contrifan32
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Posts
- 3,669
Obama's Buddies
- Thread starter Boxlicker101
- Start date
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,617
To some extent yes we are guessing. But when you present yourself as a racist you should expect to be treated as such. Donald Trump should not be shocked by anything that anybody says to him about his words on hispanics. Nobody. That coach from a few years back who slipped up and then just kept slipping shouldn't be shocked when someone calls him out. If someone calls out Bush (take your pick of the well known three) well the person doing the calling out has some splain' to do because they have all shown themselves to at worst be indifferent. And while the mere ability to indifferent is part of white privilege that in and of itself does not make one evil nor racist. Perhaps a little blind (I'll admit I think there is a point when if you're not seeing that 'x' is a problem that it's not because you haven't seen it, it's that if you admit it's true you might have to reconsider a whole lot of other things you've said/done/believed and you just kind of blind yourself to it. That's however another story.)
If we're talking specifically posters here some are definitely racist. But yes it is ultimately up to the opinion of the persion who is addressing you and how they have interacted with you in the past. or seen you behave. However that makes it no different from anything else in the world.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
No....sorry to burst your klan pride bubble but there are racist fucks in TX and sometimes they get caught when they overstep their bounds.
It must suck living in such a world as a bigot.
contrifan32
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Posts
- 3,669
You know what really must suck? Living in the greatest country in the word, the country that has done more for racial equality and offers more opportunity then any other country in the world... and living your life blaming your shortcomings and failures on the color of someone else's skin.
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
Best thing about seemingly innocuous and fatally simple spoken-from-comfort statements like the above is that it shows you how white privilege honestly deludes itself into thinking we've gotten to this fantastically perfect stage of lollipops and unicorns in America by being silent about what's wrong, then praying and hoping change and progress into reality through submissive quiescence.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJ0FDUeUMAEisnI.jpg
http://38.media.tumblr.com/3d8286455f647766b1cb8062115c9796/tumblr_ndougwUjZd1rflte8o2_250.gif
This thread's gonna go on for a while, I can feel it. Funny how it's not about "Obama's Buddies" anymore since page one, huh?
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Driving While Black
“Stop and frisk” isn’t just a reality in New York City. New data shows how police target African Americans on highways across America.
By Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody
If there’s one issue that won Bill de Blasio the New York Democratic mayoral primary in September, on his way to a crushing 74 percent to 24 percent victory in the November general election, it was his full-throated opposition to “stop and frisk.” Under this policy, police officers stop, question, and frisk people they deem suspicious, usually with zero evidence that they’ve committed a crime. De Blasio’s predecessor Michael Bloomberg and his GOP election opponent Joe Lhota strongly defended stop and frisk, arguing that it helps reduce the crime rate. But the voters of New York had clearly had enough of a policy that, in practice, overwhelmingly targets minorities, especially young blacks, only a tiny fraction of whom are ever found to be carrying drugs, or a gun, or indeed to have done anything wrong at all.
What few Americans (or at least white Americans) know is that stop and frisk is not limited to New York City. Versions of the policy are in place across the country. And just as in New York, whatever crime-fighting benefits derive from the policy come at the expense of contravening basic American principles of equal treatment under the law and of angering law-abiding minority citizens whose support and cooperation the police need to fight crime.
Until recently, there has been limited data on the degree to which stop-and-frisk policies, as opposed to other factors or police tactics, specifically cause alienation and resentment. But a first-of-its-kind survey we conducted in Kansas City makes that connection quite clear.
Although it is hard to document how widely police departments employ stop-and-frisk-like tactics, the data tells the same story nearly everywhere studies have been done on who is stopped by the police: racial minorities are stopped at considerably higher rates than whites. The underlying reason for this is not racism by individual officers. Rather, it is police department directives requiring officers to make large numbers of stops just to check people out. Police departments widely favor this practice because it allows officers to proactively seize guns and drugs, in officer-initiated stops, rather than waiting to respond to crimes.
Police officers have long checked out people who look suspicious, but in the 1970s several scholars, led by James Q. Wilson, proposed turning this happenstance occurrence into an organized, disciplined practice. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration’s Operation Pipeline, a key war-on-drugs initiative that trained local departments in how to make stops to find drugs, refined the technique and spread its gospel widely across the country. A study by the National Institute of Justice in the mid-1990s showed how to use investigatory traffic stops to seize illegally carried guns. The New York City Police Department then applied the practice to stop and frisks of pedestrians.
