10 Things NEVER to Say to a Black Coworker

[Michael Hardner]

lol! Yet in Courtnay it did! why? just because the race of the victim was BLACK!

again you fail to realize that RACIAL EPITHETS DID TURN THE COURTNAY SCRUM into a HATECRIME, that's what the media kept yammering about, "racists attacks" "biggotry fueled attack" and other clear statements...

the balck victim Phillips, in Courtenay is actually touring schools to give talks about racism! Do you suppose the little white girl was given any sort of similar invitation? of course not!

all of this you once again, simply ignore to suit your failed argument.

When a white person's says the N word, his very livelihood is at risk, that's another double standard that I don't want to get into, but clearly you're being dishonest by pretending not to notice these things...

I thought the report initially said the RCMP was investigating this as a hate crime ? That would have been the primary indicator. I'm not ignoring things, in fact I'm likely going too far in entertaining all of these tangents.

As we've already determined, your assertion was that Europeans are not allowed to say they're proud of their race, as well as white people wouldn't be allowed to form their own student associations. The former claim was challenged, with no follow-up from you and I found a counter example for the latter claim. No acknowledgment from you that you were wrong with those.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[lictor616]

Actually, these types of studies aren't widely acknowledged, as you seem to be saying they are. There are strong indications of problems with these studies. Trying to measure the intelligence of kids from South Africa apart from culture is nearly impossible, of course. A feature of proponents of these studies is they try to say things like "you have to admit there's no shortage of evidence" and "everybody knows that...".

It's not true. Isolating heritage as a determinant is very difficult, and fraught with problems. For some reason, you're not honest about how widely accepted such theories are.

I said the hated "bell curve"...

Of course many people resist the obvious data, because it undermines their religion of political correctness... political correctness and ideological bias is very real in scientific quarters, many scientists stay away from such research because it means harassment by the stupid and hate filled media goons.

The Bell curve is one of the most misquoted and misunderstood compendium on race biometry in the world. and of course people usually mention it side by side with words such as "hitler" "nazi" "holocaust" etc...

Political correctness after all is a religion based on a blind emotionalism, as other religions (Christianity for one), and never fails to inspire hatred in its votaries.

[Michael Hardner]

I said the hated "bell curve"...

Of course many people resist the obvious data, because it undermines their religion of political correctness... political correctness and ideological bias is very real in scientific quarters, many scientists stay away from such research because it means harassment by the stupid and hate filled media goons.

The Bell curve is one of the most misquoted and misunderstood compendium on race biometry in the world. and of course people usually mention it side by side with words such as "hitler" "nazi" "holocaust" etc...

Political correctness after all is a religion based on a blind emotionalism, as other religions (Christianity for one), and never fails to inspire hatred in its votaries.

You know, you can't on the one hand condemn academic studies for praying to an altar of political correctness when you yourself misrepresent how studies are regarded to favour "political incorrectness" or whatever your ideology is called.

And once again, you're boxing against phantoms. I haven't called you a 'nazi' or anything, and yet you're responding as though I have done. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to hand you this very easy way to respond. Instead, I ask for facts which you still haven't provided.

And -> you haven't responded to my point that cultural factors are very difficult to separate from race.

If you don't have any "facts" to support your "beliefs" then just say so. Don't worry, I won't call you a "nazi", I'll just say that your ideas aren't based in reality.

[lictor616]

I thought the report initially said the RCMP was investigating this as a hate crime ? That would have been the primary indicator. I'm not ignoring things, in fact I'm likely going too far in entertaining all of these tangents.

As we've already determined, your assertion was that Europeans are not allowed to say they're proud of their race, as well as white people wouldn't be allowed to form their own student associations. The former claim was challenged, with no follow-up from you and I found a counter example for the latter claim. No acknowledgment from you that you were wrong with those.

i'm sorry I know of no advocacy groups such as the NAACP for whites... there's a black legal caucus... i've never heard of a white one..

and obviously we can imagine what the reaction would be on capuses if someone proposed say: a white engineers club...

of course this is tread drift: we were on the subject of double standards in media coverage of interracial crimes...

you've ignored the many and repeated details which show up an obscene double standard... you're stalled... I don,t know waht else to say... all you do is repeat the same question and ignore the evidence:

kimmy also did a far better job at exposing these double standards... perhaps you should attempt a rebuttal at her last comment?

I really don't understand your feigned confusion, one crime is a scuffle between 3 whites and a black, the word racism is used rampantly, it is described as a hatecrime, and charges of hatecrimes are investigated by the human rights council...

invert the races, in montreal a little white girl is mauled by a still larger gang of snarling blacks, and the media gives it only local and short coverage, and no article even hints at the potential of a hate crime or racism (even though the evidence is far more abundant in the montreal case)

you gloss over that as if your question hadn't been answered! it's actually rather funny.

from there you say that whites are also permitted to be proud of their race, as if you didn't know the intricacies and disastrous consequences that a white would inevitably face if he was ballsy enough to say he was proud if his race!

lol imagine a public figure... Ignatief say, making apublic comment about how proud he was of the white race!

his life would be finished in an instant! and you know it... but I don't expect you to be honest about it at this point...

what a torrent of obvious deception and ploys!

[lictor616]

You know, you can't on the one hand condemn academic studies for praying to an altar of political correctness when you yourself misrepresent how studies are regarded to favour "political incorrectness" or whatever your ideology is called.

And once again, you're boxing against phantoms. I haven't called you a 'nazi' or anything, and yet you're responding as though I have done. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to hand you this very easy way to respond. Instead, I ask for facts which you still haven't provided.

you've compared me to what you said was a neo nazi: Dr. Pierce...

maybe you should pay more attention to waht you say.

[lictor616]

And -> you haven't responded to my point that cultural factors are very difficult to separate from race.

actually I made the point that culture is an expression of racial differences...

remember my bit about different races producing different cultures?!

i mean, I might as well be talking to a broken record!

[Michael Hardner]

i'm sorry I know of no advocacy groups such as the NAACP for whites... there's a black legal caucus... i've never heard of a white one..

and obviously we can imagine what the reaction would be on capuses if someone proposed say: a white engineers club...

of course this is tread drift: we were on the subject of double standards in media coverage of interracial crimes...

you've ignored the many and repeated details which show up an obscene double standard... you're stalled... I don,t know waht else to say... all you do is repeat the same question and ignore the evidence:

kimmy also did a far better job at exposing these double standards... perhaps you should attempt a rebuttal at her last comment?

I really don't understand your feigned confusion, one crime is a scuffle between 3 whites and a black, the word racism is used rampantly, it is described as a hatecrime, and charges of hatecrimes are investigated by the human rights council...

invert the races, in montreal a little white girl is mauled by a still larger gang of snarling blacks, and the media gives it only local and short coverage, and no article even hints at the potential of a hate crime or racism (even though the evidence is far more abundant in the montreal case)

you gloss over that as if your question hadn't been answered! it's actually rather funny.

from there you say that whites are also permitted to be proud of their race, as if you didn't know the intricacies and disastrous consequences that a white would inevitably face if he was ballsy enough to say he was proud if his race!

lol imagine a public figure... Ignatief say, making apublic comment about how proud he was of the white race!

his life would be finished in an instant! and you know it... but I don't expect you to be honest about it at this point...

what a torrent of obvious deception and ploys!

Actually, I've responded to every one. I showed you an example of a German students' club. We had a maritime city ready to declare European heritage day until they found out that the person behind it espoused racist views.

It's not funny, lictor, it's aggravating and pathetic.

As I have shown, we have at least 8 claims made by you that I have responded to and yet on and on you go weeping and bawling about media bias, and political correctness, but it's the pot calling the kettle black. Your opinions are not based on facts, but on your own ideas that come from your imagination. I'm sorry for you that you can't let go of these ideas for some reason. If you had an open mind then you could progress and move on from whatever is blocking you here.

This is how a discussion board works: you make a point, I address it, then you respond or acknowledge my point. It's a dialectic - a method of discussion that we use to explore a topic together. If you refuse to discuss things properly then you need to look at yourself and ask why. As it is, you're just dispensing incorrect information and putting your hand over your ears when I explain WHY it's incorrect.

The saddest part of all of this is that conservative posters on here with more reasonable positions aren't condemning your for your lack of substance. There are conservatives, such as libertarians, with philosophically defensible positions that I can enjoy debating. But your position is only reinforced by your refusal to engage in open-minded debate.

