|
On July 02 2015 00:06 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 23:52 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote:
From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing. I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on. So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism? Plansix, what the fuck
I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values.
Its almost like racists have been lying about being racists for a very long time.
On July 02 2015 00:14 Jormundr wrote:
It's like a bunch of white people from cities are pretending to know the rural south.
+ That one guy from the deep south talking about how black people never complained about the flag until now.
Hilarious.
I like the people from other counties explaining the most. Its like me commenting on racial and cultural dynamics Korea between Japan like I know ANYTHING.
|
On July 02 2015 00:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 00:06 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 23:52 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote:
From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing. I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on. So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism? Plansix, what the fuck I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values.
Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either.
We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan.
|
The KKK were a major force behind Prohibition.
|
On July 02 2015 01:05 farvacola wrote:
The KKK were a major force behind Prohibition.
Really? I did not know that and I'm going to have to dig into that on lunch.
|
|
|
On July 02 2015 00:34 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 00:15 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2015 00:06 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 23:52 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote:
From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing. I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on. So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism? Plansix, what the fuck I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values. Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either. We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan.
You are so wrong it hurts....
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZwEP3a2.jpg)
"Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona was upset, too. 'What this guy just did set back everything I've been trying to do for years,' said Ancona, who leads the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. [...]
" 'I believe in racial separation but it doesn't have to be violent,' he told CNN. 'People in the Klan are professional people, business people, working types. We are a legitimate organization.'
“We don’t hate people because of their race. I mean, we’re a Christian organization,” Frank Ancona, an Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, told WWBT on Thursday.
He insisted that the KKK had been unfairly maligned for its acts of violence against black people in the United States.
“Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen our Klansmen are supposed to be murderers and want to lynch black people, and we are supposed to be terrorists, and that is a complete falsehood.”
They don't think segregation is racist. So that's how you have a bunch of racist dipshits claiming not to be racist. It's become abundantly clear the people here are pretty clueless about race in the south.
|
On July 02 2015 00:06 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 23:52 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote:
From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing. I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on. So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism? Plansix, what the fuck
It's also a bit disingenuous to say that it "wasn't a thing" in the 30's. It's been part of the Mississipi flag since the 1890's, used by this Veterans organization (which, as far as I can tell, is not a hate group) for just as long, and was used by some American military units during WWII.
But there are certainly a lot of racist groups that adopted it in the late 40's/early 50's.
And it's true that it only became part of popular culture in the 50's or so, but the same is basically true of everything. "American Culture" is basically defined by whatever the Baby Boomers grew up with, much to the rue of every other generation to follow.
|
Traditional American Knights is a single branch of a bunch of Klans who all call themselves the KKK. There's no central leadership anymore, so I'm going off of the one who maintains the site.
These guys just look like they're using the motte and bailey approach for PR.
A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of pleasantly habitable land (the Bailey), which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier, such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible, and so neither is the Bailey. Rather, one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.
For my original purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents philosophical propositions with similar properties: desirable to their proponents but only lightly defensible. The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed.
|
On July 02 2015 04:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 00:06 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 23:52 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote:
From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing. I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on. So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism? Plansix, what the fuck It's also a bit disingenuous to say that it "wasn't a thing" in the 30's. It's been part of the Mississipi flag since the 1890's,
Well I did say it "wasn't really* a thing", so it was much smaller. Also Mississippi very much is Mississippi... It's... very particular.
|
On July 02 2015 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 00:34 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On July 02 2015 00:15 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2015 00:06 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 23:52 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote:
From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing. I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on. So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism? Plansix, what the fuck I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values. Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either. We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan. You are so wrong it hurts.... Show nested quote +"Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona was upset, too. 'What this guy just did set back everything I've been trying to do for years,' said Ancona, who leads the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. [...]
" 'I believe in racial separation but it doesn't have to be violent,' he told CNN. 'People in the Klan are professional people, business people, working types. We are a legitimate organization.' Show nested quote +“We don’t hate people because of their race. I mean, we’re a Christian organization,” Frank Ancona, an Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, told WWBT on Thursday.
