I find these two paragraphs hilarious. In the first one you state how black people failed Hilary Clinton (Dem. party) by not voting for her. Then without even battering an eyelid, your following paragraph asks, “What changes and reforms do black Seventh-day Adventists want to see in the Seventh-day Adventist Church?” I don’t know, how about white people no longer telling black people how to vote… now that’s a start.
I recall a number of weeks ago, a young black, popular YouTuber, while being interviewed said how he had a much harder time coming out as a conservative compared to when he came out as gay.
I am just making the point that certain black people should take more responsibility for their actions. You reap what you sow. We would not have a white nationalist president–(he’s not a conservative, by the way)–if more black people had bothered to vote.
We find similar complacency among certain black people in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In my conversations with many black Seventh-day Adventists, I have been shocked to discover that they are content with racial segregation of the conferences. “You worship there, we will worship over here” is a philosophy of racial segregation that many black Seventh-day Adventists embrace. What they fail to understand is that Separate but Equal is not a viable long-term approach to racial justice and equality.
First I need to make it clear that even if I could I would not have voted for president Trump.
But lets not kid ourselves here, this has zero to do with Trump. Zero. I clearly recall how people referred to Bush as a racist, among other things. They also including mild-mannered-Mitt when the time came. That’s right even Spectrum had an article which the author claimed that Mitt Romney was a “white supremacist” - sound familiar? (the author came to this conclusion not because of anything Mitt had done, but because of his churches beliefs):
Ironically, the one [Romney] who may topple the current President [Obama] is one whose religion is built on the notion of White supremacy. In fact, I’m surprised that the media has not examined the doctrines and traditions of the Mormon Church more closely. Who knows if Romney’s religious formation is the reason why he feels comfortable articulating “birther” language and proposing policies that would mean the death of many Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)?
More sinister is the possibility that he may see himself as the fulfillment of the controversial “White Horse” prophecy that may not have originated with Joseph Smith, but has shaped Mormon’s understanding of their role in prophecy. According to this teaching, a time will come when the United States constitution will be “hanging on a thread,” and the United States will look to the Mormon Church for deliverance. Could Mr. Romney be the “exceedingly fair and delightsome” deliverer who replaces the one who bears the “curse” of a “skin of blackness” (for the context of the quotes see the Book of Mormon , 2 Nephi 5:21)?
Conclusion
I know I had previously announced that my columns for the next few months would feature obituaries, and this definitely does not fit the genre. However, in an uncanny way this column does speak about death—the death of reason. Some people are so blinded by their own bigotry that they are willing to make political choices that are detrimental to their own interests. This defies all standards of reasonable behavior and common sense.
I have no doubt that this willingness to be deceived is symptomatic of the times in which we live. Who knows? A Romney presidency could be a loud reminder that these are indeed the closing days of earth’s history. This could be the wake up call for God’s people to align themselves with the only political leader who always tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This leader is none other than Jesus the Messiah who values citizens of “every nation, tribe, language and people” (Rev 14:6). He is a “one term” leader who will never be up for re-election (and was never up for election!) because his reign is “for ever and ever” (Rev 11:15). He is the one called “Faithful and True” who rides the white horse of eschatological justice (Rev 19:11).
So even if Trump turns out to be what you say; those whom you wish to reach no longer listen: “A Romney presidency could be a loud reminder that these are indeed the closing days of earth’s history.” They’ve heard it all before - over and over and over again, every time a Rep. runs for Pres.
No you’re not, you’re telling them how to vote. And yes, I totally agree: you reap what you sow… the irony…
Edit:
And is it any wonder why people are sick of listening to such warnings. I mean look at the comment bellow mine. A grade a troll, who’s more concerned about himself and getting his kicks than sincerely wanting to warn people.
Maybe you want to tell that to Don Lemon. While mocking Trump mistakenly called rhino an elephant.
*- If anyone is afraid of failing the test, a surrogate can be hired and take the test for the interested person. No questions asked. (Like that SAT that Trump took… )
A sample of that test’s questions:
What animal is this? Is it an elephant, or is it an elephant?
Correct answer is: It is an elephant!
(If anyone flunks, they can still get a “Dumb Genius” Certificate, for as low as $3!!!.. )
I don’t know. Democrats have been running the school systems in the major black enclaves (big cities) for some 50 to 75 years now. Why are blacks not getting what they need there? I believe black parents are really in favor of school choice, but other Democrats (read unions) are not. Far be it from me to suggest that voting Republican (they do support choice) would solve some problems. Perhaps even better than toppling a statue.
