No, slavery is definitely racist and any positive outcome to someone who is a slave can't justify that. My original point is that 21st century blacks have no connection or experience to slavery. And only those who lived before 1965 have any connection to Jim Crow.

If I recall, in the original thread someone was trying to connect 21st blacks in America to the horrors of slavery and segregation.

My comments were directed toward that alleged connection and that people should be compensated for the suffering of their ancestors. I then commented that every ethnic group in history had endured horrors and that the American slave was no worse than many of these groups. Yet no one is arguing Egypt should pay reparations  to Jews.

Nothing Shapiro said called him a racist!  Did you read your own article.  It talks about how Breitbart abhorred racism.  It also starts off with defending Michelle Fields.  You remember her right, the woman who tried to get access to Trump, was stopped and claimed she was thrown to the ground.  When the video evidence quickly dismissed this notion and it came out that the bruises weren't present until days later when she made her assault claim?  So excuse me if I don't feel sorry for someone who tried to get a quick buck and her 15 minutes of fame.  Look at the video.

Milo?  That's his argument.  He just says in point 5 that Bannon aligned Breitbart with the alt right. Then gave Milo as an example.  Admittedly, I don't follow Milo, but I've seen a lot of his highlights and I've yet to see anything racist.  I thought gay people were above rebuke in the left?  Anyway, if you have any racist tweets, articles or videos from Milo, I'll certainly give them a read.  But my understanding is that Milo rose to fame with his attacks on transgendered acceptance and mainstreaming by citing studies and articles that discredit the modern left's narrative on the subject.  So I'm confused how hosting Milo's content on this topic is racism.  But if you have something different, please let me know.

So I'll ask, what did I miss in the Shapiro post that demonstrated Bannon was racist?

You don't see a problem with the only claim that Bannon is a racist is that a reporter from Mother Jones (an outlet Bannon would be aware of, mind you) claims he told her he was affiliated with the Alt Right.  So I'm going to break it down for you (and by you I mean the reader, not MisterID).

1.) You and millions of others call Bannon a racist

I ask for evidence:

2.) An article from Mother Jones (an organization that is by no means considered objective and respected in the industry - it's on par with infowars or Breitbart) written by a reporter for Mother Jones claims that Bannon told her he helped make Breitbart part of the "alt right."

I ask for evidence to what "alt right" means and why they're racist

3.) A bunch of opinion pieces that is no objective way come across as racist.  CITING STATISTICS TO DISCREDIT THE FALSE CLAIMS OF BLACK LIVES MATTER DOES NOT EQUAL RACISM.  DISAGREEING WITH SOMEONE DOESN'T MAKE THEM A RACIST.

You get up in arms that someone from Breitbart (a media figure) is now on Trump's team.  (My assumption is you don't agree that someone from a heavily conservative news source should be on his team, if that's not correct, please correct me.  But if you're going to claim it's because he's a racist, please refer to #1 above)

4.) I reference how The New York Times (media) and the head of the DNC (CNN contributor -Media) secretly sent articles and other confidential information to HRC for approval, establishing a strong media bias and connection to Clinton. 

----

So here's what I'm saying.  You need to qualify your claims that Bannon is a racist.  if you want to make an intelligent and informed argument to support your claim, I just have you the guide.

You're attempting to do this by connecting him to the "alt right."

1.) What is the "alt right"?
2.) How do you define racism?
3.) Is the Alt right racist?
4.) Why is the alt racist?
5.) How is Bannon connected to the alt right?

Extra Credit:
6.) Were/are all the things you lamented about above present in current minority activist groups that you've ignored or hand waived?
7.) If it's okay to make a domestic terrorist an adviser, where is the cut off on what is appropriate?

I read your articles.  I agree that referring to BLM as being on a crack pipe was offensive and unnecessary.  But citing statistics to show that police shootings of unarmed blacks is only 4% of of annual police shootings or that it would take 40 years of police shootings of blacks to equal one year of black on black crime isn't racist.  It's showing that #BLM is full of shit and pushing a demonstrably false narrative. 

If Blacks cared about the value of black lives, they wouldn't be murdering each other in excess of 4k a year.  Shaun King, Clinton and the DNC never pay lip service to these facts.  When the DoJ was called in to verify if Mike Brown was illegally shot, they concluded he wasn't.  But rather than just state that, they had to pull the liberal trick of looking at random statistics to claim evidence of racism.  Nevermind that the facts and crime statistics demonstrably show that blacks commit more violent crime despite only being 12% of the population (really 6.6% since males are predominately more likely to commit violent crimes).  Never mind that the DoJ released a study a couple years ago saying that blacks commit a disproportionate amount  of traffic violations, accounting for their disproportionate amount of police interactions. 

We have facts and studies that show that the black community is incredibly more likely to commit violent crime and traffic crime - the two leading instances of police interaction.  But this is never part of the discussion.  It comes down to "Punk police spend too much time in our communities because they're racist" or "Racist police pulled me over because I'm black, not because I was driving erratically or driving on a suspended plate/license."

It's the same thing with guns.  Less than 1% of gun crimes involve an "assault rifle."  Yet if you watch the news, you get the impression people are getting shot up by M16s and AK-47s every other minute.  The overwhelming majority of homicides and suicides are committed with hand guns.  But when the pundits talk about gun control, they're worried about 30 round magazines and AR-15s.  It's about as logical as having a discussion about Spanish Colonialism and someone taking over the conversation to talk about how peasants were treated in Feudal Japan.

I'm going to read your articles and give them fair consideration.  Please don't assume I'm going to dismiss them unless you know the claim of racism is already weak since you've read them.  I would hope participating in discussions with me the past couple of months you'd realize I'm not a partisan shrill.