Exterminating White People As A Solution

[Rhino]

The whole irony in this is he his complaining about white people having racial profiling. I mean this guy who is black says whites should be exterminated. If he gets enough followers who believe what he says then white people will have to start wondering if the next black person they see is one that wants whites to be exterminated.

 

He's a genius he can perpetuate the hate, and justify what he has said all in the same speech.

 

The whole thing about this is I'm mixed race myself (1/2 white and 1/2 Taos Pueblo) so I guess I'll never get my retina scan. I can see why he's upset about that, but genocide? C'mon man it's probably not as cool as you think it is.

[ecoli]

By this man's logic, one could also kill out all minorites except for whites, as that would also end discrimination against minorites.

 

 

out of curiousity, what was the response of the audience?

[ParanoiA]

ParanoiA said :

 

I would fight for him to have the right to hate me.

 

Fair enough. But I would put the Asshole in prison for trying to get other people to hate me. Your feelings are your feelings, and that is a human right. But to incite hatred is a crime.

 

It's not a crime here though. And I prefer it that way. Incite hatred? Hatred to you is religion for someone else. Hatred to the government, one day, could be civil rights liberation for someone else. I prefer to keep "hatred" as a judgement individuals make rather than my government. Besides, I have the right to counter that hatred. All of us have the right to free speech. That's arguably the most fundamental necessity of the check and balance system of our government.

 

By this man's logic, one could also kill out all minorites except for whites, as that would also end discrimination against minorites.

 

 

out of curiousity, what was the response of the audience?

 

There is some minor clapping, approx 4 or 5 people. One of those links has the video, but there's a better one that covers more after he says that.

[Sayonara]

Slow news day? Perhaps they thought this was relevant now since Richards got in trouble using racial slurs. I'm naturally suspicious of corporate news as it is.

The links point to a blog post from last month, and a news article from 2005, so I am guessing this blogger posted it now simply because it was the first time he had seen it.

 

Do I detect a tone of plurality in your assessment of his treatment if he were in the UK?

You'll have to clarify the question.

 

I would fight for him to have the right to hate me.

As far as I am concerned, he can believe whatever he likes. But incitement to kill and aggravating racial hatred are crimes in the UK.

 

The whole thing about this is I'm mixed race myself (1/2 white and 1/2 Taos Pueblo) so I guess I'll never get my retina scan. I can see why he's upset about that

 

I can't. What exactly is he whining about?

[ParanoiA]

As far as I am concerned, he can believe whatever he likes. But incitement to kill and aggravating racial hatred are crimes in the UK.

 

Actually, we have some incitement laws of our own, but I'm not sure how they're designed. The thing is, these kinds of people are few and far between compared to the big picture. I don't want laws restricting speech on everyone when it's just a few idiots using their rights irresponsibly. I'd rather maintain the simplicity and nobility of a free speech society - as free as possible, anyway.

 

Incidentally, I just watched a follow up clip of Fox news confronting this professor in front of his bookstore "Blacknificent", or something like that. It's your typical investigative journalist method of springing up on someone and thrusting your lights and cameras in their face in a rage of righteousness.

 

Anyway, the professor wouldn't say anything, much less defend his remarks or elaborate on them. Despite the media bully tactic, I still have a lack of respect for him since he won't stand up and defend himself.

[Sayonara]

Actually, we have some incitement laws of our own, but I'm not sure how they're designed. The thing is, these kinds of people are few and far between compared to the big picture. I don't want laws restricting speech on everyone when it's just a few idiots using their rights irresponsibly. I'd rather maintain the simplicity and nobility of a free speech society - as free as possible, anyway.

Yes, I see what you are saying.

 

But I suppose the idea is that if you aren't "doing hate speech" then the laws don't really affect you.

[Sisyphus]

Hehe, are you saying you would talk to the "Fox problem solvers" or whatever they call themselves now?

[ParanoiA]

Hehe, are you saying you would talk to the "Fox problem solvers" or whatever they call themselves now?

 

Yes. Not because I approve, but because it makes it look even worse when you don't talk to them.

 

This is why I would like someone to start a news on news show. I would love to see one of these investigative journalists have to deal with some idiot jumping him in the parking lot with a camera and a microphone busting out demands for a response to something he did years ago or answer for something a family member has done.

 

I would love to see a news program reporting on the inaccuracy and bias of other news outlets. Both of the times I've been involved in a local news event, it has been grossly misrepresented. Playing back audio of answers to questions that weren't asked. Summarizing long discussions with one sentence. Ridiculous editing. Anyone can see that one. Almost no one interviewed ever says a complete sentence - they always cut into their dialogue and chop everything up. But you never see these news anchors and reporters get covered on anything....hmmm

 

I think a brilliant thinker once said..."everybody's got something to hide, except for me and my monkey".

[Rhino]

I think a brilliant thinker once said..."everybody's got something to hide, except for me and my monkey".

 

Michael Jackson?

[ParanoiA]

Michael Jackson?

 

See, this is why you are but a mere quark. Guess again...

 

Of course, now that you mention it, would Michael Jackson get the axe? I mean, hell I was just born white as it was out of my control. But MJ's white on purpose.

[BGMCFAR]

I would like to ask this qestion to all of you If there was a black child sitting in the middle of the railroad tracks and there was a train coming and you were able to save that child would you do it and why

[ParanoiA]

I would like to ask this qestion to all of you If there was a black child sitting in the middle of the railroad tracks and there was a train coming and you were able to save that child would you do it and why

 

Well yes. I don't know anyone who wouldn't. I can't imagine having to explain why. A better question would be 'why not'.

[Sisyphus]

There's got to be something missing from that question...

[Phi for All]

I would like to ask this qestion to all of you If there was a black child sitting in the middle of the railroad tracks and there was a train coming and you were able to save that child would you do it and why

This question seems loaded. There is nothing in it that could allow you to defend an answer of "no". If the child was in the path of falling rocks you could at least argue that it was natural, or God's will or something. A child on the train tracks is the result of negligence and I think most would consider it their unspoken duty to, whenever possible, protect any child that has escaped the vigilance of it's guardians from a lethal situation.

 

What if there were two children on the tracks, one black and one white, both equidistant from where you are standing, and you can save one child but not both. Which one do you save?

[YT2095]

I would like to ask this qestion to all of you If there was a black child sitting in the middle of the railroad tracks and there was a train coming and you were able to save that child would you do it and why

 

yes, and because I can.

 

What if there were two children on the tracks, one black and one white, both equidistant from where you are standing, and you can save one child but not both. Which one do you save?

 

the one I saw first.

[AL]

I would like to ask this qestion to all of you If there was a black child sitting in the middle of the railroad tracks and there was a train coming and you were able to save that child would you do it and why

Were you really expecting people to say no?

[insane_alien]

What if there were two children on the tracks, one black and one white, both equidistant from where you are standing, and you can save one child but not both. Which one do you save?

 

thats an evil question. there would always be somebody who would call you a racist nomatter which one you picked.

 

i'd pick the one farthest away from the train since it gives me more time to get away while the one nearest the train might be cutting it a little close.

 

or if there are two tracks, trains and kids then apply shroedingers equation.

[YT2095]

he DID state equidistant! so there`s no ONE nearer or further from.

and while your figuring some sort of fancy equasion, they Both die! *sigh*

 

get back on the Dole

[insane_alien]

he said the kids are equidistant from you on ONE track with ONE train, which means one is going to get hit first, that one can die.

[YT2095]

trackS actualy, I think your letting the semantics of the question spoil the concept behind it, don`t you!?

 

Phi, Clarify this for him will ya

[ParanoiA]

What if there were two children on the tracks, one black and one white, both equidistant from where you are standing, and you can save one child but not both. Which one do you save?

 

Damn, that's an evil question. That's a "Saw" kinda predicament...

 

Anyway, I'd save the black child since there are less of them than white. The only way I could save the white child over the other is if I had some kind of tie to it - such as the neighbor's kid, or saw him at my son's school or something.

 

I guess I'm kind of applying my own brand of affirmative action, but at least it is self induced, and based on the only information capable of being processed quickly enough to make a decision.

[Phi for All]

the one I saw first.

I would grab the one closest to the train, figuring that at least I'd be giving the other child a tiny bit more time to get saved some other way.

 

Edit: I was assuming one set of tracks, one train coming. You are by the side of the tracks and the children are on the tracks. You could absolutely save one just as easily as the other but absolutely not both. There shouldn't be any other assumptions, like you know one of them or one might be more dangerous for you.

[BGMCFAR]

The question Iposed was not racist or evil it was to get people to think . there extremist of every color race religon and sex the thing to do is find out who they are.ignore them and pretty soon they figure out that know one is listening or paying attention and they either die of boardum or just fade away. I have friends and associates f every color race religon and sexual orientation and you know what makes each one special is the person

[Dr. Dalek]

What if there were two children on the tracks, one black and one white, both equidistant from where you are standing, and you can save one child but not both. Which one do you save?

 

That question was once affectionatly refured to as the "sadistic choice". (Credit goes to the Green Goblin in Spider-Man)

[SkepticLance]

Your question is diabolocal in that it implies evil, but evil does not exist.

 

If you are black, you will save the black child.

If you are white, you will save the white child.

 

There is nothing to be gained by trying to put some value judgement on this.

It boils down to this. If you are a black parent, you treat black children like your own. If you are are white parent, then white children are like your own.

 

Racism does not enter this. Just instinct. The entire question is unfair and implies lies as conclusions.