I didn't like your title.

Which part don't you like?

Religion of peace? Isn't that what Islam called?

Massive Riot #07-8480? Just a joke and a factual commment about the large number of riots.

Sorry, it is the truth. It is far far more accurate than your bulls**t and ludicrous post that white's can be discriminated against or that there is no such thing as racism against whites.

You may not like the title. That is a shame. I am sure the people who were injured, the property owners whose property was damaged, the police whose buildings were burned, I am sure they are more concerned about the rioting than a headline.

And you voted this down because of the factual title. Tsk... tsk...

wow. waiting for your smoke to clear.

factual title. Hmmm. Did the 'religion' start the riot? Or did people with little virtue start the riot?

ludicrous post. The article doesn't say there's no racism against whites. You just want to be mad at me. Fine.

sorry to have offended you. I have opinions too. Is that allowed?

Yes. I down voted. Because your tainted title places a whole group of people in one bad light. A bad habit a lot of people have. Also tantrums. I'm working on that with my 4-year-old son. He doesn't understand the things I say sometimes as well.

At least I gave you a reason as to why I down voted. I can stand behind it.

Okay, fine. You want to get into semantics. It was Thousands of Followers of The religion of peace started a riot because their interpretation of their religion said it was the Holy Thing To Do.

Mad at you? Hardly. You greatly amuse me. Sorry, but the article does indeed say that racism against whites is impossible or at least justified. That is indeed ludicrous and wrong.

However as you said, you are entitled to your opinion. If that makes you feel better, if you feel it is justified to discriminate against whites, or that it isn't equivalent to discrimination against (blank) have at it.

The only reason Reverse Discrimination is a myth as you put it, is discrimination is discrimination. Pure and simple.


No one threw a tantrum. I calmly asked you what your grief was. I didn't attack, nor did I retaliate in kind by downvoting.

No tantrums, sorry. Your little attempt to antagonize and insult me will have to be a bit better next time.

The title was accurate. It did not taint anything. It did not put an entire group of people in a bad light. By your definition, just about any headline would paint an entire group of people in bad light.

Still, I changed it.

Thank you.

I'm glad.

Sorry, but no it doesn't say that at all. It doesn't say it's impossible or justified to discriminate against white people. It says it can be less powerful with little or laughable effect---in comparison to the wide-spread racism against a less powerful race.

You really don't know what thoughts or deeds I have. You are blinded by the fact that I down-voted. And that's just silly. Additionally, I didn't like your response. It was rude. That's why I down-voted that as well. Not because I was mad. You don't need to be rude to disagree. And you can't settle a misunderstanding by blasting someone. Which you did...blast me.


You did not calmly answer any of my posts. You cussed and carried on...

and you inserted your opinion of my sole and separate post to somehow elevate yourself. Very bad form. You even scolded me..."tsk tsk." Just a little antagonistic, wouldn't you say?

Check yourself.

Thanks for the good healthy argument. My adrenaline is flowing. I really hate arguing. But I see you've changed the title to your post. May I ask why? And that's no jab. I just want to know why this affected you so.

i'm not blinded at all. I couldn't care less that you downvoted me. Especially when others upvoted me, making your little slap meaningless.

I was quite calm. As I said, I didn't get angry, I didn't insult you, I didn't attack you, I didn't retaliate.

Your post which doesn't seem to be appreciated isn't the point here. fine we disagree on its meaning. I stick to my interpretation of it. Others have tried to make the same point that somehow it isn't as bad to say "cracker" as "jungle bunny", "coon", or even "n****r".

I and most people would disagree. Most people can see that racism is racism.

As I said, there was no cussing, there was the use of the word bulls**t for your post, but that is hardly cussing and carrying on. Again, it wasn't an attack on you. There was no argument.

If "tsk...tsk..." is antagonistic and get's your adrenaline flowing I can't even imagine how you would react to someone cutting in line.

In any case, you enjoy yourself there.


Oh and I changed the headline because the original headline was too vague. This one is more precise, which helps people who get the headlines via RSS but not the description.

This headline may be more in line with how you thought it should be, but to my eye it is far far far more insulting to the rioters. It really shows how out of touch with reality they are that so much destruction would happen over the dropping of a book.

I wonder if there were any personal copies of the Qur'an in the buildings that were torched. I would bet there was at least one. So to protest the dropping of a book, they burned one. Sounds smart and rational to me.

edit:
Forgot to explain, I did not bring up your post to elevate me. I brought it up to show how you felt it was insulting or a form of racism (religiousim?) to make a comment about the religion of peace, yet you post something that in my mind advocated or at least justified racism against whites.

You aren't being calm. Your choice of words is seething with anger. But you don't care about up-votes. That isn't the point. I get that. Right.

Seems to me people aren't voting at all. They're just watching you explode.

Once again if you want to discuss my post within your post I will point out that it says no where in that op/ed that any racist slur is better or worse. It is a question of the power behind the word. Specifically he said "there is a lack of symmetry." And, quote: "None of this is to say that whites aren’t being screwed eight ways to Sunday by an economic system that relies on their immiseration: they are. But they nonetheless retain a certain “one-up” on equally poor or even somewhat better off people of color thanks to racism."


I agree.

I had to read that twice. Huh?

I would calmly tell some one who "cuts in line" where the end of the line is. I wouldn't say "it's bulls**t and ludicrous that you even think you can cut." My adrenaline is flowing because I did get mad, but I am trying to remain civil and adult without resorting to basest language.

Frankly, yes, "tsk tsk" is antagonistic--it is what you say to scold a 2-year-old. It was rude, elitist, sarcastic, quite juvenile,and of no real value in an adult conversation.

You're trying to elevate and qualify your motives for creating such a poor headline by making me out to be small, less intelligent and less important than you. i.e. saying my post is bulls**t and ludicrous.

How funny is it that this ties in with my post on racism and your post on extremist Muslims? Are they not being bullied about by people more powerful than they are; convincing them to believe that their interpretation of the Qur'an is the correct one; that God has ordered a holy war on the West in order to ensure their entry into heaven? How apropos.

I didn't like your title. Well I can be sarcastic too. Poor widdo you!