SNL makes offensive video for white people

[Gutter Chris]

I know my history. Panthers were no better. You may want to believe they were some outstanding group that wanted to hold hands with the whites but that wasn't the case.

Im not calling the panthers teddy bears but again they are not the same as the klan. Didnt you mama ever tell you that just because you say something dont make it so?

Since im just an ignorant fool why dont you give me a quick refresher on how the klan and the panthers are the same with something a little more concrete than both are supremacy groups? Maybe a side by side comparison of the bodies racked up by each perhaps. Maybe a historical photo of a lynching or 2 ? How bout the incidents that lead to the founding of both groups?

Its a false comparison G

 

[7437]

This is probably not the best source, but I did see this in Rolling Stone. Seems odd that the year the Oscars gets criticized, that the Grammy Awards does as well. Then we have an obvious all-black Halftime show in the SB.

It almost seems like they're trying to instigate a race-war, or at the very least, set back race-relations a couple of decades. Things were better in the 90's, I'm not sure what happened.

An all black superbowl show, headlined by coldplay? Did you even see the actual performance?

 

[sangreporsangre]

SNL thinks white people are as easy to offend as black people.

Maybe they got that impression from reading through War Room threads.

 

[7437]

Whites honestly don't play the victim (although crime statistics show more whites are victims of black on white crime instead of vice versa even though they makr up 13.2% of the populstion)or cry foul about race shit.

This paragraph is great.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Maybe they got that impression from reading through War Room threads.

Yeah, sure.

That explains their record high ratings.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

An all black superbowl show, headlined by coldplay? Did you even see the actual performance?

Chris Martin is a Cuck.

 

[Thurisaz]

The bedroom scene was great. Otherwise not that good.

 

[threelions]

Seems to be a typical SJW way of shifting the focus off of what people were really upset about onto an issue they didn't care about.

The Chewbacca defence.

 

[FinalFight]

LOL @ the rustled itt. I thought you guys were against pc culture?

 

[FinalFight]

When did everybody get so thin skinned? White people are getting lame, majority needs to set a better example.

Probably the same people who complain about "pc culture" and who are voting for Donald Trump.

 

[panamaican]

Im not calling the panthers teddy bears but again they are not the same as the klan. Didnt you mama ever tell you that just because you say something dont make it so?

Since im just an ignorant fool why dont you give me a quick refresher on how the klan and the panthers are the same with something a little more concrete than both are supremacy groups? Maybe a side by side comparison of the bodies racked up by each perhaps. Maybe a historical photo of a lynching or 2 ? How bout the incidents that lead to the founding of both groups?

Its a false comparison G

The Panthers weren't even a supremacy group. But most people don't really know anything about them except for a handful of incidents and the negatives about some of the founding members.

That people equate the KKK with the BP's speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding about the 2 groups. One group operated from the position that their racial group was superior to others and they operated to make sure that was a reality in practice. The other group operated from the position that their racial group needed protection from police brutality and intimidation and armed themselves with the larger goal of self-protection and political presence. The BP's were never about elevating blacks above anyone else, just ensuring that they had the same protections and political power that they were entitled to.

The only thing they have in common in that they're formed with the interests of a racial group in mind. I don't understand the people who equate supremacy and protection as the same thing, except for a general lack of knowledge about the 2 groups. Just being accurate doesn't require anyone to agree with the BP's.

 

[n...not crazy]

I was only upset by the length of the halftime show. Like I fast-forwarded 20 minutes or so, but to my great disdain I had to click that +30 sec button about 10 more times.

Thumb got tired.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

The Panthers weren't even a supremacy group. But most people don't really know anything about them except for a handful of incidents and the negatives about some of the founding members.

That people equate the KKK with the BP's speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding about the 2 groups. One group operated from the position that their racial group was superior to others and they operated to make sure that was a reality in practice. The other group operated from the position that their racial group needed protection from police brutality and intimidation and armed themselves with the larger goal of self-protection and political presence. The BP's were never about elevating blacks above anyone else, just ensuring that they had the same protections and political power that they were entitled to.

The only thing they have in common in that they're formed with the interests of a racial group in mind. I don't understand the people who equate supremacy and protection as the same thing, except for a general lack of knowledge about the 2 groups. Just being accurate doesn't require anyone to agree with the BP's.

You are far too generous when it comes to the Panthers. They certainly were not as extreme as the KKK and began for different reasons, but they were definitely a racist Black Supremacist group and could have easily become a black KKK if they had more power and influence. Let's not pretend that minority groups are somehow more moral than white people. People are people after all. Minority groups would abuse their power just the same or worse if they were the dominant demographic.

 

[Hearse Lightning]

I was just as offended this year as I was last year. Fill the stage with all of the hateful propaganda you want but for the love of God put somebody decent on the stage.

 

[panamaican]

You are far too generous when it comes to the Panthers. They certainly were not as extreme as the KKK and began for different reasons, but they were definitely a racist Black Supremacist group and could have easily become a black KKK if they had more power and influence. Let's not pretend that minority groups are somehow more moral than white people. People are people after all. Minority groups would abuse their power just the same or worse if they were the dominant demographic.

I said none of those things.

