This Comic Strip Explains White Privilege Perfectly In Simple Language

Ever had a hard time explaining white privilege to clueless people? This comic strip by a teenage artist might help.

Teenage artist Jamie Kapp, 19, knows a bit about white privilege and institutionalized racism. She also understands that many people just don’t get it.

“‘I was mad that I had to explain such a simple issue as white privilege in a comic because it’s something that people should read for themselves,’ she said.” (Buzzfeed)

So she took to Tumblr to discuss white privilege and used her skills as an artist to try to clue people in. It was effective, but at the same time, she was stunned as she became the victim of bullying, death threats, and hate mail because of her efforts. She ended up shutting down her blog. She seems adamant, however, that she not be considered a victim. See her message:

A detailed explanation of everything that happened can be read on Buzzfeed. She told Buzzfeed that she’d like for her message to be heard, so we’re going to share it here. It’s an important message. We just hope that this talented young lady can get back to creating important work soon.










About Tiffany Willis

Tiffany Willis is a fifth-generation Texan, a proponent of voluntary simplicity, a single mom, and the founder and editor-in-chief of Liberal America. An unapologetic member of the Christian Left, she has spent most of her career actively working with “the least of these" -- disadvantaged and oppressed populations, the elderly, people living in poverty, at-risk youth, and unemployed people. She is a Certified Workforce Expert with the National Workforce Institute, a NAWDP Certified Workforce Development Professional, and a certified instructor for Franklin Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teens. Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn. She also has a grossly neglected personal blog, a  Time Travel blog, a site dedicated to encouraging people to  read classic literature 15 minutes a day, and a literary quotes blog that is a labor of love. Find her somewhere and join the discussion. Click here to buy Tiff a mojito.


Follow on Twitter Connect on Facebook Find on Google+ View all Posts Visit Website


  1. richardstarr says:

    Statistics rarely tell the complete story. It all depends on exactly what is being looked at.

    1) School admittance by grades.
    Show me the case where the students are applying to the SAME school with the same grades.
    I believe the numbers reflect grades of ALL students rather than those attempting to go.
    To add clarity, please break out by income of the family. A school found to be denying non-white
    people entry who were equally qualified would quickly be sued and mocked.

    2) Graduation.
    Again, money is often a factor here. In other case you have people that are just not really ready
    to attend a particular school When I first went to college I got my first ever “F” in my life. Why?
    Because suddenly I actually needed to compete against people at my level. Worse, these people
    apparently had better study habits. I needed to attend a junior college first to adjust before I was ready.

    3)Likelihood of going to prison.
    OK. Again, money is likely a factor here. People with money can hire better lawyers. See OJ Simpson.
    The question that needs to be asked, how many people are in prison did not break laws?
    The laws against crack, a form of cocaine, were increased due to the insistence of congressional black
    caucus to deal with the crisis in the inner cities.

    4)Reporting of violent crimes.
    Interracial crimes are relatively rare. Most crimes are committed within the various communities.
    A criminal who did not live in the area is more likely to get noticed.

    There was a concerted effort in the 70’s to get TV to NOT report crimes in the inner city or mention the race of
    the person committing the crime. The thought was that talking about black people killing, raping, etc. was bad for the community’s reputation. Additionally, when a white person kills a black person it gets played up, especially if the white person happens to be a law officer. You have people who make a nice living rabble rousing. Meanwhile, around the same time as the Ferguson incident, you had an unarmed white kid killed by a black police officer. Somehow, Jesse and Sharpton did not consider that note worthy. Perhaps because it did not push their agenda. That agenda being the promotion of Jesse and Sharpton. Of note,in Ferguson, the black kid was seen attacking the officer prior to eventually being shot, but the white kid did not.
    The white kid apparently was wearing head phones and did not hear orders from the cop, he also reached for
    a cell phone which could have caused the officer to believe he was going for a gun.

    1. Von Bailey says:

      You are a perfect example of the ignorance of which she speaks. You say a lot and demonstrate not a shred of it to be true. Most of it is just your racist assumptions put next to a very questionable perspective of history.

      1) You believing something is totally irrelevant to the facts. Many studies have been done to demonstrate the bias in college admissions, you simply don’t want to believe it as it will probably say something about why you were admitted, got an “f” because of bad study habits (which apparently didn’t stop you from getting into college in the first place) and had the resources to make changes.

      2) Money is a factor. What you ignore is why white people have it and people of color don’t. Like she say’s, white privilege is the ability to ignore things around you and you do it very well.

      3) It is a lie that black leaders wanted harsher penalties for crack cocaine.

      4) This doesn’t even make sense.

      It is a lie that there was a concerted effort to not report crime in inner city. there was a concerted effort to get the news media to report a balanced perspective of crime. Just as many white people killed whites as blacks were killing blacks but the only violence on television new were ones that were committed by blacks unless it was a famous white person. That was not balanced.

      The difference between the Ferguson incident and the Salt Lake City incident is that the police in SLC didn’t respond to protesters with tanks and tear gas. They were also forthcoming with information regarding the incident. To ignore how each PD handled the situations is part of that ignorance of white privilege of which the young lady speaks.

      1. richardstarr says:

        You are displaying willful ignorance on many levels.
        I got an “f” when I first went to college because I was not used to competing.
        The difference between me and some others is I was able to change, put in more time
        and effort, and overcome my shortcomings.

        Money is THE factor. If you think the kids of Michael Jordan or Will Smith are going to have
        any problem going to where ever they want, you are kidding yourself.

        As to getting money, I’ve met people from all over the world that came here and became
        successful. I worked with a number of Black Africans, they were on the road to becoming
        Americans and are here legally, and they have contempt for many of the people here who
        do not make the most of their opportunities.

        Want to make a better life for yourself? You can follow the examples of those that
        work hard, or you can simply choose to believe that you don’t have a chance and
        assume that your effort is meaningless and not try.

        Regarding black leaders, CHECK THE RECORD.
        Here’s a quick article that may help you.

        I grew up during the time I speak of, I have to wonder if you did.
        The simple truth is, more black people killed other black people despite the lower percentage
        of the population they represent. And most of the crimes reported dealt with murders committed while additional crimes were being committed.

        The differences between the protests is there were not riots going on.
        Too often bad elements use legitimate protest as a shield to break into stores and do
        vandalism. To ignore a crowd’s behavior is to continue to rationalize rather deal with

        1. Von Bailey says:

          By your own admittance, in your first post, your study habits were not up to college level and yet you got into college anyway. That’s a privilege of which most people of color do not get to take advantage. Poor study habits means you are tracked into classes that don’t get you into college.

          If you think that pointing at a few black millionaires makes up for all the non-millionaire white people that get into those same colleges, you’re again, purposely naive and ignoring reality, just as the young lady points out in her cartoon.

          Bravo, you met some blacks from somewhere else that are bigots who agree with your warped perspective of black people in America. So what? They’ve been subject to the warped perspective of black Americans that the American white media creates and then ships all over the world for people to see what life is like in America. They have no more of a clue as to what black America is than you do.

          No where in the article that you cited does it say that the congressional black caucus wanted harsher sentencing for crack cocaine. It talks about them speaking to Nixon, in the 70s about heroin. The article then goes on to point out that by the 80s and the war on cocaine and crack the only “black leader” pushing for the war on drugs was Charlie Rangle, while “other black officials started to finally embrace reforms” (that’s actually from your article. You should read what you cite, I did).

          So your article actually demonstrates that you lied, as I said. I was alive back then too. I remember a powerful white Senator from Boston pushing for the tougher laws for crack cocaine because Len Bias, a black basketball player, who had signed with the Boston Celtics, died after using crack.

          Here’s something specifically about the creation of crack cocaine sentencing. Notice there’s not one mention of the Black Congressional Congress in it at all.

          1. richardstarr says:

            My study habits were not up to par, but my intelligence and grades were.
            After my wake up call I worked hard and succeeded.

            You are, yet again, willfully ignoring the fact that it is MONEY and not race that
            is the issue. You act like poor white people get in to college while black people
            are being denied. Now if poor white people were being let in to the exclusion of
            black people, especially more qualified black people, then you’d actually have
            some to claim as privilege.

            You have a warped perspective of America and black people.
            I believe that black people can, and do, succeed, if they put in the effort.
            I’ve witnessed this happen in my life. Calling the people I met bigots because
            they don’t like people that don’t put in the effort is stupid. A refusal to put in
            the effort because of a believe of not being allowed to succeed is a self fulfilling

            OK, here is a better article.
            I admit I skimmed it because I knew the truth and thought it would be
            more complete.


            “The Congressional Record shows that in 1986, when the strict, federal anti-crack legislation was first being debated, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)—deeply
            concerned about the degree to which crack was decimating black
            communities across the United States—strongly supported the legislation and actually pressed for even harsher penalties. In fact, a few years earlier, CBC members
            had pushed President Reagan to create the Office of National Drug Control Policy.”

            Saying I lied is hardly conducive to a polite conversation, especially when I didn’t.
            I find it ironic that you consider a white Senator’s concern over a black athletes
            death as proof of a negative attitude towards black people. No doubt if he had
            expressed a lack of concern you would have considered that proof too, and if he
            had not mentioned it you would claim his indifference to their plight, etc.

            1. Von Bailey says:

              You are willfully ignoring that white people as a whole have more money and wealth than black people and how it got that way. But again, the cartoon points that out very well and you demonstrate it with every word you write.

              I’m not going to attempt to explain to you the disparities. You willfully choose not to see them. That’s very American of you and very common. To claim I have a “warped perspective of America and black people” without demonstrating it in the least is simply negative characterization for lack of any relevant point. You described your “friends” feelings about black people and I characterized those feelings. If you or your friends don’t like it maybe you should consider why I think their bigoted instead of assuming some pompous attitude about your assumed knowledge of black America. An experience you’ve not demonstrated the least bit of real knowledge about.

              You did not cite a better article. It references as it’s source an article that does not give a source for its comment. In other words, there’s not a single quote or release from the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) or any of it’s members, that backs up the claim in the article. And you haven’t demonstrated that the legitimacy of my article is in question at all which squarely puts the onus of the law on a white congressman in Boston who happened to be Speaker of the House, who used HIS power, not the CBC to push the bill through.

            2. Stuart Stribling says:

              “Money and not race” is at the core of this issue? As if money and race don’t go hand-in-hand? Another example of white privilege thinking right there.

            3. richardstarr says:

              Tell that to Michael Jordan’s kids or Obama’s.
              Too many poor people come here from other countries, work hard, and succeed.

              If you have a household that values education, then odds are the kid will get a
              chance to do the most with whatever his abilities allow him to do. If they have
              the resources, they can pay for the teachers and materials to maximize that.

            4. Penny Marie Sautereau says:

              No, YOU are the one ignoring reality to evade admitting your privilege. Please just STOP.

            5. richardstarr says:

              Privilege is just the new PC buzz word.
              It implies that if you could not possibly have earned what you have.
              Also, a privilege can be taken away, or in this case it used as an
              excuse to implement “corrective” programs to aid those not privileged.
              You want an excuse to give yourself an edge while not feeling guilty for
              violating the concepts of judging a person as an individual.

        2. Von Bailey says:

          White people kill more white people than any other race kills anyone. You apparently don’t care about that as it doesn’t reflect in a negative light on black people, so what’s the point.

          The difference between the protests in Ferguson and SLC was the response of the police. You not seeing the difference is just another example of purposeful ignorance. Something that, as the young lady’s cartoon points out, white privilege allows.

        3. Stuart Stribling says:

          Wait! What does “competing” have to do with college grades? Most colleges are not norm-referenced. You either know the content or you don’t, and whether you know it better or worse than the guy next to you has nothing do with anything. You got an F because you didn’t study, didn’t know the material, were unqualified, had a bad day, etc. etc. You didn’t get an F because 1000 other students where “putting in more time and effort and overcoming their shortcomings”. This is the main flaw with conservative thinking — that “working hard” will always get you by. Working hard will get you low wages and sore legs at the end of a long shift. Enjoy.

          1. richardstarr says:

            When I was in college, many of the classes were graded on a curve, so even a 90%
            did not always result in an “A” in some cases. But more importantly, teachers teach
            to the class. If everyone is failing the course, you have to take a hard look at how
            the class is being taught. If the “normal” amount of people are failing, you lay the
            blame at the students feet. The teacher observes how much material is being
            absorbed and judges how much material to feed the class based on questions as
            well as the results being generated via the work leading up to the main tests.

            If you come from a situation where the amount of work you need to do is low, to one which is higher, its not unusual to not do as well. This is what happened to me. After getting my poor grades I adjusted my study habits and got better grades.

            Working hard results in your keeping your job while others lose theirs.
            If you are quota based, after you complete that work, you have time to other work
            to get ahead of the game. I worked 2 part time jobs while going to school. The result was I finished school without being debt.

        4. Eros Merino says:

          I think it’s bothersome that you’ve”worked” with black people what do you do watch like a hawk at all their doings, from clock in too clock out???t I think so, because I feel watched, allot when I’m in a situation where”technically” I’m not supposed to be in. Dum

          1. richardstarr says:

            No, I mean worked with, as in collaborate.
            I’m a computer programmer and I have to deal with the code created by others.
            Like any other group of people, there are some skilled and some not.
            I don’t have time to watch others work, I’m busy with my own. When someone
            does a good job, its appreciated, if they do a bad job and it needs to be dealt
            with, its not.

      2. ExRadioGuy15 says:

        You are correct, Von Bailey….
        Richard Starr is most likely a Republican (possibly a Libertarian).
        Most Republican Conservatives are simply psychopaths. Remember that psychopaths are intelligent, but, instead of using that intelligence for good, they use it to mask their psychopathology and manipulate the stupid.
        So, while Richard’s arguments “look” sane and reasonable, when you peel off the layers of propaganda and the psychopathology behind it, you see it for what it really is.
        If you’ve ever read Karl Rove’s “troll playbook”, he explains exactly how to sound reasonable and sane while actually practicing psychopathology, which can’t be surprising because he’s a psychopath.
        I’ve taken to refusing to engage in debate with the three insane wings of the GOP (Cons, Tea Partiers and Libertarians, the last two are sociopaths) because there’s just no way to get them to acknowledge the truth. The Con psychopaths simply ignore you and the sociopaths suffer from severe cases of cognitive dissonance.
        So, if I don’t respond any further on this comment thread, you know why. The Con psychopaths know they’re wrong but they don’t care. The GOP sociopaths will use propaganda and logical fallacies to support their “side” of the argument.
        Just read the comments, you’ll see.

        1. Von Bailey says:

          The point is not to attempt to change their minds but to expose the fallacious nature of their arguments in a public forum. I don’t expect to change their minds, but hopefully I can swing someone to common sense who may need that one bit of information to make an informed decision.

          I think it helps that people see that he has nothing to back up what he believes. Makes it harder for them to justify accepting his notions of reality.

        2. Keith says:

          ExRadioGuy – you sound like a Marxist worm. And by simply labeling people as insane you no longer have to debate them (because we all know how much libs are confused by the facts).

        3. JS says:

          Probably the stupidest statement here.”Most Republican Conservatives are simply psychopaths.” That says a lot about where your head is at. You claim they are psychopaths because they do not see what you claim to be truth as they see it. Sure glad this conservative “sociopath” is not insane like you are.

      3. Avius says:

        This comic doesn’t just apply to white privilege. And richardstarr isn’t entirely wrong. Money is a factor. One must remember that the idea of privilege and its effects go way back. Farther back than even religion, and it still has effects rippling from that far back. The money factor is one of these far-flung effects.

        Thing is, “privilege” is a blanket term for “I don’t really understand the suckage you had to go through to get where you are, and I’m not sure if I can relate to that.” All other things being equal, a cisgendered woman will have gone through about the same turmoil as a trans woman, but it will all be different turmoil that affects her in different ways. It’s not more, it’s not less. It’s different.
        In different cultures, you get different privileges. Furthermore, you get different people calling these things.

        I’ll take the cis/trans argument for my primary example. I am a pansexual pagan trans woman of northern European descent and lower middle class income. I am perfectly average in all physical features, with brown hair and brown eyes. Let’s take a cis woman of the same basic info. Let’s call everything but our assigned gender equal. We’re both bike mechanics, and both cyclists. Reasonably healthy and light smokers.

        She has several advantages over me. And I have several advantages over her. I can compete as male, as long as I’m not on anything deemed illegal by the UCI, and can therefore reach a status of fame and fortune more easily. She has multiple aerodynamic and endurance advantages, meaning she’s actually faster than me. I go out with the girls for a beer and get some creeper on me, I just drop into the man voice and tell him to fuck off. She can’t do that, both physically and culturally. When she wants to date, she doesn’t have to worry about being fetishized or her date flying into a murderous rage when he finds out she has a dick. She doesn’t have to change her name and get a massive body modification to be considered a woman in the legal sense. But she’ll pay more for some things, and have certain career disadvantages I won’t have.

        She and I have both gone through some nasty shit, and have certain barriers to our careers. They’re different, but kind of balance out after a while, more or less.

        Same goes for myself and someone with darker skin. We both have certain things granted to us for what we are, and certain disadvantages, but they’re different from each other, and affect us in different ways.

        1. Von Bailey says:

          Your conflation of money and privilege makes not sense to me. Neither the comic, or I said that the concept of privilege cannot be applied to other aspects of life or society, so I’m not sure what your point is. Your decision to use the “cis/trans” scenario in order to make your point makes it irrelevant. There is no need to use the “cis/trans” argument because the subject matter is the “white privilege” not whether or not a transgendered woman has the same privileges in competitive sports or dating as a non-transgendered woman.

          Your claims of each race having it’s own sets of privileges falls very short of reality. What do you think the “benefits” to being black are that compare to those of white privilege? What do black people get that white people do not get? What privileges do you imagine blacks have over whites?

          If you cannot make your points using the context at hand, you are simply making a rather poor attempt at changing the subject to something that you are more comfortable talking about for some reason.

          The arguments that richardstarr makes are racist lies at worst and demonstrably wrong ignorance at best, as in his false claim that blacks insisted that there be harsher penalties for crack over cocaine. He made up a history to justify his racist assumptions and couldn’t find a shred of evidence to back it up without making more racist assumptions.

          1. Avius says:

            As I said, not entirely wrong, but I was also attempting to tackle several points at the same time and failed rather miserably.

            His point on money works, but only just. The rest is unsupported at best. I do believe the comic was correct when it looked at admissions, as that comparison is made a lot, and I did some digging. What I found added “All other things being equal” to that statistic. This means grades AND income.

            Also, why don’t you find some of those advantages blacks have over whites? I’m white. I have never been around many black folks, and don’t understand their place in American society as well as I’d like. Frankly, I don’t see race as a factor. I went with what I knew in my primary example rather than making a fool of myself and risking blatant racism. I’ll admit my ignorance, here, and will take care to put more thought and research in later on.

            1. Von Bailey says:

              Not to be rude, but how can you be so obtuse? His point on money does not work for black people. Black people having money still have racist experiences that demean their dignity that have nothing to do with their personal behavior or demeanor. His perspective purposely dismisses the documented experiences of black people. All things are NOT equal and that’s the point. White privilege puts white people on a different level of citizenship as others. That’s the point.

              I don’t “find some of those advantages blacks have over whites” because they do not exist in this country or on a global scale. You’re the one who implied that they do, support it with evidence.

              You say don’t see race as a factor because you’re white, which is the point of her cartoon. Your dignity, possessions or location is not challenged because of your color, that’s the point. That’s privilege that a black person does not have anywhere in America. But the fact that you “don’t understand their place in American society” implies that a black person’s place is different than yours. Why? You say you don’t think about race but the very fact that you differentiate the “place” of blacks to yours demonstrates that you DO think about race. Somehow you’ve thought about it enough differentiate a place for blacks and a place for you in American society. You don’t know where the “place” for blacks is but it’s not in your world apparently.

              Why do blacks have some different “place” than you? What would be the point of that? Why aren’t they just citizens like you with the same “place” that you have? You claim to not see race as a factor so why a different “place” based on race?

              I fail to take what into account on a global scale?

            2. Avius says:

              First off, yes, things balance out when you look at it from a global scale. Blacks in many Africa and Europe are on equal or better standing than whites, depending on the region and the majority, especially following the collapse of Apartheid. In a Muslim country, whites and Christians especially aren’t often very welcome or successful. Globally speaking, we are on even ground with everybody else. Nationally speaking, yeah, I need to watch my step.

              Second, it’s obvious that I’m not sure where my point went wrong and thank you for telling me so that I may research and come back to you.

              Third, do not think that my not seeing race as a factor is a white privilege thing. It’s a personal thing where I absolutely do not care about race or gender when dealing with people. Thank you for pointing out where I needed to clarify.

              My not understanding places in society was a badly worded “I can’t really relate to where I’m in a better place simply because of who or what I am. I don’t understand where privilege comes in to the equation.”

              Look, my whole post was terrible, but you’re not doing yourself any favors. Let us drop this conversation, or continue in private. But let me do my own research in stead of having a screaming lecturer “educate” me. I honestly have more fun dealing with TERFs.

            3. Von Bailey says:

              “First off, yes, things balance out when you look at it from a global
              scale. Blacks in many Africa and Europe are on equal or better standing
              than whites, depending on the region and the majority, especially
              following the collapse of Apartheid.”

              There is absolutely nothing except your imagination that backs up that statement. There is nothing even close to things balancing out. You are apparently one of those Americans who know very little about the rest of the world. Why don’t you demonstrate the veracity of that statement with facts? Demonstrate that it’s not just what you want to believe so you can deny the phenomenon of white privilege.

              “Third, do not think that my not seeing race as a factor is a white privilege thing.”

              You have the ability to think it’s not a “white privilege thing” because you are white and have the privilege. People of color do not have the “privilege” of not seeing things through a racial prism because there are racist out there that will force them to see it whether they want to or not. So they have to consider whether or not a racist policeman will allow them to sit on a park bench without being harassed. They have to consider whether it’s okay to ask for a hotel room in a nice neighborhood because a racist person behind the counter may not rent to them. They have to consider whether the soda in their coat pocket creating a bulge will be considered a gun by a racist policeman and be killed. All because of the color of their skin. You don’t. That’s a privilege.

              Yes, your post was terrible and I wasn’t trying to get any favors so I really don’t care if you continue this conversation or not. Apparently, you not being able to demonstrate any of the insulting things you said as correct and my pointing it out means I’m a “screaming lecturer” and “angry step mother” instead of simply correct where you were wrong.

            4. Avius says:

              Dearest apologies. I am not at my best self. Funny, how if you think race is such a dominating factor you choose lecturing someone who’s already admitted they said some stupid things as opposed to going out and fixing it. In my eyes, race is not a factor. In others’, maybe it is. It damn well shouldn’t be. Now I’m gonna take my privileged white tranny ass and go watch some porn.

      4. jm313 says:

        How about you read the studies done on your little experiment called multiculturalism. All I can say is it ain’t looking too good at all.

        1. Von Bailey says:

          What experiment? Not aware of one being done.

          I get the impression you think you’ve made a point without actually making one.

        2. Von Bailey says:

          How about you provide some source material that demonstrates what you say instead of implying something exists? Afraid that someone who can read will be able to demonstrate you don’t know what you’re talking about? Or are the “studies” by racists using a plethora of racist assumptions that you have to be a racist to understand? History demonstrates that a racist can find justification for their ignorance in just about anything.

      5. Annallia Esaki says:

        1) Studies themselves can and often are biased. I remember reading one when I first went to college about women in engineering. The study concluded that the field of engineering was male dominated, which is true, but it failed to really look at why and instead went for the easy way of saying it was sexism. While it did make an effort to point out that the reason there were so few female engineers was because fewer women got degrees in engineering it failed to point out that the reason wasn’t that women were being denied, but that fewer women were pursuing that degree in the first place.

        2) True though not all races are equal in the racial wealth gap, for some reason it seems to affect blacks and hispanics more.

        3) This is true, or rather what you said is true not what he said. However it links to #2. People with more money are just as likely to use drugs, but are less likely to be dealers.

        4) The riot in Salt Lake were… well not happening? There were protest yes, but not rioting.

        1. Von Bailey says:

          “fewer women were pursuing that degree in the first place”

          But why were fewer women pursuing that degree? Because they were being taught in school that those were jobs for men and they would not be welcome in the field, which was true. Because they were steered through a system that programmed them to believe that they had different capabilities and that men would do it better.

          To simply blame women for not pursuing engineering degrees without looking at why that might be the case is not looking at the issue in it’s proper context.

          “for some reason it seems to affect blacks and hispanics more.”

          How about entertaining that racism is that reason? Why isn’t it as simple as people of color have been saying all along? White privilege is the reason white people have more money than everyone else. When you do that, and then acknowledge the institutional racism in this country all kinds of things simply start making sense.

          Yes, the police did not riot in Salt Lake, they only riot where black or brown people are the majority of the crowd.

          1. Annallia Esaki says:

            That was kind of my point. The study determined that it was pure sexism without bothering to go past how many women graduate with a degree in engineering. Does sexism play a role? More than likely yes, but you cannot stop at just the college degrees you have to go look at why more women werent taking the classes, if you trace it back far enough it becomes a problem with society as a whole going all the way back to it being more acceptable for a girl to play with dolls than say Qubits, not a fault of gender bias in the educational system.

            Yes wealth inequality among minorities is in part because of racism, you do realize that there are more races than just white, black, and hispanic right? What about Asians? We have a higher average income in the US than anyone, whites included. Lowest unemployment of any race, lowest rate of incarceration, highest rate of bachelors degrees… I apparently make a very poor asian since I have been incarcerated and dropped out of college.

            It does not however affect all races equally, blacks and hispanics seem to be the hardest hit, blacks are the hardest of all though.

            And again, Salt Lake there were no riots, no riots means no cops with tear gas and tanks.

            1. Von Bailey says:

              “Salt Lake there were no riots, no riots means no cops with tear gas and tanks.”

              A comment that ignores the fact that there were no riots until the cops showed up with tear gas and tanks.

            2. Annallia Esaki says:

              What a ridiculous statement. If, and only if you are talking about the riots that came after the grand jury decision then yeah what you say is true.

              However that ignores the weeks of protest (and riots) before the grand jury that started up the same day Brown was killed. In that first wave the riots preceded the tear gas and “tanks”. Riots broke out, Police deployed tear gas, city employed a curfew, none of this worked, APCs were deployed and with it police in full riot gear armed with rifles (please lets stop calling anything and everything armored a tank).

              So why were there no riots in Salt Lake? There wasn’t even much of a protest really. It is because of the lack of hype. Much like in the Treyvon Martin case the media whipped everyone into a frenzy in Ferguson, they couldn’t do the same in Salt Lake because the victim and shooter were the wrong color.

            3. Von Bailey says:

              So, according to you, the DOJ report that just came out is wrong. Well, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

              Type this into google:

              Intimidating, Unconstitutional Police Tactics In Ferguson Incited More Unrest, Says DOJ Expert Report”

              When you’re done reading the article, come back and explain why it’s wrong.

            4. Von Bailey says:

              “So why were there no riots in Salt Lake”

              Because the SLPD were forthcoming with information about what happened. Because they had a video of what happened. Because there wasn’t a attempt to find incriminating evidence against the person the cop killed. Because they didn’t leave the body of the person shot, bleeding in the street for four hours for no apparent reason while children passed by. The list goes on.

              For you to ignore how the SLPD handled it as opposed to the way the police departments (note the plural) in Fergusson handled it is at best disingenuous and at worst a blatant ignorance of reality to feed into your biased feelings.

    2. LadyeCatte says:

      “the black kid was seen attacking the officer prior to eventually being shot”
      Lie still being bandied about on Stormfront. NO ONE says he was attacking the officer EXCEPT the officer.

      You guys already lost your stupid “he had a busted eyesocket” crud, so you stick with lies no one throw a picture at.

      1. richardstarr says:

        No. The BLACK witnesses to the event say it. And the 3 BLACK members and 9 white members of the Grand Jury who actually listened to the testimony and reviewed the evidence came to the
        conclusion that he acted correctly and thus will not be charged.

        All of the witnesses that claimed Brown was surrendering or running away have RECANTED
        because the evidence showed the truth. The usual excuse was they “heard it” from someone
        else, not witnessed it themselves. A pity that they will not be charged with perjury because the
        lies they told incited others to violence.

        1. LadyeCatte says:

          Liar. TOLD YOU you’re spending too much time on Stormfront.. you’re starting to believe even their cocaine-created fantasies. You can’t link to a single place where such is notated because* drum roll please*

          IT ISN’T TRUE! @vonbailey:disqus above is right to call your comments pretty much pigsh*t. Throwing out false “facts” to boost your incredibly ridiculous narratives just makes you an even bigger arse than most rightwingers.

    3. AMA says:

      damn, virgin white boy spent all his free time typing that out, and he’s still wrong about everything.

    4. channa says:

      So you’re saying there’s no such a thing is white privilege? I’m white and I benefit from white privilege. It’s not fair but it’s a real thing. Your wall of text does not change that.

      1. richardstarr says:

        “Wall of text”.
        So, you did not read it. Got it.

        1. channa says:

          I read it. It was more than you needed to say to say what you wanted to say.

  2. Von Bailey says:

    Every democrat in the house at the time was a co-sponsor of the bill. That’s how the politics workedback then. Democrats compromised on a bill that got them some of what they wanted (Federal leadership in establishing effect drug abuse prevention, education programs and expanded Federal support for treatment and rehabilitation) and gave the republicans some of what they wanted (harsher sentencing so they could claim to be tough on crime). That’s the way politics worked then. Both sides got some of what they wanted.

    I see nothing in any of your cites a quote a single CBC member saying that they wanted harsher penalties for crack than cocaine. You simply made that up to justify a blatantly racist policy and blame it on the victims of the policy.

    1. richardstarr says:

      No, not every Democrat was a cosponor.
      Let’s do some math, if 16 of 19 members of the CBC were cosponsors, then that
      means 3 of them were not. Stop trying to make stuff up.

      And given that Charles Rangel was not only a member, but a founder of the CBC,
      and he had been constantly been fighting for harsher penalties because of his
      belief that it affected his constituents more, and that the black churches were pushing
      for harsher penalties for crack in general, are you really trying to say with a straight
      face that the members of the CBC did NOT want the harsher penalties?

      The victims of the users of crack cocaine were primarily black.
      The people pushing for harsher laws were primarily black.
      And the violators of the law were also primarily black.

      To push the idea that somehow this was a racist policy just makes you look like a bigot that chooses to ignore the reality of the time.

      It is harder to find specific quotes for events that occurred prior to the news being
      relayed via the internet. Now I’m sure that if I wanted to I could read through press
      releases and the congressional record to find quotes, but I’m still waiting for you to
      post a single quote of opposition to the increased penalties by a significant portion
      of the CBC at the time of the bill. I know Maxine Waters came out against it as some
      point, but Rangel always pushed for it.

      1. Von Bailey says:

        You make a lot of claims without a shred of evidence to support them.

        1) You’ve supplied not a single member of the CBC calling for harsher penalties for crack than cocaine. Not one. You’ve simply assumed it and ignored that the large majority of “co-sponsors” were NOT part of the CBC and what that implies.

        2) You haven’t supplied a single quote from Charlie Rangel saying that he wanted harsher penalties for crack than cocaine. You’ve simply assumed it to facilitate your false arguments.

        3) Your “points” still lack a single black person saying that they wanted a difference between the sentencing for crack and powdered cocaine. You’ve simply assumed it from the start and can’t let go of something that facilitates your imaginative version of reality. Your basically saying that black people knew that it would adversely affect their community and didn’t care or were too stupid too care. That’s racist.

        I have no intention of attempting to prove a negative. You are the one who made the comment that “Black leaders pushed for the harsher sentencing in the first place”. That’s a lie and you’ve provided NOTHING to the contrary but racist assumptions in an attempt to blame the victim. Classic American white racist behavior.

        1. richardstarr says:

          The LAW they COSPONSORED specified the harsher penalties.
          Are you saying they cosponsored a bill who’s content they disagreed with?
          Get real.

          The fact that others who were not members of the CBC also did is irrelevant other
          than to show that it was a popular bill.

          The black community was screaming for action because the crack epidemic was
          hurting THEM. It was not hurting suburban white communities. The law was written
          in response to their outcry and was designed to aid them. By removing the criminals
          from their community it did not adversely affect them, it increased their quality of life.

          1. Von Bailey says:

            Yes, they sponsored a bill that had content that they disagreed with. If that’s a new concept to you, look up the word compromise, familiarize yourself with the concept, then apply it to politics. It was something that was done a lot before a black president was elected and the republicans decided compromise was a bad word as it would actually achieve something that the black president may get credit.

            The rest of your diatribe is just more words without a single black person stating that they wanted harsher penalties for crack over powdered cocaine as you originally claimed. So it’s still simply a lie that you can’t let go of.

            1. richardstarr says:

              There is a big difference between VOTING for a bill because you don’t like it
              or parts of it and cosponsoring it. You cosponsor it to go on the record that you
              support it because often a voice vote comes later on and its harder to prove that
              you voted one way or the other.

              You just can’t wrap your mind around a simple concept that sponsoring something
              means you back it. And black leaders WERE asking for harsher penalties for crack.
              The fact that cocaine did not get a boost too is irrelevant because they were not
              requesting that that drug also get an increased penalty.

              If you ask for a piece of pie, and you don’t get a piece of cake along with the pie
              you asked for, that’s on you for not asking for it.

            2. Von Bailey says:

              You just have nothing to support your comments except your assumptions. You cannot find d a single story where a black leader backed harsher sentencing for crack over powder. Nothing. You are not black leader so you interpreting their intent in a destructive way towards their own community is simply self serving. You having nothing substantial to back it up demonstrates it’s lack of veracity.

              You ignoring this is just white racist hubris.

            3. richardstarr says:

              They asked for harsher sentences PERIOD.
              They neglected to raise the penalties on cocaine at the same time because they did
              not think to do so. Later on, people like yourself decided that there must be racist
              reasons to do so.

              You choose to ignore what sponsoring means because it does not fit the story
              you are trying to sell. Removing criminals from a community is hardly “destructive”,
              though I imagine it is upsetting when someone’s friend or relative goes to jail for
              the crimes they committed, they still committed the crime and the penalties were
              still increased because of the demands of leaders of the black community.

            4. Von Bailey says:

              You’re still missing a single black person backing up your incredibly racist claim. You choose to ignore that because white racists never need a black person to help explain white racist assumptions of black people. Never have. It’s easier to believe the absurd than deal with a reality that forces them to deal with reality.

            5. richardstarr says:

              Charles Rangle is certainly black, he certainly called for the increased penalties on
              crack, you just have your panties in a twist because the bill that raised penalties for
              crack did not simultaneously raise penalties on cocaine.

              For some reason you don’t want the people that cosponsored the bill and presumably voted for a bill they supported to take responsibility that they neglected to raise penalties on cocaine so that racists like yourself could be satisfied that white people would also get punished harsher.

              You have decided to live your life looking through the prism of race.
              No doubt to attribute any failures in your life to outside agencies rather than accept
              your part.

            6. Von Bailey says:

              No he didn’t. That is a lie. 301 co-sponsors and all that you see are 16 black people as the motivating force to increased penalties directed at the part that would obviously affect black people more than anyone else. They just weren’t bright enough or didn’t care that white people using the same amount in powder would spend less time in jail. It had nothing to do with the Speaker of the House pushing it through for his own political needs, it was the blacks hurting themselves. The kind of pseudo-logic racists have been using for centuries. Blacks aren’t smart enough to make laws that don’t hurt them.

              You have provided no quote where Rangel said he wanted harsher sentencing for crack than powder. Your assumptions that my metaphoric panties are twisted is simply projection. I’m not the one who can’t find anything to back up my words, you are. Why should I be in any discomfort at all for simply pointing out your racist rants are lies?

        2. decrepittex says:

          Von Bailey, you are fighting a losing battle here. If this person is so ignorant to the fact that white privilege does exist then no amount of facts will change his mind.

          1. Von Bailey says:

            The goal is not to change his mind, but to expose that his perspective is built on ignorance and lies in a public forum. He is not the target. The target are those who may read this and are still open to the truth being involved in what they believe.

            I believe I have achieved that.

            1. Keith says:

              You have achieved nothing other than to show you are a stubborn RACIST.

  3. Von Bailey says:

    It took you that long to find out that you really can’t find a single person on the CBC endorsing harsher sentencing for crack over powder cocaine? I note again, NO QUOTE. It says something about your word that you still stick to the same lie after spending so much time and not finding evidence to back it up.

    Rangel wanting Nixon or Reagan to get tougher on crime is not the same as him endorsing harsher sentencing on a particular drug in a specific bill that would harm his own self professed community more than others. Him saying that something was “well intentioned” is also not an endorsement of the same. That’s just a demonstration of how desperate a stretch you will make to hold onto your racist assumptions.

    Let’s talk about revisionist history; YOU originally said that “The laws against crack, a form of cocaine, were increased due to the insistence of congressional black caucus”. Now that you can’t back it up, all you refer to is your interpretation at vague references to laws during that time by one congressman. Here’s something that your point ignores: Charlie Rangel did not speak for the CBC regarding this at the time. There would have been a press conference if something like that occurred and there wasn’t so it didn’t. So all you’ve done is make spurious assertions about the CBC as a group with nothing to back it up, but still insist on your interpretation being correct. Just like white racist do in America, use their vague racist interpretation of a single black person to justify the racist arguments that they make about the whole.

    You haven’t quoted any opinions about the CBC as a group on the matter or differentiated their actions as individual democrats from any other democrat that voted for the bill. As your own articles point out, not all the CBC voted for the bill, which demonstrates that they did not act as a group. But you ignore that because it doesn’t fit your racist narrative.

    It is stupid to push for harsher penalties for one drug over another unless you thought you were getting something for it that would allow you to avoid the harsher penalties. There was more in the bill than just harsher penalties and you ignoring that is simply self serving.

    The sentencing disparities were justified because of a news blitz about Len Bias being killed and how crack cocaine had ruined the promising career of a young black man out of college headed for the Boston Celtics. The congressman of Boston at the time was the Speaker of the House and made a big deal about how this demonstrated how crack cocaine was more dangerous than powder. Simply typing Len Bias & Crack Cocaine into google supplies a wealth of evidence to support this.

    It is you who ignore history for your racist version so that you can continue to believe that black people did this to themselves and thus nothing to do with white America. Convincing yourselves with a racist rationale that you can ignore it, just as the young lady says in her cartoon.

    1. richardstarr says:

      1) A law was passed, cosponsored by 16 of 19 members of the CBC.
      2) That law raised the penalty for crack, but not for cocaine.
      3) Crack was a significant problem during the time the law was passed, with many
      black civic groups having rallies and the like to get people to do something.
      Cocaine, for whatever the reason, was not their concern.
      4) The law passed.

      I’m backing it up with logic and the record.
      In order to show that this was NOT the desired outcome, you would need to
      demonstrate speeches representing the view of the CBC to the contrary made
      at the time of the bills passage, and you can’t.

      The simple truth is, is that at the time they did not CARE about cocaine.
      They cared about crack. The EFFECT of the law was a disproportionate
      penalty. You keep trying to get people to believe that this was not the desired outcome.

      Later on, racists like yourself decried this, and eventually people like Rangel
      regretted it. He was the FOUNDER of the CBC and during the time of the
      penalties being increase most certainly was a member.

      1. Von Bailey says:

        As I said, you’ve been lying from the beginning and don’t have the integrity to admit when you are wrong. You said that the CBC insisted on harsher penalties for crack over powder. Not being able to demonstrate the veracity of that claim when challenged, you changed to relying on a single congressman on the CBC doing it. Not being able to back that up, now it’s unnamed “black civic groups”. You’ve changed your lie so much you don’t even reference your comment anymore.

        And still not a quote from a single black person, including Rangel, saying they wanted harsher sentencing for crack than powder cocaine. You read the lie somewhere and simply believed it because it fit in your racist assumptions about black people. Those assumptions allow you to ignore the reality your racism perpetuates. Just as the young lady points out so well in her cartoon.

        1. richardstarr says:

          You keep adding the words “over powder”.
          They wanted increased penalties for crack, period.
          The fact that it made it worse than for cocaine was irrelevant in their eyes.

          It only became important because of racists like yourself that thought there
          was a conspiracy going on.

          As to “unnamed black civic groups”, you can refer to the links I provided
          previously, including articles in Ebony magazine, for the specifics.

          He cosponsored the law and knew its contents.
          Are your really expecting anyone to believe that the cosponsors of the bill did
          not know what was in the bill? This was not some multi-thousand page bill.

          The only racist here is YOU. The only lies here are yours.

          You keep repeating the same lame crap hoping that it will magically make it
          true. The only way your revisionist history works is if the majority of the CBC
          were just puppets for “the man”.

          1. Von Bailey says:

            Again, you ignore your own words to lie. I simply keep bringing up your own words and you can’t defend them with facts. Where is the quote that says that the CBC verifies your claim? It doesn’t exist. It’s just so because you said so and then ended the sentence with “PERIOD”. As if that makes it true.

            I’m not going to go digging through a three page article trying to find something you claim exists. If you read the article and it exists then you should be able to quote from it and cite it. You don’t for whatever reason. Maybe because nothing you’ve presented has backed your word and a desperately, maybe a vague reference like you gave, hopefully saves your credibility.

            You calling me a racist is simply projection. It’s the new fad among racist to cast the word back as if it means something to someone who isn’t really a racist. I call you a racist and tell you why. You call me a racist like a child throwing a name back at someone who called them a name.

            You haven’t demonstrated a thing I’ve said is a lie. I have, however, demonstrated that your claim that the CBC “insisted” that there be harsher penalties for crack over powder, and then defining where this was demonstrated by using the 1986 Drug Law as the example not be based in fact. The fact is there is a public record of a very powerful white politician who had a motivation and means to do the same thing is irrelevant because it makes a mockery of your racist assumptions. You ignoring the public record and insisting that your self serving interpretation of some votes are right (not a CBC vote, but a House vote in which some of the CBC voted NO) is simply pathetically lying.

            I keep repeating the same thing because I am referring to the same thing. Your original lie. I’m not going to switch to allow you to change the subject to something more general so that you can save face. You lied when you said that the CBC backed harsher sentences for crack over powder. You have a serious lack of integrity for insisting that your lie is true without a shred of evidence to back it up.

            None of this surprises me. I live in America where white racists act as you do on a daily basis. Less now than say, 20 years ago, but it still happens. You’re a perfect example.

            1. richardstarr says:

              You keep repeating the same b.s.
              They voted to increase the penalty of crack, period.
              It’s only you that attempt to make it appear that it was a conscience decision to
              do it “over” cocaine, while I simply believe they did not care until racists like yourself
              started complaining.

              There was a law they cosponsored, it did what it did, but you want to claim they did
              not want it to do what it did because it does not fit your world view.
              I don’t need a quote, I see their record. “You” would have to produce a quote
              that shows that the bill deviated from what they cosponsored to prove your point.

              I call you a racist because you are a racist. Period.
              16 of 19 cosponsored it, the vast majority of them. You can’t even prove a single
              one voted against it because it was a voice vote.

              The difference between the past and today is people are more aware that racists
              like yourself call others racist to get their way, but more people are willing to examine
              the underlying facts now instead of just taking it at face value.

            2. Von Bailey says:

              You didn’t originally say that “they voted to increase penalty of crack”, you originally said the the Congressional Black Congress specifically insisted that crack cocaine have harsher penalties. You then quoted a specific law which was supposed to prove it. The fact that you run from your original words, the ones that I called a lie, is telling. The fact that you don’t acknowledge that your original statement was wrong is telling. And its telling things about you.

              Now you make the ridiculous argument that I must find some quote that disproves your assumption. Your “assumption” presumes that every politician agreed with every aspect of every bill they ever sponsored. Or that these agreed with every aspect of every bill they’ve ever sponsored. An assumption that is patently false, well, unless you’ve got something your imagination thinks proves this assumption as factual. You don’t, because it’s not.

              You don’t see obvious problem with your assumption because it underpins your whole argument and without it everything you’ve said is obviously wrong. But, as behavioral habits manifest, you’ve resorted to denial instead of dealing with the fact that you’ve been wrong about what you’ve believed about this for some time. Let alone, being in a dialog with someone in a public forum where it was demonstrated. Can’t be an easy pill to swallow. I would sympathize, but I’m sure you have multiple levels of denial to deal with it.

              Your evidence that I’m a racist appears to be the same reason your lies about the CBC and crack were true: because you can type the word “period”. Has nothing to do with facts, information, or anything I said besides accusing you of it; just because you say so emphatically. That’s pathetic.

              I don’t have to prove any of of the CBC didn’t vote for it individually. You made the claim that the group did something, not the individuals. The group didn’t do anything close to what you claim. You lied about it and apparently lack the integrity to admit it.

            3. richardstarr says:

              You didn’t originally say that “they voted to increase penalty of
              crack”, you originally said the the Congressional Black Congress
              specifically insisted that crack cocaine have harsher penalties.

              Yes, harsher penalties than it already HAD, not in comparison to anything else.
              The law specifically INCREASED the penalty, making it harsher than it was.
              Is your English comprehension that low?

              You make the claim they did not want the penalties to be harsher, despite all evidence
              to the contrary. Provide proof. I can show the cosponsored the law, what do you have?

              Sponsorship of a bill directly implies one’s wholehearted support, as opposed to merely voting for it. That the whole point of being a cosponsor, its to go on record and take credit for the bill. The idea that they are cosponsors, yet did not actually
              support the bill, is beyond stupid.

              You keep trying to deflect, but the truth is, you make your assumptions based on race. You are a racist by assuming motivations of groups based on their race.

              Your continued intransigence in this area merely provide more evidence of this.

              You ignore the evidence, refuse to provide evidence to support your position, and
              make assumptions solely on the race of the participants. You are a racist.

            4. Von Bailey says:

              Your pathetic attempt at rewriting what you said does not change the fact that you have nothing that demonstrates that either. Where’s the evidence that they CBC, as a group, insisted on harsher penalties for crack cocaine? There isn’t any. You’re still a liar no matter how you parse your words.

              “You make the claim they did not want the penalties to be harsher, despite all evidence to the contrary.”

              I said no such thing. I claim there is no evidence that they specifically wanted harsher penalties for crack over powder. That’s not the same as saying they didn’t want harsher penalties. If the harsher penalties were the same across the board, no discrepancies between crack and powder, I don’t see a reason to object to them, nor do I see a reason the CBC would have objected. I also don’t see a reason why they would have “insisted” on them either way; something you’ve not proven but continue to lie about. But then if you don’t rewrite what I said then you’d have nothing to attack me with so I understand how you would have to continue lying.

              Now you claim the CBC as a group “directly implied” their “insistence”? Really? You honestly have no idea how pathetic that sounds? How do you “imply insistence”? You’re just going deeper into ridiculous rationales to hold onto ridiculous points.

              I haven’t deflected anything. I’ve stayed on point, your lie about what the CBC did. You’ve lied about it and found NO evidence to support it. You just believe found something that you claim implies it and somehow I’m the one deflecting. Typical racist projection. When you provide evidence instead of your assumptions about what other people, that you don’t know, and their intent, instead of your assumptions about their intent, I will pay attention to it. Until then your racist assumptions are not evidence except to other racists, which probably explains why you accept it so easily. It also explains why I will continue to expose it for the lie that it is. 🙂

            5. richardstarr says:

              How many times were you dropped on your head as child?

              They cosponsored the law, the effect of the law was what it was.
              The only way your concept works is if they are puppets or stupid.

              There were black civic groups, their core constituency, that were demonstrating
              and asking for action and they acted. You don’t like the results and are attempting to disassociate them from their involvement.

              You continue to project your racism on others. You call anyone who challenges your world view a racist or a liar, but fail to produce anything to support your claims.
              So, put up of shut up.

            6. Von Bailey says:

              Who is “they”? You specifically said that the CBC insisted on harsher penalties, but you keep referencing individuals as if you don’t understand the difference between an individual act and a group act.

              You reference “black civic groups” but cannot actually name one. I know it might surprise a racist, but black people actually name their groups to differentiate them from others. Your inability to give the name of one implies you’re just making things up as you did with your lies about the CBC.

              Calling you a racist and a liar is not calling anyone who challenges me a racist and a liar. That’s as ridiculous as the rest of your comments. You really seem to have a problem differentiating individuals from groups; another trait of racists.

  4. Von Bailey says:

    you didn’t say anything about “support” you said the group “insisted”.
    Again you’re changing what you said to accommodate lying. No where in
    your pathetic attempt does a single black person say, “So we need
    harsher penalties on crack.” Not a single person. Just your assumptions
    based on comments that don’t say what you claimed they “insisted” on.
    Your pathetic attempt to ignore that using your logic 285 white
    democrats voted for it too. Were they also insisting on harsher
    penalties or was it just the black people who need you to interpret what
    they were doing?

    Wanting something done about crack is not the same thing as insisting on harsher penalties for one drug over another. You could want drug counseling, you could want PSAs detailing the dangers of drugs, there are plenty of things to do about drugs than put people in jail longer. You keep insisting that your assumptions are facts. Nothing supports that in the least, but you insist on it. Just like a racist when their racist assumptions are proven wrong, you go into denial.

    don’t have to provide anything. I say that they didn’t insist on higher
    penalties for crack and there is nothing that contradicts that except
    your assumptions. How do you provide evidence that someone or an
    organization didn’t say they insist on something? You can’t. The burden
    is on you to support what you say they did insist on. You can’t so like
    a person desperately grasping for an argument, you attempt to switch
    your burden onto me. Still pathetic, but you are persistent.

    1. richardstarr says:

      Are you just too stupid and stubborn to admit you are wrong?

      Black organizations scream about crack, black politicians cosponsor a bill
      that raises the penalty on crack, but somehow they did not really want to do that.

      When you cosponsor a bill that does something its reasonable to assume that, since you are so proud about the law that you want to be associated with it if it goes to a voice vote, that they wanted it do what it did. How are you unable to connect this?

      The question is not whether or not white people supported this endeavor, but whether
      or not the CBC did. You keep insisting they did not want harsher penalties and have
      yet to produce a single shred of evidence to support it, because you can’t.

      The EFFECT of the law was the penalties were increased and made harsher than
      other drugs. If they wanted ALL drugs to have increased penalties, then they would
      have written the law to do it. Show an amendment from the CBC attempting, and
      failing, to get this done and you might have an iota of credibility to your blithering.

      It’s only your desperate attempt to hold on to your racist world view that black politicians could not have done what they done and somehow only the white votes
      for it count.

      Produce evidence or shut up.

      1. Von Bailey says:

        The question is whether or not you lied when you said that the CBC insisted on harsher penalties. They didn’t insist on anything of the sort. To insist something is not to be a co-sponsor along with over 300 other people. Insistence isn’t implied by voting on something. Insistence isn’t because you can type the word “period” at the end of a sentence.

        Perhaps you should look up words before you ignorantly use them.

        1. richardstarr says:

          Harsher : Comparative form of harsh. More severe.

          They wanted more severe penalties than the penalties than it currently had.
          The cosponsored and passed a law that had this effect.
          You are attempting to say the did NOT want this, when they obviously did.

          1. Von Bailey says:

            You simply get more pitiful and all to hold onto a lie. Defining one of the words in a lie doesn’t mitigate the lie; it’s still a lie. You don’t have the cbc, a black organization or a single black person saying they wanted “more severe penalties” for crack. Just your assumptions and insistence that you are right.

            So it’s still nothing but a lie.

            1. richardstarr says:

              How are you this dense?

              They wanted to increase the penalty for crack, they cosponsored a law that did it,
              it passed, end of story. You have produced nothing to show those who cosponsored
              the bill, and could have removed their names at any time if they no longer agreed with it, were opposed to it.

              You can’t, because they didn’t. They “spoke” by cosponsoring it, they “spoke” by voting. If this bill had passed in a more recent era, the whole shebang would be online. Just because they don’t have a press release printed out using the exact phrasing that you want to see does not mean that their actions were not intentional.

              And I’ve given you a link to a newspaper article discussing 60 predominantly black churches marching about crack. Or do you think a black church does not count as
              a black organization.

              Produce evidence or shut up.

            2. Von Bailey says:

              So because you cannot provide a shred of evidence to back up your claim and must use your assumptions, I’m dense? Wow. You project your shortcomings like breathing.

              You lied. You provided nothing to back up your lies and then started telling me that I needed to disprove your lies instead of you having to supply a single person to back up your lies. You’re right because you say so. I’m a racist because you said so. The only evidence you provide is your word and it’s not back up by anything except gross assumptions.

              You really are pathetic. You want me to “shut up”? Stop lying.

            3. richardstarr says:

              Good lord you are pathetic.
              I’ve presented evidence, you just choose to ignore it because its not in a form
              you want. I’m not about to dig through the congressional records to give you your
              sound bite. Their vote shows what they wanted. Their cosponsor ship shows they
              approved. And you’ve shown you will do anything to avoid dealing with reality.
              I’ve given quotes from Rangel including his later regrets, and you ignore it.
              You don’t like the conclusion, so you ignore the evidence.

              Provide evidence, or shut up. All you do is continue to blather on providing
              nothing of substance.

            4. Von Bailey says:

              If providing sites that don’t make your point is evidence to you, then I can see how you would believe you’ve provided evidence. Like some other concepts you don’t seem to understand that evidence is supposed to support your argument. Nothing that you’ve presented demonstrates your statement, “The laws against crack, a form of cocaine, were increased due to the insistence of congressional black caucus to deal with the crisis in the inner cities.”

              You like looking up words. Look up “insistence”. You will not find the words “co_sponsored” or “voted” anywhere in the definition. They insisted on nothing of the sort. You lied when you said they insisted on harsher penalties. You simply don’t have the integrity to admit it.

            5. richardstarr says:

              You continue to ignore the facts in front of your face.
              The entire purpose of cosponsoring a bill is to take credit for it.
              The law was written because the members wanted it to do what it did.
              This is not a case of a missing comma or word that allows it to be interpreted
              as being other than it is.

              You provide nothing to counter what I have given you.
              Provide evidence or shut up.

            6. Von Bailey says:

              Another lie.

              I have given you alternative reasons why members of the CBC would have voted for the bill besides harsher penalties. The only reason, in your arguments, for them to have voted for the bill is the harsher penalties, totally ignoring that there were other aspects in the bill that they could have found favorable and simply compromised. Accepting that would make your original comment obviously untrue, so you won’t accept it.

              You have provided NOTHING that demonstrates “insistence” for “harsher penalties” on the part of the CBC as a group as your initial comment stated. So you are continuing to insist that your lie be counted as true. Pathetic and childish, but racists do that all the time.

            7. richardstarr says:

              You’ve given an alternate “theory”, but nothing to back it up.
              They COSPONSORED the bill, not just voted for it.
              You continue to ignore that fact. Cosponsoring is an endorsement of the whole,
              unlike a vote which may be a reluctant acceptance/compromise.

              And yes, you are a pathetic childish racist.

            8. Von Bailey says:

              You didn’t say that they “endorsed” the bill, you said that they were “insistent” on “harsher penalties”. Look up the word “insist” again. It doesn’t mean “endorse”.

              My “alternate theory” is simply more plausible than yours. You are claiming that they wanted harsher penalties and I am claiming that they wanted help in their communities in the form of treatment centers and eduction. Only a racist would assume that they were so stupid as to want the punishment of their own community instead of the help offered. But again, without the racist assumptions you make, your argument falls apart and your lie is exposed.

            9. richardstarr says:

              They are cosponsors. If they were unhappy with it, they would not have been.

              Charles Rangel, the founder of the CBC, has over the course of his career consistently
              called for harsher penalties on drugs. He eventually stated that he regretted the disparity that he had voted for.

              The harsher penalties were put into place to discourage the illegal activities as well
              as remove those people harming their communities. Only a racist like yourself would
              assume that the mere act of jailing such a criminal “harms” the community simply because it turns out that the criminal happens to share your skin color.

            10. Von Bailey says:

              I’m sure that they are thrilled that you put words in their mouths to prove your points when you can’t find them saying what you need. Either that, or they would notice what a racist you are to believe that you speak for them in a way that makes them sound incredibly stupid.

              Charlie Rangel is not the founder of the CBC, he was a founding member, but he was not the founder. You chose to ignore the other founders in order to give your lie more weight. He is credited with naming it, but he was a junior congressman at the time. If he didn’t have the backing of established black congress persons at the time, nobody would have paid any attention to him. Your lack of knowledge regarding black history is profound.

              Only a racist would assume that the problem was ONLY in communities where people were of a certain color of skin. It didn’t come to America as crack. It had to be supplied by the other people who were bringing it into the country in a powdered form before it became crack. Why wouldn’t the CBC also want the people who are bringing the crack into the country to be sold to their neighborhoods also punished? Or don’t you think they were bright enough to know it had to come from somewhere before it was in their congressional districts? There isn’t a single logical reason why the CBC would want harsher penalties for criminals in their neighborhoods and not the people supplying the criminals in their neighborhoods. Your arguments are ridiculous, as usual.

            11. richardstarr says:

              This organization was renamed the Congressional Black Caucus in February 1971 on the motion of Charles B. Rangel of New York. Founding members of the caucus were Shirley Chisholm, William L. Clay Sr., George W. Collins, John Conyers, Ronald Dellums, Augustus F. Hawkins, Ralph Metcalfe, Parren Mitchell, Robert Nix, Charles Rangel, Louis Stokes, and Washington D.C. Delegate Walter Fauntroy.

              I’ve been mentioning Rangel because he happens to be the most outspoken of the anti-drug people during that period. Why you would believe anyone thought he was the sole founder from my postings is beyond me.

              So you are saying the black church leaders I quoted above as stating the problem was much worse in their community is racist?

              How quickly you forget the quote.
              “As devastating as drugs may be in the white community, they are 10 times worse in the black community”
              Seems they were mostly concerned about the criminals and the impact on THEIR
              community. Whether or not they pressed for higher penalties on “outsiders” is
              unknown to me. But you certainly have yet to produce a quote showing it was
              attempted and rejected.

              You can dodge and weave in your attempt to deceive, but in the end you have still
              produced nothing to back your statements.

              Put up or shut up.

            12. Von Bailey says:

              Impressive, you can use Google and cut and paste. Does it mean that you were aware of that prior to Goggling it. Not in the least and your comments have demonstrated your lack of previous knowledge of who they are and what they’ve done.

              You’ve been mentioning Rangel because he’s the only member on the CBC that you can find that says anything at all on the subject and without him your desperate attempts at putting some substance to your lie falls apart. But even that has no substance, because you can’t find a single time where he does what you claimed, insisted on harsher penalties for crack.

              No, I’m calling you a racist, but your penchant for projection and denial won’t let you see that.

              Interesting quote. So where’s the part where they say, “So make harsher penalties for crack.” It’s not there because it was never said by anyone in the black community and thus your original claim that it was insisted by the CBC is a lie.

              I don’t have to provide anything to show it was “attempted and rejected” because I never said it either was done. You are the one who claimed something happened and haven’t been able to provide a shred of evidence to support it. I’ve simply been pointing out you lied. To prove I’m wrong, all you need to do is provide something from the CBC insisting on harsher penalties for crack, as you claimed. You can’t do that either. So you lied.

              Keep going. I couldn’t care less. This is taking hardly any effort at all.

            13. richardstarr says:

              I lived through the era, I remember it, I google to provide things for you and
              any other person that might find it of interest, and who desires more 3rd party

              I mention Rangel because he is the most outspoken person and has readily
              discussed his connection with this issue. I’d ask him directly about this, but
              his office only replies to people from his district. So, I’m going to post on his
              Facebook page in the hopes of a response since you refuse to make any
              effort yourself.

              You have provided no evidence to support your case because it does not exist.
              You refuse to accept cosponsorship for the proof it is of endorsing the bill.
              Frankly, your lack of effort is consistent with this entire subject.

            14. Von Bailey says:

              I lived through it as a black man who was paying attention to what black people were doing and saying about it. That’s how I know you’re lying. There wasn’t a single black person in a leadership position calling for harsher sentencing for one drug over another.

              Rangel was the most outspoken BLACK person on the subject and even he never said anything about harsher penalties for crack. Demonstrating even more that you lied as even the most outspoken black person on the subject of dealing with the subject never insisted on harsher penalties for crack. I have no reason to go looking for something I know Randel never said. It’s your word that is dependent on what you claim he said, not mine.

              You keep saying I need to present evidence that you are a liar instead of simply pointing out that what you say are lies. That’s silly. If you don’t provide evidence to back up your lies I certainly don’t have to provide any that you are lying, it’s obvious.

            15. richardstarr says:

              You keep saying “one drug over another”.
              Considering that drugs are and for the most part have been treated different than
              each other from the start just makes you seem stupid.
              EX: An oz of weed never had the same penalty as an oz of meth.

              Whether the CBC intended from the start to also increase the penalties of regular cocaine too, that’s not what the law the endorsed and passed did.
              Crack was the problem they were addressing with this law and the law resulted in harsher penalties for crack than the penalties that it had before.

              Thing is, there is no evidence that they also wanted to increase the penalty for cocaine at the time this bill was passed. No speeches made of bills proposed at that time.
              That came later on.

              You don’t go looking because you don’t really believe you will find something to back you up.

            16. Von Bailey says:

              Given that you know that “one drug over another” means crack over powder, your comment is at best, disingenuous. There is no difference besides how you use one over the other. Until a powerful white politician made it an issue because a basketball player died who was supposed to be going to his favorite basketball team they had the same punishment. All this is documented in the public record, contrary to your fantasies.

              Since I never said anything about the CBC increasing penalties for powdered cocaine, your right, it doesn’t matter. It’s apparently a dodge by you to obfuscate the fact that you claimed that they insisted on harsher penalties and they never did anything of the kind. I never said that they wanted to increase the penalty of any drug so I don’t need to provide evidence that they did. YOU claimed that the CBC insisted that crack cocaine get harsher penalties, so you have the burden to prove your words aren’t the lies I say they are.

              Like your self serving comments about the intentions of the CBC and Charlie Rangel, you now assume you have the ability to tell me why I don’t go looking for evidence to support your lies. It’s beyond you that it’s simply because it makes no sense to go looking for evidence that someone is lying when they can’t provide a shred of evidence that they are telling the truth.

            17. Cokak says:

              Arrests / Imprisonment[edit]

              In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 which, amongst other things, created a 100 to 1 sentencing disparity for crack vs. powder cocaine possession, which some people consider to be a racist law which discriminates against minorities,[1][2][3] who are more likely to use crack than powder cocaine. People convicted in federal court of possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine will receive a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years in federal prison. On the other hand, possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same sentence.[1][2] Some other authors, however, have pointed out that the Congressional Black Caucus backed the law, which they say implies that the law cannot be racist.[4][5][6]

              Crime statistics show that in 1999 in the United States blacks were far more likely to be targeted by law enforcement for drug crimes, and received much stiffer penalties and sentences than whites.[7] A 2013 study by the American Civil Liberties Union determined that a black person in the United States was 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though both races have similar rates of marijuana use.[8] Iowa had the highest racial disparity of the fifty states.[9] Black people in Iowa were arrested for marijuana possession at a rate 8.4 times higher than white people.[9]

              In 1998 there were wide racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions, sentencing and deaths. African-Americans, who only comprised 13% of regular drug users, made up for 35% of drug arrests, 55% of convictions, and 74% of people sent to prison for drug possession crimes.[1] Nationwide African-Americans were sent to state prisons for drug offenses 13 times more often than white men,[10] even though they only comprise 13% of regular drug users.[1]

              In the late 1990s, black and white women had similar levels of drug use during pregnancy. In spite of this, black women were 10 times as likely as white women to be reported to a child welfare agency for prenatal drug use.[11][need quotation to verify][12]

            18. richardstarr says:

              And what happens when economic status is factored in?
              And what about other crimes? It is not uncommon for someone arrested to
              plead guilty to a lesser offense in order to take more serious penalties off the
              table. Not to mention convictions for previous crimes which make it more likely
              to receive sentencing vs diversion. Then there is the matter of, for lack of a
              better word, arrogance to those committing their crimes. Pot is still a federal
              crime, just ask Obama and Holder, yet I see/smell black youths smoking at my
              train stop and I have yet to see a white youth do so.

              The rich and famous get “rehab” while ordinary folk do not.
              How many active NBA players do you know of that have been arrested for pot,
              despite the vast majority of them admitting to its use?

              I think there may well be echos of racism within the system, but I also believe there
              are those that will milk the past to keep themselves in fancy suits.

  5. Ariel Armaita says:

    The concept is sound. But the name of this phenomenon is racist as well as a bigoted term in and of itself. It has been shown that this occurs even intra-racially within any given race. And it should be referred to as “Lighter Skin Tone Privilege”.

    I am being serious. I am sure that a lot of individuals who actually use the term will not see the reason why it is a bigoted term just as much as there are those who do not even seem to be able to grasp the concept of it.

    And just because you desire to target a Caucasian audience and awaken them to the existence of this phenomenon as well as to get them to become aware of the implications does not make the term less bigoted or valid as well.

    1. Von Bailey says:

      Yes, make an argument that totally ignores the reason why the lighter skin tone privilege even exists (i.e. white people have the lighter skin). Let’s focus on the intra-racial issue and ignore how white people are involved in it at all? That’s what white privilege allows for so why not indulge?

  6. Dave says:

    I am white, yet the color of my skin has NEVER done me any favors!

    1. Von Bailey says:

      …and you know this because of what?

      1. Dave says:

        Because I don’t have millions of dollars, a sports car or anything that I’m entitled to because of the “color of my skin.” If anything it’s a detriment. Where do I pick up my money then?

        1. Von Bailey says:

          Are you aware of how ignorant it sounds to say that you aren’t privileged because you don’t have a bunch of stuff you believe you’re “entitled” to? Do you have any idea how ignorant it sounds to believe that the only privilege that you could have would be monetary?

          1. Dave says:

            Whatever man, you sound like a complete asshole. I’m out.

        2. Von Bailey says:

          It’s telling that you believe that “millions of dollars” or having a “sports car” are measures of privilege instead of something that you earn. But thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea what real privilege is.

          1. Keith says:

            There is no white privilege, you buffoon.

      2. doomed says:

        because of personal experience I would guess.

        I am of mixed genetics myself but appear ‘cauacasian’ though I only label myself human. Cannot say I have had any opportunities that were not afforded to others.
        If anything appearing Caucasian has had the opposite effect. No easy access to life because of my skin colour.
        How do I know this? Like Dave it’s again called first hand personal experience.

        But hey as it’s not your experience or viewpoint I doubt you’ll take note from the responses of yours I have so far seen.
        Maybe take your blinders off for a moment Von Bailey and see people as humans not colours.

        1. doomed says:

          I feel the real problem here is self stereotyping and labelling.
          Why do people say “I am a black man” not “I am a man”
          Why do people say “I am a feminist but want equality for all”? Would that not make them a humanist?
          Why do people say “I am Gay” not “I am human”

          I do not go around telling everyone who will listen and those who won’t “Hey I am white, Indian, British, Australian, Heterosexual Male Father with Aspergers.”
          If pushed I will say I am human.
          And you know why that is?

          Because I was raised to stand on my own two feet and just be me, think for myself and to only take what I have earned. I have NEVER had anything just handed to me, I was not raised being told every day I was owed something for some slight I never experienced.

          You get raised and act like a victim a victim is all you will ever be.

          Reminds me of a businessman in my country a couple of years back when their was this “Poor aboriginals have it so hard so give them a job” campaign going on.
          This gentleman said his business is in a town with a large Aboriginal community, he employed Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, pretty much any race, nationality, belief, gender and sexual orientation. The only people he had never given a job were Aboriginals.

          But that was simply because not a single one had ever come and applied for a job.
          But I reckon you would say it was really his and societies fault none of them got off their arses and looked for work. That something that happened over 200 years ago and they never personally experienced makes them entitled and the victim.

          And that pretty much sums up the entire problem with ‘black’ communities in Western society world wide. A twisted Education and nurturing.
          Not just blacks, anyone who has to label themselves and be separate from humanity.

          People only want equality until it means they actually have to be equal.
          You’ll never be free when you keep asking your ‘captor’ for permission to be free.
          You’ll never be free when the cage is one you’ve built for yourself.

        2. Von Bailey says:

          So basically you pass for white and somehow you believe that it has afforded you no special privilege and this perspective is garnered from personal experience. To this incredibly myopic POV, I would like to say that your personal experience does not define whether or not you have privilege. I don’t know what “mixed genetics” means, but the fact that whatever that genetic disposition is, you choose to “appear ‘cauacasian'” (sic), I’m hard pressed to see how you know you don’t have privileges that a person who does not look white can enjoy. What experiences do you have living in an environment that does not assume you to be white? When have you ever had to live your life without the assumption of others that you are white?

          Without that “personal experience” you have no idea if being white gives you privileges.

          1. doomed says:

            I come from a rather multicutural family.

            Yeah appearing mostly white I have never experienced racism…. nope none.
            As all my nephews bar one are half aboriginal, african, torres straight islanders. I am clueless.

            Have no idea how they all have jobs, completed school and have experienced hardly any racial slurs.

            I mean they are black, how dare they make something of themselves from the opportunities afforded to all.

            Yep I know nothing. I live in a box and have zero experience.

            Take your blinders off Von B old boy! You may find your ignorance vanishes quickly if you do. ; )

            Personal responsibility. Such a wonderful concept. Maybe every human can try it some time.

            1. Von Bailey says:

              I take from your comment that you are not in America, the actual context of this dialog. If so, your ignorance of the context may explain much. Your condescension, pompousness and simplistic assumptions about the manifestation of racism (i.e. your relatives can get jobs and take care of themselves so there’s no privilege in being white) is expected as white privilege is a world wide phenomena which simply has much of it’s origins in America.

            2. doomed says:

              Oh look! Words!

              White privilege is a world wide phenomena….. but the actual context of this dialogue is America……

              And so say if Will Smith is a multimillionaire, Obama is a President, most of American sports is seemingly made up of Black athletes then there is no privilege in being white?
              So what’s that then? Black Privilege? lolwut?
              Here’s 2 words you should add to your vocabulary: Self Segregation.
              It’s people like yourself that keep the racism going by constantly pointing out the differences between people. Admit it, you do not want equality, you want special treatment for some over others while trying to claim the opposite at the same time.

              I am not surprised you’re an expert on being pompous. You seem to have a lot of practice at it.

            3. doomed says:

              Got a feeling you also have a lot of bullshit ideas about feminism, gay rights and more.

            4. Von Bailey says:

              The idea that Will Smith, Obama and black athletes somehow represent the experience of most black people in America is like saying that Harrison Ford, Bush and some other rich white people defines the life of an average white person. It’s an incredibly ignorant assumption and demonstrates nothing of substance at all. But then I didn’t really expect you do so as your position is not credible; it’s simply the denial of an experience you don’t have because you don’t have to concern yourself with it. Incredibly myopic and the point of the young woman’s cartoon.

              The idea that privilege can only be measured by some monetary metric is also a “white” perspective. You have no idea what is denied you so the only concern you have regarding privilege is monetary. It never occurs to you the privilege of sitting in a public square without the concern of a policeman accosting you for sitting on a public bench. You never concern yourself with whether or not the policeman that stops you is going to assume you’ve stolen the car you’re driving and demand you prove it’s your vehicle. You don’t have to concern yourself with the police stopping you for being in the wrong neighborhood, even though you lived there for years. Those are privileges that blacks cannot take for granted in the USA. They are “privileges” that most whites take for granted.

              The assumption that racism exists because people complain about it’s manifestation is as ridiculous as the rest of your arguments. That’s like saying illness exists because people complain about their symptoms. Just ignorance on display.

              A racist thinks I’m pompous for complaining about his ignorance. Why am I not concerned?

            5. doomed says:

              And Ashton Kutcher, Nascar Drivers and the Rothchilds do not represent how the majority of Caucasians live.

              Your problem is you focus on the differences, not what we have in common.
              Ya’ll want equality until you realise it means not being treated special.
              Because you know that is what equality is.

              It’s all fucking SJW excuses. He can’t get a job cos ignorance…. In stead of “he cannot get a job because he’d rather get high all day and rob people than fill out an application.”
              He can’t get a job because his great great grandaddy was a slave. He is held down because of something that happened to some long dead relative he never knew.
              He can’t get a job because he’d rather hang on the streets with his fellow thugs than getting an education in school.
              He can’t get a job because he is raised from birth that he is owed something for just being born. Sort of like the Anti-lucky sperm club. Royals who have the job and wealth because of the vagina they were spat out from and luck and not their actual ability.

              “I was born black and my gran’pappy was whipped and my momma told me don’t you ever be trustin’ dat nasty whitebread honkies, they be the cause of all your failures. No need for self responsibility, just being born makes me special and the world owes me! ALL DEM WHITE BOYS GOT MONEY, So I should loathe them and myself cos that’s what my upbringing and culture tells me to do, forget the fact they actually worked 48 hours or more a week to earn that money. I was raised from birth to be owed.”

              Yeah my privilege and colour is what keeps me law abiding and honest. My colour and privilege makes me get out of bed and bust my nuts to support myself and my family.
              My colour and privilege are what stops me from shooting my fellow man for his sneakers or for walking down MY street.
              Colour and privilege found work for me, made me enrol myself in college and the rest.

              Nope self control and personal responsibility had nothing to do with it.

              When you think about it like that Von Bailey you are literally saying black people have no drive or enough responsibility for themselves to succeed because of their skin colour.
              I mean you are the one here making skin colour an issue and portraying peoples colours in a bad light. I mean we say blacks and whites etc. all have the same opportunities and should do more to succeed and be equals but you just keep cutting it down and saying no, screw equality, treat black people special because they’re black.

              You my friend are the type of person who stops race relations improving. You’re a closed mind product of your creation. No flexibility, no compromise.
              That’s the good basis for a dictator you know?

            6. Von Bailey says:

              I find it interesting (and kind of pathetic) that you think going on an incredibly racist rant somehow makes the point that racism isn’t an issue. You’re ignorant rant simply dismisses what millions of black Americans experience for no other reason than you don’t want to believe them. But then that’s not particularly surprising. Part of white privilege is the disgusting habit of ignoring how it actually affect non-white people. You are a glowing example.

            7. doomed says:

              You really cannot read can you, or get context? You’re beyond help or you’re the biggest troll of the year.
              Are you even black yourself?

              Looking at your past posts you’re just one of those people who loves to argue and hear the sound of your own voice.
              Your way or no way is not the way to have a civilised discussion.

            8. Von Bailey says:

              Did I expect you to demonstrate how your racists comments weren’t racist? No, not at all. It’s part of white privilege to be able to ignore such things. You don’t have a sufficiently intelligent vocabulary to discuss racism so you dismiss the legitimate arguments made with denial and racist stereotypes. You fall into racist rants because no whites you associate with argue against them as they mostly either believe them themselves or know you enough to know you won’t change with rationale dialog.

              Your issue is that this isn’t a forum where anybody cares who you are, just the ideas you express. Your ideas sound racist out of your environment and you’re not even bright enough to see that.

              On a side note, I’m curious, the discussion is about the cartoon, not me. Why would you need to go into my posting history to discuss the issue at hand. I’ve never had to do that and I’d like to know what about my posting history has to do with the article.

            9. JS says:

              You will never get this person to concede on any points. He is the type of person that will always throw the last word out no matter what, he has to SHOW you and others reading he is the smartest tool in the shed. I know old thread but still true points.

          2. Ben says:

            There’s a reason hispanic is thought of as something other than “white” in the US. Everywhere else, Hispanic people are white.

            It’s a benefit, a “privelege” to be a minority in modern society. Why label deliberately try to label yourself as a minority if there is no benefit?

            1. Von Bailey says:

              I’m assuming your high or accidentally responding to the wrong post, as your response has nothing in it that relates to anything I said in my comment. White hispanics don’t “pass” for white, they are white. What is the “privelege” (sic) of being “a minority in modern society”? Nobody “deliberately” labels themselves a minority so I don’t even know what that means.

            2. Ben says:

              Well, that’s interesting that you think that, because Hispanics did exactly that. They labeled themselves as “Hispanic” rather than just “white” because white people don’t get unique scholarships, unique government benefits, or unique advantages during hiring. By being “Hispanic” instead, Hispanics can get all the benefits that white people don’t.

              These benefits don’t exist elsewhere, so Hispanics are just “white” every else.

              In the meantime, if you’re really so confused about how I am rebutting what you’ve said, you might want to go back and reread everything you wrote. You told someone who claimed that he feels disadvantaged from APPEARING WHITE (not actually BEING white) that his experiences are irrelevant and that there couldn’t possibly be any advantage to NOT being white. I went and proved you wrong by showing that Hispanics call themselves “Hispanic” because they want the advantages of NOT BEING WHITE!!! If there is such thing as “white privilege” it seems rather foolish of Hispanics to choose to not have it by choosing to not call themselves “white.”

              If you actually think white privilege exists, then please, by all means, list some colleges with a higher proportion of white students than white people in the local population. List ONE! In the meantime, notice that Asians actually have the highest proportion in many colleges, relative to their proportion in the local population, and that even blacks and Hispanics have greater proportions, while, consistently, whites are UNDERREPRESENTED!

              These are FACTS; not some fantasy about how I wish the world to be. Try to use them yourself, please.

            3. Von Bailey says:

              Where do you get your information from? It appears to be full of incredibly ridiculous assumptions. Where did you get the idea that “Hispanics” labeled themselves that for the purpose of getting advantages that you apparently cannot define? You say there are “benefits” that “don’t exist elsewhere”, but you don’t mention what they are. List them. What do they get for being “Hispanic”?

              Your incredibly tortured logic based on the false and unproven claim that Hispanics call themselves such because they want advantages is not proven as you claim. You making a claim is not proof that it is factual. Where’s your evidence that what you claim has any factual basis? You just made up a reason out of thin air and claimed it to be factual. That’s not how it works. I think you don’t know what ‘facts’ are. You haven’t presented any,
              just your version of the world that makes sense no where but in your

              The idea that because college admissions aren’t racially proportioned demonstrates that white privilege doesn’t exist is ridiculous. It ignorantly assumes that the only privilege that exists is in education.

            4. Ben says:

              I get this information from reality. You denying it doesn’t make it untrue. I already listed the benefits. Go back and reread what I already told you.

              I’ve already given you the evidence, and all you can do, like some intellectual coward, is deny it. Wow! If you can prove that being labeled “Hispanic” hasn’t afforded those people a unique advantage, please do so, because as it stands, I’ve listed several, and you’ve simply denied it. LMFAO!

              You now openly admit that you can’t find even a single school where whites aren’t disproportionately represented much less than in the local community. I win.

            5. Von Bailey says:

              You get your information from “reality”. Not from any particular source than can be checked and validated but from your personal version of “reality”. That’s pathetically provincial and you appear not to even be aware of that.

              I haven’t “denied” anything as you haven’t presented anything except for personal observations which are totally meaningless in relation to the subject. You not being bright enough to know that it is, again, pathetic. You’re simply lying when you say that you’ve supplied several advantages that people get by claiming to be “Hispanic”.

              You win? Another prerogative of white privilege. You assume it’s some kind of game totally ignoring that when people of color are talking about these issues, it’s not a game. It’s something that actually affects their lives. I won’t use moronic game metaphors in the dialog because it’s not a game. I’m not trying to “win”. I am simply pointing out how your ignorance warps your sense of reality. I don’t expect you to see it, but using you as a foil allows me to demonstrate it to others.

            6. Ben says:

              Haha, all you can do is continue to deny it. Reality, yes. It is reality, for instance, that there are scholarships upon scholarships upon scholarships for Hispanic students, but the only real “White only” scholarship is the Whites Only Scholarship, founded by a Hispanic student, in response to the obvious unequality white students face when searching for scholarships.

              I need no source for reality. You begging for a specific source for non-specific information is intellectual cowardice, fleeing from the truth.

              Now, yes, I win. Debates have victors. Wars have victors. The fact that YOU equate this with a game shows how YOU trivialize these issues. You’re just a racist, as I already pointed out.

            7. Von Bailey says:

              If it were “reality” then you’d be able to point to something in “reality” that demonstrates it to be true. You can’t. You simply make false claims and type different ways of laughing as if that demonstrates something besides your state of mind.

              I also note that you’ve narrowed the dialog to speaking about “Hispanics” alone, as if they are the only ones subjected to the oppression of white privilege. Your ridiculous arguments would also have to work for black people too. You falsely claim that white people are filing forms as Hispanic to get their privileges of being Hispanic. Where are white people purposely claiming to be black to get the benefits of black people?

              And again, what are the benefits? You keep lying about the existence of “benefits” that you cannot demonstrate exists in “reality”. Only white privilege gives you the hubris to assume everyone else shares your “reality”.

            8. Ben says:

              I already listed many things.

              I noticed that I never did anything of the sort. You’re the one who assumed as much. Your argument is a non-sequitur, as white people do not have black skin and are not racially black; Hispanics do have white skin and are racially white. No other ethnicity has this option.

              And again, I already listed them. Where are your disadvantages? I’m still waiting for you to list a single one, and for you to name a single college where whites are overrepresented. Tick tock tick tock. Hahaha!

            9. Von Bailey says:

              There’s that maniacal laugh again. Do you do that in real life? Laugh as you make your points? I’ve only seen cartoon villains do that and find it quite amusing that it appears to be part of your speech pattern.

              Moving on, if, as you just said, you’ve already listed many things, where’s the list? You changed the subject to only Hispanics and then made some false claim about college admissions that I had to disprove instead of you demonstrating had any factual basis at all. So you are either lying or forgot to actually post your list.

              Black children are shot by policemen for playing with toy guns. White children have the privilege of playing with toy guns and not being shot down by people who are supposed to be protecting them.

              Black men are choked to death, on tape, and the prosecutor can’t even get a trial for it. Well, I guess we’d have to actually have a cop stupid enough to kill a white person in front of witnesses to test that one. Maybe they wouldn’t put a cop killing a white person on tape for a minor offense on trial. I’m sure you believe it would happen the exact same way.

              Black man was walking in a store, with merchandise the store sold and the cops came in and shot him. Another one of those things that only appear to happen to black people. One day, if it ever happens to a white man, we’ll see if he gets the privilege of not being shot down like a dog for doing nothing wrong.

              Police shoot a black man in the street, black protestors come out are tear gassed, arrested and vilified by the media. Police come out to tell a white man to get his cattle off of land he hasn’t paid fees to use and a militia of white people show up pointing guns at federal agents and the police simply back up and leave. Apparently white people can get away with breaking the law and threatening law enforcement officers, but if your a person of color walking across the street you can be shot down in cold blood without even a trial.

              One of the gun totting white men who was at the ranch protecting the man illegally feeding his cows, several weeks later comes out and kills a police officer in Las Vegas, drapes a flag and announces a revolution. It’s labeled an isolated incident. A crazy man in Baltimore goes and kills two cops in NYC and the nation goes into morning and cops all over the country have to go on alert.

              Your pathetic rants about privilege in getting admissions to colleges is part of the ignorance that white privilege allows you. You think it’s about getting into colleges and people of color are talking about the privilege of not being shot by the police for living their lives like every other American is supposed to be able to.

              I’m still waiting for whatever pathetic list you say minorities get for being minorities. I’d like to see if any of them top not being shot by police because they claim they’re scared of you for being big. Being able to be “big” is a privilege only white men appear to get to have. A “big” black man is a threat simply because he’s big and is apparently justification for being shot down like a dog in the street.

            10. Ben says:

              OMG, you’re too funny!

              Police shoot white children with realistic toy guns. That’s why there’s public awareness campaigns encouraging parents NOT to buy those kinds of toys.

              Cops also get away with killing people, white or black. Cops rarely ever face consequences. That’s not a racial issue, unless you only see race.

              I’m seen as threatening all the time. A scrawny man locked his car as I ran by the other day, and a lady held her kids closer. That’s something, literally, all tall, fit, young males go through.

              Ranchers and inner city gang-filled neighborhoods aren’t comparable. White people don’t have such an advantage if they live in the inner city. Black people don’t have that disadvantage if they live out on a ranch. Your false comparison is illogical.

              You seem to think that so much of your experience is due to your skincolor. It’s sad you’re so obsessed with race. Science has shown that minorities are more likely to think that the behavior of those around them is because of their skin color, and here you are, acting as evidence of that.

              You still haven’t listed a single example of institutionalized racism. LMFAO!!!

              I already listed the benefits of being a minority. Go back and reread my posts; they’re listed in many of them.

            11. Von Bailey says:

              You are simply lying. If cops shoot white kids playing with toy guns prove it. If cops kill large unarmed white men simply because they are scared, provide articles describing the events you claim exist. It is a lie that “all tall, fit, young males” are viewed as threatening by the police. You saying it does not make it so. Wait, let me guess, it’s true because it’s “reality”. At least from your perspective, which apparently gets to ignore everyone else’s.

              You claim that whites don’t have “such an advantage” if they live in the inner city? But whites have rioted and the response was not tear gas, rubber bullets and tanks. But if I’m wrong, I’m sure you’ll be able to supply evidence to the contrary despite the fact that you haven’t provided a shred of evidence to back up anything you’ve said.

              Your dismissal of the comparison between ranchers and what you labeled “gang-filled neighborhoods” (I didn’t say that you did. Kind of racist if you ask me.) is simply self serving. You don’t explain why tanks had to be used against unarmed black people but armed white people were simply ignored. The fact that a couple of those unarmed white people killed a cop a few weeks later is ignored by you. I haven’t read anything about anyone from the Ferguson protests killing any policemen and claiming a revolution over his dead body draped in a flag of revolution.

              Your racist comments about what “science” has shown about “minorities” is just insulting and you’re just to ignorant to see it. I don’t expect you too. It’s actually kind of traditional for racists and bigots to try and use science to bolster their bigoted assumptions. You are simply following suit.

              I listed examples of institutionalized racism in the police, demonstrated in the difference in how they treat different races for similar acts. I didn’t expect you to see or agree with my points. I expect people of intelligence and less racial ignorance as you have to see the examples and recognize how obtuse you are for not doing the same.

            12. Ben says:

              Look at your willful ignorance. You claim the science, real, honest science is “insulting and ignorant.” Science doesn’t care what you think. Science tells us about reality.

              You are still having trouble dealing with reality. The racism of some police is not institutionalized. It isn’t “white privilege” for the rest of us.

              Sorry reality isn’t like your fantasy.

  7. John Ryan says:

    could u please donate to the united white collage fund, oh no u cant it would be against the dam law!! This bull crap about white rights is very insulting. I’ve been turned away for jobs because some black guy with less experience had to be hired to fill a quota. so what about that black privilege that were not allowed to mention cause if we do were called racist. WAKE THE HELL UP this is about your gov going wild and forcing ALL people to submit, submit, submit and there’s no hope if you don’t stop pointing your finger at each other.