Police leaders know that it takes a lot of stops to find just a few illegal drugs or weapons. A widely used police training manual, Tactics for Criminal Patrol, declares that “[c]riminal patrol in large part is a numbers game; you have to stop a lot of vehicles to get the law of averages working in your favor.” Or, as an officer put it to the late journalist Gary Webb, “you’ve got to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince.” (The irony in this statement, of course, is that law-abiding citizens are the “frogs” and criminals are the “princes.”) This numbers game helps to explain why 98.2 percent of the stops in New York City yielded no illegal weapon or drugs. This 1.8 percent “hit rate,” as Columbia law professor Jeffrey Fagan has shown, is no better than chance.
To understand the phenomenon outside of New York City, where drivers rather than pedestrians tend to be the target of stop-and-frisk-type operations, we surveyed 2,329 drivers in and around Kansas City, a region typical of large, geographically segregated metropolitan areas in the country. The data from our survey allowed us to distinguish stops to enforce traffic safety laws—like speeding at fifteen miles per hour over the limit—from stops to investigate the driver. Our key finding is that these two types of stops differ from start to finish. In traffic safety stops, based on clear violations of the law, officers quickly issue a ticket or warning and let the driver go. In investigatory stops officers drag the stop out as they try to look at the vehicle’s interior, ask probing questions, and ultimately seek consent for a search (drivers almost always agree, telling us that they feel they have no real choice in the matter).
The key influence on who is stopped in traffic safety stops is how you drive; in investigatory stops it is who you are, and being black is the leading influence. In traffic safety stops, being black has no influence: African Americans are not significantly more likely than whites to be stopped for clear traffic safety law violations. But in investigatory stops, a black man age twenty-five or younger has a 28 percent chance of being stopped for an investigatory reason over the course of a year; a similar young white man has a 12.5 percent chance, and a similar young white woman has only a 7 percent chance. And this is after taking into account other possible influences on being stopped, like how you drive. Police focus investigatory stops on younger people, and so as people grow older they are less likely to be stopped in this way. But a black man must reach fifty—well into the graying years—before his risk of an investigatory stop drops below that of a white man under age twenty-five. Overall, black drivers are nearly three times more likely than whites to be subjected to investigatory stops.
Being black is also the leading influence on how far police officers pursue their inquisition in investigatory stops. In these stops, full-blown vehicle searches are relatively common. After taking into account other possible influences, black drivers in our survey were five times more likely than whites to be subjected to searches in investigatory stops. Searches are remarkably rare in traffic safety stops, and the driver’s race has no influence on whether the driver is searched in these stops.
These differences are not lost on African Americans. According to our survey, African Americans view normal traffic stops as legitimate exercises of law enforcement, and do so at about the same rate as whites do. Indeed, the main difference is that blacks, unlike whites, are even more likely to view a traffic stop as legitimate when the officer lectures them on driver safety, taking that lecture as a reassuring cue that they were in fact stopped for their behavior, not for the color of their skin.
By contrast, African Americans view investigative stops far more harshly, for reasons that are obvious when you hear their descriptions of the experiences, as we did conducting our survey. One gentleman, Billy, told a story about how, on the way to a job interview in Des Moines, he was pulled over by a Missouri highway patrolman for speeding even though he was going, at most, two miles over the speed limit. The trooper made Billy get out of his car and put his hands on the hood while he searched his car. Finding nothing, explained Billy, the trooper “came back and said, ‘The reason why we checked your car is we’ve been having problems with people trafficking drugs up and down the highway.’ So that was that.” It was not the only time this happened to Billy. On another occasion, he, his wife, and his cousin were pulled over on their way to visit an ill relative and their rental van was searched for drugs by a Missouri sheriff’s deputy.
Another man, Joe, told of being pulled over in Kansas City by an officer who drew his gun, handcuffed him, searched his car, checked his license, then let him go with “no ticket, no nothing.” Asked why he thought the officer had stopped him, Joe said, “I don’t know why, beside driving a nice vehicle, a nice car in the wrong neighborhood.” Joe, too, experienced much the same thing a second time, when an officer pulled him over and checked his license for outstanding warrants (he had none). “I felt violated,” Joe says of that episode. As well he should; warrant check stops are in fact illegal. But in some high-crime areas, an officer in a Kansas City-area department told us, “We stop everything that moves.”
