Tucker Carlson Gets OWNED On White Supremacy By UConn Professor (>>Tariq)

[#1 pick]

People are exposing themselves. Tucker was much more professional and respectful here. He didn't start this exchange off by insulting this guy and lying about something that he said. He also allowed this man to speak without interruption. This segment is almost twice as long as Nasheed's and half of Nasheed's segment was wasted arguing over semantics. Tucker trolled and made it personal both times with Nasheed. He didn't do any of that here until the very end after he had been sonned.

This was a good but he didn't say anything that hasn't been said on this site. I've personally made damn near all of them myself here. This really had nothing to do with academics. He arguments were common sense.

Y'all low key on some white(looking) man ice colder shyt.

There is a lot of c00ns. Trump America will expose a lot of c00ns

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

He's giving work on twitter too

Matthew W. Hughey (@ProfHughey) on Twitter

He's in phi beta sigma, so he might be a light skin black person.

 

[Paradise50]

Looking at this prof profile and I think he's one of those real light skin black folks


I mean he passes as white but you can just tell. I can't explain it

 

[AJaRuleStan]

Regardless of how the demographics have changed it doesn't negate the existence of systematic white supremacy. Tucker's point that this isn't a white supremacist country because it allows non whites to immigrate here was invalid.

(1)If it doesn't negate the existence of the system and (2)the goal of the system is to advance the interest of white ppl than the implication behind the immigration reform of 1965 is that the system is actively working against its core objective since the effect seen in reality by this change is the expansion of non-whites at the expense of reducing whites. Even you conceded that to be true.

In conclusion, to accept this, you have to accept that this system is faulty and ineffective since its executing a trade-off that goes against its most prioritized goal. But if that's the case, you then have to question effectiveness of the entire system. How can this system do and control as much as its believed to by the proponents of its existence, despite allowing such an obviously flawed trade-off that a toddler couldn't even miss.

Its much more likely to conclude that the reasoning behind the immigration policy of 1965 had nothing to do with the interest of whites. However, if you admit that, you're back at questioning the entire scope of WS.

You're talking like you don't realize that whites just came together and put an open white supremacist in office who ran on a platform to stop non white immigration into this country. Whites are still damn near 70% of the population but they are now feeling threatened by the numbers and influence of non whites in this country and have started to push back full force. "Make Amerikkka great again" simply means to reinvest in white supremacy. at pretending that you don't see whites circling their wagons at the perception that their influence/power is dwindling in this country.

First, i'm not "talking" or purposely overlooking anything. I'm following the logic presented by the professor. He is the one who set the premise up, all I did was follow it through to display the flaws in it. It isn't my fault that his read on the matter doesn't make sense.

Second, lets clear some facts up. All data has whites clocked around 60% of the population, and only 50-60% of the whites who voted, backed trump, the rest backed Hillary. This is important to note because it illustrates that just because whites are majority does not mean the majority all move in unison, which implies that the groups size is less influential than you're giving credit for.

Thirdly, Trump ran on a platform to curve illegal immigration, I have never seen evidence that he is advocating for a permanent return to the immigration rules were Europe was prioritized over other countries, or that non-whites are simply banned. Which at this point he would need to do since current projections have whites becoming a minority in a decade or so. Still, even if he attempted, the president doesn't have unlimited power, a giant sub-set of the population wouldn't back such a change. But either way you slice it, it doesn't hurt my argument, it hurts the professor's since he is the one claiming that this demographic change was intended by white supremacy in the first place.

You see, by claiming whites are feeling threatened by the growing influence of non whites, you are also admitting something about the functionality of WS since such a circumstance can only exist if allowed and intended by WS in the first place.

The point in acknowledging the fact that 44/45 presidents have been white men is to expose the ideology of white male supremacy that this country was founded on.

There is no "exposing" to be done here. What retard was under the illusion that this wasn't the case beside the professor? You?

Naturalization act of 1790 limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of supposed good character. This was literally in the law for everybody to witness. Not hidden or invisible like how ppl describe "WS" today. And outside of that, the white population base stayed at 80% or more throughout majority of this countries history, so framing the racial representation of the past presidents as somehow unexpected is like looking at the history of china and being surprised that majority, if not all of their leaders are Chinese. That's what you expect to fukking find.

Even IF this wasn't the case, the idea that the natural state of things would be either even representation or random representation when it comes to the presidency or any other field of human activity has never been true in the history of this species. Huge disparities have always been the norm, not the anomaly.

 

[DamienWayne]

the truth needs no cosign. dude was giving tucker that work

 

[DamienWayne]

" you can read books on it, iv written quite a few"


random beat at 2:25

 

[Uncle Kendrick]

Pretty soon mulattos will be classified as white as the white numbers start dwindling down.

 

[Dzali OG]

the tucker guy got owned but he did make a valid point. it is not in the best interest of whites to allow other ethnic groups to flood into the country unless they can absolutely guarantee that their(white) power will not be taken away since, on paper, this is a type of democracy, the groups that are not white eventually may be majority and could then vote all the whites out. it seems like he doesn't have the ability to put into words what he thinks very well.

Whites realize they can't maintain the numerical advantage so they've taken necessary steps to insure numbers don't matter.

At the least this country is Representative Democratic. Though in truth it isn't that either.

 

[Gravity]

(1)If it doesn't negate the existence of the system and (2)the goal of the system is to advance the interest of white ppl than the implication behind the immigration reform of 1965 is that the system is actively working against its core objective since the effect seen in reality by this change is the expansion of non-whites at the expense of reducing whites.

In conclusion, to accept this, you have to accept that this system is faulty and ineffective since its executing a trade-off that goes against its most prioritized goal. But if that's the case, you then have to question effectiveness of the entire system. How can this system do and control as much as its believed to by the proponents of its existence, despite allowing such an obviously flawed trade-off that a toddler couldn't even miss.

Its much more likely to conclude that the reasoning behind the immigration policy in 1965 had nothing to do with the interest of whites. However, if you admit that, you're back at questioning the entire scope of WS.

Blah blah bullshyt. The isn't about the immigration act of 1965. This "debate" between Tucker and the professor is over the existence of white supremacy and the role that it played in trump being elected. The only relevance that the immigration act of '65 has here is that Tucker attempted to use it as evidence that this isn't a white supremacist nation. It's an astoundingly stupid simple argument that only other racist idiots would give credence to. Nothing you've said here disproves the existence of white supremacy. No non white immigrant group has come to his country and been afforded equal treatment under the law in comparison to whites. Every non white immigrant group is subjected to racial discrimination due to their non white status.

The point that you ignore remains. The perceived expansion of non white power at the expense of white power is why white amerikkka got together to elect a candidate who campaigned on closing the door to non white immigrants. So even if you want to make the point that the immigration act of '65 didnt perpetuate white supremacy you have to acknowledge that the election of trump and his anti-non white immigrant ideology does perpetuate/reinvest white supremacy.

First, i'm not "talking" or purposely overlooking anything. I'm following the logic presented by the professor. He is the one who set the premise up, all I did was follow it through to display the flaws in it. It isn't my fault that his analysis doesn't make sense.

Now you're straight up lying which is not a surprise. You're following Tucker's logic not the professor. You're cosigning Tucker saying that the immigration act of '65 somehow proves that this isn't a white supremacist nation. The professor just basically said "uhhhhh no it doesn't".

Second, lets clear some facts up. All data has whites clocked around 60% of the population, and only 50-60% voted for trump, while 40% backed Hillary. This is important to note because it illustrates that just because whites are majority does not mean the majority all move in unison, which implies that the groups size is less influential than you're giving credit for.

I don't know what point that you're trying to make here. It's not like whites voting for Hillary automatically means that they aren't racist or believe in white supremacy. The very first feminists were racist white supremacists even tho they had their internal beef with white men. Both candidates represented white supremacy trump just represented a more extreme brand of white supremacy. This was a choice between stays quo white supremacy and white supremacy-super strength.

Thirdly, Trump ran on a platform to curve illegal immigration, I have never seen evidence that he is advocating for a permanent return to the immigration rules were Europe was prioritized over other countries, or that non-whites are simply banned. Which at this point he would need to do since current projections have whites becoming a minority in a decade or so. Still, even if he attempted, the president doesn't have unlimited power, a giant sub-set of the population wouldn't back such a change.

Well you sound like a white supremacist yourself. I don't expect you to acknowledge white racism unless you have no other choice meaning trump would have to come out and directly say "we're only going to allow whites to immigrate now" for you to acknowledge it. Trump's platform goes much farther than just cracking down on illegal immigrants already here. He's going to slow the immigration of non whites as a whole. He's already blocked the Syrian refugees.

Wake up and stop being stupid. To non white racist unbiased people of reasonable intelligence, trump's talk about building a wall to keep Mexicans out, kicking the the illegal Mexicans already here out, blocking Syrian refugees(mostly brown women and children), banning Muslims and putting them on a "watch list" is enough to read the writing on the wall. He ran on those "policies" and won, so it's stupid to talk about the sub-section that wouldn't back those changes when the sub-section cool with those kind of changes voted dude into office.

But either way you slice it, it doesn't hurt my argument, it hurts the professor's since he is the one claiming that this demographic change was intended by white supremacy in the first place.

More lies and deflections. This was not a debate about immigration. This was a debate about the existence of white supremacy and the role that it played in trump's win. The professors argument was that this has always been a white supremacist country and whites have now doubled down or reinvested in white supremacy by electing trump. Tucker's argument was that whites allowing non whites to immigrant in this country proves that this isn't a white supremacist nation. Stop trying to cloud the issue with bullshyt.

You're not even making sense. Whites allowed non white immigrants here as long as it didn't change the fact that whites are privileged over non whites, but now that whites feel threatened because they perceive non white power to be expanding at the expense of white power, they've decided that it's best to slow all of this non white immigration down. "Make America great again" is as a clear of a dog whistle as you're going to get.

You see, by claiming whites are feeling threatened by the growing influence of non whites, you are also admitting something about the functionality of WS since such a circumstance can only exist if allowed and intended by WS in the first place.

The fukk do you think that you're saying here? The professor acknowledged that whites allowed whites to immigrate here. Nobody disputes that. The allowance of non white immigrants does not negate the existence of white supremacy. That's a stupid argument that doesn't make a lick of sense.

There is no "exposing" to be done here. What retard was under the illusion that this wasn't the case beside the professor? You?

Apparently whites like you and Tucker are under some kind of illusion because you're the ones trying to argue that America isn't a white supremacist nation.

Naturalization act of 1790 limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of supposed good character. This was literally in the law for everybody to witness. Not hidden or invisible like how ppl describe "WS" today. And outside of that, the white population base stayed at 80% or more throughout majority of this countries history, so framing the racial representation of the past presidents as somehow unexpected is like looking at the history of china and be surprised that majority, if not all of their leaders are Chinese. That's what you expect to fukking find. Even IF this wasn't the case, the idea that the natural state of things would be either even representation or random representation when it comes to the presidency or any other field of human activity has never been true in the history of this species. Huge disparities have always been the norm, not the anomaly.

Obviously the point flew over your empty ass head. China is a communist country that makes it clear that it's a country for Chinese people. Amerikkka was founded on the principles of white supremacy yet it tries to mask itself as some all inclusive democracy where all races are treated equally under it's constitution. America is a lie and it always has been. So yea if you look at this country for what it truly is which is a nation built on the principles of white male supremacy, then of course it would make sense that 44/45 presidents have been white men. It's only when you hold America up to the light and judge it by what it claims to be which is an all inclusive democracy melting point where everybody's treated equal, that you start questioning why 44/45 presidents have been white men. It's not a coincidence that 44/45 of this country's presidents have been white men, it's been engineered this way through systematic mechanisms.

Again, just stop lying. This isn't an all inclusive democracy where all people are treated equally and protected from discrimination by the constitution. Whites need to stop lying to themselves and others. You're racist, own the shyt.

 

[Remote]

I wonder why 2 people decided to 1-star this thread.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Me too, I was out by Uconn the other day doing Ubers. No lie breh I was terrified up in that part of CT. All these woods and shyt, snakes and rednecks fukkin lurkin round. I didnt know who i was pickin up, luckily it was asians and chinese people.

When I got back to Hartford I felt much safer, northern Connecticut seems like breeding grounds for white supremacists

There are no rednecks in Storrs, CT, it's mostly upper middle class. You weren't there.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

Blah blah bullshyt. The isn't about the immigration act of 1965. This "debate" between Tucker and the professor is over the existence of white supremacy and the role that it played in trump being elected. The only relevance that the immigration act of '65 has here is that Tucker attempted to use it as evidence that this isn't a white supremacist nation. It's an astoundingly stupid simple argument that only other racist idiots would give credence to.

Crying that something you don't want to be true is stupid and throwing insults is not an argument.

No non white immigrant group has come to his country and been afforded equal treatment under the law in comparison to whites. Every non white immigrant group is subjected to racial discrimination due to their non white status.

What rule is currently being applied to non-white immigrants who gain citizenship that is not being implied to whites? And what rule are you referring to that allows whites to act on non-whites with impunity? Please post citations.

The point that you ignore remains. The perceived expansion of non white power at the expense of white power is why white amerikkka got together to elect a candidate who campaigned on closing the door to non white immigrants.

First, whites got together? I just went over this. A large subset of whites backed Hillary, unless you consider 40% insignificant. Also, more whites backed Romney than they did trump. This claim about how whites as a monolith backed one candidate isn't supported by the facts.

Second, i'm not ignoring anything. I haven't even made a claim regarding the reasoning behind trumps victory in any of my post. I'm claiming that if one accepts that WS intended for the demographic change in the first place, yet, they also accept the idea that the effect made by the change is costing whites more than benefiting them, then you have to question the theory of such a system all together, unless, you really think it makes sense that such a system intended to work against its prime objective.

Btw, can you please cite the policy being put forth that is calling for end of non-white immigration. And can you please cite where Trumped claimed he wants to limit legal immigration to only whites? I can't falsify untrue claims.

Now you're straight up lying which is not a surprise. You're following Tucker's logic not the professor. You're cosigning Tucker saying that the immigration act of '65 somehow proves that this isn't a white supremacist nation. The professor just basically said "uhhhhh no it doesn't".
.

How am I lying? The professor is the one that claimed the main objective of WS is to advance the interest of whites at the cost of non-whites. Tucker than questioned - if that's the case, than why did WS allow the immigration reform of the 1960s to go thru since it goes against the objective of said system. The professor explained that the change was intended because of a desire to have a non-white underclass that will work low-tier jobs(he cited no evidence for this explanation btw). He then went on to equate the situation to the importation of African slaves(which is nonsensical since slaves didn't have rights, let alone the ability to vote).

If i'm to follow said logic, than that means this system that has been operating successful for centuries thought that making the decision to expand the influence of non-whites economically and politically while doing the opposite to whites to be a desired effect.

I don't know what point that you're trying to make here.

I explained my logic clearly in the last post. The point is that a large subset of whites are not doing what you are implying. Also, you can take the observation even further. Since the group vote differently, why is it necessary for them to be a minority for one to claim that non-whites carry more of a influence? If non-whites were 15% larger(assuming they voted for Hillary) and you add in the 40% of whites that voted for Hillary, Trump would have easily lost.

Well you sound like a white supremacist yourself.
I don't expect you to acknowledge white racism unless you have no other choice meaning trump would have to come out and directly say "we're only going to allow whites to immigrate now" for you to acknowledge it.

>If you hold a different view than me, you're a X

not an argument.

I don't expect you to acknowledge white racism unless you have no other choice meaning trump would have to come out and directly say "we're only going to allow whites to immigrate now" for you to acknowledge it.

Are you actually being serious here or trolling? You seriously can't be saying that it would make more sense for one to assume another individual intent without any proof to instantiate it?

Apparently whites like you and Tucker are under some kind of illusion because you're the ones trying to argue that America isn't a white supremacist nation.

Oh no...you called me a name for not believing the same things that you do! Such an amazing argument!

btw, want to put your account on it?

Apparently whites like you and Tucker are under some kind of illusion because you're the ones trying to argue that America isn't a white supremacist nation.

Obviously the point flew over your empty ass head. China is a communist country that makes it clear that it's a country for Chinese people. Amerikkka was founded on the principles of white supremacy yet it tries to mask itself as some all inclusive democracy

"Naturalization act of 1790 limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of supposed good character. This was literally in the law for everybody to witness. Not hidden or invisible like how ppl describe "WS" today."

 

[Geek Nasty]

The blueprint on hwo you handle alt-right media. They're tyring to get you to have a "nikka moment" and go off. That's why they keep tossing out those insults. Moment you buck up you lost.

And Tucker Carlson. YOU? Forgot he was a dummy and tried to spar with Einstein

 

[CarbonBraddock]

Obviously the point flew over your empty ass head. China is a communist country that makes it clear that it's a country for Chinese people. Amerikkka was founded on the principles of white supremacy yet it tries to mask itself as some all inclusive democracy where all races are treated equally under it's constitution. America is a lie and it always has been. So yea if you look at this country for what it truly is which is a nation built on the principles of white male supremacy, then of course it would make sense that 44/45 presidents have been white men. It's only when you hold America up to the light and judge it by what it claims to be which is an all inclusive democracy melting point where everybody's treated equal, that you start questioning why 44/45 presidents have been white men. It's not a coincidence that 44/45 of this country's presidents have been white men, it's been engineered this way through systematic mechanisms.

Again, just stop lying. This isn't an all inclusive democracy where all people are treated equally and protected from discrimination by the constitution. Whites need to stop lying to themselves and others. You're racist, own the shyt.

:scusty:disgusting:funnyguy:

 

[joeychizzle]

It makes sense if you don't think about it.
Read some books. I wrote a few.:phewmayne:
I answered the question three times.:goddamnisaygoddamnmayne:
I get challenged with facts. You're not bringing facts.:bishopeddiemayne:

such calm ether. Bet his heart rate didn't even flicker.
this fakkit carlson on that heavy :teadrinkingcacmayne: but inside he be :whitetearsmayne: