Awesome Protest Signs

[I am lizard]

Obviously I mean the State as an institution - the State Government in the 1960s.

Would you consider the institutions of the FBI and the government of Alabama to be comparably bad to the Black Panthers? Whether or not they're exactly on par, do you think the two institutions broadly were similar and similarly bad? Your little meme seems to suggest so. Yes or no?

You're asking me to compare apples and oranges.  Let me ask you this: do you think David Duke is as bad as Robert Mugabe?

Besides, it's talking about modern movements.  The original Black Panthers aren't relevant anymore.  You might as well be asking me about the Yippies.

70% of all racial hate crimes in the U.S. are committed but only 18 percent were committed against whites, to say that anti-white hate crimes are equally as pressing as anti-black hate crimes seems dishonest. In addition to that the Black Panthers are nowhere near as bad as the KKK as they never achieved the same body count or the same level of widespread terror.


As for your question:
Would you say the prime minister of Estonia was ever comparable to Stalin's chef?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Obviously I mean the State as an institution - the State Government in the 1960s.

Would you consider the institutions of the FBI and the government of Alabama to be comparably bad to the Black Panthers? Whether or not they're exactly on par, do you think the two institutions broadly were similar and similarly bad? Your little meme seems to suggest so. Yes or no?

You're asking me to compare apples and oranges.  Let me ask you this: do you think David Duke is as bad as Robert Mugabe?

Besides, it's talking about modern movements.  The original Black Panthers aren't relevant anymore.  You might as well be asking me about the Yippies.

70% of all racial hate crimes in the U.S. are committed but only 18 percent were committed against whites, to say that anti-white hate crimes are equally as pressing as anti-black hate crimes seems dishonest. In addition to that the Black Panthers are nowhere near as bad as the KKK as they never achieved the same body count or the same level of widespread terror. The meme also seems really corny, sure the message is fine but it presents it in a really bad way and sounds cheesy.


As for your question:
Would you say the prime minister of Estonia was ever comparable to Stalin's chef?

You're missing the point.  It's not about body counts, it's about division.

[I am lizard]

Oh, I see, never mind what I just said.

[Lt. Fred]

Obviously I mean the State as an institution - the State Government in the 1960s.

Would you consider the institutions of the FBI and the government of Alabama to be comparably bad to the Black Panthers? Whether or not they're exactly on par, do you think the two institutions broadly were similar and similarly bad? Your little meme seems to suggest so. Yes or no?

You're asking me to compare apples and oranges.  Let me ask you this: do you think David Duke is as bad as Robert Mugabe?

Besides, it's talking about modern movements.  The original Black Panthers aren't relevant anymore.  You might as well be asking me about the Yippies.

70% of all racial hate crimes in the U.S. are committed but only 18 percent were committed against whites, to say that anti-white hate crimes are equally as pressing as anti-black hate crimes seems dishonest. In addition to that the Black Panthers are nowhere near as bad as the KKK as they never achieved the same body count or the same level of widespread terror. The meme also seems really corny, sure the message is fine but it presents it in a really bad way and sounds cheesy.


As for your question:
Would you say the prime minister of Estonia was ever comparable to Stalin's chef?

You're missing the point.  It's not about body counts, it's about division.

And which group is responsible for racism - its defenders Alabama, the FBI, parts of the Federal Government, etc - or people who, in fighting against it, act in a way that is strategically or morally imperfect?

Or are they both equivalently responsible for racism?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Obviously I mean the State as an institution - the State Government in the 1960s.

Would you consider the institutions of the FBI and the government of Alabama to be comparably bad to the Black Panthers? Whether or not they're exactly on par, do you think the two institutions broadly were similar and similarly bad? Your little meme seems to suggest so. Yes or no?

You're asking me to compare apples and oranges.  Let me ask you this: do you think David Duke is as bad as Robert Mugabe?

Besides, it's talking about modern movements.  The original Black Panthers aren't relevant anymore.  You might as well be asking me about the Yippies.

70% of all racial hate crimes in the U.S. are committed but only 18 percent were committed against whites, to say that anti-white hate crimes are equally as pressing as anti-black hate crimes seems dishonest. In addition to that the Black Panthers are nowhere near as bad as the KKK as they never achieved the same body count or the same level of widespread terror. The meme also seems really corny, sure the message is fine but it presents it in a really bad way and sounds cheesy.


As for your question:
Would you say the prime minister of Estonia was ever comparable to Stalin's chef?

You're missing the point.  It's not about body counts, it's about division.

And which group is responsible for racism - its defenders Alabama, the FBI, parts of the Federal Government, etc - or people who, in fighting against it, act in a way that is strategically or morally imperfect?

Or are they both equivalently responsible for racism?

[Lt. Fred]

You see, this is why people call you a fucking idiot.

[Svata]

That gif doesn't answer the question.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Racism long predates the founding of the United States.  Your question is complete nonsense.

[mellenORL]

And UP, once again, evades away into the sunset of the discussion.

[I am lizard]

Racism long predates the founding of the United States.  Your question is complete nonsense.

They were reffering to racism in modern America, that should be pretty fucking obvious.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Racism long predates the founding of the United States.  Your question is complete nonsense.

They were reffering to racism in modern America, that should be pretty fucking obvious.

Considering how childishly simplistic Fred's views on race relations are, can you blame me for misunderstanding him?