That is one interpretation of it. Maybe your idea of racial justice and equality is different than theirs. It may be that the members of the black conferences like to be in charge of their own program. Could you allow for their thinking? Not only that, if a black wants to be part of a white conference, there is no impediment. I pastored a majority black church in a white conference when there were several regional churches close by. You see, they had a choice.
I have heard this discussion for years now. Whites want the blacks to integrate. Blacks do not want to. OK. I don’t think it is a problem of justice and equality, but desire to have something that is theirs. They are not rushing to dissolve them like guilty liberal whites would have them do. I understand the origins of them, but that is history. Perhaps dealing with present reality is a better policy.
I enjoy your essays, and this brief one is full of insights.
I especially like the nuanced observation that you make, in your first paragraph, concerning the time dilation one experiences, between what Black people want, as a dependent class, and what white people are willing to grant, as the dominant group.
As I said to a colleague this week, racism is futuristic. In this present era of mutual agreement on many issues of justice—launched by George Floyd’s slaying—white people’s goals and Black people’s goals are still wildly out of sync. Black people are going to find this out in stages of grief and disappointment.
If true, the questions these details raise in my mind include, “What are the implications of these facts for the current movement? Has it been empowered? Or has it been ‘Karen’d’?”
Your “One Ask Behind” model partially orients this disjunction, and it would be fascinating to see if it is historically continuous, beyond the SDA church. I suspect that it is.
The one place where I may disagree with your article is here:
Though I agree with the conclusion of your first sentence, above, I always argue that “racism” and “white supremacy” should be parsed with a virgule (/), not an ampersand (&) — i.e., racism/white supremacy — because, I say, racism is the same thing as white supremacy.
In other words, white supremacy is the only functional form of racism; the only one that does work; the only one with “oomph,” so to speak.
Further, you say this: “[Racism] continues to infect and affect us, even though many of us have not done anything overt to perpetuate the sin itself, both societally and denominationally.”
I think that this is a common, but hasty conclusion. Its truth, or falsity, really depends on a deeper inquiry.
For example, if racism continues to “infect and affect,” then what is the definition of a racist act?
I’d argue that, at the very least, it’s deeds that make infection and effect possible.
You qualify the perpetuation of racism with the word overt, which, according to Oxford, means “done or shown openly; plainly or readily apparent, not secret or hidden.”
But if racism is, for example, “thought, speech, and/or action that makes infection and effect possible,” that suggests racist acts, and racist people, can become racist by very simple actions, as well as by words and thoughts. Some of these may, in fact, be overt, if only because they may appear to be innocuous.
For example, a white person might become a racist by merely uttering the words, “Put those over there,” if doing so makes racist infection and effect possible.
I call this the refinement stage of racism: Practicing race in a manner that improves the methods which help make the practice of racism more efficient, and/or, more “acceptable” to the Victims.
Now, for the most part, this is not the definition of racism that white people are putting forward, or that they are typically organized to deflect.
It seems that they mostly associate the word “racism” with “atrocity”; e.g., slavery. This is why they are frequently quick to establish that they never owned slaves, nor did their ancestors, when racism is discussed.
What many might be surprised to learn, however, is that, to a great extent, white slaveowners did not consider themselves racists, either.
They typically considered themselves “protectors of the natural order,” or “caretakers of lesser beings”; i.e., ones who would, without their oversight, wither away and die. In other words, they weren’t racist, but beneficent.
It should occur to thinking people, then, that what’s obviously consistent, over centuries, is the white tendency to describe relations with Black people in self-approving, self-glorifying terms; e.g., “Some of my best friends are Black.”
Having noted that, one might then ask, “Why is that?”
I would say it’s because the place we’re in is overtly racist.
In 1950’s Requiem for a Nun, Southern novelist William Faulkner famously said that, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
So, writing off “history” over “present reality,” I’d argue, is to merely engineer a strange loop.
Per Wikipedia, this is “a cyclic structure that goes through several levels in a hierarchical system. It arises when, by moving only upwards or downwards through the system, one finds oneself back where one started.”
For example, a Lorenz attractor, below, is a strange loop:
You say:
Perhaps what you are underestimating is why Black people want something that is theirs.
Put another way, why do they expect that they couldn’t have something that is theirs, while “integrated” with white people?
Not to mention, out of the 20 trillion dollars targeted and spent ostensibly for affirmative actions and black empowerment (along many streams of revenue) it has been reported that the dem administrators of said programs siphoned off twice as much money as actually was spent on these programs intended to benefit blacks in these enclaves (whether said initiatives were even properly designed to be an empowering hand up, not just an enabling hand out)
This seems elementary. If you have it, it is yours. They control it, they lead it. it is theirs.
If they integrate, they will have to contend with another group for control, or lead. The issue is not a racial one for the idea of ownership is the one at stake. Do whites own the non-regional conferences? Well, they are the majority, so would have a say, even a dominant one, but there are blacks among the white conferences, plenty of them, and they have a say. The NAD now has a black leader. So, there is openness to black leadership.
You will assert that the non-regional conferences are racist. No, they just are. They are a group of races all in one unit. The blacks have their own. OK. White guilt-ridden liberals feel this is a travesty, you know, against social justice and equality. My view would be that if they, the “owners” want to integrate, fine. If not, that’s fine too. But don’t tell me the non-regional conferences are racist. To integrate means to share leadership. Might be difficult. You won’t always get what you want.
There is another phrase: “Lets bury the hatchet.” I have noted that the more liberal never want to bury it, but like to bring it up. Just too useful and instrument. I had nothing to do with the formation of the regional conferences. And things have changed quite a bit since then (80 years?). The blacks thought they were the solution to the issue of racism. But maybe they have outlived there usefulness. It happens.
Faulkner had a point, but it should not be used as a means of constantly dwelling in the past.
You like to speak of Jim Crow, slavery, negor codes etc. I hope you realize these were all polices embraced by Democrats many of whom were members of the KKK. Biden said Trump was the first racist president to get himself elected. Leaving aside whether Trump is a racist, there were plenty of others. Wilson was an open racist, who thwarted any efforts by the Republican Rosevelt to integrate. He segregated the federal government.
I might add, I can do nothing about the past. So, you’ve got me. But you also lost me, as well, and you become gradually irrelevant. Speak to me rather than the dead ones.
With all the voting suppression executed by the Republicans, how can the blacks increase their votes?.. Well, if they promised to vote Rep, then maybe, just maybe, they would be encouraged to vote. Is this the way it works? It looks like, uh?
In Brazil, if anyone is caught trying to engage in voting suppression of any kind, they are sent to prison for a long time.
But, again, voting is mandatory in that country (a civilian obligation). And also, since it’s a Democracy, there is no Electoral College, and they don’t have to do redistricting tricks.
But I understand, the US is a Republic, therefore, Democracy doesn’t work here… Well…, I am not that sure that I really understand it…
George voter Suppression is a hallmark of the Republicans without a doubt. Voter fraud is a hallmark of the Democrats. Both can not be excused or denied. Until and unless both party’s( voters) recognize and refuse to participate then we really can’t expect change. Term limits is the answer to both these parties.
I believe this “suppression” is asking for ID when you vote. I have never thought that was actually suppression. It is simple to get ID, and most people have it. I would have to show ID if I wanted to but liquor. I have to show ID to get on a plane. What is the problem with showing it to vote? Shenanigans result from no form of ID. It takes care of the Reps and the Dems problems.
O.K. But people do this sort of thing all the time.
For example, entities, of one kind or another, will pair up, in order to accomplish a good that they might not otherwise effect independently.
In like manner, Black SDAs could say, “Let’s do the same thing, for the same reason.”
So, if that is not being forwarded, discussed, or put on the table, why isn’t it, do you think?
You said:
In response:
It is racial. Anything involving white and non-white people is racial.
As for ownership, yes; Ownership by non-profit, tax-exempt entities in which no individual person can be a profit participant, certainly.
You said:
In response:
I understand.
You said:
In response:
CORRECTION: I suspect that there are white supremacists who pretend to be “Seventh-day Adventists.”
That is precisely what I would assert, and, in the regard you’ve stated, that only.
You said:
In response:
I understand.
You said:
In response:
Only white people can be racist; only white persons. Assigning racism to “groups of people,” in my opinion, “clouds” the issue of racism more than it clarifies it.
It’s akin to saying that a “street fair,” or a “parade,” “stole my wallet.” One will do better, getting to both the nature of the crime and to the wallet, by forensically narrowing one’s focus.
Now, this does not mean that many white people do not cooperate in the practice of race. Clearly, they do. One sees the effects of this.
But it merely means that, in order to minimize confusion, one should avoid accusing “groups,” “crowds,” “clusters,” “companies,” “countries,” “political parties,” “state conferences,” “denominations,” “congregations,” etc. of white supremacy (racism).
For non-white people, in my impression, doing otherwise tends to “backfire.”
You said:
In response:
So, to kind of wrap this up, my guess is that many Black people understand this, but the issue isn’t that one won’t always get what one wants.
The issue is, when this happens, will the reasons be racist, or not?
Black conferences were formed under racism; racist duress.
As “separate” units, the non-white people in them have enjoyed a limited kind of “freedom”; one, I’m certain, to which many Black “leaders,” and others, have become used.
There is nothing to affirm that, getting together with white people, in this proposed way, would not open the door to a series of insults akin to the very ones that started “regional conferences.”
Many white people who call themselves “SDAs” don’t even believe that racism is real, let alone that many white people practice it, doing so while pretending to be “SDAs.”
What would be the fate of Black SDAs, clasping hands with people so convinced?
Think of it this way: There are many people in the U.S. who, presently, do not believe that COVID-19 is real.
Few of them are nurses or doctors, however. That’s why, if you think you’re infected, you have at least a reasonable chance of being treated, if you go into a U.S. hospital.
However, if it was determined that 35-40% of medical staff did not believe in the coronavirus, medical services would utterly break down, especially if it was not clear who, exactly, these disbelieving staff were.
I think that, for Black people, this is the real issue, and the underlying reason to avoid the conference “re-pairing” that many seem to, from time to time, propose. (And, by saying it’s the underlying reason, I’m saying I’m not even sure that many Black people realize it.)
I don’t think it’s the matter of shared leadership. I think it’s the possibility of shared leadership with racists.
I said:
You said:
In response:
So, what’s interesting is this: We’ve all seen the past not even be the past, but none of us have even ever heard of anyone actually burying a hatchet.
In other words, it’s a nice metaphor. IRL, it sounds good. Until you need a hatchet. Then, you just go and unbury it.
You said:
In response:
I can’t speak for “liberals.”
However, in 1985’s The Evidence of Things Not Seen, James Baldwin said that, for Black people, the words “‘ancestral’ and ‘daily’ are synonyms.”
I consider James Baldwin credible on many matters regarding race.
You said:
In response:
a) Who did?
b) What’s your relationship to those who did?
You said:
In response:
That white people dominate non-white people in all areas of activity; e.g., economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war—but the reverse is not true—has not changed.
It does happen, but, for aforementioned reasons, I suspect it hasn’t.
You said:
In response:
So, for what should it be used?
You said:
In response:
I don’t like to speak about “Jim Crow,” “slavery,” “negro codes,” “Democrats,” or “the KKK,” and I also don’t tend to do so.
Like your oft-made, false charge that I claim “all white people are racists,” you’d be hard-pressed to find me even using the above terms in anything I’ve said.
What I do say is that racism is white supremacy, and that this is racism’s sole, functional form. I say this often. Yet, somehow, when you reference what I say, this is not what you quote.
Odd.
You said:
In response:
I understand.
You said:
In response:
Well, if Faulkner is true, it’s fine that you can do nothing about the past, because it’s not even past.
Oh Allen, I gave you a heart for that question. Would have given you many more, but the system does not allow it.
So you have no idea of what Chuck @2humBaby was talking about, uh? Well,… I believe you anyway! …
Me too!.. Yes, I do support voter ID as well. But this is not the issue here. I am sorry you have no clue about what we were referring to… Well, so be it!
Hogwash. Blacks browns yellows can all be racist. I saw it in Africa. It was called tribalism there. The Tutsis and the Hutu had a war that was based on race. So, it is not just whites.
There are plenty of blacks in the white conference. I pastored a majority black church, with about 25% hispanic and maybe 20% white. The conference leadership never asked me about sending them to the regional conference. There was no discussion of race at all. It was just another church. The other church I pastored has become more and more black, with several black families joining. Again no discussion. There is even a former regional conference president who attends there. He preaches etc. why would he join a bunch of racists? Those that have joined there have several reasons for joining, the school, the services, the fellowship, etc. Racism is not a consideration.
The church above have sent black representatives to the non-regional constituency meetings each 5 years.
The NAD now has a black president.
Apparently there are blacks in the white conferences that do not see it as you do. You cannot seem to see beyond your own opinion.
Baldwin has an interesting take, but they are not synonyms.
I stand corrected.
And you have said that all whites are racists. Too hard to look up the quote. But I have quoted you before on this.
@Harry_Allen and /\ THIS /\ is exactly what i meant when I suggested previously that you don’t mean what you are saying-nor do you know what you are saying.
You are very adept at the wordcraft of slipping in a meaning that you then disavow…
Racism is also the black belief (artfully guised by the liberal agenda) that blacks cannot be racist-and that blacks bear no responsibility for the current loggerheads.
You need not my reminder of the roots of tribalism-as well the present fruit of it over there.
Be that as it may, I shall continue to pray for eye salve, that we can see beyond the relative melanin content shallow, mere skin deep-and meaningless-color. I pray I can know your white-stone engraved new name, for I believe I can trust in the content of your character.
Nor would I ever suggest you are a racist who just happens to call himself Adventist-a severe charge you intimated towards Allen (by your definition, as a male, you are MALE SUPREMACIST-which is a problem far deeper, longer, pervasive than “race”. As an aside, one could possibly also suggest you view yourself as a religious-supremacist. Whether that is your role or identity matters little at the end of the day )
One cannot go around with broadest of brushes tarring all white people as racist without getting some on yourself-I’d suggest that raising your expectations to look where racism is NOT you will breathe m ore peacefully. But nobody examines the hundreds of millions of DAILY white-black exchanges that are clearly not racist, preferring instead to focus on the very few (horribly tragic) incidents.
Your blindness to black on blackcrime, or black fatherlessness, or black criminal rates, or black abortion rates have nothing to do with the issue, according to you-
but seems to have inured you to any truth except your thinly coercively defined extrusions of the meaning of your finely parsed words.
Your words have a meaning, a meta-message, which you seem deaf to, and which yields you to an irrelevance in your quixotic quest.
Edit to add; DiAngelo and her supposition that white inability to talk about or admit their coerced racism means they are both fragile and racist might just as well be pointed at blacks who likewise cannot admit their own tribalism, err, racism- or how that tribalism might contribute to the black on black crimes (and all those other things you unsurprisingly and handily wish to gloss over)
This is not racism. One might call these examples “mistreatment,” “ethnic hostility,” “tribal conflict,” or other names.
However, racism, is different. Racism, first of all invokes the idea of “race,” which is a concept that has no basis in territory, national origin, ethnicity, or even biology.
Racism’s foundation is in relatively new notions of inferiority and superiority, and these are connected to skin color. It divides human beings into white and non-white sectors; ones via which white people then dominate non-white people.
Racism does this globally, in all areas of people activity: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war. The reverse is not true.
So, just to cite the example you’ve provided—the Rwandan conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi in 1994—it doesn’t fit any of these descriptors. This was a fight between neighbors. It was based on ethnicity, which is a longstanding and legitimate anthropological metric for dividing human beings.
These African national groups are, both of them, non-white. So are, for example, Tanzanians, whose country borders Rwanda. However, the Hutu did not seek Maasai people to kill, and would not have slaughtered them had they come across them. They had a very longstanding, limited disagreement with Tutsi (and Twa) people, and deliberately murdered them.
This marks a common characteristic of ethnic conflicts: They’re typically of limited scope. This, compared to, for example, the so-called “Berlin Conference,” in which white supremacists dominated people who weren’t white, regardless of their ethnic group, all across “Africa.”
The conflict between the two non-white people groups you mentioned does not begin to compare to the system of white supremacy (racism) in range or sweep. Racism would designate a Tutu man crossing the Antarctic ice as a non-white person, to be dominated as a victim of racism. This would be long after even the most antagonistic Hutu had long lost interest in him.
So, yes, non-white people can mistreat each other. However, only the white supremacists have organized “hatred” into a global system organized around “color” and “non-color.” It’s a difference in scale, one might say.
Think of it this way:
Your wife may bake cookies, be good at it, and even sell some of her tasty wares to local stores. But you wouldn’t call what she does “NABISCO.”
Only one cookie-maker gets to call themselves NABISCO. Only one cookie-maker has a 1,800,000-square-foot facility in Chicago—the largest bakery in the world—with more than 1,200 employees who produce 160,000 tons of snack food every year. Only one sells $674.2M—nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars—worth of Oreos®, alone, every 365 days.
If what NABISCO does is “NABISCO-ism,” or “NABISCO Supremacy,” you can’t use the word “NABISCO” to describe what your wife does, one sheet pan at a time, even if she makes a delicious toll house. NABISCO is in another galaxy of operation.
Another way I say this is, “Black guys mug old ladies. White guys mug ecosystems.”
Non-white people may, any and all of them, mistreat other non-white people. But only the white supremacists have a mistreatment infrastructure to produce global mistreatment effects against non-white people. The reverse is not true. Only white people who practice racism, collectively, have a system; a race system. That system is racism. Racism is white supremacy.
Now, I’ve explained this to you, previously, and I’ve done so many times; the NABISCO example is one I gave to you, almost word-for-word, over two years ago.
It’s fascinating to me that the things I do repeat—e.g., that racism is white supremacy, and this is its only functional form—you respond to with fresh zeal, at each mention, as though I’d not already stated is, and disassembled your stale arguments.
However, the things I’ve never said—e.g., “all white people are racist”—you repeatedly assert you’ve seen me say, in a manner akin to your recently mentioned psychotic relative.
The historical dominance that white people have asserted, resulting in global catastrophes based on skin color, is an essential and basic fact of understanding what is meant by racism; i.e., at least, what Black people mean by it. (White people typically resist when I make these statements about racism. Black people tend not to do so,)
After my thousands of words, that you still cannot apparently grasp this fundamental detail—or even, perhaps, that you act like you don’t—is part of the very tone-deafness of which I was speaking, previously.
It’s an aspect of white hard-headedness that Black SDA parishioners would have to endure when reuniting with white ones in some future setting. Ain’t nobody got time for that.
I said:
You said:
In response:
If you think that these small examples of Black people and white people worshipping together, with a certain number of Black people in leadership positions, means that Black people, en masse, would willingly join white SDAs in shared leadership and congregations, why didn’t you just say that, in your last post?
Had you done so, I would have responded to what you’ve just written, above, doing so then.
As I see it, your overall point(?) is essentially irrelevant and non-responsive.
As for these observations…
…Ask him if he thinks there are racists in that congregation, as well as in the larger SDA denomination.
Then, ask him what he thinks the hope is of eliminating regional conferences and merging the populations of those congregations with white ones.
Finally, ask him what would he fear more in such a scenario: Shared power, or white dominance.
I know that you won’t, because—based on previous experience—the last thing you apparently want to hear is what non-white people really think about race.
Re: this…
…to whom, when?
I said:
You said:
In response:
They are not synonyms to you? Or to Black people?
You said:
I said:
You said:
In response:
It’s OK. I’m fairly confident you’ll re-assert your original point as soon as possible.
I said:
I also said:
You said:
In response:
You’re either mistaken, or lying. I suspect you’re lying.
And what makes it most pitiful is this: If I said it, why would I say it just once? Why wouldn’t I say it again? Why wouldn’t I say it often?
Do you get the impression that I don’t say what I believe, or that I’m hiding my thoughts on race from you, of all people?
If I thought all white people were racists, what, reasonably, do you think would be my reason for not saying so, and even saying so often?
There isn’t much I’ve said about race that I don’t say over and over again. Just above, I repeated an analogy that I used 2 years ago, and have shared many times.
Do you see me ever say, “I shouldn’t have said that”? If not, the likelihood is that I stand by what I’ve written. So, if I said that “all white people are racists,” why would I be trying to hide that I said it?
I’m not trying to prove myself to you. I’m just trying to document how insane your repeated charge sounds.
You said:
In response:
That’s not true, either: The software that Spectrum uses for this forum has very robust search capabilities. All you’d need to do is put the words…
“all whites are racists”
or
“all white people are racists”
…into the search function at the upper-right-hand corner of the screen, near your “A” icon.
All you’re going to find in this area, concerning me, of course, are exchanges like this one: Where I refute your silly accusation.
You said:
In response:
Something’s wrong with your keyboard, Allen: The words lied about came out as “quoted.”
)
