Are Politics More Divisive Than Race? Survey Says…GTFOH. » VSB

Featured, Race & Politics, Theory & Essay

Are Politics More Divisive Than Race? Survey Says…GTFOH.



Yesterday morning I read an article in the Washington Post’s “Express” mini-paper called “Political shopping lists” about how the most recent political campaign has increased divisiveness to the point of affecting people’s shopping choices as folks try to bubble inward with only similar beliefed and minded people. This article made mention of “Hamilton” (you all remember what happened there and the subsequent idiotic “boycott” attempt), Frosted Flakes, Yuengling, and a list curated by the American Family Association of retailers that were “Merry Christmas” friendly, seemingly aimed at those stores that “keep the Christ in Christmas.” We live in interesting times.

One particular passage of this story that stood out to me – moreso than a boycott of motherfucking Frosted Flakes because Kellogg pulled advertising from Breitbart alleging that the site did not align with their values – because of how far-fetched it sounded upon initial reading was this (emphasis mine):

The country isn’t merely polarized; it’s now “affectively polarized,” a social-science term meaning that people don’t merely disagree with one another; they actively dislike one another. A 2014 Stanford study revealed that partisans discriminate against opposing partisans “to a degree that exceeds discrimination based on race.”

So if I’m reading this right, and I’d like to think that I am, there is a study out there that has determined that people discriminate against one another because of politics MORE than they discriminate against one another because of race.

Read that again.

Here is the abstract from the study:

When defined in terms of social identity and affect toward co-partisans and opposing partisans, the polarization of the American electorate has dramatically increased. We document the scope and consequences of affective polarization of partisans using implicit, explicit and behavioral indicators. Our evidence demonstrates that hostile feelings for the opposing party are ingrained or automatic in voters’ minds, and that affective polarization based on party is just as strong as polarization based on race. We further show that party cues exert powerful effects on non-political judgments and behaviors. Partisans discriminate against opposing partisans, and do so to a degree that exceeds discrimination based on race. We note that the willingness of partisans to display open animus for opposing partisans can be attributed to the absence of norms governing the expression of negative sentiment and that increased partisan affect provides an incentive for elites to engage in confrontation rather than cooperation.

To me the abstract almost invalidates that “to a degree that exceeds discrimination based on race.”

So because there’s really no social and consequential negative from espousing negative political rhetoric (and in fact there is an entire news media industry built around this), people are more likely to share their disdain about opposing political parties, which anybody who spends any amount of the day on Facebook will recognize as true and living and trill all wrapped up in a little bow for the little red Corvette. RIP Prince and fuck you 2016.

Meanwhile, we all know that people HATE being called racist. Even the most racist racist simply believes that their views are pro-something or other. White supremacy, to many a white supremacist, is merely an attempt at preserving self. Point is, even in an anonymous study, I imagine that many, many people are going to hide their racist rhetoric for fear of being outed as a racist and then having to fight tooth and nail to clarify that they are not racists, even if they maintain opinions and values that could be construed as racists. Staunchly.

On the other hand, politics are easy pickins. Shit, I was watching some horrible Black movie on BET the other day (Royal Family Christmas, an epicly bad movie that included Vivica Fox and Tichina Arnold) and each of the family members were set to share something with the others. One of the male kids shared that he was a Republican (everybody thought he was going to come out of the closet as gay) and the father remarked that being Republican might be worse than being gay. As ignorant as the entire statement was, that’s really how a lot of people in the Black community feel. I can’t tell you how many side-eyes some of the Black Republican folks I know receive PURELY based on that admission and the negative images and feelings it conjures are immediate and real. We need a reason for their choices and we are not owed one. People are allowed opinions.

Similarly, I’m positive that many a Republican also feels SUPER negatively about Democrats, regardless of color. I come from a family that has quite a few white Republicans in it, and while we make all attempts to sidestep the direct political discourse in favor of general debate about the state of America, your ideals are your ideals and its impossible to NOT speak your opinion into a discussion about anything that reaches to the point of federal spending. So yes, I’m aware that some of my family members have a supremely negative view of Democrats and those who seem to be them, even if they make their best attempts to not stay it in “mixed” company.

Point is, I absolutely believe that folks on either side of the aisle absolutely hate the other side, absolutely.

But there is no fucking way you can convince me that to ANY degree, partisan discrimination exceeds racial discrimination. While I’m sure there are some enclaves in this vast country of ours where Democrats aren’t welcome – maybe  there’s a sign in a window – I’ll bet you bottom dollar that you’re probably not SAFE as a minority in those places. I realize this study was in 2014 and perhaps an update in the wake of the most recent political climate would change the results because it feels as if this last election was a referendum on race. The same people who used to keep those racial opinions to themselves are now feeling empowered to go out and openly racist on platforms dedicated specifically to that endeavor.

Nobody’s being fucked by a mortgage company because they’re a Democrat or a Republican, but we have proof that minorities were systematically fucked by big banks. Racial discrimination is an actual thing that’s rooted in institutions and the very fabric of this nation. Sure, Dems and Republicans hate each other, but the politicians we all vote into office dine together nightly and play poker before going back to argue the next day about some policy that doesn’t actually affect their own personal lives.

Clearly, political division is a thing. Many folks have trimmed sizable percentages of Facebook friends since 2014 because of the language and opinions presented by people we think we know. But I think rooted in almost all of that is some ideal about race and how its perceived and actioned by those with dissimilar views. Sure, a dissenting political opinion can be annoying and show you somebody’s true colors on how they view America. But it typically isn’t getting anybody killed. Meanwhile, America has shown its entire ass the past few years on how Black bodies don’t matter to the general populace. While some of these fuckers are arguing about a Republican or Democratic platform, a significant number of us minorities are fighting for our lives and livelihood.

Survey says…get the fuck out of here.

Panama Jackson

Panama Jackson is pretty fly (and gorgeous) for a light guy. He used to ship his frito to Tito in the District, but shipping prices increased so he moved there to save money. He refuses to eat cocaine chicken. When he's not saving humanity with his words or making music with his mouth, you can find him at your mama's mama's house drinking her fine liquors. Most importantly, he believes the children are our future. You can hit him on his hitter at

  • Most white people don’t make enough to be conservative, so what is it about their policies that is so appealing to them….I wonder

    *cue SpottieOttie horns*

    • Brother Mouzone

      …..*Rubs chin while gazing up and to the right…yeah, I wonder what it is that makes them bond across party lines and in spite of policies that don’t favor someone in their tax bracket…hmmmmm?

    • Val

      Exactly. Racism and politics are tied together in this country, always have been. One would have to willfully ignore that to think political hate was stronger than racial hate.

      • Charles Wilson


        • Teresitawwilliams

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !sr308c:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          ??;?? http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash598MediaBuildGetPay$97Hour ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????::::::!sr308c:….,….

        • Marthajfowler

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !sf71c:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          ??;?? http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash361ShopGiftsGetPay$97Hour ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????::::::!sf71c:….,……

    • Me

      The problem is assuming conservatism only appeals to rich white bible thumpers. For one, conservatism serves all facets of hate. It’s the best platform for blaming other people for why you can’t get ahead. You don’t have to be religious to be a homophobe. You don’t have to be rich to be racist. For two, I’d be lying if I said there weren’t parts of some republican bills that appeal to me despite being a black woman. My little secret is that I’m kind of waiting to see what Republicans do to the ACA after the inauguration. I mean, I get that there are millions of people much worse off than me that depend on the insurance they get from it, but I’d be lying if I didn’t mention that it’s been biting me in the pocketbook since it went into effect because I’m not one of the people it serves. Plus I also don’t think it’s bringing down the cost of healthcare at all… for anyone. I’m not necessarily going to register as a republican because of just that, but when you take away the sensationalism of competition between the two parties there are some parts of republicanism that I do align with, and I assume that some republicans register and vote as such because the parts they align with outweigh the progressive parts that they align with. (And other republicans enjoy having someone they can pick on via mob mentality to quiet the shame they have for how their own lives turned out.)

      • Negro Libre

        Hmmm, I know a black dude up in Detroit who decided to become a Republican, I’m sure he didn’t for Trump, in fact last time I talked to him he said he wasn’t voting at all, but he used to be a Democrat. Back in the day, when I asked him why he chose to become a Republican, he told me it was simply because he got tired of all the corruption and mismanagement of the city’s political system.

        There was a podcast ft Ezra Klein and Ta-Nehisi Coates that was posted a couple days ago, where Klein made a good point about how over the last 30 years or so, conservatism and liberalism have become synonymous with political party representation. So people no longer separate the ideas one has in terms of politics and the parties the supposed party they support (which outside of the realm of activism, doesn’t match with most of the people regardless of their race – as Chris Rock said awhile back people usually have a mixture), which has led to a greater sense of tribalism between those parties.

        This is why I can’t simply vibe with the idea that politics is solely tribal or deterministic, it’s actually quite easy to show how incorrect a conclusion this is about how people choose their politics, if one simply has an open mind and tests such hypotheses for themselves. The politics we have today are the consequence of politics becoming proxies for other things, that aren’t the primary concern of politics which has come at the expense of exchange of ideas being sacrificed for the benefit of a sense of tribal survival.

        • Brooklyn_Bruin

          Crime, I’m conservative. Prostitution, I’m liberal (c) Chris Rock

        • Val

          “…politics becoming proxies for other things (most of which have nothing to do with politics)…”

          That’s it right there.

        • Me

          “The politics we have today are the consequence of politics becoming proxies for other things ”

          I agree with this to an extent. My belief is that most people decided their politics around their early 20s based on a handful (at most) of ideologies they found most resonated with them — some altruistic, some abhorrent. From then on, they cater their allegiance to that party based on the sound bites du jour. As they become older adults, it becomes tribal in such a way that everyone gets to hide their ugliest politics under their party’s umbrella (the proxies you mentioned). So they ride or die because of the protection of being part of a group, not because that party has spoken to their soul for decades.

      • TLDR, I barely read Panama’s post I’m not reading yours.

        • Me

          There’s no need to tell me when you don’t read something. Do you. I’m not giving out participation points.

    • Charles Wilson

      hahaha “As the plot thickens, it gives me the Dickens reminiscent of Charles…”

    • I_AmU

      Exactly but for them conservatism = white superiority. It’s essential Resilients and POC be knowledgeable of how wypipo concoct their views. Personally I give negative zero and beyond f u ck$ except to use this knowledge to defeat their evil. This articles provides necessary insight:

    • Brambles

      “Don’t make enough to be conservative”? WTF? White folks are split about 50/50 liberal and conservative, and it has little to do with money. Most conservatives want smaller government, lower taxes, and want government to stay the h*ll out of religion and vise-versa. What’s not to like?

    • Brambles

      That’s the most simple-minded definitions of being conservative…be religious and have money. You seriously don’t know any rich, religious liberals? Better get out more, homeboy.

  • Diego Duarte

    “Meanwhile, we all know that people HATE being called racist. Even the most racist racist simply believes that their views are pro-something or other. ”

    Precisely this. As soon as Donald Trump was elected president, the racists gloated how the word “racist” had now lost all of its power due to it’s illegitimate and constant use by people who tried to “make every issue about race” (except the only people who ever make any issue about race are white people).

    And yet despite all the gloating they have done a quick 180° as they try to plead and ask people to stop calling them racist. They continue to whine saying that it’s “counterproductive” and that it’s only dividing “us” further as a nation, that we need to approach them on friendly terms, as if they weren’t chanting “build that wall!” or throwing around racial epithets every 5 minutes on facebook (and every 0.0434 seconds on Breitbart).

    No. They really, really, REALLY hate being called racists and being called out on their racism. So that should be done as loudly, unapologetically and in increasingly more insulting, comedic and butthurt-inducing ways.

    • Brother Mouzone

      The thing now among wypipo is to make a bigger deal out of the fact that someone IDENTIFIED an incident of racism and be more “outraged” about them bringing it to attention, than about the ACTUAL racist incident.

      • Annalise Keating

        I am laughing so hard at your comment! But it is soooooooo TRUE!

      • Diego Duarte

        Note that this also applies to incidents of misogyny or general oppression of minorities: they are more offended by the fact that you call them rape-apologists than the actual rape they are trying to defend.

        Conservatives in general have always been more offended by words than heinous acts. Which is ironic considering they think WE are the overly-sensitive, safe-space snowflakes.

      • Mr. Gundam

        This is what blows my mind about wypipo

      • AProst

        ^^^ They’re so effin wedded to the idea that racism has been vanquished (marked by Obama’s election) and the only racism that remains is on the margins. Which is total BS. Bring up institutional racism and they’ll immediately express confusion over how neutrally written laws can wreck havoc in an extremely lopsided way and that any such realities are the 100% fault of blacks themselves.

        And, perhaps worst of all, if they’re not actively doing it, they just don’t give a shlt about it. Ignorance and apathy are tragically powerful. Frankly, some have glimpsed what’s going and have afforded some understanding (not saying much) but it takes a cellphone video of some black guy being blatantly executed by a cop – and even then the response is ‘meh.’

      • esa

        they are obsessed with their self image to the point they have no awareness of how they actually look.

        the only thing they stand for is appearances over everything. in summation: a total failure.

  • cdj

    To me, politics = race in the U.S., since the country’s founding. So race is most divisive, and politics – legislation drafted and enacted in order to maintain the status quo, plus all the rhetoric surrounding It- is a means to that end.

    Also, when we are dealing with police/criminal justice system, it’s not like they’re asking for our voter registration cards along with our drivers license, too see if we share the same political affiliations. They’ve already made up their mind on how to view us.

    I will say that I don’t discuss politics with anyone besides my parents or son in real life. I’m a Democrat, and I’m the type to take opposing views too personally, in light of what it means lately, to align oneself with the Republican party.

  • brothaskeeper

    I never been followed by store security for looking “too democratic”. I thought Stanford employed intelligent people.

    • Negro Libre

      The lesson of this election in a nutshell:

      Bad Data + Intelligence, Brains, Resources etc = Bad and Inaccurate Results

    • Brooklyn_Bruin

      Lol at too Democratic

    • Blueberry01

      The Stanford prison experiment was enough for me to know…

  • Negro Libre

    The news media has a tendency to talk to itself in it’s never-ending bubble:

    The majority of registered voters are independent.
    The largest voting bloc are non-voters.
    About 30% of the population identifies as Dem, about 20% of the population identifies as Rep.
    As is mostly the case, it’s the people making the most noise who are the “most divisive.”

    Furthermore, Americans don’t argue “policy”, they argue “conclusions (what PJ is referring to as ideals)”. So it’s not like if it had been lets say an election of Jeb Bush and Clinton, and Trump never ran, that all of a sudden civility and open mindedness would happen.

    As for racism, I think the whole argument in the article is a false equivalency.

    • Brother Mouzone

      Trumpanzees fall into two main categories…the ones who don’t follow world news(the UNinformed) and the ones who only watch Fox news(the MISinformed).

      • Diego Duarte

        Hate to tell you this but there are two new categories of misinformed: the breitbarter and the infowars pawn. THOSE are straight up rabid dogs: just as irrational, violent and crazy.

    • Blueberry01

      “Furthermore, Americans don’t argue “policy”, they argue “conclusions (what PJ is referring to as ideals)”.”


      Americans don’t because the policies are already designed to benefit those who created them.

  • Annalise Keating

    “Survey says…get the f$@ out of here.”

    My thoughts exactly. This BS survey is an attempt to diminish the destructive effects of racism and make us feel like we are just paranoid when in fact folks are out to get us…including the PI of this research BS survey….

  • Vanity in Peril
  • Eh….it’s not that deep, but not completely BS. Among White people, the political stuff is getting real in the streets. It’s getting to the point where voting the wrong party might actually cost you some drawers. We ain’t there yet, but let’s not front like it’s all good on the political front, especially compared to 20 years ago.

    • I have some white friends who’ve gotten to the draws point. :(

    • Diego Duarte

      I’ve blocked some people on my facebook and on this page over their unapologetic and fanatical support of what is indefensible. But I’m not bashing someone’s head in over the political differences we maintain. Racial hatred also comes together with pervasive and constant violence aimed at the oppressed.

    • Negro Libre

      White-On-white crime???

    • Annalise Keating

      I don’t think PJ is saying politics isn’t divisive. But comparing it to race????? That is just f&@ked up. And wrong…

      • I’m saying that it’s just more than people getting blocked on FB though. We aren’t to the racial point yet, but it’s not something to laugh at.

        • Annalise Keating

          I don’t think I am making my point clear. I agree that politics is divisive. Very divisive. But why compare it to race? You can easily make the point that politics is very very very divisive without comparing it to race.

          • Now that I agree with.

      • Brooklyn_Bruin

        Right. Like I’m not blocking someone because we differ on tax policy. But 999 times out of a 1,000 if you say climate change is a hoax, it’s a hop skip and a jump from skepticism about affirmative action. Like you never see the black lives don’t matter people arguing for gun control (unless it’s to keep guns out of the hands of people in the inner city…)

    • panamajackson

      While that may be true, the assumption that political acrimony is more prevalent than racial is pure biship. Like, even if its more divisive than it used to be, especially with the advent of the 24 hour news cycle and outlets running hogwild, you really think political divisiveness is close to racial?

      • No, it is not. It is noticeably deeper than 20 years ago. People always had jokes about the other side, but they generally got along. Not now.

        • Negro Libre

          I agree, but I don’t think it’s just divisiveness.

          There’s a greater belief and embracing of Authoritarianism on the right and the left. The Right showed it with Trump and the Left showed bits and pieces prior to the election as well, especially in the Bernie-Bro, radical activist crowd.) However, I think that has less to do with divisiveness and more to do with growing deficiencies on both sides, in other words, people, when it comes to politics are getting dumber.

          • Now that I agree with. It’s not that people were deep intellectuals to being with, but the level of Fs people have on a political front have been decreasing a lot.

            • Negro Libre

              I was legit offended by the stupidity of people who were rallying and paying for ads trying to convince the electoral college voters to vote against Trump.

              Yeah, as though the House of Reps would then declare someone else as President or even better, declare Hilary Clinton president and launch a civil war. How much wasted money and energy in protesting and other forms of activism over this idiocy, we’ll never know.

              • Agreed. And is Hillary Clinton the Hill you want to die on? Because all it takes is a few generals and things get really real really fast.

                • cyanic

                  You’d hump Hill.

                  • She’d focus group the head technique, then get arrogant when I told her it wasn’t turning me on. LOL

                    • cyanic

                      You’ve had worse.

              • esa

                the left is showing their hand.

                • Negro Libre

                  Chickens are coming home to roost.

              • Hugh Akston

                Stein got her bucks ?

          • Diego Duarte

            I don’t think there’s any authoritarianism behind the socialist crowd. We need to address both identity politics and income inequality. Asking for companies to pay their dmn taxes isn’t authoritarian by any stretch of the word.

            • Negro Libre

              i don’t see a lot of these people as just socialists though.

              Authoritarianism isn’t an ideology as much as it’s a strategy for pursuing an ideology. And a lot of the the criticisms and tactics that people were complaining about Alt-righters during the election, were very similar to the complaints about Bernie Bros as well.

              • Diego Duarte

                Which criticism and tactics mind you? The communist not-so-deep-inside-of-me takes issue with these sort of statements.

                • Negro Libre



                  There’s a lot more, but there were a lot of complaints about how they were acting.

                  And for the record, I don’t think identity politics and ideological politics are compatible. In fact, if history serves me right, I think identity politics rose as a reaction to the failure of ideological politics on the left.

                  • Diego Duarte

                    Just one more: Sanders’ fans were far from the only ones who leveled disgusting, misogynist remarks at women. When Emily Ratajkowski and other women expressed their support for Sanders they were immediately targeted by both conservatives and Clintonites with disparaging and sexual remarks.

                    As they say in my home country: do not throw stones if you have a glass ceiling.

                    • Negro Libre

                      Lol trust me I agree.

                      But I figure if you’ve been paying attention to a lot of the political tactics that’s been going on in the left prior to the election, you’re not surprised by anything you see on the left, whether it’s Sanders or Clinton. It’s easier to see it in Trump, the right isn’t as intellectual or civil about their BS, but the left is.

                      That’s why I’m always more concerned with what they’re doing, they’re going to teach it to younger people, and the left does an awful job checking each other on their nonsense.

                    • Diego Duarte

                      Whelp, it seems like my initial response did not go through disqus. But yeah, I appreciate the neutral stance and clarification.

      • Junegirl627

        It’s all coded language.
        Democrats = Blacks, Jews, LGBTQ, Latinos, Women who say no, abortion supporters
        Republican= #WhiteChristianLivesMatter #KeepTheDarkiesAway #WeAreAfraidForOurLives

        So if you discriminate against “Democrats” your really discriminating against…..
        and if you discriminate against “republicans” you really discr…. you get it.

        • This is becoming more and more the norm. When we bring it up, white people act all like we are “race baiting”.

          • NonyaB?

            So crazy how people expend energy to create silly terms. How the fxck is it baiting to state the obvious? God forbid we talk about elephants in the room.

            • That’s pretty much how we got here, isn’t it?

              • NonyaB?

                You ain’t lying.

            • Question

              Because defining the terms allows them to exclude themselves from responsibility. That’s the point, isn’t it? “I’m not responsible, because I’m not racist (according to my own VERY specific and narrow definition of racism), therefore don’t look at me”.

              • NonyaB?

                Exactly. Why consider responsibility when they can find so many ways to denounce others for acknowledging a problem instead?

            • Diego Duarte

              The new term is #fakenews. Which again, is ironic because the whole fake news campaign got its start because of fact-free media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart, and conspiranoid blogs like Infowars. But nope, once again swing and miss.

              Republicans like to project each and every one of their insecurities onto liberals and progressives.

              • Negro Libre

                Eh, as much as I’d like to say that’s true, all those things have existed for a long enough time, prior to the election. The Fake News branding just sounds more like trying to muscle out competition to me, after the media embarrassed itself with it’s Trump coverage. The media, by appealing to the lowest denominator, is now, well, on the same level as it.

                Lawd have mercy on us all.

                • FeeFee

                  “News branding just sounds more like trying to muscle out competition to me,”–No it’s way worse than that. Fake news is really a thing. I had no idea until I looked into it. It’s way worse than branding to keep the competition out. It can have some real life negative effects. A man went to a pizzeria with a gun, because he had read in an online news article that it was a haven for child chex trafficking for Hilary Clinton.

                  It’s not the “fake news” so much that’s a concern, it’s the people believing it (no matter how outrageous it sounds) that seems to be the danger. And it’s not just here, it’s happening worldwide. The internet has made propaganda much easier to mass produce.

                  • Negro Libre

                    I disagree.

                    A. It’s a passive way of giving legitimacy to censorship, Glenn Greenwald’s site was labelled a Fake News site and even worst a website for Russian Propaganda by the Washington Post. Glenn Greenwald is the primary reason why we know anything about Edward Snowden today.

                    B. Most of what is considered Fake News has existed prior to the media making hype about it. Alex Jones has been around since the 90’s, as has Fox News. There are talk show radios that exist to this very day, that have existed since the death of JFK and all they do is report conspiracy theories and the rest.

                    C. Many of the major leading news networks got us involved in Iraq many years ago, in a war that has led to the death of thousands if not millions of people, and yet, never once was the label of Fake News put upon them. It was also the “real news networks and papers” that told us that Clinton had a 98% chance of winning the 2016 election. Yet, no Fake News label.

                    The Fake News Label has no objective meaning outside of not an established new source, and as much as people would like to believe in it in theory, the justification for this kind of nonsensical meme, can only lead to censorship, usually of sources of media that make a lot less money and already have low sense of credibility. Yes some nut read something and did some crazy ish, but most people who do crazy ish, read some crazy book, paper or essay as well.

                    • esa

                      ~ Yes some nut read something and did some crazy ish, but most people who do crazy ish, read some crazy book, paper or essay as well.

                      exactly. Mark Chapman x Catcher in the Rye. there’s long been a conversation around censorship of music and books because they were thought to have the same powers as “Fake News.”

                      you’re right, it’s a “thing” now because the professional media is desperate for credibility.

                    • Negro Libre

                      A lot of us know that the media routinely passes off propaganda as real news or real commentary too. The difference is when they’re caught, they either apologize or they get sued, but they’re mostly getting sued because they have money and they have prestige. All that being said, the government doesn’t get to come after them and threaten to shut them down.

                      Yet, they’re pushing for the government to come down on sources of news that have far less viewership, prestige, credibility or pocketbooks. Ha, it’s so obvious what they’re trying to do.

                    • FeeFee

                      A: I don’t know about the censorship part–since you can’t stop these programs from existing or reporting their views/news, but I can see how a more legitimate news source would like to distinguish themselves from these fringe sources. Whether it’s a passive aggressive way of doing so is up to debate. As far Glenn Greenwald, just because one of his reporting turned out to be legit, it still doesn’t change the fact that 99% of it wasn’t. That’s the issue with these fringe sources, they may seem legitimate on one article, but then the rest is all bull. That’s how people get sucked in. Propaganda needs a little bit of truth in order for it to be more easily swallowed. I’m not saying they shouldn’t exist at all, just that people need to understand the difference, and so swallow at their discretion.

                      B: True. That’s why I mentioned that the internet just gave them access to a much wider audience, not that it created it.

                      C: Well they can only go by what they’re given–they were told by the WH, CIA, Bush/Cheney Intelligence and etc. that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This turned out to be false, so you can’t blame them for getting us “involved in Iraq” (that’s a ridiculous reach there) for this, and all of the polls came back with a Clinton victory (which they got half right). Some people have admitted to outright lying or misleading the polls, and many news outlet have since said they need to find a better polling tactic due to this. So I don’t blame them for reporting the information they are given as news, that’s a whole lot different then completely making up the information out of thin air and reporting it as news, which some of those fringe news sources have done. For some people this distinction may not matter, but to others like myself, this matters a great deal–hence the no fake news label.

                      I don’t agree with the objective being censorship since as I mentioned, these fringe outlets are allowed to report whatever they feel like with no legal consequences whatsoever. To me I see it as a form of rating. Just like music, tv shows and ect needed to be rated, these fringe outlets would just fall under that same umbrella. There’s already a compiled list of these types of sites and what category they fall under–Satire, Hoax, Propaganda and etc. So when that nut acts out and does something crazy, you will know whether that nut got it from a crazy book, paper, essay or news source.

                    • Negro Libre

                      1. Wait…what…Glenn Greenwald, doesn’t report accurate news lol?! I mean maybe you should familiarize yourself with the guy first. And mind you the Washington Post had to apologize to him and the other 50+ sites they had labeled as fake news, since the source of their information was, to put it lightly, sketchy.

                      2. A lot of what you’re saying in theory, can only exist in practice as a form of censorship. For instance, to most people especially in our country, seeing children crying for their lives on Television in Aleppo is a cry to the world to do something. If you’re Russian or Syrian that’s propaganda. People usually get caught up in the word, but what propaganda is, is often selective information for the sake of pursuing a political agenda. Who gets to determine which is which?

                      3. There were many investigative journalists at the time, some mainstream and some fringe that were reporting that the stories were BS back then. Just like there were other people far less qualified who were reporting that the election would and could go the other way. Furthermore, it didn’t make much of a difference, because once again, they had institutional backing, which this is all about. It’s not about reporting correct or incorrect news.

                      4. In order for what you’re advocating to take place, there would need to be an organization or some kind of bureaucracy that has the official power to charge and label such fringe outlets as reporting fake news, the rating . The media and several outlet already have a record of labeling things fake or real, but what you’re asking for is some kind of consequence or force that’s applied to get them to stop reporting fake news. Mind you, these are people who already have low credibility as is, so I don’t see how you get what you want, without censoring.

                      5. Perhaps the most important thing is that for all this things to work out, you’d also have to be able to objectively determine whether a story that ends up in the news is intentionally faked vs. badly researched or investigated. Recently Denzel went off on a rant on the mainstream press (not the fringes) that incorrectly reported that he was likely voting for Trump. How do you prove if that was just reported for ratings or if that was simply a mistake? Who gets the power to determine such things? How likely is that power to be abused?

                      All in all, all paths lead to censorship, plain and simple. And it’s not going to be the big boys and the billion dollar corporations that are going to be the ones being censored.

                    • FeeFee

                      1. I tried to pull up the stuff about the WP apologizing, but didn’t get anything back. Either way, they were right to question these publications due to the dubious sources and when some of their stuff was proven legit–snowdon, then it made sense to apologize. So I don’t see an issue with that. As far as Glenwald, I understand that he has a lot of credentials, but I was speaking more in terms of anyone that post a bunch of things online where 1 turns out to be true but the other 99% is false. A lot of the creators of these fringe sites have best-selling books, worked in journalism, held high ranking government positions or what have you, that’s why I said, they have a right to exist, but still readers should be made aware of their track record. After that, the rest is up to them at that point.

                      2. You and I must have very different views of what censorship is. I don’t see it that way at all, because with a rating system like what we have in other forms of entertainment, these sites are free to report whatever they want. So the rating wouldn’t affect that at all. Now when they start being told what they can and can’t post, or that they will be punished for what they post, then I would consider it censorship. And propaganda that purposefully gives false information vs. the actual information should be the determining factor. Posting a picture of a crying child in Aleppo and saying that this is due to famine or natural disaster in the region vs. war would be propaganda. Reporting the news with lies to push a political ideology would be considered propaganda. The audience makes no difference, it’s the lies, telling half-truths, twisting the story, or passing personal opinion off as fact would be propaganda. I’m not saying that legitimate news sources have not fallen short of this at times due to the networks personal political bias–I’m not ignorant of this fact, but you can not deny that there’s a real distinction of whether this the driving force behind the legitimate news sources vs. the fringe ones.

                      3. I disagree with you. It is indeed reporting correct and incorrect news. There’s no two ways about it. The legitimate publications & the fringe ones that questioned the legetimacy Iraq having WOM destruction would all fall under opinion pieces–which is where a lot of the bias comes in. You can not blame the news media for REPORTING the news as is–which was according the WH, CIA and Bush/Chenney Intelligence, Irareporting what the Bush Ad

                    • Negro Libre

                      1. WP didn’t do the research for the record, they pretty much cosigned a “fringe” website, that no one has been able to track who the owner is. And they were claiming Greenwald and several others were working with Russia as sources of propaganda, but had no evidence to back up such claims.

                      2. News sources are supposed to a. report and b. investigate. If news stations just repeat verbatim what Donald Trump even though it deviates from the facts, does it not qualify still as news that is wrong and incorrect. This is why I keep saying that all this can amount to is propaganda.

                      3. Most of these fringe sources are on the internet which is free and not regulated, you don’t pay a licence to be on the internet. There are billions of sites on the internet, as well as thousands if not millions of them which fall under blogs that report news. How do you have a rating system like that, as opposed to television? These all sound good in theory, but the practice demands it, because television and the internet are not the same. To do what is done on television on the internet would require a massive centralization of power, since there are so many sites you’d have to go through…

                      4. News isn’t just reporting what people say, it’s also investigating whether or not what they say is true or not, whether it’s the journalists, the people in power, or even those on the fringes. It’s pretty clear for people who read news from different sources that even the main papers lie, misconstrue and take things out of context, and that to deal with those factors, you ought to read papers from multiple sources…but now, because of a “fake news” label, we gotta nanny up and protect ourselves, because people are too stupid to know what’s BS, and what is.

                      I mean, like I keep saying, only way this ends up happening in reality is through censorship. Not to mention that given the media’s lost of credibility over the last year or so it comes off as nothing more than hypocritical. But hey, it’s amazing what kind of stuff you can legitimize when you’re doing it to save the stupid people from themselves.

                    • FeeFee

                      1.That’s why I said, WP was right to apologize.

                      2. And which they do. When Donald Trump says something wrong–they report it, and then investigate whether it’s accurate or not–and report that. You can’t get mad at the news media for simply reporting the information as is, and when they investigate, it’s still left up to YOU to decide whether you buy it or not. And it will be left up to you to decide whether a site that’s been rated as propaganda is or isn’t.

                      3. This rating system already exist for these sites on the internet, so it’s not new. It’s really not that hard to do. They go by the sites track record of reporting true information vs. false/made up information and ect.. Of course it’s impossible to know every single site on the web, so the list is always updated. It’s not as difficult as you think it is.

                      4. Lol! If knowing the rating of a news site means nannying up, then you have far bigger problems. Once again, it is up to YOU the reader to decide for yourself whether these fringe websites works for you or doesn’t. The ratings will not stop you from continuing to get your information from these sites if you choose to do so.

