When non whites do it, it's "Social Justice" but when whites do it, it's "Stereotyping"!! Double standards!!

Many non whites have no problem whatsoever calling whites thieves, killers, rapists, corrupt, racists, haters, etc.  But WOE BE US if we do the same thing to them! When we do the same thing to them, we’re “stereotyping”.  We’re “bigoted” if we do the same thing to them.

But when they do it, it’s “social justice”.  Isn’t that a double standard?  And aren’t double standards in race relations hateful?  When whites have double standards, we’re called racist.

I think I’ll leave it at that.

Your culture influencing other cultures to be more like you is not a bad thing

I'm sorry, but when blacks complain about whites borrowing their culture (or in their words, "appropriating"), they don't seem to be realizing that we do so BECAUSE WE LIKE THEIR CULTURE. No, instead, they see it as theft. Since when is "I like your culture, so I'll copy aspects of it" theft and when is it bad to borrow what you like? Either way, it's not a bad thing for whites to be proudly influenced by blacks. This is further proof that there is less racism! Isn't less racism and it's proof a good thing?

All cultures have throughout history borrowed from other cultures that they've come into contact with. It is RACIST to say that whites can't borrow from blacks!

Cultural norms

Any culture that:

1.)  Beats women
2.)  Beats on minorities.
3.)  Beats on gays.

is a bad culture.

Islam is such a culture.

Now before you call me an islamophobe, consider that I'm clearly not sexist, I'm clearly not a bigot against minorities and I'm clearly not homophobic.  So shouldn't THAT carry some weight with you who are so ready to defend islam?

Liberals say it's ok to hate the following

You can hate whites.

You can hate men.

You can hate straight people.

You can hate Christians.


But you better not hate:

Non-whites.
Women.
LGBT.
Non-Christians.

That's a double standard.  When you use that double standard, you are borrowing the tactics of "bigoted" straight white Christian men, which makes YOU a bigot.

Minorities got screwed out of a good education

Fact:  People, whether minority or not, are not born well educated.  They have to work hard to obtain a good education.  (Exceptions are people like Einstein, who probably had an easier time compared to most of us).

Fact:  Minority kids more often than not get screwed when it comes to education in schools in their communities all the way until the time they graduate high school.

Fact:  People are not born automatically qualified for graduation from any level of schooling, from the grade school levels to the college/university/graduate school levels.

Fact:  To get hired by a high paying job, you have to get a good education as qualification.

Fact:  People are not born automatically qualified for a high paying job.

Fact:  It’s not the employers fault that most of you got a lousy education which in turn screwed you out of being qualified for a high paying job.

You needed a good education from the start, didn’t get one, you apply for a job that requires one but blame the employer’s “racism” that you didn’t get the job?  It's not because of racism, it's because of your lack of education!  Someone other than your employer is to blame!

Are all cultures compatible? Or are they incompatible?

Are all cultures incompatible or are all of them compatible?  Or are only some compatible with one another?

Can incompatible cultures peacefully co-exist with one another?  If yes, how would that work?  What would need to happen for peace to happen between the two?  If they can’t co-exist peacefully, how come?  What would make that happen?  Would it be easy to reconcile the two culture’s differences, whether they are compatible or not?

Are hateful cultures compatible with loving/caring cultures?  Is there such a thing as a “loving culture” or a “hateful culture”?  If there is, then how can love coexist with hate?

Can Liberal/Progressive culture peacefully exist with Conservative/Republican culture?

After all, both liberals and Conservatives have different views on what’s hateful, on what’s loving, on what’s tolerant, on what’s just, on what’s not just, on how to solve conflict, etc.

Now how would two different cultures solve conflict?  If you have differing visions on how to get justice implemented, you will forever be in conflict because the other side will feel cheated when you win and will try to rectify (according to their ideology) the lack of justice.  And vice versa.  This is conflict.  Conflict is not peace.

Liberal logic: Peaceful people can't be trusted with guns

Liberal logic: Peaceful people can't be trusted with guns.

If peaceful people can’t be trusted with guns and are deprived of guns, how would they defend against someone with a gun?  After all, seconds count when the police are minutes away.  Plus, the police can’t be everywhere.

Guns & Discrimination

Sure, you could say that armed guards, the police and the secret service have the uninfringeable authority to have guns.  So do we, it’s called the 2nd Amendment.  You could also say that you trust them to have guns and that trust is crucial to allowing someone to have guns.  We millions upon millions of people aren’t convicted murderers and you don’t trust us?  Why wouldn’t you trust anyone who doesn’t have it in them to murder?

You’ll hire armed guards and you don’t know them from Adam or Jane.  Yet you trust them.  They have a good record of not murdering anyone with their guns or the guns their employment gives them for work.  We have a good record too of not murdering anyone too, but you won’t trust us?  

