Real talk... if there are coons, biracial 'black' women are the worst

[Stew]

At the rate things are going, the majority of the demographic in this country is gonna be multicultural anyway.

This scares a lot of white folks.

Whites aren't the only ones who don't like blacks. Asians, Hispanics, East Indians, etc. don't like our black asses either.

And.....we like them?

Clearly you need to visit ill pic sometime.

Just because you find a woman of another race attractive doesnt mean you like their race. Plenty of women have given black men the pussy and are straight up racist.

This would be counterproductive towards racism wouldnt it?

Genius statement Stew.

If a white bitch fucks a black male that means she isnt a racist.

Just like a man who fucks a woman can not be a sexist---OH WAIT...

Fucking moron.

Calls me a moron but calls that question that I asked a statement. Einstein you are.

It was a rhetorical question. And a rhetorical question IS a statement because its never really meant as a question. Which is why rhetorical has the word RHETORIC in it (idiot). And what is rhetoric? STATEMENTS to persuade or to make a point. NOT meant for inquisitive purposes...You made a dumbass point and I made you feel as stupid as you are. Simple.

Never argue with somebody clearly light years ahead of you intellectually. You'll only retreat further into your true intellectual capability (i.e. "You mad?" "Feelings," "You gay," etc etc) and then I'll just make you feel as stupid as you are again.

Next time I make you feel sdumb just accept it and stew....Stew. We both know thats all you really can do anyway. Now lets move on shall we?

@darxwell are you in la?

@laqueefa

No ma'am

lmao It was just a question nigga. I wasn't trying to persuade anything. Hence my next post was, "Im just trying to spark a debate"? Funny how most ppl responded with a simple "No" as if it were a question and you're too smart for your own good to understand that. lol Dumbass.

 

[jono]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

 

[DarcSkies]

At the rate things are going, the majority of the demographic in this country is gonna be multicultural anyway.

This scares a lot of white folks.

Whites aren't the only ones who don't like blacks. Asians, Hispanics, East Indians, etc. don't like our black asses either.

And.....we like them?

Clearly you need to visit ill pic sometime.

Just because you find a woman of another race attractive doesnt mean you like their race. Plenty of women have given black men the pussy and are straight up racist.

This would be counterproductive towards racism wouldnt it?

Genius statement Stew.

If a white bitch fucks a black male that means she isnt a racist.

Just like a man who fucks a woman can not be a sexist---OH WAIT...

Fucking moron.

Calls me a moron but calls that question that I asked a statement. Einstein you are.

It was a rhetorical question. And a rhetorical question IS a statement because its never really meant as a question. Which is why rhetorical has the word RHETORIC in it (idiot). And what is rhetoric? STATEMENTS to persuade or to make a point. NOT meant for inquisitive purposes...You made a dumbass point and I made you feel as stupid as you are. Simple.

Never argue with somebody clearly light years ahead of you intellectually. You'll only retreat further into your true intellectual capability (i.e. "You mad?" "Feelings," "You gay," etc etc) and then I'll just make you feel as stupid as you are again.

Next time I make you feel sdumb just accept it and stew....Stew. We both know thats all you really can do anyway. Now lets move on shall we?

@darxwell are you in la?

@laqueefa

No ma'am

lmao It was just a question nigga. I wasn't trying to persuade anything. Hence my next post was, "Im just trying to spark a debate"? Funny how most ppl responded with a simple "No" as if it were a question and you're too smart for your own good to understand that. lol Dumbass.

No you tried to be a smartass and forgot the smart.

I hope you suffocate under the weight of your self-hatred and coonery.

 

[LUClEN]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

 

[Stew]

At the rate things are going, the majority of the demographic in this country is gonna be multicultural anyway.

This scares a lot of white folks.

Whites aren't the only ones who don't like blacks. Asians, Hispanics, East Indians, etc. don't like our black asses either.

And.....we like them?

Clearly you need to visit ill pic sometime.

Just because you find a woman of another race attractive doesnt mean you like their race. Plenty of women have given black men the pussy and are straight up racist.

This would be counterproductive towards racism wouldnt it?

Genius statement Stew.

If a white bitch fucks a black male that means she isnt a racist.

Just like a man who fucks a woman can not be a sexist---OH WAIT...

Fucking moron.

Calls me a moron but calls that question that I asked a statement. Einstein you are.

It was a rhetorical question. And a rhetorical question IS a statement because its never really meant as a question. Which is why rhetorical has the word RHETORIC in it (idiot). And what is rhetoric? STATEMENTS to persuade or to make a point. NOT meant for inquisitive purposes...You made a dumbass point and I made you feel as stupid as you are. Simple.

Never argue with somebody clearly light years ahead of you intellectually. You'll only retreat further into your true intellectual capability (i.e. "You mad?" "Feelings," "You gay," etc etc) and then I'll just make you feel as stupid as you are again.

Next time I make you feel sdumb just accept it and stew....Stew. We both know thats all you really can do anyway. Now lets move on shall we?

@darxwell are you in la?

@laqueefa

No ma'am

lmao It was just a question nigga. I wasn't trying to persuade anything. Hence my next post was, "Im just trying to spark a debate"? Funny how most ppl responded with a simple "No" as if it were a question and you're too smart for your own good to understand that. lol Dumbass.

No you tried to be a smartass and forgot the smart.

I hope you suffocate under the weight of your self-hatred and coonery.

O yea, u mad lol

 

[jono]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

 

[LUClEN]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

 

[jono]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

 

[LUClEN]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

 

[OGClarenceBoddicker]

i agree, i will take it a step further and say most black women are the biggest coons on earth

black women of any shade with blonde weave should be murdered on site, imagine if like 90% of white women was walkin around with fake afro wigs from the dollar store, its basically the exact equivalent, granted about 98% of the white women you see walkin around with blond hair are not natural blondes but they are naturally white so its not far fetched, and also granted there are black people with naturally blond hair but we aint no melanesians so cut the bullshit

in my teen years black women with blonde weave used to be so sexy to me, at 25, fuck no, its an embarassment, i bet white women be havin the time of they life laughin at them fuckin clowns

any kind of weave look so fuckin trashy, clownish and cartoonish, im gettin to the point where seein a black woman with her natural hair straightened, dont matter if its colored black or not, is gettin on my nerves

and death to all black females with 2 black parents and 4 black grandparents on instagram talkin bout they mixed

during feburary a black chick i follow posted a pic on ig of a native american talkin about "i know this is black history month but yall not gon forget about my people", smfh bitch darker than me, fuckin disgustin

they played a hand in my avi change, cuz if we was in africa and i stumbled into a position of power, im cuttin bitches face off behind this shit

i love black women but some of yall cooned up

and dont never get me confused as one of them fuckin corny ass tommy sotomaor followin niggas, them niggas is fuckin coons

 

[jono]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

 

[LUClEN]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

 

[kzzl]

I'd have to give it to the black women.

Black women seem to have the bigger issue of assimilating into the dominant society. They are the ones told they are not pretty if they are dark. Their natural hair is no good. Siding with feminist movements that care nothing for them. Contributing to the demise of the black male in the house. And using Uncle Sam as their real daddy with welfare/child support checks. The black women that submit to this form of destruction are the ones we need to address.

For the most part, mixed folks are the result of their environments. And the general rule is that mixed people are considered black, that's just the way our society is and always has been. Personally, I think black people with such strong disdain towards the mixed in this age are color struck. They ain't comfortable in they own skin and they project that shit out.

 

[jono]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

 

[Darth Sidious]

The woman is Darxwell's thumbnail is clearly bi-racial. Like Halle Berry with better tits.

 

[LUClEN]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

 

[jono]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

 

[D0wn]

i agree, i will take it a step further and say most black women are the biggest coons on earth

black women of any shade with blonde weave should be murdered on site, imagine if like 90% of white women was walkin around with fake afro wigs from the dollar store, its basically the exact equivalent, granted about 98% of the white women you see walkin around with blond hair are not natural blondes but they are naturally white so its not far fetched, and also granted there are black people with naturally blond hair but we aint no melanesians so cut the bullshit

in my teen years black women with blonde weave used to be so sexy to me, at 25, fuck no, its an embarassment, i bet white women be havin the time of they life laughin at them fuckin clowns

any kind of weave look so fuckin trashy, clownish and cartoonish, im gettin to the point where seein a black woman with her natural hair straightened, dont matter if its colored black or not, is gettin on my nerves

and death to all black females with 2 black parents and 4 black grandparents on instagram talkin bout they mixed

during feburary a black chick i follow posted a pic on ig of a native american talkin about "i know this is black history month but yall not gon forget about my people", smfh bitch darker than me, fuckin disgustin

they played a hand in my avi change, cuz if we was in africa and i stumbled into a position of power, im cuttin bitches face off behind this shit

i love black women but some of yall cooned up

and dont never get me confused as one of them fuckin corny ass tommy sotomaor followin niggas, them niggas is fuckin coons

Trillness.

But don't only spit half the story.

If the women are fucked up, just look at the men, and you'll see why.

Don't act like most Niggaz are farrakhan jrs.

If Most black american men was setting the standards In their own community, the women will fall in line.

But guess what? we Black men do set standards, and you see the standards We set.

Not u personally, but the majority of Us.

You brought up black women In blonde weave, but u didnt state the fact that, the more european a women look, the more attractive the average black man find her?

I'm not saying don't Be attracted to Other races, but how are You gonna shit within your own race, and not expect the women to react with blonde weaves , thinking the less black they look, the better???

Don't say half the story. Some niggaz dont wanna see change.They just wanna play the blame game.

 

[LUClEN]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?

Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.

 

[jono]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?

Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.

1) I never said that

2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

As far as the second bolded:

Prove it...