Selective Outrage when It Comes to Racism

Yes you with your 60 something posts is aware of peoples posting history. See any mention of Clarence Thomas for him calling anyone an Uncle Tom.

Your act is old already just go back to your old screen name.

 

Black people are as likely to be the victims of white on black racism as they are to be the victims of white on black crime.
White people are as likely to be the victims of black of white racism as they are to be the victims of black on white crime.

White people have taken the lead sanctioning those among their ranks who are intolerant of other races.
No one, no one, expects blacks to follow their lead.

 

You are the one disagreeing with MLK not me. Please do not misrepresent my words. That's deceitful to other posters. Clearly, I have stated my position in this thread and in many others.
Also, Barack Obama is no MLK. He is the exact opposite and set anything MLK attempted to achieve back to zero. He is a racist with power and a mission to divide us. He is an absolute disgrace to this nation.
P.S. who is like MLK today?

 

racist conservatives? Perhaps you missed all the MSNBC racists. Would you like the videos? Perhaps you missed all the liberals here in Boston twittering their racial slurs. Perhaps you missed the President making race an issue at every chance including defending a filthy scummy murderer who buried a young girl alive. Lastly people don't disagree with Obama because he is black they disagree with him because of his horrifically bad decisions and policies that have done nothing but damage and divide the nation.
Can you cite a few posts where any right wing conservative stated they disagreed with him because of his skin color or did you just make that up? Lets see how you picked up on the pattern.

 

You got all the breitbart talking points down to a T, eh?

Oh, and I never said people disagreed with Obama because he was black. Looks like you have to resort to making up lies when trying to advance your agenda.

 

You are correct. Uncle Tom is a pejorative description but it's not a racist one. An Uncle Tom is a black person who would "sell out", in other words support policies or actions knowing that they would be devasating to another, or many other, black people, in order to acquire some personal benefit, such as career advancement or money. In slavery times, a good example would be someone who would snitch on a prospective runaway to the slave owner hoping to curry favor or some reward. If a black person called the snitch an Uncle Tom, it would be out of anger about what was considered to be a despicable betrayal.

A black person who uses this description is clearly expressing disdain but the insult is not based on feelings of racial superiority. There couldn't be a scenario in which that made sense, since they are the same race. People who call the term racist probably don't even understand what it means.

 

That is interesting since in the book he was beat to death for not snitching. The book that was the best selling book of the 19th century written by a "black" women. It is funny people use the version written by "white" people for theater and a movie as their choice for the description of Uncle Tom.

The term is racially charged and shows a slave mentality for the person using it. The odds are very good that person is a racist. Yet since Webster's says you can only be racist against other races it must be ok.

 

No you didn't you said;
You said if MLK were alive today he would be fighting the same "racist conservatives"
Which conservatives were you speaking of? The ones that support Obama or the ones that don't? You tell me and clear it up for the readers.
P.S. If he were alive today he would be dealing with all racists including the leftist ones as well. That was his point.

 

Name these 'racist conservatives' you speak of. And MLK would certainly be appalled at all the race pimps like Sharpton and Jesse who reLIE on dividing people by race instead of developing the 'content of character'.

 

Of course it's a racist term. It is used to imply that a black man/woman is acting like a white person and taking sides against what they deem is right for the blacks. The term is all about race.

 

Its a part of it, unless the people on this forum are aliens. Some of the folks on this forum are probably school teachers, nurses, fireman, police officers, etc.

LOL, again you don't have a clue as to why black folks call certain black folks "Uncle Toms". It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Actually that is what I think you want.

 

Spare me the BS. The same folks who don't like Rev Jackson, Rev Sharpton, Pres. Obama, etc. wouldn't like Dr. King either if he were still alive today. Only a fool would believe that Dr. King would side with the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, New Gingrich, John Boehner and others.

He definitely wouldn't associate with the likes of Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, Larry Elder, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Please name all the great conservatives who are bringing people together by race.

 

Most of the ones you deal with on this forum are trolls. Trolls dont post what they think or feel they post (*)(*)(*)(*) to stir the pot.

I know what "Uncle Tom" means and it certainly isnt a complement. I also know you dont speak for "Black folks".

 

You need to go and listen to or read King's speeches. Now if you come away thinking he would be for the dem race pimps you covet, you need to clean your ears out.

Name any lib that is bringing races together. That will only happen when people accept each other irrespective of race. No politician will do that. But your blessed dems sure love to tear the races apart. Starting with Rev Jackson, Rev Sharpton, Pres. Obama, etc.

I can understand why Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, Larry Elder upset you. Not 'black' enough? Or you simply can't grasp good, common sense.

 

The problem isn't so much that there is a double standard but instead that there isn't an appropiate amount of outrage over racism at all.

According to the most recent study I'm aware from 2012 of roughly 56% of Americans have anti-black racial prejudice in the United States. Racial prejudice is the foundation of racism.

Why aren't we "up in arms" over the extent of racial prejudice expressing our outrage on a daily basis? Why aren't we addressing the demographic groups that express racial prejudice proportionately to the extent of the racial prejudice expressed within the group?

The study from 2012 reflected that 32% of Democrats expressed explicit anti-black racial pejudice. Why aren't we outraged over this?
The same study reflected that just over 51% of Independents (that would include libertarians) expressed explicit anti-black racial pejudice. Why aren't we outraged over this?
Finally the same study reflected that 79% of Republicans expressed explicit anti-black racial pejudice. Why aren't we outraged over this?

Why is there no apparent outrage over this racial prejudice in the United States? That is the real problem because it is really the greatest single problem we have in America, How about House Republicans drop their politically motivate investigations about Benghazi and instead start a investigation into the racial prejudice of the Republican and Democratic Members of the House of Representatives? Now that's a problem really worth looking into.

 

Sigh! Most such examples of "anti-black racial pejudice" consists of leftwingers hysterically labelling as racist ANYTHING that does not conform to leftwing propaganda bullet points Political Correctness. That's one reason that the entire nation is not up in arms about racism, which is that the Left has long since resorted to using the Race Card for strictly political advantage and people have gotten sick of it. The entire Left is equivalent to The Youngster Who Cried Wolf . . . all . . . the . . . damn . . . time.

Oh and then there really is a growing aversion to the Left's blatant hypocrisy in auto-condemning anyone NOT a member of the Democratic Party as racist but then rubber stamp endorsing the blatant racism of -- say -- a leftwing Democrat calling a Republican Chief Justice the racial slur "Uncle Tom." The average citizen has taken note of such things . . . and does not like it.

 

The problem is that racism and racial prejudice can only be addressed within a political ideology.

A Republican is not going to listen to a Democrat that condemns Republicans for racial prejudice but there is racial prejudice amoung Republicans.
A Democrat is not going to listen to a Republican that condemns Democrats for racial prejudice but there is racial prejudice among Democrats.
A Libertarian is not going to listen to either a Republican or a Democrat that condemns Libertarians for racial prejudice but there is racial prejudice among Libertarians.

Only someone within a political ideology can address prejudice within the ideology will be listened too but what we see is the "greater the prejudice" the less likely the leaders of the political ideology are willing to address it.

What we do seem to see is that the more the political leaders of a political ideology are willing to address "racial prejudice" even if it's in general the lower the levels of racial prejudice within the political ideology. Democrats, for example, are probably twice as likely to address anti-black racial prejudice than Republicans and explicit anti-black racial prejudice is roughly half as much in the Democratic Party (32%) when compared to the Republican Party (79%). It's bad in both parties but it's twice as bad in the Republican Party because Republicans don't want to talk about it.

 

Wrong. Politicians, primarily and almost exclusively democrats, are the problem when it comes to feeding the beast that is racism. The dems use it as a tool to divide people. Much like you use racism in your sig. So since you embrace racism or at least are so absorbed by it to making it your signature I offer you another former POTUS named Johnson.....................“I’ll have those [N-WORD] voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2014/02/flash...c-for-the-next-200-years/#KRoE0FLm71MiVFKY.99

 

We're not referring to anecdotal stories (e.g. Cliven Bundy) but instead are referring to scientific study results.

The test for explicit racial prejudice used questions where "stereotyping" and not "political correctness" was being used in answering the questions. Studies on racial prejudice are very well constructed and political ideology is expressly removed from them as they are subject to peer review where it would be obvious if the questions were based upon political ideology. We would also have a "disputing" study if political ideology was a factor. There isn't even any evidence that "liberals" created the tests because the political ideology of the people creating the test is irrelevant.

 

Why do folks always have to "hurl" racial epithets, especially on a venue that barely affords a whisper for the public to hear?

Of course, it is not explained how Thompson's reference on some obscure website is supposed to raise many eyebrows when very, very few folks would be aware of it, nor why a Mississippi congressman would merit the same attention as a high-profile billionaire that owns an NBA team.

Contriving false equivalency is the blatant "double standard" here, but such is in abundance on radical websites, right and left of course.

The vast majority of Americans are not ideological extremists and readily see through such pathetic, partisan ploys.

One dead certainty: Radical rightists will do far more to spread Thompson's opinion of Thomas than whoever it is that is supposed to find it "acceptable." (Must we include Antonin Scalia,
Samuel Alito, John Roberts, etc. since none have been reported to have even "barely raised an eyebrow? - Not a one.)

​

,

 

It is ironic and unfortunate that the real Uncle Tom's story has been lost. However, we still have to look at the prevalent intent when black people use the phrase to describe other blacks today and clearly, the intent is not to say that my race is better than yours.

 

As I stated, people who THINK its a racist term, don't understand its usage. Your definition is incorrect. However, since you think you know, tell me what it means to act white. I'll be waiting. By the way, the phrase "the blacks" is boorish. It is a coarse description for "black people". Apparently, you don't know that, either.

 

And we simply disagree. The whole term is in the context of race. Prove when it isn't. And get over my terminology and stop diverting. If you wish to be an apologists for racism and how racists apply 'Uncle Tom', prattle somewhere else.

 

As to that I would have to study the questions and find out how they were delivered and who they were delivered to and when. You see the problem with quoting such studies as irrefutable reference sources is that too many people have taken statistics and have been involved in polling studies and even in 'scientific' projects to swallow examined purportedly golden results.

We live in an age in which social 'scientists' and other science types periodically proclaim -- the end-all, be-all never-ever can be refuted and couldn't possibly be wrong -- findings only to -- gasp! -- in five to ten to fifteen years sheepishly announce -- and usually in whispers, "Um - er -uh . . . about that stuff we told you back then and that you (Ha! Ha!) actually based laws and social conventions on? Um . . . well . . . you see back then we didn't know about the connection of X,Y, and Z factors to . . . um . . . well fork you then if you can't take a joke!"

Yeah . . . that sort of thing gets on people's nerves after a while and they tend to look at such announcements as . . . inherently suspect.

 

If you're going to use a term, you should understand it and use it correctly. That is how communication works. You don't take umbrage at people for expecting you to convey meanings accurately. We don't simply disagree - you are uninformed. Yes, race is a social construct and when people speak about race they do so within the context of this artificial, yet palpable paradigm. How does that in any way coincide with the definition of racism? I'm STILL waiting for you to define the phrase "acting white" but I have many other things to do, so I won't be able to respond right away.