Championship Drive Show

[404Usernamenotfound]

There's a huge difference in which generations you talk about in regards to cord cutting. Baby boomers and Gen X'ers are way less likely to cord cut than Millennials.

This is a good point.

Old conservative man: "People are cord-cutting because of ESPN's politics!"

Yet Millennials are the largest cord-cutting cohort and they're largely liberal.

It's all about their agenda.

You make way too many assumptions about almost everything you pretend to know about but then argue with others that do the same. Go away.

 

[404Usernamenotfound]

[MENTION=17368]Doppelganger[/MENTION], you just want to engage in political stereotyping.

You’re talking about sides, I’m talking about you marginalizing an entire political movement, conservatism, as vile. Which you clearly did.

It’s clear to me you don’t understand the actual principles of conservatism, liberalism, libertarians, etc, and all the variants, and would rather shout about your particular viewpoint and marginalize any other viewpoint, rather than engage in thoughtful discussion.

Stupid me. For a second, I thought a thoughtful discussion would ensue. But it’s a big mistake on my part.

This thread needs to die a merciful death.

If I were a mod, I’d lock this motherfūcker post haste.

Bro don’t you know? Anyone with a right leaning ideology is racist, sexist, and vile. You can’t possibly disagree.


The msm has already won.

 

[CaneFan79]

[video=youtube;0SP4DMIRjm4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SP4DMIRjm4[/video]

[video]http://www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/18145151[/video]

You decide about the plastic surgery...Sure looks like an clean-up on aisle Dinich.

 

[Swampcity]

Shes a great example of why espn is loaing viewers. Shes an idiot but espn has to meet their social justice quotas

Has there ever been a woman in sports media that you and others haven't despised?

Maybe it says something about you and not them.

BOOYAH!!

 

[Hurricanemike32]

So Jemele Hill isn't an anchor on Sportscenter? That would be news to her and her employers.

Her entire career at ESPN was as an opinion person.

ESPN tried something different on Sportscenter and it's failing.

Every fact seems to be news to you.

Again you don't seem to want to deal with the facts of the discussion. Follow along I will go slowly for you so can follow along...

Linda Cohn was an anchor at ESPN when she made her comments. Fact

Jemele Hill was an anchor at ESPN when she made her comments. Fact

Linda Cohn was suspended for months for the comments that she made. Fact

Jemele Hill was NOT suspended at all for the comments that she made. Fact

Whether or not Jemele Hill used to be an opinion person on the network in the past has no bearing on this discussion because she is NOW an anchor and was at the time of her comments. Apparently ESPN has a separate set of rules for their opinion people than they do for their anchors. The day that Jemele Hill was made an anchor than the rules for her changed....or at least they should have. What would your viewpoint have been had the roles been reversed and Jemele Hill was suspended for her comments? I am guessing that you wouldn't have dismissed them the way you are now for Cohn. That is, at its core, hypocrisy.

You can try to twist the facts any way that you want but it still doesn't change what they are which is indeed fact. It seems odd to me that you being the social superhero that you seem to want to be that you wouldn't be arguing on the side of Cohn in this discussion since she is the one who got the short end of the stick. Maybe it has something to do with the color of her skin.

Again you can always tell when someone's argument starts to crumble. They resort to insults and name calling rather than falling back on the basis of their argument. Liberalism at it's best.

Feel free to comment with the same baseless arguments and snide comments in response to this. You can go on continuing to feel like you have won the debate and I will go on knowing that I did. When you deal in facts it is easy to do just that.

Just out of curiosity, are you a Miami fan?

Jemele was suspended

You should have read the entire conversation prior to commenting. Jemele Hill was suspended for suggesting that people should boycott the companies that sponsor the Dallas Cowboys. The Dallas Cowboys are a team in the NFL which happens to be a pretty large business partner with Jemele Hill's employer ESPN. It also turns out that ESPN makes quite a bit of money selling advertising packages to the very same people who sponsor the Dallas Cowboys and the NFL. You should be able to connect the dots and see why her suggestion that people boycott these corporate sponsors would be problematic for her employer ESPN.

I was referring to the inflammatory political comment that she put on twitter that did not garner her a suspension. I am not of the opinion that she should not have been suspended for that, however when you look at the extended suspension of Linda Cohn for doing the same thing it should raise some red flags about the hypocrisy of ESPN when it comes the political views of its employees. At least it should for someone that doesn't have a political agenda.

 

[Tit-e-skr]

So Jemele Hill isn't an anchor on Sportscenter? That would be news to her and her employers.

Her entire career at ESPN was as an opinion person.

ESPN tried something different on Sportscenter and it's failing.

Every fact seems to be news to you.

Again you don't seem to want to deal with the facts of the discussion. Follow along I will go slowly for you so can follow along...

Linda Cohn was an anchor at ESPN when she made her comments. Fact

Jemele Hill was an anchor at ESPN when she made her comments. Fact

Linda Cohn was suspended for months for the comments that she made. Fact

Jemele Hill was NOT suspended at all for the comments that she made. Fact

Whether or not Jemele Hill used to be an opinion person on the network in the past has no bearing on this discussion because she is NOW an anchor and was at the time of her comments. Apparently ESPN has a separate set of rules for their opinion people than they do for their anchors. The day that Jemele Hill was made an anchor than the rules for her changed....or at least they should have. What would your viewpoint have been had the roles been reversed and Jemele Hill was suspended for her comments? I am guessing that you wouldn't have dismissed them the way you are now for Cohn. That is, at its core, hypocrisy.

You can try to twist the facts any way that you want but it still doesn't change what they are which is indeed fact. It seems odd to me that you being the social superhero that you seem to want to be that you wouldn't be arguing on the side of Cohn in this discussion since she is the one who got the short end of the stick. Maybe it has something to do with the color of her skin.

Again you can always tell when someone's argument starts to crumble. They resort to insults and name calling rather than falling back on the basis of their argument. Liberalism at it's best.

Feel free to comment with the same baseless arguments and snide comments in response to this. You can go on continuing to feel like you have won the debate and I will go on knowing that I did. When you deal in facts it is easy to do just that.

Just out of curiosity, are you a Miami fan?

Jemele was suspended

You should have read the entire conversation prior to commenting. Jemele Hill was suspended for suggesting that people should boycott the companies that sponsor the Dallas Cowboys. The Dallas Cowboys are a team in the NFL which happens to be a pretty large business partner with Jemele Hill's employer ESPN. It also turns out that ESPN makes quite a bit of money selling advertising packages to the very same people who sponsor the Dallas Cowboys and the NFL. You should be able to connect the dots and see why her suggestion that people boycott these corporate sponsors would be problematic for her employer ESPN.

I was referring to the inflammatory political comment that she put on twitter that did not garner her a suspension. I am not of the opinion that she should not have been suspended for that, however when you look at the extended suspension of Linda Cohn for doing the same thing it should raise some red flags about the hypocrisy of ESPN when it comes the political views of its employees. At least it should for someone that doesn't have a political agenda.

The black militant female on ESPN will always win out over the conservative white female at ESPN, no matter the situation or disparity in talent level.

 

[GenericYesMan]

Many black members of the armed forces, who fought and died for our country, disagreed with the protests as well, so does that make them white supremacists, too, because they were frustrated?

Turning the issue into one about the military was complete and utter subject-changing meant to rile up Trump's most ardent supporters.

Kneeling during the anthem has absolutely nothing to do with the military. Men in white wigs did as much for our freedom as any current member of the armed forces. Did the protests disrespect 18th century politicians, too?

You stepped in it here.

Scenario: I am a professor at a large university and I decide to to do a special lecture on a research effort I recently completed, one I feel will have currency in today's climate and may even tweak the president. My lecture is titled: "The Benefits of Non-Indegenous People Coming to the US in the 18th and 19th Centuries." My intent is to show anti-immigration activists just how ignorant their positions are and my lecture, which focuses on European and Middle-Eastern migrants coming to the US and growing it's standard of living, is mostly well received...That is until the black student union rightly shows indignation at a group of "non-indigenous" who certainly grew the economy, but were taken by force. They demand the university sanction me, as they have been offended by my lack of sensitivity to the plight of their ancestors. The University censures me and I do not stage the lecture again.

Remember, my INTENT was to promote the benefits of people coming to the United States from the rest of the world, a noble cause some would say; however, no matter my INTENT, I succeeded in offending people who had a different interpretation of what I was talking about.

As a veteran, I can tell you it's the same situation...No matter the players INTENT, it IS perceived as offensive.

Man who knew vets were such snowflakes? Didn't think you guys would be so offended by American citizens practicing their first amendment rights.

 

[QuattroCane]

Many black members of the armed forces, who fought and died for our country, disagreed with the protests as well, so does that make them white supremacists, too, because they were frustrated?

Turning the issue into one about the military was complete and utter subject-changing meant to rile up Trump's most ardent supporters.

Kneeling during the anthem has absolutely nothing to do with the military. Men in white wigs did as much for our freedom as any current member of the armed forces. Did the protests disrespect 18th century politicians, too?

You stepped in it here.

Scenario: I am a professor at a large university and I decide to to do a special lecture on a research effort I recently completed, one I feel will have currency in today's climate and may even tweak the president. My lecture is titled: "The Benefits of Non-Indegenous People Coming to the US in the 18th and 19th Centuries." My intent is to show anti-immigration activists just how ignorant their positions are and my lecture, which focuses on European and Middle-Eastern migrants coming to the US and growing it's standard of living, is mostly well received...That is until the black student union rightly shows indignation at a group of "non-indigenous" who certainly grew the economy, but were taken by force. They demand the university sanction me, as they have been offended by my lack of sensitivity to the plight of their ancestors. The University censures me and I do not stage the lecture again.

Remember, my INTENT was to promote the benefits of people coming to the United States from the rest of the world, a noble cause some would say; however, no matter my INTENT, I succeeded in offending people who had a different interpretation of what I was talking about.

As a veteran, I can tell you it's the same situation...No matter the players INTENT, it IS perceived as offensive.

Man who knew vets were such snowflakes? Didn't think you guys would be so offended by American citizens practicing their first amendment rights.

What a straw man response.

 

[GenericYesMan]

Many black members of the armed forces, who fought and died for our country, disagreed with the protests as well, so does that make them white supremacists, too, because they were frustrated?

Turning the issue into one about the military was complete and utter subject-changing meant to rile up Trump's most ardent supporters.

Kneeling during the anthem has absolutely nothing to do with the military. Men in white wigs did as much for our freedom as any current member of the armed forces. Did the protests disrespect 18th century politicians, too?

You stepped in it here.

Scenario: I am a professor at a large university and I decide to to do a special lecture on a research effort I recently completed, one I feel will have currency in today's climate and may even tweak the president. My lecture is titled: "The Benefits of Non-Indegenous People Coming to the US in the 18th and 19th Centuries." My intent is to show anti-immigration activists just how ignorant their positions are and my lecture, which focuses on European and Middle-Eastern migrants coming to the US and growing it's standard of living, is mostly well received...That is until the black student union rightly shows indignation at a group of "non-indigenous" who certainly grew the economy, but were taken by force. They demand the university sanction me, as they have been offended by my lack of sensitivity to the plight of their ancestors. The University censures me and I do not stage the lecture again.

Remember, my INTENT was to promote the benefits of people coming to the United States from the rest of the world, a noble cause some would say; however, no matter my INTENT, I succeeded in offending people who had a different interpretation of what I was talking about.

As a veteran, I can tell you it's the same situation...No matter the players INTENT, it IS perceived as offensive.

Man who knew vets were such snowflakes? Didn't think you guys would be so offended by American citizens practicing their first amendment rights.

What a straw man response.

LOL the argument that players shouldn't protest because it could be perceived as offensive to like 5% of the population was the straw man to begin with.

 

[Ispyin]

This thread ain’t gonna end well....

 

[QuattroCane]

Turning the issue into one about the military was complete and utter subject-changing meant to rile up Trump's most ardent supporters.

Kneeling during the anthem has absolutely nothing to do with the military. Men in white wigs did as much for our freedom as any current member of the armed forces. Did the protests disrespect 18th century politicians, too?

You stepped in it here.

Scenario: I am a professor at a large university and I decide to to do a special lecture on a research effort I recently completed, one I feel will have currency in today's climate and may even tweak the president. My lecture is titled: "The Benefits of Non-Indegenous People Coming to the US in the 18th and 19th Centuries." My intent is to show anti-immigration activists just how ignorant their positions are and my lecture, which focuses on European and Middle-Eastern migrants coming to the US and growing it's standard of living, is mostly well received...That is until the black student union rightly shows indignation at a group of "non-indigenous" who certainly grew the economy, but were taken by force. They demand the university sanction me, as they have been offended by my lack of sensitivity to the plight of their ancestors. The University censures me and I do not stage the lecture again.

Remember, my INTENT was to promote the benefits of people coming to the United States from the rest of the world, a noble cause some would say; however, no matter my INTENT, I succeeded in offending people who had a different interpretation of what I was talking about.

As a veteran, I can tell you it's the same situation...No matter the players INTENT, it IS perceived as offensive.

Man who knew vets were such snowflakes? Didn't think you guys would be so offended by American citizens practicing their first amendment rights.

What a straw man response.

LOL the argument that players shouldn't protest because it could be perceived as offensive to like 5% of the population was the straw man to begin with.

Which is kinda ironic because the percentage you use would represent about 17 million people being offended vs a few hundred showing their disrespect.

 

[GenericYesMan]

You stepped in it here.

Scenario: I am a professor at a large university and I decide to to do a special lecture on a research effort I recently completed, one I feel will have currency in today's climate and may even tweak the president. My lecture is titled: "The Benefits of Non-Indegenous People Coming to the US in the 18th and 19th Centuries." My intent is to show anti-immigration activists just how ignorant their positions are and my lecture, which focuses on European and Middle-Eastern migrants coming to the US and growing it's standard of living, is mostly well received...That is until the black student union rightly shows indignation at a group of "non-indigenous" who certainly grew the economy, but were taken by force. They demand the university sanction me, as they have been offended by my lack of sensitivity to the plight of their ancestors. The University censures me and I do not stage the lecture again.

Remember, my INTENT was to promote the benefits of people coming to the United States from the rest of the world, a noble cause some would say; however, no matter my INTENT, I succeeded in offending people who had a different interpretation of what I was talking about.

As a veteran, I can tell you it's the same situation...No matter the players INTENT, it IS perceived as offensive.

Man who knew vets were such snowflakes? Didn't think you guys would be so offended by American citizens practicing their first amendment rights.

What a straw man response.

LOL the argument that players shouldn't protest because it could be perceived as offensive to like 5% of the population was the straw man to begin with.

Which is kinda ironic because the percentage you use would represent about 17 million people being offended vs a few hundred showing their disrespect.

>Using your first amendment rights to participate in a non violent protest
>Disrespect

Pick only one kiddo

 

[Captain Uberpants]

I remember when espn would actually show what happened in the games and bring in experts to dissect what happened. I used to learn when I watched espn.

Now it seems to be 1 highlight and a random collection of "journalists" trying to talk over each other about something that has nothing to do with what happened between the lines.

You can talk about cord cutting and politics (which has a lot to do with it as well) but espn has made some pretty bad choices when it comes to what their programming is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harry Heinous]

[video=youtube;0SP4DMIRjm4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SP4DMIRjm4[/video]

[video]http://www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/18145151[/video]

You decide about the plastic surgery...Sure looks like an clean-up on aisle Dinich.

 

[thisismyusername]

So Jemele Hill isn't an anchor on Sportscenter? That would be news to her and her employers.

Her entire career at ESPN was as an opinion person.

ESPN tried something different on Sportscenter and it's failing.

Every fact seems to be news to you.

Again you don't seem to want to deal with the facts of the discussion. Follow along I will go slowly for you so can follow along...

Linda Cohn was an anchor at ESPN when she made her comments. Fact

Jemele Hill was an anchor at ESPN when she made her comments. Fact

Linda Cohn was suspended for months for the comments that she made. Fact

Jemele Hill was NOT suspended at all for the comments that she made. Fact

Whether or not Jemele Hill used to be an opinion person on the network in the past has no bearing on this discussion because she is NOW an anchor and was at the time of her comments. Apparently ESPN has a separate set of rules for their opinion people than they do for their anchors. The day that Jemele Hill was made an anchor than the rules for her changed....or at least they should have. What would your viewpoint have been had the roles been reversed and Jemele Hill was suspended for her comments? I am guessing that you wouldn't have dismissed them the way you are now for Cohn. That is, at its core, hypocrisy.

You can try to twist the facts any way that you want but it still doesn't change what they are which is indeed fact. It seems odd to me that you being the social superhero that you seem to want to be that you wouldn't be arguing on the side of Cohn in this discussion since she is the one who got the short end of the stick. Maybe it has something to do with the color of her skin.

Again you can always tell when someone's argument starts to crumble. They resort to insults and name calling rather than falling back on the basis of their argument. Liberalism at it's best.

Feel free to comment with the same baseless arguments and snide comments in response to this. You can go on continuing to feel like you have won the debate and I will go on knowing that I did. When you deal in facts it is easy to do just that.

Just out of curiosity, are you a Miami fan?

Jemele was suspended

You should have read the entire conversation prior to commenting. Jemele Hill was suspended for suggesting that people should boycott the companies that sponsor the Dallas Cowboys. The Dallas Cowboys are a team in the NFL which happens to be a pretty large business partner with Jemele Hill's employer ESPN. It also turns out that ESPN makes quite a bit of money selling advertising packages to the very same people who sponsor the Dallas Cowboys and the NFL. You should be able to connect the dots and see why her suggestion that people boycott these corporate sponsors would be problematic for her employer ESPN.

I was referring to the inflammatory political comment that she put on twitter that did not garner her a suspension. I am not of the opinion that she should not have been suspended for that, however when you look at the extended suspension of Linda Cohn for doing the same thing it should raise some red flags about the hypocrisy of ESPN when it comes the political views of its employees. At least it should for someone that doesn't have a political agenda.

This is untrue, Jemele Hill was suspended for ignoring the company's social media policy. She had one strike with the white supremecist comments and then they had to suspend her after the boycott tweet, especially because it was against a team's sponsors in a sport that gives ESPN millions of dollars. Cohn was suspended, not for necessarily what she said but because she was theorizing about ESPN's viewership in public. You can read up on that on this Business Insider article:

Linda Cohn ESPN punishment doesn't mesh with Jemele Hill's - Business Insider

 

[Loose Cannon]

What honesty are you taking about?

That liberals err towards inclusion and conservatives err towards exclusion.

Really? Then tell me why it's liberals who divide people up into identity groups deserving of different privileges, rule sets, admission standards, job requirements, and so on? Is it conservatives who push for racial quotas? Are conservatives on fighting on the front lines against cultural appropriation?

What liberals mislabel as inclusion is simply exclusion based on identity. Conservatives are inclusive based on ability. Conservatives understand Einstein's axiom, "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." Liberals would push to enact policy requiring the removal of all trees because fish can't climb and call it equality.

 

[Tetragrammaton Cane]

What honesty are you taking about?

That liberals err towards inclusion and conservatives err towards exclusion.

Really? Then tell me why it's liberals who divide people up into identity groups deserving of different privileges, rule sets, admission standards, job requirements, and so on? Is it conservatives who push for racial quotas? Are conservatives on fighting on the front lines against cultural appropriation?

What liberals mislabel as inclusion is simply exclusion based on identity. Conservatives are inclusive based on ability. Conservatives understand Einstein's axiom, "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." Liberals would push to enact policy requiring the removal of all trees because fish can't climb and call it equality.

Loose Cannon, you’re better than that. Identity politics has been played by the right/conservatives/republicans for the last 40 years too.

- campaigns beginning in Philadelphia, MS
- religious litmus tests
- “conservative” litmus tests
- gun rights litmus tests
- Real America is flyover country/Rural/Mountain America
- Science vs dumb **** (forget climate change for a second, man and dinosaurs didn’t coexist)
- education vs non education

Thats just a few and even conservatives and Republicans have spoken out about what the party blatantly is now. Or isn’t. The right, not too different than the far left, seems more interested in branding and name calling. Snowflake? Really? It’s like Luntz hands them a word and everyone MUST say it to make it “a thing”. His “tends to be...” argument is accurate, even if it’s seemingly a little heavy handed for those who would like to regulate the amount of change America should have.

This becomes a circular argument, but ultimately everyone retreats to their corner when there are some obvious wrongs they won’t admit to.

ESPN hired Limbaugh; they knew what he was and what he was going to do. They’d never bring on a Farrakhan into the same role. NEVER. ESPN nearly fired SAS and Korneiser was also suspended (interesting to see him weighing in on Cam Newton). But the “new issue” is Cohn/Hill. Can some see hypocrisy in the two punishments? Yes. Are they different? To me (note the distinction), Yes. Why? Cohn criticized her employer. Whitlock criticized his employer (in addition to colleagues) - the first time. Second time was a hatchet job by I think buzzfeed.

 

[Loose Cannon]

What honesty are you taking about?

That liberals err towards inclusion and conservatives err towards exclusion.

Really? Then tell me why it's liberals who divide people up into identity groups deserving of different privileges, rule sets, admission standards, job requirements, and so on? Is it conservatives who push for racial quotas? Are conservatives on fighting on the front lines against cultural appropriation?

What liberals mislabel as inclusion is simply exclusion based on identity. Conservatives are inclusive based on ability. Conservatives understand Einstein's axiom, "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." Liberals would push to enact policy requiring the removal of all trees because fish can't climb and call it equality.

Loose Cannon, you’re better than that. Identity politics has been played by the right/conservatives/republicans for the last 40 years too.

- campaigns beginning in Philadelphia, MS
- religious litmus tests
- “conservative” litmus tests
- gun rights litmus tests
- Real America is flyover country/Rural/Mountain America
- Science vs dumb **** (forget climate change for a second, man and dinosaurs didn’t coexist)
- education vs non education

Thats just a few and even conservatives and Republicans have spoken out about what the party blatantly is now. Or isn’t. The right, not too different than the far left, seems more interested in branding and name calling. Snowflake? Really? It’s like Luntz hands them a word and everyone MUST say it to make it “a thing”. His “tends to be...” argument is accurate, even if it’s seemingly a little heavy handed for those who would like to regulate the amount of change America should have.

This becomes a circular argument, but ultimately everyone retreats to their corner when there are some obvious wrongs they won’t admit to.

ESPN hired Limbaugh; they knew what he was and what he was going to do. They’d never bring on a Farrakhan into the same role. NEVER. ESPN nearly fired SAS and Korneiser was also suspended (interesting to see him weighing in on Cam Newton). But the “new issue” is Cohn/Hill. Can some see hypocrisy in the two punishments? Yes. Are they different? To me (note the distinction), Yes. Why? Cohn criticized her employer. Whitlock criticized his employer (in addition to colleagues) - the first time. Second time was a hatchet job by I think buzzfeed.

The examples you gave pretty much all center around the conservative ideology. If you don't share a certain set of values, then you are not conservative. It's not conservatives excluding you. It's YOU excluding you. And that's fine. Liberalism excludes based on who you are and what you look like. Liberals will say that a black conservative like Clarence Thomas is not "really" black. See the difference. They don't say that because Thomas believes in a certain set of values that he just isn't a liberal. They kick him out of the identity group.

I didn't really intend to get into the debate regarding the actions of ESPN commentators because I haven't followed it enough to care, or perhaps I haven't cared enough to follow. My point was to dispel this automatic air of moral superiority that liberals artificially surround themselves in. It's not inclusive to divide people up by race, ***, sexual orientation, or whatever. This is no more than making sub-categories of human beings and excluding people from certain groups. There's nothing inclusive about it. It is the exact opposite of "The Melting Pot." It is segregation writ large.

While we're at the false assumptions among liberals and conservatives, I want to address the lefts artificial lock on science. Liberals only refer to science when it furthers the cause of the left. Sexuality is genetic, yet *** is a social construct. This is not a niche opinion of a few liberals as the idea of a 6,000 year old earth is to conservatives. There aren't even a handful of even Christians, let alone all conservatives, that believe this. Yet the denial of the biology and biochemistry that has defined *** and sexuality is a cornerstone pillar of liberalism. And that's not all, about 40 years ago, I think, Princeton University compiled all of the available research on the matter and found that there was unanimous agreement, not consensus, unanimous agreement that the beginning of new human life happens the instant a sperm cell combines with an egg cell. That life begins at conception is a fact of science that has not been up for serious debate for forty years.

The left has no lock on morality or science.

 

[Doppelganger]

So you are saying that situations where virtually all the persons in a particular filed of endeavor are all one race is only discrimination and racists if the people in question are white?

Huh?

 

[Doppelganger]

Can blacks be racist?

Of course.

Do you think you're making headway with stuff like this?

You're obviously clueless and are engaging in a filibuster with your long drawn out post.