He insisted that the KKK had been unfairly maligned for its acts of violence against black people in the United States.
“Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen our Klansmen are supposed to be murderers and want to lynch black people, and we are supposed to be terrorists, and that is a complete falsehood.”
They don't think segregation is racist. So that's how you have a bunch of racist dipshits claiming not to be racist. It's become abundantly clear the people here are pretty clueless about race in the south.
MWahahaha "Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights"
How does anyone take these guys seriously.
|
On July 02 2015 04:56 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2015 00:34 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On July 02 2015 00:15 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2015 00:06 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 23:52 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote:
From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing. I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on. So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism? Plansix, what the fuck I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values. Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either. We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan. You are so wrong it hurts.... "Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona was upset, too. 'What this guy just did set back everything I've been trying to do for years,' said Ancona, who leads the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. [...]
" 'I believe in racial separation but it doesn't have to be violent,' he told CNN. 'People in the Klan are professional people, business people, working types. We are a legitimate organization.' “We don’t hate people because of their race. I mean, we’re a Christian organization,” Frank Ancona, an Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, told WWBT on Thursday.
He insisted that the KKK had been unfairly maligned for its acts of violence against black people in the United States.
“Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen our Klansmen are supposed to be murderers and want to lynch black people, and we are supposed to be terrorists, and that is a complete falsehood.”
They don't think segregation is racist. So that's how you have a bunch of racist dipshits claiming not to be racist. It's become abundantly clear the people here are pretty clueless about race in the south. MWahahaha "Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights" How does anyone take these guys seriously.
I'm pretty sure a lot of the KKK is delusional idiots believing they're Crusaders or medieval militia or something.
Either that or they've become a self-parody.
|
This might be the wrong thread for it, but this is really funny in terms of the prospects for the republican party in the 2016 presidential election
|
On July 02 2015 05:27 tshi wrote:
This might be the wrong thread for it, but this is really funny in terms of the prospects for the republican party in the 2016 presidential election
Particularly when they are quoting the KKK verbatim.
|
On July 02 2015 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 05:27 tshi wrote:
This might be the wrong thread for it, but this is really funny in terms of the prospects for the republican party in the 2016 presidential election Particularly when they are quoting the KKK verbatim.
Gotta win that primary by pandering to that base. And nothing rallies that base like quoting the KKK.
|
On July 02 2015 04:47 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Traditional American Knights is a single branch of a bunch of Klans who all call themselves the KKK. There's no central leadership anymore, so I'm going off of the one who maintains the site. These guys just look like they're using the motte and bailey approach for PR. Show nested quote +A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of pleasantly habitable land (the Bailey), which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier, such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible, and so neither is the Bailey. Rather, one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.
For my original purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents philosophical propositions with similar properties: desirable to their proponents but only lightly defensible. The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed.
Lol I read this in the comments and immediately thought of Jonny.
The two-step of terrific triviality: “Say something that is ambiguous between something so strong it is absurd and so weak that it would be absurd even to mention it. When attacked, hop from foot to foot as necessary, keeping a serious expression on your face. With luck, you will be able to generate the mistaken impression that you haven’t been knocked flat...”
|
On July 02 2015 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 00:34 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On July 02 2015 00:15 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2015 00:06 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 23:52 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote:
From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing. I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on. So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism? Plansix, what the fuck I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values. Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either. We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan. You are so wrong it hurts.... Show nested quote +"Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona was upset, too. 'What this guy just did set back everything I've been trying to do for years,' said Ancona, who leads the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. [...]
" 'I believe in racial separation but it doesn't have to be violent,' he told CNN. 'People in the Klan are professional people, business people, working types. We are a legitimate organization.' Show nested quote +“We don’t hate people because of their race. I mean, we’re a Christian organization,” Frank Ancona, an Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, told WWBT on Thursday.
