Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Black Washing History? Troy \u0026 BBC Cartoon Debunking" video.

  1. "Consider it a way to engage black audiences to a story that otherwise would feel alien to them" That's just dumb. Why wouldn't you be able to feel engaged by a story just because the story features characters of a different race from yours? Can't white people feel engaged by the story of Roots? Or Boyz n the Hood? Or Black Panther? Sure they can. So why would one go on assuming that black people have to consider the story "alien" because it is set in a timperiod and civilization where the historical characters would've been white? This reasoning is actually genuinely bigoted in the sense that it is the bigotry of low expectations.
    23
  2. Haven't you seen the Marvel movie Thor? Apparently, the god Heimdall "wuz a Wakandan". :P
    16
  3. Aaron Chin: That's not really revisionism though but propaganda. Historical revisionism doesn't have to be a bad thing. The strict definition of revisionism means revisiting evidence or theories using more exact methods of research in order to determine if the current consensus is accurate or if it may be shown as inaccurate as revealed by new evidence or more sophisticated methods of research. Respectable historical revisionism always looks for, and presents evidence to whichever case is being argued. But these blatant attempts at re-writing history by injecting ethnically incorrect people into historical events in fiction is not really revisionism, but pure, unadulterated propaganda.
    16
  4. Remove the Ottomans. Permanently!
    7
  5. scyx: No, racism has never been about power. The idea that racism = power + prejudice is a cultural marxist concept that has NOTHING to do with the original definition of the word "racism". The word racism doesn't give a shit if you are king or if you're a beggar on the street. If you believe that other races are inferior to yours, then you are a racist REGARDLESS of how much "power" you have. Stop spreading cultural marxist propaganda that has nothing to do with the truth.
    6
  6. One instance of slavery that is being hidden and belittled by SJW's: The barbary slave trade. Care to guess why?
    5
  7. You're giving SJW's way too much intellectual charity. Their agenda is to shoehorn black people into every dramatic representation everything because "diversity". The same people demanded that Kingdom Come: Deliverance "needed more black characters". Apparently a video game representation of medieval bohemia needed more "black knights". :S
    4
  8. GreaterThanGodLike: Yes, diversity does mean anti-white. Look at every single political group advocating for "diversity". Their diversity only concern moving non-white people to white countres but NEVER the other way around. In fact, the always without exception condemn white people who settle in non-white countries or even non-white neighbourhoods, calling it things like "imperialism", "colonialism" or "gentrification". If they were truly about "diversity", they would advocate for quotas of white people in places where non-white people are the majority. But they never do that. Their idea of "diversity" means that white majorities must be abolished and have more non-whites mixed in, but non-white majorities must remain non-white majorities. And before you try to claim i'm wrong, show us ANY instance where the diversity advocating SJW's propose giving white people more representation in sectors where they aren't represented for the sake of "diversity". Oh that's right! YOU CAN'T!
    4
  9. Imagine the social backlash if someone decided to make a film portraying Dr Martin Luther King, Malcolm X or Nelson Mandela using white actors. But for some reason, making a false representation of European history is perfectly alright. Isn't that strange?
    4
  10. Nailed it. Age of Empires might have Japanese Hoplites and Persian centurions. But at the very least there's not a bunch of black people posing as white characters from the Illiad in it. :P
    3
  11. Haha, romans didn't have prejudice against skin tone they say? : We're talking about the culture that made widespread usage of the term "barbarian". And the description of a barbarian wasn't even charitable enough to be based on skin tone. It actually refered to people who couldn't speak latin properly. That's right! Romans basically saw you as primitive, uncultured and inferior merely on the basis that you couldn't speak their LANGUAGE. But these SJW's mean to tell me that prejudice against skin tone didn't concern romans at all? Oh the hilarity. XD
    3
  12. Oh look! The whiny, entitled SJW came out to vent his opinion! :D Anyone surprised? Repeat after me: White people are not "priviliged". Black people are not "oppressed". I know you love the idea of having someone to blame for your own life choices, but it's just not objectively true.
    2
  13. Zasumbadji: Sorry, I've crushed your SJW lies and propaganda passed off as "facts" about a hundred times before. I don't really get any entertainment from doing so again. It doesn't matter what you think or say. YOU are responsible for your own life. You have no right blaming your lousy position on whitey. It's that simple and have always been that simple. Also I resent your misappropriation of the word "science". There is nothing "inconvenient" about the world. I just don't owe black people anything. You are not a "reasonable" person. You're just a moralfagging,virtue signalling hipster who jumped on the toxic leftwing bandwagon because you thought it was trendy.
    2
  14. Zasumbadji: Median household income doesn't mean anything. It doesn't take personal choices into account at all. It's about as retarded as the argument that feminists pose about the so called "wage gap" that falsely present a picture that women are discriminated and paid less money than men are for the same work. Despite the fact that all the evidence shows that men pursue higher paying jobs than women, work more hours than women, don't go on maternity leave like women do and so on, which all INVARIABLY will affect the average earnings of men in a positive way. The same reasoning applies to median income of black and white people. It doesn't mean or prove anything because it doesn't take the personal life choices, education and so on into account. And it damn sure does not qualify as proof of "oppression" or "privilge". The same goes for your retarded statement about prison sentences and penalties resulting for being a criminal. And the same also goes for "black sounding names". I don't care whether you like it or not, but names tend to be chosen by particular people, so if anyone is to blame it's stupid parents who wilfully choose to give their children negative connotations by naming them shit like Laqueesha" or "Tyrone". All this proves is that maybe black people in the U.S should stop smoking crack and holding up liquor stores as much as they do if the want better, more wellpaid lives. The black community in the U.S only has itself to blame for it's current state. Because they all have exactly the same rights and opportunities as everybody else, yet choose to squander it on rejecting mainstream society and living as criminal thugs idealizing "gangsta"-culture above education.
    2
  15. Zasumbadji: You have no proof that the black man in your example is being discriminated based on race. That's just an assumptionon your part, based on ideology and no facts. And regarding to crushing your statistical surveys, I just did. "Social science" has nothing to do with real science. "Social science" are fields invented by academic quacks who try to ride the coat tails lf the actual scientists in fields like physics, chemistry, medicine, engineering and biology. The actual sciences never makes assumptions based on statistical data alone, becaude actual scientists knows that to prove something, you need physicsl experimentation in controlled enviroments. But they, unlike the "social scientist" have real integrity. "social scientists" have no interest in finding out the truth of things. All of them are just political propagandists standing on soapboxes. I reject any and all conclusions of them as unscientific gibberish. And my reasons for doing so are outlined here and perfectly valid.
    2
  16. Zasumbadji: I don't care about what I "tell the world" because when it comes to being objectively right about something as I am, the issue is not a democracy. I don't need popular approval to be right, when the right answer can be reachef with logical deduction, so I have no reason to care what "the world" assumes about me. I make my ad hominem attacks because I see you for what you are. Like all vile, disgusting social justice warriors, you are intellectually dishonest. Your only mission in any debate is to poison the well in order to further your cultural marxist agenda (which is why you chose to attack Raf for not being "woke enough", even thoug everything he said in the video was completely true, you don't care about thw truth, you only care about the implications of the truth and how "people of colour" might be "affected" by the truth) You are the kind of vile, digusting piece of shit that argues that the world should just ignore that white people are being tortured, raped and murdered by the black majority in south africa, because "historically, black people are oppressed". And that's why I hate you and would never dream of being charitable in a debate with you. You represent a cancer that needs to be cut out and burned away from society. The cancer of "social justice" and cultural marxism.
    2
  17. Zasumbadji: I have crushed your little "library of academic texts" already. It's not about "black sounding names", it's about name connotations. For the exact same reason why "Laquesha" and "Tyrone" might be discriminated from a certain type of job, "Jim-Bob Sutton" and "Lisa-Marie Winfield" would also be discriminated from other kinds of jobs. Or do you seriously believe that a black owner of a hip, trendy new york, hip-hop nightclub would ever look twice at a job application from a dude named "Jim-Bob Sutton" straight out of Texas? I'm not saying that discrimination doesn't exist. I'm saying that discrimination based on names and identity is perfectly normal and DOES NOT affect black people in a specifically worse way than it affects everyone. You do know that black people also have names like "Martin Lawrence", "Samuel L Jackson" and "Will Smith" right? As to your implication that poverty creates crime, and that's why black people are overrepresented in crime statistics: https://cincinnatiisadump.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/crime-is-caused-by-poverty-enter-white-appalacha/
    2
  18. Zasumbadji: You're wilfully misrepresentng my statements. I never claimed that median houshold income doesn't affect your life. I said that a study of median household income does not constitute as evidence for the notion that black people are being "oppressed". What you need to get through your thick fucking skull is that statistical surveys only show how things are. Not WHY things are the way they are. Your idea that median household incomes among black people is lower as a result of "racism and oppression" against blacks is just a subjective interpretation of why the statistics look the way they do. The statistical results themselves do not in any way or form confirm your statements or opinions about racism or discrimnation. That's what you and all those quack "social sciences" teachers need to understand about statistics, because statistics on it's own is totally meaningless since they can be used to "prove" anything using your flawed reasoning. For instance, if I relied on statistics alone, I could "prove" that ice cream is an effectice vaccine against the common cold virus, because statistically speaking the sales and consumption of ice cream spikes during parts of the year where common cold infections are at their lowest. Hence ice cream must have a positive effect against the common cold because the statistics confirms it. This is the asinine level of argumentation that you and your social justice professors are on.
    2
  19. Zasumbadji: I haven't used logical fallacies at all. But I realize that logical deduction comes across as "fallacies" to dishonest debaters like you, more concerne about political outcomes and implications rather than the truth. Yes, median income doesn't mean anything in the context of this subject. I've clarified exactly what I meant, even though i'm absolutely sure that you didn't misinterpret me by mistake but because you are desperate to misrepresent my statements and opinions. Because you're more afraid that someone might read what I say and agree with me, as opposed to myself who doesn't give a shit about what anyone reading this might believe. You are a disgusting, filthy activist with a vile "the ends justify the means"-attiude. Your only purpose for coming to this comment section was to spread cultural marxist propaganda. You are not a scientist. You are not neutral to the consequences of findings as I am. No, the "famous" PhD's clearly do not understand the idea of spurrious correlartions because every single joke of a paper they publish contain droves of spurrious correlations and politically motivated interpretations of statstics. We're at a point where they don't even try to hide it anymore. Which incidentally is why you see actual college professors in the "social sciences" joining up with left-wing terrorists like antifa, showinh up to political rallies with the sole goal of beating people up because they might have conservative views, and smashing store windows. Look up names like Eric Clanton and Yvette Fellarca. Both "social sciences" professors and staff, and BOTH caught and convicted for assault of political opponents with video footage evidence spread all over the internet for the entire world to see. These are the types of people you use as a "source". Their "scientific" work never held up to begin with, and you may note that actual scientists in the natural sciences and engineering collectively laugh at the methods and "research" of "social scientists". If they tried their flawed, politically motivated methodology in physics class, they would be laughed out of the classroom.
    2
  20. When trying to understand political correctness, one has to consider that the people behind it don't necessarily have good intentions. Their goals are not about getting "minorities to feel more included" or any such nonsense, but usually a lot more sinister than they let on.
    2
  21. Romano Coombs: Get bent you stinking communist. Keep your pinko propagana out of serious discussions please.
    2
  22. Christopher Blaziek: What did Africans go through that was in any way worse than what Europeans went through during the Barbary slave trade?
    1
  23. Do you also accept the facts that prove that communism doesn't work? :)
    1
  24. Barry Irlandi: The imperialists did nothing wrong
    1
  25. The novel 1984 should make it more clear why someone would want to re-write history.
    1