I'm not expecting him to reply anyway. Just wanted to bring up @moonsammy post once more to show that some honest questions are being asked out of genuine curiosity and without prejudice. Questions that a real man should want to answer in that light.

But, it's bob(s). 🪕

@newtboy
-Including race as a determining factor in your admission score
as a 'liberal' ideal
This IS happening broadly, link to how and arguments for why it is 'good'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/10/03/harvard-beat-an-effort-end-its-use-race-factor-admissions-what-will-supreme-court-do/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/10/01/471085/5-reasons-support-affirmative-action-college-admissions/

-Enforcement of a race based "day of absence" where based on your race you were to be 'kicked off' campus for the day
Specifically the day of absence was at evergreen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests
Similarly reverse racist attitudes though are common enough, like chasing out a student journalist here for simply covering an event:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kVGtqp7usw

-"deplatforming" people for having dissenting opinions
Jordan Peterson is the biggest example, but my local uni has also banned pro-life student clubs too, so maybe I'm a little Canada biased on this?

-The entire circle-jerk of intersectionalism:
---"whiteness" needs to be defined as something inherently negative
Here's the Standford course on it if you or your parents wanna enrol:
https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&page=0&catalog=&q=CSRE+32SI%3A+Whiteness&collapse=

---"Racism" needs to redefined as not simply racial prejudice, but racial prejudice PLUS power(you know, so only white people can be racist under the new definition)
Likewise offered at Stanford, unless this is the lone critical race theory course that doesn't champion the above prejudice+power definition.
https://law.stanford.edu/courses/critical-race-theory/

---"systemic racism" getting defined as anything with unequal outcomes, so if asian students do too well in math it must mean the system is favouring them and we need to step in


And I'm out of time,

but seriously I'm a little baffled this was remotely controversial? Identity politics is a game the left has been playing at HARD for at minimum the decades since Affirmative Action was launched. The notion that the idea would eventually get national level push back should have been easy to see coming.

I think it's super important people recognize that Bob's point here is actually very correct.

A huge part of Trump's support IS reactionary against runaway liberal ideals.

The most blatant was on University campuses:
-Including race as a determining factor in your admission score as a 'liberal' ideal
-Enforcement of a race based "day of absence" where based on your race you were to be 'kicked off' campus for the day
-"deplatforming" people for having dissenting opinions
-The entire circle-jerk of intersectionalism:
---"whiteness" needs to be defined as something inherently negative
---"Racism" needs to redefined as not simply racial prejudice, but racial prejudice PLUS power(you know, so only white people can be racist under the new definition)
---"systemic racism" getting defined as anything with unequal outcomes, so if asian students do too well in math it must mean the system is favouring them and we need to step in

All of that filth was and still is almost universally wide spread through Academia as 'liberal' good ideas.

People need to very seriously wake up and recognize how many of the quiet folks who openly detest Trump, are also going to silently still vote Republican because of their disgust and push back at the above ideals.

Fair enough.

The one point I'd contest is that if someone is to dig their heels in upon receiving (arguably smug) contradictory remarks, I don't think that necessary indicates that they'd vote for Trump no matter what.

When you attack someone's belief that they've had for years and probably decades (i.e., their identity), it is painful and difficult to change one's belief.

A question I like to ask people who say things like what you said is, "When's the last time you admitted being incorrect to a long-held belief?" We've all been confronted with this, but how many times were you able to change your identity?

For instance, "Are you an animal-lover?" and then, the obvious vegan query, "Then why do you eat animals?" There's a pretty strong moral case for not eating animals and I would argue that it's a case that time will show to be both true and moral. I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace.

You could say that I, looking upon meat eaters, feel the same way you feel about Bob, at least in some ways.

The question is, "How does it feel? How easily are you able to change your long-held beliefs when (from my perspective) you're on the wrong side of history?" Do you find yourself recoiling? If someone came at you with not only the question, but says it in a self-congratulatory, condescending way, would you respond to that well? I wouldn't. I'd tell you to fuck off.

Give someone the facts clearly and without prejudice, and you can at least plant an earworm for them to digest later.

If you are vegan, I gotta come up with another example.

Brother? Really? Yeah, you aren't a bit racist, just stuck in the 70's (when that would still be considered racist, but at least contemporarily racist).

One bad apple.....spoils the bunch is the rest of that sentence.
We see nothing but bad apples. There are no good apples in the bunch, because they left those bad apples in the bunch for decades, actually recruiting them in many cases (see Florida, who recruits cops fired for violence).

Pablo Escobar did nice things, he was a bad apple. Not being the most racist, accusatory, disrespectful, violent assholes possible at every turn does not make a good apple. Turning in, and testifying against his fellow thuggish cops whenever they get violent, racist, or abusive until those cops are in prison instead of on the force, that makes a good apple. They don't exist.

The agreement between law enforcement and citizens starts with law enforcement's obligations.
First is to enforce the law evenly and fairly, not use it as a club for their personal prejudices. Second is their obligation to police themselves with greater zeal and less leeway than they give citizens.
Until they fulfil these obligations, citizens have no obligation to be civil to them. They shirked their obligations first, and theirs came with authority and benefits they retain even though they fail at their obligations every single time.
Civility with police in no way protects you from abuse....it often does nothing but give them excuses to violate citizens further. Any first year lawyer can tell you, there's no benefit to speaking with them at all.

Funny how you think finding one instance where being friendly ended with just a ticket and search you insist it works every time despite the numerous, uncountable examples proving that's simply not true shown to you daily.

"The race issue" (as if it's only one issue) if at the forefront because Republicans have become so outrageously overtly racist with support from the top down that the entire planet has had enough and are marching against the racist, murderous police. We know who is on who's side. It's clear. No one is accepting your word on the subject. We know you have said clearly that you support lying if it helps your cause or proves your point.

BTW, thanks for getting last night's bobknight33 off the keyboard. That one really needs more practice before being put in rotation, he didn't sound like the bobknight33 group in any way. Edit:oops, I hadn't read your other post this morning. These do not appear to be the same person posting in your name 1 1/2 hours apart....shift change comrades?

You just love to shit on cops.

I know this is a un believable story to you because in you small little peanut mind all a cop can be is bad.

There is more good than bad but you narrow minded head is blinded by your own prejudice .

I think forgiveness could fix this complex problem. Forgiving is not the same as condoning.

When you forgive someone, the person you are ultimately forgiving is, yourself. That becomes clear when, one day you are forced to judge yourself by your own bible, written by you over the years with prejudice.

If you don't practice forgiveness, you'll have to live with yourself and your truths.

Or..., not.

Sorry, lost me when they changed the definition of "racism" to "a set of people holding power over other people."
But that's not what the word means.....

Rac·ism /ˈrāˌsizəm/ noun
1)prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
2)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.

Power has nothing to do with it, it's belief in superiority/inferiority based on heritage. Lots of ignorant uneducated poor white trash think they're better than Tyler Perry despite the fact that he has infinitely more power by almost every measure.

@newtboy
"Discrimination by itself is not bad, it's discriminating against someone (especially based on racial assumptions) that's considered wrong."

And there we can agree. I would count assumptions of white privilege as racial assumptions that are wrong to be used as a basis for discriminating against people. I get that you disagree vehemently.

I also agree that equality and diversity and race aren't simplistic problems, and that on some level everybody has some manner of assumptions or prejudices that affect their decisions.

What I can't accept or agree with is the notion that coding into law that entities should use race to discriminate for/against people makes things better.

Again, even ceding all of your points to you(only for arguments sake) coding law to discriminate against people based upon race is still bad.

No matter how hard and long you try to explain the greater good it serves, and no matter how right you are, humans will not tolerate that discrimination. When their friends, family and especially kids are impacted or are simply potentially going to be impacted negatively by it, they will push back. When the group you are discriminating against is a majority, the push back will be all the more certain and vehement when it comes.

Mark my words, if the Democrats want to die on this hill and give not an inch on it, they will continue to lose election after election until they distance themselves from it.

Because it seems important to you to hear, yes, anything dealing with race is, by one definition, racist.

....but....

Just like discrimination, that's not necessarily bad.
Discrimination just means noticing a difference just like racism can mean making any distinction by race. Most definitions include prejudice and superiority as parts of racism, but not all. Discrimination by itself is not bad, it's discriminating against someone (especially based on racial assumptions) that's considered wrong.

Racism-the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race.

That characteristic could be nothing more than pigmentation levels, a physical characteristic with no other connotations or prejudices attached....it's still technically racism. E.g.. it's racist and discriminatory to state that Americans of African descent are at risk for sickle cell anemia, but not malicious or prejudicial.

People who claim to be 100% non-racist are liars, blind and deaf, or 100% brain dead. Reasonable people admit they see race, even those who don't discriminate against others based on race.

Lol.
He's partially right, republicans being gullible idiotic xenophobes IS why Trump was elected, but not because media companies showed them being idiotic racists but rather because Trump expertly played on their xenophobic fears and prejudices.
What a maroon. Realize he was more than willing to accept this as actual anti-terrorism training and never thought twice about it until long afterwards. I'm surprised they didn't get him to shower in pig blood to safeguard himself from Muslims.

Sorry, Spencer, read the release you signed. What you claim someone told you beforehand means less than nothing when you sign a contract. Verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on.

@C-note

Do you only post racial videos which features injustice?
Because if you spend your life looking for something, that's all you'll ever see.

You need to broaden your prospects. I understand there are racial bias and prejudice people out there but you seem to hyper-focus on it. You invite your life to be surrounded by these bad energies.

I'd love to see you more positive. I don't know what wrongs this world has served you personally, or if you just surround yourself in these issues, but sometimes, the best way to free yourself from these issues is to not see them in everything you see and do.

Either you're a complete moron or a troll. If you honestly believe what you wrote then you live in one weird bubble and are honestly racist. You're definition of racism is so far removed from the actual definition it is straight up racist itself.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess you are a American or Canadian who lives in that typical America bubble where the world is just your immediate doorstep and things like ethnic cleansing and racial prejudice between Africans, Chinese, etc simply dont exist to you.

I would invite you to sincerely re-examine your beliefs and world-view my brother because you're views are frightening.

PS: I love how it took you only two posts to devolve straight into Godwin's law. That must be a record.

Racism-prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
-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.

....I absolutely hate the bastardized definition you gave, because it's flatly wrong and just an excuse for horrid behavior.
Edit: the statement "I feel "racism against whites" is not only currently impossible, but the idea is inherently racist. " is inherently racist.
One, whites are hardly always dominant in every situation (I sure as hell wasn't when I lived in East Palo Alto for years) and two, actual dominance has little to do with racism, it's about what you think. For example, if blacks think they're automatically superior to others based on race, but not in status because they are oppressed, they are perfectly capable of vile, even murderous racism towards non blacks.

Clearly, racism paired with power is far more harmful, but the powerless can be just as racist.