He insisted that the KKK had been unfairly maligned for its acts of violence against black people in the United States.
“Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen our Klansmen are supposed to be murderers and want to lynch black people, and we are supposed to be terrorists, and that is a complete falsehood.”
They don't think segregation is racist. So that's how you have a bunch of racist dipshits claiming not to be racist. It's become abundantly clear the people here are pretty clueless about race in the south.
They said they didn't hate them, not that they don't think they're racist.
Nvm. Should probably have looked at the image, lol.
|
On July 02 2015 10:40 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2015 00:34 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On July 02 2015 00:15 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2015 00:06 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 23:52 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2015 23:43 Djzapz wrote:
From reading around it looks like the "Confederate flag" is not really the confederate flag obviously, but it was largely brought back in popular culture in the South (I'm sure somebody brought this up) during the 1940's and in the following decades specifically to oppose desegregation. The flag is essentially a symbol of the confederation that was used to protest against desegregation, to protest against mixing black and whites. That's not that long ago.
It's literally a relatively recent flag that has been mobilized specifically for racial reasons. Whatever noble ideals the confederacy may have stood for, this flag doesn't embody those. That's kind of amusing. I have brought it up over and over, but shockingly the folks who think the flag isn't a symbol of racism have ignored that. They just want to talk about what the flag means to them or whatever selective interpenetration they have decided to hang their hat on. So you're telling me that the flag wasn't really a thing in the 30's, it was brought back in the 40's for the specific purpose of opposing desegregation and people don't think the flag necessarily has anything to do with racism? Plansix, what the fuck I know, it's hard to accept that people are totally disingenuous about racism. Did you also know that the KKK mostly died out in the 1870s and only had a resurgence during the 1950s? They also claim they are a christian community group that is just about protecting American values. Wrong on both counts. They did die out in the 1870s, but became a huge presence in the 20s, and restarted with the release of Birth of a Nation in 1915. And considering their site says "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!", I don't think they're hiding their racism in any way. They weren't back then either. We had a huge KKK church in New Jersey that was on its way out in the 40s and 50s, not resurging. They did have a resurgence as a whole in the 50s, but it wasn't as big as the earlier Klan. You are so wrong it hurts.... "Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona was upset, too. 'What this guy just did set back everything I've been trying to do for years,' said Ancona, who leads the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. [...]
" 'I believe in racial separation but it doesn't have to be violent,' he told CNN. 'People in the Klan are professional people, business people, working types. We are a legitimate organization.' “We don’t hate people because of their race. I mean, we’re a Christian organization,” Frank Ancona, an Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, told WWBT on Thursday.
He insisted that the KKK had been unfairly maligned for its acts of violence against black people in the United States.
“Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen our Klansmen are supposed to be murderers and want to lynch black people, and we are supposed to be terrorists, and that is a complete falsehood.”
They don't think segregation is racist. So that's how you have a bunch of racist dipshits claiming not to be racist. It's become abundantly clear the people here are pretty clueless about race in the south. They said they didn't hate them, not that they don't think they're racist.
In case you're serious...
But is the latest effort to adopt a highway an introduction of a new era of a kinder, gentler Klan or merely an effort to gain attention? After more than a century and a half, what is the Ku Klux Klan today?
"We're not racists," Chambers told CNN Monday.
Source
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Folks, self-segregation happens all the time...
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
Seriously.
|
On July 02 2015 10:52 TanGeng wrote:
Folks, self-segregation happens all the time...
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
Seriously.
The hell are you talking about?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On July 02 2015 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 10:52 TanGeng wrote:
Folks, self-segregation happens all the time...
If self-segregation is an expression of racism, the black church that the shooter attacked was racist and we have a discussion of why those affluent blacks aren't properly integrated into society.
Seriously. The hell are you talking about?
Are you obtuse??
As obnoxious as it is for those white people to claim that they are proud of white company and then self-segregate into white only communities, it's equally obnoxious for other people to equate that behavior with outright racism and then ignore it when "minorities" do the same fucking thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
