What is wrong with white male democrats?

Wrong.

All people can be victims of racism. Even white people.

 

All people (including white people) can be victims of prejudice. Which is not the same as "racism".

That's a misunderstanding of the word "racism". A misunderstanding that didn't even exist until recently.
https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism

 

LOL at citing "anti-racist education" websites. That explains a lot. The old, "the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination" training. Also known as teaching people to be racist under the guise of being "anti-racist." If people are telling you that you need to be racist to end racism, you should probably pause and actually give it a second thought rather than believing it blindly.

 

It does? Great! Unless you mean I should give "equal time" to PRO-racist education websites.

 

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the preeminent source for definitions of English words, "racism" means the following:


racism, n.
Prejudice, antagonism, or discrimination by an individual, institution, or society, against a person or people on the basis of their nationality or…

Merriam Webster says:

"
of racism
1
: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"


Encyclopedia Britannica says:

"Racism, also called racialism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others"

 

Please don't incur in the Logical Fallacy known as "Appeal to Definition" or "Fallacy by Dictionary".
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Definition

No dictionary can elucidate the meaning of technical terms. Racism is a term defined by the Social Sciences. Particularly sociology. The link I gave is a sociological analysis of the term.

Having said that, the dictionary definitions you cite are correct. They may be incomplete (as is expected of any dictionary definition) None of them contradict the concept of racism in sociology.

Racism is the oppression of minority ethnic groups typically by the majority ethnic group. So it varies depending of which group is the majority.

BTW, in the Merriam Webster definition, you omitted point 2

2a
: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another

 

lol....keep running

You made a SPECIFIC CLAIM.

You REFUSE to back it up.

I even bolded (post 244) your original claim and you just ran away from it as fast as you could.

Either back it up or we're done.

 

If there is anything I said you disagree with, quote it and tell us your objections. I'm not interested in going "point hunting" for you.

 

If you say a black person cannot commit a racist act against a white person, you are lying.

 

I had some time and looked back at the post you reference. The statement you appear to be having trouble with is " The idea they want to push is that there cannot possibly be a qualified black woman to fill in the position."

First, let me explain to you how this works: In an online forum, I provide my position, and you counter it with YOURS. If you don't think that white supremacists want to push the idea that a black woman is qualified for the Senate, then tell us your position. We compare them, and we figure out if you have a point. Demanding "proof" is childish. Because that is the basic premise of racism.

I stand 100% behind the text you quoted in bold! So, now that you know how forums work, do you have anything to say? If you don't believe white supremacists want to push the idea that black women are not qualified to be Senators, what is it you think white supremacists believe?

 

It doesn't matter what I say. That is NOT what the word "racism" means. You are confusing "racism" with "prejudice". Looks like the twisted narrative has affected people who are otherwise reasonable.

The expanded explanation is in the link I sent. I urge you to read it. I have many others from technical sources (not dictionaries)

 

I thought it was clear that I disagreed with your position. In fact I know it was.

I asked you to back up yours since I can't prove a negative (I can't prove that those you listed aren't doing something, it's on you to prove that they are as you claimed). You claimed they pushed that there are no black women who are qualified and I asked you to support your position and you've not even attempted to. You've only deflected.

You made a claim and can't support it. You've made that crystal clear. I told you that you wouldn't support your argument and you've proven me right.

We are done, I proved my point.

 

This is why free speech is essential. The more opinions the better the result. And we need to hear from one end of the spectrum to the other. This is how a proper consensus is formed.

If you believe you know better, then you are truly delusional [as are all socialist/communists].

 

Give me a couple examples of your socialist democracies.

 

Not always. Some opinions feel like we all become dumber for having read them.

 

You don't understand the most important thing about free speech.

You need free speech so your ideas die instead of you.

 

Google "socialist democracies." Glad I could help.

 

What you refer to as "socialist democracies" are capitalist with high taxes and [unsustainable] wealth transference.

 

So you think we should have made landfall and fought for a couple years slaughtering countless more than the bombs killed? Knowing they wouldn’t surrender that way? Knowing they sacrifice their own to win?

Glad you’re NOT in the military.

 

Because animals are animals. And Palestinians are animals who support wiping an entire country off the map instead of living in peace given countless opportunities.

I’m NOT surprised people support these animals the same way I’m NOT surprised people support open borders, rioting/looting in our cities, abolishing our police and “eating” the rich. They’re unintelligent, uneducated morons.

 

I didn't say that.

People keep pointing at those two bombs while ignoring the fact that the US bombed civilians at other times as well.

 

But they are represented. Some demographics just don’t overly represent what Leftists feel is their utopian view. Hence why people think we need equity. Equity is NOT reality or fair or equal. It’s a manufactured “equality” where the under performing and less capable are propped up to overcompensate for what they lack.

It’s why a leftist thinks it’s OK to have black people represented as if they’re are 50% of the nation. You say simple? Fine. Then be simple and HONEST and admit why certain demographics to this day with no barriers and every possible federal advantage still perform the way they do, act the way they do, still do what they do, even after decades of having no excuses. Sorry. Be honest.

 

But you certainly implied it. Of course you think it was bad or unfair or mean that we used the bombs. But Japan started a war. We finished a war. They shouldn't have started what they couldn’t finish. We did in the most humane way possible at that time.

 

Thanks for proving my point. I would support any thing that opposed attitudes such as this

 

disagree, anyone can be a racist against another race