Racists insist that they aren't racist.

Post Reply New Topic

If only I had a dollar for every time you and Bill write Brietbart. Brietbart this Brietbart
Breitbart that Breitbart the other Brietbart Brietbart Brietbart.

Trump and all his supporters make Brietbart their number one news source because they're all alt-right. Now let's all repeat Brietbart and alt-right umpteen times a day

Reuters, AP and NPR to name a few.
There are more and far better choices out there than CNN vs Fox you know.

Don't be a fascist or a racist then. It's that simple.



What are you talking about?

People can't wear the stars n' bars in public? People can't display swastikas in public? White people can't use racial slurs in public? Who cares? Why does this bother you? Are you the sort of person who likes to use slurs in public?

This is no big deal ... unless you are literally a racist.

This racist thread should have been deleted for simply being obviously racist... But hey, wouldn't be surprised if most the mods here believe whites can't be a victim of racism.

Because it's there right. If I want ti yell the N-word it's my right. You have a right to be an as*hole. I choose not to say it though. Not my personal taste though. I am bothered when someone cannot express there opinion.

A racial slur is not an opinion. It is a word that exists only to upset other people. It brings nothing to the discussion and has no value.

Just because it has no value doesn't mean it shouldn't exist..

Oh diddums...what happened to free speech?

A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.

1. Posting offensive language, comments, video, or images.
Unacceptable content includes swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members; violent or sexually demeaning content; sexual fetish; and discussion of excretory function. Posting graphic images or videos of people or animals being harmed is prohibited.

A racial slur is not an opinion. It is a word that exists only to upset other people. It brings nothing to the discussion and has no value.

Sticks and bones may break my bones but words may never hurt me.

Just because it has no value doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Twinkies count as food.

The word cracker falls under unprotected speech and the government can prohibit it, if it will breach peace.

Cornell Law-First Amendment


Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire



Your freedom of speech also ends when you agree post on this private forum and adhere to the forum rules set forth by Alex... Unfortunately it's not properly enforced and certain members get a free pass.

Wrong Planet CoC


We would not be having this conversation if I said racial slur towards African Americans or even my Asian heritage; I would be banned. I should be able to hold the same expectations for my Caucasian roots (I am both White and Asian) and not be called a racial slur when I open my door or come into a community that is so post to be supporting and welcome each other who share this disability (something this community has lost touch with).


So what gives you the right to make a racial slur towards Whites? Is it double standards or just simply you're a hypocrite?

From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.

Let me guess, Donald Truump is going to destory the planet. Which you hear and read about every day from CNN and the Washington Post and/or similar.

Very naughty Ezra, you carefully avoided my question..."what is real news"

I didn't recognize that as a question the way you structured it. If you want me to answer something, go for being direct, instead of whatever that was.

That is one of the most evil phrases in the English language. Anyone who has dealt with bullying knows that you are completely wrong. You can pretend that the words don't hurt, but your mind has limits.

That's where the "SJW" phrase "Words are violence." comes from. Of course, it sounds stupid when you take it out of context, as conservatives always do.

Spare me your tired, macho clichés.



People who eat Twinkies are only hurting themselves.