Sorry, pal. I generally agree with the sentiment of your original post but using the 1960's as a baseline for lynchings is propagating a false narrative. According to Wikipedia, there were 5 lynchings in the 60's. 3 of them were black, and 2 of them were white. I bet those whiteys were at least a little Irish. You don't think it's hyperbolic to make it seem like lynchings were common in the 60's or they were exclusive to blacks?  There were more lynchings in the 80's than the 60's, lol. The 70's were even WORSE! 100 percent of the lynchings in the 70's were Jews. I mean, there was only one, but I think we can definitively state now that the Jews had it harder than the blacks way back then. C'mon, dude. It's hyperbolic. 

As to your next point, I didn't say you espoused it. I pointed out two lies: One bought into by the right, and one bought into by the left. It was my addition to your commentary.

As to your last point, who compared the modern "plight" of middle-class whites to other historical discrimination? I am simply pointing out that the tactics used by the elites are the same. Nothing we experience currently is as bad as it was in the past. Hell, I'd take being a black dude in the 70's before I'd take the average white guy in the early 1900's.

You should look up "hyperbolic" 
It doesn't mean what you think it means.
I didn't try to establish a baseline.
I asked if Irish folk were still being lynched in the 60's. 
You've created some weird false-narrative around my post that was never my intent. Go back and read it with fresh eyes tomorrow, maybe you'll see it. 

Or just stay stuck on the number of lynchings by decade. Has zero to do with the post, but whatever. 

To the bolded:
Umm, the OP. He did. I'm merely addressing the thread topic with that.

I know what hyperbolic means, broseph. Lynchings weren't common in the 60's for anybody. There wasn't a huge disparity between blacks and whites of the lynchings that did occur. Every statement has implications, so you can't just throw out a line like, "Were Irish Americans being strung up in trees for being Irish in the mid-sixties," then pivot to make it seem like you're just asking an honest question about the Irish. You weren't. You were making an implication about black struggles in the 60's, and, more importantly, casually throwing out an idea that they were being hung from trees. Which they weren't.

I guess would be a good time to point out that 3 of them were shot, one was severely burned and died after identifying the people who set fire to his shop, and the other one was actually lynched in the 30's and survived... he died naturally in his 60's after becoming a successful artist. So, the scores' 2-2 in favor of racial harmony. Turns out, people are just haters. If you can't see how it's hyperbolic to suggest that blacks were being strung up from trees in the 60's, then that's on you, man.

It seems odd we're even having this conversation since I mostly agreed with you. All you had to do is admit to yourself you were probably being hyperbolic and just ignore my comment.

As to the OP talking about it, sure. Guess you could have been talking to him. Seemed like you were talking to me. I have adjusted my previous statement magically to make sense within this newfound context. *poof*

---

I grew up being taught that hating people because of skin color was wrong. I was taught too be color blind. 

Not sure what went wrong throughout the years, but at least we know it wasn't your parents fault.

---

I grew up being taught that hating people because of skin color was wrong. I was taught too be color blind. It started with my Republican parents who instilled these values into me. So any biases I may hold were all learned through life experiences. These experiences are teaching me to be angry and even hate… 

How did it come to this? And what’s the end game? Subjecting whites to the same things blacks have experienced. I wonder how that will play out? Eventually it will just come full circle and after creating new victim class , society will then have to deal with the same thing over and over again. 

There is so much to say on this subject, so I think it’s good we start the discussion and see what we come up with…

Your chart is very funny, and has a lot of truth in it.  But I would point out, "racism" and "discrimination" are two different things.  And your chart doesn't have anything to do with discrimination against white people.  

So, nice try, and a worthy one.  But it's a swing and a miss.  

How about this for a topic?  Which group is currently subject to greater discrimination: white Americans, or Asian-Americans?

That's a good question.
The amount of garbage that Asian Americans have had to internalize over the decades, that they're all supposed to be super smart, docile, introverted, not good leaders, etc., and whatever else, should boggle the mind.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You should look up "hyperbolic" 
It doesn't mean what you think it means.
I didn't try to establish a baseline.
I asked if Irish folk were still being lynched in the 60's. 
You've created some weird false-narrative around my post that was never my intent. Go back and read it with fresh eyes tomorrow, maybe you'll see it. 

