He was your straight up "racial realist" anti-white genocide, and a race mixing hater, blanda up! It was obvious he was going to take it to lol levels once his blood pressure elevated a little more. Shame I could get to see it. Thanks, Spank!

One story real quick, from one of many pickup basketball games where I was the only white player on the court.

--The Vice President of the Sigmas was my RA my last year living in the dorms at college, he and some of his frat brothers would pick me up as their 3pt shooter before heading down to the Student Athletic Center. We had a pretty heated game vs some of the football team one night, with jawing about the cr*cker/white boy starting before the ball was even checked to start the game. The jawing escalated and the Sigmas were starting to give it back to the football guys, and my man--the backup fullback--was baiting with the racial stuff non-stop. We end up winning the game when my RA's roommate--who had a prototypical defensive end/tight Enid's frame and build--took a feed from me in the post and converted. It was a great power move and I was pumped he made it, but before I would make it to him to tell him nice take I'm knocked backwards by a double-handed shove by mr backup FB. "F*ck you white b*tch," and he had daggers in his eyes.

My RA and his big roomie came over to regulate, and nothing else happened (well, that time)---but WTF? Why does race have to come to the court like that?

I watched the Jeremy Lin doc a few months back and the racial stuff he deals with is pretty crazy, way worse than anything I dealt with.

I'm not familiar with that expression, if it has hateful connotations, I'll take your word for it.

I kinda wanted to see where he was going with his statistics, it could have been a good conversation, I thought.

That's interesting. I've lived in Texas for 30 years and have lived in 5 different areas within the state including 3 of the 4 largest metro areas and I have yet to witness something like this.

Interesting, but hopefully you understand that Texas of 30 years ago is not the same as Texas of today. I'm not saying it is more or less racist today, but it is certainly different. There have been numerous demographic shifts that have had great impacts on the state. For instance, 30 years ago the entire population of Texas was around 16 million. Today, there are around 11 million Hispanics in Texas.

The real reason is that he said "go ahead and ban me." Mods need to adhere to those requests for obvious reasons.

If a gambler in a casino walks up to the pit boss and says "ban me" will the pit boss say, "why"?

Yeah, but you just said it, too. Joking, obv, but it was clear he wasn't asking for himself to be banned, but spitefully daring the mod to ban him because he was angry. I don't care, it's not my call, but I think it's disingenuous to say he was banned because he requested it.

He may have not wanted to be banned and was testing, he may of not cared, he may have wanted to be banned. Either way its not up to the mods to guess. If he requested it, be it so. Some people simply cant post responsibly. Many get hooked, many get too enthralled.

Wookie also knew where he was headed and could have banned him anyway for breaking T@C's before his request.

I took liberty with an opportunistic joke about the last laugh. Racism is known to be laughably absurd and very hurtful, so a chance to laugh in face of it is relieving of the racism and absurdity pain some people experience.

The final tell was total absence of denial. A racist in denial is not spouting zealously about the truth and martyrdom. There was likely not going to be anything resembling a political argument at that point and we already got the conclusion of the "stat" "argument" from the first post ( the laughably absurd implication "skin cells cause crime").

One foot note it is fair to consider the SPLC as pretty liberal. I'm mean their main tactic is pretty much use government to respond to social injustice.

From the viewpoint of being a reliable source to reference links in the forum that may violate the content rules, I say it is really irrelevant to SPLCs position on the political dial.

Simply evaluate content and match it to a definition. It is non-controversial if the definition can be discerned in the content and described. Every sincere political interest benefits from information about social disrupters like hate speech advocates and benefits from the SPLC imo oc.

Even non-racist ACers will want intel on the klan to have the most responsible self defense against potential predators and preventable extinction qualifiers.

The problem with that is the statistics don't adhere to what the spoonfed masses feel is acceptable. The guy was completely respectful and was just pointing out verified facts.

The fact that he was even threatened with, let alone actually banned for doing so, is pretty sad.

The fact that the prospect of acknowledging the facts he put forth was so frightening to the people in charge of the dialouge here, should give you a good insight to the type of people they are.

"Hey we don't like what you have to say (despite your factual references), so we're just gonna ban you". Pretty sad when thats the best they can come up with, rather that actually having the courage to engage in a dialogue they were obviously too scared to have.

I guess I'll get banned next.

If I had time, I'd photoshop a picture of whack-a-mole but with white hoods instead of moles.

I hope that isn't the case

Well based on the criteria I've seen in this thread, I'm right there.

When facts and statistical data that are posted without any agenda can be morphed into racism and used as a reason to ban somebody, I guess nobody is safe.

God forbid you acknowledge reality.

I agree that the conversation is worth having, even it can be scary, and that facts should not be shrugged away from. What I disagree with is simply "stating facts" with no other intent as to imply something offensive, without doing any analysis.

I gave the example earlier of the correlation of education and atheism. Often people will state that statistic, that religiosity decreases with higher education, just to imply that if you believe in God you're stupid, so God obviously does not exist. The same thing goes for crime-rate and race. Sure there is a correlation, but there are many factors as to why this is, simply stating that "african americans commit more crimes" is often just a way to imply that black people are violent. If the purpose is to examine the correlations and have a discussion, I'm all for it, but a lot of times this is not the goal, but simply to suggest the face-value of the statistic, which is obtuse in itself, but through the perspective of this forum, likely against the rules.

