and sexual fears of white men; it was expressed by Benjamin Tillman, a South Carolina governor and senator, speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1900:
> We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him.[42]
Lastly, the perspective on historical lynchings shows that history rhymes extremely well. The concerns of the lynch-happy mobs of the 19th and 20th century are exactly the same as the /pol/ack; niggers coming after our women and job stealing immigrants. Keep in mind this is well before the 1965 immigration quota changes that /pol/acks state to have ruined the racial composition of America.
Everyone claims that blacks are inherently more violent without bothering to examine it further than "they're subhuman". Even after slavery ended the government had been actively undermining black people from the get go. The idea that black people finally getting the right to vote would magically fix everything is a pipe dream. The tremendous economic and political gap between them and whites isn't something that just erodes overnight. It's especially true given that poverty continues from generation to generation. Look no further than poor whites. Very few of them leave the shackles of poverty, much like black Americans.
Additionally, I'd argue that the complete collapse of the black American family unit, coupled with terrible inner city culture and lack of available resources creates a never ending cycle of poverty and violence.
>hey ma wut's critical thinkin'?
There's a difference between warfare and street crime you moron.
The reason blacks commit more crime is because they have a lower average IQ. If you had read the hate book TBC, you'd know this.
For when you compare crime rates between blacks and whites while fixing the IQ variable (i.e. you compare the crime rates of only blacks with an IQ of 100 and only whites with an IQ of 100, or the same thing with an IQ of 80, or an IQ of 120), you find that for each fixed IQ value blacks and whites commit crimes at the same rates.
But the reason for the disproportion between overall white and black crime rates is because the mean white IQ is 100, while the mean black IQ is 85.
I already responded to that post. Did you even read my response? Fucking brainlet.
>There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation...It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.
It's like you're willfully ignorant.
Are you sure you're white?
>The reason blacks commit more crime is because they have a lower average IQ. If you had read the hate book TBC, you'd know this.
Not him but I don't argue with you. The issue is that you go straight to the "they're inherently less intelligent on a racial level" argument. Why don't you instead explore the socioeconomic situation of black history. I honestly find that that there's a far more compelling argument to be made there.
You can't ignore 300 years of racial oppression and poverty, bro
>conveniently ignores the Vikings he venerates
you cant blame whitey for everything brah
What if their socioeconomic situation is a function of their IQ?
I read it. You completely misinterpreted what the post was saying and assumed they were hung for the rape.
You completely ignored their lack of due process, the lack of evidence and the sheer number of lynchings.
But that'd make your argument fallible and we can't have that, can we sweetie?
What are you quoting, the APA statement which followed after they were so butthurt by TBC? The funny thing is that they tried so hard to disprove it but they ended up confirming all of it.
As for your quote specifically, while it is true that there is no proof per se that the black/white IQ gap is genetic, there is also no proof that it is not genetic. We will know in 20-30 years when genomics research advances to the point where the genes coding for intelligence will be identified.
>Why don't you instead explore the socioeconomic situation of black history.
Because there's no data to support it. Blacks who have an IQ 100 are just as likely to commit crimes as whites who have an IQ of 100.