Obama pimped his own daughter to sexual predator

First topic message reminder :

'Disgusted': Barack Obama FINALLY weighs in on Weinstein scandal – but says nothing about his teen daughter Malia interning with the sex pest OR whether he will return producer's campaign donations

Former president Barack Obama issued a statement Tuesday about the sexual assault scandal swirling around Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein – five days after it first became global news.

He condemned Weinstein on behalf of himself and former first lady Michelle Obama, but made no mention of the internship his teen daughter Malia took with the Weinstein Company this year when she was 18.

The former president also made no mention of whether he will return the $680,000 that Weinstein raised for his 2012 re-election campaign, or the millions he collected during $32,400-per plate fundraising dinners at his New York and California homes.

'Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein,' Obama said in a statement.

'Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4968282/Disgusted-Obama-FINALLY-weighs-Weinstein-scandal.html

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

So I take it that means God emperor trump is neither racist nor a white supremacist.

You know?? Seeing as how there is no white

I said there are no white people.  I didn't say there are no white supremacists.  White supremacists perceive themselves to be white, and superior.  They like to kill others.  That seems to be at the bottom of it.

if there are no white people then there can be no white supremacists either

one cannot be a supremacist of something that doesnt exist

we are not plagued by the unicorn lives matters supremacist movement are we??

also if there are no white people then there are no black people and therefore racism is a myth

good chat

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I said there are no white people.  I didn't say there are no white supremacists.  White supremacists perceive themselves to be white, and superior.  They like to kill others.  That seems to be at the bottom of it.

if there are no white people then there can be no white supremacists either

one cannot be a supremacist of something that doesnt exist

we are not plagued by the unicorn lives matters supremacist movement are we??

also if there are no white people then there are no black people and therefore racism is a myth

good chat

Not true. Even though there are no white/black barriers, one can invent one and say it is somehow significant. It's called myth-making. Nature doesn't make white/black of any significance; only people seem to make it a significant barrier. They align all sorts of significance to the barrier--blacks are good dancers, whites are more intelligent, Asians are good at math, blacks are good at sports, whites are better swimmers--and then create the self-fulling prophecies that appear to vindicate them. Black and white--like blue eyes and brown eyes--would be of no significance if we didn't make up myths about it.

You say there are no unicorn supremacists, but that is because there are no unicorns. We make up unicorns in our minds. Equally, we make up the significance of unicorns in our minds. That is what we do with black/white. Do we have any such myths about blue eyes and brown eyes? Fat toes/thin? I can point to a woman who uses a tanning machine, who is blacker than many blacks I know. Is she, therefore, a better dancer or a poor swimmer? It's all myths.

People make up myths about blacks, but no myths about brown eyes. That is why we have no blue eyed supremacists...but we have white supremacists. There's no significance to blue-eyes or white skin. We make it up.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

if there are no white people then there can be no white supremacists either

one cannot be a supremacist of something that doesnt exist

we are not plagued by the unicorn lives matters supremacist movement are we??

also if there are no white people then there are no black people and therefore racism is a myth

good chat

Not true.  Even though there are no white/black barriers, one can invent one and say it is somehow significant.  It's called myth-making.  Nature doesn't make white/black of any significance; only people seem to make it a significant barrier.  They align all sorts of significance to the barrier--blacks are good dancers, whites are more intelligent, Asians are good at math, blacks are good at sports, whites are better swimmers--and then create the self-fulling prophecies that appear to vindicate them.  Black and white--like blue eyes and brown eyes--would be of no significance if we didn't make up myths about it.

You say there are no unicorn supremacists, but that is because there are no unicorns.  We make up unicorns in our minds.  Equally, we make up the significance of unicorns in our minds.  That is what we do with black/white.  Do we have any such myths about blue eyes and brown eyes?  Fat toes/thin?  I can point to a woman who uses a tanning machine, who is blacker than many blacks I know.  Is she, therefore, a better dancer or a poor swimmer?  It's all myths.

People make up myths about blacks, but no myths about brown eyes.  That is why we have no blue eyed supremacists...but we have white supremacists.  There's no significance to blue-eyes or white skin.  We make it up.

That's nonsense blacks arent better at running that whites because we think they should be and somehow the myth that they are becomes reality

the reason we think they are better at running is because they ARE better running than whites.

'... I can point to a woman who uses a tanning machine, who is blacker than many blacks I know.  Is she, therefore, a better dancer or a poor swimmer?  It's all myths...'



A wolf in sheeps clothing is still a wolf... and being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse...


A pen in your pocket doesn't make you a writer... (Paul Wellar - Science)

Tommy Monk wrote:'... I can point to a woman who uses a tanning machine, who is blacker than many blacks I know.  Is she, therefore, a better dancer or a poor swimmer?  It's all myths...'

A wolf in sheeps clothing is still a wolf... and being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse...

A pen in your pocket doesn't make you a writer... (Paul Wellar - Science)

Words to remember...all.

Is it not pretty obvious that generally some races are better than others at certain sports?
Its in their genes, their body shape.
Black men/women are better at certain sports, white men/women are better at swimming.

I am a lot darker in the summer than in the winter, I don't run any better though....its simply not in my genetic makeup.

Why do some people think that pointing out differences is racist in some way...'we are all the same, blah blah blah'.....why not celebrate the fact that some races DO do things better than others...its no big deal.

+1

It's an old article and I don't know if it's true or not. I did read somewhere that black people have denser bones which makes them not as good at swimming.

Scientists Theorize Why Black Athletes Run Fastest
By Karen Rowan, Health Editor | July 13, 2010 10:04am ET
1839 197 MORE
Twenty-eight of the last 38 world record holders in the men's 100-meter dash have been black athletes, and researchers at two universities think they know why.

A new study by researchers at Howard University, a historically black school in Washington D.C., and Duke University in North Carolina suggests why black athletes may outperform athletes of other races in running events. Physical differences in the length of the limbs and the structure of the body mean the center of gravity tends to be higher in the bodies of black people, the researchers say.

Since 1968, the world record holders in the men's 100-meter dash have been black athletes. And since 1912, when the International Association of Athletics Federations started keeping track of the record holders in that event, only 10 non-black athletes out of 38 individuals have held the title.

https://www.livescience.com/10716-scientists-theorize-black-athletes-run-fastest.html

eddie wrote:It's an old article and I don't know if it's true or not. I did read somewhere that black people have denser bones which makes them not as good at swimming.

Scientists Theorize Why Black Athletes Run Fastest
By Karen Rowan, Health Editor | July 13, 2010 10:04am ET
1839  197    MORE
Twenty-eight of the last 38 world record holders in the men's 100-meter dash have been black athletes, and researchers at two universities think they know why.

A new study by researchers at Howard University, a historically black school in Washington D.C., and Duke University in North Carolina suggests why black athletes may outperform athletes of other races in running events. Physical differences in the length of the limbs and the structure of the body mean the center of gravity tends to be higher in the bodies of black people, the researchers say.

Since 1968, the world record holders in the men's 100-meter dash have been black athletes. And since 1912, when the International Association of Athletics Federations started keeping track of the record holders in that event, only 10 non-black athletes out of 38 individuals have held the title.

https://www.livescience.com/10716-scientists-theorize-black-athletes-run-fastest.html

nothing but your own internal racism creating myths

haven't you been listening to quills waffling??

What colour was the first man in the World to run a Mile in 4 minutes?

Syl wrote:Is it not pretty obvious that generally some races are better than others at certain sports?
Its in their genes, their body shape.
Black men/women are better at certain sports, white men/women are better at swimming.

But why would you want to, given the negative overtones associated with the history?  Unless...unless, that is exactly what you want to bring/point up?  We use 'sports and blacks' as code for saying 'stupid and blacks'.  That they are good at sports is a way of saying. by faint praise, that they lack mental attributes: they have physical attributes, but obviously not mental attributes.  

The mind is quite adroit at encoding, and then decoding when it is heard.  We like to speak indirectly and avoid derogatory references: do you know that ugly, fat girl?  Instead, we'll say: 'portly', or avoid the reference totally: you know, that girl who is good at math.  Everyone in the room knows what is intended, and it all occurs within the context of plausible deniability (how many times do you hear: you said that, I didn't!).

We often speak of the Southern Strategy of the Republican Party.  It was invented by Lee Atwater.  Atwater was a master of code-speak, and the entire Southern Strategy is an exercise in code-speak.  Here he is in an interview, speaking about how the conservatives in America would/should use code to disparage blacks:

The Nation wrote:Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
The forty-two-minute recording, acquired by James Carter IV, confirms Atwater’s incendiary remarks and places them in context.
By Rick Perlstein

*  *  *  *

The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

Lee Atwater wrote:You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Now, the same indefatigable researcher who brought us Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remarks, James Carter IV, has dug up the entire forty-two-minute interview from which that quote derives. Here, The Nation publishes it in its entirety for the very first time.

https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

This is how we use language and ideas to twist or divert meanings. When we say 'excellent basketball player' or 'school lunch programs' or 'welfare mothers', we are prompting thoughts of black people, resulting in a code.  We  see it going on here (on this site) all the time...in memes and such.  Indeed, some posters post threads to condition us to understand the associations; for example, they might post a thread about a Muslim committing a crime, with the eventual intent of drawing out a conclusion that all Muslims are criminals.  It's use of code, particularly in political and racial matters.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Is it not pretty obvious that generally some races are better than others at certain sports?
Its in their genes, their body shape.
Black men/women are better at certain sports, white men/women are better at swimming.

But why would you want to, given the negative overtones associated with the history?  Unless...unless, that is exactly what you want to bring/point up?  We use 'sports and blacks' as code for saying 'stupid and blacks'.  That they are good at sports is a way of saying. by faint praise, that they lack mental attributes: they have physical attributes, but obviously not mental attributes.  

The mind is quite adroit at encoding, and then decoding when it is heard.  We like to speak indirectly and avoid derogatory references: do you know that ugly, fat girl?  Instead, we'll say: 'portly', or avoid the reference totally: you know, that girl who is good at math.  Everyone in the room knows what is intended, and it all occurs within the context of plausible deniability (how many times do you hear: you said that, I didn't!).

We often speak of the Southern Strategy of the Republican Party.  It was invented by Lee Atwater.  Atwater was a master of code-speak, and the entire Southern Strategy is an exercise in code-speak.  Here he is in an interview, speaking about how the conservatives in America would/should use code to disparage blacks:

The Nation wrote:Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
The forty-two-minute recording, acquired by James Carter IV, confirms Atwater’s incendiary remarks and places them in context.
By Rick Perlstein

*  *  *  *

The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:



Now, the same indefatigable researcher who brought us Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remarks, James Carter IV, has dug up the entire forty-two-minute interview from which that quote derives. Here, The Nation publishes it in its entirety for the very first time.

https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

This is how we use language and ideas to twist or divert meanings.  When we say 'excellent basketball player' or 'school lunch programs' or 'welfare mothers', we are prompting thoughts of black people, resulting in a code.  We  see it going on here (on this site) all the time...in memes and such.  Indeed, some posters post threads to condition us to understand the associations; for example, they might post a thread about a Muslim committing a crime, with the eventual intent of drawing out a conclusion that all Muslims are criminals.  It's use of code, particularly in political and racial matters.

I just don't see it like that.
I actually think if you are not giving credit where its due because of a persons colour....just because you are afraid it will be seen as an insult, its you who has the problem.
Why in Gods name would complimenting someone on what they do well in sport, be insinuating they are less clever than anyone else?


The Welsh are known to have brilliant singing voices, should we never acknowledge that in case people presume we are implying they stuoid in some way.?

That, imo, is a skewed way of looking at it.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Is it not pretty obvious that generally some races are better than others at certain sports?
Its in their genes, their body shape.
Black men/women are better at certain sports, white men/women are better at swimming.

But why would you want to, given the negative overtones associated with the history?  Unless...unless, that is exactly what you want to bring/point up?  We use 'sports and blacks' as code for saying 'stupid and blacks'.  That they are good at sports is a way of saying. by faint praise, that they lack mental attributes: they have physical attributes, but obviously not mental attributes.  

The mind is quite adroit at encoding, and then decoding when it is heard.  We like to speak indirectly and avoid derogatory references: do you know that ugly, fat girl?  Instead, we'll say: 'portly', or avoid the reference totally: you know, that girl who is good at math.  Everyone in the room knows what is intended, and it all occurs within the context of plausible deniability (how many times do you hear: you said that, I didn't!).

We often speak of the Southern Strategy of the Republican Party.  It was invented by Lee Atwater.  Atwater was a master of code-speak, and the entire Southern Strategy is an exercise in code-speak.  Here he is in an interview, speaking about how the conservatives in America would/should use code to disparage blacks:

The Nation wrote:Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
The forty-two-minute recording, acquired by James Carter IV, confirms Atwater’s incendiary remarks and places them in context.
By Rick Perlstein

*  *  *  *

The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:



Now, the same indefatigable researcher who brought us Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remarks, James Carter IV, has dug up the entire forty-two-minute interview from which that quote derives. Here, The Nation publishes it in its entirety for the very first time.

https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

This is how we use language and ideas to twist or divert meanings.  When we say 'excellent basketball player' or 'school lunch programs' or 'welfare mothers', we are prompting thoughts of black people, resulting in a code.  We  see it going on here (on this site) all the time...in memes and such.  Indeed, some posters post threads to condition us to understand the associations; for example, they might post a thread about a Muslim committing a crime, with the eventual intent of drawing out a conclusion that all Muslims are criminals.  It's use of code, particularly in political and racial matters.

You can talk some shit.

