Hate Speech – only if you’re white

A buddy of mine is a real estate agent in Washington, DC – a city with a very large African American population. He’s a great guy – kind, funny, and intelligent. He also happens to be gay.

He’s lived in DC since 1980 an in this story, he recounts the incidents of racism, hate, homophobia, and misogyny he encountered as a realtor. It is notable that Bruce doesn’t bitch, moan, or complain about his treatment. He doesn’t engage in infantile sniveling about the hate speech directed at him. He doesn’t make demands for resignations, start a movement to muzzle the haters, or demand safe spaces to shield him from meanies.

He simply lives his life.

Can you imagine the outraged screeching that would occur if the offendapotomi at Mizzou, Yale, or any other campuses were subjected to the same behavior from those evil white males?

While showing condos to two (white) women, a prospective buyer and her friend, all of us bundled up in down jackets and hats and scarves, five tall black male teens, on holiday from school (Martin Luther King Day) begin to follow us down Columbia Road in Adams Morgan, a hipsterish DC neighborhood, shouting questions at us:  Do we like to party?  Can they come into the building with us?  Do we like black cock?  I am hunched over a lockbox attempting to retrieve keys to a condo so we can get off the street.  My client, a woman built like a line backer, is shouting at the boys asking if their mothers know how they behave.  When I stand up the teens realize I am male, and are momentarily thrown.  But after a few seconds start up again with the same questions.
 
While showing houses in Petworth, a gentrifying DC neighborhood, once a slum but now full of $300,000 one bedrooms, to an interracial lesbian couple (white and Asian) and one gal’s parents, several African American high school age boys and girls shout at us and tell us one day we will be their slaves.  (Someone taught them this.)
 
While walking to school in the 1990s, unable to afford a bus, a large black man who asked for change every day, takes offense that I ignore his daily request, and screams at me “You must not like black people!”
 
While walking on M Street in Georgetown, a small, very bundled up  and androgynous black pan handler, of unidentifiable gender, becomes hostile when I give no response to a request for change.  She (?) screams at me something about killing faggots.
What kind of schools and families produce pieces of shit such as this? And really… I wonder how many SJWs out there would defend the actions of these people?
How many would be perfectly fine with the abuses hurled at gays and women, because… Oh, I don’t know… they’ve obviously faced racism, they’ve grown up in poverty, because RACISM, they didn’t really have childhoods, because RACISM. Everything is racism, so they have an excuse.
We know that the social justice warriors will say anything to defend their ideological allies – no matter how foul – so I’m waiting for the inevitable stream of excuses about how black people are excused from accusations of hate speech, because they’ve experienced racism.
You know at least a few douche weasels out there are thinking it! Remember, these are the same festering boils on the ass of humanity who created the #FuckParis hashtag on Twitter after terrorists launched an attack that killed nearly 130 people there last week! Because France… colonial power… black people… terrorism or something.

36 responses

  1. Short answer… most SJW cupcakes would either ignore or defend this behavior.

    Like

  2. Racism and bigotry don’t just happen to blacks and other people of color. This sort of behavior is abominable and unacceptable, no matter who is spewing the abuse, and the people doing so should be called on it. There’s no ‘SJW’ to it, it’s a matter of believing all people are equal and no one should have to endure this sort of thing. Anyone who thinks it is acceptable for blacks to spew this crap because they’re black is as bigoted as the KKK.

    Sorry for the mini-rant, you pushed one of my buttons.

    Like

  3. 50 years ago we used to call this bad behaviour and it was not acceptable. In my neighbourhood our big bogies were the Roman Catholics but although we seldom spoke to them we were never rude. That would have been totally unacceptable and would show that we were below them (in ther terminology of the time). Certain elders in our communities had very long memories to justify their anger and separate strands in our community but we never actually continued the war on the ground. Politeness and courtesy was a requirement of all. This societal division between Catholics and Protestants has now all but gone in that city.

    Just because one has been the recipient of bad behaviour doesn’t justify giving bad behaviour in return. Using racism, sexism or any other ism or …phobia noun to justify nastiness and discourtesy is just as bad as the racism, etc itself.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Oops, that should be 60 years ago.

      Like

  4. I do not understand any of this. When I was a child there were daily incidents of childhood stupidity and bigotry. You either ignored it or stepped up to it. Today I find the most profondly bigoted people to be social justice/Marxists/perverts/blacks/MecHa clowns.

    Everything offends these poor little snowflakes. Yawn. If they bothered to make something of themselves someone might respect them. Most of the creatures you mention are destined for ends as drug hustlers, thugs, and welfare queens.

    Like

  5. It used to be called out and handled… We’ve coined a new term for them… Perpetually Offended Snowflakes… (POS)

    Like

  6. I’ve commented to my wife (a card carrying Indian tribal member) that we are living in an apartheid country. (I’m an American white guy – trace my ancestry back to about four or five different western European countries, and 1/32 American Indian.)
    They (BLM and the SJWs) need to keep in mind what happened to the last apartheid country. At least this time it will return to people who actually know how to run an economy and a country.

    Like

  7. I grew up in a small town in MI. My dad worked in a grey iron factory with hundreds of other men, about half white and half black. As a white family living in an all white town, it never occurred to me to be prejudiced. Many, many times, black friends of my dad’s from work would stop in with their family, on the way up to visit relatives. The adults would go inside to talk, and the kids would stay outside and play with us.
    As I got older, I myself worked in a factory making steel, in the same city as my dad had. Some of my closest friends were black. I would trust them with my life. Some of the biggest wastes of oxygen were white. Some of the biggest wastes of oxygen were black. Many of my close friends were white.
    I may live in a bubble, but for me, I really do judge people on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. However, I am not afraid to call a man worthless if he is, no matter if he is black or white. Does that make me racist, or does that make me what Dr. King desired? I think we know the answer to that. Do the real racists know?

    Like

    1. I don’t think they do. I honestly think they believe because a white someone somewhere in a long ago time of our American history carried out an act of racism/prejudice/stereotyping that they are fully justified in everything they do.
      My kids and grandkids were all taught to ignore a person’s exterior and judge them on who they truly are.
      Today’s generation – not so much. It’s sad, truly sad.

      Like

  8. There are real racists of all colors. Full stop. But to characterize all those who would want social justice as full out apologists/backers of loudmouthed ass*****s like your friend encountered is to make the same kind of mistake being made by those who take the worst possible case of police brutality and try to call that typical behavior, then call anyone who disagreed with them racists/fascists/etc.

    The internet is a great place to cherry-pick isolated incidents (some true, some false) and use them to frame the worst possible picture of “them”. That is great for convincing “us” that “they” are evil slimeballs who are destroying our country. But it’s not so good for actually trying to figure out common ground. I submit to you that a strong majority of “SJWs” would at most consider those ass*****s grossly wrong.

    Like

    1. Mike, have you been following the SJW movement? It has gone from isolated incidents to full-turnip retards. Pedophile apologists. Racism apologists. They’re loud and they’re growing. I can only hope they eat themselves before they destroy this society.

      Like

    2. I spend entirely too much time on line reading, well, everything.
      Domestic, foreign, left, right, religious/atheist, and points in-between, it all gets consumed and ruminated on.

      However, to the point: ever since I first became aware of the term “SJW”, I have yet to encounter a single. solitary. instance. where someone who self-identified as a SJW wasn’t just an absolute insufferable asshat of a POS willing to excuse *anything* their ‘their side’ did, no matter how disgusting/heinous.

      Like

      1. Including pedophilia.

        Like

  9. 😦 I love you Nicki still!!!!

    Like

  10. they actually have NAMBLA as a real group. they are allowed by the constitution, first amendment. Of course, that same first amendment should allow someone to decide in their own bakery to not serve a patron for any and all reason, or no reason, based upon their religious beliefs. That doesn’t fly in this day and age. I disagree. Until we all are free, no one is free. That is the hard part of freedom for many. Just like gay marriage, you can’t have it both ways. If you want the fed.gov. to recognize your marriage, then you have to allow them to allow them to recognize gay marriage. If you want freedom of religious expression pro or con, then everyone must have it.

    Like

    1. WHY would I want the federal government to “recognize” my marriage (49 years and counting) except for the bogus “tax breaks” marriage brings with our idiotic tax “policies?” I’m sorry to all my gay friends, but changing the DEFINITION of what constitutes a marriage isn’t within the AUTHORITY of the government.

      Like

      1. Fair enough. But the Government *can* define marraige for the purpose of the aforementioned tax rates, visitation rules in hospitals, health care coverage (for plans that cover spouses/family), all areas where the laws provide a specific personal relationship with special recognition and benefits/rights/privileges. Indeed, any law that provides special treatment for “marraige” has to attach a legal definition to marraige. And once marraige is defined, the Constitution ensures that the legal definition of marraige has to apply equally to all citizens–equal protection under the law.

        Congratulations on your 49 years and counting. My wife and I are 19 years behind. The adventure continues!🙂

        Like

    2. Easily fixed–and without changing the definition of a marriage. Do all that by mutual contract and get the government completely OUT of the “marriage” business. BTW, gays have ALWAYS enjoyed the IDENTICAL rights to marry as any heterosexual man or woman so there is no such thing as “unequal treatment under the law” in this situation. A gay man or gay woman has ALWAYS been legally allowed to “marry” any consenting adult, not a close relative, of the opposite sex, who’ll have them as a spouse…JUST like any hetero man or woman and no hetero man or woman has ever been allowed to “marry” someone of the same sex…just like gays. So HOW is there “unequal treatment” under the law?

      Like

      1. I think that France has taken it that far (i.e., one can have a church wedding or not as ypu please, but it only counts as a marraige in the eyes of the law if one registers the marraige with the legal system). So far we (US) have not taken separation of church & state to that extent.

        As for equal protection under tha law: a citizen may designate (through act of marraige) that a specific legal adult is a special person whom they love, trust, and have legal obligation to (ex-adultery laws making infidelity a legal as well as a moral issue) and is therefore recognized with special rights and privileges (can extend health benefits, make emergency medical decisions, visit in hospitals, etc). Homosexual citizens previously could have a partner of, say, 30 years (like my marraige) but not have the same legal rights/privileges/responsibilities my wife and I have. Hence the push for equal treatment under the law.

        Like

    3. So does the rule that everyone must have freedom of religion mean that an Orthodox Jewish owned business could deny someone service because that person eats pork? Or a Wahhabi Muslim owned business deny a woman’s right to enter their business without a responsible male escort? Or for that matter, could a business owned by someone who truly believed the Bible sanctioned slavery (as many did believe during the 19th Century) deny service to “naturally inferior” black-skinned citizens?

      It is an interesting balance–at what point does freedom of religious observance/belief become the freedom to impose one persons beliefs on another? The Constitution requires that we do not sanction one religion over another but instead requires that we treat citizens equally. Chick-Fil-A, for example, serves nobody on Sundays because the owner treats the Sabbath as holy–and by doing so does not treat believers and non-believers differently. Perfectly legal. But it is not legal to deny service to some citizens but not others because of one’s religious beliefs. To do so is to legally treat some citizens unequally…which the Constitution says shall not be allowed.

      Like

    4. Mike C – There’s NOTHING in the Constitution that declares that “people cannot be treated unequally.” Where did you think that came from?

      Like

  11. Lol. That was a stub of something I was still writing I didn’t mean my own blog to publish yet! So it will appear again in longer form soon.

    Like

    1. Well, hell… that was enough to make me cringe!

      Like

  12. Excellent article on this subject here:

    Daniel Greenfield: Crymobs, Crybullying and the Left’s Whiny War on Speech
    Read more at http://politichicks.com/2015/11/daniel-greenfield-crymobs-crybullying-and-the-lefts-whiny-war-on-speech/

    Basically, all I ask of others is that they not initiate force, and pretty much mind their own business. I’ll do the same. People who agree to that are welcome to become friends and neighbors, no matter where they came from.

    Like

    1. Pappad: under the 14th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      In my private life, I may associatr or not with friends as I wish. But when engaged in public life, where I incur legal obligations (such as payments given/received for services), I must treat my fellow citizens equally. That does not in any way shape or form mean that I must guarantee equal outcomes. But I cannot impose one set of business rules on one set of citizens but different rules/criteria for others.

      The latter is, of course, one of the great weaknesses of Affirmative Action. I regard race-based discrimination in hiring/acceptance etc as something running counter to the Constitution.

      Like

      1. It doesn’t “run counter to the Constitution” (or at least to the quoted 14th Amendment, which was INTENDED to apply to former slaves–not every woman who manages to drop her baby on the U.S. side of the border.) We must ALSO consider the INTENT of the Constitution and its various Amendments, which recent SCOTUS’s have failed (or refused) to do.

        Like

        1. To me, the best way to read the Constitution is straight out in English. What it says is in fact what it says. Once one gets into “intent”, one starts going past the written text and into fuzzier and fuzzier interpretation. Which Founding Father does one go with?

          And our founding documents were often aspirational–“We hold these truths to be self-evident…that all men are created equal…” to declare the independence of a nation where some men owned other men. That tension was ultimately resolved by abolishing slavery in the U.S. But the ultimate truths in the Declaration–that all people have the same right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness–I view as providing the core of our shared experiment in whether government “of the people, by the people, for the people” is a workable construct. And like Reagan, I remain optimistic about that experiment.

          I’m still very new at this blogging thing (and not exactly a cutting edge tech person…rather the contrary!), but I’ve started the process of setting up a blog about the Constitution at therealconstitution.us. Feel free to look at it and let me know what you think. We’re all “Citizen-owners” of the Constitution (part of “We, the People”) after all!

          Like

        2. Basically true, but it’s pretty easy to determine “intent” of the authors when it’s a matter of public record as to HOW they arrived at the words they published and what those words MEANT at the time they were written–not how they’ve been changed as to meaning since.  One example is the word “regulated”.  In 1791, it meant to “be made regular–or even.”  In 2015, to one and all, it means “controlled”…usually by the government.

          Like

      2. I simply don’t buy any of that, Mike. I have zero obligation to trade with or even communicate with anyone else. I totally reject all of the “constitution” BS. Private property includes our lives, possessions and our businesses. The truly free market is the only rational framework for that.

        No person is rationally obligated to trade with anyone and everyone, yet they must weigh their prejudices with their desire to stay in business. As a practical matter, the more customers they reject, and the more radical their prejudices, the less likely their business will prosper or survive.

        There is no private property or individual liberty where people can be compelled to violate their own conscience and sacrifice their own needs and the needs of their family or business for any reason.

        You either own yourself, or you don’t. You cannot have it both ways.

        Like

  13. I’ll keep saying this: If you truly want to see racism or anti-gay sentiment, be a gay or minority and disagree with whatever beliefs SJWs demand minorities and gays should have. Wear a raincoat, though; you’ll be drowned in spittle.

    Like

  14. As far as the marriage issue is concerned, I feel that you can’t have it both ways. If marriage is an institution of the Church, then let them handle it however they want. Get the government out of it. Of course, the Church will also quit marrying couples living in sin, couples where one is divorced, etc.
    But if marriage is an institution of government, then plain and simply, there is absolutely no place for discrimination whatsoever in who marries whom. That does not mean that 3 people may marry or that adults may marry children. The government has the right to make rules regarding marriage.
    Now, when it comes to capitalism, I think that Mamaliberty is right on the mark. A private business owner has the to trade with whom ever they wish. The free market will determine whether or not the owner has made a fair or unfair decision. When the government tries to take away our right to freedom of association, in this case, the association being trade, it has once again gone over the line.
    It reminds me of the saying of a friend of mine. A pile of horse shit happens one turd at a time.
    How long will we let the government and the sjw’s shit on us?

    Like

    1. WHERE do you think the government GOT “the right to regulate marriage?” It certainly isn’t in the Constitution. If anyone can “marry” anyone–or any THING–how can that be “controlled” by the government? There’s a REASON most people object to re-defining what a marriage is and it has NOTHING to do with “bigotry” towards sodomites.

      Like

  15. It has been my experience in the DC metro area that the “gentrified” neighborhoods are some of the worst for such behavior. My brother in law and his family live in Takoma Park and you can run into some of the rudest and most bigoted people, of all races, that you will find anywhere. AND you can run into some of the nicest, again, of all races. During the last 10 years it seems to have gotten much worse, and the perpetrators much younger and foul mouthed. I don’t see any chance of it getting any better. No matter how anyone tries to respond to this it just gets worse. The louder the racist f*cks screech the louder the racist f*cks screech,,,,,,,,,You get the point. No matter what anyone does to “improve” the situation it just gets worse. Give them food, money, housing, “things” and they just get madder. It may well be time to just set it all afire and walk away. Being rural and self starting does have its advantages.

    Like

  16. Who says we “have” to give them food, housing, and things? Social welfare programs are well intended, but like so many other well intended schemes of the fed gov., they turn out to backfire and screw things up with unintended consequences.
    Instead of a hand up out of poverty, it becomes a hand down to hold people in perpetual poverty, with no real incentive to lift themselves out of poverty. This is not a secret, everybody knows it.
    There are some people who really need help, who really are in dire straits. But there are scores more who just game the system, and again, it is no secret. The secret seems to be, how do we get the sjw’s to quit pandering, because our country will be bankrupt and we will be at the mercy of the entire world in our children’s lifetime.
    Is anybody listening to the majority of Americans who feel this way?

    Like

    1. No, no one is listening. And we are already bankrupt thanks to the Glorious War on Poverty, which has successfully disrupted societal norms across large swaths of our society. And never forget the Civil Rights Act! It achieved its goal of balkanizing American society by creating a whole new, special category of “rights”.

      We are so screwed.

      Like

  17. There was the war to end all wars, the war on poverty. The war on drugs by tricky dick. The war on terrorism, by George W. Somehow, none of them have panned out too well. I am getting sick and tired of war.
    Perhaps the American people should wage war on politicians? At least we would go down fighting the right enemy for a change.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: