Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by gwalchmai, Jul 19, 2012.
John Derbyshire asks, and I think he makes excellent points with his discussion.
You have to notice where he twists it from the definition of 'racist' to 'What those Britons mostly desire ...' then goes on to use what some people said to show that the definition of 'racism' has expanded.
It looks like he put together a cogent presentations but it is just a mash up of stuff.
If he avoided the racist aspect and stayed with the cultural change aspect and the importance of a county's culture he might have been able to make a good point. But he didn't.
So you don't think that the definition of racism has expanded?
I'd say hanging people and dragging them behind moving vehicles would be the wrong part.
I'd say that's the work of a murderer, not a racist. Even though said murderer may be racist too.
Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.
As noted, those are crimes in and of themselves. Who cares what the perpetrators were thinking when they did it?
Besides, those things are not inherent characteristics of racists.
Nothing is wrong with being racist, as long as you aren't threatening/hurting anyone else's life/liberty/property.
Me personally, I don't understand why someone would be proud, or ashamed of their hue. FWIW, I love my "Racist" jokes though. What better way to brush off what color you were born into with no choice, than to make fun of it, and others'? More important stuff to worry about than the color of someone's skin.
Was what happened in nazi Germany just murder or also an act of racism?
Sent from my iPhone in the center of my mind.
To add some context, John Derbyshire lost his job with National Review because of an outcry over a piece he wrote (for another company) that came across as, well, racist.
Make of it what you will. But to hear Derb wonder what's wrong with being "racist" given his recent history, well....seems a little self-serving on his part.
Both. But was it their genocide or racism that was the main contributing factor to their punishments at the tribunal ?....
If the nazi party just expressed disgust toward a certain ethnic group, you really think they would have gone to the tribunal?
The day it's illegal to simply be racist, is the day it's time to liquidate all your possessions and head for another country...because this is no longer America. While it may be a flawed way of thinking, it is still a freedom we have.
It was a political move, scapegoating and targeting a race to redistribute their wealth, focus a blame for the economy, and solidify a "nationalist" movement. Hitler claimed the Jews were rich profit mongers that didn't deserve their wealth. They were hoarding the wealth they made off the workers and retarding the economy.
(any similarities to any other political situation is purely coincidental)
Did you just compare the left to the nazis?
Expect a visit from the FBI and Holder now, saying you violated someone's civil rights or something.
Hey I said it was purely coincidental.
But listen to the last speech AH gave before Kristillanacht
I truly don't understand racism. There are so many better reasons to hate people than the color of their skin.
Did he drag anyone of his own race prior or after the event???
I wouldn't know. He's your apparition, not mine.
The biggest problem is the simple fact that people lie about being racist and deny they are racist. Everyone is racist, it's a natural trait. Where the problem arises is how we behave based on that racism we all have. Most people will get on with their lives and never engage in negative behavior... but as always it's a minority that stirs the pot.
How can you call Hitler's killing of the jews racism? They were caucasion, too. Maybe a few Mongols got caught up in the two or three million Russian prisoners that were killed but that wasn't racism either. They were just unlucky enough to be in the russian army during the time the German army was kicking butt.