Anyway, I'm glad I've given you the time of day but I can't debate with you in good faith anymore given that you've not held up your end.

[Michael Hardner]

you've compared me to what you said was a neo nazi: Dr. Pierce...

maybe you should pay more attention to waht you say.

I didn't compare you to him, I noted that you read his opinions and asked your position. Sorry, I won't help your argument by calling you a nazi.

[Michael Hardner]

actually I made the point that culture is an expression of racial differences...

remember my bit about different races producing different cultures?!

i mean, I might as well be talking to a broken record!

Hmmmmm. I didn't see that but why don't you try acknowledging one of the 8 or so points I've already made. It's simple: just say "Michael I concur that you were right about point x."

[lictor616]

I didn't compare you to him, I noted that you read his opinions and asked your position. Sorry, I won't help your argument by calling you a nazi.

You said that Pierce had similar things to say on the hate crimes I brought up, why mention pierce if not to tar me with the neo-nazi brush?

your covert implication was that I'm just like Pierce.

[lictor616]

Hmmmmm. I didn't see that but why don't you try acknowledging one of the 8 or so points I've already made. It's simple: just say "Michael I concur that you were right about point x."

? what 8 points were these?

that races are figments of the imagination? that genetic variation is nill or "insignificant" between groups?

how did you respond to my claim taht different races produce different cultures?

[Michael Hardner]

You said that Pierce had similar things to say on the hate crimes I brought up, why mention pierce if not to tar me with the neo-nazi brush?

your covert implication was that I'm just like Pierce.

Sorry, lictor, but as I've already said I don't care if you believe in racial superiority, but I just want clarity so I can understand where you're debating from. As it is, you appear to espouse some of these theories and we're still debating - no big drama here.

[Michael Hardner]

? what 8 points were these?

that races are figments of the imagination? that genetic variation is nill or "insignificant" between groups?

how did you respond to my claim taht different races produce different cultures?

Races are a proponent of culture, but race and culture are obviously different things.

I'm guessing that I've made 8 points... let's see off the top of my head.

1. Your assertion that whites aren't allowed to be proud of their race.

I asked for an example of whites being prohibited from saying so. You provided an example of a maritime city that declared 'European heritage day' until a racist was found to be behind the idea. The original point you had was clearly wrong, as the city was fine with declaring the holiday.

2. More on the above, I produced an example of a German students' association at a University in Manitoba. This was a 10 second Google search, so I'm sure there are more examples.

3. Oktoberfest, as Morris pointed out is an example of European culture.

4/5/6. The assertion that race crimes receive biased coverage: we reviewed the Byrd case in Texas, one in BC, another one that William Pierce had listed in his column.

7. Your assertion that I believe "that non-white victims are more deserving of publicity and public sympathy then white victims... " - baseless and you dropped it when I pressed you on it.

8. My questioning on the numbers behind white-on-black and black-on-white crime. I submitted a likely reason for the numbers... again nothing in response.

So, will you agree at least that I've been following your points and responding to them factually, that I haven't been hysterically praying to the altar of political correctness ?

My fear is that you're just quoting studies and logic that you don't fully understand yourself, so that when I give a rebuttal you're unable to understand it, and just go off and get another example.

[lictor616]

Races are a proponent of culture, but race and culture are obviously different things.

I'm guessing that I've made 8 points... let's see off the top of my head.

1. Your assertion that whites aren't allowed to be proud of their race.

I asked for an example of whites being prohibited from saying so. You provided an example of a maritime city that declared 'European heritage day' until a racist was found to be behind the idea. The original point you had was clearly wrong, as the city was fine with declaring the holiday.

2. More on the above, I produced an example of a German students' association at a University in Manitoba. This was a 10 second Google search, so I'm sure there are more examples.

3. Oktoberfest, as Morris pointed out is an example of European culture.

4/5/6. The assertion that race crimes receive biased coverage: we reviewed the Byrd case in Texas, one in BC, another one that William Pierce had listed in his column.

7. Your assertion that I believe "that non-white victims are more deserving of publicity and public sympathy then white victims... " - baseless and you dropped it when I pressed you on it.

8. My questioning on the numbers behind white-on-black and black-on-white crime. I submitted a likely reason for the numbers... again nothing in response.

So, will you agree at least that I've been following your points and responding to them factually, that I haven't been hysterically praying to the altar of political correctness ?

My fear is that you're just quoting studies and logic that you don't fully understand yourself, so that when I give a rebuttal you're unable to understand it, and just go off and get another example.

1/ the Heritage week never took place... i mean you do realize that it was SHOT DOWN right? Despite people wanting to celebrate their European roots... they were denied this for flimsy "racist" potentialities!

1/ blacks definitely are encouraged to be proud of their race: http://thechronicleherald.ca/ArtsLife/1152726.html

http://www.365black.com/365black/index.jsp

I mean how else do you figure that blacks are permitted a history MONTH, Negro College funds and all sorts of racially based associations completely UNAVAILABLE TO WHITES and be none the wiser?

2/German student association has not much int the way of racial connotation, its linguistic, in fact its a good bet that even suggesting that would get you kicked out of the german association, and perhaps form campus...

also, http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/tag/u-of-t-black-alumni-association/

still no sign of white almuni associations or White Law Students Association of the University of Toronto. Just the sound of that is obviously impossible. can you imagine suggesting it in polite society? You could probably get kicked out of the university for even THINKING about such an association. but of course you claim not to see "what the big deal is"

Dahlhousie has a Black cultural Center...

3/ Oktoberfest, is not a racial or ethnic pride event... people don't go there to be proud to be white... they go there to have beers in tents, and have a grilled wurst...

4/5/6/ you still haven't acknowledged the evidence and reject clear double standards such as widely different media coverage of certain interracial crimes. in all cases I showed: the crimes with non-white victims are presumed a victim of racism, and the coverage is huge, in every white example racism often isn,t even mentioned as a potentiality, and coverage of them is so scarce as to be even hard to find on the internet. The pattern is there... your willful blindness and out of hand rejection don't change that.

7/Your belief that white victims are less worthy is obvious by your constant effort of denying that whites (even with very obvious evidence) can be victims of racial hatred, and your unconcern for coverage disparity... you don't seem disturbed at all that a dragging death of a mother receives no coverage (despite its obvious public interest) and think its fine that a black ex con james byrd was given a memorial parc, statue and holiday... you obviously don't care about the difference in treatment, which is why I think its fair to think that you have some sort of bias... prove me wrong...

8/ your questioning on the numbers was another admission of your obvious anti-white bias...

you downplay the fact that 1.9 million violent interracial crimes were black on white, and 350 000 were white on black, by pathetically suggesting that:

"obviously there should be more white victims... there are more white people"... which is simply crack pot logic, especially since the Census data on ALL CRIMES shows regularly that blacks (a 12-13% minority) commit roughly half the nation's TOTAL violent crimes.

I mean it never occurred to you that there should be more white perpetrators too by your logic? what a silly way of looking at the stats...

there also the interracial rape stats which are even more incredible: less then 10 black women are raped every year by whites, yet 34 000 to 45 000 white women are raped by blacks every year... i'll let you work out the arithmetic on that.

again all you're trying to do is excuse and minimize the criminal activity of blacks and the crooked media who cover for them.

[Shwa]

Kimmy: "I don't see that the criticism is unfair or undeserved."

Perhaps "unfair" and "undeserved" are not the right words. There must always be a watchful eye on the mass media and that includes the right to criticize. However, I think we owe it to ourselves and the media to understand the context of how they present their stories - and that context is much more than mere cold statistics, personal anecdotes or leading questions.

If we lose sight of the context we are only arguing for the sake of bluster and nothing is gained.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm going to renumber these some more, as this seems to be helping us frame our discussion.

1/ the Heritage week never took place... i mean you do realize that it was SHOT DOWN right? Despite people wanting to celebrate their European roots... they were denied this for flimsy "racist" potentialities!

1/ blacks definitely are encouraged to be proud of their race: http://thechronicleherald.ca/ArtsLife/1152726.html

http://www.365black.com/365black/index.jsp

I mean how else do you figure that blacks are permitted a history MONTH, Negro College funds and all sorts of racially based associations completely UNAVAILABLE TO WHITES and be none the wiser?

