Confederate Flag Removed from stores - Page 22

On July 02 2015 11:51 TanGeng wrote:


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.

On July 02 2015 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:


Clearly you are ignorant about the situation. Black people didn't "Self-segregate" not to mention this all came up because they didn't think twice about a strange white guy coming into their church which is not exclusionary at all.

Hard to imagine how people can be so oblivious and not just being intentionally disingenuous.

On July 02 2015 12:36 TanGeng wrote:

Wow, You are obtuse.

Self-segregation and self-selection happens all the time. Marriage and children is a severe case of self-selection and self-segregation.

If you are going to attack white supremacy groups, at least attack them for the white supremacy rather than common everyday occurrences.

The billboard is obnoxious and probably doesn't accuracy reflect their more severe private opinions but simply trotting out segregation as an indicator of racism is really really weak.

On July 02 2015 12:55 FHDH wrote:
Sorry TanGeng but what you're talking about right now is clearly something you don't understand.

I don't have time to go into it, but:

1) Black people are in clusters because they were put there. By white people. Who want to claim the same right to sequester themselves.

2) The demographic in power is held to a different standard. When it comes to "race" - a social construct created by white people - there are two interrelated but distinct definitions of racism. One refers to individual biases based on one's concept of race. This is hardly exclusive to whites, as has been pointed out by defensive white people for centuries. The other is the systemic oppression of minorities by the dominant race. Historically black churches represent neither of these.

With respect to the Black/White difference in testosterone level, African Americans have a clear testosterone advantage over Euro-Americans only from puberty to about 24 years of age. This advantage then shrinks and eventually disappears at some point during the 30s. The pattern then seems to reverse at older ages.

Critics say that more recent studies done since the early 2000'ss have shown no differences between Black and White testosterone levels. Perhaps they are referring to recent studies that show lower testosterone levels in adult Blacks than in adult Whites. This was the conclusion of one recent study (Alvergne et al. 2009) which found lower T levels in Senegalese men than in Western men. But these Senegalese men were 38.3 years old on average.

These critics may also be referring to various studies by Sabine Rohrmann which show no significance difference in T levels between Black and White Americans. Age is poorly controlled for in her studies.

Race isn't just a "social construct", and white people had nothing to do with it.

On July 02 2015 13:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
This just keeps getting worse...

On July 02 2015 13:15 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Show nested quote +

Race isn't just a "social construct", and white people had nothing to do with it. Racism goes back to virtually any culture who came across a different looking people semi-frequently. As for race itself, there's actually different physiological differences among the races. For example, blacks have higher testosterone levels on average than whites

Show nested quote +


Not saying it justifies racism, or this is the only example, but to say that white people made up the idea of race for their own benefit is silly.


Race is a social construct. There is no biological basis that differentiates "races" as we know them. Black people don't have genetic markers that make them "black". Asians don't have genetic markers that make them "Asian". These delineations (primarily relying on skin color) are arbitrary, and only loosely (at best) correlate with certain physical characteristics. The random examples of physical characteristics that are "typical" of a race are merely genetic variations due to population clustering throughout history, and not because a certain race has a certain genetic makeup that is different than another's.

On July 02 2015 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:


And this is where we are...

"Separate but equal" nothing racist to see here folks, move right along... That's two different notable members trotting out this non-sense faux-intellectualizing.

On July 02 2015 14:32 Simberto wrote:


It kinda depends on context, though.

If there is a subgroup that consists of mostly black or mostly white people, that does not necessarily mean that it is racist. As mentioned before in the case of "black" churches, there are mostly black people there. That doesn't mean that those are racist against white people. That would only be the case if white people were not welcome.

And there are probably other groups that attract mostly white people and thus consist of mostly white people without being racist.

It starts becoming racist the second people of other colours are not welcome.

On July 02 2015 14:42 GreenHorizons wrote:


You're a post away from 5k, don't waste it on this dumbass topic.

The word duh comes to mind though. It's only being brought up to pretend there is even anything of substance to discuss about the flag and it's availability, when the OP clearly had no idea what they were talking about.

This is about 10 posts from just turning into typical intellectualized racism (not that there hasn't been plenty already).

On July 02 2015 15:42 Wegandi wrote:


You talked about gentrification, which is a socio-economic consequence, not a racist one, to wit you attributed it to. In your lens, anything remotely majority white is racist, but the latter isn't. I just wanted to point out how idiotic it is to say gentrification is racist, but hey, I've heard all the complaints from folks from Detroit about whites moving into the city and 'making it expensive' to know the street is two ways.

On July 02 2015 05:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:

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.

On July 02 2015 13:57 North2 wrote:

Well we can identify genetic markers if we really wanted to. For example, all non-African people have some Neanderthal in them. There are definitely genetic differences due to population clustering over time.

On July 12 2015 20:17 AttackZerg wrote:


Not all non-African people have been proven to have some Neanderthal in them. Africans may have bred with Neanderthals, it hasn't been proven. You may be correct, and one day the answer might be proven beyond doubt, but as of now, it is too early in the field to make such imperical claims, even if there is evidence it could be true.

The large genetic differences came from thousands of years of inbreding.

That is why I love white supremists, "My family inbred so much that we can claim to be a difference race!"

In a similar vein, it is pretty funny when white supremists get WHITE tattooed in BLACK ink.

It's the small things in life....