It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"I don’t hate black people, they just have a skin disease that affects their behavior”

page: 11
46
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


The employers made the decisions you're complaining about. Personal responsibility, remember?

Nice twist... trying to hide the issue by turning the tables. That's amazingly similar to what the Mafia used to do. You didn't pay your protection money and your shop burned down? Hey, you should be more careful... don't look at us!


Are you now blaming "society" for the ills of the world?

Yeah, I do blame "society"... specifically the growing percentage of society that likes to scream 'racist' at the drop of a hat... for many of the ills we face. I blame them because it's their fault.


I didn't "blame" the "police issue" on anything.

So you just let the police issue slide? "Don't worry, you're not racist for doing your job... wait! You arrested too many black men today! You racist!"

Or maybe you want to pretend it doesn't exist either?


Racists? Actually, I live in a good neighborhood and am fortunate not to have racists nearby. I personally know let's say 100 people. About 10 are what I would call racists.

Well, thank goodness you live in such a wonderful neighborhood. But remember, 1 out of every 4 people are racist, remember? So if you see three people who aren't racist, what does that make you? Or can you finally admit that 1 out of every 4 is a ridiculous claim?


Every single time you disagreed with Obama you were called a racist?

Yes, every single time, and not just on ATS. The context was I disagreed with his policy. Period. I do not doubt that some did disagree just to get back at the 'uppity black man', but to lump everyone who disagreed with his policy into the same bunch is absolutely ludicrous. And yet, that's the way it works today. Your claims notwithstanding.


I didn't tell you that "that kind of rhetoric doesn't exist."

So you admit it does exist? You admit that the racism accusation is frequently levelled at people without cause? Well, I'm glad we agree on that.

So, does that mean you support stopping such, or do you think it's a good idea to falsely accuse others?


What I did say is that you cannot speak for all people and all situations everywhere.

And neither can you. But you try to.

I speak for myself and the injustices I have experienced and seen. You, in this very discussion, have tried to speak for me, in your impotent attempts to discredit me. There is nothing 'politically correct' in my statements. I call things as I see them. There is much 'politically correct' in your statements: your desire to demonize anyone who disagrees with you is transparent as glass.

And therein lies the proof of who is correct. The one who states things openly, or the one who tries to deflect using labels?

TheRedneck




posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Turning the tables? Not at all ... stating the general facts. You wanted to deal with things in generic terms, that's what you're getting back. LOL @ implying that I'm using Mafioso tactics. More silly hyperbole.

Employers who fire employees are responsible for the action. I'm not sure how that comment is "turning the tables" in fact, i'm sure it's not.

##

Fair enough. You blame society. I think we're all responsible for the actions we take and the beliefs we hold. I don't believe any of us are somehow controlled by "society" that's nothing more than a cop-out in reverse. You blame "them" who are an indistinct, indescribable cadre of folks who don't speak the way you want them to?

Sounds a lot like "labeling" to me. Thought you were against that.

##

No, I'm not "letting the police issue slide," and I haven't said anything even faintly resembling what you put in quotes. Straw man, putting words in my mouth, paraphrasing ... you've got it all going on here. Bravo.

##

Snide innuendo just isn't your best look. Have I ever made the claim that 1 in 4 people are racist? I guessed at a percentage closer to 1 in 10 based on my own anecdotal evidence WHICH YOU ASKED FOR. Why would I admit something I've never said? You're not only reaching here, you're simply being absurd.

##

So, you have no shame at all for blatantly trying to put words in my mouth? Noted. Some folks are racist. Some, not so much. If you want to talk about what I'm saying or claiming, deal with what I said rather than quoting it and then pulling the old "so what you're saying here is...."

Putting a Gryph sock-puppet on your hand and having it say what you need it to say is demeaning for you, not for me.

##

Where have I made general statements about "all" or "everyone" or even implied anything like that? You speak for yourself and you generalize your experience to everyone everywhere. Yet, you seem to have no sense that you don't have the knowledge you claim, you're okay with asking that you not be labelled, but you have absolutely no compunction about doing it to others.

Down here, we call that being a hypocrite. Another "label" for you. Why don't you try following your own rules?


edit on 6-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, it's an underhanded tactic. Threaten someone to get them to take action, then blame them for the action. Of course, no one, including you, is going to admit it openly; that's not how the game is played.

And it's obvious this is a game for you. So far you have twisted facts, used statements out of context, tried to reverse issues, and used wordplay. That's a game. I am playing no game. Down here, we don't play silly little word games beyond 3rd grade.


Sounds a lot like "labeling" to me. Thought you were against that.

I am, but I didn't label; I described. I hold people accountable for their actions, actions which I specify in what you call a 'label.' Labels such as a 'basket of deplorables' are not specific and do not describe actions. They do one thing: demonize others by association and connotation. They do not address actions. Those are labels.

If you want to say "all those who would discriminate based on race are racist" I would agree with you. But that is not what many do. Many people just toss out the term 'racist' toward anyone they disagree with. No actions or evidence required. You appear, based on your posts, to support this. Thus, I have not labelled you; I have described a group of people by verifiable actions, and you have aligned with that group.

If you want to say, as Clinton did, that there is a "basket of deplorables that include racists, sexist, etc" and go on to associate that group with a political opponent, that is not a description... it is a label. Clinton did not specify an action associated with the group and used a term that is loosely defined. Anyone can be considered a 'deplorable' by their political opinion and thus can be associated with undesirable attributes.

You know all this. You just won't admit it. You're too busy playing your little word game.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Oh well..



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Who has been threatened?

Demonstrate which facts I have twisted.

Ah, context and wordplay ... aka discussion.

I've suggested that you take responsibility for the contradictory position that you've taken here. You don't want to be labelled, but you want to label anyone who disagrees with your take on things. You' believe in freedom of speech and that we should pursue that course to resolve our differences with each other ... just so long as no one calls you something you don't like.

For goodness sakes.

If you don't like being called things you aren't, occasionally, then get off the internet.

You're playing no game? LOL. That's all you've done. You want to present as the straight-talkin' honest countryfied hero, but really, the tactics you've deployed JUST IN THIS conversation mark you otherwise.

You didn't "label" you "describe." Oh, well, that's okay then eh? Guess what, it's the same thing: identifying someone else with words. Reducing the reality of who and what they are to your short-hand "description" of them ... based on nothing else other than your own beliefs.

Exactly what you want to damn others for doing.

Some people misuse the term racist. I find it odd that you seem to want me to say that, but yes, obviously they do.

Some people use it correctly. Some people don't like being called racist when they are. Some people are mislabelled.

I "have aligned" with a group that you defined by nothing other than your statement that I have done so ... riiiight, you're just "describing" here not "labelling" except the reality is you made the definition and assigned me to it. /shrug

So what? You think I'm aligned with some group of people you don't like because you don't like being labelled. You don't like the words they use whether right or wrong to describe you. Just because you personally aren't racist, you seem to want to discredit ANYONE ANYTIME using the word to accurately describe those who are ... and because you have been mislabelled, you want to declare therefore that everyone else is being mislabelled as well.

It just doesn't work that way. Clinton was very clear in what she said, and you, like most, are merely repeating the most ludicrous, extreme contradictory version of what you think she said ... if you're not racist, then you're not deplorable. If you're not sexist, you're not deplorable. Etc.

You're so stuck on "half of Trump's followers" ... she wasn't being exact in her speech, she said she was grossly generalizing, but lo and behold that's all that gets repeated here (I just realized that's the source of your "1 in 4" claim that you so desperately want to LABEL me with). First of all, Trump's supporters do not include half the country. Sorry, just not true.

Second of all, Clinton was very clear that many of Trump's followers were good, hard-working American's looking for a change that deserve understanding and empathy. Not ONCE have you been honest about what she actually said.

And yes, I do agree with her. If someone is an unrepentant racist, sexist, homophobe or religious bigot, I do think they are deplorable.

And if that's what I see in someone's actions and demeanor, I have no issue with telling them that.

I was doing you the courtesy of continuing the conversation in good faith. You come back with nothing more than your projections onto me ... telling me what I've said, what I think and what I believe with no basis in evidential reality.

You want to pretend that you're not involved in a "word game" (ludicrous considering your blatant fallacious logic and sock-puppetry on display here) ... be my guest.

I guess my best advice to you would be to toughen your internet skin. People are going to call you lots of things that aren't true. They're going to say you're doing things that you aren't. Rather than whine and make contradictory claims that someone else is doing exactly the same thing that you're doing ... do what I do.

