Yup, just like some people don't like Jews, Mexicans, women, the poor, Arabs or any other group.... Sometimes people just don't like a particular group and there is no strong single reason for it..
I think Nook has a good point. Seriously. Like with dogs, okay? Sometimes you have a dog, let's say a little terrier mix, and for whatever reason, ever since it was a puppy, it *hates* miniature poodles and will bark at them, snap at them relentlessly. And that can happen in humans, if they don't think very deeply. And the thing is, we expect more of our fellow humans than we do dogs. It's just not okay to simultaneously: (A) not like a certain race, and (B) speak out about it or post about it. It's totally legal, and it should be, but you're not going to win much respect or many friends. You can do (A) on its own and keep your bigot trap shut. Plenty of people do that as well. EDIT: I'll guess that in the reply below that the poster in the thread title could be taking this post personally. Sorry, brah, I'm just responding to Nook and talking in general. If you want to find an insult, you don't have to look very far in this forum, but this post wasn't one of them. You'll note my first post in the thread defended you with creative interpretations of your work.
oh wow, our resident self-righteous liberal professor wishes to make a "point"? please do enlighten me as to the bigoted comments I've made against blacks preesh - IA
bingo, beeches SNL on Jeremy Lin. Take NOTE http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/linsanity-postgame-cold-open/1386272/
"I have no problem living next to blacks." Something like that, which you wrote a few days ago. Mighty white of you. I hope they're okay living next to you. If "the blacks" living near you saw the threads you start here, they should grow eyes in the back of their heads.
You mention that you dominate thoughts often. You're pathetic. I'm sure most repubs, excluding the tea party, would be embarrassed to have you on their "team." It's obvious that you have a dislike for African Americans. You try to cover it up though. Just admit that you can't stand that a black man--not a democrat--is president. That's really what this is about.
I didn't even write that. You came up with your own crap. If you go through your threads/posts, there's always some sort of racial undertone. I don't know you (thankfully), but from your posts on a message board, it does appear that you have some sort of tension with African Americans, whether it be leaders in that type of category, regular people or aspects of African American culture. It's not like I'm the only one referencing this to you. Dozens of posters have mentioned the same thing. Maybe you're misunderstood, but I doubt it.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9uwt7Yiv2Zc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The proof partly is in the titles you create. It wasn't a writer that made a racist remark, it was a BLACK writer. It wasn't 18 boys that raped a young girl, it was 18 BLACKS that raped a young girl. It wasn't 7 Muslims arrested it was 7 BLACK Muslims. It wasn't a Columbia professor that punched some woman, it was a BLACK professor that punched some woman. It's kind of sick really as the races of the people involved are fairly irrelevant.
wrong again wow you guys sure do have a lot of accusations, but you cannot back them up. no cred the "black" part of those titles was necessary because the threads all had to deal with racial topics, where race did matter. so you're wrong. can't back it up
I'm not going to engage you so much. You obviously have issues. In each case the prominence of the people involved or severity of the stories is much more important than the races of the people involved. You're just too out there to recognize how messed up your thinking has become. Later, BRAH.
so you're surrendering, without having proved your point great thread, great use of time, brah you lose
One of my favorite poor-debater debate tactics is to demand proof of things, like actual photographic proof, for something that would literally have to have an admission of guilt before it could be proven. So, basically, you'd have to admit it before anyone can "prove" it according to the standards that you use when people accuse you of something (but, strangely, you rarely demand this level of proof for anything that you're happy to believe or to have others believe - for instance, you've never provided proof of how wealthy you are). Fortunately for all of us, this isn't a U.S. Court of Law, so circumstantial evidence will suffice. Here's an accusation that I'm sure you'll think requires 'proof': you are a massive toolio douchernaut from the planet stupid. You are incapable of making a rational argument for your selected (by others) viewpoints. You are middle-class, but you live beyond well beyond your means. You've never even been allowed to sniff the pants of a real 1-percenter, and the local czars of the Republican party don't even know that you exist. Prove me wrong.
