Controversial show about racism. Opinions wanted.

[someguy]

YouTube - True Colors - Watch the Blacks

So theres this new show made for Youtube by this really cool production company called Crackle. And I just came across this one show of theirs named True Colors. It's a hidden camera show where actors set up a person (aka subject) in a racist situation to see how they react, and however the subject reacts is supposedly revealing his/her "true colors".

Now the episode that I posted above is especially intriguing to me mainly because the subject ends up being called racist and is then accused of not voting for Obama. Thats the part that I'd like to get a response on.

Do you think that someone's a racist for not voting Obama? Or am I misinterpreting the situation?

And if you feel like watching more of these episodes, feel free! It would also be nice to hear what your general thoughts are on this type of show.

Thanks.

[Hotspring 44]

No doubt, it was a setup; it looked kind of phony from the beginning.
The “black” guy that was walking off with the glasses to show to his girlfriend was obviously an actor and stuck to a script.
The way he acted was kind of provocative in the first place. He was getting an attitude, (I'm sure it was according to script)… the funny thing is that he accused the “white” guy of not voting for Obama when it was obvious he didn't know whether or not that “white” guy voted at all; of course he had no way of knowing whom he voted for.

It was rather obvious to me this “subject” the “white” guy (by the way he acted and his actual body language) probably did vote for Obama.


I think “the subject” showed his “true colors” more in the very beginning when that other actor, the other white guy, who supposedly owned the merchandise in the first place, in the beginning of the setup was cracking those racist jokes. He (the “subject”) sort of laughed and snickered at them; whereas I would've probably cringed. I personally am likely to have said something to the effect that I'm not into jokes like that.


Then of course there is the peer pressure phenomenon that can't be ignored. It (tolerance of racism, prejudice, and discrimination in general) may be more to blame on peer pressure phenomenon then the “true color” of the actual “subject” other than the “true color” of peer pressure (I guess that's why there is a word called “subjective”);.
Peer pressure goes extremely deep into the human psyche.

A few years ago, I may have not said anything about not being into jokes like that; but because I'm older now, I don't really have much time left to put up with things that bother me as much as stuff like that does, yesterday, I would have said something as I would also say something today.
To me an elitist is an elitist; a supremacist is a supremacist, etc. etc.

That type of show is ancient old in the television sense; I think it's like a branch from the tree of the Candid Camera show. Remember: “smile, you're on candid camera!”? I guess some people may be too young to remember that TV show.

Hotspring 44.

YouTube - True Colors - Watch the Blacks

So theres this new show made for Youtube by this really cool production company called Crackle. And I just came across this one show of theirs named True Colors. It's a hidden camera show where actors set up a person (aka subject) in a racist situation to see how they react, and however the subject reacts is supposedly revealing his/her "true colors".

Now the episode that I posted above is especially intriguing to me mainly because the subject ends up being called racist and is then accused of not voting for Obama. Thats the part that I'd like to get a response on.

Do you think that someone's a racist for not voting Obama? Or am I misinterpreting the situation?

And if you feel like watching more of these episodes, feel free! It would also be nice to hear what your general thoughts are on this type of show.

Thanks.

[d-cat]

I believe there is a concerted effort via the media (and academia) to keep people divided by perpetuating racism in the guise of opposing it. They make it an issue. It's similar to how the Zionists use "anti-semitism" as a shield to defend themselves from criticism. Don't fall for it. Here are some examples:

YouTube

YouTube

By keeping us pre-occupied with fighting/hating each other (white/black, left/right, etc), the establishment reduces the chance of us uniting against them. Divide and Conquer is their motto. United We Stand, Divided We Fall is mine ;-)

Here is another example. Watch Janeane Garofalo get confronted about calling Tea Party protesters "racist". She's very nervous, and she's very wrong in what she says, as the 2nd video link of a 2007 (pre-Obama) Tea Party will prove (this was part of a nationwide demonstration by Ron Paul supporters, prior to the Tea Party being hijacked by Fox News and Glen Beck and being reported as right wing).

Garofalo

Tea Party 2007 Santa Monica
(during this time the press was telling you RP has no chance of winning and his support is made up of the "fringe". They even banned him from debates).

A recent Tea Party demonstration in Santa Rosa of some 500 people was roughly half dems and half non-dems (Repubs, indys, libertarians). Many there joked about being called "right-wing extremists" by the media.

In addition to keeping the public divided, it also vilifies any threat to the establishment. It is done by name calling, rather than engaging in a civil discourse on the subject (a tactic you will often see here on WaccoBB). Here is an example of CNN doing it:

CNN tactics

And finally, here is an interesting explanation of how the "two party" system works to manipulate you:

YouTube - How The Elite Control Politics

[someguy]

I believe there is a concerted effort via the media (and academia) to keep people divided by perpetuating racism in the guise of opposing it. They make it an issue. It's similar to how the Zionists use "anti-semitism" as a shield to defend themselves from criticism. Don't fall for it. Here are some examples:

YouTube

YouTube

By keeping us pre-occupied with fighting/hating each other (white/black, left/right, etc), the establishment reduces the chance of us uniting against them. Divide and Conquer is their motto. United We Stand, Divided We Fall is mine ;-)

Here is another example. Watch Janeane Garofalo get confronted about calling Tea Party protesters "racist". She's very nervous, and she's very wrong in what she says, as the 2nd video link of a 2007 (pre-Obama) Tea Party will prove (this was part of a nationwide demonstration by Ron Paul supporters, prior to the Tea Party being hijacked by Fox News and Glen Beck and being reported as right wing).