Saying blacks are good runners is not a euphemism for blacks are stupid

But you are right there is a subtle code being used and its because of leftwing liberals imposing political correctness on everything to avoid addressing the underlying problem.

We don't deal with "Muslim terrorists" we say "extremist"

We don't deal with "Islamic terrorism. We deal with
"mental health problems "

When the police say "we don't know what his motivations are" it means "he is a Muslim but we are trying to stall for time to spin it a different way"

SB wrote:You can talk some shit.

Saying blacks are good runners is not a euphemism for blacks are stupid

But you are right there is a subtle code being used and its because of leftwing liberals imposing political correctness on everything to avoid addressing the underlying problem.

We don't deal with "Muslim terrorists" we say "extremist"

We don't deal with "Islamic terrorism. We deal with
"mental health problems "

When the police say "we don't know what his motivations are" it means "he is a Muslim but we are trying to stall for time to spin it a different way"

Right now, you are playing the plausible denial record.  Like, I didn't use those terms; my code was real-talk.  I'll grant you, that occasionally some do want to talk about basketball.  But in the context of a political discussion, speaking of the 'inner-city' is code for blacks and their lifestyle of poverty...things we look down upon.  

The point that I am making (and Atwater, for different reasons), is that southerners, for example, would much rather just say 'dirty niggahs' than beat around the bush.  

I married a girl from New Orleans.  We had the wedding in the Garden District, beautiful old mansions of the south.  As we were clearing the place to go to the Royal Sonesta Hotel for the reception, my new father-in-law yelled: Tony, didja tip the niggahs?  I remember thinking...OMG, my mother heard that.

That's how they talk in the south.  But outside, in the north, they won't put up with it.  And they won't put up with it here...ordinarily it's blanked out.  Even I wouldn't use those words, if it were not necessary to get the point across.

But the motive is still there...ie, racism.  The issue becomes, how to screw black people without actually talking about?  So you refer to 'welfare moms' and 'inner city', and phrases like 'I'm tired of my tax money going to fix up downtown Jackson' are code for niggahs all belong in prison, which in turn is code for: they never should've freed the slaves.

I even hear you, Russ, saying that the blacks were better off under apartheid SA...and I'm thinking, he learned that argument from those good ole boys in Louisiana. Been there, heard that.

Syl wrote:Is it not pretty obvious that generally some races are better than others at certain sports?
Its in their genes, their body shape.
Black men/women are better at certain sports, white men/women are better at swimming.

I am a lot darker in the summer than in the winter, I don't run any better though....its simply not in my genetic makeup.

Why do some people think that pointing out differences is racist in some way...'we are all the same, blah blah blah'.....why not celebrate the fact that some races DO do things better than others...its no big deal.

Are they?

Or is this a poor perceived perception by people.

So because some of the fastest in the world people are black, does that mean per say Black people are faster than whites or Asians? All the fastest black people descend from West Africa. So is the environment over time a factor here? Same with long distance runners with places like Ethiopia?

You will find many white sprinters in the top 100.

All it means is that at present some black people are the fastest.

Many white people in the top hundred will be faster than millions of black people

People base this on the present and not that it can easily change, as it has throughout history.

Even now where people stupidly thought Blacks were not strong swimmers, has seen Olympic champions who are black.

I mean a couple of decades ago, China was not winning many medals, now they are winning loads, why?

Original Quill wrote:

SB wrote:You can talk some shit.

Saying blacks are good runners is not a euphemism for blacks are stupid

But you are right there is a subtle code being used and its because of leftwing liberals imposing political correctness on everything to avoid addressing the underlying problem.

We don't deal with "Muslim terrorists" we say "extremist"

We don't deal with "Islamic terrorism. We deal with
"mental health problems "

When the police say "we don't know what his motivations are" it means "he is a Muslim but we are trying to stall for time to spin it a different way"

Right now, you are playing the plausible denial record.  Like, I didn't use those terms; my code was real-talk.  I'll grant you, that occasionally some do want to talk about basketball.  But in the context of a political discussion, speaking of the 'inner-city' is code for blacks and their lifestyle of poverty...things we look down upon.  

The point that I am making (and Atwater, for different reasons), is that southerners, for example, would much rather just say 'dirty niggahs' than beat around the bush.  

I married a girl from New Orleans.  We had the wedding in the Garden District, beautiful old mansions of the south.  As we were clearing the place to go to the Royal Sonesta Hotel for the reception, my new father-in-law yelled: Tony, didja tip the niggahs?  I remember thinking...OMG, my mother heard that.

That's how they talk in the south.  But outside, in the north, they won't put up with it.  And they won't put up with it here...ordinarily it's blanked out.  Even I wouldn't use those words, if it were not necessary to get the point across.

But the motive is still there...ie, racism.  The issue becomes, how to screw black people without actually talking about?  So you refer to 'welfare moms' and 'inner city', and phrases like 'I'm tired of my tax money going to fix up downtown Jackson' are code for niggahs all belong in prison, which in turn is code for: they never should've freed the slaves.  

I even hear you, Russ, saying that the blacks were better off under apartheid SA...and I'm thinking, he learned that argument from those good ole boys in Louisiana.  Been there, heard that.

You're such a race traitor,it's  always the poor black man oppressed by the evil white man.

But while we are talking about hidden meanings let's examine you and your views eh??

You blame the lack up upward mobility and progression of the blacks in America on an imaginary system of white supremacism, is that the code you use??

"White supremacism" when what you really mean is "inferior blacks"??

Perhaps you and yours are the real racists here, what's the plan Quill???  

Treat them like victims, turn them into victims and keep them that way by blaming everyone else for their bad luck and remove the need to improve themselves by feeding their sense of being wronged.

Keep them in limbo and focused on their grievances and distracted from thoughts of freedom and the betterment of their communities?

Them southern boys had simple chains of iron to physically keep the blacks down, you progressives use far more sinister psychological chains of pity and victim hood to keep the blacks down

White supremacists indeed Quill

FYI the double speak you're talking about is a progressive liberal invention not a conservative one.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Right now, you are playing the plausible denial record.  Like, I didn't use those terms; my code was real-talk.  I'll grant you, that occasionally some do want to talk about basketball.  But in the context of a political discussion, speaking of the 'inner-city' is code for blacks and their lifestyle of poverty...things we look down upon.  

The point that I am making (and Atwater, for different reasons), is that southerners, for example, would much rather just say 'dirty niggahs' than beat around the bush.  

I married a girl from New Orleans.  We had the wedding in the Garden District, beautiful old mansions of the south.  As we were clearing the place to go to the Royal Sonesta Hotel for the reception, my new father-in-law yelled: Tony, didja tip the niggahs?  I remember thinking...OMG, my mother heard that.

That's how they talk in the south.  But outside, in the north, they won't put up with it.  And they won't put up with it here...ordinarily it's blanked out.  Even I wouldn't use those words, if it were not necessary to get the point across.