Clearly you favor one group of people over another even though they meet the same essential and crucial criteria for trust and safety with guns.

That’s called discrimination.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean you hate

Fact:  Many parents don’t hate their children when they say they’re against and disagree with their children having sex at too early an age or doing drugs (at any age), or whether or not their children grow up with different world views and/or politics.  

Fact:  I have a friend who is pro LGBT.  I disagree with and am against her way of thinking on this issue.  We are good friends in spite of both of us being against each other’s way of thinking and disagreeing with each other on this issue.  Being good friends with one another clearly isn’t something where hate is involved.

Fact:  Years ago, I had a co-worker who hated George W. Bush.  Yet I still had a crush on her even though I disagreed with and was against her way of thinking.  Clearly if someone has a crush on someone else, they don’t hate them.

Fact:  I was a huge heavy metal fan at one point (and to some extent, still am).  My Grandfather (born in the early part of the 20th century) wasn’t.  He may have been against my choice in music and disagreed with my choice in listening to it so much, but we had a strong bond in spite of our differences.  When you have a strong bond with someone, that’s clearly not hate.

Fact: I know someone who wants to move to a different state in the US, but his wife doesn’t.  They disagree with each other and are against each other’s way of thinking.  But they’re still happily married.  Being happily married isn’t a thing where hate is involved.

So being against and disagreeing with someone doesn’t necessarily mean that you “hate” them. If hate comes into the picture, I think the biggest reason might be the interpersonal relations between liberals and Conservatives.  Some on both sides are fascist in their interpersonal relations.  They might also be a bit tyrannical.  Or they might choose to censor or ban someone or some group.  Being shouted down is another one.  Stealing political yard signs might also cause some to hate. 

But being against someone’s way of doing things or disagreeing with their point of view doesn’t always mean that you hate them.  

Hard Work

Granted, I believe liberals are wrong on a variety of topics, but for the sake of the argument, let’s say they’re right on those topics.

From their perspective:

1.)  They have to have facts to combat Conservatives.

2.)  They have to work hard to defeat Conservatives.

3.)  They have to have certain ethics that Conservatives don’t have.

4.)  They have to put in a lot of time to defeat us.

5.)  They have to have patience in defeating us.

In other words, hard work.

So when it’s liberals battling Conservatives, it’s called hard work.  It’s not talked about in a bad way.

But the minute the battle changes from liberals vs Conservatives to blacks learning in school, suddenly hard work is called “acting white” by many of them.  I wonder why?

Accusation equals guilt without question?

Liberals think: Because the accusation of bigotry was made, that they automatically have bulletproof evidence. Thus when the accused defend themselves, they're foolish.

So an accusation is automatic guilt?

I thought individual bigoted white people used that kind of thinking? Do liberals mean to be like individual white bigots?

If you picked up a loaded gun

If you picked up a loaded gun, will it hurt or kill you upon doing so? No? Then why do you blame it as though it chose to kill (which it can't do) when it was the evil person who chose to kill people? Mind you, often the police are minutes away and that’s all the time a would-be murderer needs to kill you, so having a gun to save your life and stop the killer is important!!

What is a gun's primary purpose?

If you think that a gun's primary purpose is to murder someone, then you are telling me what I intend to use one for. Is lying about my intentions to my face the way to debate me or anyone on this subject? I live close to a bad neighborhood where there are shootings every once in a while. If I buy a gun, it's primary purpose in my life would be for self defense.

The protected groups are immune from criticism

Because you are black, latino, gay, lesbian, transgender, muslim, etc, I can’t say that you are corrupt or abusive.  That would be “bigoted”.

Well, that’s what liberals would have us believe.

And guess what?  Because getting called bigoted effectively cancels out the accusation of being corrupt or abusive, that means that these protected groups I listed above can do what I accuse them of and get away with it.

But according to liberals, any accusation of abuse or corruption is all a lie.  All for ONE reason: the people I mentioned are black, latino, gay, lesbian, transgender, muslim, etc.

Since when does one’s status or classification in this world make accusations of abuse or corruption a lie?  Didn’t straight white Christian men at one point try to use that logic?  If it’s bad logic when they use it, how can it somehow be good logic when you liberals use it?

A long post about guns

Someone might say:  “Guns are so dangerous that they’ll kill you if you pick them up. You don’t even need to keep your finger on or near the trigger to be in danger of the gun hurting or killing you.”

8,583 people have been murdered by guns of various types in America in 2011.  That’s a mighty big number, isn’t it?  I guess what makes it seem like a big number is the fact that it’s big compared to the number of people we associate with on a regular basis.  If the amount of murders where guns are used is any indication of guns being dangerous, then from this perspective, guns are definitely dangerous.

What if you compared the 8,583 gun murders in 2011 to the population of the country (nearly 324 MILLION) instead of your relatively small social circle?  What if you compared the amount of gun related murders to the opposite of gun related murders, which is vastly larger in comparison? That completely changes things. The number 8,583 doesn’t seem so huge after that change in perspective.  If the amount of murders where guns are used is any indication of guns being dangerous, then from this perspective, guns are not dangerous because they are used on a small fraction of the people in America.  Go ahead.  Do the math.  The number is VERY small.

Ok, so the number of people in America wasn’t 324 million back in 2011.  So what?  Maybe it was a few million less.  Does that change the fact that there were over 300 million people in America in 2011?  Not by a long shot.

But you say “What about the cities where guns kill lots of people daily?”  Chicago would be one example.  To that I say “Bad guys will always be able to get guns through either legal means or, if guns are ever permanently banned across the entire USA (not just the cities), they will get them from the black market.  It’s at this point that only they and the police will have guns.  And this leaves minority families living in the cities with a severe disadvantage: What if their homes are broken into? The police are minutes away and often that’s all a murderer needs to kill one or more members of a family.  It’s during those minutes that a good guy using a gun can stop a bad guy from hurting or killing the good guy and his or her family.  And whether or not it’s rare that guns are used in self defense, the fact is that there are a lot of break ins that are dangerous for the victims.

But you say “My home has never been broken into before and likely won’t in the future, so your argument doesn’t hold water.”  To that I say “We don’t know what the future holds.  We don’t know who will be next.  You seem to be saying that you know it won’t be you and as a result, you won’t take the precautions to keep your household safe.  

But you say “I don’t want to kill someone, even in self defense!”  Either way you look at it, when someone comes at you with a gun, someone is getting hurt or killed.  The innocent victim (you) should be the one to remains unhurt, not the attacker.  Look, we’re talking about you defending yourself.  How is that a bad thing?  The last I checked, it’s not against the law to defend yourself.

But you say “if we can stop just one gun related murder, then it will be worth it to have gun control.”  Black markets which go around gun control laws aside, to your statement I say “One way to stop a gun related murder is for people like you (who care a lot about others) to have guns for the defense of human life.  You might say “But if guns are involved, a human will get hurt or die!”  That’s right.  Better the aggressor than you, wouldn’t you say?  If not, I wonder if you really care about yourself and others.  Or perhaps you just haven’t thought things through yet.

But you say “what about suicides?” A suicide is similar to a murder because each involves the death of someone.  So let’s equate them as the same for the sake of the argument.  Does that change anything else I’m saying here?  No?  Then why do you use it as an argument for gun control?

You also say “but even one gun related murder is a tragedy.  Guns must be highly regulated or banned outright.”  My response is “Not being able to use a gun for self defense is also a tragedy. You having no gun in a situation in which you are the intended victim means you have less of a chance of surviving because it won’t be there to help defend your life.”

You say “but guns are hardly ever used for self defense.” Fact: There are murders in this world. Fact: We don’t know who will be next.  Since we don’t know who will be next, it could be us or people around us.  Don’t you want a super effective way of stopping an attacker from potentially seriously harming or killing you or your loved ones or anyone for that matter?

You say “But you can reason with someone before you kill them in self defense so hopefully they don’t murder you”.  You could and there is a time/place for that. Yet if they’re in the middle of pulling out their gun to kill you OR if they already have it aimed at you, they are past the point at which they can be reasoned with.  At that point, shooting them is your best bet at you (the innocent person in all this) staying safe.

You say “You don’t need more than ten rounds”  I say “What if the bad guy has more rounds than you?  Sure, it only takes one shot to kill and stop them, but what if it takes more than that (it’s not always the first shot that kills, after all) and you suddenly run out while they have more rounds and wham, you get murdered because of a lack of rounds?  What if it’s a firefight where you need more than ten rounds?

If guns were so dangerous, then I’d be killed by them even by just picking them up in my hands.

Sources:

For gun deaths in 2011, I got the info here:  https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

For the population number, I got the info here:  http://www.census.gov

Guns are dangerous? Really?

If guns are so dangerous, why does it take a mean spirited person to make them go off?

If guns are outlawed

If guns are outright outlawed, will people still be able to get their hands on them?  Will only the bad guys and police have them?  What will non murderous minded people do for self defense?

Guns are dangerous, right? Here's my take

If guns are so dangerous, shouldn't I be scared to arm myself with one?  After all, them being dangerous would mean they'd shoot me while in my hands!

If guns are so dangerous, then how come...

If guns are so dangerous, then how come a vast majority of them (millions upon millions) aren't used in the murder or injury of innocents?

Racism is a mindset

Racism is a mindset. You don't need to have power to have this mindset. So to say that minorities can't be racist because they don't have power is just an excuse to let them get away with being racist.