But here's the fundamental problem with your argument. What the Black Panther Party might have become is completely irrelevant to what they were. They were not founded on the same principles as the KKK so the assumption that they would have evolved into a similar organization as the KKK speaks more to your interpretation of their actions and motives than to their actual actions and motives.

I just easily claim that the KKK might evolve into a liberal organization but until they do I will consider them what they are.

And they were not a racist organization. This is the second fundamental problem with your argument. A racist organization (and there are certainly racist black organizations) operate from the position that their race is superior. So, to put it in terms that you'd understand - a pro white male organization is not racist just because it advocates for pro-white male policies. It's only racist if it does so from the position that white people are superior to everyone else. The Black Panthers didn't operate from the position that black people were superior to anyone else. They operated from the position that black communities needed an organization willing to fight for them at the street level against the police and to develop real political power. At the core of their methodology was that a legally armed organization would be a greater deterrence to police and political abuse than an unarmed organization. That they fought to protect black communities and that their opposition was largely white doesn't mean that they were anti-white people. Just like being tough on crime doesn't automatically make someone anti-black people.

To steal a quote from someone else: I'm not anti-you just because I'm pro-me.

The KKK wasn't just pro-white people. The KKK was also anti-everyone who's not white. The Black PAnthers weren't anti-everyone who's not black. They were pro-black and anti-police. Now, you don't have to support their arguments but the claim that they were going to evolve into a supremacist organization just doesn't have any backing in reality.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I said none of those things.

But here's the fundamental problem with your argument. What the Black Panther Party might have become is completely irrelevant to what they were. They were not founded on the same principles as the KKK so the assumption that they would have evolved into a similar organization as the KKK speaks more to your interpretation of their actions and motives than to their actual actions and motives.

I just easily claim that the KKK might evolve into a liberal organization but until they do I will consider them what they are.

Interestingly, the KKK, which was founded as a terrorist organization for the purpose of fighting Reconstruction, did have a kind of liberal-ish or more accurately populist progressive phase (and emphasized opposition to Catholics, Jews and immigration--as well as support for prohibition--more than the anti-black stuff, though of course they were still anti-black).

 

[RubberGuard5]

I said none of those things.

But here's the fundamental problem with your argument. What the Black Panther Party might have become is completely irrelevant to what they were. They were not founded on the same principles as the KKK so the assumption that they would have evolved into a similar organization as the KKK speaks more to your interpretation of their actions and motives than to their actual actions and motives.

I just easily claim that the KKK might evolve into a liberal organization but until they do I will consider them what they are.

And they were not a racist organization. This is the second fundamental problem with your argument. A racist organization (and there are certainly racist black organizations) operate from the position that their race is superior. So, to put it in terms that you'd understand - a pro white male organization is not racist just because it advocates for pro-white male policies. It's only racist if it does so from the position that white people are superior to everyone else. The Black Panthers didn't operate from the position that black people were superior to anyone else. They operated from the position that black communities needed an organization willing to fight for them at the street level against the police and to develop real political power. At the core of their methodology was that a legally armed organization would be a greater deterrence to police and political abuse than an unarmed organization. That they fought to protect black communities and that their opposition was largely white doesn't mean that they were anti-white people. Just like being tough on crime doesn't automatically make someone anti-black people.

To steal a quote from someone else: I'm not anti-you just because I'm pro-me.

The KKK wasn't just pro-white people. The KKK was also anti-everyone who's not white. The Black PAnthers weren't anti-everyone who's not black. They were pro-black and anti-police. Now, you don't have to support their arguments but the claim that they were going to evolve into a supremacist organization just doesn't have any backing in reality.

I'm not sure i got this right. If someone creates an organization which advocates for white people to have more rights than others, but not from the position of racial superiority, but rather, i don't know, simple hatred, you wouldn't consider it a racist organization?

 

[DizzyDaze]

This paragraph is great.

I hope it's great for truth reasons.

 

[panamaican]

I'm not sure i got this right. If someone creates an organization which advocates for white people to have more rights than others, but not from the position of racial superiority, but rather, i don't know, simple hatred, you wouldn't consider it a racist organization?

You didn't get it quite right, which is okay.

A pro-white advocacy group that just hates people wouldn't necessarily be racist. If the source of their hatred is that they think other people are less than white people, then they become racist.

You don't have to be racist to be hateful. There are plenty of racists who don't fundamentally hate other races, they just think those races inferior (you tend to see it a paternalistic attitude - e.g. "X race can't be expected to govern itself, they lack the intellectual ability to do so."). The 2 often go hand in hand but they don't have to.

 

[RubberGuard5]

You didn't get it quite right, which is okay.

A pro-white advocacy group that just hates people wouldn't necessarily be racist. If the source of their hatred is that they think other people are less than white people, then they become racist.

You don't have to be racist to be hateful. There are plenty of racists who don't fundamentally hate other races, they just think those races inferior (you tend to see it a paternalistic attitude - e.g. "X race can't be expected to govern itself, they lack the intellectual ability to do so."). The 2 often go hand in hand but they don't have to.

That's a really weird definition of racism. If we were using it, it wouldn't be racist for black people to demand white people lose their rights, if their justification for it is something like "fixing historical injustice"

You shouldn't count actions as racist only if there is a proclaimed racist motive.

If you don't mind me asking, are you a lawyer?