But the motive is still there...ie, racism.  The issue becomes, how to screw black people without actually talking about?  So you refer to 'welfare moms' and 'inner city', and phrases like 'I'm tired of my tax money going to fix up downtown Jackson' are code for niggahs all belong in prison, which in turn is code for: they never should've freed the slaves.  

I even hear you, Russ, saying that the blacks were better off under apartheid SA...and I'm thinking, he learned that argument from those good ole boys in Louisiana.  Been there, heard that.

You're such a race traitor,it's  always the poor black man oppressed by the evil white man.

But while we are talking about hidden meanings let's examine you and your views eh??

You blame the lack up upward mobility and progression of the blacks in America on an imaginary system of white supremacism, is that the code you use??

"White supremacism" when what you really mean is "inferior blacks"??

Perhaps you and yours are the real racists here, what's the plan Quill???  

Treat them like victims, turn them into victims and keep them that way by blaming everyone else for their bad luck and remove the need to improve themselves by feeding their sense of being wronged.

Keep them in limbo and focused on their grievances and distracted from thoughts of freedom and the betterment of their communities?

Them southern boys had simple chains of iron to physically keep the blacks down, you progressives use far more sinister psychological chains of pity and victim hood to keep the blacks down

White supremacists indeed Quill

FYI the double speak you're talking about is a progressive liberal invention not a conservative one.

Man alive that is even bigger revisionist shit that Quill made

What is relative poverty smelly?

We all know you think black people are a race biologically

You even invoked dog breeds on this, which has to go down as the most poorest understanding of biology going

I mean you call him a race traitor?

WTF?

What race is he betraying here?

They are social constructs and its you making it racial by claiming he is betraying.

So what on earth is he betraying.

Years of the fact, that neither I or you created the advances we see today?

Only a really minor view brought about change?

The only double speak is that I see with you and quill that enable racism to stay alive

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:Is it not pretty obvious that generally some races are better than others at certain sports?
Its in their genes, their body shape.
Black men/women are better at certain sports, white men/women are better at swimming.

I am a lot darker in the summer than in the winter, I don't run any better though....its simply not in my genetic makeup.

Why do some people think that pointing out differences is racist in some way...'we are all the same, blah blah blah'.....why not celebrate the fact that some races DO do things better than others...its no big deal.

Are they?

Or is this a poor perceived perception by people.

So because some of the fastest in the world people are black, does that mean per say Black people are faster than whites or Asians? All the fastest black people descend from West Africa. So is the environment over time a factor here? Same with long distance runners with places like Ethiopia?

You will find many white sprinters in the top 100.

All it means is that at present some black people are the fastest.

Many white people in the top hundred will be faster than millions of black people

People base this on the present and not that it can easily change, as it has throughout history.

Even now where people stupidly thought Blacks were not strong swimmers, has seen Olympic champions who are black.

I mean a couple of decades ago, China was not winning many medals, now they are winning loads, why?

A category dominated by blacks... all of them faster than a billion white people... and majority faster than the fastest white competitors too...!!!


So what's your point...!!!???


And I don't remember seeing any Chinese winning running or swimming events either... which begs the question of WHY Dodge...!!!???


Seems you are reinforcing the argument you are trying to dispute...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

Are they?

Or is this a poor perceived perception by people.

So because some of the fastest in the world people are black, does that mean per say Black people are faster than whites or Asians? All the fastest black people descend from West Africa. So is the environment over time a factor here? Same with long distance runners with places like Ethiopia?

You will find many white sprinters in the top 100.

All it means is that at present some black people are the fastest.

Many white people in the top hundred will be faster than millions of black people

People base this on the present and not that it can easily change, as it has throughout history.

Even now where people stupidly thought Blacks were not strong swimmers, has seen Olympic champions who are black.

I mean a couple of decades ago, China was not winning many medals, now they are winning loads, why?

A category dominated by blacks... all of them faster than a billion white people... and majority faster than the fastest white competitors too...!!!


So what's your point...!!!???


And I don't remember seeing any Chinese winning running or swimming events either... which begs the question of WHY Dodge...!!!???


Seems you are reinforcing the argument you are trying to dispute...?

And also dominated by white people faster than black people also

That is my point.

How is it that white people can be in the top 100 sprinters if black people dominate based on your illogical racial thinking?

As if black people dominate really, then no white person should be in the top 1000, let alone one hundred.

Take your time thinking on that

To commemorate the anniversary of President Trump winning bigly over his bragadocious rival Hillary Clinton last November, leftists have the best plan ever to ensure the MAGA man gets to live another four years behind those big, beautiful White House walls: scream like banshees up to the sky in hopes the political gods will hear their cries of pain and strike lightning upon their orange ogre.

According to a Facebook invite from Julia Helene and Johanna Schulman, residents of Boston are invited to drag their Trump-weary selves over to Boston Common for a good old-fashioned session of exhaling exorbitant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere at unfriendly decibel-levels to accomplish absolutely nothing. Basically, what leftists do all day long.

Titled "Scream helplessly at the sky on the anniversary of the election," the event reportedly has 4.400 pledged attendees with another 33,000 interested. "Come express your anger at the current state of democracy, and scream helplessly at the sky!" the description reads.

As seen in the comments to the invite, leftists outside the Boston area are hoping to plan something similar.

"I'll be screaming in L.A.," reads one comment. "Wokest Event of the Year," reads another. "Anyone planing on screaming in Vancouver?" another man asked.

Others found the event so profound, they could only share quotes from their favorite philosophers to express the stir within them: "The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human [scream] and the unreasonable silence of the world." -- Albert Camus

Have a great night, lefties. By all means, scream until your voice goes hoarse. Scream until Fay Wray has to come back from the dead to reclaim her title. The rest of us will be sleeping comfortably in our beds.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22621/leftists-plan-scream-helplessly-sky-anniversary-paul-bois?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

*Chortle *

Oh dear oh dear.

I wonder if this was before or after Obama watched harvey rape his daughter

smelly-bandit wrote:


Oh dear oh dear.

I wonder if this was before or after Obama watched harvey rape his daughter

Is it my imagination or are your posts getting more ridiculous by the day?

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:


Oh dear oh dear.

I wonder if this was before or after Obama watched harvey rape his daughter

Is it my imagination or are your posts getting more ridiculous by the day?

Insightful point, Syl. I mean, he was always a shit-stirrer. But have you ever run into a desperate shit stirrer?

I mean, it's not the cap you twist onto the jar. It's what's in the jar. Empty.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Is it my imagination or are your posts getting more ridiculous by the day?

Insightful point, Syl.  I mean, he was always a shit-stirrer.  But have you ever run into a desperate shit stirrer?

I mean, it's not the cap you twist onto the jar.  It's what's in the jar.  Empty.

Oh Quill I can see the sordid little backdoor dealings between your beloved messiah and the dirty little rapist is stressing you out.

