₦airaland Forum

raumdeuter:
What exactly is the correlation of my post with your response?

Oh you talked about education, didnt you.

raumdeuter:
Charlie said which you posted that HE DID NOT SAY BLACKS WERE BETTER UNDER SUBJUGATION.

Their society and the family structure was better. Do you agree that the society is better when you have more children raised by 2 parents?

You are doing what bemeruca did. Changing his words. I have addressed this and cant repeat myself all day. He said they were better in the forties. He also said specifically that they committed less crimes when they had less rights thereby linking the fact that they committed less crimes to the fact that they were allowed less rights than others. When there were many factors. That makes it clear he was arguing that less rights for blacks meant less crimes by them. It's no wonder he also argued the Civil Rights Act was a mistake and insulted MLK.

IjeBos:
I think this is the key quote
“When blacks in America did not have the same rights they have today, they were less murderous, there were less break-ins – why is that?”

But, remember he is just asking the racist question /s

Google House Ni**er and you'll understand why people can argue he was not racist.
I have 0 respect for anybody who justifies him.
And it tells you where the Republican party is today that he is celebrated.

I cannot express my exasperation enough.
Republicans are one thing. But for black people to defend this is mind numbing.

raumdeuter:
This is an example of left insanity, They know but just want to be foolish, Of course they know Iran shouldnt be on a committee on women rights, jus like they know boys shouldnt be playing girls sport but thy just want to be deliberately folish

The US should also not be on any committee for human rights, democracy.

raumdeuter:
You can say that a large percentage of serial killers and school shooters are white, Yes that is the truth. The facts dont care about your emotions and feelings

You miss the point. Yes you can say that. Using that to make general and sweeping statements about the nature, predilections and condition of white people in a sensitive political sense such as what rights they deserve is what will be problematic.

And thats what the disgusting racist Kirk did.

raumdeuter:
If your hands are tied you do less crime?

Of course you do less everything. This is aside from the fact that crime overall was lower then.

TV01:
He also hates black people who don't join his hate parade for WP and Juice. Freely and gleefully throwing around slurs such as HN and cooon or variations thereof.

A really hateful person.



Oh yes, and this too. A spewer of tropes and canned ideology. Wrapped up in tantrums dressed as faux outrage .



TV

Will you shattap and get on your knees at once!
The cheek of the working class.
Servant.

raumdeuter:
Empathy for what exactly? Empathy for black children being killed daily by fellow blacks as a result of breakdown of the family encouraged by th govt?

When will you have some empathy for black children murderd by their thousands yearly

Picking on one thing the way you guys do to denigrate blacks is just shameful. Its like saying whites are useless since most serial killers are white.

raumdeuter:
The replies are what a conspiracy nut deserves, nothing more than that. Especially when you watch the unravelling of a former rational human.

Why I shake my head for you is because I see this same thing in one of my worker, He believes in every conspiracy theory, The earth is flat, the moon landing was fake, 9-11 was fake, etc and all we do is just laugh at him, When I have a new person come around I just call him

"Hey Bob, this dude here does not believe the earth is flat, does not believe 9-11 happened and he will just go rambling like you did about how from a lake in Louisiana you can see the world is flat, How moon landing never happened, Echoing the same fewlissh thoughts you have

That is Bob who probably didnt finish high school, Now imagine nateevs with al your education and exposure now leveling to Bob. Dont you think that is a shameful thing

It is a statistical fact that most right wing devotees are not well schooled. Statistically, leftists are far more exposed, enlightened, educated. University graduates are far more likely to be leftists too. Same with urban-rural spread. Leftists are more urbane.

raumdeuter:
You saw that Charlie clarified that he did not say that blacks thrived under subjugation, So what exactly is your question?

Read through, I have addressed that, I cant repeat myself.

This country is just blessed with a rich flavor of different fabulous cultures. We need to unite and love one another and do away with the prejudice and tribalism.

Tribalism is as bad as racism!

bemeruca:
Its okay if you don't have self awareness.

You are a racist but you believe black people can't be racists

Worshipping white people slavishly such that you defend anything they do even when racist and abominable is definitely sick. Pointing that out does not mean I hate white people. In fact let me sound like a racist and say "but I have many white friends" - which is true!

tctrills:
Failure
You will watch me live and continue to point out your poor arguments.
I dont need to get emotional like you because I have the truth on my side.
You support black-on-black murder, fatherlessness, and abortion, but claim to support and cherish the freedom and dignity of human beings. No one is fooled; we know you.
You are fueled by hate and inferior arguments
I really don't care if you want me dead because you are powerless and inconsequential.

You can misquote me a thousand times, it has no meaning. No one ever said they wanted you dead or assasinated. We affirm that you are not a person who deserves to exist. No one who engages in slavery, apartheid, racism or other forms of denigration of human beings does. And no one who defends and supports those who do does either.

However in our world, people get what they dont deserve all the time, good or bad. Not a fair world.

tctrills:
Lol
The leftist in you is coming out. Always ready to assassinat everyone you don't agree with.

You see superior argument and all you wish is that the opposition never existed.
Coward.

You do not deserve to exist., I stand by it.
No one who defends the utter BS you defend deserves to exist.

If you like say I am calling for your assassination. That is your business. I certainly am not. I only know that you do not deserve to exist and the world would have been better if you were never born.

People who deserve life cherish it and they also cherish the freedom and dignity of human beings. You cherish neither.

bemeruca:
You said crap about all white people, we point out that some fought and died to free black people from slavery.

You call house House N, make statements like white people or W Supreme won't love you etc.

You hate white people. That's confirmed

Descending into outright lies should be beneath even you (if anything could be).
The bold are outright lies.

TV01:
Yes please. Examples. Instances from all those scientific studies you spend your time reading !
Perhaps you could deploy the same methodology in your, not gradually, but rapidly spiralling nation.


TV

Useless.

My dear little man, you simply dont have the intellect for the discussions you attempt to skirt around.
You are simply too small as a character also.

bemeruca:
Oga you do.

Criticizing racists is not hatred. The hatred is being racist.
I dont expect any HN to understand this though.

TV01:
People accused TR of being racist - I asked for evidence. Detail of broad based harm, or intended harm to black or ethnic minorities in the UK, via his actions individually or as part of an organisation. Non was forthcoming.

You quite clearly despise white people and you are one of this boards foremost haters of "Juice". Repeating AS tropes even after being repeatedly corrected.

But, I don's suppose the Juice care about the opinion of someone scraping out a living in a backwater no one takes seriously. Kinda like me .


TV

Nonsensical and the presumptions about my life only rebound on you.

I hate neither Caucasians nor Jews.

However those who are enslaved to both would imagine so.

GracieX3:
How far? Bros TV said that he doesn't talk about personalities but then, how did he defend Tommy Robinson

He said that one is not racist.

TV01:
Is your statement science in any sense?
Please detail or point to instances which can be used to confirm this position.



Abi?


TV

I need to show you proof that the improvement of the lot of a subjugated people IS A GRADUAL PROCESS that takes time, and even generations when they have been subjugated for centuries?

Useless.

TV01:
Why was I called out here?

Because of your defense of Tommy Robinson, perhaps?

I don't, as a rule discuss people or personalities.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

A house fly attempting to be an Eagle.

And, coming from you, accusations of racism are quite rich don't you think?.


TV

I have never been racist or said anything racist.

bemeruca:
My proposa is not to roll back rights. My proposal is to stop pretending civil rights and social outcomes are the same issue.

Civil rights fix legal injustice. It did not automatically fix crime, family breakdown, urban poverty, bad schools, drugs, or cultural decay.

The question is not should Blacks go back to Jim Crow? Of course not.

The question is: after legal discrimination was reduced, why some indicators get worse instead of better?

That question is not anti-Black. It is the kind of question you ask if you actually care about solving the problem.

The hip hop culture promotes a lot of what is wrong with the black community. Obama talked about Fatherless homes.

Be here and pretend like there is nothing to talk about while you call people disgrace for no reason.

Don't understand what kirk was talking about, just go along and call him a racist because it makes you feel good.

The improvement of the lot of a people is obviously a gradual process which takes generations - especially when that set of people have been subject to centuries of deprivation and subjugaton!

This is not rocket science!

tctrills:
You are the one who began the emotional blackmail, so dont pretend to be insulted. I know you too well; you are a pro in hypocrisy. I gave you a response, and you began to cry that I should be ashamed of myself for not condemning Charlie. Oga, this doesn't work on me, you of all people should know that by now.
I dont shame you for your views, no matter how foolish they are, so do not try it with me.

You dont deserve to exist.

basilico:
You have concluded that Kirk said that life was better off for black people in ALL metrics in the 1940s.

You are 100% wrong ,that's not what he meant.

It doesnt have to be saying in all metrics. He did say better, simpliciter though. That does not have to be all metrics.
In context, he was saying that they behaved better when given less rights. And therefore suggesting that they deserve less rights.

GracieX3:
Don't mind the Oreos (term for self hating blacks who are white on the inside).

There was generally less burglaries and murders for everyone in the USA at the time. Nothing special for black people. They are twisting facts to propagate their anti-black propaganda.

But of course!

They lack any empathy

And basic self respect.

bemeruca:
You are still isolating one phrase from the subject being discussed.

Kirk did not start with oh, Black people were better off in the 1940s as a general statement.

He started with specific claims: less murder, less break-ins, etc. Then he said the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s.

In context, the word better refers to the data points he just mentioned. That is not an amendment; that is basic reading comprehension. Don't let LordReed give you that infection.

If I say: In the 1980s, Port Harcourt had less robbery, less murder, less drug abuse the city was better then, you do not automatically assume i mean every single thing about life was better. You understand I meant better on the issue being discussed.

If you truly want full context you should also factor in the fact that he said less murder and less break ins "before they had equal rights. Therefore in context, he was tying "better behavior" to having less rights.

When asked if he is saying suppression is good for them, he says no, its evil, but goes ahead to affirm that they were better under that suppression.

What do you think he was driving at?

Any half wit can see what he was saying. Especially given that this is the same man who argued that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake.
Thats real context for u.

GracieX3:
Please, which data shows that blacks had better outcomes in the 1940s?

You are talking about a period before 1964 where.

1. Blacks did not have rights
2. Blacks could be and were rejected from jobs based on racial discrimination, legally.
3. Blacks could not vote.
4. Segregation against Blacks was real.

So blacks could not build wealth or own banks. Even when they tried to build wealth in 1921, there was the Tulsa race massacre where black businesses and neighbourhoods were shot up by racist people.

You and Charlie Kirk have some anti-black bias.

Thank you for this. But bemeruca and tctrills say its cool since they committed less crimes. Oh, if your hands are tied of course you will do less overall including less crimes, for sure.

I want to imagine these people have no idea of the horrible things black people faced during that time. But they do. They just are too deeply enslaved to care.

These people are repulsive and do not deserve to exist. They lack any humanity whatsoever.

bemeruca:
No, I am not amending anything. I am providing the context.

The question being discussed was crime and behaviour.

Kirk said:
There were less break-ins, less murderous, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s.

So “better” refers to the specific data he was discussing. crime/social outcomes, not Black people were better off overall under Jim Crow.

You are deliberately changing the meaning of better here.

If I say, Nigeria’s railway system was better in the 1960s, nobody serious thinks I mean Nigerians were better off under colonialism. It means that specific thing being discussed was better.

Kirk even immediately said the era was bad and evil. So how can you honestly claim he meant Black people were better off under that evil system?

The fair criticism is: “Kirk should have phrased it more carefully.” Fine like is said before, provocative words != racism

The dishonest criticism is: “Kirk said Black people were better off oppressed.” He did not. He said some data points were better in that era, while also calling the era evil.

Oga move on from this agend.

You did amend what he said. You in fact comepletely changed it. Adding the words "some" and maybe" are a huge change.

What he said -

"they were better in the 40s"

What you said he said -

" Some Black social indicators were better in the 1940s than later decades. maybe true "

These are completely different and anyone can see the massive difference.

Besides, you are not a baby - do I have to explain to you that when he says people were better behaved when they had less rights, he is drawing a link between having less rights and better behavior?

tctrills have explained to you and you are still burying your head in the sand.

I have no respect for his intellect, self respect, or moral compass.

basilico:
Too bad he was shot before he could explain that ?
Good for you because you have no further clarification from him , therefore he is racist.
I find this in bad taste, why bring up this particular one.
Charlie used to make his case then invite questions no matter how unpalatable.

He provided a clarification right there and it was terrible. In his clarification he said blacks were better off in the 40s.

NerdCat:
Have you clocked yet, by the way, that the assertion "your understanding is too finite to indict God" renders it equally too finite to recognise, trust, or worship Him? That blade, my friend, is double-edged - thoroughly and symmetrically so.



Nobody claimed mercy was God's sole attribute. My dissatisfaction has hardly anything to do with the subject. The problem here is the logical structure of omnipotence colliding with observable reality, which no inventory of additional divine attributes actually resolves. Holiness doesn't explain tumours in children. Justice, interestingly, makes the problem worse, because justice applied to a child who has committed nothing arguably demands intervention. As for my righteousness being irrelevant - that's correct, and also entirely beside the point. My argument stands or falls on its own merits, independent of my moral CV. Attacking my standing rather than my logic is the oldest deflection in the catalogue.



The same thing that makes you able to measure proportionality when you declare the plan ultimately just and good: basic moral reasoning applied to observable evidence. You can't simultaneously claim proportionality is assessable when it favours your theology and completely inaccessible when it inconveniently doesn't.



If all suffering is preventable under omnipotence, the moral responsibility calculus becomes total, not partial, so congratulations on that own goal. The fact that I keep bringing up brain tumours in children is me giving you a concrete, causally clean case. I focus there precisely because it resists your "human actions" deflection most ruthlessly. Scope it however broadly you like, the problem scales with you.

You deserve a fine wine. Not just for clarity of thought, but elegance of words.

bemeruca:
Nobody here said Black people were better off under Jim Crow.

Argue with Kirk, not me -

KIRK - “No, I am not, I am asking you the question, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad, it was evil, but what happened, something changed.”

Bottom line is:

Black people were better off under Jim Crow is false

Some Black social indicators were better in the 1940s than later decades. maybe true

Charlie was arguing the second point. You keep pretending he argued the first. That is the dishonesty.

You are amending what he said. As a loyal follower, you are refining it for him. In red above are his words. He clearly said blacks were better off in the 40s, word for word, even in his clarification.

AdolfHitlerxXx:
If you try all these techniques with an EkukeBingo...without feeding it


Just kidding. Dogs are so intelligent. They have personalities like humans; some introverts and some extroverts.

Alsatians/ German Shepherds are my favorite breed. Super intelligent and I stay away from Dobermans, Mastiffs and Rottweilers. Too aggressive.

German Shepherds can be obsessively possessive though.