IG_urban wrote:
I never said racism only exists because of stupid black people. The organization that claims to represent the population of America that is black is the issue. I classify the NAACP in the same boat as PETA, they would rather have black people not exist as to not offend any of them. If you scour and transcribe and misinterpret EVERYTHING to justify your cause (as many people of many religions do with the bible, Quoran, Tora, etc) then all you are doing is causing a problem. We are already a hyper politically correct society, we don't need organizations like the NAACP going around trying to start problems. The fact is, in a lot of cases, it's reverse racism. Picking apart anything the "establishment" does and twisting it around to sound racist? jesus....

You're still trying to make the claim that "Al Sharpton, the NAACP, etc are some of the main driving reasons why racism still exists.... ", which requires you to somehow link the racism seen with these actions.

I'm not sure how this could be reverse racism, although I suppose Hallmark is as much a part of the "establishment" as any other mid level national corporation.

Banning a greeting card about galaxies and graduates because one of the words KIND of sounded like whores is NOT an inequality in our society. The fact is, the majority of the claims from the NAACP are as frivolous and petty as this. Al Sharpton and the NAACP are the exact OPPOSITE of what MLK and MLK Jr wanted.

Ok, from the top:
The treatment of black women as sex objects, (by both whites and blacks), is an inequality when compared with white women.
The card wasn't banned, it was removed voluntarily by the company.
I'm going to make a stab here, and guess that you probably don't know exactly what MLK wanted, because if you did, you'd realize that in many ways, this is what he wanted. A group to be able to make demands, and be heard.

What he didn't want was for a group like the NAACP's actions to be used as ammunition against all black people. When PETA does something stupid, people don't blame all vegetarians, animal lovers, or white people. Yet you feel comfortable blaming the NAACP for racism?

yes but the NAACP does NOTHING to address serious hate crimes. NOTHING. EVERY CULTURE has been persecuted, enslaved, raped, tortured, oppressed, exploited and discriminated against for hundreds of years. But the NAACP are the one of the only major organizations STILL whining and dragging it on, and on, and on, and on, and on, perpetually feeding the victim mentality. Hate crimes and racism do exist, and the NAACP does NOT HELP.

First, if you're going to make a claim, don't make it a laughably easy one to dispute. http://www.naacp.org/get-involved/activism/alerts/111thaa-2009-07-30-c/index.htm

Second, as I argued above, the NAACP is the only major group arguing against racism because they're the main group defending the only major group that still feels the full brunt of discrimination, both in the forms of racism and simple inequality.

The NAACP and their ilk have made a business out of race baiting. They are the problem.

exactly. exactly.

The NAACP, like most activist groups, makes some missteps, and some of their chapters act in ways that are hurtful to their cause. They're still not the reason for racism, and there's no way to make that claim without painting White Americans as the dumbest group of bigots possible.

THIS is why racism exists:

http://www.pvponline.com/2010/06/04/the-race-card/

Hey, I'm pretty stupid. I think racism exists because fear of the other is a relatively common behavior in human minds, and that behavior is exploited for political and economic gain by business, religious, political and social leaders.

Polonius wrote:Either way, the simply fact that immigration was voluntary and followed by profound upward social mobility makes even the first argument weak.

Wow, I guess you can't know everything. Just a quick guide to American ethnic history. Not every group was considered White, and were treated as such, and they include the following: Irish, Italians, Jews, Native Americans, Chinese, and Latinos. There are several good books about the problems these groups faced, and being a de facto slave is really just a slave by another name. The Chinese died building railroads, the Irish died building northern infrastructure projects . You seem to be trying to create a moral taxonomy on oppression and discrimination, which is somewhat ridiculous. It sucks all around for everyone. Suffering isn't unique to any specific group. The social mobility of these groups were neither quick nor was it easy and to dismiss it in such a manners is both unfounded and foolish.




You need to do some reading.

How the Irish Became White

How Jews Became White Folks: and what that says about race in America

Are Italians White?: How Race is Made in America

And of Course: The History of White People

Polonius wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
I never said racism only exists because of stupid black people. The organization that claims to represent the population of America that is black is the issue. I classify the NAACP in the same boat as PETA, they would rather have black people not exist as to not offend any of them. If you scour and transcribe and misinterpret EVERYTHING to justify your cause (as many people of many religions do with the bible, Quoran, Tora, etc) then all you are doing is causing a problem. We are already a hyper politically correct society, we don't need organizations like the NAACP going around trying to start problems. The fact is, in a lot of cases, it's reverse racism. Picking apart anything the "establishment" does and twisting it around to sound racist? jesus....

You're still trying to make the claim that "Al Sharpton, the NAACP, etc are some of the main driving reasons why racism still exists.... ", which requires you to somehow link the racism seen with these actions.

I'm not sure how this could be reverse racism, although I suppose Hallmark is as much a part of the "establishment" as any other mid level national corporation.

Banning a greeting card about galaxies and graduates because one of the words KIND of sounded like whores is NOT an inequality in our society. The fact is, the majority of the claims from the NAACP are as frivolous and petty as this. Al Sharpton and the NAACP are the exact OPPOSITE of what MLK and MLK Jr wanted.

Ok, from the top:
The treatment of black women as sex objects, (by both whites and blacks), is an inequality when compared with white women.
The card wasn't banned, it was removed voluntarily by the company.
I'm going to make a stab here, and guess that you probably don't know exactly what MLK wanted, because if you did, you'd realize that in many ways, this is what he wanted. A group to be able to make demands, and be heard.

What he didn't want was for a group like the NAACP's actions to be used as ammunition against all black people. When PETA does something stupid, people don't blame all vegetarians, animal lovers, or white people. Yet you feel comfortable blaming the NAACP for racism?

yes but the NAACP does NOTHING to address serious hate crimes. NOTHING. EVERY CULTURE has been persecuted, enslaved, raped, tortured, oppressed, exploited and discriminated against for hundreds of years. But the NAACP are the one of the only major organizations STILL whining and dragging it on, and on, and on, and on, and on, perpetually feeding the victim mentality. Hate crimes and racism do exist, and the NAACP does NOT HELP.

First, if you're going to make a claim, don't make it a laughably easy one to dispute. http://www.naacp.org/get-involved/activism/alerts/111thaa-2009-07-30-c/index.htm

Second, as I argued above, the NAACP is the only major group arguing against racism because they're the main group defending the only major group that still feels the full brunt of discrimination, both in the forms of racism and simple inequality.

The NAACP and their ilk have made a business out of race baiting. They are the problem.

exactly. exactly.

The NAACP, like most activist groups, makes some missteps, and some of their chapters act in ways that are hurtful to their cause. They're still not the reason for racism, and there's no way to make that claim without painting White Americans as the dumbest group of bigots possible.

I don't know if you have ever heard of strip clubs, or gentleman's clubs, or escorts...but women, pan-nationally, are treated as sex objects..its an ugly truth, but I do not think it discriminates.

I was saying exactly to THIS sentence. Had it been a non-white at a gas station in a predominately white area we'd have a national story with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson baying for blood. It's true, you know its true, and its reverse fething racism.

if the card had not have been removed voluntarily, there would have been a lawsuit, close enough to a ban for me.

I have read up quite a bit on the great MLK and MLK jr. And he wanted equal rights, not special rights. If I made a NAAWP, I would be fething crucified, called a racist, and stoned, drawn and quartered and gakked upon. It's the whole victim mentality and special rights thing that the NAACP and people like Al SHarpton and Jesse Jackson propegate that causes more racism.

and white people, in America, particularly in the bible belt and the midwest, but essentially everywhere, are the worst, so don't think I am being KKK advocate....ignorant white people piss me off more than anything else does...look at ICP (STAY ON TOPIC!!!)

Ahtman wrote:
Wow, I guess you can't know everything. Just a quick guide to American ethnic history. Not every group was considered White, and were treated as such, and they include the following: Irish, Italians, Jews, Native Americans, Chinese, and Latinos. There are several good books about the problems these groups faced, and being a de facto slave is really just a slave by another name. The Chinese died building railroads, the Irish died building northern infrastructure projects . You seem to be trying to create a moral taxonomy on oppression and discrimination, which is somewhat ridiculous. It sucks all around for everyone. Suffering isn't unique to any specific group. The social mobility of these groups were neither quick nor was it easy and to dismiss it in such a manners is both unfounded and foolish.

Hmm, there are a lot statements there.

I guess I'll start with the assertion that "being a de facto slave is really just a slave by another name." I guess it's accurate, but completely irrelevant. No group other than blacks (and a few native americans) were considered chattel property, no group was held as such for any length of time in any great numbers. The irish on the canals and the Chinese on the railroads could have left, and in fact could have not come at all. That's not slavery: that's at best indentured servitude, a completely different animal.

I think that some form of taxonomy is needed, yes. Is my stubbing my toe as bad as you dying from cancer painfully? Of course not. I'm not sure there's any reason to completely dismiss the possibility that the effects of some suffering and trauma can be greater than another forms. The while "No irish need apply" has always been a bit more myth than reality, and while there was undoubtedly discrimination, I doubt anybody would, in 1850 pick "Field Slave in Mobile" over "irish mill worker in New Haven".

Yes, there was discrimination felt by nearly all minority groups. They were different, and some were better treated than others. You need only look at the advances made by any given group, usually within two generations, and compare that to what slave ancestors faced, and it's hard not to see an order of magnitude of difference.

By 1920, there were (or had been) A jew, several catholics (including an Irish Catholic) and many sons of immigrants on the Supreme court, yet it was still essentially legal to lynch blacks. That's pretty strong evidence of social mobility for some groups, and not for others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IG_urban wrote:
I don't know if you have ever heard of strip clubs, or gentleman's clubs, or escorts...but women, pan-nationally, are treated as sex objects..its an ugly truth, but I do not think it discriminates.

It does, actually. the plight of women of color is seen by most modern feminist thinkers are the biggest threat to women's equality. Fun fact: the application of the death penalty is only slightly linked to the race of the defendent. It is, however, insanely more likely when the victim was a white woman than anybody else.

