hardsoft t1_iriitb9 wrote
Reply to comment by LetMeSleepNoEleven in There have been more and more incidents of racially derogatory words being used by younger younger kids, at least here in Londonderry, NH. What’s the deal? by [deleted]
Amendment for harm done by a hurricane?
We're back to the racist hurricane...
And upon continued searching I've yet to find a single definition of racism that says "except against white people"
So you're anti science and anti language.
The things a racist will do to justify their racism...
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irij0i8 wrote
No. The harm done by your racism.
hardsoft t1_irij7g1 wrote
I'm opposed to racism across the board.
You're promoting it. You're so edgy.
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irijfbn wrote
No. You are racist.
hardsoft t1_irik07e wrote
Your actual argument is that some poor people in Florida need to be held responsible for harm done by me because the pigment of their skin is similar. That's clearly racist.
Meanwhile, you can't provide a single example of my supposed racism.
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irik26d wrote
No. My actual argument is that amendment for racism is not racism.
You want to perpetuate racism.
hardsoft t1_irik9rn wrote
We're talking about hurricane relief. The hurricane wasn't racist. The lower income white folks in Florida trailer parks aren't responsible.
So that doesn't make any logical sense. You're just being racist.
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irikc5f wrote
We’re talking about amendment for racism. You think it’s racist to make amendment for racism.
hardsoft t1_irikw6q wrote
If that involves more racism or rights violations against innocent individuals, yes.
You don't get to lynch a newborn white baby and simply dismiss it as "amendment for racism".
That's not a magical phrase that justifies racism or distortion of basic logic and language. Holding someone guilty of something simply because of the color of their skin is racist.
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iriky2a wrote
It isn’t racism to make amendment for racism.
No one is being held guilty of anything.
hardsoft t1_irilhh5 wrote
So killing a white baby is ok if it's "atonement for racism"?
The guilt of the party for whatever you're atoning for is irrelevant?
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irilmm0 wrote
Why would killing a white baby be an amendment for racism? You’re pretty sick.
Edit: oh, I see. You’re talking about atonement. I don’t care so much about that. But you’re still kind of sick.
hardsoft t1_irilsr2 wrote
Right
And you agree that prioritizing hurricane relief response for white people would be racist?
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irilvbd wrote
Of course. That would be doubling down on racism, not amending it.
hardsoft t1_irim8q1 wrote
And you agree low income white people in Florida trailer parks aren't responsible for a racist hurricane?
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irimnsh wrote
Of course. But that’s irrelevant.
hardsoft t1_irinas9 wrote
So you agree prioritizing hurricane relief response based on skin color is racist, unless it's to atone for prior racism.
And that atonement against innocent individuals is wrong.
And that white trailer park individuals in Florida are not responsible for the hurricane.
See the trap you painted yourself into?
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irinon8 wrote
No. It’s amendment for racism.
That you don’t understand the difference between ‘atonement’ and ‘amendment’ is a problem and probably one of the sources of your active racism.
hardsoft t1_irinx58 wrote
Haha. Back to your selectively magical justification phrase.
Ok.
Your choice to practice cognitive dissonance.
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irio1j0 wrote
The dissonance is in you denying the impact of racism.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments