i'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between racism coming from white people and racism coming from black or indigenous people then you need a lot more education. probably in the fields of history and psychology.

Downvoted for racially insensitive description.
"melanically-gifted ignoramus"

If you could have resisted the impulse I would have upvoted this. Racism is wrong--no matter who it comes from (although @kir_mokum is right--it's different).

This post has been removed from the Dark channel by channel owner dystopianfuturetoday. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Keep your racist bullshit out of my channel, asshole.

I just checked the trackback on youtube for this video and do you know what site comes up?

Stormfront

Serious question, are you a klansman?

i'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between racism coming from white people and racism coming from black or indigenous people then you need a lot more education. probably in the fields of history and psychology.

Liberal "education" = thoughtless indoctrination. There's no one-way valve on racism, liberals. Per Doctor King, I'm judging by the content of this fellow's character, not his race. But since liberals are OBSESSED with race it must be addressed. Not only is this clown rude, loud, threatening and out of line, he's also ignorant about the worldwide history of slavery and assuredly was never a slave himself. He has a right to feel the way he does, but not threaten even abstract violence.

@Boise_Lib isn't suggesting genocide of another race "racially insensitive"?

Did you or did you not find this on Stormfront? @quantumushroom

Don't you mean, "Are you now or have you ever been a communist?" @dystopianfuturetoday

The vid is from youtube, that's why there's a little box that reads "youtube" in the lower right corner. If you want to pursue this, go to dag and try to get me banned for exercising free speech well within Sift guidelines.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Did you or did you not find this on Stormfront? @quantumushroom

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, December 4th, 2011 7:56pm PST - promote requested by original submitter quantumushroom.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.

Too much hatred with the end result being violence towards others. White, black...it makes no difference. Yes someone should have stopped him. Pulling the "liberal" card it shit. Liberals (open minded) and conservatives (not so much open minded) should be offended by racist comments rather than excusing them off.

>> ^kir_mokum:

i'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between racism coming from white people and racism coming from black or indigenous people then you need a lot more education. probably in the fields of history and psychology.

I don't really think there is a difference. I had nothing to do with black slaves or the exploitation of an indigenous population, and nor did my parents. Or their parents. Sins of our of great great grandfathers? This guy is no more justified in attacking the colour of my skin than a Klansman or a Nazi.


Still, this is a drunk throwing insults at strangers. Its not exactly a lynching by men in white capes. I'm not sure what QMs point here is. That we view racism differently coming from a Black guy than from a White guy? I think we all know and understand why that is.

Oh, and shame on the automatic downvotes.

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^kir_mokum:
i'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between racism coming from white people and racism coming from black or indigenous people then you need a lot more education. probably in the fields of history and psychology.

I don't really think there is a difference. I had nothing to do with black slaves or the exploitation of an indigenous population, and nor did my parents. Or their parents. Sins of our of great great grandfathers? This guy is no more justified in attacking the colour of my skin than a Klansman or a Nazi.

Still, this is a drunk throwing insults at strangers. Its not exactly a lynching by men in white capes. I'm not sure what QMs point here is. That we view racism differently coming from a Black guy than from a White guy? I think we all know and understand why that is.
Oh, and shame on the automatic downvotes.


I was ready to argue with you--then I read the second paragraph--then I read the late addition. You are assuming the downvotes are automatic; using what? You don't know why anyone downvoted (except me--see comment above).

Wow, this really blew my mind. Somebody getting drunk and saying outlandish things. This might just change everything...

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^kir_mokum:
i'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between racism coming from white people and racism coming from black or indigenous people then you need a lot more education. probably in the fields of history and psychology.

I don't really think there is a difference. I had nothing to do with black slaves or the exploitation of an indigenous population, and nor did my parents. Or their parents. Sins of our of great great grandfathers? This guy is no more justified in attacking the colour of my skin than a Klansman or a Nazi.

Still, this is a drunk throwing insults at strangers. Its not exactly a lynching by men in white capes. I'm not sure what QMs point here is. That we view racism differently coming from a Black guy than from a White guy? I think we all know and understand why that is.
Oh, and shame on the automatic downvotes.

I was ready to argue with you--then I read the second paragraph--then I read the late addition. You are assuming the downvotes are automatic; using what? You don't know why anyone downvoted (except me--see comment above).

I'd like to know what your argument against the first paragraph that my second then negated.


Automatic was the wrong word, it was not my intention to imply the downvotes were baseless, or purely based on that fact its QM. Influenced perhaps, but then thats as much his fault for making tactless (at best) video descriptions. Regardless, you needn't justify your prerogative to downvote to me.