    1. Von Bailey says:

      Wow, that’s pretty stupid. How can someone donate to something that doesn’t exist? How can it be against the law to donate to something that doesn’t exist? Can you PROVE that a black guy who was less experienced got a job for the reasons that you say? And if you can, how did you get that information given that it’s supposed to be personal and private? You’re simply ranting the generic white lies that allow you to continue to be a racist.

      1. John Ryan says:

        The fact that it doesn’t exist is the whole point u moron. And have you ever herd of a thing call affirmative action…duuuu more than once I was turned away from the job I wanted so bad because the co had to fill its quota. and more than once I’ve had the employer explain this as being the fact as to why I was passed over. And It’s burned in my memory I don’t need to prove anything to you. I went to electronic school for two years and when applying for a local job that required my degree they hired 3 black women who had only high school degree. and yeah I can prove it. Stupid

        1. Von Bailey says:

          Then prove it. You saying you can prove it is like republicans saying they will work with President Obama, words without any weight. Prove it, liar. Prove that a company that a company required you to have a degree for a job that they hired 3 black women without degrees for.

          You’re “point” that there’s no “united white college fund” is meaningless. But I’m sure you think differently. Why don’t you make it meaningful by expanding on your meaningless point? This could be interesting. It obviously entails your expertise in calling people names instead of using rational arguments.

          Here’s a clue. Employers can lie to you about why they aren’t hiring you. You’re apparently ignorant enough to believe the simplest lies so long as they fit your pathetic racist assumptions. They don’t have to tell you that they don’t like you, they can just tell you that they had to give it to the black guy. But the reality is that “lessor qualified blacks” don’t get jobs. That’s a lie that unqualified white guys use for not getting jobs they aren’t qualified for.

          1. Bob says:

            I’ve read quite a few of these posts and I’m enjoying them. Keep them up – you’re good.

        2. Von Bailey says:

          Then prove it.

          1. John Ryan says:

            you have a lot of hate in you and I hope someday you get better. It’s so hard for someone with such a low IQ to find a way to be useful. GOOD LUCK

            1. Von Bailey says:

              You say that it’s against the law to donate to an organization that doesn’t exist, a totally nonsensical comment, and it’s me with the “low IQ”. You make claims about being able to prove something and then, apparently you can’t, implying a dishonest nature. Something tells me you fling insults every time someone disagrees with you because you really can’t support your position. You thought you’d be able to spout your ridiculous rant and no one challenge it. When it was challenged, you have nothing to support it, so you attack with name calling and baseless attacks on intelligence like a 5th grader. Pathetic really, but I doubt if you see it.

            2. John Ryan says:

              I don’t know where u got I said its against the law to donate to anything. You misunderstood. Your response is nothing more than a rant. Again I hope you get a life soon and find your way. And I wish there was a way to fix dumbass so once again GOOD LUCK ……..PS also you would be the last person I feel would need some kind of proof from me.

            3. Von Bailey says:

              From your original post:
              “could u please donate to the united white collage fund, oh no u cant it would be against the dam law”

              My life is going fine. The hubris to assume that you can judge the quality of my life as an response to challenging your ignorant comments is pathetic.

              P.S. You claimed you could provide proof. When asked to provide it, you provide deflection and obfuscation. That’s the usual response when someone challenges a lie.

  8. gravemiind says:

    You’re forgetting a key element to the story. Not everyone is equal. If you seriously think black people are the same as white people, you are wrong and stupid. We evolved differently for a reason. White people benefited more from problem solving skills in the colder areas and black people benefited from increased athleticism on the deserts and plains of Africa. If you tell me I’m wrong and everyone is the same then you are what is wrong with the world.

    1. Dragoon says:

      Actually it has been proven genetically that we all came from Africa thus the same race, we adapted to our surroundings and that’s all there is to it nothing more and nothing less.

    2. Von Bailey says:

      Really? Your incredible ignorance and bigotry being spread isn’t more of what’s wrong with the world? Then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

  9. Dragoon says:

    One could also go with money privilege which crosses both skin color line and we see this with those that have the money get away with a lot of things.

    OJ got away with murdering two people why?
    because he had money

    And then there are a lot of white skinned people who got away with crimes, not because of the color of their skin but because they had money.

    I bet you anything poor or middle class whites murdered two people like OJ and they go to jail and most likely a needle in the arm because they couldn’t afford a lawyer like he could.

    If a rich person regardless of skin color raped a woman regardless of skin color they would have a high chance of getting away with it because they could afford the best defense money could buy.

    so I am really getting tired of the white Vs. black arguments because as more blacks are getting ricer the more we see them getting away with crimes a normal black/white skinned person would not.

    I hate nether white nor black for I am figuratively speaking color blind as I see not black or white but grey, I don’t give a damn if someone is rich or poor, black or white.

    you do the crime you should get punished for it.

    we are after all ONE race and skin color is just the Melton in our skin, nothing more nothing less.

    the moment people get that through their thick heads the better.

    we need to treat all things equally as one race

    After all we all hail from the same country as we all have the same genetic ancestor so we are all black regardless of what our skin color is today.

    1. Diane Win says:

      Michael Jackson was another that got acquitted due to money and affluence. Now we’re seeing Bill Cosby getting away with it when he should be in jail awaiting his bail hearing. What makes me so fucking sick and tired more than anything is the statute of limitations bullshit, a “law” created by the rich and powerful in order to lay low for awhile until time has run out so they wouldn’t be prosecuted for their crimes.

      1. Von Bailey says:

        I’m not going to defend Bill Cosby, because I have no problem believing the many women who made claims against him and I’ve never trusted him in the least in relation to race relations in this country. He was always to fixated on “fixing” black people instead of acknowledging the racism is not a problem of black people, but of white people.

        However, both OJ and MJ went through trials in which there was no real evidence, outside of the word of a white person (and in MJ’s case, a white person with a desire to collect money) and the assumptions of the white people.

  10. doomed says:

    Ah the old political correctness brainwashing.
    Yep always whitey to blame for every ones own shortcomings. Still got idiots I never harmed hating on me for what some British did 200 years ago solely because of my skin colour.

    I mean maybe this kid can do a cartoon on how self segregation and reverse racism works.

    Every race has hate and racism. What is really racist is when one skin type is always singled out, hated on for that colour and it is okay and legit.

    Now excuse me while I go find funds for a Caucasian only TV station and scholarships etc.
    Oh wait, having such things would be racist because white……..

    Black Pride gets you a pat on the back, White Pride makes you instantly a Nazi.
    I mean I can be proud of the part of me that is Asian Indian, but I must be ashamed for my Caucasian Ancestory.
    At this rate soon I shall have to start apologising tom myself and paying compensation for what the British did I guess.
    Because I can only be proud of my ancestry if it’s anything but white according to the world.

    Mankind, 1 step forward 10 steps backwards. Any wonder we’re stagnating as a species. How can we move forward as a species when we’re always living in the past?

    Any ways as this comic points out the differences between ‘whites’ and ‘blacks’ and not what they have in common the artist is a racist and a hypocrite because political correctness, that’s why! :p

  11. Scott Randle says:

    As a white Caucasian male on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, I bristle when I hear the term “white privilege.” The word “privilege” conjures up images of upper crust jet-set society folks sipping mimosas on their yachts. It conjures up images of rich kids who have an overwhelming sense of entitlement that turns them into bullies in the halls of High Schools everywhere. It conjures up images of Ethan Couch, the Texas teen who stole beer from a Wal-Mart and then proceeded to drive while three times over the legal limit of intoxication, wound up killing four people, and got probation because his lawyer said he had “affluenza” – a condition in which being raised in privilege stunted his ability to tell right from wrong. It conjures up images of Wall Street Bankers who stole billions of dollars, crashed the economy, and walked away laughing. The word “privilege” conjures up images of George W. Bush committing heinous war crimes that would have made Heinrich Himmler proud and walking away to paint terrible pictures of cute dogs. It conjures up the image of the mustachioed guy from the Monopoly board game getting a blow job from a supermodel in a hot tub while chopping up lines of Peruvian flake.

    In short, the word privilege does not conjure up a picture of me.“Advantage” would be better. I have an advantage due to my white skin because the power structure in this country is dominated by Caucasians. But I don’t have privilege. I never have. People who are powerless don’t have privilege and I resent being told that I do. If I’m privileged, then where is my country club membership? Where is my “Get Out Of Jail Free” card? I don’t have that. The dude getting fellatio from a cover girl in a Jacuzzi while snorting coke has the “Get Out Of Jail Free” card. Not me.

    There are a few different definitions of privilege in dictionaries. I’d like to break those down, but first, you have to know that the Latin roots of the word “privilege” are Privi – Private and Lege – Law. People with privilege have their own “private law” that they follow and are not bound by the same rules as the rest of us. The first definition is:

    “A right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others.”

    While those who preach the gospel of “white privilege” use the argument that this definition can be used to argue that white people are given preferential treatment in a white dominated society, it is a misnomer. White people have the advantage of not being racially profiled or, if they are rich, not being treated rudely by a store clerk at Macys, the truth is that if I walk around a Macys in my “poor clothes” the store security guard is going to be watching me like a hawk. There are advantages to being white in a mostly white society. I am not denying that. But I’m not getting special treatment from the cops if they DO decide to harass me simply because I am white. I’ve been followed around stores before. (Due to having long hair, or once because I was dirty from landscaping all day.) Am I less likely to be randomly harassed by a cop because I am white? Sure. But that’s an advantage I have, not a privilege. I have the advantage of not being racially profiled. Once the cops DO get me in their sights, I am treated like the same piece of crap as any other person from the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum and then any “privilege” one might imagine me having goes right out the fu*king window.

    (Cont – )

  12. Barabbas says:

    Well, case closed I guess. Clearly there is no other conceivable rational explanation for these powerful statistics – other than the biological/genetic one that actually accounts for them all, as well as the actual experiences of actual human beings whose common sense experiences with various ethnic groups reveals precisely why blacks are more likely to go to jail and less likely to become educated. But talking openly about such things would break people’s hearts.

    1. LadyeCatte says:

      Paraphrasing the racist Heritage Foundation’s Jason Richwine editorial on whites having ‘superior intellect’ is as ignorant today as it was when it was published. As are you.

      Also, last I checked, the white male propensity for serial-killing and child-raping isn’t making you idjits run around claiming whites are natural murderers and thugs, now is it? Nooo.. we’ll just overlook THAT statistic and keep trying the problems are all with the black people….

      Just because your granddaddy was never arrested for taking part in midnight rapes, crossburnings and murders doesn’t mean his DNA is somehow ‘cleaner’ than my brother’s. THAT is just more evidence of self-bestowed “white privilege”.

    2. Von Bailey says:

      Yeah, it was black people who almost brought the US economy to it’s knees… no wait. It was actually a bunch of rich, educated, greedy white men who apparently get a free pass. But there’s no privilege, it’s their right as rich, educated, greedy white men in America.

  13. ric says:

    gee I was having a good day now I am miserable

  14. Eddie Valle says:

    Hey, even as of very recently, Jon Stewart could barely get Bill O’Reilly to admit white privilege exists. And he didn’t even totally admit it without getting his arm twisted pretty much. Ignorance is stubborn.

    1. Ben says:

      Well, it’s hard to admit that white privilege exists, when, in reality, the only INSTITUTIONALIZED racism that still exists is AGAINST white people. “White privilege” is strictly social, and socially, I’ve experienced all the negatives of the “black” experience. Literally, YESTERDAY, I was on a run, and I was passing a parked vehicle with someone sitting inside it. They LOCKED THEIR DOOR because they saw me running passed them. White privilege was supposed to guarantee that I didn’t get treated that way (since that’s EXACTLY the sort of treatment that is supposed to be hurting minorities so much). What gives?

      You can still legally discriminate against white people in college admissions, hiring, and government benefits. You can’t do that for any other race. Period. End of discussion.

  15. thinker5 says:

    THIS PRECISELY SAYS IT ALL!!! Of course, there are those, who will try to EXPLAIN AWAY her message, because they either just do NOT get it, or are themselves in that area of america who are RACIST AS HELL AND STILL ARE TRYING TO SAY THEY AREN’T………(hello, richardstarr, you RACIST BUTTHOLE BASTARD)………

  16. thomaspainelives says:

    Such magnificent stupidity should be rewarded, maybe by a free vacation to Liberia.

  17. Von Bailey says:

    No where in that article does it say that the CBC insisted on harsher penalties for crack over powder. The article ignores the fact that over 200 white members of congress also co-sponsored the bill. The article ignores the other aspects of the bill the would have been focused on drug prevention instead of incarceration as a motivating factor for black politicians to have voted for the bill. The article doesn’t quote a single black person saying that they sponsored the bill specifically because of the harsher penalties. The article ignores that back then, compromise was not a bad word and politicians did just that to get things done.

    You, like richardstarr, are simply making gross assumptions based on speculation.

  18. Von Bailey says:

    Do you have any idea how ignorant it appears to say that something is “not getting any attention” and then referencing a major newspaper article about the subject to prove your point?

    1. LadyeCatte says:

      Tell them about the rampant Klan groups supporting the Republicans/Libertarians, they come back with “ROBERT BYRD!”

      Tell them about the MANY indefensible killings of unarmed black males by cops, they’ll be using this ONE example about the same number of years.

      1. doomed says:

        when you have a community mostly made up of people with certain genetics, why does it surprise you people that those people are more than likely to be killed, robbed or anything at all?

        Be like going to a mostly white area and then going OMG a white person got killed/robbed/etc. regardless of who did it. But no it’s not logic and statistics is ‘discrimination’

  19. LadyeCatte says:

    “People don’t just “go” to prison. You don’t have a “chance” of going to prison. People go to prison for their own decisions to commit crimes. Race has zero influence on the life choices that you make.”

    Oh, really? I think you’d better step down off that seriously shaky soapbox and read up on the charges against former Chicago officer Lt. Jon Burge and New York Police Department (NYPD) Detective Louis Scarcella,

    Then read about the wrongful convictions of Leon Brown & Henry McCollum, Lewis Taylor (Arizona), Ricky Jackson, Glenn Ford, the “Scottsboro Boys”, the “Trenton Six”, and Jonathan Fleming.

    Black men are historically the ‘go-to’ scapegoat when whites are more interested in making sure “somebody” pays for a crime rather than making sure it’s the RIGHT person… especially if they suspect other whites to have done it. A prime example is the “trial” of 14yo George Stinney.

    Rightwingers lie.. to themselves and others. I suspect you’d put your hands on your bibles and lie with straight faces.

  20. mungeeman says:

    i like you 😀

  21. iceblast says:

    You guys need to stop feeding the Trolls. Von Bailey, is clearly a Troll. He just gets off on ticking people off. This will be my only post. Sorry, Von Bailey. Everyone else, just drop the subject. You can’t win against Trolls. You are wasting your time.

    White Privilege is just PC. PC is just to divide us, and give power to the people that created PC, and destroys Common Sense, and Logic, and makes people afraid to stand up for the truth.

    1. Von Bailey says:

      That’s right. Say something incredibly ignorant and act as if you’re to superior to respond to anyone. Classic white racist tactic. It gives you the impression that you’ve put some people in their place, totally ignoring the fact that it seems more like cowardice than anything else. You should also look up the word “troll”, your comment fits the description pretty well.

  22. Bob says:

    This cunt is retarded.

  23. wowlikewow says:

    yeah, your stats are misguided and misquoted, without the relevant conditions applied, LIKE THE POC’s MOTIVATION TO GO TO COLLEGE? what a load of horsecrrap.

  24. Joe says:

    You sound like you like to hear yourself talk too much. The point is, you do have privilege. You can’t see how much being white has effected you because you’ve never truly been a minority. You can’t possibly know what it’s like to be a person of color. But, you are right abut something. Privilege comes in the form of advantage. That’s what everyone’s trying to say. You are privileged not to be afraid every time you get behind the wheel, you have the privilege of not ever being the first suspect of wrongdoing as long as there are colored people in the room even if you’re the wrongdoer. And, privilege has to do with both class and race. As the comic highlighted, it’s easier to get into a higher class than someone with the same certifications with the disadvantage of being colored. That sounds like we’re pretty privileged.

    1. Joe says:

      And nearly fifty-ish, nah, eighty-ish of your comments are filler. Don’t spout statistics and definitions, what matters are the words stringing them together. And your glue is about as strong as scotch tape.

  25. Dave Keays says:

    Did you notice in one cartoon she was using tremors, “twitches”, and fits as proof of stupidity? Does she believe those of us with epilepsy (not all epileptic seizures involve a loss of consciousness or the whole body) or Parkinson’s are stupid? That wasn’t an uncommon belief in the mid 20th century or earlier. Lunatic asylums were called “houses of epileptics and the feeble minded” back then and government discrimination was judged to be constitutional in the 1940’s. The result being people being committed, forcibly sterilized, or lobotimized. Only a Few “conservatives” deny that institutionalised privileges exist (there are extremist on both sides of the fence). I say that the pain and injustice of “white” privs aren’t unique and others are just as bad. And trying to combat the specific symptoms of one bad thought with another bad thought (give race X an advantage because race Y has other advantages) is the cause of even more bad thoughts.

    1. Maryam Farsian says:

      I doubt that’s what she meant. I was thinking the twitches indicated stress or irritation, like she is so upset that she’s shaking.

  26. redcan says:

    White people evoking the idea of white privilege need to consider the possibility they are suffering from mental illness associated with self loathing. Much like people that cut themselves, suffer low self esteem, survivors guilt, or those contemplating suicide, those who suffer guilt about their race are likely suffering a form of mental illness. White people are no better or worse than anybody else. They don’t enjoy any more privilege or any more challenge than anybody else. White privilege is not a social problem. It’s an individual mental issue.

  27. Lee Neil says:

    Grow up little girl!

  28. alvee, r says:

    Lol the rebuttal excuses were rather quick

  29. James Doster says:

    Maybe it’s because I’m below median wage… maybe it’s because I’m not one of the 71% that got a bachelor’s or higher… Maybe it’s because I’ve been divorced, I’ve been foreclosed upon and I’ve been bankrupt. But hearing people tell me how lucky I am because I’m not a POC tends to fall on deaf ears here, because I’m still in the working poor and I see a lot of things that are CLASS warfare being attributed to RACE warfare.

    The big problem is while everyone is complaining about “check your X privilege” where X can be “white” “Male” “American” or anything else, it does nothing but keep the point on the negative and put people in the defensive.

    As a non-Christian in the US I see all sorts of discrimination, as someone who is not wealthy, I see health issues which quickly put people into “low class” barriers of discrimination. I see over and over and over “US” vs “Them” and for every “US” there are people within that group circling the wagons complaining about “them”

    What do I do about it?

    I try to remove the barriers, at the very least in how I view things. Yes there are differences, oven visible and obvious between different people… Genetically we are not so far removed from the animals we evolved from… as a species, the variants in “Homo Sapiens” are entirely environmentally factors from genetic lines – we sort those lines largely by geographic area – people will say “oh I’m Italian” or “She’s Scottish and Irish” by way of describing this genealogy (not to be confused with the nation(s) one holds citizenship)

    We are all HUMAN… we are made of the same genetic materials, the same amino acids and same tissue.. We will face various trials and tribulations and for each of us, our world is defined by our perception. Yes, being descendant from Germanic and Celtic people seems to have given me this somehow desirable pale skin… a trait developed because my ancestors were from northern Western Europe… but my life has not been easy… in the same genetic codes I have bad knees, genetic predisposition to slow metabolism and a few other traits that developed in one way or another from the survival of my ancestors. Likewise by sheer luck of genetic code I am male… but genetically speaking I could have just as easily been female.

    We are who we are… And by getting militant you’re likely to create more negativity than good. When I hear “check you *whatever* privilege” what I really hear is someone assuming who I am without getting to know me. Sure your message might be for “some other person, who knows who he (or she) is” but if you’re broadcasting it at me, then the assumption is you’re assuming it’s me.

    Life is life, some factors we do have control of, others we do not. I long to see a better world, a more enlightened world.

    I work towards it in my own ways.

    99.9% of the people reading this don’t know me, and I don’t know you. I don’t presume to know you. I can only react to you based off how you act towards me.

    There will be people who treat me better because I am the same race as them.
    There will be people who treat me worse because I am not the same race as them.
    There will be people that treat me better because I am the same gender as them.
    There will be people who treat me worse because I am not the same gender as them.
    There will be people who treat me better because they feel I am the same religion as them.
    There will be people who treat me worse because they feel I am not the same religion as them.
    There will be people who treat me better because I have the same sexual preference as them.
    There will be people who treat me worse because I do not have the same sexual preference as them.

    Before you tell some to “check” themselves, maybe you should look and see how you treat others.
    Do you treat everyone the same? EVERYONE? Even someone who does not share your traits or views?

    I understand discrimination, I’ve seen it in others who treated me better when they ASSUMED I shared a trait with them… from politics to religion or something else then watch it change as they find out what they assumed was wrong. I’ve seen people discriminate because your from the wrong side of town or because you were born in the wrong part of the country (in their views).

    Deeper than the underlying problem of the system is the underlying problem in humanity… the need to group, label and compare. The problem that you judge me by your perception of who I am, entirely assumptive and based on stereotypes in your head. All the while complaining about the stereotype you are associated with or sympathetic to.

    I believe we are all one species… and I will not presume to judge you by your genetic lineage… I’d like to say I would not presume to judge at all, but my optimistic side has been tempered with a strong dose of real life.
    I’ve seen people have their homes and vehicles vandalized simply for being not-christian in the Southeastern US. Yes, I know others know this fear and have faced worse for being the wrong “race” or even the wrong “sexual preference” which is why I’m all for tearing down ALL these barriers. At the same time, if someone comes at me and I start seeing a trend of negativity in their actions, speech or beliefs, I tend to limit my time with them.

    It begins with YOU. It Begins with Me. It beings with each of us not being so militant because of who the other person is and ACCEPTING them as they are… Instead of becoming militant, humanize them, and let them see that you too are a human…

    I don’t know you. But if I walked past you on the street most days, if we made eye contact or otherwise interacted, I’d at least smile or nod my head to acknowledge you…

    it’s not much of an act… but collectively, if all of us could just acknowledge each other and accept each other as fell human beings… the things we could overcome…

  30. vdubdoctor says:

    Unfortunately until racism is eradicated or caucasions become the minority there will always be “white privilege”. Jamie Kapp, you stated “I was mad that I had to explain such a simple issue as white privilege in a comic because it’s something that people should read for themselves.” What you fail to offer is a solution to the issue. Complaining about something without offering a solution or compromise is “whining”.

  31. Lunatic Fringe says:

    I am so proud of this young person for having the good sense to articulate what many of us think but have no courage to get involved with.
    I am white, I am poor, I come from a broken home riddled with substance abuse, pedophilia, highschool dropouts, & teen pregnancies. I myself had a child at 15, dropped out of school, had drug issues, etc.Somehow I managed to stay off welfare, get a job with a fantastic company making excellent money, & raise my son. He is a college graduate. My point? I grew up on the south side of Chicago in gangland. Had I been black I honestly believe in my heart that the opportunities afforded to me wouln not have been. I would more than likely be likd so many of the people I grew up with: addicted to drugs, turning tricks on a street corner to feed my habit & my abusive pimp, several kids in CPS custody and one on the way, no one to help me…or just another death statistic. Same circumstances, same upbringing (or lack thereof), same troubles…different outcomes. What a difference skin color makes. Sad but true.

  32. Akuin says:

    White Privilege is a joke, and not because it doesn’t exist, because it does. But because others use it as a crutch to hide behind. I’m mentally disabled, you really think my white privilege did shit for me? I’m 31 and still looking for my first job. Still looking for someone to see past my disabilities and allow me the chance to prove myself instead of instantly assuming I’m too stupid to do the job right. about 61% of mentally disabled people of all race, gender, sexual orientation, and age are outside the labor force. You want to talk about privilege, lets talk about normal people privilege.

    In school, I didn’t get the help I needed because it ‘wouldn’t be fair’ to the normal children, which destroyed me academically. I had to go to a community college with “can you pay? You’re admitted!” standards, so I could pay out of pocket to get a second public school education because in K-12 it was cause for great celebration if I was able to pass a class with a C. For me a C+ was my A+ in extremely hostile conditions. College provided me the boost I needed to put me on a level playing field with normal people, and you know what happened? I became top of my class, and pulled the other students up with me by helping them understand the material, because it became a hell of a lot easier when I wasn’t being bogged down by my disabilities. (If you want to know an example of what it was like for me I’ll give you a simple one 9X9, you can’t use your memory. You need to break it down into addition you can do on your fingers and you have 1 minutes to complete it, but remember no cheating you have to count it all out on your fingers, good luck.)

    People don’t assume a normal person is stupid or just lazy if they need help understanding something, and even more they’re treated pretty nicely too. But the minute a mentally disabled person says “I don’t understand.” They are immediately told they are simply stupid,or lazy, they are looked down on, and people become verbally abusive. Everything about me insulted people when I said “yeah I’m mentally disabled.” And they act like they can catch it to boot. Why? Because while I am intelligent, people can see it in the way I talk, my disabilities hinder me, and that means to them I’m just not trying hard enough. Even my own father told me I was just being lazy. Despite the fact that while everyone got their homework done in 15 minutes to an hour, I was doing my homework ALL NIGHT LONG! He could SEE how hard I was working, but I was still lazy. while other kids went to play sports, or played with their friends, you know, had a cool down period, my cool down period was my bedtime, I ate dinner while doing my homework. And as the years progressed, I slept less and less because my homework had to be done, period. By the time I graduated high school I was sleeping 3 hours a night, if I was lucky, and my weekends, which should have been my free time to spend with people, and doing things I liked, were dedicated to catching up on my sleep. And you could forget about studying like a normal kid, There was no time.

    Privilege exists everywhere. EVERYONE has some form of privilege in some way. I never let Normal privilege stop me. I didn’t blame normal people in general for their normal people privilege. I am in a constant battle to prove I’m worthy of existence, even though plenty of people seem to believe I’m not because of my disabilities. Yet too often I see people blaming white privilege for their own shortcomings. Some things White privillage is a real issue, but it doesn’t mean you can hide behind it.

    1. Von Bailey says:

      You comparing being a person of color to being disabled is about as stupid a statement as I’ve ever read. Kind of racist too. Guess what, being a person of color is not a disability. The fact that you have a disability that people define as a problem is no in the least like a person who has no disability whatsoever and is still denied.

      Try being black and having a disability. Would that mean that you have two disabilities in your argument? Your argument is simply another example of a white person trying to mitigate the harm that white supremacy creates.

  33. Von Bailey says:

    Nowhere in the article you supplied does it say that “Jackson’s prints were found on the pages alongside those belonging to some of the children”, you just made that up unless you’ve got something besides the cite you provided. I remember that. The “porn” was of adult women. So are you saying that any man or woman who looks at porn is a child molester? That’s a pretty big stretch.

    1. Diane Win says:

      Then I guess you’re as stupid as you are dense since you failed to read the byline. You’re splitting hairs, and I’m sure that others that’s reading your reply to me are just shaking their head and thinking of you as a class A moron.

      1. Von Bailey says:

        Wow. That’s pretty pathetic. You made an claim that Jackson and “children” were viewing pornographic material and that somehow that was evidence that he was molesting children. Not “a boy” but “children” in the plural. Then when challenged you’re upset that your “evidence” smearing a person, who was found innocent by people who knew more about the evidence than you did, is questioned, as it doesn’t say what you claimed. The article does not say that Jackson’s prints were found on porno “alongside those belonging to some of the children” in the plural. It doesn’t even say they were found alongside the boy’s. You lied or have a reading comprehension issue and simply misinterpreted what you read.

        When you accuse someone of something as disgusting as molesting children I would think that you’d at least be able to back up what you say. If there are, as you claim, others shaking their heads because I won’t accept your altered interpretation of the article, I’d say they suffer the same biases that you obviously do.

        1. Diane Win says:

          You are a bigger fucking idiot that I thought, you either cannot comprehend the thought that how would those fingerprints would have even gotten on those pornographic magazines if the kid hadn’t have been shown them by Jackson himself. It’s either that, or you’re such a Michael Jackson worshipper that you’re ignoring stone cold facts of evidence. It’s staring you right in the face, and you’re refusing to see it, you lose, you have zero logic backing you up.

          1. Von Bailey says:

            Here’s a clue, and I don’t have to devolve into insults to convey it. The kid had the run of the house (as the article says) and found them on his own. He looked at them because he was a boy who had found porn and that’s what young boys do when they find porn. On some separate occasion, Jackson looked at the porn because he paid for it and that’s what some men do. You’re so obsessed with your child molestation assumptions that you can’t imagine that they looked at it at separate times for different reasons? For some reason you can only see a plausible explanation including child molestation. That’s a pretty disturbing from my POV. Demonstrates you were never a little boy or have the depth of understanding what that experience is like to even comment.

  34. Bob P says:

    Yes.. There facts are way off in this cartoon. For example whites who make up 60% of the population just over 5000 people. Blacks who make up 13% of the population killed over 6000 people. Blacks are more likely to go to jail because they do more crime. Blacks may be less likely to get a job due to the above two stats. But this isn’t any white person’s fault. If you hire a black person and they don’t work out. You are 100 x more likely to be sued for race discrimination than if you hire a white person. Blacks are oppressed..but their being oppressed by the actions of other blacks. They are oppressed by the white people in the Democrat party who see them as inferior to whites and believe that they need Special rights to be equal to Whites. This entitlement mentality is another reason you are less likely to go out and get a good job.

  35. Scottie Williams says:

    I don’t usually comment on anything, but this comic is stupid. I’m a white guy. Sorry to tell you all this but never have I ever gotten anything without a lot of hard work nor have I managed to keep any of it without daily struggle. The idea that people are falling over themselves to offer me opportunity over anyone else is nuts. I have never experienced it and I doubt I ever will.

  36. CH says:

    Too many of these “privileges” seem based on personal choices.

    Not saying it’s not an issue… but here are probably better examples.

  37. Eros Merino says:

    People get mad because privilege racism discrimination isn’t fake it isn’t a cartoon. It’s real shit and when some people get done laughing about this shit they go on with their white privilege. I do agree that this stuff is all over the internet. the point is that we can’t joke talk or discuss these subjects unless there’s some great spectacular occurrence because there’s always that one snitch or suck up who doesn’t get questioned about privilege where as others get shrugged off as bothersome and irrelevant to the institution s agenda.fix that liberals then we can make these jokes because it’s still lopsided.I agree though some of the crime against whites is also brutal.but there’s the difference why isn’t everybody accepted in our society not just the privileged. Makge room for all not just the white sons daughters

  38. Ryan England says:

    Why isn’t this on tumblr?

  39. Ben says:

    You might want to actually READ that article. “first published in 1961.”

    We live in 2014 now. Most people in the US weren’t alive at all back in 1961. Get with the present, man.

    1. Von Bailey says:

      You comment assumes that things have changed and you’d have to be purposely ignorant to believe that.

      1. Ben says:

        Hahaha, wow! Sure, buddy. Whatever you say. Yeah, I guess I missed all those “whites only” bathrooms and such.

        Get some help, man. You are severely delusional. My comment doesn’t “assume” anything except the facts. You’re either incredibly stupid or a dumb troll. Either way, you’re quite the buttmonkey! LOL!

        1. Von Bailey says:

          I’m not the one hysterically laughing and calling people names instead of addressing the subject at hand; you are. You haven’t presented any facts. You’ve made claims and comments that don’t even address the issue except on an incredibly superficial level (kind of like what the ladies cartoon says) and act as if you’ve proven something by laughing and calling names. It’s juvenile, but apparently it gets you through life.

          1. Ben says:

            No, I proved something by providing real evidence (which neither you nor this bad cartoonist has done). It isn’t “superficial” to recognize the obvious, that we have equality now. Period. You’re just a racist who hates white people.

            LMFAO! I’m laughing at you because you’re incredibly ignorant. Hahaha! How pathetic that all you can do is flee scared from the evidence presented to you!

            1. Von Bailey says:

              Where did I say I hated white people? That’s an incredibly ignorant assumption. You taking this personal? You’re white and I’m demonstrating how ignorant your arguments are so you assume I do this to all white people? Don’t worry, I don’t. If you were Asian, Latino or Black and spouting this ignorance I’d be treating you the same way.

              Every once in a while I run into someone, like you, ignorant enough to believe that their personal observations are “factual” and “evidence” on a larger social scale. It’s a demonstration of ignorance that seems to be very prolific among bigots attempting to justify their lack of knowledge as it relates to reality out of their little bigoted bubbles. Thanks for the demonstration.

            2. Ben says:

              No, I didn’t have to make any assumptions. You admitted as much. You claimed there to be “white privilege,” which there isn’t.

              “White privilege,” at it’s core, is simply an ad hominem attack on the character of the speaker, suggesting that because the speaker is white, he/she is not allowed to have a legitimate opinion on said subject. It is built on a logical fallacy, based 100% in racist bigotry against white people.

              You, by supporting the notion of “white privilege” are suggesting that white people are inherently bad. You’re hellbent on letting everyone know how bad white people are. Therefor, you hate white people. End of story.

              It’s funny how you keep telling me I’ve “presented no evidence,” even though I have, while you simultaneously have provided none at all. You still haven’t even given a single example of institutionalized racism against blacks in our society, even though I requested it long ago. LMAO!

            3. Von Bailey says:

              Where did I say that “white privilege” nullifies your point of view and how does a comment about you demonstrate how I feel about white people as a whole? That doesn’t even makes sense. It is a fact that you are different than another white person and thus I can feel one way about you and another way about another white person or white people in general. Anything else would be racist. Interesting you don’t appear to know that.

              Another pathetic tactic of bigots is to redefine a term so that you can attack your own definition instead of addressing what people who are actually talking about it say that it is. That’s what you’ve done with the term “White privilege”; changed it to a definition in which you can take personal offense and then comment on your definition instead of it’s manifestation as other use it. Because you have the hubris to assume you understand the phenomena better than those who actually coined the phrase.

              Saying that there is white privilege is the same as saying that all white people are bad is as ignorant as saying that because the KKK is a Christian terrorist organization, all Christians are terrorists. Only a person with limited intelligence wouldn’t be able to differentiate the actions of one person from another and limit any judgment to the actual perpetrator of an act instead of everyone who happens to have something in common with the person.

              So given that I am perfectly capable of differentiating your acts from others, comments I make about your acts do not reflect on white people as a whole, except in your mind. As I said, you had to assume that it was about white people in general and not you in particular to attack me personally because you have nothing relevant to the dialog to make your points. Then you used your assumption that my comments about you reflect how I feel about all white people to assume that I think that all white people are bad, thus making me a racist.

              Like I said, assumptions, upon assumptions because there is nothing of substance. But then most bigoted rants can be reduced to that, so this was nothing but the demonstration that I said it would be. Continue on as I’m sure you’re a fountain of examples that I can use for my demonstration.

            4. Ben says:

              You need to calm down, man. You’re losing it.

              Anyway, read this very slowly so it starts to sink in:

              “White privilege” is just a technique liberals use when debating educated conservatives or libertarians to silence the debate. You say “check your [white] privilege” as a rebuttal.

              It’s an ad hominem attack. That’s a logical fallacy. At it’s very CORE is the idea that white people can only have a valid opinion if that opinion is that they are “privileged” and should, therefor, be handicapped as liberals suggest.

              Now, I haven’t redefined anything here. This is reality, something you have a hard time dealing with, since you’re a racist bigot who hates all white people except those who claim you’re better, more important, and more entitled than they are.

            5. Von Bailey says:

              I need to calm down because you, who doesn’t know me at all, has determined that I’m losing it? More negative characterizations by a person full of hubris and pomposity because he has nothing relevant to say on the subject except denials, assumptions and lists of minority benefits that never appear.

              I have yet to see and “educated conservative” become silent because of the term “White privilege” being put in the dialogue. Your statement is silly on it’s face. Instead they do what you are doing. Instead of demonstrating that white people have no privilege by refuting the evidence, they cry “reverse racism” like you’re doing. Other phrases like “race card” and “color blind” are bandied about (denial statements), but because it’s the limit of their understanding of the phenomena of racism (i.e. perpetrator or observer as opposed to victim, a privilege you enjoy), denial statements are all you have regardless of any evidence supplied.

              You claim that the only response is “Okay, privilege checked, now back to the real argument”. Well, that’s not true, it’s just the one that white privilege allows. There’s the one were we say, “Okay, privilege checked, we’ve got to do something about that so that it goes away. Those people don’t deserve better treatment than others just because they were born white.” Some white people, like the young lady who did the cartoon, see that and are willing to address it. And then there are those like you who she defines so well in her own artistic way.

            6. Ben says:

              Wow, you’re delusional. Sorry, buddy, but that’s what “white privilege” is all about.

              There is no “let’s do something about it.” We don’t cripple people because of their skin color. That’s racist. You prove how racist you are even suggesting as much.

              It’s especially hilarious that you’ve been only ever treated equally, and you’ve only been given all the same opportunities as white people, but you think you’re entitled to more. Wow, you’re racist!

            7. Von Bailey says:

              First you say I need to calm down, and now you say I’m delusional. Like everything else you’ve claimed, you don’t demonstrate any of it to have any validity, but apparently it bolsters your weak arguments to hurl personal insults as a prerequisite.

              Who is “we” that don’t “cripple people because of their skin color”? How is pointing out racism racist? That’s like saying pointing at someone who is running is running. Stupid on it’s face.

              I have not conceded that there is no discrimination in education or hiring. You’re either a liar or have sever reading comprehension issues (which would explain a lot actually). I have mentioned and focused on other aspects of white privilege, but just because white privilege exists in the judicial system does not mean that it doesn’t exist in employment and education. That’s stupid. But I understand, it’s the as deep as your logic goes. If I say one thing is bad, in your mind that means other things cannot be. That “black and white”, “on/off” kind of limited thinking that bigots are prone too. Again, my real audience are the ones who are brighter than that.

            8. Ben says:

              You did concede as much: “You assume that the only discrimination. . . is in education.” LOL

              It is racist to suggest that white people should be handicapped to “even the playing field,” as is often said. If it is “point out racism” as you suggest, why haven’t you pointed any out? You’re now saying that “white privilege” is pointing out racism in society, but can’t give a single example.

              This would be more fun if you weren’t starting to just be pathetic.

            9. Von Bailey says:

              If I had conceded something, why would I be saying that I don’t? You claiming that I concede something is not the same as me doing it. I know your pseudo-logic only works if I agree that you can make decisions for me, but I refuse.

              I also never said anything about handicapping white people. More of you making decisions about what I think and say because you have no relevant responses to what I actually say. I also never said that “white privilege is pointing out racism in society”. You keep making up lies to refer to and then act as if you’ve responded to me. It’s really quite amusing to watch.

              BTW, I’m not trying to make it fun for you. Not my job to entertain bigots.

            10. Ben says:

              You said we need to do something to change the current situation which is one of equality.

              That’s handicapping white people.

              Try to keep up here.

            11. Von Bailey says:

              You make the false assumption that the current situation is one of “equality”. You cannot demonstrate the veracity of that, nor can you demonstrate that the instances of oppression that occur to people of color occur to white people. You simply lie to facilitate your delusions and act as if your pomposity gives it validity.

              Given that I didn’t say how things needed to be changed, you had to assume that meant handicapping white people (there’s that penchant for assumption that you fill your arguments with). Apparently you believe that treating everyone with the dignity and respect that a human being deserves will handicap white people. Interesting insight into how you think.

              I note that you didn’t answer the question “How is pointing out racism racist?” You just reinterpreted it’s meaning and lied claiming it meant something I didn’t say. That’s pathetic. Can you explain that ridiculous claim of yours, i.e. pointing out racism is racist? Simply saying it is and thinking everyone will just take your word for an incredibly stupid claim is just ignorant. Not saying that that would be beyond you, just clarifying for the demonstration.

            12. Ben says:

              I didn’t assume anything. It is one of equality. You haven’t listed a single example of institutional racism. You haven’t ever experienced anything but equality. You’ve only ever been given the same dignity and respect that everyone else has. Since you already receive all the same benefits of white people, you already have all the same “privilege,” then it isn’t an “assumption” that you mean to handicap white people, it’s the only possibility.

              I didn’t reinterpret anything. You suggested exactly that, that saying “check your privilege” is just pointing out racism. It isn’t racist to point out racism, but if you weren’t talking about “white privilege,” then so what? The question is completely irrelevant. I never once suggested that it isn’t. LMAO. You trying to cover your tracks isn’t going to work, buddy.

            13. Von Bailey says:

              Note how you falsely define my existence, telling me what I haven’t experienced and how I’ve been treated. Lies to deflect from the total lack of evidence on your part to back up what you claim is reality.

              Where’s the “science” that you claimed exists that proves your racist point about what people of color believe? Where’s your evidence that white Latinos are claiming to be “Hispanic” to get special treatment, or whatever weird nonsense you said you proved? Where’s the list of privileges you claim that people of color have? Where’s the evidence to support a single thing you’ve said?

              No evidence. Instead you’ve gone from me “saying something” to “suggesting something”, all because you “inferred something” with no basis in reality. I never said or suggested anything that you claim I have, but then, your personal attacks have no foundation unless you continue to falsely make claims about what I have said, oops, sorry, “suggested”. But since you can’t find where I did say or even suggested what you claim I said, (demonstrating you lie) instead of admitting you’re wrong, now I’m to blame for your lies. And I’m covering my tracks? I’m not the one attempting to prove you said something you didn’t say. That’s your burden. I have no idea what you think I’m trying to cover up.

              You’ve lied about what I have said, and now you lie (oops, make assumptions, I just assume you’re simply setting up another foundation for a lie later on) about my life experience. How would you know if I’ve never experienced anything but equality? How would you know how others have treated me in my lifetime? You wouldn’t and couldn’t, but you make up arguments based on the assumption that you can and deny my ability to define my own existence because it contradicts your delusions. The arrogance and hubris of white superiority.

              Continue the demonstration.

            14. Ben says:

              The evidence is that that’s the case, that Hispanic took on a label other than “white,” in order to receive the scholarships, diversity hirings, and other benefits white people don’t get. The label was only used for the census, not by people at large, until benefits started being associated with it. “This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as by many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of AWARDING GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS to MINORITY-owned businesses.”

              I’ve listed the benefits of being a minority several times now, but you can’t read, apparently. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn’t change reality.

              Anyway, I never “falsely define[d] [your] existence.” I didn’t define anything about you. This isn’t a dictionary. I claimed that you’ve only ever been treated with equality, because I’m confident that you have been. Your attempt to rebut by claiming that I’m “falsely defin[ing] [your] existence,” is a total non-sequitur. The way you would rebut it is by providing evidence to the contrary. Since you didn’t, I know I was right in my assessment.

              Haha, you are, in fact, quite desperate to cover up what you said, as I showed. Your question had no place in the conversation unless it was in reference to “white privilege,” as I proved. You can deny it all you want, but I’ve already demonstrated that that’s what you meant. Haha!

            15. Von Bailey says:

              You are apparently totally unaware that you saying something is “evidence” is not enough to demonstrate the veracity of the claim. You appear to believe that if you say it, it is so and to request that you demonstrate it to be true is a request that you repeat it instead of providing something to support the claim. I keep forgetting exactly how stupid you appear to be and so I don’t dumb down requests. Here’s a clue. You repeating it is not evidence. You claiming it is evidence is does not supoprt the claim.

              You repeating that Hispanics get college scholarships (i.e. saying the same thing over and over) is not a list. It is repeating the same thing over and over. You have “listed” nothing, simply repeated 1 thing over and over. So you’re either too stupid to know what a list is or you’re simply lying and hope no one checks.