Garofalo

Tea Party 2007 Santa Monica
(during this time the press was telling you RP has no chance of winning and his support is made up of the "fringe". They even banned him from debates).

A recent Tea Party demonstration in Santa Rosa of some 500 people was roughly half dems and half non-dems (Repubs, indys, libertarians). Many there joked about being called "right-wing extremists" by the media.

In addition to keeping the public divided, it also vilifies any threat to the establishment. It is done by name calling, rather than engaging in a civil discourse on the subject (a tactic you will often see here on WaccoBB). Here is an example of CNN doing it:

CNN tactics

And finally, here is an interesting explanation of how the "two party" system works to manipulate you:

YouTube - How The Elite Control Politics

Any thoughts specifically about the show? Although you did write a nice post. Thanks for that. Although you lost me with that Alex Jones video.

[d-cat]

Any thoughts specifically about the show? Although you did write a nice post. Thanks for that.

I don't really have a comment on the show specifically except maybe that it's another example that the subject of racism is rampant. I've lived in different parts of the world so I'm used to being around different kinds of people, and don't look at people in terms of race very often. I'm glad that you brought up the issue though because they are using this tactic like there's no tomorrow and it's getting pretty ridiculous in my opinion. So thanks!

I personally agree with Ron Paul's philosophy on ending racism and that is to look at people as individuals and not part of a group. Everyone is (was) protected under the Constitution as an individual so there usually is no need for special group rights, as long as the Constitution is followed. In my opinion, much of the hoopla for special group rights is another way of keeping us divided and may have been initiated by the establishment for that very reason. It's often done through the Ford Foundation. They fund Mecha and La Raza and the Aztlan movement btw.

If you (or anyone else) should have interest in the subject of group rights and racism, there are some interesting segments in a documentary called Indoctrinate U. I had posted the link in an older thread here called "How To Brainwash a Nation" but it should come up in a search on YouTube if you're interested. Thanks again for this thread Someguy

[d-cat]

It's getting really crazy! People wanting their country back are racists now!

anonym.to - free dereferer service

People have been wanting their country back at least since Bush!

[someguy]

It's getting really crazy! People wanting their country back are racists now!

anonym.to - free dereferer service

People have been wanting their country back at least since Bush!

What does it mean to have your country back, and where did it go? I hear a lot of republicans (im not calling you a republican) saying that lately, but the country seems pretty much the same to me.

As far as that video... the white guy was sort of right at first when he was talking about white people viewing welfare as a racial thing. I know my parents do without even realizing it. Its really embarrassing when they talk about "those mexicans sucking the country dry", and" black people don't want to give up welfare, they love it!" You know, stupid Rush Limbaugh listeners..... There are a lot of them.

But just by saying that you want the country to be restored to the republic that it was originally created to be is not inherently racist. Although some people think it is... I don't know why...


Have you heard of this Pastor Manning character... He has an interesting perspective on race and this country.... Although I dont agree with him on a lot of things, I did get some good info from him. So, I would say he's worth checking out D-Cat. He's right up your alley....

[ChristineL]

In my humble opinion, of course it was inherently racist. Blacks, Native Americans and Women were not included in that whole "....all men are created equal....etc." thing. The Republic spread through the annihilation and confinement of the Native populations and much enconomic growth came through the labor of slaves. If there is any part of the population that would have a point in wanting their country back, it would be the Native Americans.

So, I can understand why some people would consider the originally republic to be inherently racist...it was founded by a group that included many slave owners....

What does it mean to have your country back, and where did it go? I hear a lot of republicans (im not calling you a republican) saying that lately, but the country seems pretty much the same to me.

As far as that video... the white guy was sort of right at first when he was talking about white people viewing welfare as a racial thing. I know my parents do without even realizing it. Its really embarrassing when they talk about "those mexicans sucking the country dry", and" black people don't want to give up welfare, they love it!" You know, stupid Rush Limbaugh listeners..... There are a lot of them.

But just by saying that you want the country to be restored to the republic that it was originally created to be is not inherently racist. Although some people think it is... I don't know why...


Have you heard of this Pastor Manning character... He has an interesting perspective on race and this country.... Although I dont agree with him on a lot of things, I did get some good info from him. So, I would say he's worth checking out D-Cat. He's right up your alley....

[someguy]

In my humble opinion, of course it was inherently racist. Blacks, Native Americans and Women were not included in that whole "....all men are created equal....etc." thing. The Republic spread through the annihilation and confinement of the Native populations and much enconomic growth came through the labor of slaves. If there is any part of the population that would have a point in wanting their country back, it would be the Native Americans.

So, I can understand why some people would consider the originally republic to be inherently racist...it was founded by a group that included many slave owners....

Do you think that when these people say this (that they want the country back!), that they are asking for slavery and oppression to be restored? Or rather that they just want to see our government follow the basics of the constitution?

[Hotspring 44]

That probably depends upon what is meant by "the basics of the constitution".
if you mean strict constructionist; It means one thing. if you mean "basics" literally, it means something else.
when judges rule using those kinds of terminologies it actually means something entirely different than the general public would assume.

Do you think that when these people say this (that they want the country back!), that they are asking for slavery and oppression to be restored? Or rather that they just want to see our government follow the basics of the constitution?

[someguy]

That probably depends upon what is meant by "the basics of the constitution".
if you mean strict constructionist; It means one thing. if you mean "basics" literally, it means something else.
when judges rule using those kinds of terminologies it actually means something entirely different than the general public would assume.

But do you think that when these people nowadays say that they want the country back, that they want slavery back as well?

Do you think that these people are inherently racist for saying that?