2/German student association has not much int the way of racial connotation, its linguistic, in fact its a good bet that even suggesting that would get you kicked out of the german association, and perhaps form campus...

also, http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/tag/u-of-t-black-alumni-association/

still no sign of white almuni associations or White Law Students Association of the University of Toronto. Just the sound of that is obviously impossible. can you imagine suggesting it in polite society? You could probably get kicked out of the university for even THINKING about such an association. but of course you claim not to see "what the big deal is"

Dahlhousie has a Black cultural Center...

3/ Oktoberfest, is not a racial or ethnic pride event... people don't go there to be proud to be white... they go there to have beers in tents, and have a grilled wurst...

1. This speaks more to how the various races see themselves. A 'black students association' is really an African American students' association. How can black people trace their ancestry to more detail than saying they're from Africa ? The reality of slavery was such that they can't define themselves any more clearly (say as Ghanan, or Gambian) than by saying they're African American.

To call this racist, or to say it constitutes reverse racism is simply incorrect.

But then again, you probably think that African Americans don't have the same propensity for learning than white students anyway so why are you even arguing this ? Shouldn't you be arguing that allowing them to go to university in the first place is a waste of resources ?

4/5/6/ you still haven't acknowledged the evidence and reject clear double standards such as widely different media coverage of certain interracial crimes. in all cases I showed: the crimes with non-white victims are presumed a victim of racism, and the coverage is huge, in every white example racism often isn,t even mentioned as a potentiality, and coverage of them is so scarce as to be even hard to find on the internet. The pattern is there... your willful blindness and out of hand rejection don't change that.

2. These crimes rose to national attention because of the brutality of the crimes, and the fact that law enforcement organizations indicated that they were violent crimes based on racist ideology. Such crimes are abhorrent to most people and as such news editors recognize that these crimes receive special attention, as they deserve to do.

Again, if you believe that African Americans are more prone to committing crimes (and you can fill me in as to what exactly you do believe here) then shouldn't they receive less coverage ? I mean, if you think it's not surprising then why are you asking for more coverage ? Do you think 'dog bites man' should receive more coverage than 'man bites dog' ?

7/Your belief that white victims are less worthy is obvious by your constant effort of denying that whites (even with very obvious evidence) can be victims of racial hatred, and your unconcern for coverage disparity... you don't seem disturbed at all that a dragging death of a mother receives no coverage (despite its obvious public interest) and think its fine that a black ex con james byrd was given a memorial parc, statue and holiday... you obviously don't care about the difference in treatment, which is why I think its fair to think that you have some sort of bias... prove me wrong...

3. You're making things up here. I have never denied that whites can be victims of racial hatred. I would be concerned with disparity and unfairness in media if you had ever shown that it happens. I haven't seen any examples from you yet.

I've addressed the individual cases already, and you're posting as if I haven't.

8/ your questioning on the numbers was another admission of your obvious anti-white bias...

you downplay the fact that 1.9 million violent interracial crimes were black on white, and 350 000 were white on black, by pathetically suggesting that:

"obviously there should be more white victims... there are more white people"... which is simply crack pot logic, especially since the Census data on ALL CRIMES shows regularly that blacks (a 12-13% minority) commit roughly half the nation's TOTAL violent crimes.

I mean it never occurred to you that there should be more white perpetrators too by your logic? what a silly way of looking at the stats...

there also the interracial rape stats which are even more incredible: less then 10 black women are raped every year by whites, yet 34 000 to 45 000 white women are raped by blacks every year... i'll let you work out the arithmetic on that.

again all you're trying to do is excuse and minimize the criminal activity of blacks and the crooked media who cover for them.

4. I addressed the point you were making, and you responded by bringing up a DIFFERENT point - namely, the prevalence of black amongst criminals, rather than the prevalence of whites amongst victims. I even responded to that point of yours, which you ignored until now.

Also, the rape stat you quoted is incorrect and we covered that extensively in a different thread. The sampling methodology used did not yield an accurate estimate.

Let's discuss the prevalence of black crime then. I agree that they are charged and convicted at a higher per-capita rate than whites. I think that the cause is likely the fact that the family unit has not fully recovered from the horrors of slavery. In fact, from what I've read childhood experiences (which relate to education and family criminal involvement) are a large determinant of future behavior - again leading to culture or nature, over nurture.

So now that you've finally responded to me: what's your opinion on that ? Let's discuss

Also - why didn't you respond until now ?

[lictor616]

I'm going to renumber these some more, as this seems to be helping us frame our discussion.

1. This speaks more to how the various races see themselves. A 'black students association' is really an African American students' association. How can black people trace their ancestry to more detail than saying they're from Africa ? The reality of slavery was such that they can't define themselves any more clearly (say as Ghanan, or Gambian) than by saying they're African American.

To call this racist, or to say it constitutes reverse racism is simply incorrect.

But then again, you probably think that African Americans don't have the same propensity for learning than white students anyway so why are you even arguing this ? Shouldn't you be arguing that allowing them to go to university in the first place is a waste of resources ?

oh puuuhlease!!!! ahahahah!

do you actually believe that tripe Hardner? or are you trying to fleece the right winger?

African american? In toronto?!?!!? wth?

And do they need a race based association group for the purpose of "tracing back their original ancestry"? Why must they form group associations that are RACE BASED IN UNIVERSITIES if as you say: the point is just to connect with their Nationality and ethnic origins (be taht Rwandan, Congolese or what have you)?

and then to go from there and denying such race based organizations for WHITES (and ONLY WHITES MIND YOU) because apparently whites all know exactly where their ancestry is from and hence... um don't need to connect with it?

Why don't you just admit that you don't like the idea of white people getting together AS "white people" for any purpose at all!

Just admit it, its time for you to save a little face here, you seem pretty ridiculous Hardner!

instead of trying to get me on the run again by talking about the silly, boring, repetitious litany of ... "ohh, sniff sniff, slavery", and sob about what I think about black people's aptitudes in universities...

This is your typical bias showing up again, you know that blacks get preferential treatment in college admission and then, can form race based associations that are for all practical purposes off limits to "whitey" and what are you saying about it?

you call me a racist, and say that the privileges and perks given to blacks because of their race ... somehow.. SOMEHOW... isn't "reverse racism" or racist at all..

oh no, not in the slightest!

lool go on !

Edited November 16, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

2. These crimes rose to national attention because of the brutality of the crimes, and the fact that law enforcement organizations indicated that they were violent crimes based on racist ideology. Such crimes are abhorrent to most people and as such news editors recognize that these crimes receive special attention, as they deserve to do.

Again, if you believe that African Americans are more prone to committing crimes (and you can fill me in as to what exactly you do believe here) then shouldn't they receive less coverage ? I mean, if you think it's not surprising then why are you asking for more coverage ? Do you think 'dog bites man' should receive more coverage than 'man bites dog' ?

Hate crimes are abhorrent apparently only when WHITE PEOPLE commit them, as we've seen, blacks are far more likely to assault whites then vice versa, and the media coverage of such crimes clearly does not corroborate this reality.

And again, the media's evidence of "racial motivation" is pretty flimsy, if a person's utters the N-word that in itslef seems to be sufficient validation of a hatecrime...

and again in many cases if the attacker is simply white, the media have NO PROBLEM at all at least asking the question: WAS HATE INVOLVED?

In the Channon murder/rape/torture, and the Anne Pressly rape/murder, the words "race", "hate", "racial bias", "hate crime" appear NOWHERE IN the articles cited...

I find that conspicuous in deed don't you? oh that's right of course you don't! because you think that only white people are racists.

i,m asking for more coverage because people should know about these heinous crimes... if most interracial crimes involve white victims, I think people should be alerted by the news media (who's job it is to INFORM).

For the media to cherry pick almost exclusively: white on black crime is a willful distortion of the truth, and leads many people to live in a dreamworld that doesn't exist, where only white people are potential haters and dangerous... and so people are less likely to try to change things, and the interracial crime rates will persist and continue to make the white body count skyrocket

[Michael Hardner]

oh puuuhlease!!!! ahahahah!

do you actually believe that tripe Hardner? or are you trying to fleece the right winger?

African american? In toronto?!?!!? wth?

And do they need a race based association group for the purpose of "tracing back their original ancestry"? Why must they form group associations that are RACE BASED IN UNIVERSITIES if as you say: the point is just to connect with their Nationality and ethnic origins (be taht Rwandan, Congolese or what have you)?