The problem with this is people with an agenda will go into their "analysis" with their conclusion already drawn up. Meaning they will attack the statistics with the intention in mind ahead of time that regardless of the irrefutable fact that they do, in fact commit more crime, there can be no conclusion that states they are just naturally more predisposed to crime.

That is why you see the vitriol that comes out whenever the stark reality of the crime statistics are brought up. Every single excuse is brought up to rationalize and explain away behavior that is blatantly obvious.

Even when someone brings it up in a purely factual manner, he is burned at the stake for being a racist. Some of the comments even suggested they supported his banning because they "could see where he was going". Thats just scary. And depressing really.

When speech is censored to that level, its pretty obvious the people doing the censoring aren't willing to engage the reality of the issue. As he said, censoring speech has worked for centuries.

Fwiw, I agree with you, and I'm not offended by racism, I would personally run this forum differently, but it's not up to me. I'm also not offended by showing the correlation of crime and race, but it's a very complicated issue and difficult to control experiments to show one way or another the implications this truly has.

It definitely is funny that someone with an agenda, one way or another, shows or disputes statistics in order to affirm their world-view, but an honest examination of the question would clear up any bias, as different perspectives emerge. This examination would also clearly show any plain bigotry pretty quickly anyway, and in some cases could prove useful in making people question their own perspectives and motives. I'm all for discussions, even if offensive.

Skin cells don't cause behavior or reflect an individual's character. The statistics do say something that allows someone determined to prove the faulty assumption that race causes behavior or reflects character to make a whole variety of contentious assertions in the attempt to do so, as we can see.

You're almost certainly right, but just stating your conclusion without any investigation could make you seem bias to someone who doesn't understand correlations. In some ways you're just as guilty than the guy that says that skin cells do in fact cause behaviour.

I did not mention guilt. Surely users are responsible for understanding the rules, but I can't blame a racist for being ignorant about racism because of basic reasoning of what being ignorant means.

I took swift and firm action from what I find is apparent, to end the racism as quickly and mercifully as I can. It was not the right or wrong decision, neither fair or unfair, it was the correct decision based on the apparent situation, the obvious content, and the long-term persistent dismissal of the such content represented by the rules.

Political racists are, in effect, trying to pull a magic trick and make you believe that skin cells mean what they say they mean, by "fact" or whip. Part of the trick is that they believe it religiously. I mean it defies basic fact that skin cells cause behavior or reflect characters, but look at the assertion about the 'facts' and the accusation about the truth. This is not politics, or discussion, or a witch hunt. This is what racists do.


Judgement calls, like opportunistic comedy and poker playing, require taking risks. If MACK has the first ever crime and race statistical argument that surmounts the nature of skin cells and was unfairly banned, it not being posted here will not change much of anything or change the outcome.

Translation: "I don't like the conclusions that the empirical data presented show so I'm going to ban the person for presenting that data.

Also, suggesting the differences in race are determined by skin cells is assinine. Please explain why forensic examiners can tell the race of a skeleton if the only difference between races are "skin cells"?

I don't want to push this too far as I don't want to be banned, but please try to come up with a better rationalization for banning someone. Its pretty obvious you just wanted to shut down the discussion and are reaching for some assumptions that had nothing to do with what the man actually said.

You sound a lot like someone else I've talked with recently.

Is there something about Atlantic city poker players that makes them furiously spout "the truth"

I've got another story from work, see if this one counts.

A tenant came to my office to ask to have her apartment painted. For purposes of this thread I have to mention that she was Black. NYC requires painting apartments every three years so I checked her file and she'd had a paint job a year and a half before so I said no. She told me that her kids had marked up the walls as high as they could reach, it looked terrible, and I had to paint her apartment. I answered that she was supposed to wash that stuff off.

Well. Did she ever go off. YOU RACIST MOTHER****ER! a good couple of minutes of that and I let her wind down. When she finally quieted down I asked 'Haven't you ever seen the TV commercials w/ the mom using a cleaning product on the walls bec the kids messed them up?' That did no good. So I offered 'It even says washable on the paint can for this very reason.' No good. I tried MY OWN MOTHER HAD TO CLEAN THE WALLS BEC OF US KIDS!

lol, she stormed off cursing me out.

And then there was another time a group showed up and asked me to do w/e and while I thought it over one of them came out w/: He's a white Devil! We are looking at the white Devil right there!' I ended up doing what they wanted anyway bec I don't hold a grudge except against my ex-mother-in-law.

The problem here is that you and your ilk think you are smarter than the people you are interacting with. Nobody is fooled by the "it's just statistics" or "you're shutting down discussion" nonsense, except possibly the people who try to make those lame arguments.

We get it. We know exactly what it is you're trying to do. You're transparent.

In your defense, it is possible that you are too stupid to understand why these lines of argument are explicitly racist. But then you get points deducted for refusing to make any effort at understanding why.

I guess I might be persuaded to reissue some of those points under the notion that truly stupid people can't help being stupid. That, of course, is the problem with stupid people.

Howard thinks being called racist makes him the victim of racism. I'm shocked.