As I stated. This is subjective, and can't be debated unless you reveal: What level the left is saying racism currently exists, and how do we go about measuring racism levels. I also stated it is subjective to label a country as a racist country. So, tell us how you measured racism, in order to know that the left has it too high. And what level did the left put racism? No one argued that the majority of Americans believe in it. It should be obvious that the majority of Americans are not racist. If you disagree with that, show us where that was asserted. Great. Just realize you can't debate something that can't be measured, and you can't debate allegations that no one raised.
All evidence here to the contrary. What you do is you obfuscate, throw out false equivalencies, put words into people's mouths, and when they respond back questioning your posts, you try to be as obscure as possible by saying things like "where did I say that?", without actually clarifying what it was that you did say or mean. When things go further south (because these kinds of conversations are intended to confront, not understand or engage, they often go south) you fall back on the pussy comment, which is your first tell that you're rattled. Its ok, that's your style. All we have to do is look at the very first post in this thread that you made in response to me, and the tone in which you made it. You're not looking to engage. You're looking to confront. And so you'll always be met in kind. My guess is that you're a very socially awkward person in real life. Probably not married, probably no kids. Very few friends, perhaps because of this or perhaps because you are likely somewhere low on the autism spectrum that prevents you from understanding people or relating to them, or their discomfort in certain situations. You're probably exceptionally good with data, and with numbers. Maybe you work in IT. All of this is a guess, and it could be way off base. But that's what I'm going with based on your posting history and my (admittedly and thankfully brief) interactions with you.
So, because they earn more, have gotten ahead, and in some cases, arrived here; they couldn't possibly be subject to racism? So, if there exists a Black man, that's worth more than you; he couldn't have possibly have suffered racism? Who is arguing that it is prolific? And who has define exactly what "prolific" racism is. You make allegations that no one has made on this site; then you argue with yourself about them.
So you're looking for examples of why I believe the left has the level of racism "too high"? Is that it? I just want to make sure I understand the ask, even though I am fully aware you won't accept my examples under any circumstance and the effort will be futile regardless. Ah, and there it is. The ol' "Where did I say this?" but carefully worded to avoid apparent repetitious patterns. I can debate anything I choose to debate. You have the right to express what you feel in response. Such is the nature of debate.
Let me try your tactic back on you. "Where did I say that?" I didn't. What I said was: When I ask and answer the rhetorical question "Does it Have Racists that live in it? Of course", by definition that means that the answer do your obvious question "he couldn't have possibly suffered racism?" is that, of course he could have suffered it. It is just that it isn't everywhere in our lives. The entire Democratic party is. Would you like some examples of where they say things like "The United States is a Racist Country" or other blanket statements from prominent Democrat officials? I would be happy to provide.
"Racism" which is really bigotry/xenophobia mostly is largely about the easily identifiable other/outsider and would be about how many freckles in the end. The frecks are after our jobs. In Belfast because visually it was near impossible to guess Catholic from Protestant it became hairstyles and accents. The Iain Paisley type of super exaggerated accent is purely to make a differentiation of which neighbourhood.
I stated that I am respectful when respected; and vice versa. What is contrary to that? My response was to your post addresses how I signified against @gaussian . Now, below, you're mysteriously discussing something totally different. You can never stay focused. You continually change the debate once you have no rebuttal. There was no rebuttal you could make to me stating I give what I get. So you've expanded the original debate regarding my response to guassian's insults, into being about how I debate. I don't obfuscate; you just confuse yourself. I also ask for people to clarify themselves, if that's what you're referring to. Give an example of where I've obfuscated. It is senseless to debate general allegations. Present your evidence. Without more, I simply must deny your overlybroad, general, unspecific allegation. Show me where I did this. Again, it silly to debate general allegations, but nevertheless: So, let me get this straight. You're saying that when I'm accused of saying something that I assert I didn't say; I ask, "where did I say that?" So instead of trying to understand why you believe that I said something I didn't, I should just start rephrasing what I said, in the hopes that'll you eventually understand, after however many attempts it'll take for me to guess what part is unclear to you; Rather than just asking you to tell me exactly where the misunderstanding lies? Again, I only called you a pussy, because you signified first. I didn't cry about what you said, I might have even laughed. But don't call people names, and then cry when they call you a pussy. I don't know if you really believe you've ever rattled me. But calling someone that called you out of your name, a pussy; isn't being rattled in my neighborhood. I apologize if I hurt you. If you don't crack jokes on me; I won't crack jokes on you. If I only wanted to confront, I wouldn't be spending all this time responding to you in a non-confrontational manner. I remember exactly the moment you're talking about. Something I said caused you to believe I was trolling you. Re-read the exchange from an outsider perspective, and see if your prior words may have had something to do with my response. I'm not going to call you a pussy right now. Better?
Not necessarily. You could've been saying that others may suffer racism, but not those that are 'allowed' to get ahead. That's why I asked for clarity. The entire Democratic party is. Would you like some examples of where they say things like "The United States is a Racist Country" or other blanket statements from prominent Democrat officials? I would be happy to provide.[/QUOTE] I'll assume that that's true. But again, it's subjective. You and Pelosi could agree to the total number of racists in the US, and her opinion is that it makes the whole country a racist country. You could disagree. You can't debate that, it's total opinion.
More specifically, and more simply: How can anyone, D or R or anyone, measure the level of racism in a country? The pattern is actually in response to a pattern. Yes sir, you sure can. I'll rephrase: You can't meaningfully debate opinions.
The problem in this country is people confusing racism with being a minority. In any country in the world, if you are a minority, you will be discriminated against in some form. It's just human nature. If you're white and you've traveled to any non-white country, you know what I'm talking about.