I didn't upvote the video because I did not find it entertaining or illuminating in any way. The comments are somewhat more interesting and made me wonder if the video was quite so pointless afterall.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I was ready to argue with you--then I read the second paragraph--then I read the late addition. You are assuming the downvotes are automatic; using what? You don't know why anyone downvoted (except me--see comment above).

Your downvote is a blatant violation of Siftlaw. You ought to know better. Don't worry; nothing will be done because nobody likes QM. Siftlaws are only there to protect popular users.

I suspect the others are as well but we can only speculate since they haven't posted confessions.

See it for what it is a A drunk running his mouth.

What would be appalling for liberal media condemning this mans actions. That will never happen.

Why even I have well-wishers, cronies, and siftquaintances.

This is/was an ugly video about an ignorant fool spouting off, using language that, based on modern Orwellian British Law, would have him arrested. Since it's France, who knows?

Is he drunk? Bullshit, he's drinking Coke.

I wonder why society--the liberal half--thinks a free pass should be given to a minority who threatens violence? What does a White liberal do when an individual thug of color threatens his family? "Now kids, this man is an economically-disadvantaged oppressed person of color. Watch Daddy hand over his wallet to atone for the sins of of our evil exploiting race."

Unacceptable.






>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I was ready to argue with you--then I read the second paragraph--then I read the late addition. You are assuming the downvotes are automatic; using what? You don't know why anyone downvoted (except me--see comment above).
Your downvote is a blatant violation of Siftlaw. You ought to know better. Don't worry; nothing will be done because nobody likes QM. Siftlaws are only there to protect popular users.
I suspect the others are as well but we can only speculate since they haven't posted confessions.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I was ready to argue with you--then I read the second paragraph--then I read the late addition. You are assuming the downvotes are automatic; using what? You don't know why anyone downvoted (except me--see comment above).
Your downvote is a blatant violation of Siftlaw. You ought to know better. Don't worry; nothing will be done because nobody likes QM. Siftlaws are only there to protect popular users.
I suspect the others are as well but we can only speculate since they haven't posted confessions.


If it is so blatant you should easily be able to show me the written word of the law.
If you can not then your statement is libel.

It's a crappy video, therefore I downvoted. I downvoted the other stupid racist bitch on the tram first because I though that was horrible, imo. Fuck both these vids.

stupid siftbot screwed that up.

@Boise_Lib

"Please do not down vote a video because you dislike the Sifter who submitted it; this is entirely unacceptable. Instead, vote solely based on the quality of video content. If down voting or any other member privilege is intentionally misused, the offending member will be temporarily banned for no less than 2 weeks. A second offense will result in a permanent ban. "

You vote for the video content, nothing else. Thats what piss' me off sometimes when people say things like " upvote for the title alone" ... You know who you are.

VOTE ON CONTENT. Nothing else.

Comprehend ?


system#comment-1356447'>^Boise_Lib:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
I was ready to argue with you--then I read the second paragraph--then I read the late addition. You are assuming the downvotes are automatic; using what? You don't know why anyone downvoted (except me--see comment above).
Your downvote is a blatant violation of Siftlaw. You ought to know better. Don't worry; nothing will be done because nobody likes QM. Siftlaws are only there to protect popular users.
I suspect the others are as well but we can only speculate since they haven't posted confessions.

If it is so blatant you should easily be able to show me the written word of the law.
If you can not then your statement is libel.

@Jinx,
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear (happens to me all too often).
I don't have a problem with you--or your statement.
All racism is WRONG--including the guy in this video.
The only thing I would say is: in addition to the differences in our (the viewers of the video) perceptions--there are also differences in the way that people react to racist statements being directed toward them according to their culture and upbringing. A person who is subjected to a lot of racism growing up (like most Black people) will have a much different reaction to racism than someone who has never experienced it personally (like most White people).
That's all I would have added.

@BoneRemake, yo entiendo.
I always follow all rules and laws that I agree with.
I chose to read, "quality of video content" as meaning "quality of video content and all attached text", until someone who makes the rules tells me otherwise. Any other interpretation leaves too much out. I will downvote for the title, or description--if they are offensive. If I think that a title, or description, shouldn't be seen on videosift it gets a downvote.
Thanks.

@xxovercastxx,
Piss off.

Let me break this down.

The first video features a white woman in a crowd of white people. She singles out a lone black woman and then proceeds to bully and berate her. She makes it clear that these attacks are done in the name of her country and the white race, which is a cruel way to insinuate that she has the approval of the rest of her countrymen and fellow white people on that tram. Thankfully someone stepped in and called this woman's bluff, which served to change the tenor of this exchange from a tense game of intimidation to a lone racist babbling nut.

The guy in the second video BEGINS his exchange as a lone racists babbling nut. He is a single black man in a crowd of white people. He shouts out terrible things that he obviously has no intention or ability to carry out. No one takes him seriously. There is no bullying and no tension. People are laughing at him.

Context matters. If I say 'I'm going to kill you' in a dark alley with a gun pointed to your head, it means something very different than if I say it after you accidentally spill coffee on my new shirt.

The above video has been bouncing around the hate cesspools of the internet - like Stormfront - in an attempt to show parity between these two very different events; parity between an empowered bully and a powerless fool.

Now you could have framed this as 'hey look at this crazy drunk racist guy, what an idiot' and you would have had no problems, but that's not how you chose to frame it, and as a result, this post didn't go that well for you. I'd rather not have to call you out like this. It's obviously upsetting to you. But when racial issues that resonate with the Stormfront crowd also resonate with you, you might have problems. Sort yourself out.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

xxovercastxx,
Piss off.


No need to get hostile, man. We just have a disagreement here.

The first video features a white woman in a crowd of white people. She singles out a lone black woman and then proceeds to bully and berate her. She makes it clear that these attacks are done in the name of her country and the white race, which is a cruel way to insinuate that she has the approval of the rest of her countrymen and fellow white people on that tram.

>>> That's a pretty bold assumption on your part. You believe she thought the orwellian serfs would back her up somehow? She is surrounded by Black people on that train--including one that could choke her or cut her throat from behind--and for good measure, there's a woman wearing a burqa in the background. It is more likely she had some mental disability, putting her kid in danger.

Thankfully someone stepped in and called this woman's bluff, which served to change the tenor of this exchange from a tense game of intimidation to a lone racist babbling nut.

The guy in the second video BEGINS his exchange as a lone racists babbling nut. He is a single black man in a crowd of white people.

He shouts out terrible things that he obviously has no intention or ability to carry out. No one takes him seriously. There is no bullying and no tension. People are laughing at him.

>>> Watch it again. There are other Black people on the train. And the nut's targets are not laughing. At all.

>>> Once again, you're making assumptions of questionable merit. First, you can't tell the level of someone's combat experience merely by sight, and if he's truly crazy he'll be immensely strong. Second, he's holding a glass bottle. He could've just as easily struck the woman to his left, with or without breaking the bottle first.

>>> Trying to summon up stormfront as a scary demon is laughable. Compare their ranks, which I assume aren't close to a few thousand, to the budgets and memberships of the NAACP, ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center.

You may believe you're "calling me out" and that's fine, you have every right to speak up. Individuals and group behaviors we can debate all day. However, the elephant in the room, with his buttocks spread across both videos, is the fact the French nutball was not condemned--by anyone--for his antics and there were no police looking for him after the fact.

You can be against intolerance or indifferent to it, but not selectively intolerant.












>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Let me break this down.
The first video features a white woman in a crowd of white people. She singles out a lone black woman and then proceeds to bully and berate her. She makes it clear that these attacks are done in the name of her country and the white race, which is a cruel way to insinuate that she has the approval of the rest of her countrymen and fellow white people on that tram. Thankfully someone stepped in and called this woman's bluff, which served to change the tenor of this exchange from a tense game of intimidation to a lone racist babbling nut.
The guy in the second video BEGINS his exchange as a lone racists babbling nut. He is a single black man in a crowd of white people. He shouts out terrible things that he obviously has no intention or ability to carry out. No one takes him seriously. There is no bullying and no tension. People are laughing at him.
Context matters. If I say 'I'm going to kill you' in a dark alley with a gun pointed to your head, it means something very different than if I say it after you accidentally spill coffee on my new shirt.
The above video has been bouncing around the hate cesspools of the internet - like Stormfront - in an attempt to show parity between these two very different events; parity between an empowered bully and a powerless fool.
Now you could have framed this as 'hey look at this crazy drunk racist guy, what an idiot' and you would have had no problems, but that's not how you chose to frame it, and as a result, this post didn't go that well for you. I'd rather not have to call you out like this. It's obviously upsetting to you. But when racial issues that resonate with the Stormfront crowd also resonate with you, you might have problems. Sort yourself out.

There are 3 instances of intolerance here: The white lady in the first tram, the black guy in the second tram and your intolerance right here. To have not addressed your racism would have been 'selective', as you say. Part of your problem is that you fail to see yourself as part of this continuum. As I said in my previous comment, had you chosen to present this in a non-racist way, you would not have had any problems. I think you'd rather be a victim than to have to face tough questions about who you are and what you stand for.

Go back and read the thread, kir_mokum, Boise_Lib, malldaffer, Jinx and myself all condemn the guy. There is no one that comes to the defense of the guy, except your ideological ally, bob, who says the guy was just drunk. The objections are not that you showed a racist black guy, but rather a) that you used racist language to do so and b) that you tried to make a case for parity between a racist bully and a racist nut, presumably because you are sympathetic to the bully.