Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race.

Are you, like, paid to be this racist by the Russians or something?

Also, why in the world are so many seasoned debaters so quick to agree to the either/or fallacy?

How can any of you remotely prove "blacks" all do something?

Define race.

Define black.

Define racist.

Define white.

Define biracial.

Define multiracial.

And, I guarantee you, that it will then be impossible to prove your "truth."

Since the overwhelming majority of "blacks" are not even black. They are multiracial or biracial.

But here's what's even crazier. You can't even argue that there are different races because black people and white people are all part of one race. So it is impossible to be racist to members of your own race if you then turn around and favor other members of your race.

Plus, all I have to do is prove that any portion of black people are not racist, and your premise is completely destroyed,

since you decided to say "blacks," meaning the collective whole, are racist.

But. You know. Go ahead and believe your supposed "truth." It was peddled by the KKK and the Confederacy and the south for years to oppress an entire people group. 

I'll just be over here living in reality, with my black friends, in my city with black people in it, all getting along with each other just fine because we aren't racists.

It's NOT my truth. It is THE truth.

>@TWS1405

It's NOT my truth. It is THE truth.

Big words coming from a man who is scared of accepting definitions.

You still didn't admit you ignored my whole rationale and simply substituted your own.

If you don't want to define anything, then how in the world can you even claim black people are racist?

You have to define these terms before you can climb any "truth."

Truth isn't undefinable.

— > @Shila

Hillary was cleared even by James Comey.

Bwaaahaahaahaaa!!!! Comey didn't clear her. He doesn't have the power or the authority to clear her. In fact, he said she did do wrong but likely no "reasonable prosecutor" would take the case. It was a BS excuse and you know it!!!

Trump was impeached twice.

Witch hunt twice. 

Trump Org to be charged with tax fraud. NY.

Until then, this is a meaningless statement of desperation. 

Georgia investigating election fraud by Trump.

Witch hunt.

Jan 6 committee investigating trumps efforts to overturn 2020  election results.

Witch hunt. 

FBI/DOJ investigating criminal obstruction of Justice by Trump and stealing classified documents from National Archives.

None of the documents are classified. As POTUS he has the blanket authority to declassify anything he deems fit. 

Trump university fined 25 million.

No, it wasn't.

Trump accused of sexual assaults by some 25 women.

Most proven false, some recanted, and none carried the weight of a formal investigation leading to any formal charges and indictments.

Not only has the Trump Foundation shut down for its misconduct, but the president has been forced to pay $2 million for misusing charitable funds for his own political gain.

Who hasn't misused funds for their own gain?

Your desperation is loud and clear, as is your intellectual cowardice. 

--> @TWS1405

The burden of proof is on you to define terms for your argument. Not on me to supply them.

But since you decided to go with merriam-webster:

Race: any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry.

Multiracial: composed of, involving, or representing various races

Racism: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

So... let's break this down now. Most black people in America are multiracial. This is because the ones here are mostly descended from slaves and were either raped by, had romantic relationships with, or later on down the line married someone of a differing race.

This means thsy most black people fail to fall under definition one because they have inherited physical traits from at least two "races."

So what this means is that most black people in America fall under "multiracial."

This is important because the third definition of racism means that there must be a belief that tangible racial differences that produce a superior species.

But in order for people to believe this, there first has to be ACTUAL tangible differences between races. Once again, most black people are not actually black, they are multiracial.

So this means that black people cannot truly be racist toward other white people because they, themselves are also partly white. Therefore there is little actual existence of "black people" who can be racist because there are very little actual black people.

Now, a multiracial man can be racist for sure. A multiracial man can hold racist beliefs. But, since the vast majority of black people are not even black, then arguing that "black people" are racist is really, REALLY stupid and illogical.

But now let us further unpack the definition of "race." Everyone of a particular race must share a similar ancestry.

Merriam webster defines ancestry as: line of descent : LINEAGE

And Lineage means: descent in a line from a common progenitor.

So, from this we can determine that the definition of race means all those who descend from one common ancestor. Therefore, what this REALLY means is all human beings are one race. This means that there is no such thing as a "black race" or a "white race." We are all one race because we all have a common ancestor.

So what does this mean? It means that the REAL definition of racism is people who believe humankind is superior to other kinds. So, therefore, can black people be racist?

On all counts, no way especially NOT to white people. Because they are both the same race, and therefore the definition of racism does not apply to the favoritism or other things that supposedly exist.

So, therefore, it is logically impossible for people to be racist toward other people because of the definitions of these words. To be racist toward other people would claim that mankind has multiple ancestors, which is impossible due to the current research proving otherwise. [1]

Now, it IS possible to be hateful to other ethnic groups, as ethnicity and race are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. But it is impossible for people to be racist.

Also, your single poll is not representative of the sample group and therefore fails basic methodological testing.

SOURCES:

Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

[1] https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

America has the largest African diaspora of 47 million outside of Africa. That is why racism is highest in America which has 235 million reported whites that has to share the country with  such a high number of blacks.

No, you're not just making a statistical point lol

Who are you to determine that "an extreme response" is the Republican one? Why is the Black difference not "an extreme response?" Why is the White difference not "an extreme response?" Why is the Liberal view going into a negative not "an extreme response?" You've made up a fuzzy standard without any logical backing. Your "extreme response" claim is arbitrary…. <waffle snip>

You immediately conceded ground by now saying: "Perceptions are perceptions they are sometimes true; often not", instead of your original: "Peoples perceptions about almost everything are wrong all the time." It's good to see that I'm making you more reasonable.

Your analogy is not analogous because the perception of measuring someone's intelligence is far more complex than determining whether someone was racist to you. 

If you go up to a Black man and call him the n word or cotton picker, there's no doubt in anyone's perception as to whether that's racist or not. It's never easy or quick to determine how smart someone is. 

And, again, the thread is about 'who is the most racist', not 'how racist is the most racist?' But sure, sometimes it gets complicated whether someone was racist or not, but that's built into the poll because ALL races and groups polled suffer from this shortcoming, not just the Black group. So, unless you think this shortcoming means there is no racism at all (which is shown wrong in the previous paragraph), the poll result remains valid.

For whatever reasons, people are voting Black people as the most racist in America. Again, we're not trying to find out why for every, individual, singular circumstance. Again, we're not trying to determine precisely how racist they are.

Again, we're not trying to find out why for every, individual, singular circumstance.

Not once, in any part of this thread, have I said anything to anyone, to imply or directly say, that I meant "how racist they are". I dragged that meaning out of your words to say specifically that we're not talking about that. You're even directly responding to one of the parts where I explain this distinction

And now you're trying to accuse me of being the one equivocating between 'who is more racist' and 'how racist they are'.

How do you think people are voting on the poll then

No, you're not just making a statistical point lol

He asserts, whilst completely ignoring the statistical point I just made.

and by “extreme response” that I mean “politically extreme” instead of “a very large difference in +\- compared to other groups”.

You immediately conceded ground by now saying: "Perceptions are perceptions they are sometimes true; often not", instead of your original: "Peoples perceptions about almost everything are wrong all the time." It's good to see that I'm making you more reasonable.

Huh, Those two things mean exactly the same thing. Perceptions are often wrong vs Perceptions are wrong all the time - are expressing identical sentiment. I think you have misread it by thinking I’m saying all perceptions are wrong all of the time. I’m not - only that it’s very common for perceptions to be wrong. I await the flurry of semantic nit picking; consider this, however:

You often say stupid things - you say stupid things all the time: mean the same thingz

Let’s wind back. This poll is a measure of peoples perceptions - what people think about specific things. You obviously can’t argue with this - because that’s what the poll is asking.

You are arguing that these perceptions indicate reality - how things are. I’m not entirely sure what that reality that you’re trying to show as you’re nor consistent with what you’re saying: but the options are:

(C1) There are more black racists than white racists.

(C2) The level of racism in blacks is stronger than than in whites.

I’m working under the assumption that you mean C1.

This poll asks people whether they think that more than 50% of a given group is racist. That was the question: “are most X racist”.

Some people answered yes - some people answered no. They can’t both be right - so we know for certain a large percentage of people in that poll have perceptions that are wrong. Are most blacks actually racist? If yes: then 63% of people underestimate black racism. If no: 37% are overestimating black racism. To accept this poll is to necessarily accept that there are a ton of people under or overestimating the amount racism.

You have absolutely no clue as to whether one side is under or overestimating; you also have absolutely no clue by how much: you have no clue as to whether it’s different based on response. You don’t have enough information to even speculate how broadly off the numbers are from reality. Thus the poll cannot show how many racists there in any individual group.

What you’re doing - is wildly speculating, with assumptions you’re pulling out of your ass - that despite perceptions being definitely wrong; and despite you having absolutely no justification whatsoever for whether anyones responses have any basis in reality, or are simply false perceptions based on any number of biases of the respondents - you can definitely assume they’re representing some actual aspect of how the people they are perceiving are.

Or in other words - the only way you can argue what you’re arguing is if you make stuff up that you can’t possibly know, and could very easily be completely untrue.

[,,,]

You don’t know the reason anyone responded to that question. You don’t know any of their motivations, or reasoning, you don’t know if the answers were due to social bias, biased experiences, interpretation of the question, or what went into their thinking - etc.

It could be accurate - or it could be wildly inaccurate because of the broad biases of the groups being questioned. You don’t know which - and you have no information at all that would allow you to even speculate about which it could be, or by how much.

You’re just  pretending that you have enough knowledge to conclude these answers are representative enough of how much actual racism there is - but you don’t - you can’t: it’s just pulled out of your ass.

As you have to make these completely baseless assumptions - in order to draw your conclusion - it’s effectively begging the question.

“Most racist” could mean number of racists, or how strongly racist. “More racist” could mean number of racists, or how strongly racist. You’ve clarified the ambiguous wording throughout - so thank you.

The key point you ignore - is that the whole point of this line of debate , is not to haggle over wording - but that if the poll doesn’t tell you C2 above - the poll is meaningless; it doesn’t tell you anything valuable.

Because, as I said - if 25% of whites are KKK members lynching black people, and 51% of blacks people harboured some minor animosity: then if everyone’s perceptions were accurate, 100% would say most blacks are racist, and 0% would say that most whites were racist - the answer of the poll as an effective measure of racism is utterly meaningless. This was my main point- which you ignored.

If through this sloppy and inconsistent language - you only mean C1 - great. You’re agreeing that this is meaningless as a measure of racism.

How do you think people are voting on the poll then

No clue. I have no idea of the motivation. Nor What factors into the vote. I don’t know whether the perceptions are accurate or biased; I don’t even know what any of the people even thought of as racism, or if there were biases in their interpretation, or differences between groups. Whites could be by far the most racist; and yet perceptions could be biased the other way: or could be indicative that blacks are generally racist in some really low level way, and whites are generally not racist other than a large core of very racist individuals - it could be literally any of those things: and I don’t have basis to even speculate as to which it is.

You don’t know either; however you pretend that you do in order to assert the conclusion you want.

I addressed it and you ended up ignoring that LOL. I argued that your standard is arbitrary and holds no impact. Why does it matter that it's 3x? Why is that considered an "extreme response" objectively? Why is the negative gap of Democrats not considered "an extreme response" when it's the only negative response? Here's your chance to try again with those questions

You're just equivocating to slander. 

You are fully capable of understanding that "extreme response" sounds like extremist ideology or something totally wild. You didn't just mean "a very large different in +\- compared to other groups".   You want to make only the Republican response invalid based on arbitrary standards, but you're smokescreening that with loaded language.

Often =/= always.

True, they can't both be right. The poll doesn't objectively capture which race has people who are "mostly racist". That's certainly a good pick up from you.

However, what the poll does capture is which race is doing enough for that whole race to be considered "mostly racist" by individual people. Again, people are voting based on their experiences with the races. And that's how the poll is determining that Black people are the most racist: by seeing how often view their race as "mostly racist" (not through measurements of racism levels). That satisfies the OP's claim of Black Americans being more racist than Whites or any other race.

Your standard of evidence isn't required to draw the conclusions required to defend the OP.

People aren't going to think "most" people of a race are racist, due to absolutely no reason. Implying that people just decide whole groups are racist for no reason is unreasonable and conspiratorial. 

What actually happens is that people have bad experiences with different races. Maybe these people get called a slur. Maybe these people see the race talking badly about other races on Twitter. Maybe these people see the race attend a BLM, KKK or La Raza rally. If these people have enough bad experiences, they'll start to think the race is all racist. The poll captures how frequently this has happened for each race, and hence determines which race is the most racist through an indirect method (i.e. the highest percentage of racists). 

It's a completely reasonable to assume people have some reason for claiming most of a race is racist.

...but the poll didn't have that result and didn't involve those people.

You need to find problems with the poll that exists, because as it stands, none of the problems you outlined here affect the poll's data (or at least you haven't proven it).

Try dealing with the poll's data, rather than forging a problem for a poll that doesn't exist.

I find your hyper-cynical view that people are totally incapable of forming somewhat valid opinions via perception to be totally unreasonable and conspiratorial. 

blacks chose to stay in America

Also, ethnicism isn't a work in Merriam Webster's dictionary which, once again, proves my point. Because, in this discussion, it doesn't exist as a word since merriam Webster is being used for definitions. So it is impossible for people to be something that doesn't exist.

--> @Shila

America has the largest African diaspora of 47 million outside of Africa. That is why racism is highest in America which has 235 million reported whites that has to share the country with  such a high number of blacks.

Of the roughly 11 million Africans that survived the Atlantic journey, only approximately 334,000 were brought to America. The remaining 10.7 million were taken to the Caribbean and South America.

Because of the American dream and the freedoms America offered, blacks chose to stay in America post slavery and make a life for themselves. While some did, for centuries, by the mid 1900s a small percentage of blacks wallowed in their black culture that left them in an endless circle of despair and a social, cultural and financial (class) victimhood mentality. A mentality that made them feel entitled to do as they please without consequence, leading to the out of wedlock birth rates jumping from 22% to over 70%, higher illiteracy, higher dropout rates from school, higher crime rates, and higher unemployment rates. That was their fault, their problem, not the boogey white man. This mentality also leads to blacks being more racist towards whites, Asians and Hispanics than vice versa. So sure, there is a lot of racism in America, directed at whites, namely white males. 

share the country

-> @Shila

share the country

America isn't a white country. It is for all people who choose willingly to emigrate here, and all people who are born here.

Additionally, maybe if they didn't buy millions of Africans and force them to work in the fields for about 150 years and then breed them like dogs to they could sell the offspring for a profit then there wouldn't be so many black people to "share" with.

Now that they live here, and were born here, and (at the time) legally emigrated here, even if it was against their will, this country is just as much for every black citizen as a white citizen. This has nothing to do with "sharing." It is the birthright of every Black American to be a citizen of this country. It is their right.

But the slave trade and slavery and everything that came from it honestly is white peoples' fault. They (old southerners specifically, and their children) are mad that they had to actually be good human beings and agree with science and stop oppressing a whole ethnic group because they wanted free labor. 

But America is a nation of freedom, liberty, and justice for all. This country isn't owned by any one person. It is a free land where anyone has an equal opportunity and equal rights. To think of it as "sharing" is appallingly elitist and ethnicist. This country, by the nature of the document we wrote in 1776 that founded it, and the subsequent one that was written in 1789, with amendments, is for everyone who is born here and anyone who checks the boxes to move here, and it is not "sharing" at all. It is giving people what is rightfully theirs.

 stole the land from Native Indians

They never paid the slaves

: the payment of damages : INDEMNIFICATION

specifically : compensation in money or materials payable by a defeated nation for damages to or expenditures sustained by another nation as a result of hostilities with the defeated nation —usually used in plural [6]

 to make compensation to for incurred hurt, loss, or damage [7]

Americans cannot give away what is not theirs to begin with.

Get a history lesson.

--> @Shila

 stole the land from Native Indians

Source?

They never paid the slaves

Not true. In the Reconstruction, reparations were paid to many former slaves in the form of significantly discounted (and even free land) and other federal assistance. [1]

Moreover, the "War on Poverty" was also a significant redistribution of wealth through tax dollars that sought to directly benefit Black Americans communities. [2] [3] [4] [5] [a]

The definition of reparation:

: the payment of damages : INDEMNIFICATION

specifically : compensation in money or materials payable by a defeated nation for damages to or expenditures sustained by another nation as a result of hostilities with the defeated nation —usually used in plural [6]

The definition of indemnify:

 to make compensation to for incurred hurt, loss, or damage [7]

So these programs definitely qualify as reparations.

The problem was that these policies also included many other policies that were not beneficial to Black Americans. So, while it is completely true that black people did receive reparations, the reparations came with other policies that crippled the economies, family structures, and more of Black Americans, such as the War on Drugs. [8] Ultimately, this led to a negative impact.

Americans cannot give away what is not theirs to begin with.

Unfortunately, this is a lie that just won't die due to academia willfully ignoring history.

For starters, Americans won much of the land from Native Americans in military conquests.

Furthermore, Manhattan was purchased from American Indians. [9] The Native Tribe there believed that no one owned land, so they thought they were getting a fantastic deal. [10] But other tribes did begin to implement the same purchasing idea amongst each other. [9] There is a similar such history through much of the early colonial years, through most of America's colonial history, of colonists purchasing land or winning it through military conquests. [12]

Another valuable point to bring up is that we don't really know for certain whom the first aggressor was in the wars between the Native Americans and the European settlers. Both sides would regularly attack and raid each other and rape each others' women. [12]

Get a history lesson.

I studied this issue a lot in college on my own time and, honestly, my conclusion is that we simply can't state unilaterally that white people stole land from American Indians. The American Indians had extremely diverse ideas among the different tribes. Some were warrior tribes that just conquered land. Others were anarchist tribes that didn't have any formal government. Others did not even believe in land ownership as a concept, but looked at the land like mother nature supplying free land for all. American Indians had their own struggles, economies, and wars and such with each other as well, and oftentimes the colonists would ally themselves with whatever tribe promised to be their ally. This led to other tribes attacking them.

Sometimes American Indian tribes just decided to attack colonists for no perceived reason, even though there were treaties. And the colonists also did the same. So we can't really just claim the white man stole everything. There is A LOT of history to consider. Could it have happened? I am certain there have to be at least one or two instances of it. But, unilaterally, we cannot just claim white people stole all of it. Because that is patently false.

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201910/why-land-redistribution-former-slaves-unraveled-after-civil-war

[2] https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/war-poverty/

[3] https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years

[4] https://nationalcenter.org/project21/2014/01/08/lbjs-war-on-poverty-hurt-black-americans/

[5] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-war-on-poverty-then-and-now/

[6] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reparation

[7] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indemnifying

[8] https://www.addictioncenter.com/news/2021/08/war-on-drugs-impact-on-black-people/

[9] https://historyexplorer.si.edu/resource/manhattan-purchase

[10] https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1543

[11] https://www.history.com/news/native-american-land-british-colonies

[12] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/new-england-colonies-and-native-americans

NOTES:

[a] I cited sources from across the ideological spectrum simply to show that virtually everyone agrees that the war on poverty was a massive investment of American tax dollars toward people, while some sources show how the main recipients were Black Americans. This would count as reparations.

I addressed it and you ended up ignoring that LOL. I argued that your standard is arbitrary and holds no impact. Why does it matter that it's 3x? Why is that considered an "extreme response" objectively? Why is the negative gap of Democrats not considered "an extreme response" when it's the only negative response? Here's your chance to try again with those questions

I explained all of this in the last two posts. I even gave an example explaining it. You appear fixated on your straw man about extreme response.

You're just equivocating to slander. 

You are fully capable of understanding that "extreme response" sounds like extremist ideology or something totally wild. You didn't just mean "a very large different in +\- compared to other groups".   You want to make only the Republican response invalid based on arbitrary standards, but you're smokescreening that with loaded language.

(1) slander is verbal, libel is written. (2) at no point have I suggested the Republican response is invalid - that’s something you made up (3) the first time I mentioned “extreme” response was in post 40 - which was clearly and was unambiguously a statistical argument. Before this I referred to the result being “heavily biased by republican responses” - which is clearly suggesting the result, rather than the republicans was the thing that was biased - a statistical argument.

I’ve been extremely clear throughout - and frankly you should know by now I don’t bother hiding behind wordplay when I think something. You just didn’t read, or understand what I said; paid no attention to my clarification.

You’ve now been called on this ridiculous straw man, and now have to resort to “nuh-uh!”

You immediately conceded ground by now saying: "Perceptions are perceptions they are sometimes true; often not", instead of your original: "Peoples perceptions about almost everything are wrong all the time." It's good to see that I'm making you more reasonable.

Huh, Those two things mean exactly the same thing. Perceptions are often wrong vs Perceptions are wrong all the time - are expressing identical sentiment. I think you have misread it by thinking I’m saying all perceptions are wrong all of the time. I’m not - only that it’s very common for perceptions to be wrong. I await the flurry of semantic nit picking; consider this, however:

You often say stupid things - you say stupid things all the time: mean the same thingz

Often =/= always.

Yes - and because I never said, nor implied “always”, your suggestion that I did is a straw man.

However, what the poll does capture is which race is doing enough for that whole race to be considered "mostly racist" by individual people. Again, people are voting based on their experiences with the races. And that's how the poll is determining that Black people are the most racist: by seeing how often view their race as "mostly racist" (not through measurements of racism levels). That satisfies the OP's claim of Black Americans being more racist than Whites or any other race.

The bolded portion of this post, is an unsupported assertion you make that you cannot possibly support from any of the data, and have no reason to conclude is true or accurate, and every reason (see my last post) to believe could be completely untrue.

What this unsupported assertion does, is assume that the responses reflect actual reality relatively accurately (if they don’t reflect reality accurately - then your and the OP conclusion does not follow.)

Or in other words, in order for you to conclude that this poll represents how racist people actually are reality (meaning  C1), you bake in the  assumption that the poll represents how racist people actually are in reality into your premise.

This is assuming your own conclusion: begging the question.

Your standard of evidence isn't required to draw the conclusions required to defend the OP.

It actually is; for you to make claims about how the poll reflects reality - you must have confidence that the poll reflects reality - you assert that confidence, despite no reasonable confidence existing.

People aren't going to think "most" people of a race are racist, due to absolutely no reason. Implying that people just decide whole groups are racist for no reason is unreasonable and conspiratorial. 

Since when did I say “absolutely no reason”, what an absurd straw-man! Lol.

There are many reasons that aren’t dependent on the answer being based on reality. 

Nazi Germany - as a particularly extreme example - were German perceptions of Jews accurate and based on experience - or based propaganda and manipulation?

Is the average republicans opinion on the validity of the election based upon a clear exposure to the facts and arguments on both sides; or as a result of peer and media opinion leading them to draw their preferred conclusion?

Our perceptions are wrong all the time, in multiple ways for multiple reasons - we even have a long list of established ways in which human perceptions are generally wrong (they’re called cognitive biases) - you have no rational basis to conclude the perceptions are valid here. 

What actually happens is that people have bad experiences with different races. Maybe these people get called a slur. Maybe these people see the race talking badly about other races on Twitter. Maybe these people see the race attend a BLM, KKK or La Raza rally. If these people have enough bad experiences, they'll start to think the race is all racist. The poll captures how frequently this has happened for each race, and hence determines which race is the most racist through an indirect method (i.e. the highest percentage of racists). 

It's a completely reasonable to assume people have some reason for claiming most of a race is racist.

Again - the bold portion is a completely unsupported assertion you make that you can’t possibly know, and have no ability to support.

This assertion  is what makes your argument beginning the question.

...but the poll didn't have that result and didn't involve those people.

You need to find problems with the poll that exists, because as it stands, none of the problems you outlined here affect the poll's data (or at least you haven't proven it).

Try dealing with the poll's data, rather than forging a problem for a poll that doesn't exist.

If you read my argument, my critique is against the poll, the poll question and the validity of your inferences.

Specifically - Your using answers to the poll questions to draw inferences about the population the poll is asking about.  If the poll was applied to a known population, using the same question, and your criteria - and gives an answer that doesn’t make sense (which it doesn’t) - it calls into question whether the inference is valid.

My point being is that how many racists is not a good measure without some inclusion of how severe the racism is - as the example you dismissed shows.

Try to read my posts - there were like 3/4 pretty outlandishly absurd misrepresentations of what I said in your reply here.

Oh, you're right. I was reading the Harry Potter series and responding to that instead!

I truly look foolish.

I'll try to read your posts. Thanks for the sincere advice!

‘…Additionally, maybe if they didn't buy millions of Africans and …”

It is not hard to see whites as racist. They picked skin colour to identify race and made it an subject of discrimination based on us and them.