Originally Posted by Oracle

He needs to check his privilege. Seriously.

Whites don't have equality because they're on the benefiting end of racial inequality. Whites are just as statistically likely to commit crime as every other race. The only difference is that White people are statistically unlikely to be in the situations which cause crime to arise. The majority of physical crimes are committed by males of lower socio-economic backgrounds. The majority of people in lower socio-economic backgrounds are people of color, in particular Blacks and Latinos.

And the reason for that is because Whites perpetuated centuries long worth of crime against other races, siphoning off the riches of countries of color (as Europe is relatively destitute of resources in comparison to other regions), but justified it as a moral and biological inevitability because of perceived White/European superiority. This was also proliferated in America with the enslavement of Natives and Africans, then exploiting the labor they provided to reap incredible wealth out of their slavery. And after centuries of stealing and hoarding wealth and maintaining the practices which support the economic divide between races, Whites then complain about how "Black crime" is such a problem. What they fail to realize is that it's not "Black crime" but rather poor crime. Poverty is the number one indicator for whether or not a population will commit a crime. What causes Blacks to be the predominant perceived race for criminality is both socio-economic barriers prohibiting their rise from the bottom rungs of society, and institutional racism in the justice system.


tl;dr: He's a massive asshat who doesn't recognize the benefits he receives from being a White, Christian, male in a society that rewards White, Christian males.

Originally Posted by Oracle

He needs to check his privilege. Seriously.

Whites don't have equality because they're on the benefiting end of racial inequality. Whites are just as statistically likely to commit crime as every other race. The only difference is that White people are statistically unlikely to be in the situations which cause crime to arise. The majority of physical crimes are committed by males of lower socio-economic backgrounds. The majority of people in lower socio-economic backgrounds are people of color, in particular Blacks and Latinos.

Originally Posted by Oracle

And the reason for that is because Whites perpetuated centuries long worth of crime against other races, siphoning off the riches of countries of color (as Europe is relatively destitute of resources in comparison to other regions), but justified it as a moral and biological inevitability because of perceived White/European superiority. This was also proliferated in America with the enslavement of Natives and Africans, then exploiting the labor they provided to reap incredible wealth out of their slavery. And after centuries of stealing and hoarding wealth and maintaining the practices which support the economic divide between races, Whites then complain about how "Black crime" is such a problem. What they fail to realize is that it's not "Black crime" but rather poor crime. Poverty is the number one indicator for whether or not a population will commit a crime. What causes Blacks to be the predominant perceived race for criminality is both socio-economic barriers prohibiting their rise from the bottom rungs of society, and institutional racism in the justice system.

Originally Posted by Oracle

tl;dr: He's a massive asshat who doesn't recognize the benefits he receives from being a White, Christian, male in a society that rewards White, Christian males.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

I like how the professor defends the existence of the Black/Hispanic/Muslim Student Unions but thinks the White Student Union is completely racist. Encouraging disparity, so long as the dirty cisprivilieged whites aren't the ones doing it!
It reminds me of the feminists saying "men are pigs"...

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

Actually Asians are on the "benefiting end" in that case, since their income is above whites.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

I think a lot of disparity is just myths. How can someone honestly say "all blacks and Hispanics (but not Asians) are just being discriminated against which is why the disparity exists"
Isn't it more likely to be because most white parents expect their children to go to college, where as blacks seem to value things like basketball, gangs, dealing drugs, etc... Looks like the stats are definitely skewed by a lot of people who are doing things other than working or studying...

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

lol. Actually I think you will find white countries siphoned off everyone, no matter of their colour. Or are you saying European countries didn't fight each other?
I think you will find slavery of whites has existed since far before European conquest of Africa or North America...
Contrary to popular belief, poor people don't have to commit crime.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

I wonder what your excuse is for Hispanics?
> Roots in Spain therefore European
So your whole argument should follow through, except that Hispanics should be at the top of the food chain right? So why is there so much Hispanic crime and why is their mean income so low? Spain's conquest is as extensive as England's, and they certainly carried off a lot of treasure.

I like how you take things that happened to EVERYONE and say "OH BUT IT HAPPENED TO BLACKS".

Soon you will be saying that blacks have it bad because they can catch a cold!

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

Actually society rewards Asian, Atheist, females, but whatever...
> Asian income highest
> Atheists income highest
> female lifespan longest

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

EDIT: The professor and the guy they talk to at the rally are both retarded as hell. Was this the best they could do?
> "He never actually says anything racist, he just says he wants to look out for European American interests"
> they couldn't find anything to show he was a racist or any black people who could refute him
> black student union rallies to shut down white student union.
> 20:00 professor talks about exactly what Oracle said lel.
Leader of WSU confirmed for master manipulator and extremely smart.

I like how the professor defends the existence of the Black/Hispanic/Muslim Student Unions but thinks the White Student Union is completely racist. Encouraging disparity, so long as the dirty cisprivilieged whites aren't the ones doing it!

where as blacks seem to value things like basketball, gangs, dealing drugs, etc...

Originally Posted by Oracle

Because there's no need for a White Student Union. They have a majority population on campus. They have no need for a union to support white rights. They are literally in the position of power.

Originally Posted by Oracle

It matters from where in Asia you come from. Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese have incomes above whites, but if you're from Vietnam, the Philippines, Mongolia, or basically any other Asian nation, you are statistically likely to be earning less than whites.

It's also important to note that the economic worth of a degree for an Asian is worth a couple tens of thousands dollars less than the exact same degree than if it were for a White individual.

AND it's important to note that their income is above whites if you take the median average. If you take the mean average, whites still eclipse every other race in economic income because they hold a disproportionate number of high power positions.

Originally Posted by Oracle

You can't take face value for problems that are rooted in history. First, college was originally in place to promote class segregation. The wealthy and the powerful would send their children to college, not for education, to socialize and establish connections to further increase their wealth and power. This has historically been a position dominated by Whites.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Second, Blacks don't value basketball or gangs and dealing drugs because that's what they perceive as good, but rather it's the only thing society portrays them as capable of being successful at. You aren't going to try to go to college and become a doctor or a scientist or a lawyer if all you see and hear from society is about Black criminals, Black musicians, or Black athletes. You have no role model to look up to. You ask any White child what they want to be when they grow up, and they'll tell you practically every job imaginable. You ask a Black child, and they'll almost always say either rapper or pro athlete, because that's the only role models they have among their race.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Third, if you look where the majority of Blacks live, it's in poorer neighborhoods. Poorer neighborhoods have worse schools, which results in worse education, which results in a lower probability of entering college. In addition, any attempts by Blacks to move into better neighborhoods results in White Flight, or where all the Whites in the neighborhood move out because statistically, the value of property in an area goes down the more Black people live there. And when White Flight happens, all the resources which have been funneled into the White race move to a different neighborhood, so the schools naturally receive less funding, so they receive worse teachers and materials, so they provide worse education. And they cycle repeats. This isn't something that's slippery slope either. This is documented from as early as the 40s when the G.I. Bill was passed, arguably the largest affirmative action program ever signed into law that benefited solely white, male veterans.

Originally Posted by Oracle

There is a system in place, though it is not on paper, that results in a glass ceiling for Blacks in particular from rising above the lowest rungs of society.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Fighting among each other is different from going around and enslaving a population and denying the rights of its citizens. When European countries fought each other, they had rules they followed to protect honor and decency during their fights. When they went into "barbaric" countries (read as anywhere that wasn't Europe) they crushed the local population with whatever tactics they had, and gave zero shits about what happened to the population. And sure, slavery of Whites had existed long before conquests of any other nations occurred. But slavery of Whites also stopped long before slavery of people of color ended. And Whites were the ones who benefited from the slavery of Whites anyways, because the person who owned the White slave was pretty much guaranteed to be White.

Originally Posted by Oracle

And nobody HAS to commit crime. And I say nowhere that because somebody is poor that they are obligated to commit crime. I say that being poor increases the likelihood of committing crime.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Hispanics is a very broad term to begin with. But I'll tackle it anyways.