Because they CAN'T as I pointed out. Their ethnicity is their heritage, because their tribal backgrounds were stolen from them when they were kidnapped into slavery.

and then to go from there and denying such race based organizations for WHITES (and ONLY WHITES MIND YOU) because apparently whites all know exactly where their ancestry is from and hence... um don't need to connect with it?

I am able to find people discussing white student groups online, but for the most part I can't see why people would want to associate just with whites (as opposed to German-Canadians, or Ukranian-Canadians that share their backgrounds) unless of course they didn't like blacks.

Why don't you just admit that you don't like the idea of white people getting together AS "white people" for any purpose at all!

Just admit it, its time for you to save a little face here, you seem pretty ridiculous Hardner!

I have no problem with it, really. I sure wouldn't want to join, though. I have nothing in common with people based on race alone. At least African American students can get together to talk about the racism they've experienced and build relationships to help each other out.

instead of trying to get me on the run again by talking about the silly, boring, repetitious litany of ... "ohh, sniff sniff, slavery", and sob about what I think about black people's aptitudes in universities...

Oh, you don't need ME to get you on the run. You're running again when you accuse me of accusing YOU of racism when I haven't done that.

This is your typical bias showing up again, you know that blacks get preferential treatment in college admission and then, can form race based associations that are for all practical purposes off limits to "whitey" and what are you saying about it?

Here you go running again - bringing up a new topic when we haven't finished the one we're on now.

you call me a racist, and say that the privileges and perks given to blacks because of their race ... somehow.. SOMEHOW... isn't "reverse racism" or racist at all..

oh no, not in the slightest!

lool go on !

I'm not calling you a racist. You have stated that culture is derived from race, and that races are better at some things than others. ( I would call that racial inferiority/superiority but I can understand why you don't want to label it that way. )

I'm just asking you to clarify, and you're getting all hysterical, with LOOLs and so on pre-accusing me of things I'm not doing. Try to stick to the discussion at hand, will you ?

Also - can you please reply to all of my points at once instead of separate posts ? Or are you conceding the other 3 points ?

[lictor616]

Because they CAN'T as I pointed out. Their ethnicity is their heritage, because their tribal backgrounds were stolen from them when they were kidnapped into slavery.

AH! I see so their nation IS THEIR RACE! ¸

silly me now I understand...

But again if whites try with equal fervor to connect on that level: they're called hate mongers, neonazis and dangerous bigots...

and amazingly you don't see the double standard here?

by the way, most of them can easily trace back their ancestry as coming from the african west coast, and even there, a DNA test can usually tell you with a great degree of precision where your ancestors came from.

but nevermind...

Edited November 16, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

I have no problem with it, really. I sure wouldn't want to join, though. I have nothing in common with people based on race alone. At least African American students can get together to talk about the racism they've experienced and build relationships to help each other out.

of course black people, who are victims are far less interracial crimes, and who don't have to submit to the nonstop "watch your mouth" self censorship that whites have to go through, who get preferential treatment in hiring and admissions, who get affirmative action, race based organizations, tv Stations (BET)...

these are the people who are discriminated against and need to organize and talk about whitey? really?

What about the little white 14 year old girl in Carignan, who was assaulted and targeted because she was white?

What about the thousands of white people who are targeted and attacked because of their race? What about the many white people who are snubbed out of a job for not having dark enough skin?

What about the thousands of white women who are raped by blacks each year?

they don't need to get together and talk about the REAL racism they endure?

again, just admit it HARDNER WAHT ARE YOU WAITING FOR... just tell us how you think white people can't be victims of racism! just spit it out!

Edited November 16, 2009 by lictor616

[Michael Hardner]

Hate crimes are abhorrent apparently only when WHITE PEOPLE commit them, as we've seen, blacks are far more likely to assault whites then vice versa, and the media coverage of such crimes clearly does not corroborate this reality.

Well, how would it ? The crimes are reported - what else do you want ? The rates are published - where is the news here ?

And again, the media's evidence of "racial motivation" is pretty flimsy, if a person's utters the N-word that in itslef seems to be sufficient validation of a hatecrime...

