polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 9:12am:


A child of sand negroes is a sand negro whether they like it or not. The same is not true of inbred or Muslim people. I have pointed out this distinction to you plenty of times. It is a very simple and clear one, which is why the racism distinction is such a clear and easy one to make. You have attempted to invent a different distinction. You failed, and now you are afraid to even discuss it.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 9:34am:


Note the way FD uses a sanitized version of the term "sand n!ggers" to describe Arabs, and then persists with the argument that they're inbred and retarded.

How could this not be seen as racist?

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 10:59am:


No, FD, you don't get to define what a sand negro is. It's an American term, often used in the US military, to describe Arabs. It's used as a disparaging racial slur, describing a tinted race that lives in the desert.

"N1gger" is colloquial American slang for "negro". It is used solely in a racist context, even when used by blacks themselves, who use the term to make light of its racist connotations.

Describing Arabs as "sand negros", as you are, is indeed racist. I note that you are not using the term ironically. You are using it to describe a race of, in your words, "inbred retards". You regularly post your Arab inbreeding map to present a scientific rationale to your racism. You have also described the argument that Arab interbreeding with Africans causes genetic defects and subnormal intelligence as a "plausible theory".

I also note that you are employing the term "sand negro" to confront and make fun of people's hostility to racism. You are brandishing racist terminology to argue that racism in this case does not exist, and you are doing so in an attempt to conceal your racism.

Your belief that people must admit to their racism to be judged as racist is wrong. Racism, like all social phenomena, is held in language. Most people are unaware of their racism until they are confronted with it. Arguing that you're not racist while you simultaneously present the most obvious racist arguments reveals your racism to all. It's telling that those who indulge in your racist arguments are self-confessed racists - Homo, the old boy and Sprint, who you used to challenge regularly over his racism.

You can continue to hide your racism, FD, or you can choose to embrace it - as many other members here have. It seems a bit hypocritical, however, to keep hiding, evading and skirting the issue. We don't need to know what lies behind your words, we have the words themselves.

Wacist, innit.

Quote:


It is correct Gandalf. This is why I keep suggesting you stop running away from the inbreeding discussion.

Quote:


I already have. I cannot be more specific because there was a lot of vague waffle. Every time I try to boil it down for you, you insist I got it wrong. I want you to say exactly what the distinction was you were making earlier between racist and non-racist criticism, without the waffle and hyperbole.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2017 at 8:15am:


You could actually be more specific FD - you could ask me to explain something that I actually said - instead of asking me to explain the exact opposite of what I said.

You do understand that you 'paraphrased' me saying the exact opposite of what I said right?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2017 at 8:15am:


And this is why I keep suggesting you're pushing a racist agenda.

Help me out here K - can you make sense of how "you don't inherit inbred-related retardedness by having inbred parents" - could possibly be "correct"?

But its such an unbelievably stupid thing to say. I was hoping FD would just say "sorry, I misread" or something. But then again I'm still trying to get him to understand that he paraphrased me saying the exact opposite of what I said so...