LA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling's Racist Rant Caught On Tape

[nehalem256]

Lol like the NAACP 's LA chapter is the arbiter of all things race.

Except the issue is no one was giving the NAACP for giving this guy awards despite his past known racism.

Remember how much flak Obama got when he won the Nobel Peace Price?

I guess since Obama won the Nobel peace prize you will admit that he is the ultimate ambassador of goodwill and a true peacemaker.

I think the nobel peace prize has clearly become a joke. See Al Gore.

 

[shira]

In theory I agree, but in practice his illegally recorded private words were what caused the league damage - or would have, had they not taken quick and brutal action. We can't unknow something just because we shouldn't learn it. We CAN choose to ignore it, and from a legal standpoint we must. But from a non-judicial standpoint, that causes problems too. It teaches that the sentiments are okay, it's just rude to say them in public.

I'm not particularly concerned about Sterling, since I can view his punishment as being long overdue. But the implications for ordinary people are frightening, so I'll repeat my implied question:

Should non-public figures and non-executive-level workers, working for companies that don't have official policies concerning PRIVATE behavior, be punished for words they utter that the person reasonably believes to be private?

 

[emperus]

lol So "richness of experience" is a minority thing. Gotcha.

Yep, no racism there, just an understanding that white people are inherently inferior because of their experience richness deficit.

C'mon don't trivialize the word racism or what racists truly believe to try to make a cheap point that doesn't exist.

Yes, the richness of experience that she speaks of is a strictly minority thing. Just as the richness of experience in regards to being pregnant is strictly a woman thing. I am inherently unable to ever understand what a woman deals with while pregnant. I see nothing wrong in that. It just means I have to defer to them to understand and be more empathetic to try to appreciate what they go through during that process. Do you think that makes me inherently inferior?

 

[Attic]

After this episode I really fear for this country and what she stands for; free speech and privacy (among others). I feel like I was watching a disapproving, mob descend on Mr. Sterling. Again I couldn't disagree with him more.

My dad and grandma were very racist. It wasn't politically correct, but they knew to not broadcast it publicly, like Mr. Sterling.

We're collectively shaming this man from our guts (where TMZ's attraction lies), but can we not see with our brains that in public this NAACP award winner was for the most part not racist, and that privately he held different beliefs.

What if we all were held to a standard of what our private feelings are about anything. Plenty of people from both races feel uncomfortable with the other race and hold such thoughts. George Jefferson, like Archie Bunker, was based on reality.

Sterling's ex-girlfriend knew just what to do and say to get this recording to be able to hurt this guy via his own private thoughts, and we fell for it and became a virtual torch-wielding, simian mob. I'm sorry, but I'm ashamed for society with this episode.

I worry for the precedent the decision by the NBA sets.

I'd rather have had Sterling brought to task about his viewpoints and let public continue to decide how to react to it. I think it better for Sterling's viewpoints to be vetted and exposed as absurd with him trying to defend them or ultimately saying, yep I was wrong. Either way it exposes the absurdity of not only Sterling, but anyone who holds similar views about another race.

TBH I think the NBA ruling was about $$$ first. First round of the playoffs, and too much money on the line at this point in the season. There is no need IMO for the NBA to interject on a matter like this given that Sterling was not ACTING in discriminatory ways as owner of the Clippers, he was a racist and said racist things, but I see nothing in the recording that shows he discriminated against races as owner of the Clippers.

Now we see that setting a trap through booze and hidden recordings and leading questions can destroy someones business. Not to say that I think Sterling desereved to keep the clippers. I'd rather the women go to jail and let the Clippers organization suffer from what would be continued backlash to Sterlings exposed comments.

I think the NBA ruling is quite dangerous due to the pathway it opens open to hurt others. Sure sterling is a racist ass, but what about the next guy who needs to be taken out and gets setup? It's very easy to shape someone to be something there not through the tactics the women involved here used, I know that tactic will be abused.


The cynical side of me envisions folks now trying to get clearly intended absurd and sarcastic responses from someone who wouldn't know what they are saying will be used against them, and then use the words as proof of someones "xyz" viewpoints. Just comes across as dangerous.

 

[werepossum]

After this episode I really fear for this country and what she stands for; free speech and privacy (among others). I feel like I was watching a disapproving, mob descend on Mr. Sterling. Again I couldn't disagree with him more.

My dad and grandma were very racist. It wasn't politically correct, but they knew to not broadcast it publicly, like Mr. Sterling.

We're collectively shaming this man from our guts (where TMZ's attraction lies), but can we not see with our brains that in public this NAACP award winner was for the most part not racist, and that privately he held different beliefs.

What if we all were held to a standard of what our private feelings are about anything. Plenty of people from both races feel uncomfortable with the other race and hold such thoughts. George Jefferson, like Archie Bunker, was based on reality.

Sterling's ex-girlfriend knew just what to do and say to get this recording to be able to hurt this guy via his own private thoughts, and we fell for it and became a virtual torch-wielding, simian mob. I'm sorry, but I'm ashamed for society with this episode.

I see your point, but personally I think we need more shaming, not less. Making such behavior acceptable in private just means educating the next generation that it's okay to hold such views, just not okay to express them in public. Is that really where we want to be as a society? From my own life, my mother and father may well have their own racist thoughts but were death on any such talk in our house. Consequently I grew up believing that such beliefs were not okay, even though as a Southerner I was exposed to them continually. (As an aside, my father does still look at me like I've grown a second head when I say gay marriage should be legal, so YMMV.)

I might have more sympathy for him except that apparently he has in the past put such thoughts into action AND he was taking advantage of his wealth to screw a young half-black gold digger even though he did not want blacks in his owner's booth. Her relatively powerless success in striking back does whet my fancy. But just to reiterate: I have no problem with him holding these views or having whomever he wants in his owner's booth. I just think that IF such views come to light, through whatever means, then he deserves the natural consequences - including a good public shaming. The same with anyone, although admittedly it's not as important when one has no power to put such thoughts into action.

I'm not particularly concerned about Sterling, since I can view his punishment as being long overdue. But the implications for ordinary people are frightening, so I'll repeat my implied question:

Should non-public figures and non-executive-level workers, working for companies that don't have official policies concerning PRIVATE behavior, be punished for words they utter that the person reasonably believes to be private?

Sorry, I guess I didn't adequately answer you. I think the bar is much lower for non-public figures and non-executive-level workers than for resource owners like Sterling who wield true power, but ultimately, yes, I think that if one expresses repugnant views which are damaging to one's employer or other associations, then one deserves the social (but not governmental) consequences involved even if one had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time. The alternative is to all pretend the person did not metaphorically shit his pants - although as that would likely be an accident of occurrence rather than a mere accident of public knowledge I'd have a lot more sympathy for the befouler.

Put it this way - if a friend expresses an occasional racist view and I happen to overhear it I'm not going to abandon that friend. We all have our warts. But I'm not going to pretend I didn't overhear it and support him for, say, city council. I can't unhear it, and I see no reason to pretend I can simply because he said it with an expectation of privacy.

C'mon don't trivialize the word racism or what racists truly believe to try to make a cheap point that doesn't exist.

Yes, the richness of experience that she speaks of is a strictly minority thing. Just as the richness of experience in regards to being pregnant is strictly a woman thing. I am inherently unable to ever understand what a woman deals with while pregnant. I see nothing wrong in that. It just means I have to defer to them to understand and be more empathetic to try to appreciate what they go through during that process. Do you think that makes me inherently inferior?

Dude, that is straight up racism, the belief that your particular race (or apparently, that any non-white race) is inherently better than another.

With respect to your hypothetical, I do not think that makes you inherently inferior. If however a woman insisted that having been pregnant makes her a superior judge, I'd regard her as poorly as I do Sotomayor.

Look, there is no "black experience" or "Latina experience" or "white experience". There are myriad life experiences, some of which may be more common statistically among certain skin tones or cultures but the vast majority of which are colorblind. We all experience some subset of these experiences and more importantly we all learn different things from them. Saying that minorities have richer experiences than do whites is no different from saying that blacks have an inferior culture - it's a way to seek a benefit without actually earning it as an individual.

This has a potential to directly harm you and yours as well. Hispanics will be the majority is a few decades. If Sotomayor's oft-expressed viewpoint that Latinas are wiser because of their richer experiences becomes societally accepted, why would you expect Hispanics to share that advantage with non-Hispanic blacks? Your grandchildren might well find themselves once again being disadvantaged because of their skin color.

 

[bradly1101]

I worry for the precedent the decision by the NBA sets.

I'd rather have had Sterling brought to task about his viewpoints and let public continue to decide how to react to it. I think it better for Sterling's viewpoints to be vetted and exposed as absurd with him trying to defend them or ultimately saying, yep I was wrong. Either way it exposes the absurdity of not only Sterling, but anyone who holds similar views about another race.

TBH I think the NBA ruling was about $$$ first. First round of the playoffs, and too much money on the line at this point in the season. There is no need IMO for the NBA to interject on a matter like this given that Sterling was not ACTING in discriminatory ways as owner of the Clippers, he was a racist and said racist things, but I see nothing in the recording that shows he discriminated against races as owner of the Clippers.

Now we see that setting a trap through booze and hidden recordings and leading questions can destroy someones business. Not to say that I think Sterling desereved to keep the clippers. I'd rather the women go to jail and let the Clippers organization suffer from what would be continued backlash to Sterlings exposed comments.

I think the NBA ruling is quite dangerous due to the pathway it opens open to hurt others. Sure sterling is a racist ass, but what about the next guy who needs to be taken out and gets setup? It's very easy to shape someone to be something there not through the tactics the women involved here used, I know that tactic will be abused.


The cynical side of me envisions folks now trying to get clearly intended absurd and sarcastic responses from someone who wouldn't know what they are saying will be used against them, and then use the words as proof of someones "xyz" viewpoints. Just comes across as dangerous.

Yes a lack of privacy can have a chilling effect. It's like the whole country became the thought police.

 

[emperus]

Dude, that is straight up racism, the belief that your particular race (or apparently, that any non-white race) is inherently better than another.

With respect to your hypothetical, I do not think that makes you inherently inferior. If however a woman insisted that having been pregnant makes her a superior judge, I'd regard her as poorly as I do Sotomayor.

Look, there is no "black experience" or "Latina experience" or "white experience". There are myriad life experiences, some of which may be more common statistically among certain skin tones or cultures but the vast majority of which are colorblind. We all experience some subset of these experiences and more importantly we all learn different things from them. Saying that minorities have richer experiences than do whites is no different from saying that blacks have an inferior culture - it's a way to seek a benefit without actually earning it as an individual.

This has a potential to directly harm you and yours as well. Hispanics will be the majority is a few decades. If Sotomayor's oft-expressed viewpoint that Latinas are wiser because of their richer experiences becomes societally accepted, why would you expect Hispanics to share that advantage with non-Hispanic blacks? Your grandchildren might well find themselves once again being disadvantaged because of their skin color.

You chose to mangle her words then somehow claim that she is then saying that makes white people inferior. Do you ever give up in your eternal attempt to claim some non-existent victimhood?

For some, there is a distinct black experience a distinct Hispanic experience and a distinct white experience. You are not black nor Hispanic, will never be and such will never understand that experience. Stop thinking that your understanding is the extent of understanding. When we realize what little we know is when we start growing in our understanding. Your view is the very definition of white privilege.

I bet your next argument is that there is no unique female experience. There is no shame in not realizing the limitations of what we know. We are not omniscient.

You have to open your ears and stop feeling whatever victimhood you are feeling. Sotonmyer never made a case of whether her experiences were better or worse. You are doing that, then somehow connecting that to whites being inferior so you can somehow throw the racism word in there. Please. Stop with the nonsense.

And finally, I'll leave you with Sonya Sotomayor's words. Maybe you should read them instead of caricaturing them.

SPIEGEL: What role do you think your life experiences play in your decision-making at the Supreme Court?


Sotomayor : Life experiences play a role in every judge's judging because we are creatures of our experience. Forget about race, gender or poverty; think about legal experience. Prosecutors have a view of the criminal justice system. Defense attorneys have another. We're known as a very pro-prosecution court on many issues. Well, there are no defense attorneys on our court. So how does this influence us? I think your experience makes you more sensitive to certain arguments people are making and perhaps a little less receptive to arguments the other side is making. That's why we have nine judges and not one making these decisions in the hope that pooling our experiences help us find a better balance.

 

[Knowing]

Every time I read "white privilege" my mind changes it to "original sin" and then I remember that no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

 

[werepossum]

You chose to mangle her words then somehow claim that she is then saying that makes white people inferior. Do you ever give up in your eternal attempt to claim some non-existent victimhood?

For some, there is a distinct black experience a distinct Hispanic experience and a distinct white experience. You are not black nor Hispanic, will never be and such will never understand that experience. Stop thinking that your understanding is the extent of understanding. When we realize what little we know is when we start growing in our understanding. Your view is the very definition of white privilege.

I bet your next argument is that there is no unique female experience. There is no shame in not realizing the limitations of what we know. We are not omniscient.

You have to open your ears and stop feeling whatever victimhood you are feeling. Sotonmyer never made a case of whether her experiences were better or worse. You are doing that, then somehow connecting that to whites being inferior so you can somehow throw the racism word in there. Please. Stop with the nonsense.

And finally, I'll leave you with Sonya Sotomayor's words. Maybe you should read them instead of caricaturing them.

Sotomayor has repeatedly made the point that a wise Latina, with the richness of her experiences, will make better judicial decisions than would a white person. Claiming that Latinas will make better judicial decisions than will white people is expressly saying that whites are inherently inferior at being judges; there is simply no other way to read that. Yes, she has said conflicting things many times - she had to, to retain any political viability and make it to SCOTUS - but she has repeatedly made the claim that just by virtue of being Latina she will make better judicial decisions than would a white person.

When not believing that a minority is inherently a superior judge simply by virtue of not being white is equated to "white privilege", you've reduced the whole issue down to "white people bad". Congrats for reducing your belief to something you can handle, I suppose.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has spoken for years about how her experiences as a Latina woman have influenced her public and private life.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been meeting with lawmakers in advance of her confirmation hearings.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been meeting with lawmakers in advance of her confirmation hearings.

In her speeches, she often discussed her "Latina soul" and explained how even the traditional dishes of her Puerto Rican family shaped her views.

And she often said that she hoped those experiences would help her reach better judicial conclusions than someone without such a varied background might reach.

The line was almost identical every time:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001. In that speech, she included the phrase "than a white male who hasn't lived that life" at the end, which sparked cries of racism from some Republicans.

The new "white privilege" - not accepting that your white skin makes you inherently inferior. Jesus Fucking H. Christ.

 

[Fern]

You chose to mangle her words then somehow claim that she is then saying that makes white people inferior. Do you ever give up in your eternal attempt to claim some non-existent victimhood?

For some, there is a distinct black experience a distinct Hispanic experience and a distinct white experience. You are not black nor Hispanic, will never be and such will never understand that experience. Stop thinking that your understanding is the extent of understanding. When we realize what little we know is when we start growing in our understanding. Your view is the very definition of white privilege.

I bet your next argument is that there is no unique female experience. There is no shame in not realizing the limitations of what we know. We are not omniscient.

You have to open your ears and stop feeling whatever victimhood you are feeling. Sotonmyer never made a case of whether her experiences were better or worse. You are doing that, then somehow connecting that to whites being inferior so you can somehow throw the racism word in there. Please. Stop with the nonsense.

And finally, I'll leave you with Sonya Sotomayor's words. Maybe you should read them instead of caricaturing them.

Have you ever seen a statue of "Justice"?

There is a reason 'she' is depicted as blind.

You see justice etc through a racial prism. You, Sir, are the maximum racist.

Fern

 

[emperus]

Have you ever seen a statue of "Justice"?

There is a reason 'she' is depicted as blind.

You see justice etc through a racial prism. You, Sir, are the maximum racist.

Fern

You should go hide under your sheet with Londo and the rest.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Sotomayor has repeatedly made the point that a wise Latina, with the richness of her experiences, will make better judicial decisions than would a white person. Claiming that Latinas will make better judicial decisions than will white people is expressly saying that whites are inherently inferior at being judges; there is simply no other way to read that. Yes, she has said conflicting things many times - she had to, to retain any political viability and make it to SCOTUS - but she has repeatedly made the claim that just by virtue of being Latina she will make better judicial decisions than would a white person.

She is absolutely not saying that. Do me a favor and read the entirety of that speech where the quote appears and offer a summary. The quote doesn't appear until page 5, so you'll have to read a bit. But if you take the time to do so, you might see that she's arguing that we need diversity on the bench so that we get a diversity of opinion, and not the collected experience of nine white men. Furthermore, her reference to her experience making her a better judge is specifically about cases involving gender and racial discrimination where being a Latina woman does offer one a unique perspective as compared to a white male. You're willing to dismiss this person's entire legal opinion based on a single out-of-context quote that has been misrepresented to skew her as a racist; don't you owe it to yourself to read the entirety of her argument to see if that's actually what was being said?

 

[emperus]

Sotomayor has repeatedly made the point that a wise Latina, with the richness of her experiences, will make better judicial decisions than would a white person. Claiming that Latinas will make better judicial decisions than will white people is expressly saying that whites are inherently inferior at being judges; there is simply no other way to read that. Yes, she has said conflicting things many times - she had to, to retain any political viability and make it to SCOTUS - but she has repeatedly made the claim that just by virtue of being Latina she will make better judicial decisions than would a white person.

When not believing that a minority is inherently a superior judge simply by virtue of not being white is equated to "white privilege", you've reduced the whole issue down to "white people bad". Congrats for reducing your belief to something you can handle, I suppose.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/


The new "white privilege" - not accepting that your white skin makes you inherently inferior. Jesus Fucking H. Christ.

You're just taking the piss in your attempt to again be the victim.

This forum. It's no surprise it attracts so many Stormfront members.

Edit: This post is seriously asinine. You go form one asinine argument that people don't have disparate experiences growing up to a more asinine point (that Sotonmyer believes that white people are inherently inferior).

Edit 2: What is even more asinine about this post is that it was Sotomayor's experiences that led her to write that blistering opinion when the other Justices claimed racism was dead and so the Voting Rights act wasn't needed and AA wasn't needed. Guess whose experiences help them get that one right.

 

[werepossum]

She is absolutely not saying that. Do me a favor and read the entirety of that speech where the quote appears and offer a summary. The quote doesn't appear until page 5, so you'll have to read a bit. But if you take the time to do so, you might see that she's arguing that we need diversity on the bench so that we get a diversity of opinion, and not the collected experience of nine white men. Furthermore, her reference to her experience making her a better judge is specifically about cases involving gender and racial discrimination where being a Latina woman does offer one a unique perspective as compared to a white male. You're willing to dismiss this person's entire legal opinion based on a single out-of-context quote that has been misrepresented to skew her as a racist; don't you owe it to yourself to read the entirety of her argument to see if that's actually what was being said?

I've read that speech and many others before her hearings. It is not a single out-of-context quote, it's a staple of her speeches. Read the CNN article; over and over and over she makes the same exact point.

You're just taking the piss in your attempt to again be the victim.

This forum. It's no surprise it attracts so many Stormfront members.

Edit: This post is seriously asinine. You go form one asinine argument that people don't have disparate experiences growing up to a more asinine point (that Sotonmyer believes that white people are inherently inferior).

Stormfront members? And you feel I'm trying to play the victim card?

Have a nice life. Well, as nice as it can be while white people still roam the Earth.

 

[emperus]

I've read that speech and many others before her hearings. It is not a single out-of-context quote, it's a staple of her speeches. Read the CNN article; over and over and over she makes the same exact point.


Stormfront members? And you feel I'm trying to play the victim card?

Have a nice life. Well, as nice as it can be while white people still roam the Earth.

Read your posts. You keep throwing the word racist around like you even have a clue what the word is. Somehow, it's a weapon or a shield for you to employ when playing the victim card. Go look up and understand what racism is. Listen to Sterlings words and hear the vitriol in his voice when he speaks about Black people. It's sickening that I hear it so much in this forum from people who don't have the slightest clue about it. Be happy that'll you'll probably never meet a true racist and never have one have power over you. My gosh. You probably need more of these "experiences" or even a little bit of empathy.

 

[Fern]

You should go hide under your sheet with Londo and the rest.

Thanks for proving my point: Anybody disagreeing with you (e.g., pointing out your racism) is a racist.

(Sheets? Please bitch I don't need to hide.)

Fern

 

[emperus]

Thanks for proving my point: Anybody disagreeing with you (e.g., pointing out your racism) is a racist.

(Sheets? Please bitch I don't need to hide.)

Fern

You have the nerve to call me a racist then take umbrage for me calling you out for what you are? What nerve. Yes, be honest about what you are. You are a little man, who tries to act tough online. Bitch? Please, I'd slap you and then watch you cry.

Why don't you prove to all of us how much of an idiot you are. Complete this sentence. Emperus is a racist because __________.

(Sheets? Please bitch I don't need to hide.)

Fern

Wait, you did admit it.

 

[shira]

Sorry, I guess I didn't adequately answer you. I think the bar is much lower for non-public figures and non-executive-level workers than for resource owners like Sterling who wield true power, but ultimately, yes, I think that if one expresses repugnant views which are damaging to one's employer or other associations, then one deserves the social (but not governmental) consequences involved even if one had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time. The alternative is to all pretend the person did not metaphorically shit his pants - although as that would likely be an accident of occurrence rather than a mere accident of public knowledge I'd have a lot more sympathy for the befouler.

Put it this way - if a friend expresses an occasional racist view and I happen to overhear it I'm not going to abandon that friend. We all have our warts. But I'm not going to pretend I didn't overhear it and support him for, say, city council. I can't unhear it, and I see no reason to pretend I can simply because he said it with an expectation of privacy.

But it's not just racism. It's making an over-the-top lewd comment to a friend while oggling some hot chick. It's making true statements of personal experience with some racial or ethic group where the conclusion's you're drawing may not be politically correct. It's even making an observation about one individual - "How on earth did SHE get that job; she's incompetent!"

The point is that EVERYONE makes comments that are variations of these. If the price of mundane, private speech that's repeated a million-fold every day is that your career gets ruined, we are living in a totalitarian state where people must always watch what they say in even the most private of situations. That's disgusting. That's unacceptable.

No, there needs to be a rigorous and repeated message that in their most private moments, people are allowed to be assholes without fear of ruination. People need to be informed that YOUR personal offense isn't greater than that individual's livelihood just because someone unfairly made that person's private statement a public event.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Why don't you prove to all of us how much of an idiot you are. Complete this sentence. Emperus is a racist because __________.

Emperus is a racist because __________ he has racist views yet claims (s)he can never be a racist because only other people can be racists.

'Fill in the blanks' are easy.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

But it's not just racism. It's making an over-the-top lewd comment to a friend while oggling some hot chick. It's making true statements of personal experience with some racial or ethic group where the conclusion's you're drawing may not be politically correct. It's even making an observation about one individual - "How on earth did SHE get that job; she's incompetent!"

The point is that EVERYONE makes comments that are variations of these. If the price of mundane, private speech that's repeated a million-fold every day is that your career gets ruined, we are living in a totalitarian state where people must always watch what they say in even the most private of situations. That's disgusting. That's unacceptable.

No, there needs to be a rigorous and repeated message that in their most private moments, people are allowed to be assholes without fear of ruination. People need to be informed that YOUR personal offense isn't greater than that individual's livelihood just because someone unfairly made that person's private statement a public event.

I agree with all that. I do however think Sterling is a bit different being as he enjoys some measure of control over a lot of black people, has apparently put similar beliefs into deeds, and can potentially cost the NBA a LOT of money. I'd argue that racism is also a bit different. But I definitely see your point, I just can't see giving people a free ride because they were assholes with an expectation of privacy. If you think people should be more tolerant of others' views in general, even where those views are morally repugnant, I'll agree.

 

[emperus]

Emperus is a racist because __________ he has racist views yet claims (s)he can never be a racist because only other people can be racists.

'Fill in the blanks' are easy.

Fern

Emperus is racist because he has racist views.. lol.

I wasn't sure given the opportunity to prove you are a dumbass you would take me up on it and prove you are a dumbass. But you did. Wow. Only a dumbass would do that. lol..

 

[cabri]

Emperus is a racist because __________ he has racist views yet claims (s)he can never be a racist because only other people can be racists.

'Fill in the blanks' are easy.

Fern

He demonstrated it for a whole year in tbe Martin thread. Do you expect that he can change his striped now.

Color before facts

 

[emperus]

He demonstrated it for a whole year in tbe Martin thread. Do you expect that he can change his striped now.

Color before facts

Unfortunately for you, assuming I put color before facts. That would not make me a racist. Maybe googling the word would help you out.

Btw, how is your role model Zimmerman doing? Btw, here is a good article for you.. Well it assumes you had any principles to begin with.
George Zimmerman, Cliven Bundy, and the Importance of Separating Principles from People

Res ipsa loquitor.

 

[Knowing]

How long have I been suffering under the incorrect delusion (taught in school) that racism is discrimination on the basis of race?

 

[emperus]

How long have I been suffering under the incorrect delusion (taught in school) that racism is discrimination on the basis of race?

The part that is missing is the belief that the other race is ingerently inferior or that your race is inherently superior.

Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities