Category Archives: Racism

It Isn’t Fucking Racist, Liberals!

racist1Last night, I was watching the new MTV series based on the Scream movie franchise and while I’ll eventually do a review of the season over on my other blog, there was a place in the second episode where a guy is waiting for a girl he likes on a football field and she sneaks up behind him, puts her hands over his eyes and he says something along the line of “wow, you’re like a ninja!” and she says “that’s racist!”  Fuck you, it isn’t racist, it’s a completely accurate analogy for someone who sneaks up on another person.  The fact that she’s Asian has no bearing on the analogy.  Fuck you people.

But that’s the kind of thing that I get so sick of hearing.  Everything is racist.  No it isn’t! This seems to be one of the new code-words on the left, that everything, everywhere is somehow racist.  Well, unless you’re a liberal college professor who tells all white people everywhere to commit mass suicide because they’re all responsible for slavery.  But that’s somehow not racist, although I can’t figure out why.

Let’s look at the definition of racism for a moment.  It means “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.”  Nothing in my example at the top of the article fits into that definition.  Nobody was saying all Asian people are ninjas, in fact, the joke doesn’t change no matter what race the girl happened to be.  It could have been a particularly stealthy black guy in a wheelchair and calling him a ninja still makes sense.

Of course, once  you realize that this is just a general purpose insult for the left, it all starts to make sense.  Nobody wants to be considered racist so when idiots on the left start accusing people of it, even for things that are absurdly not racist at all, they’re hoping people will change their ways because they’ve been accused of something unsavory.  In fact, the left uses far more racist rhetoric than anyone else.  Between Democratic Representatives saying they don’t like Supreme Court Justices because they’re an “Uncle Tom” to Louis Farrakhan praising Hitler as a great man, the examples are widespread.   Yeah, these people have no clue what the word means because it’s just a social sledge hammer to them.

Having just re-watched The Princess Bride on the 4th of July, it brings to mind the words of Inigo Montoya:

[youtuber youtube=’’]

Make Up Your Mind on Race

black-women-tv-collageOkay, this makes no sense at all and I really want people to explain it to me.  On the one hand, you’ve got liberals demanding that we treat black people the same as we treat white people because everyone is equal.  I’m entirely on board with that because not only does everyone deserve equal treatment under the law, the color of one’s skin really says nothing about their individual character.  You have rich white men and rich black men, you have brilliant white women and brilliant black women, you have good white people and bad white people, good black people and bad black people, treating anyone differently because of their skin color and not because of their character is absurd.  This should have been settled a very, very long time ago.

But then I started hearing, with regard to TV shows, that shows had to hire black writers because white writers were not able to accurately produce dialogue for black characters and I just had to throw my hands up.  Okay, what the hell is a black character, other than someone who happens to be black?  Are we now supposed to think that black people all act the same?  Wasn’t there a controversy when people used to think that black people all looked the same, now it’s apparently fine, coming from the “black community” that all of them are supposed to act the  same?  What  gives?

This seems to be the modern reality though, the “black community” wants to have spokesmen that speak for every single black person in the nation.  Blacks have to believe the same things.  They have to want the same things.  They have to talk the same way and act the same way, to the point that being black is little more than a stereotype now and it’s the “black community” that’s really pushing that view.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but when did colorblindness become out of fashion on the left?  Isn’t that what we’re all supposed to be going for?  That it shouldn’t matter what color someone’s skin is, everyone is an individual, everyone isn’t judged by their skin color but by their character, that people are just people and nothing else matters?  The whole concept of a “black character” should be meaningless.  It should be a character who just so happens to be black.  You shouldn’t be able to decide what they’re going to act like, what they’re going to think or believe or anything else, just based on the color of their skin.  You don’t have Obama out talking like some ghetto rapper or a middle-class suburbanite, they’re all individuals, not racial stereotypes.  But no… only black people can write lines for black people because black people are inherently different from white people on account of being black.  How is this progress on race again?  I just don’t see it.

Just what the hell is going on here?

Racism: Gotta Start ’em Young

Radical BrowniesOnly in a place like San Francisco would you find such an absurd liberal load of horse shit taking place.  We’ve all heard of the Girl Scouts, right?  And their younger counterparts, the Brownies?  Well here’s a group, based in Oakland, right outside of San Francisco, one of the major hubs for liberal lunacy, who isn’t out in front of Walmart selling cookies, they’re out selling social justice, and racist social justice at that!

Yes, these little girls are spreading the “black people are better” message that racist liberals are so good at and, like religion long ago realized, if you get these kids young, when their rational mind isn’t developed, you’ve got a disciple for life.  Get ’em thinking about racism and sexism and other liberal chestnuts quick!

And seriously, who the fuck names these idiots?  What imbecile would name their kid “Coatlupe”?  Only a loony liberal.

This is just more evidence that these idiotic social justice warriors are little more than a political cult, they’re indoctrinating young children into their mental poison and these little girls today are going to be the S.C.U.M. of the next generation. This is where radicalism starts folks, it’s no surprise that these are named the Radical Brownies.

But of course, you get the loony liberal atheist fringe who decry religious indoctrination at a young age, yet are standing on their chairs and cheering when this kind of stuff goes on.  It’s like the Christians who complain about Muslim madrassas and then stick their kids in religious schools and dump them at Sunday School every weekend.  Now certainly, most everything that parents do when their children are young is indoctrination, it’s how we teach language, inculcate them into societal norms and educate them through schooling.  The first few years of a child’s life, they are an open sponge that soaks up knowledge. Complaining about one form of indoctrination while engaging in another is a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?  Of course, there ought to be limits and we ought to be doing what is best for the child’s future life and development.  I don’t think having a bunch of girls pushing social justice outside of Walmart is doing what’s best for the kids, it’s just stroking the egos of the idiot parents.  Oh, and note that in the story, nobody mentions the fathers of these girls.  Think any of them are in the picture?  Me either.


More Feminist Stupidity from FtB

liberalracistsexistWay back when, I made it a New Year’s Resolution to entirely walk away from the stupidity that is Atheism+ and I think that for the most part, I’ve done pretty well keeping that resolution.  As a part of that, it meant virtually abandoning several blog networks including FreethoughtBlogs, Skepchicks and, on the other side of the spectrum, the Slymepit.  I can honestly say, I have never regretted the decision, nor have I had the slightest interest in ever going back.  Being free from extremist feminist stupidity is like a breath of fresh air and I heartily recommend it.

However, while I’ve been gone, the stupidity has gone on unabated.  I sometimes see things on the periphery, reported on other blogs or podcasts that I listen to and sometimes, there are things so utterly idiotic, so abjectly stupid, that I have to step in and make some comments to get it off my chest and keep me from headbanging the desk.  This is one of those cases.

Over on a FtB site called Heinous Dealings, a blog by Heina Dadabhoy, she writes the following post about “Excluding White Male Authors”.  It is so full of feminist idiocy, I haven’t got any idea where to start.  I guess the only place to begin is at the beginning.

I recently announced something I’d decided on ages ago: That I’d exclusively be reading non-male authors in 2015 and non-white authors in 2016.

That seems extraordinarily stupid, truth be told.  Isn’t the point of reading anything to gain information, not to bask in the author’s gender or skin color?  I read for content, not political correctness.  It doesn’t matter to me who writes a book, only if I enjoy reading the book.  I really have no idea the gender or skin color of most authors, given that any of them could easily be using a pseudonym.  I also don’t care.  It never enters my mind to give half a shit about the physical characteristics of the author, but then again, I’m not a racist or a sexist.  Radical feminists like Dadabhoy absolutely are both.

The moment of resolution happened when my horrified eyes beheld my reading record on gender. Not only were my percentages far less than 50/50 (favoring male authors) but also most of the female authors on record for me reflected books that I’d read as a child and younger teen. From the time I started university until now, I’d mostly read white male authors.

Maybe because the content you wished to consume just so happened to be written by white male authors?  Why does it matter? Does the content change because the gender of the person writing it changes?  Apparently you never thought so in the past because it took you a very long time to realize “your mistake”.  So why, other than your radical feminist credo, do you care now?

Furthermore, the works by the relatively few authors of color I’d read were on racial issues and the non-male authors I’d read were writings on feminism.

Then it sounds like you had a very limited literary spectrum, doesn’t it?  There are plenty of female authors who write about things other than feminism and tons of non-white authors who write about things other than race.  I guess you’ve just  been confined within your liberal hidey hole for far too long.  I’ll tell you what, I don’t read any books about race and I don’t read any books about sex and I read books by people of every color and every gender.  Maybe you need to expand your horizons beyond the liberal echo chamber you inhabit.

How did this happen to a voracious reader who graduated with a double degree in the Humanities, an area of study widely reviled as diversity-obsessed? The short answer is that I paid no attention to gender or race in my reading, and not caring is a recipe for bias in a world riddled with inequality.

Nor should you.  I thought the whole point of liberalism is to establish equality, to go beyond race and sex into a race-blind and sex-blind society.  Not so when it comes to radical liberals, they can only see the world in terms of sex and race and privilege. Everything comes down to that, nothing else matters and it can take someone who is supposed to be “diversity-obsessed” and make them a complete sexist, racist asshat.  I’m a voracious reader too, I just don’t segregate my book shelves into books by a particular gender or a particular race.  A book is a book.  Read it or don’t.  It doesn’t matter what the person behind the pages has between their legs or how much melanin they have in their skin.  But I’m not a racist or a sexist, people like Dadabhoy are.

A common argument against discussing or taking conscious care when it comes to matters of race and gender is that calling attention to the issue will exacerbate matters. Why not focus on the common humanity we all share rather than our differences?

Yeah, why not?  That would make perfect sense.  Of course, we have to deal with cases of overt racism and sexism, but once you get beyond that, why not just let everyone else compete in the forum of ideas and see who can rise to the top.  Oh wait, to a liberal, it’s not about equality, it’s about putting the “downtrodden” on top and punishing the successful.  It’s all a giant conspiracy!

Unfortunately for the anti-victimhood brigade, that attitude does not accurately reflect the world in which we live. Seemingly “equal” and “unbiased” behavior doesn’t lead to equal and unbiased outcomes. Because of intrinsic biases, behaving as if equality were already acheived leads to the reinforcement of the status quo, which is certainly not equality for all.

No, it doesn’t accurately reflect the world that liberals *WANT* to live in.  Here she points out the same problem with liberalism that I’ve pointed out time and time again.  They don’t want equality, they want specific statistical outcomes. You have to have quotas, forced by the government, to ensure that exactly half of the writers are male and exactly half are female. There has to be a law that a certain percentage of writers are black, another percentage are Hispanic and another are Asian. Some have to be straight, some have to be gay and some have to be transgendered.  That’s not equality, it’s just playing number games.

Bias doesn’t magically correct itself when we ignore it in favor of pretending like all that matters is that we are human. If that were true, there would be a lot more balance in my reading history. If a voracious non-male reader of color like myself managed to read so few non-male and/or non-white authors, then active correction is the only solution.

Bias doesn’t magically correct itself when you, yourself, are biased.  Bias only goes away when it goes away on all sides. It won’t happen when the side screaming about bias is more biased than anyone else in the equation.  The only correction she needs to make is stop giving a damn what the  color or gender of her authors are and only pay attention to the quality of the writing itself.

As uncomfortable as it can be to admit you have biases and to actively work to correct them, the implications of letting the biases simply be are far more uncomfortable.

But it doesn’t seem to stop her, does it?  She wears her biases on her sleeve proudly.  Now I suppose she could be totally unaware of how biased she and her lefty cronies actually are, it’s just more cognitive dissonance, but maybe someone needs to educate her on the facts of reality, outside of the liberal factory she’s spent far too much of her life inside of.

That means either one of two things:

  1. That I have a bias in my reading and I’m interested in correcting it; or

  2. That there are few-to-no non-male and/or non-white authors worth reading.

Or 3. That you’re paying attention to things that are wholly irrelevant except inside of your liberal echo chamber.  You do not have a  bias in your reading, you read books that come out and that you enjoy.  You didn’t specifically select those books because they were by white, male authors.  You selected those books because the content looked interesting and apparently, you enjoyed them on that basis.  She’s not correcting a bias, she’s developing a bias.  She is becoming biased against white, male authors, not because of what they write about, but because of what they are.  That is the epitome of racism and sexism that liberals whine about so often.  Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

The only rational thing to do here is not to toss out white authors or male authors, it’s to include more non-white and non-male authors if it bothers you so much.  Increase your diversity.  But no, a “diversity-obsessed” liberal would never do that!  That would mean that they’d actually have to do what they claim they want to do.  What a bunch of hypocrites.


Driving While Black

DWBIt gets so sad talking to some of these liberals who are convinced that everyone is out to get them and this is true no more than with very liberal blacks who are convinced the police are all racists, waiting to do them harm.  I ran into someone I haven’t seen for a long, long time online and while we’ve never been more than passing acquaintances, this pretty much demonstrates why. It wasn’t more than a couple of minutes into the reunion than he started complaining that police keep harassing him because he’s black.  He kept complaining about “driving while black”, that police will pull him over for no reason other than he’s a black man driving a car.

Now I’ve heard these stories before but never really had anyone that I could really question about their experiences so I asked him to tell me about a couple of instances.  First, he told me that he was pulled over by a white cop “for no reason at all” and started to assert that it must have been because he was black.  I asked him what happened, did the officer say anything about his skin color, did he make any disparaging remarks or anything else that could be directly attributed to him being a racist?  Nope, he just knew that it was a racist thing and the cop gave him a ticket for speeding.  Wait a minute… speeding?  So he didn’t pull him over for no reason at all, he pulled him over because he was speeding!  Oh no, that must have been just an excuse, it was all about race!

The second incident, he was pulled over by another white officer and again, no racist language, no threats or anything negative but it just had to be racial in nature.  Oh, and he had a broken tail light that the cop warned him to fix.  No ticket, just a warning and the cop drove on.  But somehow, this is all harassment because this guy was breaking the law and driving with a broken tail light.

Now I’m not going to say that there aren’t legitimate instances where people are pulled over because of their skin color and those cases ought to be decried.  However, let’s be honest, correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation, even though that seems to go through the minds of liberals on a constant basis.  It has to be racist because that’s the first thing they think of in just about every situation.  Or sexist, some of them go that way automatically too.  Yes, if the cop pulls you over and starts saying some racist crap, you’ve got a legitimate beef.  Unless that’s the case though, unless you have some actual evidence that it was a racist move, let’s stop whining and just do what you’re supposed to be doing.

Some Police Officers are Increasingly Afraid…

Police Riot GearWith the recent nonsense surrounding Ferguson and other liberal hotspots, I find this news story entirely unsurprising. According to the mayor of Philadelphia, some police officers are getting increasingly frightened of the communities that they are assigned to protect.

Yet the problem isn’t that most cops are crooked and need to be looked upon with distrust, the problem is that lots of citizens have little to no respect for the law or for the people who we have tasked with enforcing it.  These are people who are patently anti-social, they care about no one but themselves and if anything bad happens or they even get the feeling something bad can happen, they take to the streets and scream bloody murder.

See, all of these recent cases haven’t been bad white cops out shooting innocent black men on the streets for no reason.  That isn’t what happened in a single case.  Michael Brown tried to take the gun from a cop.  Eric Garner was breaking the law and resisting arrest.  Antonio Martin pulled a gun on a cop.  In every case, it’s been black criminals breaking the law, acting in a manner contrary to their own well-being and getting shot for it.  Yes, it’s a shame when the cops have to use lethal force, but to see the largely liberal public screaming that cops ought to be shot before they ever harm a civilian is absolutely absurd.  These cops are not being found guilty of a crime because they haven’t done anything wrong, that doesn’t stop the community from trying them in the court of public opinion.  All these communities, and it’s virtually all liberals from what I’ve seen, are ignoring the circumstances of the shootings and only seeing that the dead guy was black and the cop was white and that’s all there is to it. It’s more of that absurd victim mentality that pervades the liberal mind, especially in the black community.

These are not cops that hate their communities, these are communities that hate their cops.  In Brooklyn, New York, two cops were brutally murdered in their police car as “revenge” for the police shootings that have happened in recent weeks.  The murderer, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, murdered his girlfriend and boasted that he wanted to kill cops.  After killing officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, he turned the  gun on himself.  There was a second attempt at a cop shooting in the Bronx that was avoided only because the gun jammed as an unnamed gunman took aim at two police officers.  Cops have every right to be afraid of their communities, especially when their communities are cheering attacks on the authorities.

Of course, this wouldn’t be much of a story if the whole premise put forward by these hoodlums is entirely false, which it is. So here’s the actual data.  There are 641,208 police officers in the United States, at least as of 1998 when the last study was done. Of those, 87% are white and 11% are black, which for the purposes of this point are all that are relevant.  From 1980-2008, black officers were involved in 13% of the justifiable shootings by police.  In those shootings, less than 3% of those shot were white and 11% were black.  Black officers shoot far more black suspects than white suspects.  Is that racism?  Nobody on the left will claim so.  Further, according to Bureau of Justice statistics, only 1/5000th of 1% of all arrests made nationwide result in the death of the suspect.  In the seven years of the study from 2003-2009, there were nearly 98 million arrests made in the United States.  Only a minuscule number of those arrests resulted in the death of the arrestee, an average of 1 per every 20,000 arrests. You are four times more likely to be electrocuted in your shower than to be killed during an arrest, yet according to a lot of liberal pundits, police violence is at an all-time high.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

According to Policing and Homicide 1976 to 1998, published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, and published in March 2001, a disproportionate number of black officers are involved in shootings deemed justifiable in the United States.  Remember, I said that blacks made up 11% of the 641,208 officers nationwide, yet they account for more than 17% of all justifiable police shootings.  They also, as I mentioned before, are responsible for far more black-officer-shooting-black-suspects than white officers by a wide margin, 32 in 100,000 for black officers vs. 14 in 100,000 for white officers.  We see that white-officer-shooting-white-suspects in the same time period is 28 in 100,000, vs. 11 in 100,000 for black officers. Clearly, white officers are not out trying to kill black suspects as “leaders” in the “black community” have claimed.  If anything, they should be screaming about black officers because they demonstrably kill more black suspects than anyone else.  Of course, black-on-black violence is epidemic in our country, a black man is 6x more likely to be killed by another black man than by a white man, yet the “black community” doesn’t talk about that.  There’s no racist angle there to exploit.  They can’t play the victim card so they don’t bring it up.

But here’s where things become interesting.  According to the studies, young black males murder police officers at a rate 6x higher than young white males do.  At the time of the study in 1998, young  black males made up less than 1% of the population but accounted for more than 21% of the police murders.  And people wonder why cops pay more attention to young black males?  Seriously?