I was saying exactly to THIS sentence. Had it been a non-white at a gas station in a predominately white area we'd have a national story with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson baying for blood. It's true, you know its true, and its reverse fething racism.

Fair enough. I'm enough of a racist to say that as a white guy, I can live with that. What the hell do I care that some gas station attendent gave me lip? I'm white!

if the card had not have been removed voluntarily, there would have been a lawsuit, close enough to a ban for me.

I'm not a legal expert, but I'm closer than you, and no lawsuit would have passed the laugh test.

I have read up quite a bit on the great MLK and MLK jr. And he wanted equal rights, not special rights. If I made a NAAWP, I would be fething crucified, called a racist, and stoned, drawn and quartered and gakked upon. It's the whole victim mentality and special rights thing that the NAACP and people like Al SHarpton and Jesse Jackson propegate that causes more racism. I dont think I ever said that they were the MAIN DRIVING reason why racism still exists...the main petty and bullfeth reasons, maybe...but they just add fuel (diesel) to the fire.

I see what you're saying, but you're not understanding two things:

1) black people aren't equal today. They simply aren't, while white people still control most of the wealth and power in this country. You cant' advance white people any more.
2) the dream of MLK was for people to be judged by who they are, not by their skin color. By saying that black people are judged by a handful of individuals, you're making the point that this country is still racist. In a color blind society, we'd be saying "reasons people think the LA chapter of the NAACP are stupid."

and white people, in America, particularly in the bible belt and the midwest, but essentially everywhere, are the worst, so don't think I am being KKK advocate....ignorant white people piss me off more than anything else does...look at ICP (STAY ON TOPIC!!!)

There's plenty of racism to go around. It runs pretty deep, and not just in whites and blacks.

Polonius wrote:By 1920, there were (or had been) A jew, several catholics (including an Irish Catholic) and many sons of immigrants on the Supreme court, yet it was still essentially legal to lynch blacks. That's pretty strong evidence of social mobility for some groups, and not for others.

There were also some black non-slaves that prospered as well, does that mean now we should ignore your statements of black suffering? They may not have been labeled as property in the same sense, but they were treated like it just the same. And for the record more Whites were lynched in 1920 than blacks, or at least the same amount. Lynching has always had to do with mob justice and keeping the staus quo, not race.



Source: To Secure These Rights: THE REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS

The problem isn't in creating a taxonomy of pain, like a toe stub or a heart attack, but in trying to create a moral one comparing oppression and suffering of groups that have been discriminated against. You will never make any progress by marginalizing another groups suffering, or their ancestors suffering.

Polonius, I did not see the "Usually used as" part of your post, and I apologize for skipping that.

Having said that, I have gotten into enough of these debates to know that nothing good ever comes from them, even if you are a better arguementator than most people on this subject. I am leaving this thread before it ignites into a flame the Sisters of Battle would be envious of.

Have fun all.

Ahtman wrote:
The problem isn't in creating a taxonomy of pain, like a toe stub or a heart attack, but in trying to create a moral one comparing oppression and suffering of groups that have been discriminated against. You will never make any progress by marginalizing another groups suffering, or their ancestors suffering.

I guess I'm just not seeing how I'm marginalizing anything. Saying "Chattel slavery is far worse than anti-semitism", espeically when I'll add "and given how bad anti-semitism was should give you an idea!"

A baneblade is a lot bigger than a landraider, but that's not demeaning the size of the landraider.

I'm also not looking at a moral comparison, I'm looking at a practical one. Pick, say, the Irish. Even if in practice their condition was the same for a number of generations, by any practical measure the group escaped the status of underclass. Nobody is discriminated now because they're Irish, yet there is still discrimination against black people. How is that not worthy of note?

And, by the way, while plenty of white were lynched, the fact that blacks where, what, 15% of the population makes those numbers scarier to me.

Slarg232 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
When you have been persecuted, enslaved, raped, tortured, oppressed, exploited and discriminated against for hundreds of years I guess you get a little touchy...

Lots of people spout things that are just as ridiculous about minorities, immigrants, gays, muslims, and so forth on a daily basis. Not to mention the actual hate crimes and discrimination that still take place daily in the US.

Get over it...

Considering black slaves were purchased from other blacks back back then. Also, as far as I know, no other culteral backround in the country uses racial slurs like [see forum posting rules] and Cracker (as far as I know)

Also: Immigrants I have no problem, as long as their legal.
Gays that advertise they are gays when they know the culteral norm and the consequences of being such are not the brightest bulbs in the bunch, ya know?
And Muslim extremeists blow themselves up, what more do you expect?

Edit: And isn't it racist that one of those racial slurs up above is censored and the other isn't? Not complaining, just bringing up a point.

What do I have to do with all this? Im not racist, I have black friends
Thats my favorite excuse to "not" being racist.

Personally, I dont think groups like NAACP are the reason racism is still around, thats just silly. Sure they would be out of a job if it disappeared, but believe it or not, there really IS racists out there. I think the OP is just silly in the fact that the NAACP were bitching about that greeting card. And I agree, Al Sharpton....is one person that needs to be on the news for being found dead do to heart attack or something, that would make my day. But its not because hes black, its because hes an idiot that needs to stop running his mouth.

Polonius wrote:I guess I'm just not seeing how I'm marginalizing anything. Saying "Chattel slavery is far worse than anti-semitism", espeically when I'll add "and given how bad anti-semitism was should give you an idea!"

A baneblade is a lot bigger than a landraider, but that's not demeaning the size of the landraider.

But your pointing at it's... hmm.

I think Polonius has been quite clear, as in making a solid point.

I'm also not looking at a moral comparison, I'm looking at a practical one. Pick, say, the Irish. Even if in practice their condition was the same for a number of generations, by any practical measure the group escaped the status of underclass. Nobody is discriminated now because they're Irish, yet there is still discrimination against black people. How is that not worthy of note?

It appears that many people would agree with you.

http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/700/black-public-opinion

And, by the way, while plenty of white were lynched, the fact that blacks where, what, 15% of the population makes those numbers scarier to me.

Sure, but I would have to ask about the few states with the most lynching, and their demographics at the time. It would make a big difference if blacks accounted for more than 30% of the population. Given that information (which I can't find), I would know exactly how shocking it was.

Polonius wrote:Pick, say, the Irish. Even if in practice their condition was the same for a number of generations

So are you saying that the Irish and the English have always treated each other as equals? Or does it not matter since it wasn't here?

Polonius wrote:by any practical measure the group escaped the status of underclass.

Oh, so since they assimilated quicked we can just ignore the injustices. Does that mean that when blacks are in the same position we should then dismiss their history because "they made it"?

Polonius wrote:Nobody is discriminated now because they're Irish

Sure it isn't as common, but it does happen. I know two guys who got into a fight about a month or two ago in Indiana because one's Irish ancestors were Orangemen and the others wasn't.

Polonius wrote:yet there is still discrimination against black people. How is that not worthy of note?

Yet many different groups are still discriminated against today; it isn't a unique or special condition.

Polonius wrote:And, by the way, while plenty of white were lynched, the fact that blacks where, what, 15% of the population makes those numbers scarier to me.

Sure, 15% of the overall population, but if we limit it to just areas where blacks were actually present in large amounts i.e. the South (one black guy in Idaho doesn't really mean much) they made up a much larger percentage.

While we're on the topic of racism and sexism and the such...

Here's a tidbit of information for you all:

When a person says something along the lines of "I realize now how insignificant and small man is compared to the infinite size of the universe", he is really saying:
1) Man is insignificant, because of his size, in comparison to the universe

2) Because of this, woman is even more significant, because she is on average, smaller than man.



Just a thought, to make show you all exactly what kind of stupid argument you're arguing.

Oh yes, and to an earlier poster who said:

"...all religions have been persecuted, but only one supports people driving planes into buildings..."

No religion supports this, except perhaps the spaghetti-monster one. Islam does not support this. It is a few radical people who don't understand their own religious text, and take some but not all of for its literal meaning. They are inconsistent, both in their interpretation of their scriptures, and also in comparison to the majority of "their" religion's members.
It happens in Judaism and Christianity too, perhaps even more so, although the end result is quite different.

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:Pick, say, the Irish. Even if in practice their condition was the same for a number of generations

So are you saying that the Irish and the English have always treated each other as equals? Or does it not matter since it wasn't here?

I have to be honest. I have no clue what's driving this discussion.

I think I wasn't clear, in that I was saying that I was granting the premise, for a hypo, that the irish condition was similar to that of slaves.

Polonius wrote:by any practical measure the group escaped the status of underclass.

Oh, so since they assimilated quicked we can just ignore the injustices. Does that mean that when blacks are in the same position we should then dismiss their history because "they made it"?

I think that pretty much everybody would be happier with equality than with Black History Month, so, sure. I think that would be a fair trade.

Polonius wrote:Nobody is discriminated now because they're Irish

Sure it isn't as common, but it does happen. I know two guys who got into a fight about a month or two ago in Indiana because one's Irish ancestors were Orangemen and the others wasn't.

If that's the best case of discrimination you can come up... I gotta say I'm not impressed. It sounds like two guys were jerks.

Polonius wrote:yet there is still discrimination against black people. How is that not worthy of note?

Yet many different groups are still discriminated against today; it isn't a unique or special condition.

And I support ending discrimination against all groups. I'm not saying black Americans are special or unique in being the targets of discrimination, I'm just saying they've been a perennially discriminated group, by law and practice, for a very long time. I'm sure the Native Americans, those that are left, would agree that there's plenty of discrimination and inequality.

Polonius wrote:And, by the way, while plenty of white were lynched, the fact that blacks where, what, 15% of the population makes those numbers scarier to me.

Sure, 15% of the overall population, but if we limit it to just areas where blacks were actually present in large amounts i.e. the South (one black guy in Idaho doesn't really mean much) they made up a much larger percentage.

A lot of lynched white folks were those that were helpful to black people too. Which goes to show how deeply rooted the racism against black people was, when even white folks would be murdered to keep it in place.

