racist acid throwing maniac apprehended

This is what I find most disturbing. There is justification on the left for statements made that are anti white, perhaps? used to poke people which serves no purpose other than to upset a person or group To create a greater divide. This does not solve anything. Examples. Sarah Jeong, editorial writer for the New York Times tweeted “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like grovelling goblins.” “White people have stopped breeding. You’ll all go extinct soon. This was my plan all along.” “It’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men”. She was not fired and the ny times, justified it by saying, as an Asian-American woman, she was incapable of racism altogether. Another Defense was that it was really the critics who had read and shared Jeong’s public statements who were racists. So the one reading and being offended by a persons racist statement is the racist, not sarah. the left response is saying a person from a minority background can not be racist, but the one who points to racism is the racist one if they are white only. These statements are grabbed by whites supremacist as proof of their bs beliefs. extreme right are racist, remarks such as these are seized by extremists and used as proof of hatred on both sides. Growing the extremists following on both sides. Neither is acceptable in my opinion, but we do have freedom of speech. It is ok to say it, whether it be true or not and these statements become the truth for some, because someone says it is so, unfortunately, causing a larger divide.

 

Groveling goblin here.

 

and you get bs things like this happening on both sides.

 

The problem with the internet is that when someone wants to attack a group, be it racial or political, they can always find an extremist/reactionary to trot out as an example, and then act like everyone in the same group must agree with the person. There are assholes everywhere, don't assume that they represent the majority opinion.

Now, if one of those extremists is in a position of power and was chosen by that group through free and fair elections, making generalizations is more reasonable, in my opinion.

 

A theory that's been under fire since the 80s. It could just as easily have been India or Mongolia.

 

It's weird how rarely this interpretation is realized. Yes, when you seek to start trouble, it's likely you'll succeed, though not necessarily on your terms.

 

WP---Regardless--I think you get my point

 

But the bulk of the evidence still points to Africa. Dr Peter Andrews, retired anthropologist formerly with the Natural History Museum in London, says: "It is possible that the human lineage originated in Europe, but very substantial fossil evidence places the origin in Africa, including several partial skeletons and skulls." He says:"I would be hesitant about using a single character from an isolated fossil to set against the evidence from Africa." Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find
Modern Humans Came Out of Africa, "Definitive" Study Says
Almost all living people outside of Africa trace back to a single migration more than 50,000 years ago
https://www.history.com/news/did-the-first-human-ancestor-emerge-in-europe-not-africa
When and Why Did Our Human Ancestors First Leave Africa? - UT News

 

It has been under fire by every eugenics, white racist, and white supremacist group, because they can’t stand the idea that their lineage arose from the dark continent of Africa.

It’s no coincidence that the first modern Britons from 10,000 year ago had Black skin

 

Or Alpha Centauri :-D

How do you know he had an oedipus complex and acted upon it?

 

This is totally fascinating! I love both Anthropology and Sociology! How amazing to learn from you with every post! You're on point yo!

 

It sounds also very sociological. Congratulations on having it down to science!

 

Not just because they support the president and the hungarian president is racist. The majority could support the president/current government because they're predominantly nationalistic and against needy immigrants. I don't think those two things can always be equated with racism. They often are connected to it, yes. But also plenty of times not.

 

DONT CALL ME WHITE
DONT CAAAALLLLL ME WHITE!

 

No? I think that maybe you are using the terms 'immigrant' and 'refugee' interchangeably here.

 

Yes, but not all immigrants are refugees needing assistance from the state.

Also, I don't live in the same country as you

 

Only in general. You can't conclude an individual hungarian is racist if the only thing you know is they're a supporter of the president, or anti 'immigrant without prospect'.

No. It depends for a large part why they immigrate. Immigrants are not by default refugees. Refugees also do not by default prefer or plan to stay: a major concern for certain skeptical people and not completely unreasonable. I also rather take in a shitload of refugees who prefer to return to their country when its safe again, rather than a bunch of people who aim to stay.

 

I shudder to think what your children will be like, with the attitude you have. Racist ones with preconceived notions the moment they see someone with fair skin. Perhaps they will hate themselves. One can only hope you are sterile.

 

How cute, that's what I think about you