OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Monday, April 11

#23683

OMG: Black Lives Matter leader wants to kill white men like me, while expecting sympathy for violent criminals shot by the police, and they want me to support them?

45 comments

  1. I completely agree. I understand the need for black civil rights groups in western society, although more specifically in the USA due to all the police killings. However, Black Lives Matter is made up of mostly idiots. People who protest in libraries, block traffic, berate people based on their hair/fashion, and openly hate white people. They're actually undermining their own cause by pissing people off. They might not like it but white people have power. If they want to change the status quo it would help to have their sympathies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My beef with them is their insistence on specifically "anti-black racism" being addressed separate from all other groups. Shit, this is Canada, we have more over-representation of indigenous people in prison and murders than anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm curious. Did white people artificially select for stupidity in their slaves? Is that why the black population is so stupid on average, or is it the lack of education...

    Whenever I've seen a smart black guy, he's usually from the other side of the fucking planet.. and now I'm having a hard time believing that's a coincidence. (The only exception being Neil deGrasse Tyson)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .......do you even realize how racist this is? Please tell me you're trolling

      Delete
    2. Glad 3 pointed this out. Whenever researchers want to explore a corrolation between race and intelligence, people call it "racism". I am afraid it's nothing but the truth that black people have the lowest average intelligence out of all the races. It's also the truth that they are more atheletically capable. Look at the Olympic finalists in most running events, they are overwhelmingly black. It's not racism to speak the truth.

      Delete
    3. Oh for fucks sake 3b. This argument has happened half a dozen times on OMGUW and each time it does it finally gets shut down when someone shares a link to half a dozen studies proving you wrong. We're all human beings - the differences you refer to have almost exclusively risen out of centuries-old class divides that have restricted the upward mobility of black families.

      But I'm not getting into this argument now, because it's been thoroughly, utterly debunked, and refusing to admit that is just tantamount to trolling.

      Delete
    4. They are about 1 standard deviation lower on IQ on average.

      The negroid isn't "human", exactly. Over thousands of years they have invented nothing, produced no works, contributed nothing but more mouths for us to feed, and they do all this while whining.

      Some super politically incorrect Japanese scientist, forget his name unfortunately.. Proved in his research that black women are the least attractive, but they think they are the most attractive.

      The negroid has a different evolutionary strategy: that of a narcissistic brute. When they claim " I dindu nuffin" I think they genuinely believe it. They cannot accept responsibility for anything: this is why they have the higher rates of divorce, single motherhood, abortions, high school dropouts, and its the reason BLM exists. They cannot accept that police shoot them because they are aggressive apes. No, it has to be because of racism.

      They can't accept that they aren't successful due to lack of work ethic and intelligence. No, it it the white man's fault. They can't accept that their culture encourages all of these degeneracies in the holy name of being "gangsta".

      In short, niggers are stupid and impossible to reason with.

      As for you 3c, it has not been debunked. BLM only goes to show it's true, lol.

      The police are afraid of these apes for good reason, so I don't blame them for being trigger happy when any one of them could end their life in 5 seconds. They don't fear this from whites because we respect police, or at the very least, we don't try to murder them very often.

      Delete
    5. It should also be noted that there is enough of a significant genetic difference among whites and blacks to biologically classify them as separate sub-species.

      We grew separately for tens of thousands of years. There is no reason to suspect we should be the same. Just as wolves and various dogs are different despite common ancestry.

      We acknowledge that pitbulls are a more aggressive breed on average, that Burmese mountain dogs are the smartest... But when it comes to human beings, political correctness gets in the way.

      Let me tell you, in other countries of the world, and in private spaces.. No one likes niggers. The Chinese and Japanese are literally afraid of them, Russians hate them.

      A friend of mine has family in Russia. He was skyping his aunt there and she said "I saw a nigger on the bus reading.. Did you know they could read?". She was about 40 years old, not some old coot.

      The only people that love their little pet nignogs are the progressive white people. Even blacks hate blacks: they have the highest rate of killing their own people on a consistent basis.. Especially if you count abortions. (Yes I'm aware of the world wars, you don't need to bring it up - at least when whites do something, we do it well) besides, whites aren't responsible for WW2. Hitler wanted peace, but the Bolsheviks, Rothchilds and other elites wanted war. They made a fortune.

      Anyway I have an exam to go ace, cya.

      Delete
    6. Wow, this thread collapsed into neo-nazi propaganda faster than I thought!

      >Significant genetic difference

      Okay, so while I know this is patently false, and has been shown many times to be false, you're the one making the original claim 3e, so go ahead and link to an unbiased source that demonstrates such a thing. Burden of proof is on you.

      Delete
    7. "unbiased source"

      Well, there's your problem.

      You can't be racist in the "unbiased" public.

      Delete
    8. So what you're saying, 3g, is that the facts are irrelevant to you? Research doesn't matter unless it agrees with what you've already convinced yourself must be the case?

      Troll.

      Delete
    9. No, 3h. You haven't presented any facts.

      The irony that you would say "research doesn't matter unless it agrees with what you've already convinced yourself must be the case" ... and if it doesn't agree it's raycis nazi propaganda!

      Delete
    10. I haven't presented any facts because the burden of proof rests with the person who made the claim in the first place. You're the one who said "there are fundamental biological differences" first. Prove it. It's not my job to go hunting for evidence to prove you wrong, it's your job to back up the claims you make to begin with.

      Delete
    11. Do your own research.

      You can start here

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation#Population_genetics

      Delete
    12. 3j. Good for you to understand the concept of burden of proof, considering most SJWs such as you are dumb af. Now the next thing to do is to understand that the way you asked for an "unbiased" research is just showing how bigoted you are and lack of the ability to accept truth.

      Delete
    13. 3l I asked for research that is "unbiased" in the sense that it wasn't done by people trying to push through their personal agendas after deciding what "the truth" would be before even beginning their study. That seems pretty rational to me.

      Delete
    14. 3m. It doesn't matter whether a research is conducted to push through the researchers' personal agendas. The only thing ever matters is whether the research itself is flawed.

      It seems more like you are the one who decided the truth before beginning any study. Otherwise, you would have simply asked for a research, not an "unbiased" research. Because it is assumed that you want unbiasedness. The only reason why you even brought that up is that you are prepared to call whatever research represented to you biased, as long as you dont agree with it in the 1st place.

      Delete
    15. 3n, if you don't understand how bias affects research results, then you really don't understand how research works. Sorry, that's just a fact.

      Delete
    16. I'm with 3n on this one. As long as the research is conducted properly it makes no difference what the researcher thinks or ate that day. That's the entire purpose of proper experimental design.

      Delete
    17. 3p, I couldn't care less what the researcher ordinarily thinks. Obviously they're allowed to have opinions. We all seem to be dancing around that fact that part of what it means for research to be "conducted properly" is that the research accounted for the possibility of bias in the people collecting and analyzing the data, as well as the data collection method itself. And then, presumably, those corrective methods withstood the blind peer-review process. That's what it means for research to be "unbiased."

      Delete
    18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Between-group_genetics

      "6.3 percent [of genetic differences] were found to differentiate races"

      Original Source: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14

      So, we are at least 6% different.

      Delete
    19. I'm glad someone else called you out on the idiotic way you asked for "unbiased" research. I just assumed anything I linked, you would call it biased.

      Pretty sure someone would have to be racially biased to dedicate their lives to showing that races are different, lol

      Delete
    20. 3o. You are not concerned with whether a research itself is biased, you just want the research agree with you before research even get conducted.

      Delete
    21. TIL that in 3t's world, "unbiased" now LITERALLY means "biased." Wow.

      No 3t, I mean exactly what I've said - that the research methodology itself should account for the possibility of confirmation bias and human error (like ALL good research does), and survive the process of blind peer-review in order to be published in an academic journal. This also means the results of the study should be reproducible by other researchers at other institutions. That's... I mean, that's just how academia WORKS, I don't know how else to explain it.

      Would it have made more sense if I just said "don't give me a link to some quack's blog, but a link to a source you could actually put on a university paper without losing marks?" Because that is what I meant.

      Delete
  4. LOL like someone in Russia has any right to comment on black people. Russia = the poorest, most pathetic/embarrassment, pretending to be in Europe while the rest of Europe hates it. Not to mention the fact that Russian women are hideous, large hogs. I'm from England, literally everyone in England thinks Russia is an embarrassment.

    Poor, dirty white fucks eating the rest of Europe's scraps. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Responding to racism with more racism. Way to go, 4. You and 3de belong in the same camp.

      Delete
    2. England, you mean this place? http://www.truthandaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/muslims-islam-uk.jpg

      Have fun with your Shariah police, Nigel.

      I never said Russia was an economic powerhouse, did I?

      What about the Chinese? Japanese? Americans? The French aren't a big fan of 'em either... etc.

      Delete
    3. Am I missing something? Aren't English women famously unattractive while Slavic women are famously hot, at least when they're younger?

      Delete
    4. Yes 4c, they are some of the most beautiful women on the planet. Especially from certain regions because beautiful women used to be gifted to communities of warriors by Czars and other leaders.

      I didn't even bother writing a rebuttal to that in my post since its obvious.

      English women can be attractive but in a sort of "regal" way, not so much sexy. Most of them are ugly as hell though. Not to mention white people will be a minority in England in a few decades so the average British woman will be Arab.

      Delete
  5. I'm seriously starting to believe these are written by a shill trying to start something....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Comments like @3 or @12 in #23682 are clearly an attempt to paint the alt-right as racist/misogynistic. Nobody seriously debating this would use the n-word or say that "Hitler did nothing wrong". The bait is too big.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I said "Hitler wanted peace", not "Hitler did nothing wrong"

      Hitler extended several peace offers to the allies. They were all rejected, obviously.

      Delete
    2. You're leaving out some pretty significant context there. Like the fact that the allies had been accepting Hitler's offers of "peace" for years before he broke all his previous promises and stormed through Poland. Peace offers are meaningless when the person making them has consistently demonstrated their untrustworthiness.

      But go ahead and keep this Hitler apologism going, that sure is fun. *rolls eyes*

      Delete
    3. "stormed through Poland"

      Maybe the fuckers should have just let Hitler build that railroad then and it would have been over?

      He tried to negotiate with Poland: they were the ones being unreasonable, demanding payment for a railroad through their country that connected two parts of Germany.

      "keep this Hitler apologism going"

      I didn't say a thing about the holocaust schlomo.

      Delete
    4. It went through their country. That's their land, why shouldn't they get payment?
      Leaving that aside, the answer to "we won't let you build your railroad on our land for free" is pretty much never "armed invasion and occupation." Violating their state sovereignty was unacceptable, period. At that point, it became clear Hitler had no regard for diplomacy, could never be trusted, and had to be stopped.

      Delete
    5. By your logic we should be declaring war on US, Russia and Israel for invading various countries, then?

      Poland was stupid to say no to Hitler when he asked nicely. They could have just been allies and worked together nice and calmly, but there were other foreign interests involved, and the soviets on the other side causing problems too.

      I think keeping a country split in two pieces, meaning that the smaller/cut-off piece is suffering economically, wasn't a good move for Poland. Hitler did what he had to do to try to help those in East Prussia.

      If Canada told the US to fuck off and demanded payment for them to have access to Alaska, I don't think that would go over very well.

      Delete
  7. 6d, Soviets invaded Poland at the same time, people always forget that little historical fact. Actually, Stalin killed much more people than Hitler. Americans had concentration camps for Japaneses. After the war was over Allies killed millions of POWs to cripple the German army (a war crime by any standard). Why is Hitler the ultimate bad guy? Because history is written by the victors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, sure. War is awful, and both sides did terrible things. But it IS worth noting that one of those sides was led by a *literal* fascist with totalitarian aspirations who attempted to commit genocide. And that side wasn't the side of the winners.

      Delete
    2. 7a, it IS worth noting that Stalin was a totalitarian dictator who did commit genocide (starving to death Ukrainian peasants, killing millions of kulaks and political opponents, the Gulag, etc.).

      Delete
    3. Last I checked 7b, Stalin is pretty much as reviled as Hitler for his atrocities. You're allowed to despise both.

      Delete
    4. "War is awful, and both sides did terrible things."

      and yet all anyone ever does is talk about how horrible Hitler was. I remember highschool: we literally just learned about the Holocaust, that the US dropped nukes on Japan, and then we moved on.

      The Russians killed millions of German men in cold blood AFTER the war was over and they'd already surrendered. If you want to talk about genocide, you can't just talk about the Jews all day. They got their little safe haven for all their pains, what did Germany get? Russia? Nothing. They don't even talk about it.

      Germany is so afraid to talk about WW2 that the slightest mention of the word "Nazi" makes them recoil in fear. And look at them, they're pathetic right now. They are being invaded and can't even say anything about it.

      History is indeed written by the victors, and the victors in this case are quite the masters of propaganda. They managed to do the same during the war, on the Russian and Allied side with the media. Quite amazing, really.

      Delete
    5. 7d, then you had a pretty awful high school history class: we didn't just focus on Hitler. In fact we covered:

      -The aftermath of WWI, the failure of the League of Nations, and the problems with Woodrow Wilson and his policies;
      -The horrors of the October Revolution;
      -Stalinist Russia and the atrocities perpetrated there (spent a lot of time on that one);
      -The Cold War (we had a bit of time before the end of the semester).

      At the time, this stuff was all a standard part of the curriculum. If you didn't get it, perhaps your teacher had weird selective tastes?

      Delete
  8. Why do conservatives get triggered so easily? They're always so quick to yell "WE IZ VICTIMS N SHEEEIT" whenever anyone speaks out against the status quo. It's almost as if they're actively looking for ways to be offended or something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean the status quo of not killing all white people and police?

      I think having an organization tell you they'd like to murder you an your entire race, does indeed make you a victim with regards to that organizations ideas.

      Delete
  9. I find this so silly as well. I'm Asian and I know that there are movements (mainly online) from the Asian community claiming to be oppressed by white people, especially men. While I understand that there is tension between the two communities especially in regards to stereotyping, racism, and bias towards Caucasians in the workplace and in film, there is no need to proclaim the want to kill people based on their race. I once got into an argument with an Asian SJW because I stated I didn't believe that white men should be killed, and she just breezed over that and said that they oppress PoCs - ???

    IMO, yes, you can be bias and racist towards white people - which is unacceptable. And this coming from a not-so-privilged "female PoC".

    ReplyDelete