The numbers game that police play with investigatory stops is a recipe for giving offense to large numbers of innocent people. Pervasive, ongoing suspicious inquiry sends the unmistakable message that the targets of this inquiry look like criminals: they are second-class citizens. The vast majority of black respondents to our survey—64 percent, compared to only 23 percent of whites—said that you cannot always trust police to do the right thing. Twenty-two percent of black respondents agreed with the statement that “the police are out to get people like me.” Only 4.5 percent of whites felt this way. The disproportionate personal experience of these stops among blacks is one source of this trust gap. Another is hearing stories of police disrespect from families, friends, and work and faith networks. Among respondents to our survey, 37 percent of black drivers, compared to 15 percent of whites, reported hearing these sorts of stories from members of their own household.
Investigatory police stops teach the lesson that the police are here to get racial minorities, not protect them. This is what Cornell law professor Sherry Colb calls the “targeting harm” of investigatory stops. It is the message that people like you are targets of surveillance, not the beneficiaries of protection. And while investigatory stops do enable police to find some lawbreakers and get them off the street, they also undermine the minority community’s trust in law enforcement and thereby its willingness to share information vital to good police work. Sixteen percent of black respondents to our survey reported that they did not feel comfortable calling the police if they needed help, compared to only 5 percent of whites.
Police leaders say the solution is to train officers to be more polite and respectful. This is not enough. The people we surveyed certainly prefer to be treated politely in police stops. But investigatory police stops are fundamentally unjust—and, according to our survey, feared—no matter how polite the officer.
A more meaningful solution is one put forth by U.S. district judge Shira A. Scheindlin, who in August ruled that New York City’s stop and frisks, as practiced, violate the Constitution. She ordered the New York City Police Department to better train officers in what kinds of justifications for these stops are constitutionally acceptable and to require officers to report the justification for stops in their own words (as opposed to simply checking a box to indicate the type of justification). Importantly, she also appointed a lawyer to monitor the police department’s implementation of these directives. While her decision was suspended by an appellate court, it offers an excellent analysis of the constitutional problems in the practice of stop and frisk. We hope it serves to guide other judicial decisions.
Still, in our view, the judge’s reform directives do not go far enough. The Constitution, at least as interpreted by the Supreme Court, sets the bar too low with regard to what is an acceptable justification for a stop. Police training already teaches officers to justify a stop with “specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from,” the language in the key Supreme Court decision Terry v. Ohio. It is too easy for officers to provide a right-sounding legal justification for what is, in fact, a stop based on inchoate suspicion.
The solution is to prohibit investigatory police stops. This will require a change in police norms. Police leaders celebrate investigatory stops and the few big busts they yield. Instead, these leaders—the heads of professional police associations, police chiefs, and police trainers—should acknowledge how much these stops cause palpable harm to the person stopped and to trust in the police. Departments should prohibit stops unless justified by evidence of a violation. Officers would still have the authority to make traffic safety stops to ticket or arrest drivers for speeding, blowing through red lights, or driving drunk. They would still have the authority to stop people who fit a clear description of a suspect. What they would not have the authority to do is to stop people out of curiosity or unspecified suspicion.
If law enforcement leaders won’t act on their own, political leaders may force them into doing so. The New York mayor’s race showed that stop and frisk has taxed the patience of a substantial number of voters. Our survey shows that New York City is not the only place where that’s true.
Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody are professors at the School of Public Affairs and Administration at the University of Kansas. They are coauthors, with Donald Haider-Markel, of Pulled Over: How Police Stops Define Race and Citizenship.
“Stop and frisk” isn’t just a reality in New York City. New data shows how police target African Americans on highways across America.
By Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody
If there’s one issue that won Bill de Blasio the New York Democratic mayoral primary in September, on his way to a crushing 74 percent to 24 percent victory in the November general election, it was his full-throated opposition to “stop and frisk.” Under this policy, police officers stop, question, and frisk people they deem suspicious, usually with zero evidence that they’ve committed a crime. De Blasio’s predecessor Michael Bloomberg and his GOP election opponent Joe Lhota strongly defended stop and frisk, arguing that it helps reduce the crime rate. But the voters of New York had clearly had enough of a policy that, in practice, overwhelmingly targets minorities, especially young blacks, only a tiny fraction of whom are ever found to be carrying drugs, or a gun, or indeed to have done anything wrong at all.