How so ? When people are fighting they tend to be aggressive and will say whatever they can to get to the other person. Crimes that are planned out on the basis of targeting people because of their race are far less common.

and again in many cases if the attacker is simply white, the media have NO PROBLEM at all at least asking the question: WAS HATE INVOLVED?

In the Channon murder/rape/torture, and the Anne Pressly rape/murder, the words "race", "hate", "racial bias", "hate crime" appear NOWHERE IN the articles cited...

I find that conspicuous in deed don't you? oh that's right of course you don't! because you think that only white people are racists.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth where there is no basis for your comments.

The media ask the question if they're led to that conclusion. There are too many white-on-black crimes to ask that question every time, and they simply don't do that.

i,m asking for more coverage because people should know about these heinous crimes... if most interracial crimes involve white victims, I think people should be alerted by the news media (who's job it is to INFORM).

For the media to cherry pick almost exclusively: white on black crime is a willful distortion of the truth, and leads many people to live in a dreamworld that doesn't exist, where only white people are potential haters and dangerous... and so people are less likely to try to change things, and the interracial crime rates will persist and continue to make the white body count skyrocket

You haven't shown that they show more white-on-black crime than black-on-white crime or even that coverage is disproportionate. You're, instead, trying to redefine hate crime as any interracial crime, and then comparing actual hate crimes to interracial crimes for coverage, which is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

You say you're asking for more coverage - are you asking for disproportional coverage, given the statistics ? And you didn't answer my question about man-bites-dog vs dog-bites-man.

In conclusion, you have given an incomplete answer and a bad argument. You're defining race-crime as interracial crime, and even then you're not comparing them correctly. You're assigning me motives that I don't have, and you're avoiding my questions.

[Michael Hardner]

AH! I see so their nation IS THEIR RACE! ¸

silly me now I understand...

But again if whites try with equal fervor to connect on that level: they're called hate mongers, neonazis and dangerous bigots...

and amazingly you don't see the double standard here?

You're repeating an argument we already addressed and that I already defeated. Whites tried to connect on that level, and it was approved in the maritime city by your own example ?

Are you so lacking in arguments that you need to repeat arguments that have failed on this very thread ?

by the way, most of them can easily trace back their ancestry as coming from the african west coast, and even there, a DNA test can usually tell you with a great degree of precision where your ancestors came from.

but nevermind...

"Get a DNA test !" Great advice, Lictor. If I told whites who wanted to celebrate European heritage day to get a DNA test, what would you say ?

[Michael Hardner]

of course black people, who are victims are far less interracial crimes, and who don't have to submit to the nonstop "watch your mouth" self censorship that whites have to go through, who get preferential treatment in hiring and admissions, who get affirmative action, race based organizations, tv Stations (BET)...

these are the people who are discriminated against and need to organize and talk about whitey? really?

What about the little white 14 year old girl in Carignan, who was assaulted and targeted because she was white?

What about the thousands of white people who are targeted and attacked because of their race? What about the many white people who are snubbed out of a job for not having dark enough skin?

What about the thousands of white women who are raped by blacks each year?

they don't need to get together and talk about the REAL racism they endure?

again, just admit it HARDNER WAHT ARE YOU WAITING FOR... just tell us how you think white people can't be victims of racism! just spit it out!

I have addressed this Lictor: you defined a hate-crime as interracial crime, which is incorrect. Using the N-word in a crime alone is not evidence of a hate-crime.

Please improve your arguments by:

1) Not assigning motives to me that aren't there.

2) Stop repeating arguments that I have addressed and corrected.

3) Stop sloganeering.

4) Stop accusing people of accusing you of racism, naziism, what have you.

5) Stop redefining things according to your own viewpoint, then restating them so that the outcome is fixed to your flawed reframing of the argument.

6) Please clearly explain to us your views on race, and how they lead to culture, including criminal and intellectual activity.

7) Please respond to arguments and don't pick and choose which you'll respond to, and which you'll leave alone.

8) Don't respond to a challenge by bringing up a brand new point: concede your losses.

If you can agree to following these 8 suggestions, then these discussions will lead somewhere. As it is, discussing things with you leads nowhere.

[Michael Hardner]

Lictor -> also PLEASE PLEASE consolidate your replies into one post, rather than breaking them up, as it makes it easy for you to evade points and run from an argument when you respond that way.