On topic.

That's goddamn stupid of Hallmark. I would have told the NAACP where to go.

Fateweaver wrote:On topic.

That's goddamn stupid of Hallmark. I would have told the NAACP where to go.

It's almost hard to believe you're not the head of public relations for a major corporation. You'd bring a fresh perspective.

I'm expecting someone to call out all mall santas and say they are sexist for saying ho ho ho. This country fething sucks.

I wouldn't let the NAACP control my company and what's said.

Seriously, Hallmark explained what the card was saying. If someone mistakes "black hole" for "black ho" that is their problem. They need to clean the proverbial gak out of their ears and learn to hear better, not assume "whitey is out to keep them down".

The NAACP are the epitome of racism. They need to get over themselves. Perhaps if they didn't bitch about everything in life deemed racist they would be taken more seriously. It's like the little boy who cried wolf. Cry it enough times and soon people will stop listening and when the day comes you have a legit reason to cry it people will just ignore you.

I couldn't do PR because I'm not PC enough and I'd hurt lots of peoples feelings doing my job.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm expecting someone to call out all mall santas and say they are sexist for saying ho ho ho. This country fething sucks.

The dark times are indeed upon us, as consumers now may only pick between 23 different audio graduation cards instead of 24. It's things like that that led to the fall of Rome.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm expecting someone to call out all mall santas and say they are sexist for saying ho ho ho. This country fething sucks.

Already been done. Seriously. The mall santa at the Mall of America wasn't allowed to say ho, ho, ho. He had to say ha, ha, ha.
I nearly gak myself when I heard that.

So yeah, I hope when the right wins in 2012 they start kicking in the teeth of these "PC embracing hippies".

Fateweaver wrote:I wouldn't let the NAACP control my company and what's said.

Yes.

Seriously, Hallmark explained what the card was saying. If someone mistakes "black hole" for "black ho" that is their problem. They need to clean the proverbial gak out of their ears and learn to hear better, not assume "whitey is out to keep them down".

Yes.

The NAACP are the epitome of racism.

No.

They need to get over themselves. Perhaps if they didn't bitch about everything in life deemed racist they would be taken more seriously. It's like the little boy who cried wolf. Cry it enough times and soon people will stop listening and when the day comes you have a legit reason to cry it people will just ignore you.

Maybe, maybe not.

I couldn't do PR because I'm not PC enough and I'd hurt lots of peoples feelings doing my job.

So? Get a job, hippy!

Fateweaver wrote:The NAACP are the epitome of racism.

I'm trying to decide if you don't understand what the word epitome means, of if you don't understand what the word racism means, because nobody fully understanding those two words could make such a statement.

The NAACP doesn't always help racial matters in this country, to be sure, and they're one of the whiniest groups in America, but your statement can't possibly be true.

I have a job building transmissions for Polaris atv's and chinese golf carts.

I already have to watch my P's and Q's at work. I wouldn't last a single day as PR or HR or any one of those fancy "lets hold hands and get along" types.

NAACP supports "affirmative blacktion". That's about as racist as you can legally get. "You. Mr. Employer Man. You MUST hire more black people, even if less qualified because we see you have more whites than black people and that is unacceptable." "What's that you say? You say that Bubba can't speak English very well so he can't work a telephone? Too bad Mr. Employer. You need to hire him because you have 80 caucasians and 65 blacks." "You say you won't hire people who didn't graduate HS? Too bad Mr. Employer. You need more black people so start hiring or we'll protest and picket outside your doors and take you to court."

Need I say more on how the reverse racism is worst than actual racism (or just as bad). If I was an employer I can't refuse to hire based on skin color but I AM forced to hire minorities if I haven't hired "enough" of them. How is one legal and the other not? Oh that's right, it technically IS illegal to hire minorities over whites. It's called DISCRIMINATION. Now say it with me class.

Fateweaver wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm expecting someone to call out all mall santas and say they are sexist for saying ho ho ho. This country fething sucks.

Already been done. Seriously. The mall santa at the Mall of America wasn't allowed to say ho, ho, ho. He had to say ha, ha, ha.
I nearly gak myself when I heard that.

So yeah, I hope when the right wins in 2012 they start kicking in the teeth of these "PC embracing hippies".

So, let me get this straight. You want the government to step in and tell people what they can and can't say? How can government possibly interfere with purely private actions like that without offending the first amendment? Do you realize you basically just said "i want the government to start regulating things on a purely private level?"

I love pointing out hypocrisy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Isn't this just free publicity for hallmark? Nobody with any sense thinks the card is actually racist, and it's getting people to think about hallmark. The individual card has been out for three years, so I'm guessing they've made their money back on the development.

things like this do deeply discredit the civil rights movement.

Polonius wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm expecting someone to call out all mall santas and say they are sexist for saying ho ho ho. This country fething sucks.

Already been done. Seriously. The mall santa at the Mall of America wasn't allowed to say ho, ho, ho. He had to say ha, ha, ha.
I nearly gak myself when I heard that.

So yeah, I hope when the right wins in 2012 they start kicking in the teeth of these "PC embracing hippies".

So, let me get this straight. You want the government to step in and tell people what they can and can't say? How can government possibly interfere with purely private actions like that without offending the first amendment? Do you realize you basically just said "i want the government to start regulating things on a purely private level?"

I love pointing out hypocrisy.

PC embracing hippies are why Santa has to say "ha ha ha", why it's mailperson and not mailman (even when referring to female mail carriers). PC hippies who espouse ebonics should be taught when kids should be taught to learn how not to talk like Xzibit.

If somebody wants to call a female mail carrier "mail person" and not "mail man" like has been used since the mail service came into being then good on them. That is their right. When the government lets the PC police take over the world and tell others that there is a right and wrong way to say things and that certain terms are derogatory, I'd say there is a problem.

Again, you're saying that the government should stop one group from advocating a position?

how do you stop the PC police? Political Correctness spread because it was good business, not because the government mandated it.

Fateweaver wrote:Need I say more on how the reverse racism is worst than actual racism (or just as bad). If I was an employer I can't refuse to hire based on skin color but I AM forced to hire minorities if I haven't hired "enough" of them. How is one legal and the other not? Oh that's right, it technically IS illegal to hire minorities over whites. It's called DISCRIMINATION. Now say it with me class.

I am not in support of affirmative action, but you are simply fooling yourself if you really think that a large portion of interviews, don't take into account a persons supposed race. Discrimination is a facet of human existence, and I can say that without assuming all people actively discriminate.

I take much of the current minority rights movement, to be in a very agitated state. I can't have solid conversations discussing race in most situations, because people are so divided along, quite frankly, lines of ignorance.

Not saying discriminatory hiring practices don't exist but not every interviewer is a racist asshat and might reject somebody due to, oh I don't know, NOT being qualified enough (or even over qualified).

My mom, when she managed the local Taco Bell, didn't discriminate based on race though she did discriminate against HS drop outs. Her reasoning is that if that person couldn't be bothered to finish HS then she couldn't be bothered to train them. Many an app ended up in the trash can (most of the HS dropouts in my city were potheads so would have just came to work baked off their ass anyway).

I can honestly say I'm not racist. If I have the choice between a white HS drop out or a black person who graduated HS with a 4.0 I'm taking the black person. I'm sure some employers are racist but there are most likely as many that hire on merit and credentials.

Fateweaver wrote:Need I say more on how the reverse racism is worst than actual racism (or just as bad). If I was an employer I can't refuse to hire based on skin color but I AM forced to hire minorities if I haven't hired "enough" of them. How is one legal and the other not? Oh that's right, it technically IS illegal to hire minorities over whites. It's called DISCRIMINATION. Now say it with me class.

Where are there employers that are forced to hire more minorities? Federal law does allow for some "disparate impact" type suits, where it can be assumed that there is discrimination if there is a severe trend against a minority, but those are actually really hard to win.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Need I say more on how the reverse racism is worst than actual racism (or just as bad). If I was an employer I can't refuse to hire based on skin color but I AM forced to hire minorities if I haven't hired "enough" of them. How is one legal and the other not? Oh that's right, it technically IS illegal to hire minorities over whites. It's called DISCRIMINATION. Now say it with me class.

I am not in support of affirmative action, but you are simply fooling yourself if you really think that a large portion of interviews, don't take into account a persons supposed race. Discrimination is a facet of human existence, and I can say that without assuming all people actively discriminate.

I take much of the current minority rights movement, to be in a very agitated state. I can't have solid conversations discussing race in most situations, because people are so divided along, quite frankly, lines of ignorance.

that's a very wise post.

I find a lot of current activism to be pretty sketchy, but I also don't have a lot of sympathy for the reverse racism argument either.

I also think far too many people confuse what's done out of public relations, and what is legally mandated.

Racism exists because human beings are flawed with intolerance.
they are intolerant of different things, its just racism are so bad due to slavery.
What about intolerance towards other genders? against other stereotypes? how about other countries?
Why is it any more ok? Its not? then why we allow to let it slide?

There are people that plays the race card that ruins it for the ones that are actually been discriminated against. Like crying wolf.
Negros arnt the only one that suffered, how about the chinese in 1880s?

Slavery isnt accepted anymore by our society , we need to move on. What other's grandfather have done in the past
should have nothing to do with us now. What we need to address is the intolerance itself ,
because it exists with so many facades.

Fateweaver wrote:Not saying discriminatory hiring practices don't exist but not every interviewer is a racist asshat and might reject somebody due to, oh I don't know, NOT being qualified enough (or even over qualified).

My mom, when she managed the local Taco Bell, didn't discriminate based on race though she did discriminate against HS drop outs. Her reasoning is that if that person couldn't be bothered to finish HS then she couldn't be bothered to train them. Many an app ended up in the trash can (most of the HS dropouts in my city were potheads so would have just came to work baked off their ass anyway).

I can honestly say I'm not racist. If I have the choice between a white HS drop out or a black person who graduated HS with a 4.0 I'm taking the black person. I'm sure some employers are racist but there are most likely as many that hire on merit and credentials.

On that note, consider affirmative action a direct counter to such practices, as indefensible they may be. This is a real world situation, and I can definitely see the NAACP promoting affirmative action, along with many other movements (including the OPs example), reacting to pressure for reasons beyond my comprehension.

It is a large organization, and pinning things to it like a paper donkey, proves very little. Specifically, it doesn't prove them to be racist, as you are not racist (nor your family) in any hiring practices. You can call affirmative action racist, but I can just as easily call society stacked against minorities, in a very real way.

The NAACP wants solutions that address their goals; they may not be going about it in the right way. It certainly appears that they are getting sidetracked onto nonsense.

Also keep in mind that affirmative action is not mandated by law in any private context.

I'm very uncomfortable with it, but in practice what it does is simply change the essentially arbitrary process by which candidates are chosen. Nobody unqualified gets through because of AA, they wouldn't get that far, or shouldn't. Instead, what it means is that instead of taking the "best" candidates, you take some of the best and some that are "good enough" to balance things out.

It's unfair to those better candidates that lose out, but we know that in practice the best people seldom get the jobs. It's about connections, knowing people, and often superficial similarities.

I think we can all agree though that what happened in the OP's original post was asshattery to the extreme.

IMO the NAACP are the mirror opposite of the KKK. One is so vocal about it's hate against minorities that nobody takes them seriously; the other is so vocal in it's playing the race card that not many people take them seriously anymore.

Not comparing NAACP to the KKK but that is why they are such perfect polar opposites. Both extreme in what they do and both are led by an asshat.

I think that's the worst part of this, and you raise a pretty good point: stuff like this makes it harder to advocate for genuine equality.

Exactly. Complaining more and more about stuff starts to make your complaints sound less genuine and more like complaining just for the sake of complaining.

I'm not trying\ to take a cheap shot, but to genuinely make a point that could help you: you might want to think about some of you own posting habits with regards to that philosophy.

It's really easy for genuine problems to disappear into white noise.

LunaHound wrote:Racism exists because human beings are flawed with intolerance.
they are intolerant of different things, its just racism are so bad due to slavery.
What about intolerance towards other genders? against other stereotypes? how about other countries?
Why is it any more ok? Its not? then why we allow to let it slide?

Political pressure. More honey, more bees. Vinegar, flies, whatever.

There are people that plays the race card that ruins it for the ones that are actually been discriminated against. Like crying wolf.
Negros arnt the only one that suffered, how about the chinese in 1880s?

I dunno.

It all depends on your take on the situation; your perspective. Were the japanese internment camps more offensive to the japanese, America's sense of pride, or the actual people that were there? Are we talking about numbers here? There have been waves of immigrants, time after time, that have had to go through intense hardship. The Chinese were used as an abstract tool to create the railroads, after several companies did the same with the Irish. It's life, anyone telling you it doesn't suck for an awful lot of people, an awful lot of the time, is either high, or is drinking a latte while riding a segway.... and texting as well.

The basic point is that blacks have taken the short end of the stick, in the U.S., for a VERY LONG TIME. The culture that was around 50 years ago, is not dominant, but it exists. I think the real point to focus on, is what issues are present now, and how to go about addressing those issues. If it takes an organization speaking mainly for blacks to solve problems that are faced by such a population, so freaking be it. Same with any other minority, even gingers if they want to get angry enough about it.

Slavery isnt accepted anymore by our society , we need to move on. What other's grandfather have done in the past
should have nothing to do with us now. What we need to address is the intolerance itself ,
because it exists with so many facades.

How do you go about doing that Luna? I agree that not looking over your shoulder is a good idea. How do you stop people from being people? With a blunt object to the head? IMO, the more specific the issue, the better, as long as people in general can identify with that issue; in order to encourage them to have an opinion. Minorities were oppressed, isn't a very good way to start a conversation. Taking note of the fact that many problems are present, should not take away from the ability for many organizations, to strive towards the same goals, in their own ways.

It's worth noting that even the dissent to Plessy v. Ferguson (which was seen as progressive at the time) took as a given that while former slaves were citizens, asians never could be.

As for the OP, The comment was made that at least one person "could hear the 'R' " in the black hole part of the recording.

"You hear the 'r' in there. 'Whores,' not, 'holes.' The 'r' is in there," said Minnie Hatley of the Los Angeles NAACP.

This isn' just a person mishearing 'hole' as 'ho'.. this is a person adding letters because that is what they may have wished to hear.
It should also be noted that it is the black musical artists that refer to women, especially black women, as 'ho' more often than any other group.

Perhaps the woman that heard the 'r' in 'hole' was expecting to hear it because she is used to hearing things like that in recordings?

Wrexasaur wrote:IMO, the more specific the issue, the better, as long as people in general can identify with that issue

Im more worried about the next scape goat.

Beware Caterpillar, we're coming to stop your selling of "BlackHoes"



Those privileged white BASTERDZ!!!

What, John Deere gets off the hook because they're green?

Racism doesn't exist because of the NAACP. The NAACP exists to promote an ethnic group that has historically been the victim of racism.

And I hate affirmative action, and similar programs (disadvantaged businesses, etc.).

I read an interesting argument, I don't remember where, that the USA regards itself as a self-created nation. It grew out of the desire of the population to form a nation. After formation, all the immigrants came there voluntarily because they wanted to be part of it. All the citizens therefore feel themselves part of a superior and voluntary union and at some level they accept they are are there to partake of the American Dream.

Only black people and native Americans, who both were brought in by force, are not part of this vision, and that is the reason for the long-standing racism against them.

I think it is an interesting idea though I have no idea if anyone has done any proper social research on it.

dietrich wrote: The NAACP exists to promote an ethnic group that has historically been the victim of racism.

The NAACP, fighting Racism by promoting one race over another...

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Beware Caterpillar, we're coming to stop your selling of "BlackHoes"



Those privileged white BASTERDZ!!!

This.
Wait...does it mean my grandfather was racist because he used to work for them who knows how many years ago?
Is racism hereditary?

And most importantly, do I go to jail now?

In my opinion, racism is pretty much leveled out by now. And I don't mean it's gone by any means, but it is at a level where all races & groups talk about the others evenly. I find it hard to believe that we (America) are completely racists when if you look at things like record sells or professional athletics African Americans hold a marginal amount of respect in those areas. If racism were still as big as some people like to make it, you'd never see stuff like that. I'm not saying they are only successful in sports and music, hell I work for one at an explosives company.

I don't think "racsim" will ever be completely gone and I don't think that it should be to an extent. People are always going to profile (which is what our racism today amounts to a lot of times) and who is to say they shouldn't? If someone walks up to me in the middle of the night looking like a thug, he will get that type of reaction regardless of color. If they look like a decent person (well dressed, presentable) then he will get a different reaction from me.

There's the old wise tale,

3 cavemen walk into a bear's den...one walks up and hugs it, one tries to fight it, and the other turns and runs...which one do you think made it?

I have plenty of African American friends and a ton of Asian friends (I'm an engineer...lol jk), I don't see myself as racist at all, but I do see where some people can misinterpret general profiling for racism. I think this is typically a healthy practice.

For the record the hallmark card thing is stupid...the idea that a company as big as Hallmark would sell something like that is amusing. But hey you can't fix stupid I don't guess.

NAACP is just a group Al sharpton is just a person. I could say "Gun Violence happens because the IRA said something stupid, and then Rush said something stupid too!" AA Is a hold over from the 70's and 80's when Over qualified was an easy way to say NO Blacks. The issue today is to get a job you have to know somebody, and minorities are less likely to know somebody who could help them. AA insures that at least there is a token minority person around. I dont feel AA is needed in most states, just the ones with the lowest Employment rates for minorities. When I explain it to my Fox loving friends I say "Would you rather have them on welfare, or having a job?" If the roles were reversed Whites would need the same protections.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/04/naacp-official-accuses-arkansas-candidate-of-using-racism-term/

Ahtman wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
When you have been persecuted, enslaved, raped, tortured, oppressed, exploited and discriminated against for hundreds of years I guess you get a little touchy...

But why bring the Irish into this?

good point...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like how on Dakka threads in which people disagree even in the slightest about what the next codex will be or what GW should do with army x get shut down in the blink of an eye, but an utterly endless debate like this with perhaps one of the most ignorant titles I have ever seen is allowed to go on and on...

If you don't like it you can stop reading it.

He raises a good point. the Thread topic is pretty flamey.

This is the OT forum and by design some latitude is given about posts.

If no-one complains then Moderators make a judgement about what to do if they read something. We don't read everything.

IMO the thread topic while somewhat provocative is not in itself insulting, so I decided not to lock the thread at the beginning.

The content of the thread is judged on the merits of the individual posts.

Always remember that most moderator sanctions take place behind the scenes so users are usually not aware of them.

If people find the argument to be circular the best action is to stop participating in it. The thread will quickly sink to the bottom and drop off the page.

Alternatively if there are posts or threads which anger people they should click the yellow triangle.

sexiest_hero wrote:NAACP is just a group Al sharpton is just a person. I could say "Gun Violence happens because the IRA said something stupid, and then Rush said something stupid too!" AA Is a hold over from the 70's and 80's when Over qualified was an easy way to say NO Blacks. The issue today is to get a job you have to know somebody, and minorities are less likely to know somebody who could help them. AA insures that at least there is a token minority person around. I dont feel AA is needed in most states, just the ones with the lowest Employment rates for minorities. When I explain it to my Fox loving friends I say "Would you rather have them on welfare, or having a job?" If the roles were reversed Whites would need the same protections.

NAACP is not just a "group" my friend. Al Sharpton has more power than just a "person".

CT GAMER wrote:I like how on Dakka threads in which people disagree even in the slightest about what the next codex will be or what GW should do with army x get shut down in the blink of an eye, but an utterly endless debate like this with perhaps one of the most ignorant titles I have ever seen is allowed to go on and on...

An ignorant title? Why? The NAACP is one of the reasons petty ongoing racism is still around. It's a fact. They have been declining in credibility as of late. Don't be a troll. If you don't like the title, that is your opinion, but you can go read another topic if you are that bent out of shape over it. Don't come in here and cause a ruckus because your panties are in a knot.

Arizona hasn't been doing much to help in regards to this topic

Arizona School Demands Black & Latino Students’ Faces On Mural Be Changed To White

An Arizona elementary school mural featuring the faces of kids who attend the school has been the subject of constant daytime drive-by racist screaming, from adults, as well as a radio talk-show campaign (by an actual city councilman, who has an AM talk-radio show) to remove the black student's face, and now the school principal has ordered the faces of the Latino and Black students to be changed to Caucasian skin.

Read more at Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/415809/arizona-school-demands-black-latino-students-faces-on-mural-be-changed-to-white#ixzz0q0a0akdq11

The Racist Hate Group Behind Arizona's New Immigration Law

The Immigration Law Reform Institute (ILRI) helped draft SB-1070 — the draconian law that means police must stop anyone brown-looking and demand their papers. ILRI is the legal arm of a racist hate group. And it's not stopping at Arizona.

Frank Rich today linked to a Think Progress report that reveals IRLI's general counsel, Michael Hethmon, helped draft the language of the bill. CNN report Hethmon saying that four other states, which he would not name, have approached him "for advice on how they can do the same thing where they live." We presume those states are among the 11 listed here as considering similarly draconian measures.

IRLI's website says it fights to protect the "legal rights, privileges, and property of U.S. citizens and their communities from injuries and damages caused by unlawful immigration." It is affiliated with a group called the Federation for American Immigration Immigration Reform (FAIR). Advocacy group The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks domestic hate groups, is unambiguous in labelling FAIR racist and dangerous. An investigation in 2007 revealed that:

The founder, chief ideologue and long-time funder of FAIR [John Tanton] is a racist. Key staff members have ties to white supremacist groups, some are members, and some have spoken at hate group functions. FAIR has accepted more than $1 million from a racist foundation devoted to studies of race and IQ, and to eugenics - the pseudo-science of breeding a better human race that was utterly discredited by the Nazi euthanasia program. It spreads racist conspiracy theories.
The group has also consulted with Vlaams Belang, a racist Belgian political party that used to be called Vlaams Bloc. Until the Belgian Supreme court banned it under that name for xenophobia. Which might explain why, according to Think Progress again, FAIR's legal arm, IRLI, has been behind some of the most racist-seeming pieces of legislation on the books. It charges $300 per hour to train Sheriff Joe Arpaio's men, who make sweeps for illegal immigrants, on immigration law. It has tried to stop the children of illegal immigrants attending school, and aligned itself with a measure to curtail their medical treatment and child welfare too.

Of course, while it's non-profit, IRLI doesn't work for free. So it stands to benefit handsomely for the cause if a bunch of controversial anti-immigration laws move slowly through statehouses across America.

http://gawker.com/5529320/the-racist-hate-group-behind-arizonas-new-immigration-law

And an editorial headline that sums up a lot of the recent turmoil Arizona has gotten itself involved with:

Arizona’s Questionable Track Record on Race: MLK Day, Banning Ethnic Studies, and Regulating Accents

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/05/12/arizonas-questionable-track-record-on-race-mlk-day-banning-ethnic-studies-and-regulating-accents/

Arizona's far from the only state to have racist politicians at work; recent racist comments from a South Carolina Senator:

Originally Posted by South Carolina State Senator Jake Knotts:

We already got one raghead in the White House; we don't need a raghead in the governor's mansion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2410

The US of A has a long way to go in terms of racism but a lot has been accomplished. However it really wasn't THAT long ago when civil rights were still being fought for people of different races. People that were openly racist and feared desegregation are still around today and have families that they've heavily influenced.

:(

Polonius wrote:He raises a good point. the Thread topic is pretty flamey.

Like KK said, I write in some of my spare time, and if you want to grab people's attention you have to be provocative. I do not find it flamey at all. If you are offended, then I guess you are offended. I should think you can come in here and debate rather than take cheap shots at the thread title. If I had titled this topic "stupid article I found" or something of the sort, chances are it would have 500 views and 4 replies and pushed all the way to page 2 by now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cane wrote:Arizona hasn't been doing much to help in regards to this topic

Arizona School Demands Black & Latino Students’ Faces On Mural Be Changed To White

An Arizona elementary school mural featuring the faces of kids who attend the school has been the subject of constant daytime drive-by racist screaming, from adults, as well as a radio talk-show campaign (by an actual city councilman, who has an AM talk-radio show) to remove the black student's face, and now the school principal has ordered the faces of the Latino and Black students to be changed to Caucasian skin.

Read more at Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/415809/arizona-school-demands-black-latino-students-faces-on-mural-be-changed-to-white#ixzz0q0a0akdq11

The Racist Hate Group Behind Arizona's New Immigration Law

The Immigration Law Reform Institute (ILRI) helped draft SB-1070 — the draconian law that means police must stop anyone brown-looking and demand their papers. ILRI is the legal arm of a racist hate group. And it's not stopping at Arizona.

Frank Rich today linked to a Think Progress report that reveals IRLI's general counsel, Michael Hethmon, helped draft the language of the bill. CNN report Hethmon saying that four other states, which he would not name, have approached him "for advice on how they can do the same thing where they live." We presume those states are among the 11 listed here as considering similarly draconian measures.

IRLI's website says it fights to protect the "legal rights, privileges, and property of U.S. citizens and their communities from injuries and damages caused by unlawful immigration." It is affiliated with a group called the Federation for American Immigration Immigration Reform (FAIR). Advocacy group The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks domestic hate groups, is unambiguous in labelling FAIR racist and dangerous. An investigation in 2007 revealed that:

The founder, chief ideologue and long-time funder of FAIR [John Tanton] is a racist. Key staff members have ties to white supremacist groups, some are members, and some have spoken at hate group functions. FAIR has accepted more than $1 million from a racist foundation devoted to studies of race and IQ, and to eugenics - the pseudo-science of breeding a better human race that was utterly discredited by the Nazi euthanasia program. It spreads racist conspiracy theories.
The group has also consulted with Vlaams Belang, a racist Belgian political party that used to be called Vlaams Bloc. Until the Belgian Supreme court banned it under that name for xenophobia. Which might explain why, according to Think Progress again, FAIR's legal arm, IRLI, has been behind some of the most racist-seeming pieces of legislation on the books. It charges $300 per hour to train Sheriff Joe Arpaio's men, who make sweeps for illegal immigrants, on immigration law. It has tried to stop the children of illegal immigrants attending school, and aligned itself with a measure to curtail their medical treatment and child welfare too.

Of course, while it's non-profit, IRLI doesn't work for free. So it stands to benefit handsomely for the cause if a bunch of controversial anti-immigration laws move slowly through statehouses across America.

http://gawker.com/5529320/the-racist-hate-group-behind-arizonas-new-immigration-law

And an editorial headline that sums up a lot of the recent turmoil Arizona has gotten itself involved with:

Arizona’s Questionable Track Record on Race: MLK Day, Banning Ethnic Studies, and Regulating Accents

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/05/12/arizonas-questionable-track-record-on-race-mlk-day-banning-ethnic-studies-and-regulating-accents/

Arizona's far from the only state to have racist politicians at work; recent racist comments from a South Carolina Senator:

Originally Posted by South Carolina State Senator Jake Knotts:

We already got one raghead in the White House; we don't need a raghead in the governor's mansion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2410

The US of A has a long way to go in terms of racism but a lot has been accomplished. However it really wasn't THAT long ago when civil rights were still being fought for people of different races. People that were openly racist and feared desegregation are still around today and have families that they've heavily influenced.

:(

very very good points. these are more reasons why racism still exists. like my title says, REASON S (notice the S) why racism still exists. it just goes to show you that it comes from all sectors

"Al Sharpton, the NAACP, etc are some of the main driving reasons why racism still exists.... "

You can't possibly be stupid enough to really believe that. Racism is mainly due to the existence of the NAACP? Please...

Commissar Molotov wrote:"Al Sharpton, the NAACP, etc are some of the main driving reasons why racism still exists.... "

You can't possibly be stupid enough to really believe that. Racism is mainly due to the existence of the NAACP? Please...

I do believe that, because I read and watch the news. Thanks for insinuating that I am stupid, I appreciate that, I really do.

I guess a whole lot of people are just as stupid as I am....

http://www.topix.com/forum/state/va/TKUKOMJPAGC8PMNJA

To the NAACP, it is ok if there is a black history month as well as "african american clubs" in school, but watch what happens when someone tries to set up a "European-American Club" in a school.......the NAACP will say "No, you can't have that!".....it actually happened in Northern California a few years ago.

So, I was watching the news today and I saw a story that stood out to me.


There was a shooting in Dayton, Ohio. A teenage boy, who happened to be black, entered a Cricket phone store and two black men followed in behind him and shot him. He died later at a local hospital, and the NAACP shows up at the crime scene to talk to the news station.


He said, and I quote: "We need to stop black on black crime..."

I have a few issues with this statement.


First off, what would have happened had the victim been white? Hispanic? Asian? What about some other ethnicity? Who would have showed up for them? Would it have even been on the news?

Where is the foundation for whites, hispanics, asians and all other ethnicies? Why can't we have a voice too?

Because if a white person has a foundation that is primarily for one race, or a college for one race or anything else that doesn't allow other ethnicities...

IT'S RACIST.


Does that seem right to you?

All the NAACP is is the Klu Klux Klan for the black man. They use religion and racism to fuel their cause.


If it had been a white person that was the victim, no one would have showed up to speak on his/her behalf. If they had, no one would have aired the story.


I am not a racist person, however, I am proud of who I am as a person, and I am just as proud to be white as others should be about their own ethnicity. I don't see anything wrong with being a proud person.


However, I do see something wrong with the NAACP, the SCLC and all of these other minority foundations for black people. I'm sure the only reason we allow such a mockery is because of the years of slavery and repression, and I don't agree with what anyone had to go through at that time at all.
All I am trying to say is, why is it okay for the black people to have foundations solely for their race, but white people aren't legally allowed to discredit any other race? We are automatically declared RACIST.

We don't need to stop "black on black" crime. We need to try to do something about ALL crime. Violence happens to people of all races, all the time. So why should someone that's black get special attention from special corporations such as the NAACP? It's bs. Straight up. What about crimes against animals? It's SPECIESISM. That's not a word you hear every day. We are all EARTHLINGS. Why aren't we all created equal?

quoted because of the NSFW link.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?login=true&topic_id=27335471&page=1

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/31/Tampabay/Is_the_NAACP_still_re.shtml

Always take the news with a grain of salt. They make a mountain out of a mole hill and usually have some agenda.

sexiest_hero wrote:Always take the news with a grain of salt. They make a mountain out of a mole hill and usually have some agenda.

you are preaching to the choir. I get my news from Al Jazeera or Russia Today....

doesnt change the fact that I am in bars that have CNN the communist news network or Fox News, which is just as bad just on the opposite end of the spectrum. They do have an agenda...and the politically correct bs that I refer to in this topic is part of it.

The thing about your theory is that it places the blame for racism on the target, not the perpetrator.

Do you see how that looks kind of racist?

IG_urban wrote:
An ignorant title? Why? The NAACP is one of the reasons petty ongoing racism is still around. It's a fact.

No, that's actually an opinion.

IG_urban wrote:
They have been declining in credibility as of late. Don't be a troll. If you don't like the title, that is your opinion,

So you can determine the difference between a fact and an opinion when it favors your argument, but not otherwise? Are you trolling, or do you really not understand the words you're using?

The initial link shows someone getting bent out of shape about something they perceived falsely. The guy is a loud mouthed attention seeker (that looks familiar), but how does that promote racism?

Racism exists because people and institutions in power promote it through unequal policy, fear mongering, and a perceived right to be above being held to task for what they do.

The Arizona situation is very similar to the rounding up of homosexuals, immigrants and the mentally ill in Germany prior to WWII, and should be of serious concern to anyone who claims to believe in democracy or equal rights.

The texas schoolbook situation in which a small panel of ultra-conservative revisionists have the power to rewrite the history being taught to students by removing all usage of the term slavery" in the context of US history and to imply in same texts that anyone who doesn't "politely" disagree with elected officials is somehow a criminal is ludicrous. The texts go on to suggest that Any form of anti-establishment protest or assembly is "impolite". Really? Freedom of assembly is "impolite" now? And do we need our schools teaching this? How about they focus on academics and not political brainwashing...

These are the kinds of things that promote racism. People that see minorities (the most likely to demonstrate or protest) as rabble rousers and somehow dangerous. People that want to erase the past so that the complaints of the protesters seem unfounded.

People that want to change the focus from the ongoing racism and the historic causes of it and claim that they are somehow the victim...

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

dietrich wrote: The NAACP exists to promote an ethnic group that has historically been the victim of racism.

The NAACP, fighting Racism by promoting one race over another...

I didn't say the NAACP exists to fight racism. It exists to promote their ethnic group, who happens to have been victimized by racism in America.

CT GAMER wrote:The initial link shows someone getting bent out of shape about something they perceived falsely. The guy is a loud mouthed attention seeker (that looks familiar), but how does that promote racism?

Racism exists because people and institutions in power promote it through unequal policy, fear mongering, and a perceived right to be above being held to task for what they do.

The Arizona situation is very similar to the rounding up of homosexuals, immigrants and the mentally ill in Germany prior to WWII, and should be of serious concern to anyone who claims to believe in democracy or equal rights.

The texas schoolbook situation in which a small panel of ultra-conservative revisionists have the power to rewrite the history being taught to students by removing all usage of the term slavery" in the context of US history and to imply in same texts that anyone who doesn't "politely" disagree with elected officials is somehow a criminal is ludicrous. The texts go on to suggest that Any form of anti-establishment protest or assembly is "impolite". Really? Freedom of assembly is "impolite" now? And do we need our schools teaching this? How about they focus on academics and not political brainwashing...

These are the kinds of things that promote racism. People that see minorities (the most likely to demonstrate or protest) as rabble rousers and somehow dangerous. People that want to erase the past so that the complaints of the protesters seem unfounded.

People that want to change the focus from the ongoing racism and the historic causes of it and claim that they are somehow the victim...

This is why we need nationally standardised text books. But that is a different discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dietrich wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

dietrich wrote: The NAACP exists to promote an ethnic group that has historically been the victim of racism.

The NAACP, fighting Racism by promoting one race over another...

I didn't say the NAACP exists to fight racism. It exists to promote their ethnic group, who happens to have been victimized by racism in America.

And the point is that if some-one was to make a group that does exactly the same for whites or european americans, groups like the NAACP would be up in arms and protesting that such a group was racist in its design and therefore needs to be integrated.
There is no United Caucasian College Fund.
There is no National Association for the Advancement of White People.
And when it was suggested by a southern radio comedy duo (Johnboy and Billy) that there be a "Million White Man March" (iirc) to promote the exact same agenda as the "Million Man March" staged by various black groups including the NAACP, The idea, radio show and the duo were attacked as being "Racist". The idea was shut down within a couple of weeks and never really made it out of the "idea" stage.

So just to reinstate the point.
It is NOT Racist to make a group or event that solely promotes black or african americans to the exclusion of everyone else.
It IS Racist to have a group or event that solely promotes any group that is not black or african american.

Does this even sound half stupid to anyone else?

And what about Afrikaners, white people from South Africa? Where do they fit in if they emmigrate to this country? Wouldn't they be "African Americans?"

Kilkrazy wrote:The thing about your theory is that it places the blame for racism on the target, not the perpetrator.

Do you see how that looks kind of racist?

I am not sure what you mean by the target....

My theory is simple, and it ties into what CT gamer posted....it IS A FACT not an opinion. If I made a NAAWP, the NAACP would call me racist. That is racist in it of itself. Its the calling for special rights, not equal rights, that promotes more racism.

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
An ignorant title? Why? The NAACP is one of the reasons petty ongoing racism is still around. It's a fact.

No, that's actually an opinion.

IG_urban wrote:
They have been declining in credibility as of late. Don't be a troll. If you don't like the title, that is your opinion,

So you can determine the difference between a fact and an opinion when it favors your argument, but not otherwise? Are you trolling, or do you really not understand the words you're using?

I understand perfectly, do you understand how passive aggressive your posts are? It is a FACT, once again, that if I initiated a NAAWP, I would be labeled a racist, and the NAACP would probably sue me as well. That is racist, therefore, propagating racism. If you look at their case record, a large number of them are similar to this scenario. If my aunt was murdered by a black man, and I called it a hate crime, I would be labeled as a racist. If I had my own coffee shop, and two homeless men, dressed identically entered my store, one white, one black, and the black man had excrement and urine all over him and I told him to leave, and a NAACP rep was in my store, I would probably get labeled as a racist. You can see it time and time again in the news. It's dirty double standards and cries for SPECIAL, not EQUAL rights.

helgrenze wrote:And the point is that if some-one was to make a group that does exactly the same for whites or european americans, groups like the NAACP would be up in arms and protesting that such a group was racist in its design and therefore needs to be integrated.
There is no United Caucasian College Fund.
There is no National Association for the Advancement of White People.
And when it was suggested by a southern radio comedy duo (Johnboy and Billy) that there be a "Million White Man March" (iirc) to promote the exact same agenda as the "Million Man March" staged by various black groups including the NAACP, The idea, radio show and the duo were attacked as being "Racist". The idea was shut down within a couple of weeks and never really made it out of the "idea" stage.

Precisely, and it is this mentality that propagates more racism.

I don't agree with most of the politics of Al Sharpton and the NAACP. I also don't think you can the NAACP is the reason there is still racism in the United States of America.

IG_urban wrote:
I understand perfectly, do you understand how passive aggressive your posts are?

Are you trying to be ironic? If asking questions is necessarily passive-aggressive, then you've gone right down the rabbit hole.

IG_urban wrote:
It is a FACT, once again, that if I initiated a NAAWP, I would be labeled a racist, and the NAACP would probably sue me as well.

No, it isn't a fact. It is a fact that you believe that if you created an NAAWP that the NAACP would sue you for racism, but is is not itself a fact that they would do so as you are dealing only in speculation and belief.

Again, you do not appear to understand what the words you are using actually mean.

IG_urban wrote:
That is racist, therefore, propagating racism.

Yes, were they to do that it would be.

IG_urban wrote:
If you look at their case record, a large number of them are similar to this scenario. If my aunt was murdered by a black man, and I called it a hate crime, I would be labeled as a racist.

No, not by current precedent. People have been tried, and convicted, on the basis of hate crimes against whites.

IG_urban wrote:
If I had my own coffee shop, and two homeless men, dressed identically entered my store, one white, one black, and the black man had excrement and urine all over him and I told him to leave, and a NAACP rep was in my store, I would probably get labeled as a racist. You can see it time and time again in the news. It's dirty double standards and cries for SPECIAL, not EQUAL rights.

Why are you so terribly concerned about what someone might call you? Do you not believe that you have the ability to defend yourself in the public press? Because you do, necessarily so.

IG_urban wrote:. If I made a NAAWP, the NAACP would call me racist.

The NAAWP has existed since our nations founding, it's called "mainstream America" or "The good o'l boy network" that controls much of politics, local government, industry, corporate culture, etc. and many of the ideals it held for many decades ARE racist.

A nation founded and built on the principles of subjugation and slavery can't help but have such racist underpinnings.

Thankfully we have made strides to move forward, but don't be fooled by whats on the surface: many white institutions, politicians, foundations, and special interest groups continue to push extremely racist political/ideological agendas. Only difference is the changing times have forced them to be more subtle about it, and they have shifted the central focus from the black skinned man to the brown skinned man.

Being worried about the NAACP at this point is passe to be honest.

The Hispanic is the new "N*gger"...

In light of tall the reports against me, I'm so glad I haven't read this thread or I'll get at least 5 more reports for calling people on their racism.

I have a great suspicion that you don't know what racism means; seeing as you seem to apply it to nationalities, rather than anything that has ever been defined as a 'race'.

I keep seeing the term "reverse racism". Stop it. There is no such thing. Racism is racism regarless of who's hating who. A white guy is a bigot towards a black guy.. racism. A black guy is racist towards a white guy... racism. Sorry to rant, but I can't stand that term.

an organization that finds offense in any situation or conversation, whether implied or imaginary, is in of itself, offensive. In this case, it just so happens to be racist, as well. I will agree partially with the "reverse racism" remark, but when you have a group of people fighting racism with racism, it does kind of fit the situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and dogma, you need to quote people if you are going to be posting responses, nobody knows who you are talking to.

IG_urban wrote:

Polonius wrote:He raises a good point. the Thread topic is pretty flamey.

Like KK said, I write in some of my spare time, and if you want to grab people's attention you have to be provocative. I do not find it flamey at all. If you are offended, then I guess you are offended. I should think you can come in here and debate rather than take cheap shots at the thread title. If I had titled this topic "stupid article I found" or something of the sort, chances are it would have 500 views and 4 replies and pushed all the way to page 2 by now

I don't know what thread you've been following, but I was the main contributer to this thread. The thread is flamey because it states, as fact, a highly contentious claim. What's more, you're saying that you picked that to be provocative, which is to say that you wanted responses. It's a fine line between provocative and flamey, and I think that while you're convinced that apparently the NAACP is the reason we have racism in this country doesn't make it a fact, really.

I didn't say I was offended. If I was offended by every huffy white guy who thinks he's a persecuted minority, I would die of shock.

As for reverse racism, it's simply a smoke screen to ignore real racism. When white people are denied loans, or hassled by police, or can't rent an apartment in some neighborhoods, then maybe i'll have some sympathy. A few bigoted black people that hate whitey is not the same as a fairly pervasive effort by white people to keep black people out of public life, out of our schools, and generally in a disadvantaged state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:

IG_urban wrote:. If I made a NAAWP, the NAACP would call me racist.

The NAAWP has existed since our nations founding, it's called "mainstream America" or "The good o'l boy network" that controls much of politics, local government, industry, corporate culture, etc. and many of the ideals it held for many decades ARE racist.

I have a new hero. You even resisted the urge to make the "NAAWP =GOP" joke.

Polonius wrote:As for reverse racism, it's simply a smoke screen to ignore real racism. When white people are denied loans, or hassled by police, or can't rent an apartment in some neighborhoods, then maybe i'll have some sympathy. A few bigoted black people that hate whitey is not the same as a fairly pervasive effort by white people to keep black people out of public life, out of our schools, and generally in a disadvantaged state.

But, when a business that is owned by some crusty old white guys can't bid on a government contract because it's been set aside for a disadvantaged business enterprise - what is it? Or when white students with better grades were denied by Michigan's law school for minorities to have a more diverse student body - what is it?

Now, it clearly isn't on the level that blacks and indians have experienced. But, when you're making decisions based on skin color, race, religion, etc. - it's bias. I wouldn't call it racism, but it also isn't equal opportunities.

And I don't know what group of white people are conspiring to deny blacks the opportunity to go to school or participate in public life, but I must have missed the memo. Or maybe I wasn't inbred enough. I'm fairly rednecky, so I don't think that was the criteria. If you're talking about what happened 50 years ago, then you need to make that clear. Sorry, but saying that there is some conspiracy to deny black people schools or 'public life', I don't see how you say that with a straight face. Oh, there are the individual bigots who do what they can get away with, but I just don't see it being widespread.

50 years ago, when blacks were denied service because of the color of their skin, and 100 years ago in the 'separate but equal' era, that was wrong, and fortunately we've moved past it. Now, racism hasn't been wiped out. But, considering the leader of the western world, the President of the United States, is an African American, I don't think it's a major factor today.

And going back to the OP. It's bunk. People are hearing what they want to hear. It's indignation over nothing to get some media attention. What it does is expose the NAACP to the 'boy who cried wolf' syndrome. When you go on the offensive over something like this, when you need some credibility to handle a real issue, you have none.

The Hispanic is the new "N*gger"...

I found myself thinking "It's better them than me" a few weeks ago then I locked my keys in the car and one of them came to help me. I felt like crap all that week.

I also had the same dark thoughts after 9/11.

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
I understand perfectly, do you understand how passive aggressive your posts are?

Are you trying to be ironic? If asking questions is necessarily passive-aggressive, then you've gone right down the rabbit hole.

IG_urban wrote:
It is a FACT, once again, that if I initiated a NAAWP, I would be labeled a racist, and the NAACP would probably sue me as well.

No, it isn't a fact. It is a fact that you believe that if you created an NAAWP that the NAACP would sue you for racism, but is is not itself a fact that they would do so as you are dealing only in speculation and belief.

Again, you do not appear to understand what the words you are using actually mean.

IG_urban wrote:
That is racist, therefore, propagating racism.

Yes, were they to do that it would be.

IG_urban wrote:
If you look at their case record, a large number of them are similar to this scenario. If my aunt was murdered by a black man, and I called it a hate crime, I would be labeled as a racist.

No, not by current precedent. People have been tried, and convicted, on the basis of hate crimes against whites.

IG_urban wrote:
If I had my own coffee shop, and two homeless men, dressed identically entered my store, one white, one black, and the black man had excrement and urine all over him and I told him to leave, and a NAACP rep was in my store, I would probably get labeled as a racist. You can see it time and time again in the news. It's dirty double standards and cries for SPECIAL, not EQUAL rights.

Why are you so terribly concerned about what someone might call you? Do you not believe that you have the ability to defend yourself in the public press? Because you do, necessarily so.

You are not just asking questions. In fact, you, CT, and Polonius are being the typical liberal fire starters in this topic.

It is a fact. Sorry. You can call it an opinion all you want, it won't change the actuality of the situation.

I know exactly what I am talking about, and I am getting very tired with your odd, back-handed remarks.

Yes people have been tried and convicted, but the numbers are horribly skewed.

Polonius wrote:

IG_urban wrote:

Polonius wrote:He raises a good point. the Thread topic is pretty flamey.

Like KK said, I write in some of my spare time, and if you want to grab people's attention you have to be provocative. I do not find it flamey at all. If you are offended, then I guess you are offended. I should think you can come in here and debate rather than take cheap shots at the thread title. If I had titled this topic "stupid article I found" or something of the sort, chances are it would have 500 views and 4 replies and pushed all the way to page 2 by now

I don't know what thread you've been following, but I was the main contributer to this thread. The thread is flamey because it states, as fact, a highly contentious claim. What's more, you're saying that you picked that to be provocative, which is to say that you wanted responses. It's a fine line between provocative and flamey, and I think that while you're convinced that apparently the NAACP is the reason we have racism in this country doesn't make it a fact, really.

I didn't say I was offended. If I was offended by every huffy white guy who thinks he's a persecuted minority, I would die of shock.

As for reverse racism, it's simply a smoke screen to ignore real racism. When white people are denied loans, or hassled by police, or can't rent an apartment in some neighborhoods, then maybe i'll have some sympathy. A few bigoted black people that hate whitey is not the same as a fairly pervasive effort by white people to keep black people out of public life, out of our schools, and generally in a disadvantaged state.

Yes, I made the topic to attract people to it, so they would reply, so what?

In my opinion the NAACP propagates racism, yes. And it is very apparent. Whatever your political leaning may be, it still doesn't change the fact the NAACP keeps petty, quasi racism claims alive.

"If I was offended by every huffy white guy who thinks he's a persecuted minority" that had better not be directed at me. You have no idea who I am. Try not acting closed-minded liberal for once.

IG_urban wrote:
You are not just asking questions. In fact, you, CT, and Polonius are being the typical liberal fire starters in this topic.

I am just asking questions. The question may have been provocative, but it was meant to illustrate a significant inconsistency in your position. Namely, that you plainly understand fact vs. opinion when it favors you, but fail to do so when it does not.

As for being a fire starter: I've made one oblique reference to the conduct of the NAACP, I've not taken a significant stand on either side of the issue. I've primarily commented on your method of approaching this conversation, which may simply be the result of a particular passion.

IG_urban wrote:
It is a fact. Sorry. You can call it an opinion all you want, it won't change the actuality of the situation.

Apparently I was wrong about the above. It isn't a fact. There are no facts about the future. There are possibilities, and you can believe that they are very likely, but that belief does not turn a possibility into a fact. It can be a fact that something is possible, but the possible event is not itself a fact.

IG_urban wrote:
I know exactly what I am talking about, and I am getting very tired with your odd, back-handed remarks.

If you think that there are facts about the future, then no, you do not.

IG_urban wrote:
Yes people have been tried and convicted, but the numbers are horribly skewed.

I agree, but that isn't consistent with the argument that you are present, which deals in baseless certainty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:
There is no United Caucasian College Fund.

The United Negro College Fund is open to all ethnicities. I haven't received money from them, but I know white people who have.

helgrenze wrote:
There is no National Association for the Advancement of White People.

The NAACP is also integrated, and offers scholarship money to all ethnicities. I have received money from them.

There are many misconceptions pertaining to both of these organizations due only to their names.

Some of the views expressed by some posters in this thread have the appearance of being racist and have caused alerts from other users.

Being a racist is not in itself something that DakkaDakka.com can anything about.

Whatever someone's private views may be, the forum is a place for people to enjoy discussion of the fun hobby of wargames. It is not a political debate site, even though that is allowed in OT.

We are concerned with the way that users behave towards each other in the forum.

People who express racist, sexist and other "-ist" views even in polite terms are certain to attract the anger and resentment of other users. Doing this often could be interpreted as trolling and flame-baiting.

I believe this particular thread has reached its natural life-span, however I am leaving it unlocked for the moment as that will let it stay higher up the page for a bit, so people can read this message.

The card in the OP wasn't misheard as "Black Ho's", which could have resulted from the voice actors inflection. It was misheard as "Black Whores".