What few Americans (or at least white Americans) know is that stop and frisk is not limited to New York City. Versions of the policy are in place across the country. And just as in New York, whatever crime-fighting benefits derive from the policy come at the expense of contravening basic American principles of equal treatment under the law and of angering law-abiding minority citizens whose support and cooperation the police need to fight crime.
Until recently, there has been limited data on the degree to which stop-and-frisk policies, as opposed to other factors or police tactics, specifically cause alienation and resentment. But a first-of-its-kind survey we conducted in Kansas City makes that connection quite clear.
Although it is hard to document how widely police departments employ stop-and-frisk-like tactics, the data tells the same story nearly everywhere studies have been done on who is stopped by the police: racial minorities are stopped at considerably higher rates than whites. The underlying reason for this is not racism by individual officers. Rather, it is police department directives requiring officers to make large numbers of stops just to check people out. Police departments widely favor this practice because it allows officers to proactively seize guns and drugs, in officer-initiated stops, rather than waiting to respond to crimes.
Police officers have long checked out people who look suspicious, but in the 1970s several scholars, led by James Q. Wilson, proposed turning this happenstance occurrence into an organized, disciplined practice. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration’s Operation Pipeline, a key war-on-drugs initiative that trained local departments in how to make stops to find drugs, refined the technique and spread its gospel widely across the country. A study by the National Institute of Justice in the mid-1990s showed how to use investigatory traffic stops to seize illegally carried guns. The New York City Police Department then applied the practice to stop and frisks of pedestrians.
Police leaders know that it takes a lot of stops to find just a few illegal drugs or weapons. A widely used police training manual, Tactics for Criminal Patrol, declares that “[c]riminal patrol in large part is a numbers game; you have to stop a lot of vehicles to get the law of averages working in your favor.” Or, as an officer put it to the late journalist Gary Webb, “you’ve got to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince.” (The irony in this statement, of course, is that law-abiding citizens are the “frogs” and criminals are the “princes.”) This numbers game helps to explain why 98.2 percent of the stops in New York City yielded no illegal weapon or drugs. This 1.8 percent “hit rate,” as Columbia law professor Jeffrey Fagan has shown, is no better than chance.
To understand the phenomenon outside of New York City, where drivers rather than pedestrians tend to be the target of stop-and-frisk-type operations, we surveyed 2,329 drivers in and around Kansas City, a region typical of large, geographically segregated metropolitan areas in the country. The data from our survey allowed us to distinguish stops to enforce traffic safety laws—like speeding at fifteen miles per hour over the limit—from stops to investigate the driver. Our key finding is that these two types of stops differ from start to finish. In traffic safety stops, based on clear violations of the law, officers quickly issue a ticket or warning and let the driver go. In investigatory stops officers drag the stop out as they try to look at the vehicle’s interior, ask probing questions, and ultimately seek consent for a search (drivers almost always agree, telling us that they feel they have no real choice in the matter).
The key influence on who is stopped in traffic safety stops is how you drive; in investigatory stops it is who you are, and being black is the leading influence. In traffic safety stops, being black has no influence: African Americans are not significantly more likely than whites to be stopped for clear traffic safety law violations. But in investigatory stops, a black man age twenty-five or younger has a 28 percent chance of being stopped for an investigatory reason over the course of a year; a similar young white man has a 12.5 percent chance, and a similar young white woman has only a 7 percent chance. And this is after taking into account other possible influences on being stopped, like how you drive. Police focus investigatory stops on younger people, and so as people grow older they are less likely to be stopped in this way. But a black man must reach fifty—well into the graying years—before his risk of an investigatory stop drops below that of a white man under age twenty-five. Overall, black drivers are nearly three times more likely than whites to be subjected to investigatory stops.
Being black is also the leading influence on how far police officers pursue their inquisition in investigatory stops. In these stops, full-blown vehicle searches are relatively common. After taking into account other possible influences, black drivers in our survey were five times more likely than whites to be subjected to searches in investigatory stops. Searches are remarkably rare in traffic safety stops, and the driver’s race has no influence on whether the driver is searched in these stops.
These differences are not lost on African Americans. According to our survey, African Americans view normal traffic stops as legitimate exercises of law enforcement, and do so at about the same rate as whites do. Indeed, the main difference is that blacks, unlike whites, are even more likely to view a traffic stop as legitimate when the officer lectures them on driver safety, taking that lecture as a reassuring cue that they were in fact stopped for their behavior, not for the color of their skin.
By contrast, African Americans view investigative stops far more harshly, for reasons that are obvious when you hear their descriptions of the experiences, as we did conducting our survey. One gentleman, Billy, told a story about how, on the way to a job interview in Des Moines, he was pulled over by a Missouri highway patrolman for speeding even though he was going, at most, two miles over the speed limit. The trooper made Billy get out of his car and put his hands on the hood while he searched his car. Finding nothing, explained Billy, the trooper “came back and said, ‘The reason why we checked your car is we’ve been having problems with people trafficking drugs up and down the highway.’ So that was that.” It was not the only time this happened to Billy. On another occasion, he, his wife, and his cousin were pulled over on their way to visit an ill relative and their rental van was searched for drugs by a Missouri sheriff’s deputy.
Another man, Joe, told of being pulled over in Kansas City by an officer who drew his gun, handcuffed him, searched his car, checked his license, then let him go with “no ticket, no nothing.” Asked why he thought the officer had stopped him, Joe said, “I don’t know why, beside driving a nice vehicle, a nice car in the wrong neighborhood.” Joe, too, experienced much the same thing a second time, when an officer pulled him over and checked his license for outstanding warrants (he had none). “I felt violated,” Joe says of that episode. As well he should; warrant check stops are in fact illegal. But in some high-crime areas, an officer in a Kansas City-area department told us, “We stop everything that moves.”
The numbers game that police play with investigatory stops is a recipe for giving offense to large numbers of innocent people. Pervasive, ongoing suspicious inquiry sends the unmistakable message that the targets of this inquiry look like criminals: they are second-class citizens. The vast majority of black respondents to our survey—64 percent, compared to only 23 percent of whites—said that you cannot always trust police to do the right thing. Twenty-two percent of black respondents agreed with the statement that “the police are out to get people like me.” Only 4.5 percent of whites felt this way. The disproportionate personal experience of these stops among blacks is one source of this trust gap. Another is hearing stories of police disrespect from families, friends, and work and faith networks. Among respondents to our survey, 37 percent of black drivers, compared to 15 percent of whites, reported hearing these sorts of stories from members of their own household.
Investigatory police stops teach the lesson that the police are here to get racial minorities, not protect them. This is what Cornell law professor Sherry Colb calls the “targeting harm” of investigatory stops. It is the message that people like you are targets of surveillance, not the beneficiaries of protection. And while investigatory stops do enable police to find some lawbreakers and get them off the street, they also undermine the minority community’s trust in law enforcement and thereby its willingness to share information vital to good police work. Sixteen percent of black respondents to our survey reported that they did not feel comfortable calling the police if they needed help, compared to only 5 percent of whites.
Police leaders say the solution is to train officers to be more polite and respectful. This is not enough. The people we surveyed certainly prefer to be treated politely in police stops. But investigatory police stops are fundamentally unjust—and, according to our survey, feared—no matter how polite the officer.
A more meaningful solution is one put forth by U.S. district judge Shira A. Scheindlin, who in August ruled that New York City’s stop and frisks, as practiced, violate the Constitution. She ordered the New York City Police Department to better train officers in what kinds of justifications for these stops are constitutionally acceptable and to require officers to report the justification for stops in their own words (as opposed to simply checking a box to indicate the type of justification). Importantly, she also appointed a lawyer to monitor the police department’s implementation of these directives. While her decision was suspended by an appellate court, it offers an excellent analysis of the constitutional problems in the practice of stop and frisk. We hope it serves to guide other judicial decisions.
Still, in our view, the judge’s reform directives do not go far enough. The Constitution, at least as interpreted by the Supreme Court, sets the bar too low with regard to what is an acceptable justification for a stop. Police training already teaches officers to justify a stop with “specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from,” the language in the key Supreme Court decision Terry v. Ohio. It is too easy for officers to provide a right-sounding legal justification for what is, in fact, a stop based on inchoate suspicion.
