The black Panthers were involved in shootouts/turf wars with the black nantionalists, they kidnapped and tortured people, pouring boiling water on a member for 3 days before shooting him and dumping him in a swamp. Had female members savagely beat to keep them in line. Ambushed police officers, traffic narcotics…
Does that meet your criteria where you would condone someone going full klansman and putting burning crosses at churches and mosques that supported the black Panthers?
They have to embody the ideals they hate towards another group.
Look, it’s fine. I get that it’s hard to understand. That’s part of the appeal of the original article, where it redirects you back to the historical meaning of the swastika and insists that it’s meaning is fixed.
No true scottsman, I get it. Ambushing police officers and murdering them doesn’t count as hate, ambushing black nantionalists and murdering them doesn’t count as hate, pouring boiling water on a person doesn’t count as hate.
It doesn’t count as black supremacist hate. So, yeah “no true scottsman”, but the entire argument hinges on what a nazi/white supremacist is. It’s not a fallacy in this case. Because there’s a difference between hate generally and a specific kind of hate.
I’ve always wanted to ask a liberal about that. Would Hitler at the end of the war be racists? He didn’t have any power. Can a skin head in prison be racists? Can white people be racists in South Africa, Mexico?
It’s such a stupid twist of the language. Racism is racism. While we will always have racism, the government should not be teaching any race is inferior or superior like they do in dei.
Skin color is the least interesting thing about a person in my opinion and it’s the most important thing to democrats. Just like when they pushed for slavery, they like to classify people in boxes
The black Panthers were involved in shootouts/turf wars with the black nantionalists, they kidnapped and tortured people, pouring boiling water on a member for 3 days before shooting him and dumping him in a swamp. Had female members savagely beat to keep them in line. Ambushed police officers, traffic narcotics…
Does that meet your criteria where you would condone someone going full klansman and putting burning crosses at churches and mosques that supported the black Panthers?
No.
They have to embody the ideals they hate towards another group.
Look, it’s fine. I get that it’s hard to understand. That’s part of the appeal of the original article, where it redirects you back to the historical meaning of the swastika and insists that it’s meaning is fixed.
No true scottsman, I get it. Ambushing police officers and murdering them doesn’t count as hate, ambushing black nantionalists and murdering them doesn’t count as hate, pouring boiling water on a person doesn’t count as hate.
No, all of that definitely counts as hate.
It doesn’t count as black supremacist hate. So, yeah “no true scottsman”, but the entire argument hinges on what a nazi/white supremacist is. It’s not a fallacy in this case. Because there’s a difference between hate generally and a specific kind of hate.
Are you one of those liberals that thinks black people can’t be racists.
Ambushing white police officers certainly sounds racists, black nantionalism was part of the black panthers that’s certainly a racists movement.
You have to have power to be racist. It’s like newspeak. You change the definition of words to hit your agenda.
I’ve always wanted to ask a liberal about that. Would Hitler at the end of the war be racists? He didn’t have any power. Can a skin head in prison be racists? Can white people be racists in South Africa, Mexico?
It’s such a stupid twist of the language. Racism is racism. While we will always have racism, the government should not be teaching any race is inferior or superior like they do in dei. Skin color is the least interesting thing about a person in my opinion and it’s the most important thing to democrats. Just like when they pushed for slavery, they like to classify people in boxes