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

[Gravity]

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

Highlighting one sentence of my argument just to make some sassy feminine remark doesn't refute what I said. The immigration act of 1965 did not negate the existence of white supremacy and only a racist idiot would even try to make that argument.

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.

I didn't say anything about rules or laws. I said that non white immigrants are subjected to racial discrimination. The rules of racism are not written anymore they're unwritten. You're attempting to make another simple racist argument implying that because racism isn't overtly written in the laws anymore that racism no longer exists. Again, this is an argument that only racist whites make.

The drug laws are not written to be racist but that doesn't stop the police in this country from applying the laws with racial bias. Whites and blacks sell/use illegal drugs at the same rates, yet blacks are charged 4x more than whites for illegal drug crimes. Blacks are also convicted at higher rates and given longer sentences for the same convictions. There's no laws that say that blacks should be targeted more and punished more harshly, so explain the racial discrepancy in the application of the laws.Blacks Are Singled Out for Marijuana Arrests, Federal Data Suggests

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.

Your arguments are weak and unintelligent. Just repeating them over and over doesn't make them any less unintelligent. I haven't said or implied that all whites voted for trump. I've acknowledged that whites are the reason that trump was elected. Whites are the only race where the majority voted for trump. The majority of blacks, Asians, and so called Latinos voted for Clinton. If it were up to anyone but whites Clinton would be president. Regardless of what the percentages were(only 37% of whites voted for Clinton not 40%), whites are the reason that trump is president.

Again tho, you're just trying to cloud the issue. The debate is whether this is a white supremacist nation and the role that white supremacy played in trump's win. Trump ran on a platform of white supremacy and that's why the clear majority of whites voted for him. That doesn't mean that the whites who didn't vote for him aren't white supremacists either. Clinton represents white supremacy as well but trump represents a more open a direct Brandon white supremacy and that's what whites want right now.

Second, i'm not ignoring anything. I haven't even made a claim regarding the reasoning behind trumps victory in any of my post.

This is because you're a coward which most white supremacists are. It's exactly like I said. Amerikkka is and always has been a lie. You whites are racist and you know that you're racist but instead of just honest and admitting It you play this game where you act oblivious. "I never came out and directly said that I'm racist so how do you know that I'm racist".

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.

More lies. Immigration has not hurt whites more than it has helped whites. The professor didn't even agree to or accept that. The professor's point was that whites allowed non whites to immigrate here because it benefitted whites. You just told a bold faced lie with no shame

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.

Trump is building a wall to keep Mexicans out, making plans to deport the Mexicans here, talking about banning Muslims, blocking Syrian refugees, ect and your response to that is "well he hasn't put a policy forth that says no more non white immigrants" Who do whites/c00ns think that you're fooling with this shyt? The writing is on the wall, you're just pretending to be too stupid to read.

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 bolded is how you're lying. Immigration has not gone against the advancement of the interests of whites. You nor Tucker can prove that it has.

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).

Wheres your evidence? Tucker didn't give any evidence to support his claims and neither have you.

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).

The point was that whites allowing or even bringing non whites into the country doesn't negate the fact that this is a white supremacist nation.

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.

You don't seem to posses the intelligence to follow simple logic. Whites are still much more powerful than non whites in this country, but the perception that whites are losing power to non whites in this country is causing whites to push back which has resulted in "make Amerikkka great again" and trump.

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.

I haven't implied anything. This is a white supremacist nation. Trump ran on a platform of white supremacy and the only reason that he won the election is because of support from whites. Those aren't implications they're facts.

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

not an argument.

I didn't say that. I said that whites like you who only acknowledge racism that's completely overt are suspected racists themselves. That's a perfectly valid position to take. The argument for trump being anti non white immigrant is very strong. You dismissing the argument saying "show me the policy that says he will only allow white immigrants" is not an argument. That's you playing stupid which isn't much of a stretch because you clearly lack intelligence in the first place.

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?

There are several instances that "instantiate" that trump is anti non white immigrant. I've given you several. He's building a wall to keep Mexicans out, he's talking about kicking the Mexicans already here out, he's talking about banning Muslims, and he's blocking the Syrian refugees. Those are examples that "instantiate" the claim/theory that trump is anti non white immigrant. Dummy.

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?

