Interesting....isn't he saying that mainly white areas tend to be better? That seems to be a fairly racist position.
Odd that he mentions areas all over the country, but details only from southern states, as if the whole nation is historically racist like the secessionist states.
Let's talk Vermont, who actively encourages non white immigration and those who go tend to report being treated kindly with respect, yet they're still far below average in diversity.
I live in Humboldt county, which is much whiter than average. I can't figure out why more non whites don't move here unless it's a lack of development and services. Those I've known were happy here and saw less racism than they had in major cities.

The laugh track addition is just dumb and inappropriate. Often the shot of the crowd showed them sitting quietly while raucous laughter erupted from the track over nothing funny.

It's pretty much the same all over the world. I do not believe Whitopias are a bad thing. No one ever criticizes China Towns that spring up where ever populations of Chinese choose to live. Each of my own residences are within expat communities. I guess I'm just trying to make myself feel better.

Chinatowns, like many ghettos, are often the result of historical patterns of housing discrimination against Chinese...As in, historical exemptions on housing deeds etc...

And now, often poverty of immigrants puts them into ghettos where they first arrive and try to assimilate...

Just sayin'

The most surreal part was the Aryan Nations segment when he was in Coeur d'Alene

One white person is pleasant company; 50 white people are a lynch mob waiting to happen.

That's a pretty ignorant and disgusting, blatantly racist statement you made.

Not entirely inaccurate though.

Except in some countries in Europe where the population is still over 90% European, what business have 50 white people got hanging out together without any visible minorities? Odds are they either self-selected into that group, or they live in a very white bubble. Either way they are likely mistrustful of people who don't look like them and could be swayed by one or two strong voices to persecute those they see as "other".

Newt,

I was riffing off the statement told to the presenter that 'one black person is pleasant company; 50 black people are a ghetto.'

Obviously, I don't believe that white people gather in numbers just for the sole purpose of lynching. It's possible that Lynyrd Skynyrd is in town.

Really?
You want to defend that?!

You honestly believe white people are all so easily swayed and ready to jump into racial attacks with no provocation that any gathering of >50 is just a mob awaiting a proper target, which is any non white?

Are you prepared to make similar insulting and divisive blanket racist statements about other ethnicities?

Here I was feeling bad I had called him out on what was intended as a bad joke, then you come along to support it as a fact. *facepalm

Don't make a straw man out of me.

Take my actual words and my actual argument if you want me to respond. I'm not going to defend words I didn't use.

Glad to know....I couldn't see the wink and grin in your post, and I forgot someone had said that in the video, I watched it yesterday. Sorry I took you seriously.

Sadly, before you could clarify, you already have others defending it as honest truth. I wish I could have just assumed you were joking, because no one believes such nonsense, but obviously not.

What say we both hit sarcasm?

"One white person is pleasant company; 50 white people are a lynch mob waiting to happen."...."Not entirely inaccurate..."

Your actual words and argument.

And your point is? You'll have to spell it out. Preferably without the hyperbole this time. What do you think the words, "Not entirely inaccurate..." mean?

I don't think they're intended to mean "it's infinitesimally possible, however incredibly unlikely and totally wrong as a blanket statement about any group of 50 white people", paired with your explanation I think it means "that's true in many places".


Kind of like agreeing that "50 black people are a violent criminal gang" is not entirely inaccurate because in certain specific places it might be possible....but as a blanket statement about ANY and EVERY group of 50 black people it's not only entirely inaccurate, it's insultingly racist.

Okay, still an exaggeration. How about we take it to mean what it says, instead, "That's true some of the time."

Now, your counter-argument is?

My counter argument....that that's not what you said....and it's still inaccurate.

You said the blanket statement about any/every group of 50 whites being a violent racist gang is not entirely inaccurate. It is.

Now, had you said the blanket statement about every group of 50 whites being a lynch mob was true some of the time, that would still be a wildly inaccurate overstatement, but better. There has been no point in time when every group of 50 white men was a lynch mob.

Had you said what you now say, it's not entirely inaccurate because it's true some of the time in certain specific areas with certain groupings, it would be contradicting the original blanket statement which is inaccurate, so it's still technically incorrect, just like saying the statement about groups of black people isn't entirely inaccurate....it is, because the unwritten but undeniable subject of the statement is ANY group of 50 black/white people, not one specific group in a few specific places at some times.

If you understand that, you understand why it's entirely inaccurate no matter how you wish to interpret the rest.

Is it true that there have been groups of 50 white men that were a lynch mob, yes. That doesn't resemble what you said.

You really like the sound of your own voice, don't you?

1) You cherry picked and then exaggerated my statements.

2) You toned it down a bit, while still doing both of the above.

3) Now you're just cherry picking.

There's no point debating you if you're just going to be disingenuous about it.

Does a group of white people who are purposely excluding racial minorities seem equally, more, or less prone to racially charged violence than a multi-ethnic group?

And before you bring that black group back into the discussion, remember, odds are (at least in the US) they don't have the range of options the whites do. Most of the time, a group of 50 or more black people forms with no other racial groups present because they're pushed into less desirable areas and excluded from the wealthier side of society. I agree that it's possible that group could be prone to violence, but I'd argue that their reasons would stem more from social inequality, rather than racism. You can't make that same argument for the white group.

Cherry picked!? Lol.

"One white person is pleasant company; 50 white people are a lynch mob waiting to happen.".... (Blanket racial statement)
Drachen_Jager-
"Not entirely inaccurate, though." (Endorsement)

All the other tripe is attempting to change the subject.
You said the blanket statement about whites is not entirely wrong, in some places it's not entirely wrong, sometimes in some places it's not entirely wrong.....
I'm consistent in saying any blanket statement is wrong, and blanket statements about race are invariably wrong and racist.

There is no debate here. You just keep changing your position so you can argue.
Enjoy

That's what I figured. You just got all riled up by something you thought you read and made an argument based off your misunderstanding (intentional or otherwise).

Now you realize you picked an untenable position. You were happy to address the whole argument when you turned it into a straw man that barely resembled what I'd actually said, then once you realized it actually provided context and made sense you decided to focus on the initial vague statement and interpret in the way you chose completely ignoring the context you'd tried to focus on earlier. That is what's called cherry picking.

Now you've been called on for your fallacious arguments, you withdraw.

Nice.

Derp?
Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

Something I thought I read? Lol. I still can read it, can't you? I quoted it in full, twice.

My position is as strong and clear as my first post, yours changes every turn.

Try
To
Read
Carefully....

Blanket racial statements are wrong and racist.

Same position I held the entire conversation, one you continue to fail to comprehend.

Your attempts to change the subject to try to argue your statement's partial validity is just that, an attempt to change the subject to a completely different argument. I'm not interested, you aren't that interesting or even entertaining.

My point that you continue to miss, intentionally or not, is that blanket statements are wrong (with one exception for the blanket statement that blanket statements are wrong), racial blanket statements are wrong and racist. Sad you won't comprehend, I wonder if you can't.

I withdraw because you aren't debating, you're flailing at changing the subject, which was never racial disparity or possibilities, it's painting any grouping of one race as "X". Again, sad you don't comprehend, but I'm exhausted trying to explain to someone who clearly only wants to argue.

Good day, you may have the last word, replete with more ridiculous accusations I expect. Conversation with you has proven fruitless and utterly unenlightening, now turning to ridiculous insults and pure fantasy.

Sometimes I think the Sift is Whytopia.

I have never argued against that.

So, yet another straw man?

Can you look up a list of fallacies so you can at least know what I'm talking about? Fallacious arguments have no value. You don't seem to understand the basic logical mistakes you're making.

Leave the straw man alone, you wicked witch!

I think the majority of white people dont really think much about race because they mostly don't interact with other races. I think it really does depend on where you live.

I grew up in Hawaii where I experienced racism as a white person. In California growing up you notice that the mexicans hang out with other mexicans and blacks with other blacks so you naturally just hang out with other white people. There are exceptions of course but that's all they seem to be for the most part.

In Montana where I live now its almost all white. I didn't move up here for that reason; it's just the way it is.

As a Christian I see all people as created in Gods image and those that Jesus died for. We are all one blood as the scripture says.

So "not entirely inaccurate, though" equals "that statement is wrong" to you? I can see why it's so hard to have a discussion in the English language with you. Is it not your original language?

"they are likely mistrustful of people who don't look like them and could be swayed by one or two strong voices to persecute those they see as "other""

Seems like you're fine making large behavioral generalizations based on skin color, or am I reading that one wrong too?

Can you show me where I argued against the statement, "Blanket racial statements are wrong and racist."

If not, perhaps you should go back and take some refresher English classes (preferably some Logic classes too).

Just like Newtboy, you're trying to put words in my mouth. Until you learn how to actually parse sentences and assemble a logical argument there's just no point.

And, in case you had trouble figuring it out, words like "likely" and "could" tend to defuse the "blanket" nature of statements. I can make a ton of statements using those words that are 100% correct.

"A randomly-selected group of Black Americans likely has a lower income than an equal-sized group of White Americans."

Explain to me how that's wrong. For that matter, explain to me how it's a "blanket" statement.

And, just to be clear, there's a wide chasm between using such a statement and arguing against the proposition that such statements are bad. People do bad things all the time that they fully acknowledge are bad. Simply doing a thing does not mean you think it's good.

Deleted

Indeed.