Column: Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy.

Post Reply New Topic

white folk say he is just having a contrary opinion, even if that opinion if legislated directly threatens POC. making it by design VERY hard to vote if you're black and poor, making police untouchable no matter what brutality towards POC and pofolk they laughingly engage in, making it illegal to demonstrate against such abuse of power in places like florida, how is that supposed to be good for POC? and POC DO have the GD RIGHT and MORAL DUTY to call that POS what he actually IS [a blatant apologist for white hypocrites and racists], and to angrily speak back to classist and ableist white hypocrites and their cynical enablers like elder.

Yes Larry Elder seems similar to another disreputable character named Dinesh D'Souza. They both make comments that seem unfavourable to PoC despite being one themselves. Again I avoid criticising either of them lest I be accused of being a racist myself.

that psychotic desnooza is a thread of its own.

Yes they both seem to have that in common, like Candace Owens, thrive on provocation.

Do I need to be black to say using racial slurs is generally bad, even within the slurred group?

It is interesting to compare people's attitudes to racial slurs...

We could look to a recent example, where many referred to a person as "racist" merely for merely mentioning a person's race in a telephone call... It would be interesting to see how many of those people are now attempting to defend the deliberate use (or worse, use it themselves) of a commonly recognised derogative term[1] to describe a person of the same\similar racial heritage to that of the "victim" in the earlier incident...

To me, the use of terms such as this to target people of a given race, merely for having different views\opinions\beliefs to what those who use the term believe are "correct" suggests that those using the term feel a sense of "ownership" (whether conciously or unconciously) over that group - That those who use the term know what is "best" for all members of that particular race, and use terms such as that as a way to keep all others in line, rather than respecting the individuals and their ability to decide for themselves what is best.

[1]
Source: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Uncle%20Tom

Feel free to go up to a group of black men and tell them they can't use the n-word to each other.

Why does criticizing a POC make one a racist?

False. Sandmann was just standing there when Mr Philips got up into his face. Watch the unedited video. It was edited to create the impression that Sandmann was being aggressive. He has since sued CNN and was awarded millions.

Why do you hate any POC that does not toe the liberal line and has an opinion of their own? Don't you believe in diversity?

Cyber dad wrote POC (group/all or nearly all)

You wrote a POC.

It is OK to criticize actions of a POC provided you are looking solely to actions unique to them as an individual.

It is not ok to criticize POC (group) because it covers people whose only shared trait is skin color.

How about policing people of certain races on "acceptable" opinions for them to hold?

That particular word has multiple meanings, the dropped 'r' version used colloquially among black people is not a slur at all in that context, where as if you hear a black person referring to another black person with the hard 'r' version, the meaning is pretty close to that of the slur, I would say in that context it's loosely like calling someone worthless or trash.

The amount he was awarded was never disclosed. The Washington post journalists/editors overestimated the damage caused by the group laughing and doing racist signs at Phillips which was a convenient legal loophole used by Sandann's legal team to sue for damages. I have posted on this topic already but there was circumstantial evidence the Washington post collected but were unable to use in court which pushed them to settle.

The first is that the Covington school teachers covered up that the boys deliberately crossed the street to confront a group of Black Israelites which precipitated the later event. The boys were motivated to create a confrontational situation

Second the boys (including Sandmann) were observed by numerous girls harassing and making sexist comments and the teachers (who apparently encouraged the boys to wear MAGA caps) never intervened. These girls were never called into court but were interviewed by journalists who verified their stories.

The third point is that during the entire video of the boys surrounding the native American elder and displaying racist hammer chops the teachers were again mysteriously not intervening.

In my view the boys were acting rogue and not being disciplined. The school subsequently covered up and the legal attack by QAnon adherent Lin W Woods against the Washington Post to a) cover up the less than savoury behaviour of MAGA kids and b) ensured the boys conduct would not be scrutinized by any other newspaper.

It was a form of cancelling the news to cover up MAGA/QAnon shenanigans.

Funny, I know what you are doing here because I do it, too. It's OK, I don't mind. Let's just see if I can answer suitably.

I just deleted a whole discussion on terminology because I don't think that is what you are asking about.

You are asking if its OK for a POC to tell a different POC what is an acceptable opinion for them to hold? Or for us who are not POC to tell POC what they are supposed to think?

I don't think it is ever acceptable for anyone to tell someone else what is an acceptable opinion to hold. Doesn't mean we can't challenge an opinion, but we have to do so in way that accepts their right to it.

But I am also aware that sometimes the big picture will indicate that some opinions are better not expressed at certain times and in certain places. To share one's belief on that with another in a matter of fact way isn't policing IMHO; it's supplying additional information the person may not have considered.

I can't answer for a group I don't belong to what big picture considerations may indicate for members of the group. That isn't for you or me to judge or decide. It's for other members of the group. We really should stay out of it completely.

It has always seemed to me to be somewhat "possesive", if not elitist, to expect another person to do what they are told to do by another, as though the person lacks the intelligence or ability to make a decision for themselves.

When a person is attacked using racial slurs, merely because they don't do what others (their "betters") feel those of their race should do, it is even worse, as it implies a belief not only that all of that race are (or should be) in the same position, but also that all members of that race should surrender themselves (and by association, things such as their aspirations\desires\beliefs) to suit the desires of this group claiming to speak for them (or to "know" what is best for them), rather than being free to exercise their own individual judgement based upon their own personal knowledge, experience, and situation - Treating them as children (or possesions) needing "protecting", rather than as adults who are capable of looking out for themselves.