First, Hispanic only means that the person is related to Spain or a Spanish-speaking country. This can mean you can be either talking about a citizen of Spain, except you wouldn't be because you're be calling them a Spaniard, or a citizen of a previous Spanish colony. The latter is more likely, as I'm sure most people would agree.

Now, let's look at the population of a typical Spanish colony. The vast minority of it's population would have been actual Spaniards. The vast majority of it's population would have been Natives or slaves, usually from Africa. So the vast majority of said colony's population will most likely be of descent from either Natives or Africans. Not Europeans. So please, tell me more how Hispanic is synonymous with European, or White.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Now, on to the next line, poverty can happen to everyone, sure. But it disproportionately happens to Blacks, for reasons listed above, and others that I can bring up if need be. And it's already proven that poverty is the number one indicator for likelihood of committing a crime. But rather than attribute crime to poverty, this Union attributes it to Blackness by saying they are patrolling against "Black crime".

Originally Posted by Oracle

Second, it may be that every race has experienced conquest or slavery at some point or another. But no other race has experienced more systematic and widespread abuse at the hands of other races than Blacks. The mere fact that it happened is not what's important. It's the magnitude of it's occurrence that's important.

Originally Posted by Oracle

And slippery slope Cow. You should be more than familiar with that logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Again, it matters what measure of the average you use. Mean average will give a different result than median average.

Originally Posted by Oracle

And female lifespan is linked to biology, not sociological influence. So it's a irrelevant piece of information for your intended purpose.

Originally Posted by Oracle

You don't have to say anything explicitly racist to be racist. It's his practices and justifications that are racist.

Originally Posted by Oracle

European American interests do not need a public defender, or even an every day citizen to stand up for them. It's the same argument that Whites give about "oh, there's a Black history month, why isn't there a White history month?". Simple answer: Every other month in the year is White history month. You only learn about White history in school. You only hear about White accomplishments in school. You literally learn a White man's curriculum. There is no god damn need to protect Whites in a White society.

Originally Posted by Oracle

And again, a lack of blatant racism is not an indication for a lack of racism. There are three types of people when it comes to racism: Active racists, passive racists, and active anti-racists. He is a very annoying combination of both an active racist and a passive racist. He outright proclaims he's patrolling to prevent "Black crime", an active racist action, and he justifies it by saying he's protecting White interests, which is both unnecessary, and passive in the face of institutional racism.

Originally Posted by Oracle

He's a racist. And he's definitely not intelligent, or a master manipulator. If all it took to be considered a master manipulator was to piss off a large group of people, then every person in the KKK is a master manipulator.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Hahah yeah white people definitely need an advocacy group given their history of struggling with racism, oppression, and underpriveleged status that still ripples through the fabric of modern society.

Wait, no, maybe not.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

EDIT: lmfao society favors women "because they live longer"

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

EDIT2:
Holy shit, you're literally a racist!

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

Pretty sure I saw a black profesor...

Implying everyone who is white and in power only looks out for white people.
^ "Whites are not subject to racism"
^ "Whites in power only look out for white interests so blacks need their own advocacy group and whites aren't allowed to have one"

I like how you imply this is due to race and not circumstances.
If I remember correctly, capitalism and industrialism come from the West.

The west had a head start.

> UK, Spain, Portugal, France combine has less billionaires than china
> All these "conquer the world, plunder all the countries, enslave all the people" white countries have poultry amounts of billionaires

At this point I assume when you talk about white people, you mean white Americans, since USA is the one with lots of billionaires.

But then again, HK has the largest proportion of billionaires per populus...
[spoiler]There are Asians in HK[/spoiler]

No, college was not put in place to promote class segregation.
Education costs money, people without money can't afford it. How is this hard to understand?

So their race can't be bothered dreaming outside their stereotype, and that's somehow everyone else's fault? We should just give blacks law degrees so that the future generations can say "oh I didn't know I could become a lawyer"??

CRAZY TALK.

Most people don't have specific idols they want to emulate when they get a job. Do you think sparkies think "golly I want to be like that famous electrician", or geophysicists say "gosh I wish I was like that famouse popular role model geophysicist"? That is a poor, unrealistic argument. Come on man.

