Black woman assaults 10 year old White girl
(archive.ph)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (35)
sorted by:
At risk of being redundant, whenever a white assaults a black, the question is always "what could the motivation possibly have been? Who would attack a 10-year-old girl WITHOUT PROVOCATION?" The answer is always racism. This question is not even asked the other way around.
I note they never play this game when it does not suit them. Or even when a black woman assaults an 80-year-old Mexican man with a brick and tells him to 'go back to where you came from'? Remember that? Neither does anyone else.
Wrong, the question is never even asked in your first scenario. They don't even bother asking the question, and just jump straight to the answer. It's always racism, no matter the scenario. Hell, asking the question itself is probably white supremacy or something.
Or black-on-Asian crime. Or black-on-Jew crime. They'll either ignore it completely, or ignore the race of the attacker and blame it on white supremacy. And if it's black-on-white, well, the white person probably had it coming, right? Totally did something to provoke that unprovoked attack. Said a no-no word, or just, you know, hundreds of years of slavery or whatever. Or, just, well, boys will be boys, let's not look for any racial elements whatsoever.
Absolutely correct. But if I try to reason backwards, this must be the question. Because if this were to happen the other way around, and you'd dispute that it's racism, the response must be "well, what other reason could there be?"
The formula is as follows: black on anyone (including black) is ignored, because they cannot exploit that. Anyone on black is white supremacy, even if the 'perp' is a 'white Hispanic'.
There was a case of a black guy in New York who raped a girl and beat her bloody as, he claimed, revenge for slavery. When someone commits an atrocity and cites 'replacement theory', this means they always claim 'replacement idea, a conspiracy theory which has led to several mass shootings'. Not when it is their own ideology that is allegedly responsible.
My favorite argument is when they try to claim that black families are weak because of slavery - when they were much stronger before the era of political pandering. And when evangelicals point this out, the point is ignored and they are accused of 'defending slavery'
Though reading this article now, I'm struck by how objective it is compared to how media lies today. They'd just write "signed a pledge which included a racist paragraph" while never describing what it is.
Not necessarily. Sometimes the other answers are: disability, national origin, and religion. Those weren't the case here, but those are occasionally the case (and typically more often in non-US countries).