The longer this nonsense goes on, the more I wonder if it isn’t better if the cops just pull back from these ghetto neighborhoods and let them all murder each other.  It isn’t at all unlikely, studies done of some of the most violent neighborhoods in the nation show that you have between a 1:7 and 1:15 chance of being the victim of violent crime each and every year  you spend in these neighborhoods.  Take away what law enforcement there is in these areas and there will be blood running in the streets in short order.  Hopefully the people who are most likely to attack the police will be the first ones to go, but let’s be honest, if the police did walk away, as they certainly have every reason to do, the black community would be up in arms screaming that they’re not being protected.

The cops just can’t win.  Sorry, given a choice between a cop that puts his or her life on the line every day and some career criminals, I’ll take the cop each and every time, without exception.  Maybe we need a little gene pool cleaning in this country.


Black Crime Kills Black Crime Apologist

David RuenzelWell, today is Martin Luther King Day and, as you know, I really hate to keep bringing up these things like a broken record but once you start having conversations about a particular subject, it usually turns into fodder for a lot of posts on similar subjects. It happens no matter what kind of subject I’m busy debating, be it Christianity, Islam, free will, sexism, etc.  So please indulge me while I bring up a story that came up in a recent discussion that I thought was both tragic and darkly and ironically slightly humorous.

David Ruenzel had made a comfortable life for himself writing about white privilege for the Southern Poverty Law Center. He never missed an opportunity to write about how whites were so bad to blacks and how whites are always going to be racists and white-on-black violence and hatred was endemic.  This is something that the Southern Poverty Law Center is infamous for, it’s something they spend a lot of time talking about because, of course, it’s a harbor for extremist liberal thought.

In particular, David Ruenzel held the position that whites were never at risk from black crime, even though the evidence said otherwise and crime statistics in the Oakland area where he lived and worked continued to grow.  He figured that his own white privilege made him immune from being attacked or killed by blacks, at least right up to the time when two black men attacked him in a park and killed him.

Unfortunately, liberals like Ruenzel tend to ignore black crime and black racism because their liberal outlook makes it impossible for them to consider that blacks can be just as racist as whites.  It’s just not compatible with their Critical Race Theory.  Thus I’m sure that when he was fatally shot by two black men, his last thoughts couldn’t imagine that such a thing could happen.  After all, black-on-white crime wasn’t possible.  Blacks are victims, not perpetrators!  Yet he died, having been a victim of the very same black crime he had spent more than a decade excusing.

Black on White ViolenceCertainly I’m not celebrating the senseless death of Ruenzel, every unnecessary death is tragic and my heart goes out to his family, but there’s a certain poetic irony at work here, one that I’m sure will go straight over the heads of my liberal readers. However, there is a problem here that many liberals simply will not acknowledge because it conflicts with their basic worldview.  There’s a term that we refer to a view that cannot be changed by evidence and that term is “blind faith”.  Atheists among us might remember how well represented that is among theists.  Why would they accept it among liberals?

I bring this up on Martin Luther King Day because I feel certain that if King was alive today, he’d be mad at the black community and the liberal community equally.  Yes, I could have made a joke about King banging on the lid of his coffin but that would be tasteless.  Fully, but tasteless.  I honestly don’t think he’d have any respect for where race relations have gone in this country over the past 40 years.  He had a dream where things improved.  They haven’t improved, blacks have just gotten angry and violent and liberals are only too happy to let them do it and not hold them accountable.  In fact, they’re happy to spur them on.  The fact remains that blacks are 9 times more likely to be killed by other blacks than they are by whites, yet the media only shines a light on white cops who kill black criminals.  The rhetoric is strong but rhetoric doesn’t describe truth, only evidence and reason can do that and the mindless rhetoric of the left has far too little of those qualities.

Can we just admit that there is a problem?  Maybe if everyone can acknowledge that there’s an issue to be addressed, we  can actually work toward solving it.  However, as long as the left remains willfully ignorant of the predicament, how can we ever hope to make it better?