                      This “censorship” you’re so against already exist for the web (once again it’s already in the entertainment insdustry), and I was just made aware of it myself. And I only see it as hypocritical if the news media was exempt from being scrutinized in the same way, they’re not. Given your responses here shows this. I find it odd that you have no problem calling out the mass media’s credibility, but you have a problem with doing the same with fringe news sites!? ’cause I think all news outlets–legitimate & fringe ones should be scrutinzed in this manner.

                      “But hey, it’s amazing what kind of stuff you can legitimize when you’re doing it to save the stupid people from themselves.”–Lol, if that’s how you’re looking at it cool, but I find it amazing that you’re good with scrutinizing the news media, but balk at doing the same with the fringe ones. Really odd.

                    • Negro Libre

                      ***What is this rating system that you speak of…for the record, talking about the internet, not television.

                      – There’s a difference between an individual doing it versus some other third party doing, especially when they’re doing it because the mainstream media is pushing them to do so.

                      – The fact of the matter is that most of these fringe sites already have low credibility is the point I’m making. It’s one of the reasons they don’t get sued because they aren’t taken seriously. They don’t get the press passes.

                      – The Fake News Meme was started by the mainstream media, over the last couple of months and it was quite clear who they were talking to when they did it, and in case you missed it, things are already moving that way and not just in the U.S. either:





                      But once again:


                    • FeeFee

                      From reading the links you provided, this isn’t new. The initiative to fight foreign propaganda news already exist at the CIA level, this new proposal would just be at the state level. Only in germany are they talking about fines for the spreading of fake news, although I don’t totally agree with it, but if it can be proven that the information is completely false or made up, I’m not oppose to it. This happens with the tabloid media already. As you mentioned these fringe sites don’t get sued because they have very little credibility, but the option is there.

                      And I know this fake news frenzy is recent because it went into overdrive during this election. You feel the mass media is pusing it, but from my perspective, it’s politicians that I see pushing it.

                      As I’ve said, as long as these sites are allowed to exist, I don’t see anything wrong with holding them up to scrutinity for the information they spread.

                    • Negro Libre

                      Welp…how easily we forget.

                      I mean I’m not going to try to convince you, history just shows just types of legislation will be abused and won’t affect the people it’s sold at aiming at. But oh well, that’s how censorship always starts isn’t it? With stuff we’re “okay with?”

                      Time will tell I suppose…

                    • FeeFee

                      I’m not disregarding your point of view, it’s a fair one. But yeah, time will tell.

                    • King Beauregard

                      “Glenn Greenwald is the primary reason why we know anything about Edward Snowden today.”

                      On the other hand, I have seen Greenwald outright lie as much as Alex Jones has. Consider this article which much of the Left considers gospel and I am still having to argue against:


                      What Greenwald “accidentally” gets wrong over and over, and has no interest in correcting, is: the ACA was passed as a normal filibusterable bill because it could NOT be passed via reconciliation. Nor could a public option. Reconciliation cannot establish or change policy, it can only change funding for existing policy. If it were otherwise, the Democrats could have written “RECONCILIATION PLZ, K THX” on every single bill and thus prevented every single filibuster.

                    • Negro Libre

                      I’m not that much a fan of Greenwald myself, but would you categorize him as a Fake News Journalist! Is he any less credible than say, I don’t know CNN, with their Breaking News ever 10 minutes for a story they broke 6 hours ago?

                      Journalists do lie, and many do report news that laden with bias, propaganda and sometimes is just flat out fake. They are held to higher standards than the fringes, but those higher standards come with a greater sense of credibility, which is what they have, and which got damaged during the Trump election.

                      But yeah, just saying “Fake News” is nothing more than trying to provide a gateway towards censorship, because if such a label was used objectively to judge and punish organizations, we’d have the robots and the programmers reporting all the news, nationwide.

                    • King Beauregard

                      I would definitely categorize Glenn Greenwald as a fake journalist. If you read someone’s “news” column and know LESS about the topic than when you started — but believe you know more than the “sheeple” out there — you have encountered fake news.

                      You even get the same conspiratorial explanations from Greenwald than you do with Jones. Why don’t the Democrats pass the public option if it’s so easy … ? Because nefarious reasons! The actual truth is that it’s NOT so easy to pass, but they’d take away Greenwald’s “fake journalist” degree if he acknowledged that. So instead a yuge chunk of the Left is led to believe the Democrats are exactly the same as the Republicans and the only hope is voting for Jill Stein. Look how well that served us in 2010, 2014, and 2016!

                    • Negro Libre

                      Eh, you’re changing the definition of fake news.

                      There’s a set of the millennial journalists who are into that kind of journalism. It’s the audience TYT appeals to as well as many of the other similar young types who write and type like that. I don’t blame them for that, I blame Bernstein and the other Watergate types who provided the ideal that journalists were somehow supposed to be these radical revolutionary, anti-status quo types.

                      That being said, I’d say he’s a journalist, I just think a lot of people have too high beliefs in the ethics of journalism.


                    • King Beauregard

                      True, Greenwald isn’t making up news stories whole cloth. He’s just doing what SNL’s Weekend Update does: start with an actual news story, and then change the details to provoke a reaction. Except in SNL’s case they’re trying to make you laugh and don’t want you to think they’re a reliable source of information.

                    • Negro Libre

                      Lol, that news to Millennials.

                      Source: John Oliver

                      Look my two favorite journalists are Michael Wolff and Edward Jay Epstein, highly opinionated, jerks, but they’re facts are usually solid, and they are masters of the game and business of journalism. That’s all I need, a lot of people want more.

                    • King Beauregard

                      Same, I don’t mind opinions but I want to be sure I am being given a reasonably fair approximation of reality too. I’m big on Nancy Letourneau; I like her style and she backs up her opinions with facts.

                    • esa

                      ~ Journalists do lie and many do report news that laden with bias, propaganda and sometimes is just flat out fake.

                      whew ! have you seen the Rolling Stone piece on the Washington Post’s scam to libel legitimate news sites ?


              • NonyaB?

                It’s amazing how some of them now use “fake news” to insult fact-based opposition to their fxckery.

              • Hugh Akston
        • Annalise Keating

          Agreed. This is one more reason that I don’t get why they compared the two. You cannot accurately count racists because racists don’t want to be called racist anymore. They are all scattered under different umbrellas now some of it political.

          • Junegirl627

            “i’m not racist I just believe that each state should be able to decide how much freedom Blacks (pronounced BLACKsss) and Latinos (pronounced LAH-TEEN-OH’s) should have and regulate the amount we should tolerate in our country” also known as “i’m pro-states rights” because they wish we still had the article of the confederacy in effect… (0_0)

            • Jo ‘Mama’ Besser

              See also: ‘The Blacks’.

              • Junegirl627

                family values= white values= white value= white power <—- Levels
                Mind blown ****(0_0)*****

    • Cheech

      Lol at the high stakes being “costing you some drawers.”

    • NonyaB?

      This has always been the case, albeit in varying degrees over time. It probaly varies by gender and age, too. I’ve always been aware of many women not wanting to seriously date dudes with opposite political leanings, partly because it’s proxy for positions on certain issues like health or s*xuality.

  • Val

    First, nice to see you, PJ. I missed you. :-)

    And White folks are always trying to find ways to downplay racism. Always. It has almost become a science unto itself. I really don’t think this is a new phenomena though. White folks have been trying to ‘splain away racism from the beginning.

    If only they worked as hard to actually end racism.

    • panamajackson

      A brother has been working to keep the lights on. But I’m back like cooked crack.

    • Annalise Keating


    • King Beauregard

      Negro Libre has persuaded me (whether or not he wanted to) that the only thing that will end white supremacy is for whites to be outnumbered 2:1 at the city, county, and state levels. I want to be wrong, but in case I’m not … well, I have no offspring, so I for one am doing my part.

      • Negro Libre

        Lol, that’s all you.

        That being said, I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

        My belief is that the more numerous other races grow in number, politically wise, the bigger their desire to assert their conservatism, and the less tolerant they will become with the Democratic party not delivering. White supremacy will go down, but respectability politics will rise.

        People looking for politics as a source of happiness should look elsewhere. Workplace politics doesn’t lead to happiness and it never ends, that doesn’t magically change when we’re talking about government politics.

        But hey, dream on lol.

        • King Beauregard

          I’m certainly not trying to put words into your mouth, but I do think about what you say, and I am sadly concluding that we well-meaning white folks with our “fix this, fine-tune that” approach aren’t getting the job done. I still want to think the system is reparable and maybe it is, but the thing that’s standing in the way is us white people, and I can’t imagine a way to persuade us to voluntarily shake up the entire system.

          Police Chief Chris Magnus over in Richmond, California is praised for reforming his police department, but to do it he had to swap out his police with police from elsewhere. How do we do that on a national level? How do we make sure it’s done in a fashion that makes things better and not worse? It seems like the problem is that the wrong people are in our police force from top to bottom, and the solution is going to be replacing those people with others who have no loyalty to white supremacy.

          • Val

            A national severance fund for bad police?

          • esa

            ~ I still want to think the system is reparable

            but what if you discovered the system is working exactly how it was designed, and progress only comes through force (which speaks to who holds leverage over the machine) ?

            • King Beauregard

              I’m still trying to figure that out. The solutions that dance in my mind range from the grossly immoral to the wildly impractical — I don’t even want to post what I have contemplated because I’d get on lists for sure. But I have come to conclude that the white supremacists and I agree on one point: the fact of whites gradually losing their demographic edge is going to control who is in charge, except they dread it, while I want to send Barry White CDs to every black couple I know (and Crosby Stills Nash and Young CDs to every white couple I know).

              • esa

                ~ But I have come to conclude that the white supremacists and I agree on one point: the fact of whites gradually losing their demographic edge is going to control who is in charge, except they dread it

                may i ask: what makes you think white people will concede power when they are ramping up the militarization of the police and expanding private prisons filled with innocent men and women who were denied at right to trial, while simultaneous disemboweling the Voting Rights Act to deny Blacks, Latinx, and Asians (read: Muslim) their rights ?

                • I’m a mostly peaceful girl, but with each passing day I get a little bit more ready for that war.

                • King Beauregard

                  I DON’T think they will concede power, not voluntarily. Some of us would be okay with it, but not enough to win the day. That’s why I opened up with whites being outnumbered 2:1 — numbers at which it wouldn’t be possible for whites to hold on to power, not without going openly totalitarian anyway (and even then they’d risk pushback from whites).

                  • Janelle Doe

                    2:1 are not bad odds when you still hold all the keys to the kingdom and take away the tools of the masses (voter suppression, wages, freedom, and sadly life)

                  • esa

                    the United States was openly totalitarian until 1964, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act (keeping in mind we are not discussing the plight of the First Peoples here).

                    it only took 52 years for an openly totalitarian regime to reassert itself. this is what i meant by the system doing what it was designed to do—which includes maintaining power in a demographic where they are not the majority (just as the National Party did in South Africa).

                    my question ultimately is: does it serve truth and justice to believe the system is “reparable” or could we become better prepared by looking at what is actually there ?

                    • King Beauregard

                      I think the set of laws on the books is overall pretty good, but the problem is who is actually executing the laws. For example, when it comes to police work, there’s probably little in department policy guidebooks that says to harass blacks and start with the assumption they’re guilty of something. That is a matter of policemen exercising their “best judgment” in performing their duties, and their superiors sympathizing with them. Rewriting the guidebook won’t help, replacing the people will. Training might help, but I have my doubts.

                    • esa

                      ~ I think the set of laws on the books is overall pretty good

                      i guess this is where we part paths as the many of the laws on the books and being passed deny and erode civil liberties, in favor of protecting the misdeeds of government and corporations. or conversely, no laws are passed to protect the people from them misdeeds of the government and corporations.

                      for example police departments do not screen applicants for membership to the Klan because there is no law requiring them to do so. ergo the government welcomes Klan membership on the police force (being well aware of the swell of enrollment by these people since Obama took office). looking at the forest through the trees, we see that this is part and parcel of US tradition, the first police forces being comprised of slave catchers.

                      same as it ever was.

                    • King Beauregard

                      Okay, good point, that is definitely a law that definitely should be on the books. And I can see how there’s so much more that could / should be on the books that I’m not even thinking of.

                      On the other hand, it should be common sense that you don’t want your policemen to have allegiances to “invisible empires” of whatever stripe, because that’s going to interfere with their police work. It feels like the sort of law that we should add to the books only because the people who are in a position to add it, don’t see any reason to add it.

                    • esa

                      may i ask: have you given any thought as to why white America automatically expects police to be the “good guys” when in just about every other nation on earth it is understood that police are inherently corrupt, just as the government is ?

                    • King Beauregard

                      That’s an easy one: if you’re white and you’re not up to criminal activity, most of your interactions with the police will be uneventful or even constructive. For example, I got a speeding ticket a few months ago, and it was a completely unstressful event; it was more like a guy on a motorcycle pulling me over to inform me I owed the government some money. (And by the way, I was accidentally well over the posted limit, so it was a legit ticket.)

                      The white picture of the United States is that the system works, imperfectly perhaps, but overall it does a pretty good job … something that many governments can’t boast. But that’s if you’re white.

                    • esa

                      may i ask: have you given any thought as to why white America consistently disregards, excludes, and ignores the mountains of reports, records, and evidence readily available in both mainstream and independent media documenting the corruption and injustice at the hands of their government against the citizens of this nation ?

                    • King Beauregard

                      “White America” is split, and largely along partisan lines. We white Democrats want to correct America’s authoritarian tendencies*, while white Republicans tend to celebrate those authoritarian tendencies. This has a lot to do with why the Democratic Party has so much trouble getting things done: Democrats are so busy opposing authority that they don’t back their own, even if doing so is necessary to get anything done within the system.

                      *: But talking with people here has led me to believe that, perhaps, there are no true fixes to the system so long as there are so many white people involved.

                    • esa

                      ~ Democrats are so busy opposing authority

                      how are they opposing authority when the current administration has massively increased surveillance on private citizens, the prosecution of whistleblowers, the use of secret courts, started wars without congressional authorization, and have been engaged in a long term battle with the ACLU to prevent its internal legal justifications from being released ?

      • Brooklyn_Bruin

        That’s not working in South Africa.
        Politics is largely about allocation of scarce resources.

        So instead of slicing up the pie, it’s about everyone having the baking infrastructure AND being able to use your own without others horning in on it.

        The ideal would be to work together for the benefit of all, but folks don’t seem to be serious about that

        • King Beauregard

          … … so the most helpful thing I could do would probably be to somehow help blacks start small businesses? Or if not small businesses in particular, at least help in developing autonomous structures that are less likely to be impacted by politics and whims of whoever is in charge?

          • Brooklyn_Bruin

            We want to plant seeds, our enemies want to kill them before they grow. An ally steps in between the enemy and the sprouts. As a private citizen/consumer you can only buy so many dashikis. But you could collaborate with like minded folks of color with whatever your personal and professional talents are.

            And by not adding to the population. You’re depriving future generations of all that you’ve learned. Indeed, the Trump people are trying to out populate the sensible ones.

            • King Beauregard

              This is helpful, thanks; a change of plans is in order. I’ve been trying to find local organizations doing something about police militarization, but the one that the ACLU pointed me to (SURJ) feels like white people do-gooderism without significant black input. This is basically them as I see it:


              … wait, now I have to reproduce??? Jesus, I had no idea things were going to get this complicated.

              • Jo ‘Mama’ Besser

                So… their backs are all broken now, right?

                • King Beauregard

                  You’d think so, but I get the feeling that they aren’t people in the conventional sense, so much as the scrapings from the bottom of the jar of White People Mix. I wouldn’t bet on internal organs and a skeleton without a medical examination first.

                  Just look at them in the preload image. Just look at the crappy blanket fort. The thought foremost on their minds is, “you too can be just like us!”

                  • Jo ‘Mama’ Besser

                    You’re right, they’ve peered into my sense of wonderment and found it wanting.

                    I did not realise that this was real, and then I did.

                    They believe themselves to be living in some kind of enviable post-reality love box because they’re the Care Bears made flesh, and they fervently believe that their musty old sheets are going to stop the war. ‘We’ve got grass stains, let’s ‘PROFOUND’! We ate dinner, with the power of ‘ACT’! We’re bothering Canada, for ‘EMPOWER’! Money, please!’ For what? Shanty space?

                    Again, initially, I thought that this was a spoof video: the fashion, the music, the facial hair, the utter uselessness of the cause, the teeth– but no! These kids and their non-existent coccyges are for real. They’re not operating within any kind of sanity recognisable to us, but, bless their sweet summer hearts, I don’t even know what to say to this. I can’t even be annoyed, they’re so lost, I bet their glasses are empty like Zooey Deschanel’s… and like Zooey Deschanel is.

                    If you have to reproduce to counteract this kind of White Chicanery, well then, do your duty.

                    • King Beauregard

                      Sir or madam, you truly have a way with words.

                      I’m pretty sure this is exactly what the hippies of yesteryear were BTW — whatever criticisms of The Establishment they had, their response was the most entitled, self-absorbed activity their little brains could conceive of.

                      The video’s more fun if you imagine someone is throwing them off a cliff.

                      That said, Pringles guy makes me laugh. Oh Pringles guy, someday you’ll snap out of it … and then you’ll have to live with the memories.

                    • Jo ‘Mama’ Besser

                      It’s ‘madam’ and thank-you.

                      In the immortal words of Bart Simpson, ‘We need another ‘Nam, thin out their ranks a little.’ The hippies were and continue to be endlessly awful. ‘We really changed the world by not washing’. Tell me more.

                      I snorted at the cliff mention, so let’s all celebrate the season with the cleansing touch of a little light day murder. I’m not terribly familiar with the Pringles guy, guess I’m not cool like you. I’m not being sarcastic, I’m all four corners SQUARE.

                    • King Beauregard

                      I’m talking about the guy who apparently aspires to look like the Pringles logo.


                      Way to make good life choices, Pringles guy.

        • Brother Mouzone

          I was just about to say that…didn’t work in South Africa. What is needed is a MINDSET change among Black people. DEPROGRAM, and REPROGRAM.

      • Val

        Not sure if that will end it. There are structural changes that need to be made.

        • King Beauregard

          Seems unlikely that whites would make those changes — upheaval is a lot to embrace.

      • esa

        but being the minority didn’t stop white folks from creating apartheid in South Africa ..

      • L8Comer


    • Brown Rose

      Its too advantageous for them to end it. They are at the top of the heap and every race wants to be accepted by them. That would be impossible for anyone to give up. We are stuck with this social artifact.

    • Janelle Doe

      If only

    • Brambles

      Seems to me your entire premise is racist…that “White folks are always trying to downplay racism”. You do realize that without non-racist whites, Obama would have never been elected, much less twice, and about 1/2 of white folks are democrats, who seem to be less likely to be racist than republicans. So, you may want to check yourself and your bigoted, racist views of “white people”, because they’re no doubt wrong.

      • Val

        Lol You realize you’re proving my point, right.

  • will_the_thrill
    • Minx


      • Val

        Me too. This feels like an imposter made it. The comparison doesn’t exactly work.

      • will_the_thrill

        I also hate this, but I’m also amazed at his effective scamming.

        • Minx

          Didn’t he do this like… 3 times?

    • Negro Libre

      I wonder if he was ever actually curing patients as a doctor.

      As an ex-pre-med student, America really puts it’s doctors thru h3ll to become doctors, much more so than other countries, including Europe where you get into med school in undergrad, rather than postponing your specialization by wasting away 4 years as a pre-med student.

      • will_the_thrill

        That’s a good question. I would assume they were paying him for something?!?

    • Yahmo Bethere


      What’s Dr. Homie up to these days?

      • will_the_thrill

        He ouchea somewhere delivering babies or curing cancer or somethin.

More Like This