"I don't like black people, do you?"

[peeonme]

Being a decent human being isn't a cause it's an obligation to the rest of the world, silence=death.

I feel an obligation to the rest of the world to stand for normal societal evolution rather than forcing others to take a point of view that they have a right to disagree with. Will you recant?

 

[Alistair]

No he did the cowardly thing, unless your life is in danger you have an obligation to speak up when someone is being racist, sexist, homophobic etc.

At the very least you should remove yourself from the situation.

I don't mind letting them talk. It's always good to know who the racists, sexists, and homophobes are. As you can see by this thread talking isn't going to change anyone's mind.

 

[ClubLevelVegan]

It's not like he killed somebody. Or buried them in his basement.

Wow, what a straw man. Imagine needing to use Murder to try and play down why someones “view” isn’t bad.

 

[rareboy]

I don't mind letting them talk. It's always good to know who the racists, sexists, and homophobes are. As you can see by this thread talking isn't going to change anyone's mind.

You are so right.

The Us is a structurally racist, Jim Crow country. No one will ever change minds.

It is handed down like the family silver.

Man Hurling N-Word At Black Lives Matter Activist In Front Of Little Girl Says She’s ‘Probably Heard It In School’

https://percolately.com/man-n-word-black-lives-matter-rant/?

 

[ClubLevelVegan]

Sounds like the kind of guy JUB members want to have a conversation about why the man doesn’t like Black people over Tea. He just needs to be reasoned with clearly.

 

[Cormac135]

I feel an obligation to the rest of the world to stand for normal societal evolution rather than forcing others to take a point of view that they have a right to disagree with. Will you recant?

Of course i won't, appeasers and low level operatives should always be called out, kill the weed before it grows.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Wow, what a straw man. Imagine needing to use Murder to try and play down why someones “view” isn’t bad.

It went over your head. That was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Cormac's hinting that he did that once or twice.

You are so right.

The Us is a structurally racist, Jim Crow country. No one will ever change minds.

[Text: Removed] The face of the US has changed dramatically since the '60's.

Even the definition of racism has had to be revised in order to even faintly make the assertion that racism is still prevalent. When the marches and legislation began making gains, they were fighting widespread housing discrimination, employment discrimination, intermarriage prohibitions, adoption segregation, segregation in education/society/business, Jim Crow poll taxes, lynchings, and on and on.

That is not the US today. Progress has been made. Socio-economic equality isn't achieved, but minorities and the majority attend the same schools, same churches, grocery stores, restaurants, public venues, parks, and racial intermarriages are common in every state in the Union. The society and nation have made a great deal of progress, and we are working to continue to do so in areas like the justice system, elimination of redlining, defeat of voter suppression initiatives, increased access to health care, and full employment.

No one pretends the society has reached some nirvana-like state of perfection, but the things that MLK dreamt of have begun to come true in degrees. Children of all races do play together, attend the same proms, date one another. Their parents shop side by side in the same Aldi/Kroger/Shoprite. They are welcome to join congregations spanning from Fundamentalists to LDS to Catholic to Lutheran to Wiccan. Many Latino and Korean communities have found existing churches welcoming them to ESL classes, and services in their own languages or the use of their buildings to host their own congregations.

Employment has been opened up to women and minorities such that if any blatant disparity is challenged in many cases, it can be won with the help of SPLC, ACLU, NAACP, and other advocates.

And NONE of that was the rule in the 60's. Not in Boston, not in Minneapolis, and not in Birmingham.

So, you are proven wrong on the face of your statement. The fact that we have progressed to this point is objective evidence that change has occurred, and a significant percentage of the majority population has changed their view of minorities and equality.

Sounds like the kind of guy JUB members want to have a conversation about why the man doesn’t like Black people over Tea. He just needs to be reasoned with clearly.

I'd hope there's not ANY view that is shared by all JUB members. We are not monolithic. There in nothing inherently in common among gay men but being attracted to men sexually.

Whereas Aristo's tenant does sound like a piece of work, we have nothing but a single statement and nothing by way of explanation. He didn't say blacks shouldn't be in his kids' school. He didn't say he thought blacks don't deserve fair pay and housing. He didn't even say anything that was critical of blacks beyond saying he didn't like them as a group. That's clearly racist, but it's not clearly extreme. Lots of people say they don't like gays, or Canadians, or Californians. We don't all like the same things. If someone is a racist, that is a big strike against him socially, but suggesting we have nothing to talk about is certainly not what the civil rights reformers of the 60's believed. They engaged society, and by doing so, changed it.

 

[peeonme]

Of course i won't, appeasers and low level operatives should always be called out, kill the weed before it grows.

The problem being is the fact that those who are in power can decide that the good of the majority trumps (pun intended) individual rights. When free thought expressed by free speech and a free press disappear a person is no longer an individual but just a cog in a machine controlled by the few. Of course when a person says that Lincoln owned slaves they have a right to be wrong... I have a right to tell them so. Everyone thinks that a person should never be offended by what another person says. When the socialists Marxists finally take power by silencing free speech, free press and free thought they won't care who gets offended... but you better not offend them.

 

[peeonme]

I would add that I had told both family and employers to never use the "N" word when speaking to me. So I don't pander, they can use that word with their fellow knuckle draggers, I have a right to not listen to it.

 

[ClubLevelVegan]

Racism and bigotry in general is not a free speech issue. People can be as racist as they want, but there are consequences to what you do and say. You want to have a conversation with them, I don’t. I’m not saying they’re not allowed to say what they want, but there are consequences to what they are saying. Challenging these ideas, pointing how wrong they are and not tolerating it isn’t quelling free speech.

 

[peeonme]

Racism and bigotry in general is not a free speech issue. People can be as racist as they want, but there are consequences to what you do and say. You want to have a conversation with them, I don’t. I’m not saying they’re not allowed to say what they want, but there are consequences to what they are saying. Challenging these ideas, pointing how wrong they are and not tolerating it isn’t quelling free speech.

The problem that some run into is in stating their opinion in a social media setting such as Facebook. An employer who has a different viewpoint might take action against an innocent remark that is taken out of context. People have been fired because their comments didn't meet the requirements of the PC police. This quells an open free exchange of thoughts and words. It doesn't have to be blatant racism, the news media has been referring to some rioters as protestors. So if one makes a remark and uses the wrong term and offends a person they might be out of a job. If it was truly free speech, there would be no consequences. If you have to pay to say it, it's not free.

 

[TX-Beau]

The problem that some run into is in stating their opinion in a social media setting such as Facebook. An employer who has a different viewpoint might take action against an innocent remark that is taken out of context. People have been fired because their comments didn't meet the requirements of the PC police. This quells an open free exchange of thoughts and words. It doesn't have to be blatant racism, the news media has been referring to some rioters as protestors. So if one makes a remark and uses the wrong term and offends a person they might be out of a job. If it was truly free speech, there would be no consequences. If you have to pay to say it, it's not free.

Oh please, spare us all the "PC Police." Every demo has their own version so you might as well go hide in a hole somewhere because that's the only place you're getting away from the opinions of others.

Why is it that people who excuse bigotry always try very hard to misunderstand Free Speech. Here's the deal, Free Speech means the FED won't censor you, It does not mean you get a free pass to say anything. You don't have Free Speech on someone else's property. If they don't like what you say, they can remove you. That has fuck all to do with Free Speech.

You don't have the right to say things that discriminate, or endanger, or incite. That's the law.

You don't have a "right" to be free of the consequences of what comes out of your mouth, and frankly if what you're saying is so infuriating that someone wants to fire you, maybe you need to be fired.

 

[ClubLevelVegan]

Free speech only applies to the Government. It doesn't apply to a private company that doesn't like what you say that might not be representative of their company or don't want comments like that seen as a representative of their company. And that is perfectly fine. It also doesn't apply to me or you having a problem with what someone says and challenging that, which you have posted that you have done by not allowing people use a racial slur around you. It's not like there is any real true freedom of speech anyway, you can't get into a movie theater and start yelling fire, you can't going around threatening to kill someone.

The problem with freedom of speech is that people don't seem to understand that it only applies to the Government and nothing more. And if people didn't challenge racist or bigot language, civil rights movements wouldn't be where they are today.

 

[TX-Beau]

...if people didn't challenge racist or bigot language, civil rights movements wouldn't be where they are today.

This right here is how progress is made. The bigots will not listen to the object of their bigotry. There must always be consequences when it rears it's head, preferable everywhere they feel free to express it.

 

[mcbrion]

I wish you would've said: "I love them! They're the best!", and seen where it went from there.

You are TOO funny!


The one thing I like about the South, is that when White people don't like Black people, they make it obvious to you.
In other parts of the country, the hide it. I prefer KNOWING who is shunning me because I have a better tan than them. (And it is not lost on me - or many others, for that matter - that many White people hate Blacks, yet spend MONTHS out of the year trying to turn their skin color into ours. The height of irony, n'est-ce pas???)

 

[gsdx]

The height of irony, n'est-ce pas???)

Mais oui. C'est vrai.

 

[Alistair]

This right here is how progress is made. The bigots will not listen to the object of their bigotry. There must always be consequences when it rears it's head, preferable everywhere they feel free to express it.

That's a good point. That's why white people need to speak out when someone says something around them.

 

[SeaCore]

Is it okay to discriminate against people you don't like?

Whoa, boiling down racism to something like a simple dislike is trivializing racism. Racism implicitly makes a place less inviting, comfortable, and safe for the people that racism is directed towards; and hopefully people it's not too.

 

[opinterph]

Whoa, boiling down racism to something like a simple dislike is trivializing racism.

My post doesn’t mention race or racism. It responds to a question in the opening post, which is centered upon an identification that the member titled, “rightwinger,” or “right wing nutjob.” Take that identification along with the format of the title of the thread and you arrive at post number 2 in this thread.

Should I change this policy?

Is it okay to discriminate against people you don't like?

 

[SeaCore]

My post doesn’t mention race or racism. It responds to a question in the opening post, which is centered upon an identification that the member titled, “rightwinger,” or “right wing nutjob.” Take that identification along with the format of the title of the thread and you arrive at post number 2 in this thread.

​

Okay, I see what you mean. You're right and I was wrong.
I'll say this because I would want it said to me, given the inciting incident for this thread and what the title centers I don't think my reading of trivializing racism is an unreasonable interpretation and specifying the subject, 'Is it okay to discriminate against right wing people?', would have removed the ambiguity entirely.
Though I should've asked you what you were getting at first because it did seem a bit out of character.