lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Based on your logic a KKK website is not racist because ANYONE can log on to it. An American Nazi web browser would not be racist because anyone can download it. Your logic fails.

The thing is Africa has its share of white people as well. but you defend a label that promotes African-Americans could only be black. This is racist and discriminatory.

Now try and defend a web browser, a magazine, a college fund, a TV station, a charity, a black holiday ( Kwanza) etc..........that targets WHITE-American interests. What would the reception be? and you are gunna say that this would not be racist? I doubt you really believe your own bullshit on this topic.
A KKK website is filled with hate and is highly discriminatory. A Nazi web browser would be the same. My logic fails because this black web browser is racist? lol No it isn't. So how can you compare the two? Your logic fails because you refuse to see this browser as non-racist. That is the issue.

African-Americans do have a share of white people. And with inter-racial couples you also see mixed race generations. So a browser that integrates African-American interests can't be racist, if it's catering to both black and whites. So then where is your problem, if even you admit this browser is for both black, white and in between?

The reason that a white ONLY web browser and I say ONLY because that's what your referring to here is racist and discriminatory is because it is beating down on a minority.

That's why you see black college funds and black colleges. Because without them it is difficult to make it into a mainstream college with a large number of your own peers because they have limited numbers available in university. Your going to see far fewer places available down to simple population ratios.

And black Americans come from a lower socio-economic background, you'd admit that and have said so yourself in the past. A black college is designed to balance the education standards of black and non-blacks within America.

A white only college would have to reverse effect.

That is why a white only college is racist and a black only college is not. One is perpetuating the inequality, the other tries to further the equality.

And that is why you have a so called double standard. If you can't work that out for yourself and have to question why there is such a thing as a black only college and no white only equivalent you truly are lost in your own hysteria.
You automatically assume that a pro-white web site or browser is racist? Why is it racist to be pro-white and promote white culture? I do not neccessaairly see a black web browser as racist. I see it as accepted, but a pro-white browser would be racist, now by your own admittance.

The tables of equality have long been balanced, it is now up yo us an individuals to make it or break it.   All of these programs that we know now are not accepted for whites, should be just as discourged for blacks if it is equality we are after then lets start be holding everyone to the same standard of acceptance. Or are you going to continue to endorse inequality in such areas?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Based on your logic a KKK website is not racist because ANYONE can log on to it. An American Nazi web browser would not be racist because anyone can download it. Your logic fails.

The thing is Africa has its share of white people as well. but you defend a label that promotes African-Americans could only be black. This is racist and discriminatory.

Now try and defend a web browser, a magazine, a college fund, a TV station, a charity, a black holiday ( Kwanza) etc..........that targets WHITE-American interests. What would the reception be? and you are gunna say that this would not be racist? I doubt you really believe your own bullshit on this topic.
KKK and Nazis are specifically racists lowing and you know it so that is taken completely out of context ... a browser targeting white interests is not the same as KKK and nazis ...

We know (atleast i do) that not all Africans are blacks and i haven't stated otherwise hence why i stated it was targeted towards African American heritage ...

So as long as the content is not based on racism a white browser or a black one (read African American) is okay by me ... i would not object to either ...

But the majority is seldom in need of specifying special interests seeing as they are the majority and most products and services consider the majority the most but can have certain minorities in mind ...
African American means black you know it and I know it. period. It does not refer to all people with African descent. You also know as well as I do that anything pro-white is considered racist, automatically. So we might as well get that out in the open right now and build arguments from there.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

lowing wrote:

You automatically assume that a pro-white web site or browser is racist? Why is it racist to be pro-white and promote white culture? I do not neccessaairly see a black web browser as racist. I see it as accepted, but a pro-white browser would be racist, now by your own admittance.

The tables of equality have long been balanced, it is now up yo us an individuals to make it or break it.   All of these programs that we know now are not accepted for whites, should be just as discourged for blacks if it is equality we are after then lets start be holding everyone to the same standard of acceptance. Or are you going to continue to endorse inequality in such areas?
I didn't assume a pro-white website or browser is racist. I know that a Nazi or a KKK website is racist. Your own examples of pro-white. Neither promote white culture without promoting the hatred of other cultures.

The tables of equality have not long been balanced lowing. Blacks are still a minority. Let me know when that changes. If ever.

