SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread

The BBQ Pit
3343

True. But we can’t just murder the racist Whites, you know. That would be…savage.

Oh, you meant Black-on-White racism? You’re right, it is unbelievable - that a people oppressed for centuries didn’t straight-up murder every White they could, as soon as they were able to. My gosh - angry rhetoric, you say? How savage.

We’ve been over this before, multiple times - White farmers are killed in robberies, not because they’re White, and they’re disproportionately targeted because they still own all the fucking farms.

Yep, all by yourselves. Must have just been really dirty Whites I worked alongside on the mines, yep…

“Your people”? What, racists? Cry me a river.

What, Apartheid had 7 kids in a family? Who’s “they”?

Firstly, it’s personally amusing that you’re holding America out as the direct comparison to SA when it comes to equality issues. Secondly, even the 7 kids is part and parcel of the inequality - educated working women generally don’t have seven kids, uneducated women forced to live in homelands with no access to birth control, while their men slave in the mines then impregnate them on their annual leave whether they want to or not - they have seven kids.

“My” race? You don’t often get psychopaths admitting they feel nothing for the human race, but there you have it…

So did I, *in spite of *people like you.

I had no idea Orania had internet now. But how do you stop your meisies from seeing the BBC on redtube? How are you going to keep them on the farm, when they’ve seen the benefits of a 5-way IR gangbang?

Well, I do work for a white guy, but I highly doubt he’s you, given his family circumstances.
And I also still have my own company - I can do all the tax sums on my own and everything, too. But when I get the next one of those fat BEE tenders, and celebrate by going out to dinner with my lovely blonde, blue-eyed wife, I’ll think of you and raise a glass of JCLeRoux, thanks.

3344

:rolleyes: Can’t say I have. I’ve been raped, but that’s not the same thing, now is it?

3345

MrDibble, you live in a fantasy world.

  1. They are torturing the whites.

  2. They are raping tens of thousands of women, children and babies a year.

  3. Oppressed the blacks? I thought we couldn’t settle in black tribal areas! I thought we couldn’t buy black land! I thought we couldn’t start up schools, businesses in black areas! Build hospitals, universities, ports. It sounds a lot like apartheid doesn’t it? You had the worst form of oppression ever under your kings. You couldn’t advance for thousands of years - because the kings demanded total obedience. No schools, no education - just warriors for the king and he owned all your land and all your labor and he could have anyone’s wife or daughter. To defy the kings, was treason, there were no courts, the king tortured and killed to remain in power. Slavery, you had no land, no farms, you lived in huts, you want farms today and mines. Well guess what? You owned a kraal - the rest of the land was unoccupied. So you are complaining about … farms you owned?

  4. Oh, you meant Black-on-White racism? You’re right, it is unbelievable - that a people oppressed for centuries didn’t straight-up murder every White they could, as soon as they were able to…

Oh but that was the plan all along during apartheid - murder all the whites - communism. Promise democracy and once in power, the vanguard party would eliminate all other political parties and kill all other capitalists and institute socialism. It happened in Russia under Lenin and Marx and is the foundation of Lenin-Marxism. It happened in Tanzania - they promised democracy and killed every other political party instituting a one party state and chased all the whites out. The ANC praised this - it is on their website. It happened in Mozambique. You see you were never promised freedom - it was always communism and socialism. Slaves for the government with no private property at all. So enjoy your white wife and all the luxuries you would never have had had the ANC won over apartheid during the cold war. The whites preserved your freedom for you. You would have lived in a failed communist state.

As for the rest of your self-righteous whatever - you never had any freedom under your kings - no elections, no newspapers, no freedom of speech, no protests. No wonder you couldn’t advance! Not because of the white man, but because of you know who.
When the white man came, he gave you an education, you could read and write. Removed the kings and gave you education.

You expected him to share everything with him. One person had to pay 90% of the tax and spend as much on himself as on 9 others. You live in a fantasy to think I could support your 7 kids with the same level of education and my own two kids. And everyone in Africa has 4 - 7 kids, without apartheid, with all the freedoms - even today. You believed wealth was the number of children you had. It was your own beliefs that caused you to have so many children, not the lack of education or family planning.

And when a tiny group has to give tens of millions of people work - that cannot read or write, then the only way is to put them in mines or do some low paying job. You waged countless, never-ending wars, never accepting any European ideas. So whose faults is it that you ended up far away from whites? It is your own idea to be were closed for any business with them. You have been the author of your own hardship.

So change your attitude - we are tired of keeping quiet. We know these things. They are logical. But we hear the same old accusations decade after decade, century after century. You would think we don’t know anything about suffering. Our children worked 12 hour shifts in factories in Europe during the industrial revolution. Have your children EVER worked 12 hours a day?

And yes we can marry with you it doesn’t help…

3346

I am New Deal Democrat, and I approve of this message. :slight_smile:

3347

Now we can add…

NDD: “Non-white, South African, eh?..Rapist!”

NDD you really are a pathetic little shit, aren’t you?

3348

An estimated 5.6 million people were living with HIV and AIDS in South Africa in 2009, the highest number of people in any country.1 In the same year, it is estimated that 310,000 South Africans died of AIDS-related causes,2 reflecting the huge number of lives that the country has lost to AIDS over the last three decades.

Prevalence is 17.8 percent among those aged 15-49, with younger adults being particularly affected.3

3349

with the football World Cup in South Africa next year, Mr Zuma is determined to crack down. His is one of the world’s most criminally violent countries. Every day, around 50 murders, 100 rapes, 700 burglaries and 500-plus violent assaults are officially recorded in a population of 50m. Although the murder figures may be fairly accurate, only around one in ten rapes are thought to be reported to the police. In a recent survey by the Medical Research Council in two provinces, more than one in four men aged 18-49 admitted to having committed at least one rape.

What shocks people is not just the high level of crime but the wanton violence that usually accompanies it; gangs often kill people just for their mobile phones. It is not only whites (9% of the population) who complain. Almost everyone is afraid. In one poll 62% of South Africans said they would feel “very unsafe” walking alone in their district after dark. The rich lavish money on protection. The poor black majority have to live with fear.

More fortress-like gated communities are being built, guarded around the clock by armed men. Most of the white and black middle class barricade themselves behind increasing layers of security: bright lights; high perimeter-walls topped with electric fencing or razor wire; guard dogs; panic buttons and an alarm system linked to one of the many armed rapid-response security firms that promise to arrive within three minutes of a call. Since 1996 the government has quadrupled its anti-crime spending. But private spending has risen far more, by a factor of 400. Private security in South Africa is now worth 14 billion rand ($1.9 billion) a year, with 300,000 registered guards.

3350

It seems that you’re not bothered to even stay coherent. Do you feel that simply quoting HIV (or other) statistics is enough to carry some meta-point of yours? Well, then I’ve got one:

“South Africa is divided into nine provinces and has 2,798 kilometres (1,739 mi) of coastline.” …and maybe another… “It has a GDP (PPP) of $11,000, and growth of 3.4% (2011).”
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sf.html

There, now I think I’ve now earned 50,000 mega bonus points. This should be enough to “win” debates, persuade the white masses, prove my intelligence and hide all my clear, social/logical inadequacies.

3351

Ah, grand so, you are just the one-dimensional racist we all had you pegged as from the beginning. Carry on so.

3352

Clearly the only route is for South Africa is to…

…um…

…well…

…Yea Apartheid!

3353

Whenever I or a few other posters here are bold enough to post facts about blacks we are accused of being racist. This accusation is an effort to divert the discussion from whether or not our factual assertions are true, and if true the significance of the factual assertions.

The accusation of racism when serious social problems are mentioned commits at least the following logical fallacies.

Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Description of Appeal to Emotion

An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:

Favorable emotions are associated with X.
Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples’ emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of “reasoning” involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:

X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Description of Personal Attack

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person’s claim or claims. This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

Whoever calls someone else a “racist” loses the argument. What matters is whether or not the presumed “racist” is telling the truth. What we need in the United States is a real dialogue on race without the restrictions imposed by the constraints of political correctness.

3354

Pfft. I’m doubting you’ve ever set foot in South Africa, now, troll.
Certainly *if *you ever lived here, your parents must have done the chicken run when you were still a lightie, so all you’ve ever gotten is an apartheid-era education on SA history.

They say we have a brain drain because of white flight, but if it’s geniuses like you, our IQ must be going up exponentially.

3355

:rolleyes:
Yeah, tell me, how much crime was committed on tourists during the (highly successful) World Cup? How many tourists were raped and murdered?

And 2009 is a bit last decade for cite freshness, isn’t it?

3356

Aren’t you getting enough attention from the other threads? Go post this there.

3357

Readers may be interested in this essay by Paul Graham on the concept of “moral fashion” determining what a person can and cannot safely utter in public discourse, and providing armament for people to shoot down those ideas without having to directly dispute their truth value.

3358

You’re now creating rules for us, pigfucker?

3359

The high rate of AIDS in South Africa says bad things about those who get and spread the disease. I of course exempt rape victims from my condemnation. As I have already pointed out at least one out of four South African men is guilty of rape. This is shameful. :mad:

Except for rape, AIDS is a very easy disease to avoid. The AIDS viruses die almost immediately when exposed to air or water.

3360

I’m not in the US, you stupid racist troll.

3361

Howabout pigfucker?

3362

I think I see your problem right there–your definitiator is on the fritz. See what just happened in the OP? It spit out a long definition of the wrong word. You need to check its output matrix or perhaps its perception filters. Whatever the cause is, it’s giving you a definition of ‘fact’ that substantially differs from the rest of the board.