              Your ability to demonstrate the ignorance of bigoted arguments is also displayed again. First you claim you never falsely defined my existence, that in fact you never define anything about me. Then you say that claimed that I have never been treated with inequality (a definition of my existence which you claim you’ve never done). Are you really that stupid that you don’t know that you denied doing something and then admitted doing it in the very next sentence? I don’t have to prove you’re lies aren’t true, you do. You claim that I’ve never been treated with inequality; prove it. Otherwise, you’re doing what I’ve claimed all along, making assumptions to augment your weak arguments. But even more than that, this discussion isn’t about whether or not I personally have been treated with inequality and I’ve never made such a claim. This is about white privilege a subject that you cannot discuss unless you redefine it as something that doesn’t exist. You know, like the cartoon says.

              Another example of you “defining my existence” is your continued attempts to imply that I am desparate about something. I’m not aware of it but you keep making the claim as if it’s true simply because you say so. I am simply pointing out the lies and pseudo-logic that you use to support your bigotry. It’s not hard as you’re not that bright and use the same lame excuses as other bigots.

              I love your last paragraph. It’s classic racist drivel. I’m a racist for pointing out your bigotry and racism. Yes, please continue. Wait, I know. Explain why saying the phase “white superiority” is racist. That ought to be good. I’m sure the logic is so convoluted that it will cause me to smile at the displayed ignorance of a bigot.

            16. Ben says:

              That isn’t defining your existence. I’m inferring something about you, and you haven’t yet shown otherwise.

              Listen, you’ve proven again and again that you don’t understand debate. When I present evidence, and all you do is say “nuh uh,” then I win. Hahaha!

              Science! Facts! Evidence! Try ’em out sometime.

            17. Von Bailey says:

              What a disingenuous prig you are. Arguing about syntax, the last refuge of the stupid debater. You telling me what I did or did not experience in my life and then making definitive statements about what that means is defining my existence. You “inferred” from your definition things about my life. That’s called “making assumptions” or defining my life to fit your limited your imagination. That which I have said you’ve been doing from the beginning.

              I don’t understand “debate” because you cannot provide a single source (a integral part of debating, the ability to substantiate what you say) to substantiate what you say. I’d say that until you start providing evidence to back up what you say (not just say it and call it evidence) you are demonstrating that you’ve never really “intelligently” debated and are using the word because you heard or read someone else use it in what you believe is the same context.

              You claiming something is science does not make is science. You claiming something is a fact does not make it a fact. You claiming something is evidence does not make it evidence. Things are not true simply because you need them to be to sound like you know what you’re talking about. You have to back them up with something besides your opinion. Until you understand these elementary concepts you will continue to sound like an ignorant bigot. Not my problem, as I said, I like exposing such ignorance and you are a pretty good foil in that regard. Carry on!

            18. Ben says:

              That’s not arguing syntax. You’re making up this whole thing about “defining your existence,” which has nothing to do with anything. YOU’RE the one being disingenuous here. And you still haven’t proven me wrong. You still haven’t given one example when you’ve been discriminated against because of your race. Not one. That’s why you keep up this disingenuous, non-sequitur “defining my existence” nonsense; because you can’t actually think of a single time when someone treated you differently because of your skin color.

              I can’t provide sources here. Posts with links don’t get posted. The fact that your asking me for sources like that, even though you know I can’t provide them, is further testament to how disingenuous you are being. I have referred you to real events and facts, and they are, in fact, sources, whether you like it or not.

              You claiming that facts are not evidence doesn’t change them. You claiming that scientific, logic reasoning, backed by real, scientific, randomized, double-blind experimentation, isn’t science doesn’t mean it isn’t. You lost so long ago, but you’re determined to make it one monumental loss. It’s really pathetic. It’s especially pathetic that all you can do now is try to convince yourself that you’re not the one who sounds crazy here, even though you’re clearly losing your mind more and more with every post. I mean, seriously, “carry on” indeed. LMAO!!!

            19. Von Bailey says:

              Why do you need to post a link? You can’t tell me the names of people who did the science and refer to their work? That’s either an incredibly weak excuse or limited thinking. Who did the science you’re talking about? What are the names of the projects that did the research you claim exists? You say there’s science, and the only way you can think of providing information about it is a link as if scientific projects don’t have names or authors. But then admitting that would mean that you could, if it exists, provide information about the “science” you claim exists.

              I didn’t claim that facts are not evidence, I’m saying you haven’t supplied any facts. I’m not saying that scientific processes and logical reasoning aren’t evidence, you just haven’t provided any of the sort. For some reason you’re so pompous you believe that your racist rants should be accepted because you say it. BTW, Penn & Teller are not scientists or experts on black people. Hope they weren’t your source. Wait a minute, maybe I hope they are? Carry on!

            20. Ben says:

              The science was in reference to the perception that people are treating you a certain way because of race.

              Anyway, there are experts on the show that you’re so determined to avoid watching. You really think the show is just Penn and Teller saying their own opinions without interviewing real experts?

              Guess I win again. LMAO!

            21. Von Bailey says:

              So you can’t provide anything to back up your “scientific” claims except a TV show that doesn’t claim to be any kind of scientific enterprise. So it’s not science, it’s entertainment. Like I said before, you have nothing scientific to offer, and unless you have a different answer, you’ve just proved it to any intelligent person reading this thread.

              I love it. This is turning out better than I thought. I really didn’t think you were that stupid. And what’s pathetic about it is that you think that by not even quoting, but referencing, a television magic show, you’ve presented scientific evidence! Okay, that’s something to laugh about. LOL!

            22. Ben says:

              I love it, too, waiting for you to present your first piece of evidence, since you haven’t yet. LMAO. You can demand citations all you want, but it doesn’t change that you haven’t referenced anything at all yourself.

              Look at how you continue to disingenuously request something you know exists but you also know I can’t find. I just know the study does exist showing that if an experiment is rude towards the subject, the subject is far more likely to think that that rudeness is because of his/her race if they are black (the study just looked at black vs. white), even if the experimenter being rude was black. I’d love to link it, but searching google only yields mountains of police brutality studies. Turns out, police are the only real problem remaining. LMFAO!!! In any case, the study I’ve referred to is real, and you trying to claim otherwise only reveals how much reality terrifies you.

              It’s getting particularly hilarious that you continue to make excuses about why you avoid watching the program I referenced. If you won’t watch it, I win. When you deliberately avoid reading or watching something because it may conflict with your worldview, you know you’ve lost.

            23. Von Bailey says:

              Where did I make excuses about not watching the program? Oh, wait. I didn’t. It’s just another lie from you. I not only watched the program, I’m a big fan of Penn & Teller and watched BS religiously when it was on. I’ve seen the show. That’s why I know it’s not what you say it is. It never purported to be a show demonstrating or using scientific principles or techniques. It specifically took a position and went to prove their position by presenting evidence from one side. It did nothing to test their assumptions. Not in the least scientific.

              BTW, I never post any evidence to demonstrate anything because I haven’t made any statements that need evidence. Saying that you are a liar is demonstrable by reading up the thread, so no citations are needed for that. It’s the same place where I make my arguments about you being a bigot. Easily viewable by reading up this thread. What you want me to provide is evidence to disprove what you claim about me. Why I would have to do that I have no idea except as a distraction by you to focus on the fact that you have provided nothing but a non-scientific TV show to back up your claims of scientific evidence and never provided the list of privileges that people of color get that white people don’t.

              Typical racist behavior. Projection of responsibility to avoid addressing their own ignorant comments. Carry on!

            24. Ben says:

              23 posts. 23, and we’re still supposed to just take your word for it when you say life is so much worse for black people but can’t provide a single example of how, except, “Oh, the police.”

              You obviously never watched the show, because it presents evidence for both sides, contrary to what you’ve just stated. You made excuses over and over and over again, and if you really don’t know where, just reread your posts. And now you’re trying to cover your tracks, yet again, by claiming you didn’t do something you obviously did, and by lying about actually watching it. Same old disingenuous nonsense!

              Sorry, but as I pointed out, considering all the evidence to arrive at the most likely conclusions IS scientific, whether you like it or not.

              Haha, this takes the cake: “I haven’t made any statements that need evidence.” Yeah, you do need evidence when you assert something. You asserting that minorities are so disadvantaged requires a lot of evidence. How delusional can you be?

              The only thing that’s “easily viewable” is that you’re the bigot. You’re the one going around talking about “white privilege” and calling me a liar for providing facts and evidence that disprove such a notion. You’re the one insisting that you deserve entitlements because of your skin color, which is, at it’s very core, a racist notion. Grow up already.

            25. Von Bailey says:

              Here we go again. I say I did something and you claim I didn’t because if I did and got an entirely different perspective it invalidates your lies. You think that BS was a documentary show? Really? The ignorance you display is truly amazing. Oh, and you lie about it’s “scientific credits” and how it “shows both sides”. Like I said, I’ve watched the entire series and I know exactly what they do and it is most certainly NOT a scientific process. But again, you NEED to say that otherwise your only source of “scientific” evidence is ridiculously non-scientific.

              The fact that you dismiss the FACT that cops treat people of color worse than white people shows the incredible racist attitude that most of your comments have. The lives of people of color are. The fact that it’s nation wide and you don’t see that as institutionalized is simply denial or ignorance.

              So I have to come up with personal instances of racism and bigotry (aside from this dialog with you) to demonstrate that minorities are at a disadvantage? If that is true, what is your bigoted reason for the people of color complaining for what they see as discrimination. Wait, first I guess I have to know if you are even aware that I’m not the only person making the claim that discrimination occurs? You are aware of that, right? You simply dismiss all of their experiences just like you do mine. Right?

              The idea that you’ve “presented enough evidence at this point to show that white people are the most disadvantaged in society” is the most ridiculous thing you’ve said so far. I won’t bother asking you to list or repeat this imaginary evidence you say exist because when I do you never answer, you simply claim you’ve done it, and move on to another lie. Go ahead do it again for everyone’s edification.

              Continue your lies, pointing them out is easy.

            26. Ben says:

              Haha, “here we go again,” indeed. Could you imagine if, during the presidential debates, Mitt Romney had presented real facts and Obama had responded with “my opponent must be lying?!” He’d have lost all credibility immediately. In 24 posts, you haven’t presented any evidence or rebutted any of mine, but instead, have chosen to use this exact strategy! LMFAO!!!!

              Yes, BS is a documentary show. Yes, they have experts from both sides. You claiming otherwise proves you haven’t actually watched it.

              I didn’t dismiss your experiences. You haven’t mentioned any. As far as anyone can tell, you haven’t been discriminated against ever, or you’d have said how by now. That’s 24 posts now.

              I already showed that cops will make snap judgements about white people and shoot them, too. I already explained that police accountability is a serious issue for everyone, and the only reason you make it racial is because you’re a bigot who only sees the world in race.

              Haha, and you still can’t rebut the evidence I’ve presented, instead choosing to continue to deny it’s existence.

            27. Von Bailey says:

              Where did I say that my impression of the show was that “Penn & Teller, alone, talk about their opinions”? Oh, wait. Something else I didn’t say that you assume so that you can make false claims.

              But that all aside, let’s examine the logic behind your claims. According to you, because someone did a study that shows that people of color are prone to believing that negative things occur to them because of their color more than white people do, then that means that there is no racism. That’s stupid. It does not say that those people are wrong or right, it says that it is their belief. So your “evidence” doesn’t support your “conclusion” even if it was all true.

              The idea that I won’t relate any experience that I have had that was a result of discrimination is also irrelevant. It ignores that there were people protesting in the streets just last year protesting racism in the way police interact with people of color. But you will dismiss them because of scenarios that don’t even come close to the same circumstances also harm white people when they interact with police. You totally ignore that there are credible threats when white people are harmed and none when blacks are. Cops don’t make snap judgments with white people who are not demonstrating dangerous behavior. The only one you could come up with was a man who was naked and charging a cop after already assaulting other people while high on LSD.

              The evidence you keep claiming exists is just a lie you keep repeating. Prove me wrong. Why don’t you list them again for everyone’s edification. I don’t anticipate it because you’ve been lying all along.

              Your turn.

            28. Ben says:

              TWENTY FIVE POSTS!!!! WOO HOOO!!!! YOU DID IT!!!! You reached 25!!!

              25 posts with no real life experiences of discrimination.

              25 posts with no facts or statistics to support the notion that life is so much easier for white people.

              25 posts with no facts or statistics to support the notion that life is so much worse for minorities.

              25 posts with no evidence of institutional racism.

              25 posts with no colleges/universities with overrepresentation of white people.

              25 posts with no rebuttal to the mountain of scholarships exclusive to minorities.

              25 posts of dishonest refusal to examine actual arguments.

              25 posts hinging entirely on police actions, despite the overwhelmingly obvious fact that police accountability is an issue for everyone.

              25 posts with no explanation whatsoever of how life today is just like life in 1961 for minorities.

              25 posts! Twenty. Five. I’ve never seen such willful ignorance! You are the man! You just make it so easy to rack up victory after victory! It’s really something, and I thank you for it!

              Now, on a more somber note, today is NASA’s day of remembrance. I want you to go learn about Dr. Ronald McNair Ph.D., second African American in space, lost during the Challenger mission in 1986. Learn about someone who had to live through real, honest, institutionalized racism and discrimination, and yet, still made it into outer space!

            29. Von Bailey says:

              Calm down, calm down. Don’t get all emotional.

              I never said I’d ever experienced real life experiences of discrimination, that’s simply a question you’re using to deflect from providing the list of privileges that people of color get that you lied about. I have, but why list stuff simply to allow you to deny them and tell me that they didn’t happen. You’re that predictable.

              If you aren’t aware of the “facts or statistics to support the notion that life is so much worse for minorities” or “institutionalize racism” simply by paying attention to any relevant level of news and information, anything I provide you will simply rationalize away as racists and bigots do when they see it in the news. You’ve been demonstrating purposeful ignorance since the beginning of this dialog. Why would I assume you’d treat anything I presented any differently?

              I never said there were colleges/universities with an over representation of white people. Why would I provide evidence of something that I didn’t claim? IT doesn’t prove what you say it does so I ignored it as I’m sure the intelligent reader of this dialog also did.

              What rebuttal is necessary regarding scholarships? What is that supposed to prove? There’s nothing to rebut as I never denied them. No more than I denied that many more white people get in based on legacies and inherited wealth. What’s your point?

              You simply lie about your arguments. If you had them you could have listed them instead of this pathetic list of complaints about me not following your orders and following your silly rationales towards the ignorance you wallow in.

              Police accountability may be an issue for everyone, but purposeful ignorance of the level of harm and deaths relative to the races in regards to police actions is a white privilege. The argument of false equivalency is a constant with racist and bigots and you apparently wade in pretty deep.

              You patting yourself on the back so much is really kind of pathetic. But I assume you have to continuously boost your ignorant responses with positive reinforcement. Even if it only comes from you.

              Oh wow! A black astronaut and a black president. Must mean racism is over. Or maybe that’s the fantasy of white privilege and the rest of the world knows that just because a few people can do amazing things doesn’t mean that a thing has changed for those who live their lives just to be normal.

              Try again. Your superficial pride of a black man getting a chance to ride with a bunch of white men into space while millions of other black men must worry about being killed for being to large, scary and American is pathetic.

              Continue the demonstration. 🙂

            30. Ben says:

              26. 26 posts without facts, stats, evidence, or science.

            31. Von Bailey says:

              Want to try again? You forgot to point out that you “won” again. And I agree, you have at least that many posts without facts, stats, evidence, or science.

              Carry on. 🙂

            32. Ben says:

              27! 27, and you haven’t rebutted a single piece of evidence I have presented, let alone presented any of your own. LMFAO!!!

            33. Von Bailey says:

              I’m a buttmonkey reaching “a special kind of terror”. Wow. More of your facts, stats, evidence, or science pullout out your rear. But did you win?

              You saying there is under representation of white people in college does not make it a fact, nor does it disprove discrimination against people of color. Scholarships and set asides that also go to white women are not evidence that people of color do not suffer discrimination. Your evidence is just the superficial rationales you use to justify your bigotry.

              But let’s get to what’s really important. Did you win again? 🙂

            34. Ben says:

              28! That’s 28, and you haven’t presented any evidence, and you’re attempting the same dishonest “rebuttals” you’ve been attempting.

              African American exclusive scholarships do NOT go to white women. This is totally false.

              I’m not “just saying” that white people are underrepresented at the vast majority of universities. That’s a fact that is backed by stats. Like I’ve said, I don’t know how many times now, if you know of a single school where white people are overrepresented, please let us know. LMAO!!!

              Even if my evidence were just “superficial rationales” which it most certainly is not, it would still beat no evidence at all, which is what you’ve presented. Aside from that, just calling my evidence “superficial rationales” without any evidence or rebuttal is actually racism. You’re dismissing my arguments because I am white. You’re a bigot.

              Seriously, troll, you’re not supposed to be the joke! Someone needs to teach you that trolling isn’t about just being a buttmonkey.

            35. Von Bailey says:

              So now the great white master is going to teach me how to be a troll. Well, you’ve plenty of practice and something you might be competent at. Go for it. Continuously asking me for evidence of things I’ve not said or to disprove things you’ve not demonstrated in the least is not really going anywhere. This calling me names and counting posts might just work for you.

              Btw, your reading comprehensive skills are lacking. I said that set aside contracts can also go to white women not scholarships There are plenty of scholarships that are exclusive to women so that’s not a relevant point.

            36. Ben says:

              Haha, wow! You are just so incredibly racist! You’re so desperate to justify your bigotry, but you can’t come up with anything at all.

              Grow up. Get with reality. Learn not to be so racist. Kthx.

            37. Von Bailey says:

              So now I’m a racist for pointing out that your bigoted arguments have no merit. That’s called “projection”. Look it up. A psychological term that describes you very well.

              Did you “win” again? You didn’t say. 🙂

            38. Ben says:

              OMGLMFAO!!! Yeah, it is called projection, silly. You’ve repeatedly called me a racist and bigot over and over because you, yourself, hold racist, bigoted sentiments. You’re projecting. You also accused me of being disingenuous when, in 30 posts, you’ve done nothing but attempt to dodge every fact I’ve presented to you and challenge to refute it! You’re just so pathetic! LMFAO! I’m dying here!

              I’m calling you racist and a bigot because, despite my mountain of evidence presented to you showing otherwise, you still insist that there’s some sort of “white privilege” and that I’m a racist and bigot for not just taking your word for it. LMAO! When you insist that you deserve special treatment because of your race, and that all white people are getting some sort of “white privilege” because of their race without one shred of evidence, that’s racism! Bahahaha!!!

              And I don’t even have to quote this sort of incredibly racist insult to make that point: “So now the great white master is going to teach me how to be a troll.” Though, quoting it certainly validates everything I’ve said. Might wanna make sure you, literally, didn’t just spout racism before accusing me of “projecting.” LMFAO!!!

            39. Von Bailey says:

              Back to the maniacal laughter again. You’re apparently not aware of the concept of sarcasm if you really took the “white master” term seriously. Wouldn’t be surprised. A lot of sarcasm requires intelligence to grasp and you’ve demonstrated a lacking in that regard.

              Pointing out that white people have special privileges is not asking for special privileges, that’s stupid and a perfect example of projection. You, being simply stupid, walked right into it.

              But let me guess. You won again, right. Queue for the maniacal laughter.

            40. Ben says:

              31 replies. 31 replies, and they’re all so inane and racist, they speak for themselves. I’ve summed up my arguments pretty nicely in the few posts I’ve left behind.

              Otherwise, have a good one.

            41. Von Bailey says:

              And you’ve been here the entire time and have yet to dispute a single thing the artist says in her cartoon. Not one. Just a racist rant focused on me and then running away while you laugh maniacally and shout your lies over your shoulder. Just as the demonstrations are supposed to work.

            42. Ben says:

              Haha, sure; whatever helps you sleep at night.

            43. Von Bailey says:

              The racist thinks I need help sleeping at night because he lies to himself about white supremacy to sleep at night and assumes everyone has the same issues. Like I said before; projection.

            44. Ben says:

              Now, it’s time to pull the biggest joke of all on you, silly buttmonkey!

    2. Von Bailey says:

      Fine. Then try it. Turn our skin black and try being a black man in the south for six months. You claim it makes no difference because it’s 2015, then prove it. There are millions of black people who say you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      1. Ben says:

        Sure, I can, too. They’re addicted to crack. They aren’t addicted to crack because of their life choices. No. They’re addicted to crack cuz of “whitey.”

        I already did “prove it,” silly. And you’ve failed to rebut any of the proof I provided. I win.

        LOL! Anyway, you need to grow up.
        Facts, buddy. Facts.

        1. Von Bailey says:

          You keep claiming that you’ve used “facts” and “provided proof”, and you’ve done nothing of the sort. But you have demonstrated to anyone intelligent that you don’t know what those concepts mean, which is valuable as an intelligent person with critical reasoning skills will see that.

          Thanks for demonstrating the bogoted nature of your persona by saying that “being black” and “disagreeing with you” means that the person is on crack. It’s racist and ignorant and you said it. You claim things have changed, but apparently not in the hearts of people who associate being black with being a drug addict. Racists like that are in denial of who they are all over this country. Thanks for the demonstration.

          1. Ben says:

            Haha, I never made such a comparison, but you have. No, I just suggested that crackheads, who happen to be black, are likely to feel that they’re owed some sort of debt by people who, in reality, owe them nothing.

            Anyway, I keep presenting this evidence to you, and you keep denying that it’s real. Too bad reality doesn’t require you to accept it. Reality is real whether you like it or not.

            Now, if you’re curious about how blacks actually have equality, there’s a Penn and Teller; BS about reparations that addresses much of the complaints of the “white privilege” cowards.

            1. Von Bailey says:

              Your nervous laughter is getting pathetic. Your silly denial sounds like something a bigot says when they’ve realized that they’ve said something that they really feel and it makes them sound as they really are and it coincidentally sounds like a racist rant. That gets embarrassing, so you’re attempting to clean it up. Pathetic.

              You’re personal observations is not evidence. Your incredible ignorance to assume that it is is just what I said it was, a demonstration used to expose the limited nature of your “reality” and critical thinking skills.

              Yeah, I should go and ask two white guys about how blacks are experiencing life. Why am I not surprised that your perspective of the black experience comes from a couple of white guys?

            2. Ben says:

              I’m not using my personal observations as evidence. I listed real benefits afforded to everyone else except whites. You can’t list a single one afforded to whites only.

              Hahaha! Your ego defenses must be going haywire if you think my laughing at you is “nervous.” I’ve presented all sorts of arguments, which you’ve failed to rebut, and I’m still waiting on your arguments, which you’ve failed to present. You obviousyl never took a debate class, because you have no idea how it works. I’m not only winning; I’ve crushed you. LMAO!!!

  40. Rhyno says:

    I am a project manager for a construction contractor that is gearing up to go work on the new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings. Our work is highly technical and a project this size will have no room for error. We are forced by the state to have a minimum of 33% minority and 7% women labor (boots on the ground, “productive” workers). We have been advertising for the last 6 months looking for skilled laborers. Not one single minority or woman has applied for work. As a result of this we will be forced to hire unskilled laborers off of the street (if we can find any) just to make quotas. This means we will have to pass over a skilled technician to hire an unskilled laborer. This means that the people we hire will go to the union, become members, start receiving union pay and benefits and have absolutely no skill in the particular field whatsoever. Their lack of skill means they will not be able to perform the regular duties of the trained and skilled workers we already have. We are forced, just to meet the quotas, to burn 30% of our bid labor hours to hand unskilled workers a broom and sweep the floor while other skilled workers could end up sitting on unemployment.

  41. adifferentperspective says:

    just quietly is your president white or person of colour and i dont see him making a big deal of white privilege, and in my country you get handouts a plenty and special favour into schools for fear of being accused of favouring white people

  42. wylekat says:

    Unbelievable. Either I’m not actually white (A distinct possibility), or I am not subject to the same ‘statistics’. I have been jailed for next to nothing, harassed by cops, treated like scum. I have been discriminated against with several govt programs, and even extorted by one. A hospital visit had me treated incredibly badly.

    I am sorry you’re white and have a need to feel guilty about it. Some of us don’t, and really could care LESS about skin color. My criteria goes on how much of an asshole someone is or isnt.

  43. TedConley says:

    how about the percentage of females admitted to college versus males? oh crap, you didn’t want to actually use statistics for ALL purposes did you?

  44. jm313 says:

    This is stupid. It didn’t convince me of anything. The races of people are all different. The truth is way back in the day each race “grew up” in different climates making them all different. There is also a genetic component. The fact is the races are different and some races are better than others in things for example blacks in general are better than whites in basketball whereas whites in general are more intellectual than blacks and then Asians are a little more intellectual than whites and this is all largely genetic. But many people on the left-wing push this idealistic premise that “the races are all literally equal” but they don’t like the empirical sciences because it proves there premise to be false. These people act just like dogmatic religious people in that they push a fantasy a…nd when the empirical sciences prove them wrong they won’t accept the facts. Now white people have been getting unfairly criticized when certain races in white societies don’t meet a certain mark or when there isn’t enough diversity in certain areas. These leftists blame the cause of this on white racism oppressing these groups. Basically wherever there is an inequality between the races like the unemployment rate it is blamed on white racism because these leftists operate under the premise that we are all literally equal so we should be performing all the same and if we are not then it must be the evil white people keeping others down. Well if whites are so racist towards minorities then why is it that Asians perform better than whites in America and all these non-whites want to immigrate to white countries? The real cause of inequality is that the races are different, not literally equal and some races just cannot keep up with others in certain areas. This false premise the left pushes is putting a burden on people and causing certain groups to be unfairly criticized for something that is totally out of there hands. Blame nature folks.

  45. jm313 says:

    Blacks have a much higher crime rate than whites. black on white crime is much worse than the other way around. I have personally seen more times a black guy abusing a white girl than the other way around.

  46. jm313 says:

    About the media and crime you are way wrong. Black on white crime is so much worse than white on black crime yet white on black crime gets a bigger reaction. In fact blacks will protest it. Whites though have been put into an apathetic state where they are scared to protest all the black on white crime for fear of being called racists. How screwed up is that! This is one way political correctness is used. Don’t let the majority speak out.

  47. jm313 says:

    You list statistics but don’t interpret them. Conservatives tend to do the exact same. This is why I’m an independent because both sides are very biased and cherry pick.

  48. jm313 says:

    When it comes to the media and crime. Why is it that a white on black crime tends to get more reaction when black on white crime is much worse? Whites should really be the ones protesting. But many have been put into this apathetic state and are scared that they will be called racist. It’s insane. Its a fact that black commit more crime than whites. This applies worldwide.

  49. JW P says:

    I get the point, but these stats are complete bunk bordering on outright lies. I’ve spent 20 years working in the criminal justice system, and can say without a doubt that although blacks and hispanics may be over represented in prisons, it isn’t nearly by as much as anyone with this radical anti-racism agenda claims. In the two prisons and two county prisons I work out of most often, one of the state prisons and both the county ones are majority white. The other state correctional facility is strictly for serious sex offenders, and it is almost all white barring a few exceptions. And I’m based out of New Jersey- not exactly the least diverse state in the union.

  50. whatisanoath? says:

    Maybe she has never heard of Affirmative Action? You know, the process of putting people into positions and schools based on color and not on aptitude. Very handy when used to choose the best doctors. What we have now is institutionalized excuses for failure. That is also very handy when you need to keep the poor in place and voting a certain way. Blames others for your failures. That works…… never. But it sure does fan the flames.

  51. The only good ni99er is a dead one. Exterminate their entire species! WHITE POWER!!!

  52. Roland Tester says:

    …sorry to be “that guy”, but all of these have more to do with poverty than race…

  53. Tina Corbett says:

    Yeah, I was born white. Why am I supposed to be sorry for that? I work hard, study hard and do my best to be a good person. I pay my bills on time so I have decent credit. I’m supposed to feel bad for that too? I go to work early and stay late and bust my ass at work. So, I have a solid work history. I’m supposed to feel bad and apologize for that too? I grew up in a shitty neighborhood and went to a shitty school, but I studied my ass off and read all I could to get ahead and be able to get that better job and move to a better place. I’m supposed to still feel bad that I got my diploma and didn’t flunk out? Sorry…not buying that. I might have had some
    ‘privelege’ what what I did with it is on me…and not the color of my skin.

  54. Seth Quillet says:

    At coffee shop, two cops walk in, g/f says “I hate the police” I reply with “I’m a white male, I love cops.” Woman behind counter laughs so hard she has to go to back to recover. That is white privilege. The ability to know I’m not gonna get shot because I’m a white male.

  55. UrabanoMucho says:

    You make the naïve assumption that percentages say something about cause. They don’t at all. When you are guilty about being whatever color you are then you have a psychological problem, work on it. There are cultural differences that frequently determine a person’s outlook. They are extremely difficult to change. If your cultural past gives you some kind of advantage, there is a reason why it is an advantage that has nothing to do with white. Wealth has something to do with it, but lets face it 99% of us no matter what color are not the 1%.

  56. Pilar Buford says:

    White Privilege,Straight Privilege ,Able-body Privilege, Male Privilege, they ALL exist people! Not sometimes Not some, they All do.

  57. Frank Booth says:

    You filthy fucking self loathing piece of shit. I’m glad you live in Texas, and I hope you and your black boyfriend are mercilessly fucked with on a daily basis

  58. frontgate says:

    what bullshit!

  59. Corey Gray says:

    I guess she doesn’t realize that even in poor areas, from families on subsidies programs, whites are 32% more likely to finish high school.
    That whites are less likely to commit a crime of any note by a factor of six, and more likely for it to be a misdemeanor by a factor of 17, so, having committed fewer crimes, and generally of a less serious nature, fewer are ever placed on trial, much less convicted.
    That whites are more likely to qualify by GPA and extracurricular activities for college entrance than blacks (look at GPA demographics by race…it’s available information, federal board of education site)…despite working from the same course material, where NO other race has any issue assimilating, and several consistently out-perform average white students.
    That the white man with a criminal record is not only less likely to have a serious record, but also less likely to have a record of recidivism, and is more likely to have learned or earned saleable skills either before or while in prison, if his crimes were significant enough to warrant prison (felony) than a black with a criminal record, and a black with a clean record is far less likely to hold the qualifications, even if he has that clean record…

    If you ran a construction company, who would you hire…a white guy who did 3-5 for drugs, and was a plumber/pipefitter before going up, or a clean record black guy with no experience with pipefitting or plumbing? As someone who’s been in that situation, I’ll answer…you hire the guy with the qualifications. Just as often, it’s been a black guy or a Hispanic guy with the experience that got hired over a white kid with no record…unless it was labor I was hiring for, with intent to drop him into an apprentice program in a year…which is the only case under which I concerned myself with criminal record or not.
    You hire whoever has the needed skills. If the “skills” needed are a strong back and ability to take instruction, that goes to any guy with four limbs, one skull, and the ability to walk and speak at the same time. If there’s competition, it goes to the one who seems most responsible and likely to show up every day…which is usually whoever has no serious criminal record, if one at all.

    This crap about “white privilege” is just that…crap.
    The problem is the endemic behaviors of the respective subcultures. The white subculture, like the Indian, Asian, and Islander subcultures, and a big chunk of the Hispanic subculture holds personal responsibility and personal effort leading to success as a high ethic, from the time a kid is born…so they grow up in an atmosphere knowing they’re supposed to try to stay out of legal trouble, do well in school, prepare to meet college entrance requirements, and stay in college, once they’re in.
    There is ONE subculture (and a second, growing) that believes they are unfairly oppressed, instead of actually looking at what all these statistics provided actually indicate.

    I shan’t name it, but by process of elimination and common sense you should be able to identify both the established one, and the one that’s growing.

    I am not speaking about INDIVIDUALS of any given race or religion…there are plenty in each of these subcultures that reject the basic tenets of their upbringing, and adopt the behaviors of another…usually in a negative way, but sometimes in a positive one.
    And yes, those from the “I’m oppressed” subcultures do have to try harder…but it’s not because of “white privilege”, it’s because all available evidence says if they are not unusual for the subculture normally associated with their race or religion, they are statistically unlikely to be honestly prepared…so when they are, since facing people who are a bit cautious about the idea leaves those people more likely to be critical, and to note negatives first (and believe it or not, this is more common when you’re talking about someone of the same race or religion having made it to a position where they are the ones supervising, training, or assessing this individual)…which means you have to work more, and be better, to overcome that doubt….but that’s NOT caused by “white privilege” or any racial oppression, it’s caused by the typical public behavior of the subculture most associated with your racial or religious background.

  60. Pedrosity3 says:

    Dear Jamie,

    I hate to tell this to you, sugar, but you’ve committed a number of fallacies in this piece.

    First, there’s your unstated premise that there is a monolithic “white” race. Hon, there isn’t! See, the bad old Nazi’s believed that sh*t, and you don’t want to be a Nazi, do you?

    Second, simply because people of color don’t complete college at the same rate as people of the non-existent white race you talk about, doesn’t mean that there is institutional racism! See, there are any number of alternative explanations for this statistic (assuming it’s correct). Probably the best explanations for non-completion of an undergraduate degree include the following a) first time degree-seeker from a family with no college degrees; b) lack of financial resources; and c) lack of adequate personal development, chiefly discipline. I mean, look at all those Asians–they’re not all rich, and they aren’t white at all! And yet, they do real good at schoolin’!

    See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

    Third, sweetie pie, your statistic about news coverage is precious! Everyone and their brother knows that the media is liberal, and that their chief concern is the almighty dollar! Don’t draw your false conclusions by how many times certain news stories are mentioned by the media! I mean, dear me, there was just a HUGE scandal about aborted baby parts being sold to the highest bidder, and do you know what that bad, old media did? It IGNORED baby parts stories and instead told us ad nauseam about some old dead lion. Why don’t you focus on the outrageously high rate of black-on-black crime, or why white liberals and progressives want to keep black people poor, that is, if they let them out of the womb in one piece!

    You’re so cute!

    Aunt Claire

  61. abstractheory says:

    Okay, so I have white privilege. Should I kill myself or what?

    1. Silver says:

      Nah~ it’s just good to not deny the truth.

      1. abstractheory says:

        I didn’t. I relish my privilege.

      2. Attaboy says:

        what truth?
        that white people who dont contribute to racism are still racist if they dont admit they have privilege that they never utilized? you are all morons.

        1. Silver says:

          No, the fact that “white privilege” exists is the truth I speak of. Racism has nothing to do with the issue(unless you are denying others that privilege). I get benefits for being white, but it doesn’t faze me one bit. Resorting to insults shows how insecure you are. I’m done talking about this. It’s just something I acknowledged a long time ago.

  62. FredC1968 says:

    White privilege has the added benefit of keeping poor whites at odds with other poor people. It ultimately benefits the top one percent.

  63. David Martinez says:

    She hit the truth dead on target. I have faced the institutionalized racism all my life, from being called a greaser- pepper belly to savage godless heathen. I have been denied employment and housing because of my last name, I have been hire purely on my last name, (hey we can claim you as a Mexican without hiring one wink, wink ha ha ha).
    I went to college on an Indian education Grant, lost that because the BIA, DE-recognized the tribe, could not get a Hispanic or Latino grant because my father was a Spaniard Immigrant. I did not qualify for other grants mainly because of my last name, it would get the standard form letter of rejection with a list of latino and hispanic grants to apply for.
    White privilege, yes I know white privilege,

    1. Attaboy says:

      nah, you just sound like a mooching asshole

      1. David Martinez says:

        I suppose you are not much more than a troll that does not have the intestinal fortitude to use their real name.
        Cowardly, internet troll, bullies are like that.
        I was encouraged to use what was available by birthright, but as it turned out I was not white enough to enjoy the perks that put people in the top 10% of educational skills in college.
        I was not Hispanic, and my tribe is owed too much land, monies and water rights to ever achieve recognition again.
        So I received my higher education through working hard, paying my own way, and exceptional living skills.
        So attaboy have a good life, I am know retired, I own everything I have, zero credit card or loan debt. 20 acres a home and a real life.

  64. Shane Perkins says:

    I’m reading through this and can’t help but notice that what is often overlooked or ignored in any discussion like this is where/when this all began anyway. No other country had the chattel type slavery that we had here. At the height of slavery in south america there were about 2-3 million slaves all of which were purchased. In the U.S. we had about 3X that many, most of which were bred. Families were broken up, interbred, interracially bred, etc. The psyche of the blacks was forever fractured. Their entire identity was taken from them. Skip forward some and we get Jim Crow laws, red line districts, Tuskegee airmen experiments, just to name a few. What we have seen with the police killing of blacks and such has always been there, it’s just that in the past everyone wasn’t carrying a device to record everything. White privilege exist and to deny that is either being willfully ignorant or just being a plain old racist. Now you can throw out all the statistics you want from either side of the argument, but many times one must take into account who compiled these statistics. Any person doing research can skew the results whichever way they want if they so choose. If you had been put through what the blacks in this country have for so long, you would be wanting to riot at some point too. Everyone has a breaking point.

    1. Attaboy says:

      ” No other country had the chattel type slavery that we had here. ”
      Not true. The mid east , north africa and Europe had it. Its well documented that the Arabs started the slave trade.

      “At the height of slavery in south america there were about 2-3 million slaves all of which were purchased. In the U.S. we had about 3X that many, most of which were bred. ”

      This statement makes no sense. First you say 2-3 million (which is not true btw) slave that all were purchased (I dont understand what pointing out them being bought means , but okay) then you say the U.S had three times as many? so what is it?

      “we get Jim Crow laws, red line districts, Tuskegee airmen experiments”

      Yeah we know this was bad, thats why we have affirmative action. Its still didn’t do anything though and the black communities are worse off than they were before we did these type of things. Why is that?

      ” What we have seen with the police killing of blacks and such has always been there, it’s just that in the past everyone wasn’t carrying a device to record everything.”

      Yet when we watch the videos , the black guy is 90% of the time in the wrong, just like with most people that get confronted by the police.

      “White privilege exist and to deny that is either being willfully ignorant or just being a plain old racist.|

      still haven’t proved it. Sorry the argument “Black people are not doing well in the year 2016, it must be racism” is just shallow and explains nothing and only causes more hate. This path will not work.

      “if you had been put through what the blacks in this country have for so long”

      What has a poor black man been through that a poor white guy hasnt? there is no justification for rioting and blaming innocent people based on the color of skin.

  65. Don's Johnson says:

    White privilege is nothing more than black America’s crutch. Instead of taking a look in the mirror at your own failures, which every race has, you blame whitey. There’s a thing called personal responsibility. You should look into it. And not continue to parrot the same mindless rhetoric of some immature college girl with zero real life experience. Quit the woe is me bullshit.

    1. Von Bailey says:

      Pointing out injustice is not “woe is me”, it’s, “this is wrong”. Your inability to see the difference shows a lack of ability to demonstrate empathy, a classic racist trait.

      I note that you didn’t bother to challenge or demonstrate any of her examples to be incorrect, you apparently simply assume them to be the “natural order”. Another racist trait.

      1. Keith says:

        Anyone who’s not a Marxist idiot (a useful one, mind you) can see that this stupid cartoon points out a lot that is tied into one’s own achievements and behavior. I have no White Shame because it doesn’t exist and the whole ‘White Privilege’ argument is just another attempt at blame-shifting by a social group that mostly refuses to grow up, and, when any of them do get it together then their own race shames them for ‘being white’ and ‘forgetting where they came from’. There hasn’t been a Black slave alive in well over 150 years. Give us a break. Ah, I cannot wait until this whole world ends and is burned in the trash. 😀

  66. barbaraebj says:

    I question some of the statistics since other reports vary, but otherwise, this is a very good, albeit basic, overview of white privilege. Good statistics would improve this. Also, it is always easier for someone to see the difference in action than on paper, but we tend to buy into the unspoken biases too much to notice. For instance, the white adult in the expensive jewelry store being treated as though he really can afford to buy the items there, but the poc being treated as though he might be there to steal something. These examples become more obvious when we think about the underlying assumptions at play… the black patron being asked for more ID to use a check while the white person can get by with much less from the same register because the clerk remembers the newer white person who has been in the store a few times in the past few months, but has forgotten that black person as a repeat and good customer for even longer. The examples are around us all the time. There is also the time when the white person gets loud while angry with customer service and is given more leeway and better treatment but the black person’s voice is raised a little or the same, and the police are called to arrest the person for being a threat. Watch and learn. I am white, but I am also observant.

  67. Chief Smakaho says:

    Stop handing out participation trophies. These kids are F*%king pathetic.

  68. mofa says:

    American statistics I am guessing…13% of USA population is made up of African Americans…so raw statistics tell us nothing!
    Bias white guilt propaganda piece IMHO.

  69. Samoht Sartaig says:

    I’m guessing you AND Jamie Kapp have been called dumb cunts a LOT. I suggest you take notes.

  70. hobomidget says:

    People of color are in prison because they commit more crimes. Its like getting a collie over a bit bull, more violent blood lines runs though one of them. Also, collies are more intelligent naturally. Blacks make up 16% of the population but do 44% of the crime. According to statistical analysis. They also kill each other at an alarming rate. Black people can’t even get along with black people. I say, with everything said, if white privilege does exist, it has been earned and look at Obama, a black person can be president, so the potential is there, just most black people squander their potential.

  71. cs go discount steam

    You’re an extremely useful internet site; could not make it without ya!

  72. mulberry väskor online

    Whats Going down i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I have discovered It absolutely useful and it has aided me out loads. I’m hoping to give a contribution & aid different customers like its helped me. Great job.

  73. ray ban hombres

    Wow, superb blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is excellent, as well as the content!

  74. Gafas de descuento ray ban

    There is perceptibly a lot to know about this. I consider you made various good points in features also.

  75. oakley solglasögon västerås

    Iˇve read a few excellent stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how so much attempt you put to make this sort of excellent informative web site.

  76. Cheap Jerseys

    The third point is the not-much-discussed idea of the “pelvic thrust” which the Stack and Tilt guys claim is necessary in order to get the club approaching the ball correctly. An advantageous place or location. You can confirm the HSH data is real as…

  77. ray ban wayfarer baratas originales

    Hello there, just became alert to your blog through Google, and found that it is truly informative. I抦 going to watch out for brussels. I抣l appreciate if you continue this in future. Numerous people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

  78. the mulberry tree van gogh Outlet

    Great article, exactly what I wanted to find.

  79. gatos ray ban 5000

    This is very interesting, You are a very skilled blogger. I’ve joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, I have shared your website in my social networks!

  80. birkenstock sandals online

    Useful info. Lucky me I found your website unintentionally, and I am stunned why this coincidence did not took place earlier! I bookmarked it.

  81. Cheap Grey Birkenstocks Milano Sandals Mens Light Grey Outlet Online

    You could certainly see your enthusiasm within the work you write. The sector hopes for more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. At all times go after your heart.

  82. Cheap Mens Birkenstock Arizona Sandals Leather White Outlet Online

    I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was good. I don’t know who you are but definitely you’re going to a famous blogger if you aren’t already 😉 Cheers!

  83. repliche orologi cartier santos demoiselle

    For those that haven’t use their .75 printable Welch’s coupon this week, can use it during triples then pay just .75!  That’s what I’m planning to do.  Who doesn’t love 100% juice for only .75?!

  84. cartier tank men gold and silver uk

    I am so sorry to hear your story!!   Sounds like you did not have a good experience at all!  I hope it was unusual, but in this day of overworked, underpaid nurses, I am afraid it is more common than we would like.