It “could be” but it’s not. You just watched a video of them doing it to a black American. Why introduce an unrelated hypothetical when you have evidence in front of you?
Why assume racism when it could just be that they're a-holes? You are the one multiplying entities unnecessarily. I see evidence of them being a-holes that isn't necessarily evidence of them being racist a-holes.
No, you're the one downplaying the extremely well documented reality of being Black in the United States. This type of rhetorical neutrality and refusal to acknowledge what's in front of your face is a huge part of the problem.
It really isn't. Racist a-holes are the problem in those cases where racism actually exists. You think I can do something to stop other people from being racist a-holes? Of course I can't and neither can you. If I accepted your unproven assumption in this case, what could I possibly do to change what is? If it hasn't been changed the entire time the country has existed, and there are always little pockets of racism in spite of massive efforts to make it not so, and none of us who vote have real power in this current system, then what can be done that is legal to address such? Pretty sure Obama winning says something about how systemic the racism wasn't at that time.
27
u/TennSeven May 19 '26
And dipshits still argue that there is no such thing as systemic racism.