We are holding pro-black and pro-white programs to the same standard of acceptance. The "pro-white" websites of your own choice fail at this standard because they are perpetuating hatred based on the colour of ones skin.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

lowing wrote:

The thing is Africa has its share of white people as well. but you defend a label that promotes African-Americans could only be black. This is racist and discriminatory.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2427869

lowing wrote:

African American means black you know it and I know it. period. It does not refer to all people with African descent.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2427699

Round of applause for lowing everyone. By his own standards he is racist and discriminatory.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6632|Finland

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

The thing is Africa has its share of white people as well. but you defend a label that promotes African-Americans could only be black. This is racist and discriminatory.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2427869

lowing wrote:

African American means black you know it and I know it. period. It does not refer to all people with African descent.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2427699

Round of applause for lowing everyone. By his own standards he is racist and discriminatory.

Karma system wrote:

You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.
I need around tree fiddy.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

You automatically assume that a pro-white web site or browser is racist? Why is it racist to be pro-white and promote white culture? I do not neccessaairly see a black web browser as racist. I see it as accepted, but a pro-white browser would be racist, now by your own admittance.

The tables of equality have long been balanced, it is now up yo us an individuals to make it or break it.   All of these programs that we know now are not accepted for whites, should be just as discourged for blacks if it is equality we are after then lets start be holding everyone to the same standard of acceptance. Or are you going to continue to endorse inequality in such areas?
I didn't assume a pro-white website or browser is racist. I know that a Nazi or a KKK website is racist. Your own examples of pro-white. Neither promote white culture without promoting the hatred of other cultures.

The tables of equality have not long been balanced lowing. Blacks are still a minority. Let me know when that changes. If ever.

We are holding pro-black and pro-white programs to the same standard of acceptance. The "pro-white" websites of your own choice fail at this standard because they are perpetuating hatred based on the colour of ones skin.
Ok so we have an understanding then. A KKK website is racist.

http://www.whitepride.tv/


Explain what is racist about this other than being white pride. Which you admit is racist, however does not preach violence But any black power black pride examples are given a pass and endless excuses for their existance.

What does being a minority race have anything to do with being racist. Are you saying that minority races are allowed to be racist?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

The thing is Africa has its share of white people as well. but you defend a label that promotes African-Americans could only be black. This is racist and discriminatory.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2427869

lowing wrote:

African American means black you know it and I know it. period. It does not refer to all people with African descent.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2427699

Round of applause for lowing everyone. By his own standards he is racist and discriminatory.
Hey dipshit? African-American was adopted by the black community for identity reasons. It does not assume white people in that term. I didn't invent it, but I do recognize its meaning
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

lowing wrote:

Ok so we have an understanding then. A KKK website is racist.

http://www.whitepride.tv/


Explain what is racist about this other than being white pride. Which you admit is racist, however does not preach violence But any black power black pride examples are given a pass and endless excuses for their existance.
It's simple really:

whitepride.tv wrote:

The Bible has an important message for the white race. Yet, this teaching is being with held by false shepherds while at the same time delivering a deadly dose of deception.
If you can get past the obvious spelling mistakes and scaremongering.... You can see how such a site tries to extend the inequality that I have mentioned and preach hate. Albeit masked very badly...

https://thomasrobb.com/p9_a.gif

Any guess what flag that is based off? lol

Oh and the important message for the white race? You'll probably find it in the links directly off that site, most notably: http://www.kkk.bz/

It's not hard to find the racism there. Try finding a less ambiguous site, if you can...

This isn't promoting a white culture at all. There's nothing culturally significant anywhere on that site.

lowing wrote:

What does being a minority race have anything to do with being racist. Are you saying that minority races are allowed to be racist?
No, lowing. Again your completely ignoring what I have said. The black browser, black colleges, etc are there because it is harder for this minority to identify with a large group of people compared to others.

This isn't promoting anything against another culture as your racist websites are doing.

And they are openly doing it and even promote it:

Look at how to get involved with these groups:

kkk.biz "Ways that Klansmen and Klanswomen actively support The Knights Party." wrote:

Writing letters in support of White separatist views to the public letter box or "letters to the editor" of your local paper.
http://www.kkk.bz/howtoget.htm

So, find me a pro-white website that doesn't support segregation and it isn't racist. Find me a black website that does support segregation and it is racist.

This browser supports equality. Not segregation.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6762

lol this thread.  do you guys like running around in circles like a dog tied to a tree in the back yard?
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

usmarine wrote:

lol this thread.  do you guys like running around in circles like a dog tied to a tree in the back yard?
If I didn't enjoy debating lowing I wouldn't be doing it. I'm glad he's here and thank him in taking his time to reply and debate openly with me.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6762

TheAussieReaper wrote:

usmarine wrote:

lol this thread.  do you guys like running around in circles like a dog tied to a tree in the back yard?
If I didn't enjoy debating lowing I wouldn't be doing it. I'm glad he's here and thank him in taking his time to reply and debate openly with me.
fair enough.  but every debate has a time limit.  meh, continue on i guess.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

usmarine wrote:

lol this thread.  do you guys like running around in circles like a dog tied to a tree in the back yard?
sadly, yes, yes I do
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6767|Cambridge (UK)

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pretty simple really, because these sites target ALL Americans regardless of race skin color. They target Americans that share these interests.

A black web browser targets black people, not all Americans. They target and promote a specific race, skin color, culture, and the exclusion of others by design, and I thought we have all learned that in America, that is discrimination and racist. The truth is, it is discrimination and racist, ONLY if white people were to try and do it.
Pretty simple really, because those browsers target ONLY Americans based purely interests. BlackBird targets Americans that share African American interests.

The Porn browser targets porn lovers, not all Americans. They target and promote a specific person, fetish, culture, and the exclusion of others by design (children), and I thought you would have learned that in America, that isn't discrimination either. The truth is, your looking at this browser as racist, because you think if white people were to try and do it that would be racist. We've shown other examples that you seem to ignore.

It's already been shown that ANYONE can download it. It doesn't discriminate by skin colour.
Based on your logic a KKK website is not racist because ANYONE can log on to it. An American Nazi web browser would not be racist because anyone can download it. Your logic fails.
It's your logic that fails lowing.

A KKK website, that espouses racist views, is racist, because of the views it espouses.

The BlackBird browser does not espouse racist views, ergo it is not racist.

Likewise, if an 'American Nazi' browser existed, and did not, in and of itself, espouse racist views (though that would probably be very difficult to achieve), then it would also not be racist. I would expect a high proportion of those that would download and use such a browsers would themselves be racists, and so one could say, by that extension, that the browser did indirectly espouse racist views, but that point is moot, because, again, that charge at the BlackBird browser - because 'the black community' is not formed largely from racist individuals nor for racist purposes.

lowing wrote:

The thing is Africa has its share of white people as well. but you defend a label that promotes African-Americans could only be black. This is racist and discriminatory.
Who says all 'African-Americans' are 'Black'?

lowing wrote:

Now try and defend a web browser, a magazine, a college fund, a TV station, a charity, a black holiday ( Kwanza) etc..........that targets WHITE-American interests. What would the reception be? and you are gunna say that this would not be racist? I doubt you really believe your own bullshit on this topic.
You don't get it lowing.

Some people would cry "RACISM!" if they saw those things. We would not.

Those people would be wrong. We would not.

As you correctly they state, they, again, just like the BlackBird browser, are not, in and of themselves, racist concepts.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-12-19 07:39:39)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:


Pretty simple really, because those browsers target ONLY Americans based purely interests. BlackBird targets Americans that share African American interests.

The Porn browser targets porn lovers, not all Americans. They target and promote a specific person, fetish, culture, and the exclusion of others by design (children), and I thought you would have learned that in America, that isn't discrimination either. The truth is, your looking at this browser as racist, because you think if white people were to try and do it that would be racist. We've shown other examples that you seem to ignore.

It's already been shown that ANYONE can download it. It doesn't discriminate by skin colour.
Based on your logic a KKK website is not racist because ANYONE can log on to it. An American Nazi web browser would not be racist because anyone can download it. Your logic fails.
It's your logic that fails lowing.

A KKK website, that espouses racist views, is racist, because of the views it espouses.

The BlackBird browser does not espouse racist views, ergo it is not racist.

Likewise, if an 'American Nazi' browser existed, and did not, in and of itself, espouse racist views (though that would probably be very difficult to achieve), then it would also not be racist. I would expect a high proportion of those that would download and use such a browsers would themselves be racists, and so one could say, by that extension, that the browser did indirectly espouse racist views, but that point is moot, because, again, that charge at the BlackBird browser - because 'the black community' is not formed largely from racist individuals nor for racist purposes.

lowing wrote:

The thing is Africa has its share of white people as well. but you defend a label that promotes African-Americans could only be black. This is racist and discriminatory.
Who says all 'African-Americans' are 'Black'?

lowing wrote:

Now try and defend a web browser, a magazine, a college fund, a TV station, a charity, a black holiday ( Kwanza) etc..........that targets WHITE-American interests. What would the reception be? and you are gunna say that this would not be racist? I doubt you really believe your own bullshit on this topic.
You don't get it lowing.