You can keep dumbing this down to a difference of opinion but that's just a testament to your dishonesty and cowardliness. You don't even have the courage to take a position which is why you keep trying to cloud the issue. I'm just calling you out on your deflections. People who deflect from white supremacy are usually white supremacists themselves. You could be some kind of non white c00n but that's a still a white supremacist.

"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."

Ok and? What's the point? That because the rules of white supremacy and covert and unwritten that they don't exist? Your cowardliness and refusal to come out and directly say that you don't believe that this is a white supremacist nation proves my point. White supremacy hasn't gone anywhere whites have just stopped admitting that their racist. Just because whites don't admit that they're racist while pretending that they aren't, doesn't change the fact that they're racist.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

Highlighting one sentence of my argument just to make some sassy feminine remark doesn't refute what I said. The immigration act of 1965 did not negate the existence of white supremacy

First, you have never made an argument. That's the problem, you keep asserting that my take on the issue is false and throwing insults, while refusing to show your work and demonstrate how that is the case.

second, For the 100th time, If the bolded part is the case:

- then one has to accept the conclusion that this system is working against its own objective since the effect produced by the act has increased the influence of non-whites politically and economically, that's a fact. But drawing such a conclusion makes no sense to what others are claiming.

Also, one can only form a rebuttal against the claim of a WS system overruling society by poking holes in the logic of the argument since an empirical debate won't suffice due to the proponents of its existence claiming that the system in its current iteration is functioning in secret so direct evidence of its existence isn't available. Instead, all evidence for its existence boils down to disparity statistics solely between whites and blacks, anecdotes, and flawed presumptions of how they *think* the real world works. Tbh, the burden of proof is not on me, it never was.

Imo, the best argument against the idea that society is currently being controlled by a system that's entire intent rest on advancing the self-interest of whites while subjugating non-whites is to just look at the transformation of western society/culture from 500 or so years ago in the past to the present. When you do that, the entire premise makes no fukking sense.

At one point in time, Europeans had managed to completely conquer and colonize half of the damn planet, and in those places they had laws and rules in place restricting the power of non-whites while still exploiting them for their own self-interest. They had achieved complete white over rule. Today, western society bares practically no resemblance. It has gone in the opposite direction.

All the European colonial power has been reduced by 100%. Large subsets of non-whites have risen to great success in Europe and America. In some instances, specifically America, Asian and Jews have managed to overcome Whites, socioeconomically speaking. And the demographic changes in America, UK, Sweden, and Europe in generally have produce a completely different racial population make up from what is was in the past.

Am I really being unreasonable here? Am I really the one not making any sort of sense? Am I the one that's being blind and bias? Is there really no argument on the contrary to be made, at all? How am I logically suppose to reconcile all these facts that have resulted in opposite of what others are claiming then? The degree of influence, dominance, and power have not expanded or stayed the same in these last 100 of years, yet i'm suppose to pretend that it all means nothing? Really? That is what you honestly request of me? NO! That's all information, its telling you SOMETHING.

I didn't say anything about rules or laws. I said that non white immigrants are subjected to racial discrimination. The rules of racism are not written anymore they're unwritten. You're attempting to make another simple racist argument implying that because racism isn't overtly written in the laws anymore that racism no longer exists. Again, this is an argument that only racist whites make.

wtf are you talking about lol. The requirement of proof to verify the validity of something is...well, the only way you can verify the validity of something. Unless you trying to say rational discourse is limited to whites? Yet i'm the racist, fukking kek.

And stop attempting to strawman my positions. I have never claimed *racism* doesn't exist. You claimed "afforded equal treatment under the law in comparison to whites", I requested you provide the evidence. I was very specific. You can't just throw an ad-hom at me every time I ask you to prove your assertions, wtf.

The drug laws are not written to be racist but that doesn't stop the police in this country from applying the laws with racial bias. Whites and blacks sell/use illegal drugs at the same rates, yet blacks are charged 4x more than whites for illegal drug crimes. Blacks are also convicted at higher rates and given longer sentences for the same convictions. There's no laws that say that blacks should be targeted more and punished more harshly, so explain the racial discrepancy in the application of the laws.Blacks Are Singled Out for Marijuana Arrests, Federal Data Suggests

good ol *disparity statistics* fallacy

These arguments always fascinate me for a couple of reasons, mainly because the ppl who make them always ask the wrong question. They keep asking why doesn't X have the same outcome of Y, when the question to be asked is why should we expect X to have the same outcome as Y when the inputs that decide output for both X and Y were completely different.

This bizarre presumption that we should naturally expect to find evenness and when we don't it must mean human interference is at the root cause, despite no where in history of man can anybody cite this evenness among groups that you and others assume to the norm, all we ever find is the opposite. The disparities are the norm.

Another reason why find these arguments entertaining is that ppl seem to always isolate the races to just black and white, especially when it comes to crime stats. Once Asians and Hispanics are included with Whites and Blacks (or male vs women, or old vs young), the whole argument begins to collapse. None of these groups have even outcomes, in any field. Whites in particular are not even the lowest when it comes to crime outcomes, yet, it never stops ppl from questioning their theory of bias being the culprit. Its truly an astonishing phenomenon imo.

If you want to know how I would account for the disparity, simply put, gather up all the relevant variables that determine outcome in this instance and demonstrate to me that they are all exactly the same for all groups.

I haven't said or implied that all whites voted for trump.

>whites just came together and put an open white supremacist in office
>The perceived expansion of non white power at the expense of white power is why white amerikkka got together to elect a candidate

Yeah, you totally didn't imply it...fgt.

This is because you're a coward which most white supremacists are. It's exactly like I said.

Not at all. I didn't mention my stance on the reasoning behind trumps presidency because it wasn't relevant to my original post itt. You're the one injecting its relevancy as way to bait me to arguing something you think you can win at. Its shytty attempt at moving the goal post. I specifically identified my subject of focus in my original post. Outside of the president point, I identified and honed in on 3 axioms made by the professor -

1) The purpose of WS as a system is to advance whites at the cost of non-whites
2) its exist to this day
3) effects of the 1960 immigration reform were intended by said system.

My entire goal was to illustrate that this system by carrying out 3, is conflicting with its main priority in 1, and if all is true, the system is doing the opposite of its core objective. Conclusion being this make no sense, and that the more likely explanation is that 2 is false using this line of logic of exclusively, unless i'm suppose to believe this system is suppose to be an ineffective one. Yet, the professor and the proponents express the opposite.

Really...all the logic is very clear and cut.

Immigration has not hurt whites more than it has helped whites.

I noticed that you made no attempt to actually demonstrate your assertion here with any sort contrast, logic, or evidence. You see, that's a called a "NOT AN ARGUMENT".

I didn't say that. I said that whites like you who only acknowledge racism that's completely overt are suspected racists themselves. That's a perfectly valid position to take. The argument for trump being anti non white immigrant is very strong. You dismissing the argument saying "show me the policy that says he will only allow white immigrants" is not an argument. That's you playing stupid which isn't much of a stretch because you clearly lack intelligence in the first place.

I'm not dismissing the argument, i'm just asking for proof to evaluate the arguments validity. I don't know any other way one can approach testing the truth value of a claim rationally without hard evidence derived from reality. I literally can't believe with a straight face that you are berating my intelligence for doing what every sensible and reasonable human does in rational discourse. I'm sorry, but i'm not going to drop the requirement of evidence when it comes to believing something. I am an empiricist, take it or leave it.

There are several instances that "instantiate" that trump is anti non white immigrant. I've given you several. He's building a wall to keep Mexicans out, he's talking about kicking the Mexicans already here out, he's talking about banning Muslims, and he's blocking the Syrian refugees. Those are examples that "instantiate" the claim/theory that trump is anti non white immigrant. Dummy.

Non of what you just cited is evidence to reasonable determine that his stance on *legal* immigration is anti non-white. And in some of the cases you purposely leave out the examples are referring to illegal immigration. Also, Muslim is not a race.

Look, to satisfy the proposition made here, reasonably, you need provide hard evidence of his intent, not guesswork derived from bias speculation.

You can keep dumbing this down to a difference of opinion but that's just a testament to your dishonesty and cowardliness. You don't even have the courage to take a position which is why you keep trying to cloud the issue. I'm just calling you out on your deflections. People who deflect from white supremacy are usually white supremacists themselves. You could be some kind of non white c00n but that's a still a white supremacist.

wtf are you even talking about.

You could be some kind of non white c00n but that's a still a white supremacist.

Oh, you're just trying to evade that perma ban challenge regarding my race. I knew you were p*ssy lol.

Ok and? What's the point?
White supremacy hasn't gone anywhere whites have just stopped admitting that their racist.

What do you mean what's the point? You just went on a giant tirade where you took a quote from the independence of declaration out of the context of time to make the argument that America/western society at its inception believed in concept of racial equality, but, it was really facade of sorts. You did all this to somehow negate my point regarding China and the racial make up of past presidents.

The passage I cited in response was meant to dismantle your entire claim, which I shouldn't even had to do in the first place since it should be obvious that "for the ppl" or "all men" did not refer to Native Americans and Blacks, especially at that time. Even when the constitution was crafted after the declaration, they detailed and defined blacks as something separate from whites. This is all common knowledge. The United States of America was founded as a country intended for white people, specifically WASPs, overtime that evolved to groups in Europe, in general. Then Asians, Jews, and etc. But make no mistake, there has never been any confusion by any historian or anybody with basic knowledge of history that majority of this countries history wasn't a White republic. You and that professor are the only ones who are ignorant of this for some unexplained reason.

White supremacy hasn't gone anywhere whites have just stopped admitting that their racist.

Yeah, you're right. Nothing has literally change at all in the last 500 years within western society. All human activities/outcomes/fields are exactly identical to the 1700s, all thru out western society. Amazing how WS has kept non-whites in the exact same state in all these centuries.

 

[Gravity]

First, you have never made an argument. That's the problem, you keep asserting that my take on the issue is false and throwing insults, while refusing to show your work and demonstrate how that is the case.

I've made plenty of arguments you're just too slow to comprehend. Your take on the issue is that this isn't a white supremacist nation and that the immigration act of '65 proves that it's not a white supremacist nation. The argument/position alone is too stupid to even take seriously which is why I'm insulting you. I don't even think that you believe your own bullshyt. You're trolling, playing a game of denial where you pretend that racism has to be completely overt and transparent or it doesn't exist. This is the game that most whites have been playing as a collective since around '65 when overt Jim Crow ended. As if white supremacy instantly ended when the "colored only/no ******s allowed" signs came down.

second, For the 100th time, If the bolded part is the case:

- then one has to accept the conclusion that this system is working against its own objective since the effect produced by the act has increased the influence of non-whites politically and economically, that's a fact. But drawing such a conclusion makes no sense to what others are claiming.

No, one doesn't have to accept that conclusion because the conclusion is not true. You can repeat that lie 1,000,000 times and it still won't be true. The power that non whites have in this country isn't comparable to white power. The purpose of white supremacy is to keep the white race supreme over non white races and immigration has done nothing to change that status quo which is why whites have allowed it up until now. The fact that whites have now changed their tune on non white immigration due to the perception that non whites are gaining in power at the expense of white power only proves my point. Whites are still supreme in this society with total control over non whites but they are starting to feel like their supremacy could be threatened In the future so they elected trump, the candidate who ran on reinvesting in white supremacy to "make amerikkka great again". That slogan literally means to return this country to what it was before the civil rights bill and immigration act when white supremacy was overt and out in the open.

That alone refutes your position. I'm not even going to bother to read the rest because you're just stringing words together incoherently babbling in effort to deflect and cloud the issue.

 

[JLova]

"Make America White Again" that's exactly what I been saying. Trump is speaking to white people with that slogan.

 

[FruitOfTheVale]

Tucker got shytted on at least 5 separate times

 

[JLova]

"That makes sense if you don't think about it"

I need to use this offline. Tucker showing you how white people think....

 

[JLova]

Tariq is not a professor and has no formal education. I like Tariq from what ive seen from him, but he is not polished and he relies too much on platitudes. This man brought nuance and facts and ate up the purposely obtuse cac with little effort or exertion. Tariq is a self taught documentary filmaker/social media activist this guy is an academic with a PHD in what the hell is talking about. Light work for him against a hack like Carlson. Big difference.

What's funny is Carson tried to challenge him and tried to make his guest feel dumb. Guest gave him that work in the first 30 seconds. Turfed that fool.

 

[OG Talk]

I need to use this offline.....

I'm definitely introducing that into my day to day conversation. It's appropriate at so many times.

 

[Columbo]

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

Check out the surrounding towns like Coventry and shyt, I was on roads that were going straight through the woods breh

Rednecks be spendin alotta time in the woods, and in swamps too. Fuilthy cacs