> USA specific arguments again
I don't know what the policies are exactly over there, but if a school receives less funding for having students more in need but a different race, then obviously there's a problem.

Corollary: If blacks were actively seeking education and trying to correct their social injustice we would see an increase in blacks in college than previous years, and above the population growth.
Blacks enrolled in college 1990: 1.2 million
Blacks enrolled in college 2010: 2.9 million
Black population 1990: 30 million
Black population 2010: 42 million
College/population*100% 1990: 4%
College/population*100% 2010: 7%
Conclusion: Blacks are already taking steps to improve their situation


College enrollment rate for blacks has more than doubled in 20 years, looks like they are doing all right.
Compare median incomes to be sure, but I think increasing number of bill/millionaires and income should show it easily enough.

> compare incarceration rates too...

That's not at all true. Since Roman times there have been white slaves (probably even before). Whites owning slaves is situational, not as a rule. Most black slaves from Africa were already owned by black slave masters who then sold them to hispanic slavers who brougth them to the new world.

You already know this, but Africa has had slaves even before biblical times. Arab countries and Asian countries have had slaves for millennia, oh and so did central Americans :O

> Slaves existed on nearly every continent since before written history
> Slaves came from every culture and were enslaved by every culture

Whites coming out on top was situational.


And yet they could just /not/ commit crime instead...

Believe it or not crime is a choice, there isn't someone rolling cosmic dice to determine the chance that you will become a criminal...

Spain and Portugal each conquered more than England and France.

This point was in response to your previous argument.

As stated in the video.
1. They are against all crime and will stop any crime they see
2. Their investigation indicates 90% of crime in the area is committed by blacks
3. Tackling the largest portion is only natural

When you see a big police sign saying "Now targeting speeding cars" they aren't saying that speeders are responsible for ALL the crime or that cars are automatically illegal or whatever.

The WSU made a bad choice saying it like that. They may be specifically targeting a large portion of crime committed by a self-admitted minority (which is logical, if 10% commits 90% of crime, you can eliminate much more by targeting this small portion -> crime density = 9 vs .1), but it's automatically bad because it's racist.

If it's an objective observation I don't see anything wrong with it.


> More USA specific
I guess I'll just counter with;
1. Australian Aboriginals
2. SEA Natives
3. American Indians
4. Sunni/Shia
But yeah, blacks are hard done by, hundreds of years ago (for USA -> 'a hundred') they were enslaved and taken from thier paradise homeland (/eternal warzone of rape and slaughter) and eventually became free citizens subject to much government funding and their education rates are rapidly increasing.
I think you exaggerate the comparative severity of the black situation...

Yup, it is slippery slope! I'm using reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the ludicracy of your argument!

Why would we use mean income? You care more about 500 people than 5 billion?

If your argument has changed to "there exists a few whites that are richer than pretty much everyone" then feel free to use mean...

> Claim blacks are in a bad situation because of their race
> omg no not biology!!
> implying race is not biological



Just funny that the lengths the report goes to in order to be strongly negative, yet this is all they can come up with...


> More USA specific
Why would you want a black history month anyway? Way to propagate disparity! If blacks didn't invent it, then everything would be for everyone. Completely idiotic idea...

> Implying schools don't learn about international history or national history
> Live in majority white country
> Complain about covering white history

It seems obvious that a country that was settled by europeans and dominated by europeans would teach a proportional amount about european culture and history...

I don't know USA curriculum but I would be surprised if they didn't cover topics like their settlement, war of independence, civil war, slavery, suffrage, WW1, WW2, etc.

Black interests = good
white interests = bad
extremist anti-racist counter culture.

As above, he managed to make himself look good even when doing something retarded, and make the other side look idiodic.

> student union
> advocating against racism, oppression, underprivileged status (at a university)
YUP THIS IS WHAT STUDENT UNIONS DO. ROW ROW FIGHT DA POWA.

> implying whites do not have interests

It favours white males because they are allowed to be born white and male!111

inb4 statistics on blacks in college sporting teams and gang membership