Pull the other one. We all know that 'hate speech' laws are specifically for 'white' people. For starters they aren't a particular 'protected group', therefore they are the only ones who CAN have 'hate-speech' directed at them and are the only people who have to constantly be walking on eggshells. For everyone else it's a free-for-all. 'Hate speech' laws are nothing more than a political ploy to control (certain) people and destroy free speech. Fuck I fucking hate hypocritical ''PCProgressive'' fuckwits! They are invariably reasonably well-heeled white bastards (often clueless 'academic' types). pssst. I can say that because they aren't in a 'protected group' BWHAHAHAAA! The most blatantly racist people I've ever encountered have been Indians and white South Africans, with Indians having the advantage of being a 'protected group' in 'White Western' countries.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:10 pmWhy would that be so? In India non-Indians compain of racism quite a lot. When they return the favour, that is reverse racism, there needn't be a single white person involved in the entire transaction.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:04 pm'Reverse racism' is patronising and racist in itself. It's implying that only 'white' people can be racist, since they are inherently superior. ''Progressives'' use the word as a weapon they have little control over, flinging it around mindlessly like a toddler with a lightsabre.
Racism is racism. It's not even possible to be a 'reverse racist'.
As a rule, reverse racism is just racism against the normal flow (which is typically from majority to minority).
Everybody can be racist, probably everybody is, and that's almost certainly the most Libtard sentence I have ever written. The only difference with whiteys like me is that we get to be racist absolutely everywhere we go, whereas Indians only really get to be the racists in India.
The special advantage I get from being English is that I get to be racist against Americans of all colours, and the fucking French as well.
How should society be organised, if at all?
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sun Jul 22, 2018 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Oops...sry veg! Then I have no clue who said it.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:39 pmNo it's not (but gaffo's response is nonsensical).
I think we can only go by words and actions when trying to know a person. One thing is for sure, no one is perfect.
I try to look for motive too. If the motive is up to no good, the end result tends to be not good, even though it might be what we think we wanted....chances are good we were duped. Thinking might makes it right, does not necessarily make it so.
Whereas, if you have good motives, it might not turn out perfect, but at least it came from a selfless place which at least tried to do the best for the majority of people.
Say what you will, but it has been my observation the American version of 'republican' has been the motive, 'everyman for himself'.
Whereas the 'Democrat' says, 'all for one and one for all'.
That's the difference in a nutshell.....
I used to singing solo, hows your allegiance to Manchurian president Bone spurs comrade?
8 weeks from now - expect the shit storm.