Western society in a nutshell
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (83)
sorted by:
It's not even relevant to the Civil Rights act, faggot. You could have given any of the four reasons set by Barry Goldwater, but you still failed.
I guess it's just because of muh raysisms that we never see any White kids behaving like that.
A lot of white kids do, just not disproportionately compared to the 13/50.
10 hours of apologetics for something that is objectively wrong, and finally one of you just actually states your opinion correctly. I appreciate that.
You're an idiot if you think white kids don't behave like that.
This is fatherless behavior.
You’re an idiot if you think that the rates are even comparable. There are dumb white people, that’s why iq averages exist instead of iq absolutes. Thomas Sowell didn’t have a father either.
I don't know the rates but I will say that the lionazation of single motherhood has become the prevalent social structure for the mass media. Even divorced moms are referred to as single moms even if they share custody 50/50.
I've been reading his economics book and I have a lower opinion of his intelligence than I went in with.
I'm sure he's actually very smart, but he absolutely cannot get his ideas across efficiently.
"Clear and concise" (as claimed by the endorsements) my ass.
So do you accept that you're now making excuses and walking back SicilianOmega's comment because it's fucking wrong?
Are you prepared to accept that in a half-century of dedicated effort to destroy families, the political Left has successfully damaged white families enough to recognize that this kind of behavior is physically capable by white people?
You’re willfully obtuse if you’re suggesting black people aren’t uniquely fatherless
Black people aren't uniquely fatherless, idiot.
You do realize you live in a time where fatherlessness is a problem in nearly all demographics, right? You ever heard of Family Court or No-Fault-Divorce?
False, the CRA removed the right to free association.
Bake the cake bigot.
Cato, that literally has nothing to do with this. This is still free association.
If you're whining about integration, you're whining about the "public accommodation" interpretation of the courts. So, it's not the Civil Rights Act, and at most it would just remove the white lady from the store. The criticism literally doesn't make sense.
The CRA prevents whites only stores, aka free association.
Only based on public accommodation, and on specific protected characteristics not all of them. It is, at best, a limitation on free association; not a ban of it. Moreover, that still doesn't relate to this event.
You have to have a real criticism of the 64 CRA.
Hey schlomo the goyim are onto you
Be quite, faggot. An adult is talking.
Oiy with the keveching with this one
you think his mudda wouldda be proud of the golem he become