You're doing mental acrobatics to see what you want, in order to feel vocal outrage, because you feel you're being treated unfairly. Do you not see that as playing the victim?
George Takei: racist piece of shit
- Thread starter UCFKnight85
- Start date
Takei treated Thomas unfairly and you idiots are either defending him, excusing him, or attacking me the people calling him out. The only acrobatics being performed here are by you and your fellow liberals.
Without commenting on George Takei I just wanted to take a brief moment to say ...
F**K CLARENCE THOMAS!
F**K CLARENCE THOMAS!
Honest question, unless you're trolling then disregard.
Why is a black man an Uncle Tom for doing what he believes is best for the entire country? He should only vote in a way that benefits black people?
Along the same lines of the NAACP calling Tim Scott a white man's dummy after he won election to the US Senate, all because he's a Republican and dares to espouse conservative views.
Much like how Condolezza Rice was just a white people puppet- not a real black woman!
Pretty much this. Takei isn't a blip on my radar as he posts controversial things constantly and i don't really care about Pseudo-celebrities who did one really awful show/movies 20 years ago.
Clarence Thomas is a piece of shit who said slavery didn't take dignity form those who were unable to live their own lives for themselves. **** Clarence Thomas, indeed.
His argument was uhh... interesting... to say the least but he meant it from a sense that dignity comes from within and is impossible for the government to grant or remove it. The ability for people to remain dignified in the face of horrendous situations has been shown throughout history.
Effectively, just because slaves were treated inhumanely it did not make them less human. If someone treats you in an undignified manner, it doesn't take away your own dignity. Being treated humanely is in the constitution. The idea of dignity is not in the constitution.
Last edited:
It is interesting that people are defending Takei's comments as being taken out of context (although no one has provided the supposed context) while the original flack was over Clarence Thomas's dissent which were most definitely taken out of context. He never in any way, shape, or form defended slavery, segregation, or laws against interracial marriage.
Another point to add, the idea that Clarence Thomas is somehow an Uncle Tom or a white man masquerading as a black man because of this vote is insane. I'm not sure of any more recent polls or votes on the matter but it is well documented that the black community was overwhelmingly in favor of California's prop 8 in 2008 that banned same sex marriage in California.
A) I'm not sure who said Takei is being taken out of context, the context is clear. What he said isn't racist. What he said is a really asshole-y internet type of comment, but it's not racist. I don't care about Takei but I do care about being factually correct.
B) Have you read Thomas's dissent? The whole thing is available. He defends the constitutionality of slavery multiple times. He defends the court for making numerous decisions not to strike it down. I don't know how else to put it. It's also a fact.
You people man. I apologize if thinking is hard, I can't imagine what that must be like.
So I'm supposed to be outraged when Howard Sterns announcer who posts cat pics all day says something kooky?
You keep saying his comments weren't racist so I have to believe that you don't actually know what the term blackface actually means. Also, Takei's racism is clear in that he has a perceived notion of what a black person should believe in this country and he is attacking Thomas for not falling in lockstep with those beliefs. Coupling the two together as he shows his true colors in a time of anger, its hard that anyone with an ounce of intelligence cannot see him for the racist that he is.
A) I want to agree with you but I can't think of how it could not be racist. If Thomas was white this comment does not have any meaning. Any reference to blackface is a racial reference. Why didn't Takei go after Roberts who also made references to slavery in his dissent? That being said, I'm by no means OUTRAGED by Takei's comments. I just put it in the same category as other dumb, racist, asshole-y things said on the internet.
B) You are the first person that I've seen say that Thomas "defends the constitutionality of slavery". I hadn't up til now read his entire dissent, only the sections were slavery is mentioned (which isn't much) so I could understand the context of his comparison. Now after having read his entire dissent, I can positively say that you're either trolling, a liar, or a moron. Maybe some combination of the three.
Here's the link in case you want to read it for yourself.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Last edited:
Reading between the lines here impossible for celibibtard Gaysians to be RaCiSt
Justice Thomas's dissent was quite a good read. Of course FTK hadn't read it and neither had Takei. Notwithstanding that, they would probably disagree with the entire dissent on principle because they hold the dangerous liberal view that natural rights like life and liberty are bestowed by the government and not innately held.
From the dissent: "The need for restraint in administering the strong medicine of substantive due process is a lesson this Court has learned the hard way. The Court first applied substantive due process to strike down a statute in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857). There the Court invalidated the Missouri Compromise on the ground that legislation restricting the institution of slavery violated the implied rights of slaveholders. The Court relied on its own conception of liberty and property in doing so. It asserted that “an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States . . . could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.” Id., at 450. In a dissent that has outlasted the majority opinion, Justice Curtis explained that when the “fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws [are] abandoned, and the theoretical 12 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting opinions of individuals are allowed to control” the Constitution’s meaning, “we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.” Id., at 621."
Now, there were a number of other pro-slavery decisions by the supreme court up until Dred Scott. The difference was that Scott had been living in free territories where slavery was illegal at the state and federal level. Thomas means that, because it was specifically mentioned in state case law and federal law, the court overstepped its bounds in the decision to refuse him his rights as a citizen.
The subtext is that Thomas believes the prior rulings by the court were constitutional because the Constitution allowed for slavery at the time. He also says that "Dred Scott’s holding was overruled on the battlefields of the Civil War and by constitutional amendment after Appomattox." His belief is that the Constitution is meant to only be changed by the legislature and, regardless of what should or should not be, the court can only uphold what is specifically in the Constitution. To take that further, there are understood civil rights that are not specifically mentioned but are defined as being deeply rooted in US history and tradition. Thomas makes this case for religious liberty on pg 14-16 of his dissent with regards to gay marriage. The same arguments successfully defended slavery until it was made illegal by constitutional amendment.
Regardless of his opinions on the morality of slavery, that is a defense of the constitutionality of the practice.
As for "black face" being racist, the context is that whites dressed as blacks and perpetuated insane stereotypes for white entertainment. That's a super racist thing to do. Saying that Thomas is in black face is actually more accurate than Chris calling him Uncle Thomas in that he does not act in a subserviant manner, but in one that downplays the plight of his own people. His dissent is actually very un-Uncle Tom-like.
Now, there were a number of other pro-slavery decisions by the supreme court up until Dred Scott. The difference was that Scott had been living in free territories where slavery was illegal at the state and federal level. Thomas means that, because it was specifically mentioned in state case law and federal law, the court overstepped its bounds in the decision to refuse him his rights as a citizen.
The subtext is that Thomas believes the prior rulings by the court were constitutional because the Constitution allowed for slavery at the time. He also says that "Dred Scott’s holding was overruled on the battlefields of the Civil War and by constitutional amendment after Appomattox." His belief is that the Constitution is meant to only be changed by the legislature and, regardless of what should or should not be, the court can only uphold what is specifically in the Constitution. To take that further, there are understood civil rights that are not specifically mentioned but are defined as being deeply rooted in US history and tradition. Thomas makes this case for religious liberty on pg 14-16 of his dissent with regards to gay marriage. The same arguments successfully defended slavery until it was made illegal by constitutional amendment.
Regardless of his opinions on the morality of slavery, that is a defense of the constitutionality of the practice.
As for "black face" being racist, the context is that whites dressed as blacks and perpetuated insane stereotypes for white entertainment. That's a super racist thing to do. Saying that Thomas is in black face is actually more accurate than Chris calling him Uncle Thomas in that he does not act in a subserviant manner, but in one that downplays the plight of his own people. His dissent is actually very un-Uncle Tom-like.
Here's my point: you don't get to call a ****ing black person a white In black face.
If you don't get that then **** you
If you don't get that then **** you
Ok so you're a moron. Got it.
As I said, why didn't Takei go after Roberts?
Well because Roberts is CLEARLY agreeing with the DISSENT of the Dred Scott decision, ergo he is agreeing with the side of the court that was "anti-slavery".
I wasn't paying attention to the author, that's my mistake. The rest of what I wrote stands and applies to the strict constitutionalists. Dred Scott is not the first pro-slavery decision but it's the first one that doesn't follow the letter of the Constitution and federal laws to uphold perceived rights of slaveholders.
Therefore, the previous decisions uphold slavery as being constitutional as decided by the court.
*Edit: I just checked and I had been reading Roberts's dissent after the first time skimming Thomas's. I don't know why Takei went after the black guy, I guess because he talked about internment camps. It was a low class move for sure.
Therefore, the previous decisions uphold slavery as being constitutional as decided by the court.
*Edit: I just checked and I had been reading Roberts's dissent after the first time skimming Thomas's. I don't know why Takei went after the black guy, I guess because he talked about internment camps. It was a low class move for sure.
Last edited:
I'll address this when I get home. Thomas is the literal definition of a self hating Uncle Tom and it has absolutely nothing to do with his conservatism. I have no problem with black conservatives on principle. The dude has even admitted to self hatred.
I have no prior knowledge on the guy and it doesn't show in this response. I was also reading Roberts as Thomas so my point doesn't really apply there.
How convenient of you to find someone whose views you hate that made a self admitted mistake, then repeatedly apologized for that mistake. You are a sad hateful ignorant little man.
What I learned from this thread: using a racial slur on someone you deem racist is just fine.
You don't want it politicized but that entire article reads as a hit piece to marginalize and cast Thomas as exactly what you said he was. Many of the conclusions of the author can be interpreted in different ways as well and we really don't have the full context of a lot of it. Has the psychoanalyst who wrote this ever actually talked to Clarence Thomas about any of the medical conclusions that he's made to bolster his positions? It seems that he takes an event in Thomas's life, applies a generalized diagnosis, and then builds off of it as if it is fact. It would be interesting to hear a rebuttal from Thomas or someone close to him. Nonetheless, it could all be completely correct. Who really knows for sure.
Whatever. There's plenty there for me to feel very comfortable in my assertion. More than anything I posted it bc I'm tired of people who aren't even qualified to speak on the issue try and tell me it's just bc he's a conservative. People seem to have very little problem with people analyzing others in the media. Hell this board has a ruling field day thinking they know anything about the people they shit talk to death. This just makes people uncomfortable. Oh well.
My "wake up call" on how biased the media is to the left was Sarah Palin. While Palin is one of those right-wing Republicans I dislike much like Quayle, the way many men, and even women, on the left threw all sorts of comments that weren't just sexist, but literally violent, towards her was unnerving. And they actually said she "deserved it." Even worse is when they took things way too far with her daughter.
If a right-leaning media personality says something like this, they are literally banned for life. But even that's still all "subjective."
More "objective" and a bigger problem with the media as of late has to do with "conflicts of interest." And someone in the media, a Democrat correspondent no less, recently pointed out how this is happening. He covered the Duke LaCrosse "closed door politics" and really understand where we're going as a society.
I.e., over 90% of the media votes Democrat. That's why when 1 out of 10 peers tells a media personality they need to "recuse themselves" because of a "conflict of interest," there are 9 out of 10 other peers saying, "no, you don't need to, he is wrong. George Stephanopoulos is the latest "case study" where he grilled a Clinton skeptic, then had to backtrack, backtrack again and further backtrack, that he wasn't an unbiased Clinton supporter, including current and on-going interests, which he still hasn't fully disclosed.
Which explains a lot about the Clintons.
Whether you think they have done anything illegal or not is not the point. The fact of the matter is that the media is giving them passes over things that if any Republican did, they would be kicked out out Washington. It is just not acceptable, and even the current administration has repeatedly taken Hillary to issue over her lacking in judgement. But it's where we're going as an American society, affluent families propped up by popularist voting with little attention to civics.
So this combination of "rape the Republican, excuse the Democrat" also explains why Colin Powell's wife barked a resounding "no" when it came to running for an elected office. I don't blame her. Or Condi Rice for that matter. She knows her college football though, and the left-wing media had to quickly drop that one.