Some people would cry "RACISM!" if they saw those things. We would not.

Those people would be wrong. We would not.

As you correctly they state, they, again, just like the BlackBird browser, are not, in and of themselves, racist concepts.
Oh I do get it, you just want to cloud it in PC bullshit. THe fact of the matter is, anything that promotes white interests is considered racist. Anything that promotes black interests, is not considered racist. That is the bottomline. Your denial of this is baffling? You know it is true. The only thing left is why? DO want to deny this for the sake of argument or do honestly believe there is no double standard at play with this issue?
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5702|College Park, MD

usmarine wrote:

lol this thread.  do you guys like running around in circles like a dog tied to a tree in the back yard?
quiet you, this is better than daytime TV!
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6767|Cambridge (UK)

lowing wrote:

scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Now try and defend a web browser, a magazine, a college fund, a TV station, a charity, a black holiday ( Kwanza) etc..........that targets WHITE-American interests. What would the reception be? and you are gunna say that this would not be racist? I doubt you really believe your own bullshit on this topic.
You don't get it lowing.

Some people would cry "RACISM!" if they saw those things. We would not.

Those people would be wrong. We would not.

As you correctly they state, they, again, just like the BlackBird browser, are not, in and of themselves, racist concepts.
Oh I do get it, you just want to cloud it in PC bullshit. THe fact of the matter is, anything that promotes white interests is considered racist. Anything that promotes black interests, is not considered racist. That is the bottomline. Your denial of this is baffling? You know it is true. The only thing left is why? DO want to deny this for the sake of argument or do honestly believe there is no double standard at play with this issue?
ARGH! Please read and comprehend what I posted.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6652|USA

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

scorpion0x17 wrote:


You don't get it lowing.

Some people would cry "RACISM!" if they saw those things. We would not.

Those people would be wrong. We would not.

As you correctly they state, they, again, just like the BlackBird browser, are not, in and of themselves, racist concepts.
Oh I do get it, you just want to cloud it in PC bullshit. THe fact of the matter is, anything that promotes white interests is considered racist. Anything that promotes black interests, is not considered racist. That is the bottomline. Your denial of this is baffling? You know it is true. The only thing left is why? DO want to deny this for the sake of argument or do honestly believe there is no double standard at play with this issue?
ARGH! Please read and comprehend what I posted.
What you need t ounderstand is it is not "SOME people" we are talking about. We are talking about what is widely accepted and not accepted in our society. Not just "some people"
Ridir
Semper Fi!
+48|6765
PSC 401N 001  CAP:WHITE IDENT & RACE       CNCL

For those of you who say it is not biased and unfair. This is a course at my university. Translation for those of you who don't understand the shorthand. Political Science Course 401N section 401, Capstone Class: White Identity and Race  CANCELED.

Although a few semesters ago we had black and middle eastern specific courses.
some_random_panda
Flamesuit essential
+454|6391

Ridir wrote:

PSC 401N 001  CAP:WHITE IDENT & RACE       CNCL

For those of you who say it is not biased and unfair. This is a course at my university. Translation for those of you who don't understand the shorthand. Political Science Course 401N section 401, Capstone Class: White Identity and Race  CANCELED.

Although a few semesters ago we had black and middle eastern specific courses.
Well, I'm sure they'd cancel either course if there weren't enough applicants to make it economically viable.
Ridir
Semper Fi!
+48|6765

some_random_panda wrote:

Ridir wrote:

PSC 401N 001  CAP:WHITE IDENT & RACE       CNCL

For those of you who say it is not biased and unfair. This is a course at my university. Translation for those of you who don't understand the shorthand. Political Science Course 401N section 401, Capstone Class: White Identity and Race  CANCELED.

Although a few semesters ago we had black and middle eastern specific courses.
Well, I'm sure they'd cancel either course if there weren't enough applicants to make it economically viable.
They don't cancel when there are still 6 weeks left until the new semester. They wait till about 3 weeks out. And when your campus is made up of predominately white and asain students you would think that the other courses would fall first. Anyway I'll find out what the enrollment was later and let ya know.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard