Can A Statement Be Racist If It's True?

[Bryce]

Plus, YM, If you want to come to the U.S. it should be because you want to be a AMERICAN. Embrace our culture, language and ethics. Not to get goodies and immediately try to change things.

[bmw]

Plus, YM, If you want to come to the U.S. it should be because you want to be a AMERICAN. Embrace our culture, language and ethics. Not to get goodies and immediately try to change things.

Those people will never embrace our American culture for one simple reason - that our country was founded by a bunch of racist white dudes.

[TC Talks]

Seems to me there's an awful lot of ethical and cognitive gymnastics being played here as to why statements or sentiments are not racist. I'll only chime in that if you would feel the need you would have to to go through similar gyrations with people such as your employer, pastor or look your your kids in the eyes to justify why something that is clearly racist isn't, it's a pretty good bet it won't pass the smell test in this particular forum either.

History is rife with empty souls who slept well at night secure in their own delusional justifications.

Nope. Its because hateful leftists like you throw the allegation around to besmearch others for political gain. Its libel and im fed up and had enough of it. Time to defend myself against scum who try to ruin reputations to keep their side in power.

You sure whine a lot for a racist.

Go look up libel sometime, that gave me a good laugh. It's that kind of logic that allowed you basket of deplorables to elect Trump.

[TC Talks]

Plus, YM, If you want to come to the U.S. it should be because you want to be a AMERICAN. Embrace our culture, language and ethics. Not to get goodies and immediately try to change things.

Those people will never embrace our American culture for one simple reason - that our country was founded by a bunch of racist white dudes.

Our true blue American values includes monster trucks, incest and Mountain Dew?

We have embraced every culture in the world... Let's start this discussion out with food... Tamales anyone?

[Y M Ionhere]

Seems to me there's an awful lot of ethical and cognitive gymnastics being played here as to why statements or sentiments are not racist. I'll only chime in that if you would feel the need you would have to to go through similar gyrations with people such as your employer, pastor or look your your kids in the eyes to justify why something that is clearly racist isn't, it's a pretty good bet it won't pass the smell test in this particular forum either.

History is rife with empty souls who slept well at night secure in their own delusional justifications.

Nope. Its because hateful leftists like you throw the allegation around to besmearch others for political gain. Its libel and im fed up and had enough of it. Time to defend myself against scum who try to ruin reputations to keep their side in power.

You sure whine a lot for a racist.

Go look up libel sometime, that gave me a good laugh. It's that kind of logic that allowed you basket of deplorables to elect Trump.

Calling a man you dont even know a damaging term like "racist"?

This goes beyond political disagreements. This is a malicious attempt to impugn the character of someone you dont even know.

[screen glare]

To answer the question which started this thread -

Yes. A statement can be TRULY racist.

Do not attempt to explain to a racist WHY their views, opinions, statements, or anything else they espouse are racist. They will NEVER comprehend that truth. Instead they will try to justify their racist conclusions.

[bmw]

If Trump proposes repealing the 13th Amendment (bringing back slavery), legalizing segregation, or if he starts calling black people n*ggers, then I'll be the first to come back here and call him a racist. Until then, I've seen nothing that rises above the level of bigotry - and even most of that appears to be rooted in intolerance of those who support socialism as opposed to intolerance of one's skin color.

It is mind-boggling to me how much the goal posts have moved throughout our history as to what constitutes racism. Actual racism did exist for much of our history.

Slavery? THAT is racist.
Counting black people as 3/5 human? THAT is racist.
Segregation? THAT is racist.
Calling black people the N-word? THAT is racist.

Disagreeing with or even sharply criticizing people of color over their political views? That is NOT racist, at least so long as your disagreement isn't rooted in white supremacy. Bigotry? Maybe.

[Lester The Nightfly]

If Trump proposes repealing the 13th Amendment (bringing back slavery), legalizing segregation, or if he starts calling black people n*ggers, then I'll be the first to come back here and call him a racist. Until then, I've seen nothing that rises above the level of bigotry - and even most of that appears to be rooted in intolerance of those who support socialism as opposed to intolerance of one's skin color.

It is mind-boggling to me how much the goal posts have moved throughout our history as to what constitutes racism. Actual racism did exist for much of our history.

Slavery? THAT is racist.
Counting black people as 3/5 human? THAT is racist.
Segregation? THAT is racist.
Calling black people the N-word? THAT is racist.

Disagreeing with or even sharply criticizing people of color over their political views? That is NOT racist, at least so long as your disagreement isn't rooted in white supremacy. Bigotry? Maybe.

Anyone attacking people of color that hold office to lessen their political impact is racist. No "N'" word required.

[bmw]

Anyone attacking people of color that hold office to lessen their political impact is racist. No "N'" word required.

Again, there are TWO HALVES to the definition of racism, both halves of which must be met in order to meet the definition. You continue to fail to address the latter half.

[TC Talks]

Anyone attacking people of color that hold office to lessen their political impact is racist. No "N'" word required.

Again, there are TWO HALVES to the definition of racism, both halves of which must be met in order to meet the definition. You continue to fail to address the latter half.

But trying to judge this topic from the perspective of the oppressor isn't going to be successful. There are very few people (Trump being one of them) who would deliberately be racist. I doubt you would be, but the intention isn't always a measure of effect.

[Lester The Nightfly]

Anyone attacking people of color that hold office to lessen their political impact is racist. No "N'" word required.

Again, there are TWO HALVES to the definition of racism, both halves of which must be met in order to meet the definition. You continue to fail to address the latter half.

Nope. I feel no requirement to parse what Trump is doing. What you're attempting to advocate is the same as "very fine people on both sides". No, one side was made up of white supremacists. No amount of cognitive dissonance will change that. Period.

[Bryce]

What you're attempting to advocate is the same as "very fine people on both sides". No, one side was made up of white supremacists. No amount of cognitive dissonance will change that. Period.

No, one side was not made up entirely of white supremacists. If one actually takes the time to read the entire conference in context, an honest person, without a agenda, could not claim that to be racist.

" I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent."

"Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee

"Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

Read The entire text here:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... s-remarks/

[bmw]

Thank you for posting that, Bryce, you beat me to it. Trump, as a lawyer might say, "clearly and unequivocally" directed his "fine people on both sides" statement towards people who oppose the removal of statues and renaming of parks. He even acknowledged that there were White Supremacists present, but made it very clear that these were NOT the people he was talking about.

This isn't "cognitive dissonance." This is established fact.

[Bryce]

It would seem, that if held to the same standard, Mr. Cummings is a racist too.

[Lester The Nightfly]

No, one side was not made up entirely of white supremacists. If one actually takes the time to read the entire conference in context, an honest person, without a agenda, could not claim that to be racist.

But only one tribe had a member who murdered someone...