Its OK buddy, I understand it's not easy learning that your promised God is nothing but cheap false prophet

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Insightful point, Syl.  I mean, he was always a shit-stirrer.  But have you ever run into a desperate shit stirrer?

I mean, it's not the cap you twist onto the jar.  It's what's in the jar.  Empty.

Oh Quill I can see the sordid little backdoor dealings between your beloved messiah and the dirty little rapist is stressing you out.

Its OK buddy, I understand it's not easy learning that your promised God is nothing but cheap false prophet

I never get stressed. It's a useless emotion. The last thing to get stressed about was a saber-toothed tiger, and they went extinct thousands of years ago.

Now it's just what's in the cards, and you play or fold. Easy, really.

@ Didge,  veya,  Ben,  and like-minded folks...

There remains one simple and inalienable fact that puts the lie to much of the nonsense that the likes of Tommy, Smelly and Sly keep on posting on these threads, in relation to discussions that mention"races" and racism...

There is no such thing as a "black race" --  there are darker shades of brown skin out there in the world, but skin colour doesn't define a "race".   There are various ethnicities and nationalities out there with much darker skin and hair and eyes,  but ethnicity doesn't define a "race"..

Indeed,  as Didge, veya, and little ol' moi, have pointed out at various times over the last couple of years --  there is no such thing as "races" within the human species, anyway...     That notion is simply another political/economic construct, to help enable invasion, colonialisation, and 'legalised' theft..

Those nongs who keep on referring to "black races" and "white races" in their arguments are, by default, a bunch of clueless fuckwits.            

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

@ Didge,  veya,  Ben,  and like-minded folks...

There remains one simple and inalienable fact that puts the lie to much of the nonsense that the likes of Tommy, Smelly and Sly keep on posting on these threads, in relation to discussions  that mention"races" and racism...

There is no such thing as a "black race" --  there are darker shades of brown skin out there in the world, but skin colour doesn't define a "race".   There are various ethnicities and nationalities out there with much darker skin and hair and eyes,  but ethnicity doesn't define a "race"..

Indeed,  as Didge, veya, and little ol' moi, have pointed out at various times over the last couple of years --  there is no such thing as "races" within the human species, anyway...     That notion is simply another political/economic construct, to help enable invasion, colonialisation, and 'legalised' theft..

Those nongs who keep on referring to "black races" and "white races" in their arguments are, by default, a bunch of clueless fuckwits.            

That's the point that Russ and I were discussing...there's no such thing as a white (or black) race, but there is white supremacy.  To identify people according to an irrelevant characteristic such as skin color, is to make up an identification...a definitional schemata, as A. James Gregor calls it.

To declare one class of members of that made-up schemata as supreme, is to invent an false status hierarchy, or ideology.  It is invented, though it has no basis in fact...kinda like a fairy tale.  It bootstraps its way into existence.  So, while there is no such thing as a white or black race, there is such a thing as an ideology based upon a false premise; that is the nature of white-supremacy.

Because it is a made-up idea, we call it racism generically.  It is an ideology based, not on fact, but based upon the awareness and dedication to a false idea.  Therefore, we identify it with the false idea.

Yes, lets pretend there are no black people, no white people, just all the same people.

That imo is a racist opinion.....as if somehow people should be ashamed of whatever colour (or race) they happen to be.

Syl wrote:Yes, lets pretend there are no black people, no white people, just all the same people.

That imo is a racist opinion.....as if somehow people should be ashamed of whatever colour (or race) they happen to be.

Why do you say "ashamed"?  Curious choice of words.  Something first has to be noticed, before it's absence distinguishes itself.  Perhaps you are ashamed of the origins of racial ideas.

Western civilization spread out from the Mediterranean Sea, starting with the Portuguese.  They encountered Africans.  It was not their skin color they noticed, but their cultural habitat.  The visitors wondered if they were human.  Hence, began the 'we/they' dichotomy so familiar in racism.  As Europeans encountered tribe after tribe, they noticed the similarity of skin color.  So it was an acquired entailment that was noticed, born of the 'we/they' distinction.  Boorstin, Daniel, The Discoverers (1983).

The Portuguese had already begun treating Africans as beasts of burden (like horses and Oxen), so slavery was already going on even before it was accepted they were human.  The realization that they were human, however, then created legitimacy for slavery...a kind of reduction of cognitive dissonance.  We literally backed into the institution of human bondage.  We tend not to like black people because they make us feel bad about ourselves...instituting slavery and all.  Quite unchristian.  

Anyway, once it was accepted that the beasts of burden were like us, we settled on skin color as the primary difference.  We called them, not just people, but Negro (Latin, black) people. But it's important to remember that they were considered a different species first, before we (Europeans) noticed skin color.  My neighbor has a black dog, and I think nothing of that dog's dark coat.  He's as friendly as any white dog.

So we already had the misconception--and the resultant attitude--before skin color became important.  What we feel bad about when it comes to racism is, we should have let them go when we realized they were humans, instead of legitimizing the idea of slavery.  It's an original sin, started by the Portuguese, picked up by the English for their overseas colonies.

Given that history, it's not at all shameful to discard the notion of skin color as a false premise.  It was a sign--a tool--that aided a shameful purpose.  What has happened is, instead of discarding that tool, we allowed the outer layer of slavery to erode, but we still carry around the inner attitudes.  We still are slavers in our hearts.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

@ Didge,  veya,  Ben,  and like-minded folks...

There remains one simple and inalienable fact that puts the lie to much of the nonsense that the likes of Tommy, Smelly and Sly keep on posting on these threads, in relation to discussions  that mention"races" and racism...

There is no such thing as a "black race" --  there are darker shades of brown skin out there in the world, but skin colour doesn't define a "race".   There are various ethnicities and nationalities out there with much darker skin and hair and eyes,  but ethnicity doesn't define a "race"..

Indeed,  as Didge, veya, and little ol' moi, have pointed out at various times over the last couple of years --  there is no such thing as "races" within the human species, anyway...     That notion is simply another political/economic construct, to help enable invasion, colonialisation, and 'legalised' theft..

Those nongs who keep on referring to "black races" and "white races" in their arguments are, by default, a bunch of clueless fuckwits.            

No such thing as the black race??

Lots of black folk out there who will argue against that

I'd like to see you have that discussion with BLM or black panthers.

Try telling them they aren't black, would be entertaining

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

@ Didge,  veya,  Ben,  and like-minded folks...

There remains one simple and inalienable fact that puts the lie to much of the nonsense that the likes of Tommy, Smelly and Sly keep on posting on these threads, in relation to discussions  that mention"races" and racism...

There is no such thing as a "black race" --  there are darker shades of brown skin out there in the world, but skin colour doesn't define a "race".   There are various ethnicities and nationalities out there with much darker skin and hair and eyes,  but ethnicity doesn't define a "race"..

Indeed,  as Didge, veya, and little ol' moi, have pointed out at various times over the last couple of years --  there is no such thing as "races" within the human species, anyway...     That notion is simply another political/economic construct, to help enable invasion, colonialisation, and 'legalised' theft..

Those nongs who keep on referring to "black races" and "white races" in their arguments are, by default, a bunch of clueless fuckwits.            

No such thing as the black race??

Lots of black folk out there who will argue against that

I'd like to see you have that discussion with BLM or black panthers.

Try telling them they aren't black, would be entertaining

The convention of calling them "black" refers, not back to their actual skin color, but to the racist belief that they are a separate people. That, in turn, hails back to the day when they were thought of as a separate species.

They are not a separate people, but a white-supremacist element in our society distinguishes them and says they are less worthy.  Therefore, we speak to the white-supremacist ideas, not to the genetic structure of the people themselves.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

No such thing as the black race??

Lots of black folk out there who will argue against that

I'd like to see you have that discussion with BLM or black panthers.

Try telling them they aren't black, would be entertaining

The convention of calling them "black" refers, not back to their actual skin color, but to the racist belief that they are a separate people.  That, in turn, hails back to the day when they were thought of as a separate species.

They are not a separate people, but a white-supremacist element in our society distinguishes them and says they are less worthy.  Therefore, we speak to the white-supremacist ideas, not to the genetic structure of the people themselves.

They are a separate people

Black's have their own culture and social structure, their interaction with each other is different to how whites do things.

Its only crazy people like who are trying to pretend that there is zero difference between blacks and whites, I assume you embrace the perverted mysticism of transgenderism where science is the new heresy and delusion the new science?

No quill you and your band of crazies are a tiny minority that don't represent the views of ordinary people who can tell the difference between blacks and whites without being racist

It seems only you are incapable of seeing things for what they are without embracing your inner KKK

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The convention of calling them "black" refers, not back to their actual skin color, but to the racist belief that they are a separate people.  That, in turn, hails back to the day when they were thought of as a separate species.

They are not a separate people, but a white-supremacist element in our society distinguishes them and says they are less worthy.  Therefore, we speak to the white-supremacist ideas, not to the genetic structure of the people themselves.

They are a separate people

Black's have their own culture and social structure, their interaction with each other is different to how whites do things.

Its only crazy people like who are trying to pretend that there is zero difference between blacks and whites, I assume you embrace the perverted mysticism of transgenderism where science is the new heresy and delusion the new science?

No quill you and your band of crazies are a tiny minority that don't represent the views of ordinary people who can tell the difference between blacks and whites without being racist

It seems only you are incapable of seeing things for what they are without embracing your inner KKK

Notice every definition, every characterization of their culture, every interaction begins with white-supremacists like you, Russ? That is because there is no reason to make distinctions of black and white, except in your world. Those distinctions--even the segregated neighborhoods--lead directly to you, Russ.

The origins are quite simple. It's the twists and turns of a racist mind, to escape legitimate blame, that are hard to follow.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Yes, lets pretend there are no black people, no white people, just all the same people.

That imo is a racist opinion.....as if somehow people should be ashamed of whatever colour (or race) they happen to be.

Why do you say "ashamed"?  Curious choice of words.  Something first has to be noticed, before it's absence distinguishes itself.  Perhaps you are ashamed of the origins of racial ideas.

Western civilization spread out from the Mediterranean Sea, starting with the Portuguese.  They encountered Africans.  It was not their skin color they noticed, but their cultural habitat.  The visitors wondered if they were human.  Hence, began the 'we/they' dichotomy so familiar in racism.  As Europeans encountered tribe after tribe, they noticed the similarity of skin color.  So it was an acquired entailment that was noticed, born of the 'we/they' distinction.  Boorstin, Daniel, The Discoverers (1983).

The Portuguese had already begun treating Africans as beasts of burden (like horses and Oxen), so slavery was already going on even before it was accepted they were human.  The realization that they were human, however, then created legitimacy for slavery...a kind of reduction of cognitive dissonance.  We literally backed into the institution of human bondage.  We tend not to like black people because they make us feel bad about ourselves...instituting slavery and all.  Quite unchristian.  

Anyway, once it was accepted that the beasts of burden were like us, we settled on skin color as the primary difference.  We called them, not just people, but Negro (Latin, black) people.  But it's important to remember that they were considered a different species first, before we (Europeans) noticed skin color.  My neighbor has a black dog, and I think nothing of that dog's dark coat.  He's as friendly as any white dog.

So we already had the misconception--and the resultant attitude--before skin color became important.  What we feel bad about when it comes to racism is, we should have let them go when we realized they were humans, instead of legitimizing the idea of slavery.  It's an original sin, started by the Portuguese, picked up by the English for their overseas colonies.

Given that history, it's not at all shameful to discard the notion of skin color as a false premise.  It was a sign--a tool--that aided a shameful purpose.  What has happened is, instead of discarding that tool, we allowed the outer layer of slavery to erode, but we still carry around the inner attitudes.  We still are slavers in our hearts.

I honestly think sometimes you may be ashamed to admit you are white because of how your ancestors treated the black folk.
I have no such hangups in calling black black and white white.

Why should I....we should all be proud of who we are.

Syl wrote:I honestly think sometimes you may be ashamed to admit you are white because of how your ancestors treated the black folk.

Not at all.

Syl wrote:I have no such hangups in calling black black and white white.

Why did you bring the concept of 'shame' into the conversation?  I merely put it into its proper context.

Syl wrote:Why should I....we should all be proud of who we are.

Of course.  We're not talking about who we are.  We are talking about history, and the things that the white man might be ashamed of.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

They are a separate people

Black's have their own culture and social structure, their interaction with each other is different to how whites do things.

Its only crazy people like who are trying to pretend that there is zero difference between blacks and whites, I assume you embrace the perverted mysticism of transgenderism where science is the new heresy and delusion the new science?

No quill you and your band of crazies are a tiny minority that don't represent the views of ordinary people who can tell the difference between blacks and whites without being racist

It seems only you are incapable of seeing things for what they are without embracing your inner KKK

Notice every definition, every characterization of their culture, every interaction begins with white-supremacists like you, Russ?  That is because there is no reason to make distinctions of black and white, except in your world.  Those distinctions--even the segregated neighborhoods--lead directly to you, Russ.

The origins are quite simple.  It's the twists and turns of a racist mind, to escape legitimate blame, that are hard to follow.

I would like to witness you telling black people that everything they are, all their cultural practices, their social interaction, their style, their music, their heritage, their history everything about being black is dictated to them by whites.

If that is the case then blacks who are proud to be black, are what?

uncle toms?? Is that what you see a proud black people as??

Do you think we should do away with things like the MOBO awards, or the various black associations?? What about BLM should they disband because they are somehow puppets dancing on the hidden strings of the white massa??