Or just stay stuck on the number of lynchings by decade. Has zero to do with the post, but whatever. 

To the bolded:
Umm, the OP. He did. I'm merely addressing the thread topic with that.

I know what hyperbolic means, broseph. Lynchings weren't common in the 60's for anybody. There wasn't a huge disparity between blacks and whites of the lynchings that did occur. Every statement has implications, so you can't just throw out a line like, "Were Irish Americans being strung up in trees for being Irish in the mid-sixties," then pivot to make it seem like you're just asking an honest question about the Irish. You weren't. You were making an implication about black struggles in the 60's, and, more importantly, casually throwing out an idea that they were being hung from trees. Which they weren't.

I guess would be a good time to point out that 3 of them were shot, one was severely burned and died after identifying the people who set fire to his shop, and the other one was actually lynched in the 30's and survived... he died naturally in his 60's after becoming a successful artist. So, the scores' 2-2 in favor of racial harmony. Turns out, people are just haters. If you can't see how it's hyperbolic to suggest that blacks were being strung up from trees in the 60's, then that's on you, man.

It seems odd we're even having this conversation since I mostly agreed with you. All you had to do is admit to yourself you were probably being hyperbolic and just ignore my comment.

As to the OP talking about it, sure. Guess you could have been talking to him. Seemed like you were talking to me. I have adjusted my previous statement magically to make sense within this newfound context. *poof*

The comment was pointing out a disparity between asking for Irish reparations vs African American reparations.

Sorry you're "hung-up" on which decade the lynchings were most frequent. 
*rimshot* I'll be here all week - Cue the accusations of racism and tastelessness 

If I'd said "in the past century" instead of "the 60's" it would have made the point more accurately, but since Black people were still being killed for being Black in the 1960's and Irish Americans were not being killed for being Irish in 1960's America - my point was and is perfectly valid and completely void of hyperbole.

---

I know what hyperbolic means, broseph. Lynchings weren't common in the 60's for anybody. There wasn't a huge disparity between blacks and whites of the lynchings that did occur. Every statement has implications, so you can't just throw out a line like, "Were Irish Americans being strung up in trees for being Irish in the mid-sixties," then pivot to make it seem like you're just asking an honest question about the Irish. You weren't. You were making an implication about black struggles in the 60's, and, more importantly, casually throwing out an idea that they were being hung from trees. Which they weren't.

I guess would be a good time to point out that 3 of them were shot, one was severely burned and died after identifying the people who set fire to his shop, and the other one was actually lynched in the 30's and survived... he died naturally in his 60's after becoming a successful artist. So, the scores' 2-2 in favor of racial harmony. Turns out, people are just haters. If you can't see how it's hyperbolic to suggest that blacks were being strung up from trees in the 60's, then that's on you, man.

It seems odd we're even having this conversation since I mostly agreed with you. All you had to do is admit to yourself you were probably being hyperbolic and just ignore my comment.

As to the OP talking about it, sure. Guess you could have been talking to him. Seemed like you were talking to me. I have adjusted my previous statement magically to make sense within this newfound context. *poof*

The comment was pointing out a disparity between asking for Irish reparations vs African American reparations.

Sorry you're "hung-up" on which decade the lynchings were most frequent. 
*rimshot* I'll be here all week - Cue the accusations of racism and tastelessness 

If I'd said "in the past century" instead of "the 60's" it would have made the point more accurately, but since Black people were still being killed for being Black in the 1960's and Irish Americans were not being killed for being Irish in 1960's America - my point was and is perfectly valid and completely void of hyperbole.

By his own admission L2L is nitpicking you.  While he ignores other points from other posters that he presumably agrees with more than yours.

We all need to do a better job of speaking up more about what we agree with, rather than focusing on the points of disagreement.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I know what hyperbolic means, broseph. Lynchings weren't common in the 60's for anybody. There wasn't a huge disparity between blacks and whites of the lynchings that did occur. Every statement has implications, so you can't just throw out a line like, "Were Irish Americans being strung up in trees for being Irish in the mid-sixties," then pivot to make it seem like you're just asking an honest question about the Irish. You weren't. You were making an implication about black struggles in the 60's, and, more importantly, casually throwing out an idea that they were being hung from trees. Which they weren't.

I guess would be a good time to point out that 3 of them were shot, one was severely burned and died after identifying the people who set fire to his shop, and the other one was actually lynched in the 30's and survived... he died naturally in his 60's after becoming a successful artist. So, the scores' 2-2 in favor of racial harmony. Turns out, people are just haters. If you can't see how it's hyperbolic to suggest that blacks were being strung up from trees in the 60's, then that's on you, man.

It seems odd we're even having this conversation since I mostly agreed with you. All you had to do is admit to yourself you were probably being hyperbolic and just ignore my comment.

As to the OP talking about it, sure. Guess you could have been talking to him. Seemed like you were talking to me. I have adjusted my previous statement magically to make sense within this newfound context. *poof*

The comment was pointing out a disparity between asking for Irish reparations vs African American reparations.

Sorry you're "hung-up" on which decade the lynchings were most frequent. 
*rimshot* I'll be here all week - Cue the accusations of racism and tastelessness 

If I'd said "in the past century" instead of "the 60's" it would have made the point more accurately, but since Black people were still being killed for being Black in the 1960's and Irish Americans were not being killed for being Irish in 1960's America - my point was and is perfectly valid and completely void of hyperbole.

Sorry you're hung up on "when" these things happened. Since we're past the statute of limitations then I guess we don't have to worry about almost all the wrongs done to Native American Indigenous Persons since they happened before the Irish immigration. BTW, 3,446 blacks were "killed for being black" between 1882 and 1968 while over 30,000 Irish conscripts (you know, forced soldiers, almost like...slaves) were killed fighting for the Union. Not to mention the 1,297 whites lynched in that same period; among them clergy, politicians, and civil rights workers amenable to the cause. But that was over a hundred years ago, so it just doesn't matter. For the record, I'm angry about this stuff too. I want our minority populations to be equal, productive, and successful in our Country. But when people brush all whites as "privileged" or "oppressors" I'm going to push back, because the view of so-called privilege is far too broad and the history of racial strife apparently limited only to blacks in the United States.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The comment was pointing out a disparity between asking for Irish reparations vs African American reparations.

Sorry you're "hung-up" on which decade the lynchings were most frequent. 
*rimshot* I'll be here all week - Cue the accusations of racism and tastelessness 

If I'd said "in the past century" instead of "the 60's" it would have made the point more accurately, but since Black people were still being killed for being Black in the 1960's and Irish Americans were not being killed for being Irish in 1960's America - my point was and is perfectly valid and completely void of hyperbole.

Sorry you're hung up on "when" these things happened. Since we're past the statute of limitations then I guess we don't have to worry about almost all the wrongs done to Native American Indigenous Persons since they happened before the Irish immigration. BTW, 3,446 blacks were "killed for being black" between 1882 and 1968 while over 30,000 Irish conscripts (you know, forced soldiers, almost like...slaves) were killed fighting for the Union. Not to mention the 1,297 whites lynched in that same period; among them clergy, politicians, and civil rights workers amenable to the cause. But that was over a hundred years ago, so it just doesn't matter. For the record, I'm angry about this stuff too. I want our minority populations to be equal, productive, and successful in our Country. But when people brush all whites as "privileged" or "oppressors" I'm going to push back, because the view of so-called privilege is far too broad and the history of racial strife apparently limited only to blacks in the United States.

You can try to paint a picture wherein "white people had it bad too" if you'd like. That's fine. 

I know the disparity between the two is real and significant. 
I know which groups have had a tougher go of it in modern America. 
And when someone posts a not so clever meme about middle class whites being treated unfairly, I'm certain we don't need to body count war casualties and imperialist conquest to debunk or support it.

I wasn't hung up on the when actually. That was someone else. Catch up.

---

Sorry you're hung up on "when" these things happened. Since we're past the statute of limitations then I guess we don't have to worry about almost all the wrongs done to Native American Indigenous Persons since they happened before the Irish immigration. BTW, 3,446 blacks were "killed for being black" between 1882 and 1968 while over 30,000 Irish conscripts (you know, forced soldiers, almost like...slaves) were killed fighting for the Union. Not to mention the 1,297 whites lynched in that same period; among them clergy, politicians, and civil rights workers amenable to the cause. But that was over a hundred years ago, so it just doesn't matter. For the record, I'm angry about this stuff too. I want our minority populations to be equal, productive, and successful in our Country. But when people brush all whites as "privileged" or "oppressors" I'm going to push back, because the view of so-called privilege is far too broad and the history of racial strife apparently limited only to blacks in the United States.

You can try to paint a picture wherein "white people had it bad too" if you'd like. That's fine. 

I know the disparity between the two is real and significant. 
I know which groups have had a tougher go of it in modern America. 
And when someone posts a not so clever meme about middle class whites being treated unfairly, I'm certain we don't need to body count war casualties and imperialist conquest to debunk or support it.

I wasn't hung up on the when actually. That was someone else. Catch up.

And knowing all this your take is that a little discrimination because of the collective guilt of white people today is juuuust fine.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The comment was pointing out a disparity between asking for Irish reparations vs African American reparations.

Sorry you're "hung-up" on which decade the lynchings were most frequent. 
*rimshot* I'll be here all week - Cue the accusations of racism and tastelessness 

If I'd said "in the past century" instead of "the 60's" it would have made the point more accurately, but since Black people were still being killed for being Black in the 1960's and Irish Americans were not being killed for being Irish in 1960's America - my point was and is perfectly valid and completely void of hyperbole.

Sorry you're hung up on "when" these things happened. Since we're past the statute of limitations then I guess we don't have to worry about almost all the wrongs done to Native American Indigenous Persons since they happened before the Irish immigration. BTW, 3,446 blacks were "killed for being black" between 1882 and 1968 while over 30,000 Irish conscripts (you know, forced soldiers, almost like...slaves) were killed fighting for the Union. Not to mention the 1,297 whites lynched in that same period; among them clergy, politicians, and civil rights workers amenable to the cause. But that was over a hundred years ago, so it just doesn't matter. For the record, I'm angry about this stuff too. I want our minority populations to be equal, productive, and successful in our Country. But when people brush all whites as "privileged" or "oppressors" I'm going to push back, because the view of so-called privilege is far too broad and the history of racial strife apparently limited only to blacks in the United States.

 In the sense that a spork is almost like a Bowie knife, sure.
Friendly reminder that blacks were also conscripted, both blacks and Irish served in the Union army, both were paid, but the blacks were paid less.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You can try to paint a picture wherein "white people had it bad too" if you'd like. That's fine. 

I know the disparity between the two is real and significant. 
I know which groups have had a tougher go of it in modern America. 
And when someone posts a not so clever meme about middle class whites being treated unfairly, I'm certain we don't need to body count war casualties and imperialist conquest to debunk or support it.

I wasn't hung up on the when actually. That was someone else. Catch up.

And knowing all this your take is that a little discrimination because of the collective guilt of white people today is juuuust fine.

He didn't say discrimination is fine.
He said that the magnitude of discrimination that whites face is substantially less severe than what Black people face, whether you're comparing them today or 100 years ago.
And he's right.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Your chart is very funny, and has a lot of truth in it.  But I would point out, "racism" and "discrimination" are two different things.  And your chart doesn't have anything to do with discrimination against white people.  

So, nice try, and a worthy one.  But it's a swing and a miss.  

How about this for a topic?  Which group is currently subject to greater discrimination: white Americans, or Asian-Americans?

That's a good question.
The amount of garbage that Asian Americans have had to internalize over the decades, that they're all supposed to be super smart, docile, introverted, not good leaders, etc., and whatever else, should boggle the mind.

They are stereotyped just like everyone else, which is racist, but I'm talking about discrimination.  There is a long history of discrimination against Asian Americans in this country, including but not limited to, right in the present day, quotas in admissions to major universities.  Asian Americans are by far the biggest victims of affirmative-action-based discrimination in university admissions.  Name another group that has been subjected to such discrimination in the 21st century.  This was legalized, government-supported discrimination.  At least, it was until last week.  And the perpetrators will try to get around that ruling.  Just watch.

---

You can try to paint a picture wherein "white people had it bad too" if you'd like. That's fine. 

I know the disparity between the two is real and significant. 
I know which groups have had a tougher go of it in modern America. 
And when someone posts a not so clever meme about middle class whites being treated unfairly, I'm certain we don't need to body count war casualties and imperialist conquest to debunk or support it.

I wasn't hung up on the when actually. That was someone else. Catch up.

And knowing all this your take is that a little discrimination because of the collective guilt of white people today is juuuust fine.

Discrimination isn't "just fine" but it is the way of the world and it isn't going away. It ebbs and flows and sees mitigation and proliferation, but it a'int gonna disappear. 

And to reiterate my original point for the third time - I find middle class whites complaints about what little discrimination they face to be "laughable."  It is literally comical to me. 
I am laughing at the ridiculousness of this thread's original intent. 

Hope that isn't putting too fine a point on it.

(I said zero about collective guilt. That's your personal introduction of psycho babble)

---

That's a good question.
The amount of garbage that Asian Americans have had to internalize over the decades, that they're all supposed to be super smart, docile, introverted, not good leaders, etc., and whatever else, should boggle the mind.

They are stereotyped just like everyone else, which is racist, but I'm talking about discrimination.  There is a long history of discrimination against Asian Americans in this country, including but not limited to, right in the present day, quotas in admissions to major universities.  Asian Americans are by far the biggest victims of affirmative-action-based discrimination in university admissions.  Name another group that has been subjected to such discrimination in the 21st century.  This was legalized, government-supported discrimination.  At least, it was until last week.  And the perpetrators will try to get around that ruling.  Just watch.

All too true, and sad.
I think the importance of university admissions is exagerrated.  These victims still got to go to a university, just not their first choice university.  And Asians were still admitted to each university, just not as many.  
I'm not saying that makes it right, it was very wrong. 
I'm just saying it fits into the overall narrative that the harms of the racism that remains in the US are getting smaller over time.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I know what hyperbolic means, broseph. Lynchings weren't common in the 60's for anybody. There wasn't a huge disparity between blacks and whites of the lynchings that did occur. Every statement has implications, so you can't just throw out a line like, "Were Irish Americans being strung up in trees for being Irish in the mid-sixties," then pivot to make it seem like you're just asking an honest question about the Irish. You weren't. You were making an implication about black struggles in the 60's, and, more importantly, casually throwing out an idea that they were being hung from trees. Which they weren't.

I guess would be a good time to point out that 3 of them were shot, one was severely burned and died after identifying the people who set fire to his shop, and the other one was actually lynched in the 30's and survived... he died naturally in his 60's after becoming a successful artist. So, the scores' 2-2 in favor of racial harmony. Turns out, people are just haters. If you can't see how it's hyperbolic to suggest that blacks were being strung up from trees in the 60's, then that's on you, man.

It seems odd we're even having this conversation since I mostly agreed with you. All you had to do is admit to yourself you were probably being hyperbolic and just ignore my comment.

As to the OP talking about it, sure. Guess you could have been talking to him. Seemed like you were talking to me. I have adjusted my previous statement magically to make sense within this newfound context. *poof*

The comment was pointing out a disparity between asking for Irish reparations vs African American reparations.

Sorry you're "hung-up" on which decade the lynchings were most frequent. 
*rimshot* I'll be here all week - Cue the accusations of racism and tastelessness 

If I'd said "in the past century" instead of "the 60's" it would have made the point more accurately, but since Black people were still being killed for being Black in the 1960's and Irish Americans were not being killed for being Irish in 1960's America - my point was and is perfectly valid and completely void of hyperbole.

Well, sure. I guess if you changed your statement to be more factual, it would be less hyperbolic. I guess I never thought of it like that. All future hyperbolic statements have now been rendered moot, thanks to sound logic.  

Seriously, though, I understood what point you were trying to make and threw out a comment about not needing hyperbole because the facts are sufficient. I don't like this particular type of hyperbole because, while you are certainly smart enough to know what you said isn't factual, there are a lot of people who say that very same thing who genuinely believe that people were being strung up in the 60's. Factual history and context are not often present in modern day discourse, mostly because we have an ignorant society. Additionally, you, being a very smart guy, shouldn't assume that the stupid among us won't repeat your hyperbole as fact, without the background or capability of verifying or challenging that information. That's why I called it out. 

Again, I get your point. I didn't disagree with it. I just said we shouldn't resort to hyperbole, which is a fair critique of your statement. It's not needed, and there is a narrative associated with race that runs rampant in this country by people who, intentionally or unintentionally, exaggerate the truth. The truth is sufficient, which is the whole of my point.

---

The comment was pointing out a disparity between asking for Irish reparations vs African American reparations.

Sorry you're "hung-up" on which decade the lynchings were most frequent. 
*rimshot* I'll be here all week - Cue the accusations of racism and tastelessness 

If I'd said "in the past century" instead of "the 60's" it would have made the point more accurately, but since Black people were still being killed for being Black in the 1960's and Irish Americans were not being killed for being Irish in 1960's America - my point was and is perfectly valid and completely void of hyperbole.

Well, sure. I guess if you changed your statement to be more factual, it would be less hyperbolic. I guess I never thought of it like that. All future hyperbolic statements have now been rendered moot, thanks to sound logic.  

Seriously, though, I understood what point you were trying to make and threw out a comment about not needing hyperbole because the facts are sufficient. I don't like this particular type of hyperbole because, while you are certainly smart enough to know what you said isn't factual, there are a lot of people who say that very same thing who genuinely believe that people were being strung up in the 60's. Factual history and context are not often present in modern day discourse, mostly because we have an ignorant society. Additionally, you, being a very smart guy, shouldn't assume that the stupid among us won't repeat your hyperbole as fact, without the background or capability of verifying or challenging that information. That's why I called it out. 

Again, I get your point. I didn't disagree with it. I just said we shouldn't resort to hyperbole, which is a fair critique of your statement. It's not needed, and there is a narrative associated with race that runs rampant in this country by people who, intentionally or unintentionally, exaggerate the truth. The truth is sufficient, which is the whole of my point.

yeah - you still don't understand the definition of hyperbole but keep reaching for the stars

---

Sorry you're hung up on "when" these things happened. Since we're past the statute of limitations then I guess we don't have to worry about almost all the wrongs done to Native American Indigenous Persons since they happened before the Irish immigration. BTW, 3,446 blacks were "killed for being black" between 1882 and 1968 while over 30,000 Irish conscripts (you know, forced soldiers, almost like...slaves) were killed fighting for the Union. Not to mention the 1,297 whites lynched in that same period; among them clergy, politicians, and civil rights workers amenable to the cause. But that was over a hundred years ago, so it just doesn't matter. For the record, I'm angry about this stuff too. I want our minority populations to be equal, productive, and successful in our Country. But when people brush all whites as "privileged" or "oppressors" I'm going to push back, because the view of so-called privilege is far too broad and the history of racial strife apparently limited only to blacks in the United States.

 In the sense that a spork is almost like a Bowie knife, sure.
Friendly reminder that blacks were also conscripted, both blacks and Irish served in the Union army, both were paid, but the blacks were paid less.

Blacks were never drafted in any of the 4 call ups of the Union Army during the War Between the States. They were permitted to enlist to mostly work support roles (very few saw combat) and yes, paid less as you said. But those who were forced to fight were kidnapped more than drafted and that happened in the South and in the Territories. The Irish were taken off the docks,registered, and put in uniform.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Back to my other point, there is a problem with whites feeling marginalized. It's like there's a zero-sum game attached to this argument on the left. "Someone needs to feel marginalized... it's time you guys paid your dues." That's [BLEEP] logic. Again, that's not referencing any particular poster here, but rather a certain mindset that is present among some on the left. I am all about closing the gap and generating opportunity. That representation will not be equal across the board. There's no reason it can't be that way, but you don't need to take from one to give to the other. The one exception I make is for the elites. Start capping their wealth and you will see more opportunities arise for everyone else.

---

And knowing all this your take is that a little discrimination because of the collective guilt of white people today is juuuust fine.

He didn't say discrimination is fine.
He said that the magnitude of discrimination that whites face is substantially less severe than what Black people face, whether you're comparing them today or 100 years ago.
And he's right.

I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying we're gearing up to have it go the other way in the next hundred years. And that's because folks like him are saying that complaints about encroaching discrimination are "laughable." Because those white people deserve it for all they've done for the last 400 years. Except that it wasn't those white people. And they didn't do it. But collectively their whiteness makes them guilty and deserving of it.  But that's just babble to some folks.

---

Back to my other point, there is a problem with whites feeling marginalized. It's like there's a zero-sum game attached to this argument on the left. "Someone needs to feel marginalized... it's time you guys paid your dues." That's [BLEEP] logic. Again, that's not referencing any particular poster here, but rather a certain mindset that is present among some on the left. I am all about closing the gap and generating opportunity. That representation will not be equal across the board. There's no reason it can't be that way, but you don't need to take from one to give to the other. The one exception I make is for the elites. Start capping their wealth and you will see more opportunities arise for everyone else.

More like "White people in your great grandparents' time were bad so you have to pay for it."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Well, sure. I guess if you changed your statement to be more factual, it would be less hyperbolic. I guess I never thought of it like that. All future hyperbolic statements have now been rendered moot, thanks to sound logic.  

Seriously, though, I understood what point you were trying to make and threw out a comment about not needing hyperbole because the facts are sufficient. I don't like this particular type of hyperbole because, while you are certainly smart enough to know what you said isn't factual, there are a lot of people who say that very same thing who genuinely believe that people were being strung up in the 60's. Factual history and context are not often present in modern day discourse, mostly because we have an ignorant society. Additionally, you, being a very smart guy, shouldn't assume that the stupid among us won't repeat your hyperbole as fact, without the background or capability of verifying or challenging that information. That's why I called it out. 

Again, I get your point. I didn't disagree with it. I just said we shouldn't resort to hyperbole, which is a fair critique of your statement. It's not needed, and there is a narrative associated with race that runs rampant in this country by people who, intentionally or unintentionally, exaggerate the truth. The truth is sufficient, which is the whole of my point.

yeah - you still don't understand the definition of hyperbole but keep reaching for the stars

Well, enlighten me, dog. I'm assuming you're not a liar, which is why I called it hyperbolic. Suggesting blacks were being hung up in the streets in the 60's, is either a lie or it's hyperbole for effect. You've all but admitted you weren't being literal. So enlighten me. Maybe I'm just a literary dummy and there's some specific term that better explains a gross exaggeration. 

• I have a million things to do today. Hyperbole. I have 12 tasks to do before I can go home. Fact.
  
• This game is taking forever. Hyperbole. This game is the longest ever recorded. Fact.
  
• This jock strap is killing me. Hyperbole. My nuts are too big for this jock strap. Fact.
  
• Your brain is the size of a pea. Hyperbole. You are not admitting your statement was hyperbolic. Fact.
  
• Black folks were being strung up in the 60's. Hyperbole. Blacks were still being discriminated in the 60's in a way the Irish weren't. Fact.
  

---

yeah - you still don't understand the definition of hyperbole but keep reaching for the stars

Well, enlighten me, dog. I'm assuming you're not a liar, which is why I called it hyperbolic. Suggesting blacks were being hung up in the streets in the 60's, is either a lie or it's hyperbole for effect. You've all but admitted you weren't being literal. So enlighten me. Maybe I'm just a literary dummy and there's some specific term that better explains a gross exaggeration. 

I have a million things to do today. Hyperbole. I have 12 tasks to do before I can go home. Fact.
This game is taking forever. Hyperbole. This game is the longest ever recorded. Fact.
This jock strap is killing me. Hyperbole My nuts are too big for this jock strap. Fact.
Your brain is the size of a pea. Hyperbole. You are not admitting your statement was hyperbolic. Fact.
Black folks were being strung up in the 60's. Hyperbole. Blacks were still being discriminated in the 60's in a way the Irish weren't. Fact.

We've been through this. 
I laid it all out. 
I'll do it again.

Saying that there were blacks being lynched in America in the 60s for being black is an accurate statement.
There were simply more of them being murdered this way in the decades prior. As you've pointed out. Thanks, I guess. 

You are pointing out that I chose a particular decade to cite  - and it's not the best example of the relevant point.
 Cool. Doesn't make it hyperbole.
I didn't exaggerate anything. I just didn't use the best example in terms of timeline.  There was no intent to inflate, exaggerate or mislead. Sheesh - I expect most here to have a modicum of understanding about the history of this stuff or I wouldn't have referenced it. 

My statement could have read "in the twentieth century" instead of "the sixties" and been more accurate. 
 But that doesn't make the less accurate (but still true) original statement hyperbole.
 It was simply hastily worded because I didn't think it would ensue three pages of semantics that are completely irrelevant to the point.

---