<#webadvjs#>

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What has ***** said that's racist?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    The only thing I dislike is the people that accuse others of racism but can never recognize the racism that comes out of their own community. Racists come in all colors. But I do have to laugh at this poor "Ughhh I'm white, it's tough, they always say I'm racist, poor me, sucks being white oppressed by these racist accusations" mood in this thread lol

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Syf View Post
      Look it up. Don't be willfully ignorant.
      Speak for yourself. According to the Philosophical Burden of Proof, the onus to prove an assertion falls upon the person making it. In this case, that would be you.

      Originally posted by Syf View Post
      That proves nothing. From your source, emphasis mine:

      The lawsuit—which ***** Management settled in 1975 with a consent decree, and which they noted at the time did not constitute an admission of wrongdoing—detailed numerous instances of a racial code that *****-owned buildings allegedly used to indicate if an applicant was black or otherwise “undesirable.”

      Nothing proved nor admitted to.

      Try again...

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Syf View Post
        As you can see, ***** makes an idiotic claim here. Using the code word "welfare", he implies all black people are on welfare. Which is a logical fallacy. Welfare recipients can't typically afford high end apartments in a ***** building, nor would apply. There's your racist comment. Not that these fools actually wanted to see any proof.
        Get out of here with that tripe.

        Either he said something outright racist or he didn't. It's not up for interpretation. And the fact is you can find nothing but allegations and saying things were implied.

        "Which is a logical fallacy."

        Comical coming from a guy making strawmen arguments and ad hominem attacks.

        When you have solid proof, let us know...

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Mooshashi View Post
          Only thing I could find is that he tweeted some racially tinged figures about crime that was lifted from a Neo **** site.

          what this?



          thats actually from an fbi statistical database. It's spot on.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Syf View Post
            Look it up. Don't be willfully ignorant.


            Here

            "Miranda later denied in sworn testimony that he’d said such things to the DOJ."

            well there's that in the very link you provided

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by 1bad65 View Post
              So far you've been proven correct...
              yea mang I look at the whole thing before I open my mouth.....

              Comment


                #37
                for starters

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by bigjavi973 View Post
                  yea mang I look at the whole thing before I open my mouth.....
                  He obviously didn't!

                  It's always funny when you can refute someone with the very links they themselves provided.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by 1bad65 View Post
                    Speak for yourself. According to the Philosophical Burden of Proof, the onus to prove an assertion falls upon the person making it. In this case, that would be you.



                    That proves nothing. From your source, emphasis mine:

                    The lawsuit—which ***** Management settled in 1975 with a consent decree, and which they noted at the time did not constitute an admission of wrongdoing—detailed numerous instances of a racial code that *****-owned buildings allegedly used to indicate if an applicant was black or otherwise “undesirable.”

                    Nothing proved nor admitted to.

                    Try again...
                    I don't accept the mantle of an "onus" unless I choose to.

                    ***** had high powered lawyers. They appeased the system by signing a consent decree without admitting wrongdoing. Doesn't mean the allegations were not valid. A counter suit ***** filed was also thrown out.

                    "We'll change our admission practice to your standards, but so long as you don't nail us to the wall"

                    Not that the prosecutors had the resources to anyway.

                    Laughable. And doubly laughable that you've found a way to defend this.

                    Originally posted by 1bad65 View Post
                    Get out of here with that tripe.

                    Either he said something outright racist or he didn't. It's not up for interpretation. And the fact is you can find nothing but allegations and saying things were implied.

                    "Which is a logical fallacy."

                    Comical coming from a guy making strawmen arguments and ad hominem attacks.

                    When you have solid proof, let us know...
                    It is up for interpretation. As moosashi so excellently put, ***** speaks in code that is understood on a primal level by his followers. That's you, I suppose.

                    I was disgusted by what I had read in this thread, how some whites feel so victimized with like zero cause to be, and resorted to a few jabs, I guess. Not typical of me. But my overall reasoning is salient and valid. ***** said himself they were trying to force welfare recipients on him in the New York post. They were not. So, he generalized. Stereotyping is a form of racism.

                    Originally posted by bigjavi973 View Post
                    "Miranda later denied in sworn testimony that he’d said such things to the DOJ."

                    well there's that in the very link you provided
                    So the DOJ was lying? Unlikely. The witness just "changed their mind" about testifying, probably via incentive. C'mon surely even you two know the court system is decided by who has the most greenbacks to throw around.

                    Dude discriminated and got out of it with his lawyers and resources. Anyone can see that's what happened. Well not anyone, apparently.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by Syf View Post
                      So the DOJ was lying? Unlikely. The witness just "changed their mind" about testifying, probably via incentive. C'mon surely even you two know the court system is decided by who has the most greenbacks to throw around.

                      Dude discriminated and got out of it with his lawyers and resources. Anyone can see that's what happened. Well not anyone, apparently.
                      So the government has never lied or made mistakes before? They're human just like we are and have more chances of being corrupt.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP