the thing is, the ingsoc spergs like Film Robert and all his senpais would frame those instances (Haiti, Zimbabwe, etc) as Mayonnaise EuroGhouls getting what they deserve for blaxploitation and oppression. But last I checked, even if members of a group did horrible things, killing ALL or even a large part of said group is never justified, which is why it is wrong to kill all "niggos" because/even if there are gang members shooting each other in downtown Big Blue Cities.
That's absolutely how they'd justify it, and unfortunately it's a much larger group than just fringe weirdos like Bob. The best quick response would be, "They killed children."
A slightly longer answer would be that in Haiti the purge happened
after the Haitian victory, wasn't a result of spontaneous action but the result of a pogram by Jean-Jacques Dessalines who traveled to each city in Haiti to make sure all the white French were exterminated (there were actually few killings before his arrival in each place), and that raping white women and forcing them to marry black men to be spared was commonplace. Mixed race men were also forced to participate in the killings by Dessalines to enforce their loyalty to the new regime.
In Zimbabwe the genocide of white farmers happened a full two decades after the Bush War and after the White Rhodesians had capitulated to all the revolutionaries' and international communities' demands. Blacks completely dominated the government, military, and police so "muh systemic racism" isn't an excuse. If anyone wants to argue that white domination of the farming industry justified what was done to them, we can have a little conversation about a group of people whose name rhymes with shoes in a place called Germany.
Regardless, these weren't things that were done in the chaos of war, the heat of the moment, or as acts of revolution or self defense. They were government planned ethnic cleansings of civilians.
Didn't Bob just post a picture of a teensy tiny gourmet steak he ate at a high end steakhouse that he spent about 50 bucks for (when you add in the cost of booze?) Is Bob admitting that his Mountain Dew chicken was better than that and that he was just wasting his money trying to show the proles what a gourmand he was?
Or is this just another case of Massive Thirst Man retweeting a girl with a cute avatar because of his massive thirst?
Robert has shit taste. In food, in entertainment, in clothing, you name it. Whenever he seems to be enjoying something "high end" he has to make a big show of it, like when he took a picture of that dinky little steak and his wine like he's some kind of foodie blogger. I don't doubt that he genuinely enjoys fried bologna sandwiches over fine dining, but just like how he's simultaneously a blue collar member of the working class just scraping by and is a massively successful big shot depending on what's most convenient for pwning the chuds, he has to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to refined vs lowbrow taste in movies and food.