Ignore those who do such things.
edit on 6-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you cannot understand the difference between a description and a label, there is nothing left to discuss. I have few qualms when it comes to who I will debate, but I do expect a passing familiarity with the English language.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Those who fall for hoaxes deserve the name "dupe". Don't believe a word you hear.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Yeah gave me the heads up about some members.
Obviously racism is alive and well unfortunately.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Ted Nugent is a retard. He claims that Black people are lying when they complain about racism and inequality, yet he LITERALLY makes racist comments right after that. Implying that Black people "aren't good for the country" is just sick. And unfortunately, he's not alone. Lots of people, with even more money, power and influence than him, think the exact same way.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you cannot understand the difference between a description and a label, there is nothing left to discuss. I have few qualms when it comes to who I will debate, but I do expect a passing familiarity with the English language.

TheRedneck


Why yes, Redneck ... that's certainly an apt description ... I'm unfamiliar with the English language.

Thanks for the labelling; I welcome your silence and will return it.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: kruphix

Yeah gave me the heads up about some members.
Obviously racism is alive and well unfortunately.


Thus we return to the value of free speech.

Let them talk; it clarifies who's who.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yup.
Thing is I don't think they even know they are.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yup.
Thing is I don't think they even know they are.


And don't want to.

Thus the apt labels "unrepentant" and "irredeemable" as someone recently described them.

"Deplorable" even.

(Adopted by some as a badge of pride.)
edit on 7-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Those who fall for hoaxes deserve the name "dupe". Don't believe a word you hear.


Should we believe you then?




posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Those who fall for hoaxes deserve the name "dupe". Don't believe a word you hear.


Should we believe you then?



If I was to say yes, would you?



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whereismypassword

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

I guess the alt right hate everyone but the liberals just hate the alt right?



There is no such party as alt right. It is a made up term to form a parallel to neonazism and republicans in fragile and impressionable minds.
I could just as easily start calling Kim Jong Un's political dogma alt-left and I guarantee in 6 months everyone would be using the term.
Both parties need to die. The left just seems to be worse.
Johnson 16


I used the alt right as they are trumps supporters and I respect the true republicans who see through Donald's deceit that he claims to running as one but in reality is running as a joke

Republicans don't hate every one so that's why I said alt right

That good enough for you?


"Alt-right" is a fabricated term made up by the left and used as an insult to Trump supporters. When you search it, you get terminology and definitions that were all updated this year, when the word started making it's rounds.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Ted's an AH other AHs like. Not news.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Whereismypassword

(Just so you know, "Alt Right" is a phrase coined by Richard Spencer (site linked above) in 2008 and promoted by folks like Steve Bannon late of Breitbart, now of Trump.

Nothing at all wrong with you using the phrase ... it's a verifiable thing.)


Right right... And this is why the left uses the term to call all Trump supporters alt right...

en.wikipedia.org...

This sh*t is laughable at best.

The alt-right is a segment of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in the United States.[1][2] It has been described as a movement unified by support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump,[3][4] as well as by opposition to globalism, immigration, multiculturalism and political correctness.[2][5][6]

The alt-right has no formal ideology, although various sources and alt-right figures have stated that white nationalism is fundamental to the movement.[1][2][7] It has also been associated with white supremacism,[3][8][9] anti-Islamism,[10][11][12][13][14] antifeminism,[1][6] antisemitism,[1][2][15] ethno-nationalism,[16] right-wing populism,[7] nativism,[17] traditionalism,[18] and the neoreactionary movement.[8][18][19]

It has been said to be a largely Internet-based movement, using Internet memes to advance or express its beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan.


Notice, however, the last modified date at the bottom.

This page was last modified on 5 October 2016, at 22:31.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66


Everything doesn't get called racism.

That's just more hyperbole.

It's the other side of what some of you like to call "political correctness."

Absolutely, unconditionally, positively, unequivocally, incorrect!

ANY statement made in respect to ANY person who is not white and male is potentially 'racist' depending on who is listening to it. People have been stripped of awards, property, and livelihood for having a statement deemed 'racist.' Police are regularly accused of 'racism' for doing their jobs. Politicians are regularly called 'racist' for opining on questionable legislation. War memorials have been deemed 'racist' and desecrated simply for existing. HILLARY CLINTON CALLED A QUARTER OF THE POPULATION 'RACIST' FOR SUPPORTING HER OPPONENT. All because of words, none because of actions.

It's statements like yours just now that have prevented us from moving beyond racism.

TheRedneck


BINGO!



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: TheRedneck

Personally denying racism exist doesn't mean it actually doesn't exist.

Most racist don't even realize they are racist...so not surprised some people don't even recognize racism when they see it.


Oh the irony...




top topics



 
46
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join