The US War on Blacks!

[Uncle Sparky]

Being a redneck is the source of pride within the white population. Being a skinhead neo-Nazi is the source of pride for some people in the white population...

[Sepp Blatter]

In Switerland being an international plutocrat is a source of pride in our community.

[kentonio]

Jesus ****ing Christ, people white knighting for Kenobi? Now I really have seen everything.

**** is wrong with you idiots? He's been openly racist on numerous occasions, but you're pissed off that this one time you don't think he was quite racist enough?

[kentonio]

Perhaps some of you need to go back and re-read his charmingly named "Who is this "Martin Luther King" and why does he have his day off today?" thread to remind yourselves who we're talking about.

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/2...ghlight=racist

[Aeson]

In response to Pat you said "It was racist. The statistics themselves are fundamentally racist".

Pat had said it's not racist. I explained to him it was racist, and that even the stats are racist. At no point in that exchange were the stats mentioned as a reason for banning.

Thats when I asked if posting "fundamentally racist" stats was a bannable offense and you said no, even though you banned Ben for the "racism" of drawing the wrong conclusion from those stats.

From expressing his conclusion in a way that is against site rules.

The shooter in Charleston - your candidate for any white person - is not a greater threat to a black man in Chicago.

He generalized the statement. "in Chicago" wasn't included. If you include it, there is no applicable difference in the way the statement interacts with the rules. You are quibbling about which white person to use to show the statement is false. The statement is still false.

Does a black man in Chicago have more to fear from other blacks in Chicago than the shooter in Charleston? If the answer is yes, then your conclusion is wrong and Ben's is right.

You are displaying an ignorance about how to prove a statement. To prove that "any white person" (even if you add "in Chicago") is true, you have to show that all people in that set result in the statement being true. You only have to show 1 person in the set to show the statement is false.

You have decided to further qualify the statement to eliminate a specific white person from being selected as a member of the set of "any white person". That does not mean that the newly defined set of "any white person in Chicago" does not include anyone who would prove the statement false.

You could have at least picked somebody in Chicago to represent white people. But had you done that, "any white person" wont include all white people.

If you want to change the set to "any white person in Chicago" then it just changes the set of white people. It doesn't change any of the conclusions unless there really are no white people in Chicago that a black man should fear more than "a black person".

You're just being ridiculous.

"Thug culture" was not invented by white people, being a thug is a source of pride for some people within the black population

How other people use the word is not relevant to how Ben uses the word. How Ben uses the word is.

[Uncle Sparky]

Will Ben Kenobi still be back in time for the next Star Wars movie...?

[kentonio]

Will Ben Kenobi still be back in time for the next Star Wars movie...?

Star Wars VII: How Black People Are Causing All The Problems In The Empire?

[I AM MOBIUS]

That is probably his definition of the dark side, after all...

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

[I AM MOBIUS]

In response to Pat you said "It was racist. The statistics themselves are fundamentally racist". Thats when I asked if posting "fundamentally racist" stats was a bannable offense and you said no, even though you banned Ben for the "racism" of drawing the wrong conclusion from those stats. Of course that wrong conclusion was yours, not his. The shooter in Charleston - your candidate for any white person - is not a greater threat to a black man in Chicago.



I dont have a problem with the phrasing, its clear to me what he said. But I'm not looking for an excuse to ban him. Does a black man in Chicago have more to fear from other blacks in Chicago than the shooter in Charleston? If the answer is yes, then your conclusion is wrong and Ben's is right. You could have at least picked somebody in Chicago to represent white people. But had you done that, "any white person" wont include all white people.



"Thug culture" was not invented by white people, being a thug is a source of pride for some people within the black population

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-h...b_1714073.html

Berz,

Ben is a known racist. He was warned not to say racist stuff. He said racist stuff.

He was banned.

Watching you tying yourself in all kinds of knots trying to justify what he said isn't racist is, well, entertaining...

Why are you wasting your time over such a black and white situation?

Does it pique some kind of libertarian feeling of injustice, or are you a bit racist yourself?

Frankly it speaks volumes who the people are that have rushed to Ben's defence, and it doesn't cover any of you in glory that you would seek to defend a known racist for being banned for saying a racist thing...

[ZEE]

Benjamin Kenobi.

[I AM MOBIUS]

Is banned...

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

[Kidlicious]

Replacing "thugs" with "scum" doesn't work. The issue is how he uses the term "thugs". He applies it to blacks but not whites, even if their actions are the same. It's his racially charged code word. I have not seen him use "scum" in that racially charged manner.

In any case, it's not something he or anyone else has been banned for.



The assessment of an idiot mysogynist is of no import.

I'm not a misogynist either. That's all in your head. You're got a lot of mixed up stuff in your head.

[dannubis]

Didn't you leave ?

[ZEE]

He's BACK!

[I AM MOBIUS]

I thought he got banned - oh wait, that was Ben.

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk