Im not whitewashing anything. Thats just an assertion youre making because you cant handle being wrong. DEI solves nothing. Just like affirmative action, solved nothing. Theres a generational gap in the US between blacks and whites when it comes to equality. And you dont solve that with tokenism. The real racist is you, and people like you. Who think black people in the US deserve nothing but handouts and special treatment.

If you want to correct the mistakes of the past, thats money. Thats money to every single black family that was held back 100 years ago by the systemic racism that targeted them, while whites were given every advantage to gain and accumulate wealth.

You just want to say popular thing that gets you worthless internet points, but does nothing to solve the problem. You are the cancer of the internet.

I never said everything he said was good. In fact, I said it wasnt.

I dont know about the Clarence Thomas quote, but I know he said the same about Ben Carson… Which is a big yikes, Im sure you’ll agree.

I already did. Twice in fact. What a silly goose you are. Just desperate to call people racist, so you can get your little up arrow touched.

You think treating black people as human beings and giving them the same access to education as their white counterparts is “mask off”? What mask do you think I was wearing exactly???

Go back 100 years, and you’ll find white people in the US putting up barriers to social mobility towards black people. That means not giving mortgages, or if they did, only for certain areas, and even then only at silly mark ups. The problem started back then, and its never been corrected. And no, DEI does not address this. Giving special treatment to the chosen few is not any kind of solution to the problem. Its little more than a way of saying “look, we’re one of good ones. We let you into our private club!”. If not supporting that shit makes me racist, well, thats fine. Cos the only people who would call me racist, are the type of people who always want black people with their hand out so they can get a pat on the back when they put some loose change in it.

Im not explaining why its correct, Im explaining why he made it. Because the general idea is that he was just straight up racist. Which may very well be true, but if you have the context of why he said it, or at least the context in which he presented the argument, then you can understand it and challenge it. No? If all you think of someone is that they are a racist, then you can easily dismiss them. But that doesnt challenge the point. And if you hate that so many others are listening to the point, then its on you to challenge them with truth, rather than just calling them bigots and getting a pat on the back from like minded internet strangers.

Im advocating for people to arm themselves with information. I dont really see why thats so wrong.

Its all ragebait, mate. Left, right, doesnt matter. Media, both social and mainstream, wants your engagement. And there no better way to do that than rage. The brown man who just got off the boat and raped a young girl, the blue haired landwhale who said “all men are rapists by design!”, Charlie Kirk said black people suck, etc etc etc etc. Its all ragebait, all the time. Anything to keep you engaged, and them making money off of you.

Because those are examples of what he was talking about. Im adding context. Information is king. Do you not agree? If you dont know something, how can you ever hope to understand a persons point of view? If you dont understand their point of view, how can defeat them in debate?

The easy way to look at this, is the thing that almost everyone does these days. They take one example of something that offends them, and then applies it to the whole. The immigrate who rapes a child 2 minutes off the boat, the left wing lunatic with blue hair that says all men are rapists, the right wing lunatic that says all women should be in the kitchen. We see these examples everyday, and people use them as excuses to be horrible people. Does my pointing out the RAF and the Oxford Union instances make something true? No. But you need to know them, so that you know where someone else is coming from. So you that you can say “yes, but…”. Too much of online discourse is “thats lie!” with nothing to back up the claim. You can google those two things, and see that they are true. And you can then understand why someone might make a claim based on those two examples. But thats when you would, or should, point out the instances where it wasnt the case. Thats how the debate goes. We dont just accept what strangers on the internet tell us is true, or worse what gets us worthless internet points.

The only way to combat hate is with truth. And in order to gain truth, you must have information. Even when that information breaks what you thought to be true, or just makes it harder to prove whats true. I cant just be circlejerking all the time.

Well, Im not going to take offence, but I will point that you have in fact misrepresented what I said. The question is why?

I mean, you currently have Trump in the white house. He seems to be setting the stage for a tyrannical government that controls freedom of speech. His followers call for violence against those who dont agree. Its at this point you should be asking yourself, are you glad you have weapons to defend yourself if this orange buffoon comes knocking on your door to take away your citizenship and send you to a 3rd world prison for the crime of wrong think?

The question then becomes, was the few deaths every year a price worth paying for that protection? Its up to each of you to answer that question. There is no wrong answer.

The actual more important question is how can you have that protection, while at the same time lowering the amount of gun related deaths every year. But for some weird fucking reason, both sides want an all or nothing solution. No room for compromise, just anger and hate.

Also, lets see you get dogpiled and not just give up and start telling people to fuck off.

Which is my point, he doesnt need to be edited.

As for the rest of what you said, sorry, but thats just not true. People who werent qualified or as qualified as others got preference over others because of their skin colour in those instances that I mentioned. If you want to argue that its not that wide spread, thats fair enough. But it does happen, and I proved it with these two easily variable truths. Im sorry that hurts your feelings, but maybe you need to grow up a little bit, and understand that the heroes and villains of the world dont fit so neatly into the boxes youve prepared for them.

Also, the point about DEI isnt that black people or women or whoever else gets a job. The point is about the companies making these token gestures of representation so they can get a pat on the back from social media. And that its these companies that have created this atmosphere where people are looking at black people in jobs and unsure if they gained that job through merit or because some company wanted to fill a quota.

More to the point, because they create these token placements, we dont address other areas like black people have fewer opportunities to get the education needed to compete on an equal level. Black people arent stupid, but its easy to see that they are limited, especially in the US, to having access to higher education. And even more so prestigious higher education.

The problem, IMO, of DEI is that it addresses the symptoms in a superficial way for social media back slapping purposes, but doesnt address the causes of why these programs need to exist at all. Is this a right wing view? I think black people should have better access to the tools needed to compete, you think they should just be handed things as they need the charity. But you call me the asshole? Hmm…

Im not doing either of those things, but whatever you need to tell yourself to make yourself feel like youre winning at something…

Im not giving it any respect, Im simply pointing out that his comments are edited. Thats it. Im not saying hes right. Only that we should be pissed off at what he said, not what clickbait told us he said.

Yes, its worth a few deaths to have the ability to defend yourselves against a shit government. What about that isnt fucking clear?

Gun safety laws are why I DONT AGREE WITH HIM!!! Im not arguing his point, I dont agree with him. Im saying that what he said want “Fuck them kids!”, which is what all of you are saying he said.

I know you want the worthless uparrows, but for fucks sake.

Removed by mod

Have you seen the state of vet bills these days? Youd be yelling too.

No, it wasnt. Thats the point of context. You want to hate him, I have no issue with that. I dont really like him either. But the difference between us is that I hate him for who he actually was, you hate him based on twitter posts that were meant to monetise your outrage. We are not the same.

The majority did not. You seem to lack being able to tell the truth.

I think we’re done here.

Im not American, and I can see the difference between “paying a price for a greater good/convenience” and “Fuck them kids!”.

God given right to have guns is a crazy statement. I certainly hope youre not thinking that Im defending the man? Im only holding him to account for his actual words, not the heavily edited ragebait that being passed around social media. What he actually said was enough. Its probably also worth noting the “god given rights” he was talking about was freedom. Hes talking about the people having a means(guns) to protect themselves from a government that would rob them of freedom.

An example of this would be Ukraine making a deal with Russia that they wouldnt have nukes. In exchange, Russia said they would never invade…

I didnt say any of them were fine in context. My point was, that the context made each quote mean a different thing. Rather than just being blanket statements about race or gender or whatever.

Hate the man for who he was, not for what some ragebait heavily edited clip told you he was.

I think we knew that.

You might have, no one else seems to. They all think he was making blanket statements about race, rather than speaking specifically about DEI hires.

Not what he said. Again, edited. The full context is that he was saying that society pays a price for the nice things it has. His other example was cars.

“You will never live in a society where you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But … I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

“Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price – 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving – speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. … We should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.”

Up to you if think hes right about the 2A being a nice thing for society to have. He thought it was in order for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Personally, I didnt agree with him for a multitude of reasons. But I disagreed with what he said, not what he didnt say.