I'm all for that by the way

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Notice every definition, every characterization of their culture, every interaction begins with white-supremacists like you, Russ?  That is because there is no reason to make distinctions of black and white, except in your world.  Those distinctions--even the segregated neighborhoods--lead directly to you, Russ.

The origins are quite simple.  It's the twists and turns of a racist mind, to escape legitimate blame, that are hard to follow.

I would like to witness you telling black people that everything they are, all their cultural practices, their social interaction, their style, their music,  their heritage, their history everything about being black is dictated to them by whites.

If that is the case then blacks who are proud to be black, are what?

uncle toms?? Is that what you see a proud black people as??

Do you think we should do away with things like the MOBO awards, or the various black associations?? What about BLM should they disband because they are somehow puppets dancing on the hidden strings of the white massa??

I'm all for that by the way

I would listen them first, telling me who they want to be.

You want to first to command to them who they are, and then condemn them for being who you made them.

Let's get our priorities straight. First, lets give them freedom. Then, maybe down the road, we might talk about who and what they have become.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:



I would like to witness you telling black people that everything they are, all their cultural practices, their social interaction, their style, their music,  their heritage, their history everything about being black is dictated to them by whites.

If that is the case then blacks who are proud to be black, are what?

uncle toms?? Is that what you see a proud black people as??

Do you think we should do away with things like the MOBO awards, or the various black associations?? What about BLM should they disband because they are somehow puppets dancing on the hidden strings of the white massa??

I'm all for that by the way

I would listen them first, telling me who they want to be.  

You want to first to command to them who they are, and then condemn them for being who you made them.

Let's get our priorities straight.  First, lets give them freedom.  Then, maybe down the road, we might talk about who and what they have become.

Who is "them"??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I would listen them first, telling me who they want to be.  

You want to first to command to them who they are, and then condemn them for being who you made them.

Let's get our priorities straight.  First, lets give them freedom.  Then, maybe down the road, we might talk about who and what they have become.

Who is "them"??

I know it's become common, among Trump folks, to avoid nouns and verbs in your sentences. But, really, what was the subject of your post?

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Who is "them"??

I know it's become common, among Trump folks, to avoid nouns and verbs in your sentences.  But, really, what was the subject of your post?

No I'm asking YOU quill

You used the word "them"

Who is the "them" you are referring to?

You haven't just associated blacks with being "the other" have you?

Them and us, black and white. Same but different.

Your unconscious bias just won the battle, Mr White supremacist Quill

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I know it's become common, among Trump folks, to avoid nouns and verbs in your sentences.  But, really, what was the subject of your post?

No I'm asking YOU quill

You used the word "them"

Who is the "them" you are referring to?

You haven't just associated blacks with being "the other" have you?

Them and us, black and white. Same but different.

Your unconscious bias just won the battle, Mr White supremacist Quill

The whole point is there are no black or white people, because--like eye color--it does not matter.  But there is a consciousness among white-supremacists that skin-color does matter, despite all evidence to the contrary.  Indeed, that is your thesis, isn't it?  So, you own the 'we/they' denotation as between whites and blacks.

In order to communicate with you, to a certain extent one must use your language.  May I note in passing, there is very little of any vocabulary when speaking with Trumpanzees.  So if you don't want anyone to borrow your nouns and verbs when communicating with you,  you are limiting yourself and no one else.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

No I'm asking YOU quill

You used the word "them"

Who is the "them" you are referring to?

You haven't just associated blacks with being "the other" have you?

Them and us, black and white. Same but different.

Your unconscious bias just won the battle, Mr White supremacist Quill

The whole point is there are no black or white people, because--like eye color--it does not matter.  But there is a consciousness among white-supremacists that skin-color does matter, despite all evidence to the contrary.  Indeed, that is your thesis, isn't it?  So, you own the 'we/they' denotation as between whites and blacks.

In order to communicate with you, to a certain extent one must use your language.  May I note in passing, there is very little of any vocabulary when speaking with Trumpanzees.  So if you don't want anyone to borrow your nouns and verbs when communicating with you,  you are limiting yourself and no one else.

no quill the point is you used the word "them"

that shows that you recognize that there is a difference between yourself (a white) and "them" (the blacks)

ill ask you again , who is the "them" you refer to???

Smelly' keeps on behaving like the proverbial "broken record", stuck playing the same track over and over...

He keeps on harping on with his idiotic nonsense over "black" and "white" races, "us and them" notions, and his irrational sense of some undeserved and unearned superiority over other nationalities and ethnicities..

The ultimate 'white supremacist' and xenophobic racist, is Smelly'.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The whole point is there are no black or white people, because--like eye color--it does not matter.  But there is a consciousness among white-supremacists that skin-color does matter, despite all evidence to the contrary.  Indeed, that is your thesis, isn't it?  So, you own the 'we/they' denotation as between whites and blacks.

In order to communicate with you, to a certain extent one must use your language.  May I note in passing, there is very little of any vocabulary when speaking with Trumpanzees.  So if you don't want anyone to borrow your nouns and verbs when communicating with you,  you are limiting yourself and no one else.

no quill the point is you used the word "them"

that shows that you recognize that there is a difference between yourself (a white) and "them" (the blacks)

ill ask you again , who is the "them" you refer to???

Denial is a river in east Africa. You refuse to recognize what I am saying because it is an absolute refutation of what you are saying.

You think you have a gotcha! At least, you want us to think you do. You have seized on my frequent reference to the 'we/they' distinction. But what you really have--so typical of RW thought--is a clinging to "cliches, catch-phrases and jingos." Right now, you are afraid to discuss it in any detail--steadfastly clinging to your one puny repetition--because conservatives can't swim in intellectual waters.

I taught my daughters how to swim. They lived the same fear that you are going through right now. I say to you, as I said to them, forget the fear, and dive in. Let's discuss the 'we/they' distinction in infinite detail, who cares where the tide leads us. Don't be afraid.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

no quill the point is you used the word "them"

that shows that you recognize that there is a difference between yourself (a white) and "them" (the blacks)

ill ask you again , who is the "them" you refer to???

Denial is a river in east Africa.  You refuse to recognize what I am saying because it is an absolute refutation of what you are saying.

You think you have a gotcha!  At least, you want us to think you do.  You have seized on my frequent reference to the 'we/they' distinction.  But what you really have--so typical of RW thought--is a clinging to "cliches, catch-phrases and jingos."  Right now, you are afraid to discuss it in any detail--steadfastly clinging to your one puny repetition--because conservatives can't swim in intellectual waters.

I taught my daughters how to swim.  They lived the same fear that you are going through right now.  I say to you, as I said to them, forget the fear, and dive in.  Let's discuss the 'we/they' distinction in infinite detail, who cares where the tide leads us.  Don't be afraid.

So you never actually taught them to swim, but attempt to overcome a fear.
We naturally float as humans.
So its clearly not a need to swim that has driven this need to teach about swimming.
Clearly you must have used fear in order to teach. As a good teacher would ensure they knew why and how we do actually float and how to float.

If you taught them to swim through fear, what real lesson were you teaching them.

That makes for a bad teacher.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Denial is a river in east Africa.  You refuse to recognize what I am saying because it is an absolute refutation of what you are saying.

You think you have a gotcha!  At least, you want us to think you do.  You have seized on my frequent reference to the 'we/they' distinction.  But what you really have--so typical of RW thought--is a clinging to "cliches, catch-phrases and jingos."  Right now, you are afraid to discuss it in any detail--steadfastly clinging to your one puny repetition--because conservatives can't swim in intellectual waters.

I taught my daughters how to swim.  They lived the same fear that you are going through right now.  I say to you, as I said to them, forget the fear, and dive in.  Let's discuss the 'we/they' distinction in infinite detail, who cares where the tide leads us.  Don't be afraid.

So you never actually taught them to swim, but attempt to overcome a fear.
We naturally float as humans.
So its clearly not a need to swim that has driven this need to teach about swimming.
Clearly you must have used fear in order to teach. As a good teacher would ensure they knew why and how we do actually float and how to float.

If you taught them to swim through fear, what real lesson were you teaching them.

That makes for a bad teacher.

You still need to stop with the mindless links. It's only a metaphor.

Teaching my daughters to overcome fear of the water is the first step. Same with Russ and you. Then, as is evident with my teaching of you, I go on to give some finer points: linear thought; stick to the plot; don't take side excursions on examples and metaphors; and don't go down rabbit holes that cause you to change the subject. A good vocabulary. Keep up your reading, and I don't mean Breitbart.

As you see from Russ' posts, this last advice is the most important. He's not yet equipped with the skills to know all of the tricks.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you never actually taught them to swim, but attempt to overcome a fear.
We naturally float as humans.
So its clearly not a need to swim that has driven this need to teach about swimming.
Clearly you must have used fear in order to teach. As a good teacher would ensure they knew why and how we do actually float and how to float.

If you taught them to swim through fear, what real lesson were you teaching them.

That makes for a bad teacher.

You still need to stop with the mindless links.  It's only a metaphor.

Teaching my daughters to overcome fear of the water is the first step.  Same with Russ and you.  Then, as is evident with my teaching of you, I go on to give some finer points: linear thought; stick to the plot; don't take side excursions on examples and metaphors; and don't go down rabbit holes that cause you to change the subject.  A good vocabulary.  Keep up your reading, and I don't mean Breitbart.

As you see from Russ' posts, this last advice is the most important.  He's not yet equipped with the skills to know all of the tricks.

So you teach them to fear the water to overcome this.
That is what you stated. What idiocy, as I doubt they ever feared being in water
My father taught me how to swim. Not by being afraid of the water, as I loved it, as many children do. Children are generally fearless as toddlers. They have to learn something is dangereous.

He taught me how to swim by throwing me near jellyfish. I learnt how to swim away sharpe. It never made me fear the water, as I had seen what harm they can do when they stingd. He instroduced, something that I could fear in the water.

That is a lesson.

You really are not a good teacher.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

no quill the point is you used the word "them"

that shows that you recognize that there is a difference between yourself (a white) and "them" (the blacks)

ill ask you again , who is the "them" you refer to???

Denial is a river in east Africa.  You refuse to recognize what I am saying because it is an absolute refutation of what you are saying.

You think you have a gotcha!  At least, you want us to think you do.  You have seized on my frequent reference to the 'we/they' distinction.  But what you really have--so typical of RW thought--is a clinging to "cliches, catch-phrases and jingos."  Right now, you are afraid to discuss it in any detail--steadfastly clinging to your one puny repetition--because conservatives can't swim in intellectual waters.

I taught my daughters how to swim.  They lived the same fear that you are going through right now.  I say to you, as I said to them, forget the fear, and dive in.  Let's discuss the 'we/they' distinction in infinite detail, who cares where the tide leads us.  Don't be afraid.

I do have a "gotcha" Quill, you gave it to me.

I'm not repeating myself because I'm scared of your intellect, I'm repeating myself because you're too scared to answer.

Your unconscious bias has betrayed you.

Your virtue signalling says there is no black or white, but your unconscious bias says, them (black) and us (white)

I don't really need you to answer who the "them" you are referring to are, I already know, and the truth is you're just as tribal as I am.

Your problem is that you're trying to be some paragon of virtue, walking round like your shit don't shit,the reality is you're just a person flawed and battered like everyone else.

You walk down the road and see a man with a maga hat on, your prejudice against Conservatives would cause you to prejudge him and have only negative feelings and opinions towards him before you even knew him.

No difference to a person seeing a black and crossing the road for fear of being mugged

Difference between us is that I see my prejudices and try to overcome them

You see your prejudices and justify them, turning them from vice to virtue

Because it's always OK to punch a nazi.

Good chat

I think I'll jump in right here.

I grew up with black people - I mean I literally dated black guys which meant almost living in their house and calling their "auntie" auntie also - I went to school with lots of black people and as you're aware, London was very mixed.

So this point is to you Quill; do you know how insulted a black person would be if you said there "was no difference" between blacks and whites? They would be in uproar! Of course there are differences - fuck about!
What you should be saying to smelly is celebrate the differences not pretend they're not there.

I really can see the difference between people that like black people from afar (i.e. have had very little real contact with the man on the ground) and those that have lived and eaten with black people. If you sat at a black man's table and said there was no difference - he would throw his food at you and tell you how much fuckeries you be talkin'.

True say.

eddie wrote:I think I'll jump in right here.

I grew up with black people - I mean I literally dated black guys which meant almost living in their house and calling their "auntie" auntie also - I went to school with lots of black people and as you're aware, London was very mixed.

So this point is to you Quill; do you know how insulted a black person would be if you said there "was no difference" between blacks and whites? They would be in uproar! Of course there are differences - fuck about!
What you should be saying to smelly is celebrate the differences not pretend they're not there.

I really can see the difference between people that like black people from afar (i.e. have had very little real contact with the man on the ground) and those that have lived and eaten with black people. If you sat at a black man's table and said there was no difference - he would throw his food at you and tell you how much fuckeries you be talkin'.

True say.

Interesting, as what differences?

Skin tone?

Facial features?

Underneath the skin we are all made up of the exact same body parts, bar the differences in male and female gender.

Everyone is uniquely different in our looks, personalities etc but is your view that someone is different due to an invented social construct? That makes them actually collectivelly different?

Or has it been that this has become normalized to think so, because how society teaches us to define others by racial labels. To then believe something that is not actually biological? Different human races?

There is only one human race in existance today. You will find some very minor differences between ethnic groups, biologically. More based on the environment geographically that ethnic group descend from.

So are you talking about biological differences or traits, something learnt?

What are these unique seperate differences between people labelled black and white?