The solution is to prohibit investigatory police stops. This will require a change in police norms. Police leaders celebrate investigatory stops and the few big busts they yield. Instead, these leaders—the heads of professional police associations, police chiefs, and police trainers—should acknowledge how much these stops cause palpable harm to the person stopped and to trust in the police. Departments should prohibit stops unless justified by evidence of a violation. Officers would still have the authority to make traffic safety stops to ticket or arrest drivers for speeding, blowing through red lights, or driving drunk. They would still have the authority to stop people who fit a clear description of a suspect. What they would not have the authority to do is to stop people out of curiosity or unspecified suspicion.
If law enforcement leaders won’t act on their own, political leaders may force them into doing so. The New York mayor’s race showed that stop and frisk has taxed the patience of a substantial number of voters. Our survey shows that New York City is not the only place where that’s true.
Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody are professors at the School of Public Affairs and Administration at the University of Kansas. They are coauthors, with Donald Haider-Markel, of Pulled Over: How Police Stops Define Race and Citizenship.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Recognizing and calling out racism for what it is isn't blaming my shortcomings and failures on the color of someone else's skin.
Pointing out that having white skin, blond hair and blue eyes is a quantifiable BENEFIT in this society (white privilege) is NOT blaming my failures and shortcomings on the color of someone else's skin.
No matter how badly your Klan pride wishes and keeps trying to say it is for the simple fact it hurts your soul to own up to reality and admit you benefit from being white....it's not.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Posts
- 19,260
Welcome to the grand delusion. Not a single true statement was uttered.
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
It's a fact.
There are receipts for that fact all over the map.
Sorry not sorry that you don't want to deal with that, but that's your problem, not anyone else's.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,617
Nor does it excuse failures that are yours/mine whatever. But when it's a provable fact that x,y,z is simply more likely to strike you if you are not white which has reprocussions down the line it's not "blaming" so much as pointing out facts. There are jobs that require clean driving records and when you can prove that Asians get tickets that they most likely wouldn't have if they were white well you're cutting off job opportunities that if history has taught us anything effect people for at least a generation.
First, no it doesn't require it to be a point. Opinions can and have often been pointed out. However white privilege is a quantifiable fact. That's just the stone cold truth.
Other races have varying disadvantages and occasionally advantages but when all is said and done being a blue blonde gives you the best over all chances at pretty much anything.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
If you were to be attacked in the manner and in the place you describe, it would almost certainly not be because you would be perceived as a thread. It would be because of the virulent racism of the attackers.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,617
No I did not miscontrue what you wrote, you just repeated it here to make sure. Being white IS an advantage and one that can be charted and proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. That's not an opinion. That's as I stated a stone cold fact. You can lie if you like but it doesn't change the observable facts.
Latinos who are passing as white in skin tone, name, and general accent have very few disadvantages. Of course change any one of those things and they start cropping back up quickly to various degrees.
No being white has no major disadvantages. Sure if you find yourself in Harlem you have a chance of being attacked but statistically blacks are in more danger than whites from hate crimes.
Per the FBI:
Of the reported 3,407 single-bias hate crime offenses that were racially motivated, 66.4 were motivated by anti-black or African-American bias, and 21.4 percent stemmed from anti-white bias.
Blacks are literally a little more than three times as likely to be attacked for being black than whites are for being white. And if you're not white or black your race probably wasn't the motivating factor in your attack. It may very well have been a component but it wasn't the prime motivator.
Besides avoiding Harlem or South Central isn't really that fucking hard. Avoiding the business world assuming you like food is a bit harder. And nobody said that being white had ZERO disadvantages under any circumstances. It's that when everything is added up and quantified it's better to be white. Again fact, not opinion. You can keep coming up with these little isolated cases that do exist. You might get picked last for the Basketball team, maybe you get attacked instead of the black guy because blacks are seen as more threatening and thus you were considered a soft target, maybe they were casting a movie set in Egypt and. . .no wait blacks and Arabs at best get to play the evil Egyptians while Christian Bale gets to play the "good Egyptians." So even that one isn't really true.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
That would be true, but you postulated that you would be a different race than the attacker.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
It's a fact....
Exactly.
No personal responsibility....^^
Yep here is the proof.
There are a couple of hoods you are scared of....LOL that's seriously the best you got? Awwwwwwwwwww so sad for himz!!
I'm sorry that's simply not true, racial advantage/disadvantage did NOT get zeroed out in 1963.....no matter how much you think it has.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
LOL don't forget the great war heroes of Asia are also fuckin' white guys.....
http://content.internetvideoarchive.com/content/photos/702/17325557.jpg
of COURSE!
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,617
No, they do not have a much disadvantage as the other races. Please, tell me about the great Asian and Hispanic Presidents of America. Tell me about the rich neighborhoods where whites get hassled by the cops for being the wrong color.
You can keep up this shit or you can face up to reality.
LOL don't forget the great war heroes of Asia are also fuckin' white guys.....
http://content.internetvideoarchive.com/content/photos/702/17325557.jpg
of COURSE!
In fairness if I'm not mistaken that movie is either the Last Samurai or some recent sci-fi movie. In either case the point was that he was white and it made him 'special'. It wasn't a white guy playing an Asian role it was a white guy being special for being white in a non-white culture. Which at least occasionally happens in reverse. More than a few Jackie Chan and Jet Li films are all about what happens when you let one Asian loose in a white society. Which you know full well! If I dropped you in the middle Congress you'd be all HIYA, KA CHA!
Me? I'd be chillin with a bucket of KFC, a Forty and trying to teach McCain how to dance and appreciate hip hop while learning all about Classical music.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,617
I'm not writing a college essay, I don't care if my grammar or punctuation are correct. My spelling either, as long as my meaning is clear I'm happy. If I need to clarify I both can and will but otherwise oh no, I don't really give a shit.
No, I see things exactly as they really are. You're the one who is managing to see things. . .what's the world. . .abnormally. Anybody paying attention to the world would tell you that it's not even close to even by ANY measure. Wait. . .there is one. If we look globally you're out numbered.
But please go on with your ignorance I'll let some one else tee off on your dumb ass for a while.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Stating that something isn't true doesn't make it so.
LOL says the guy who can't own comments he just made.
No, threads involve lots of people largely not me.
I was pointing out that you point blank lied trying to dodge owning up to what you posted. You haven't made a single correct statement.
Sorry you and your Klansman stating it's just as bad for white folks isn't a lack of facts on my behalf.
Thank you for finally acknowledging white privilege in America...
I never denied it....just said white people put up with far far less of it than really anyone not white/Christian. Which is what you're trying to deny....
Don't forget falling for the wrong white girl!!
Last edited:
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Saying you have facts doesn't make it so.
Yes you did, post 134....you clearly state that the existence of white privilege is not a fact.
Or you were saying pointing out those facts means I'm blaming my failures and shortcomings on the color of someone else's skin.
Meaning you're either a ridiculous moron or a fuckin' liar....
Because on a national scale they are not....you literally had to cherry pick one of only a couple situations where being white isn't awesome in America in support of your denial of white privilege.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Posts
- 19,260
Seems someone needs a lesson in their ABCs.
Racism:
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit white people in western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.
You can go on endlessly about how you may, hypothetically, be treated in different neighborhoods. However, reality of this country is that most of the authority and power lies in the hands of white men.
Racism:
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit white people in western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.
You can go on endlessly about how you may, hypothetically, be treated in different neighborhoods. However, reality of this country is that most of the authority and power lies in the hands of white men.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,617
No. Just look at the presidents and repeat that lie and more results will be laid at your unworthy feet.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Posts
- 19,260
Vexing......
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Quote me and explain what the fuck you're even talking about.
I never said it was always the case.....you're just making shit up to try and not look like such a dipshit.
Oh ok so since I'm wrong you're back to being in denial of white privilege, racism in M'uricuh AND a liar.
Yea....yea it is, most of the racism in America benefits white people and that's the reality of it.
Whites are the majority day day......the situation you were referring to is rarely the case and you would in fact have to intentionally put yourself in that situation for it to happen. Which is NOTHING like being fucked with for driving while AZN/Latino/Black.........that shit happens EVERYWHERE and can happen ANYTIME.
Last edited:
Similar threads
