Yes, I'm certain the context and meaning was derogatory, because the word they chose suggests a crime was committed, and being a criminal is generally viewed as derogatory. You accuse me of gaslighting while you sit here pretending like there's nothing derogatory about saying "that guy's a looter"? Hahahahaha holy ****, no wonder you're dropping 4 f-bombs per post to try to cover up what a moron you're being

It's very on-brand for this thread that itshot has spun in so many circles over failing to see any possible racism in "black guy = looting, white people = finding" that he's confused himself into arguing that there's nothing wrong with doing crimes

@goofyballer

Is there any greater indictment of how dire a situation is that someone has to be forced to steal (i.e. loot) to survive? To the overwhelmingly majority of people, that's not a indictment of the person, but the situation. You could use the word scavenge, but it doesn't really highlight the urgency, or direness of the situation. That's not an uncharitable or inaccurate characterization of that image and caption. Juxtaposition that with the images from the looting going on now, or other types of looting that was occurring during the hurricane, which takes an entirely different and much more sinister context. Both are accurate and acceptable uses of the word, and people know the difference, (except SJW's and racist, because they have rigid interpretations).

But you are certain that image was used to paint that person in a negative light, because a similar circumstance was described differently, and you seem certain that stealing (i.e. looting) is always bad, or reflects poorly on a person.

You've essentially admitted to being too stupid to tell the difference, and you need the AP (and everyone else) to dumb it down for you.

Stop lying ad stop deflecting. This whole convo stemmed from the false claim that Trump said he wanted African Americans killed. The poster then claimed his falsehood was "100% accurate" due to Trump referring to all the rioters of both races as thugs as he secretly meant only black rioters and not the white ones. That's jaw droppingly stupid and extraordinarily dishonest and equally stupid and dishonest to defend such a falsehood. Nobody said anything about calling black people thugs. You yourself justified the use of the word as long as there's "horrific crimes" involved, hence my linking of several serial killers of both races.

You're essentially saying that all criminals can be called thugs except if they happen to be black, as rather than referring to the individual criminal, it's really a dig at all black people. Which is ridiculous. I'm sure some racists have used the word as a coded racist dig at black people. But using the word is not automatically a racist swipe at all black people within certain contexts, even if it's being used to describe a criminal who happens to be black.Trump did not say he wished for African Americans to be killed and citing his use of the word thug when describing rioters in general, regardless of their race, to justify this is laughable, like your entire reasoning.

You claim Scott was justified in shooting an unarmed teen as you accept the disputed claim he was "charged by Mr Cervini.

Yet Mr Arbery also "charged" M Sr but you don't give him the same warped logic you've given Scott. You further intimate that Mr Arbery's killing would have been justified if only he had have been breaking into a car. You use the same style of defence as very real racists have used when defending Mr Arbery's killing.

You insist racism in a semi hysterical manner and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of either being racist or defending racists. You then refuse to acknowledge Trayvon Martin's racist description of Zimmerman.

You're a joke. A gas lighting cognitively dissonant contrary inconsistent dishonest race baiter who views such tragedies in purely political terms and who has engaged in every underhand dishonest trick in the book while debating, flinging mud at and falsely accusing anyone who disagrees with you and who has failed miserably to support your position.

I see by your latest dribble that you're absolutely determined not to break any trends in this regard.

I'm not interested in your conflation of what Trump actually said with what you passionately fervently believe he said or meant. I've provided the transcripts of the entirety of the PC so people can read what he actually said regardless of your personal spin.
Here's more of his quotes re the neo Nazis
On the El Paso shooter
It's absolutely false to claim Trump said he wanted African Americans killed and equally false to cite his use of the word thugs when condemning all rioters, as justification for this, the end.

MSM used it to describe black criminals as well as white ones so the word doesn't seem to be universally accepted objectively as a racist code word.
https://nypost.com/2013/10/06/cops-b...aulted-family/

No he didn't and no it wasn't as for the umpteenth time there were white rioters also. Your assertion assumes he was magically excluding white rioters which is ludicrous.

No I'm not, stop making $hyt up yet again. Many of you proclaiming racism itt are really dishonest yourself included.

Never once said nothing is racist, I've made my position very clear on this several times over I said I was open minded on racism being a motivation or playing a factor in Mr Arbery's killing but that at present the evidence wasn't sufficient for me to call it as racism.

This is why I stopped entertaining you and why I won't be entertaining you and several other posters. Again if you need to lie then it says it all about how weak your argument for your position is.

And here's another reason I won't be entertaining your $hite in future
Now anyone who disagrees with you is a racist, huh? This is why you're considered a race bating semi hysteric, like several of your dishonest ilk itt. Again if you need to resort to such sleazy lying tactics, you have no case.

it isn't a universally accepted racist code word. That is obvious. Not remotely universal - as has pointed out, for some (including me) it's far more likely to be used about someone from the right.

Still nothing is lost by avoiding it so let's just try to avoid it.

Yes, because racists want to insist it isn't racist. Most decent people do and should disregard their opinions on the matter.

Last I checked you were still at a total loss for what you would consider evidence of racism such that we could call it racist.

It's not hard to figure out, bro. When the protesters have been 100% white, they are "very fine people" with whom governments should "make a deal." When they are mostly black, and 100% fighting for black issues, Trump is now quite explicitly calling for their execution. The fact that there are some admirable white people protesting out with them is not some gotcha. To Trump, those people are race traitors, ****** lovers who can get gunned down just the same.

Yes, there are some things you just shouldn't call black people. Hate to break it to you, but that's your cross to bear after centuries of oppression. It doesn't have to be logical to be correct. Maybe if we can actually achieve equality, then a generation or two later it will be OK to refer to a black person as a monkey in jest, but for now, while I can call my daughter a monkey, it is absolutely unacceptable to call a black kid a monkey, no matter the lack of malice in my heart. Having a knowledge of history and using that to be more respectful to my fellow humans is not me being oppressed.

Piss off troll I gave you the benefit of the doubt as long as possible and gave you lots of opportunities to answer plainly put questions and to support your crap.You were unwilling/unable to do so. Even now you're trying your disingenuous crap and still slithering outa addressing your inconsistencies and nobody said anything about referring to people as monkeys either, again with the race baiting crap from you. Again you're a joke plain and simple and you've been fed long enough, you pathetic dishonest inconsistent little clown.

You regard people as racists because of them being from Georgia and born in 1956. You're a ****ing moron and again have been fed long enough.

Every once in a while you see something and think wow that is the dumbest **** I have ever seen written on the internet, until the next time This is one of those times.

I see goofy beat me to it but ya maybe these particular protesters werent black?

Yes! This is a lot of words to admit that, when researchers do resume studies where people with black-sounding names get called black less than people with the same qualifications and white-sounding names, or people do word associations with similar photos and use more negative words for black people, you give...zero ****s whatsoever? Like, we're learning in real time here that there's no excuse you won't make for people who exhibit bias against black people, all the way down to dying on the hill of asserting that, actually, calling a black person a criminal and white people "finders" for engaging in the exact same actions a.) is not treating them differently, so you can then argue that b.) there's no possible racial bias there whatsoever.

It's amazing! I rest my case, you've made it so very easy for us to see the depths you will go to to avoid acknowledging the existence of any racial bias, thank you, I didn't expect you to go down this easily.

Your little goat brain really can't handle much can it ?

You can be sure of the meaning of a word with different meanings in different contexts within the context it's being used.

I don't get the wisdom of the meme.

Then again, quoting Bill O'reilly as if he were some sort of philosopher is probably a fail no matter what.

You're another gob$hite who claimed that even if the FBI's investigation ascertained that Mr Arbery's killing wasn't due to racism you'd still proclaim it as racism "because it just is", you turnip

Yes Billy.

Some things really just are the way they are.
Even if no one asks the goats permission.

I know you think that, it's why I accurately and helpfully pointed out that you're a turnip.

This seems like the sensible point of view.

See this is what I'm talking about. You and others arguing with you still don't define anything

The FBI investigating for hate crime and finding no hate crime committed does not mean it wasn't a racially motivated crime and does not mean race played a factor, but all three of those instances are different and are being conflated...

See what I'm saying? You guys are yelling at each other with no specific point made. It's confusing, pointless, and is getting downright petty