And to answer his question, racism in American predates its independence.  If you want to blame anybody, blame the plantation owners who wanted cheap labor.  But if we want to talk about modern America, I blame elements of the establishment for perpetuating racism against non-whites, while I blame the Nation of Islam and similar groups for continuing anti-white racism.  Why?  Because both forms of racism have centuries-old roots, and both have blood on their hands.  It's true that anti-white racism was caused by racism perpetrated against non-whites, but it accomplished nothing except feeding into "establishment racism".  For example, Nat Turner's rebellion (which killed almost every white person it encountered) led to brand-new discriminatory laws against African-Americans, both free and enslaved.  It's a vicious cycle, and you can't condemn one without condemning the other.

Then again, Fred is the same guy who implied that the Tutsis and white Zimbabweans had it coming, so I can't expect him to view this issue with any kind of nuance.

[I am lizard]

1. Yes I can

2. I suppose I can mostly agree with all of that. Thank you for clarifying.

[Barbarella]

*SIGH* The point of that meme was that the elite uses ethnic tensions to keep us divided AND that bigotry is dumb no matter the ethnicity of the bigot.

And that's all I'm going to say since people get so touchy-touchy!

I stand with Paragon on this. There was no bigotry intended. *SHEESH*!!!!

[Lt. Fred]

So, let's recap.

First you insult me in an attempt to be holier than thou and dodge the question. This fails due to a bunch of other people calling you on it.

Then you continue with another scam: deliberately misreading me.

Racism long predates the founding of the United States.  Your question is complete nonsense.

They were reffering to racism in modern America, that should be pretty fucking obvious.

Considering how childishly simplistic Fred's views on race relations are, can you blame me for misunderstanding him?

And to answer his question, racism in American predates its independence.

Utterly and characteristically irrelevant.

If you want to blame anybody, blame the plantation owners who wanted cheap labor.

Deliberate, intentional misunderstanding of my point.

I blame elements of the establishment for perpetuating racism against non-whites, while I blame the Nation of Islam and similar groups for continuing anti-white racism.

Both sides do it!

I'm sure those millions of white people kept in slavery by black people for three centuries by the threat and use of force suffered in your bizarro world just the same as the millions of black people in the real world.

This is insane false equivalence. Absolutely off the wall crazy.

Because both forms of racism have centuries-old roots, and both have blood on their hands.  It's true that anti-white racism was caused by racism perpetrated against non-whites, but it accomplished nothing except feeding into "establishment racism".  For example, Nat Turner's rebellion (which killed almost every white person it encountered) led to brand-new discriminatory laws against African-Americans, both free and enslaved.  It's a vicious cycle, and you can't condemn one without condemning the other.

You can't condemn Bull Connor and Richard Nixon without condemning the people who literally tried to prevent those people from doing the things that they did that were wrong.

Equally, you certainly can't blame the white British for murdering millions of Africans without blaming those Africans - equally! - for trying to stop them from doing that. Trying to prevent a crime is just as bad as committing it.

This is the clearest racist false equivalence I've seen on this site, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh and you finish with a lie.

Absolutely great performance. 10/10. Couldn't have written it better myself.

[Ultimate Paragon]

So, let's recap.

First you insult me in an attempt to be holier than thou and dodge the question. This fails due to a bunch of other people calling you on it.

Then you continue with another scam: deliberately misreading me.

Racism long predates the founding of the United States.  Your question is complete nonsense.

They were reffering to racism in modern America, that should be pretty fucking obvious.

Considering how childishly simplistic Fred's views on race relations are, can you blame me for misunderstanding him?

And to answer his question, racism in American predates its independence.

Utterly and characteristically irrelevant.

So was your idiotic objection to my post.

If you want to blame anybody, blame the plantation owners who wanted cheap labor.

Deliberate, intentional misunderstanding of my point.

And you'd know a lot about that, wouldn't you?

I blame elements of the establishment for perpetuating racism against non-whites, while I blame the Nation of Islam and similar groups for continuing anti-white racism.

Both sides do it!

I'm sure those millions of white people kept in slavery by black people for three centuries by the threat and use of force suffered in your bizarro world just the same as the millions of black people in the real world.

This is insane false equivalence. Absolutely off the wall crazy.

I never said it was equal.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

Because both forms of racism have centuries-old roots, and both have blood on their hands.  It's true that anti-white racism was caused by racism perpetrated against non-whites, but it accomplished nothing except feeding into "establishment racism".  For example, Nat Turner's rebellion (which killed almost every white person it encountered) led to brand-new discriminatory laws against African-Americans, both free and enslaved.  It's a vicious cycle, and you can't condemn one without condemning the other.

You can't condemn Bull Connor and Richard Nixon without condemning the people who literally tried to prevent those people from doing the things that they did that were wrong.

You mean the same Richard Nixon who did more for desegregation than any other President?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/opinion/how-a-republican-desegregated-the-south-s-schools.html

And you're using a strawman.  What I'm talking about is anti-white racism, not struggles against Jim Crow and the like.

Equally, you certainly can't blame the white British for murdering millions of Africans without blaming those Africans - equally! - for trying to stop them from doing that. Trying to prevent a crime is just as bad as committing it.

How is that relevant to racism in America?

This is the clearest racist false equivalence I've seen on this site, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

No, you should be ashamed of yourself for deliberately misrepresenting me!

Oh and you finish with a lie.

Okay, then.  Explain to me why you said white Zimbabweans don't deserve to own land.  Explain why you hold the Tutsis collectively responsible for things some of their ancestors did.

Absolutely great performance. 10/10. Couldn't have written it better myself.

Yes, you could.  In fact, you just did.