Sorry, but to me that is some-one looking for a reason to protest. They wanted to be offended by the card and picked a word that is difficult to make sound like the original word of "Hole".

Try it yourself... try saying "Hole" so that it sounds like "Whore".
Its like the old "play the record backwards" bit. People hearing things because they WANT to.

KK I respect your opinion.

helgrenze, thanks for your addition.

Without having directly heard the recording on the card, it seems odd to claim what was or was not being heard.

which proves you did not click on the original link....

Direct is a fantastic word, you should learn to use it.

Hmmm. Right.

You are aware that rather than being provocative, you are in fact just being out and out racist yourself yes?

Some people in life are simply arseholes, it's that simple. But you seem to feel that their skin colour has something to do with just what sort of arsehole they are. You have singled out the odd/ridiculous behaviour of a single group, and made a point about their colour. I fail to see how this has any relevance to them being reactionary idiots looking for a fight.

See, I kind of agree with you, but did so without bringing race into my own opinion.

I heartily suggest you start your own pro-caucasian group, and see if what you dread comes to pass. Or perhaps we should just tell the minorties to shut up and just be oppressed?

as in what? direct you to the link? direct myself to hell? what?

Direct in that the evidence presented is not first hand, and he wishes to have said card in his hand and listen to the recording himself, free from any inflection forced upon it.

I used the word 'direct' to indicate that the recording presented was not directly from the card itself. I couldn't, personally, tell what was being said because it all came through a second recording device. It may have been similarly difficult in person, but I don't know that because I haven't heard it.

Why would you even claim that I want you to 'direct yourself to hell'? Why are you necessarily dragging this into incivility?

oh please they are no more oppressed than any other race. It's that same victim mentality. Truth is, if they just stood up for themselves more, and instead of pulling the race card, they could be saying, "hey, thats frakked up, knock it off". I bring race into the debate because that is what the NAACP chooses to use as ammo. Rather than say "these human beings are being mistreated" They have to say it is because they are black. Racism begets racism. One party has to start the change. And if the ignorant white majority is too full of themselves to do so, then maybe the NAACP and the minority organizations could start to do so. But until we all separate the racism from the issue and just call it abuse, harassment, or what have you, it is always going to spiral down to racism and petty quibbling.

The author of this thread knew exactly what kind of reaction he would get when he posted this topic and chose the title he did.

The mods then allowed the thread to stay.

So the author's shock over the reaction is rather ludicrous.

If you don't know ahead of time that a discussion centered around race is going to end up in a heated argument then you are either too young to be on the internet to begin with or you are trolling.

Since the author claims to be a writer, I would think he would know this.

Also interesting to note that a number of people attacked the author's ideas not the author, yet his responses quickly turned to personal attacks calling people "trolls", "liberals", having their "panties in a bunch", etc., etc.

The first sign of a weak argument is how quickly someone's position collapses and they resort to personal attacks instead...

dogma wrote:I used the word 'direct' to indicate that the recording presented was not directly from the card itself. I couldn't, personally, tell what was being said because it all came through a second recording device. It may have been similarly difficult in person, but I don't know that because I haven't heard it.

Why would you even claim that I want you to 'direct yourself to hell'? Why are you necessarily dragging this into incivility?

inhance your calm. I was trying to be funny because I honestly had no idea what you meant by "direct".

IG_urban wrote:oh please they are no more oppressed than any other race. It's that same victim mentality. Truth is, if they just stood up for themselves more, and instead of pulling the race card, they could be saying, "hey, thats frakked up, knock it off".

That's what they are saying. If this is your position, then you are literally annoyed for no reason.

So they should stand up for themselves, except when they are making a stand against potential racist activity yes? You do realise the circular logic to your statement?

And so as long as all minorities are equally abused and discriminated against, everything is just peachy is it?

As for 'not bringing race into it' when defending yourself from discrimination, it's kind of hard to do so when race is the only reason you are being kept down.

Your arguments make absolutely no sense whatsoever fella.

IG_urban wrote:
inhance your calm. I was trying to be funny because I honestly had no idea what you meant by "direct".

I'm quite calm. Nothing in my post could indicate otherwise, unless you assume that I'm being emotional? That would seem indicate that you're projecting your current state onto me.

CT GAMER wrote:The author of this thread knew exactly what kind of reaction he would get when he posted this topic and chose the title he did.

The mods then allowed the thread to stay.

So the author's shock over the reaction is rather ludicrous.

If you don't know ahead of time that a discussion centered around race is going to end up in a heated argument then you are either too young to be on the internet to begin with or you are trolling.

Since the author claims to be a writer, I would think he would know this.

Also interesting to note that a number of people attacked the author's ideas not the author, yet his responses quickly turned to personal attacks calling people "trolls", "liberals", having their "panties in a bunch", etc., etc.

The first sign of a weak argument is how quickly someone's position collapses and they resort to personal attacks instead...

fail, fail, and fail. I was never shocked at people's responses, I was merely defending my position. From the beginning, I was being called a bigot and ignorant, I am just retaliating somewhat more civilized. I think you are too oblivious at your own bland expressions of intelligence trying to call me out as...well whatever your trying to make me out to be. You have a few others have been projecting on to me since the get go, and I am trying to be somewhat neutral, you don't know how many times I have re written my responses to take out as much negativity as possible. I told ONE person to stop trolling, called people out on their liberal statements, and the panty comment is a very popular term for getting riled up more than one needs to be. With the exception of a few people, I am defending my position against quite a few people. One is bound to get a bit riled up, but I truly am trying to be civil.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:oh please they are no more oppressed than any other race. It's that same victim mentality. Truth is, if they just stood up for themselves more, and instead of pulling the race card, they could be saying, "hey, thats frakked up, knock it off".

That's what they are saying. If this is your position, then you are literally annoyed for no reason.

But they are using race as a catalyst when they don't need to, so really, it is NOT what they are saying.

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
inhance your calm. I was trying to be funny because I honestly had no idea what you meant by "direct".

I'm quite calm. Nothing in my post could indicate otherwise, unless you assume that I'm being emotional? That would seem indicate that you're projecting your current state onto me.

no, enhance your calm is a line from Demolition Man, all I was inferring was that I did not mean anything negative by my "hell" remark.

Dude, their whole problem here is that they felt the card had racist connotations. So I ask again, how exactly does one leave race out of an opinion when race is at the very core of the problem?

IG_urban wrote:
fail, fail, and fail. I was never shocked at people's responses, I was merely defending, position. From the beginning, I was being called a bigot and ignorant,

Please cite these accusations.

IG_urban wrote:
I am just retaliating somewhat more civilized. I think you are too oblivious at your own bland expressions of intelligence trying to call me out as...

So, you're being more civilized, but other people are blind to their own civilized criticism?

IG_urban wrote:
...and I am trying to be somewhat neutral...

No, you aren't. The thread title says you aren't. You made up your mind before you hit 'submit'.

the card thing is just out and out blatant stupidity. This has expanded a bit beyond the card now.

IG_urban wrote:
But they are using race as a catalyst when they don't need to, so really, it is NOT what they are saying.

No, its exactly what they're saying. You even called 'them' a group and said 'they' should stand up for themselves more. Who were you referring to if not the people involved in the NAACP; including me, a white guy whom they gave scholarship money to?

My comments above were in relation to this, quoted from the article...

But that's not what some people heard.

"You hear the 'r' in there. 'Whores,' not, 'holes.' The 'r' is in there," said Minnie Hatley of the Los Angeles NAACP.

Hallmark sent Eyewitness News a transcript of what the card says, but Hatley says that the actual audio raises questions.

Ms. Hartley claims to have heard an "R" in the middle of the word "hole".

As for the "watch your backs" line.. the preceeding line is, from what I heard, "And you planets..."

So given the text and the actual dialog, as well as the presentation of the actual card.... and add in the fact that the card has been on the market for 3 years.
This is people looking for a reason to be distressed.

No it hasn't.

Did they over react? Quite possibly. But you seem intent on claiming racism exists because there are those trying to stop it. Technically, you are right, as racism ultimately is just a word for a set of behaviour. But calling a Cow a Pig doesn't stop the beast actually being there. They clearly felt (rightly or wrongly) that the card was degrading to a certain element of the populace, and took steps to correct this. More power to them. Whereas are you do indeed seem to telling them to just shut up and be oppressed.

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
fail, fail, and fail. I was never shocked at people's responses, I was merely defending, position. From the beginning, I was being called a bigot and ignorant,

Please cite these accusations.

read the topic, please.

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
I am just retaliating somewhat more civilized. I think you are too oblivious at your own bland expressions of intelligence trying to call me out as...

So, you're being more civilized, but other people are blind to their own civilized criticism?

no, once again I am just defending my position.

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
...and I am trying to be somewhat neutral...

No, you aren't. The thread title says you aren't. You made up your mind before you hit 'submit'.

In the original post, no, I was not. But like I have already stated, we have expanded a bit beyond that, and that is the situation I am referring to; mainly our ongoing debate. Perhaps neutral was not the right word, but I already used civilized in the same paragraph and it felt wrong to say it twice...feth it....



Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
But they are using race as a catalyst when they don't need to, so really, it is NOT what they are saying.

No, its exactly what they're saying. You even called 'them' a group and said 'they' should stand up for themselves more. Who were you referring to if not the people involved in the NAACP; including me, a white guy whom they gave scholarship money to?

dude stop picking apart my wording, it makes you look sad and silly. stick to the point at hand.

There are good and bad apples in all races. People need to see each other as individuals and not race.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:No it hasn't.

Did they over react? Quite possibly. But you seem intent on claiming racism exists because there are those trying to stop it. Technically, you are right, as racism ultimately is just a word for a set of behaviour. But calling a Cow a Pig doesn't stop the beast actually being there. They clearly felt (rightly or wrongly) that the card was degrading to a certain element of the populace, and took steps to correct this. More power to them. Whereas are you do indeed seem to telling them to just shut up and be oppressed.

I am not saying that at all. Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. I am telling them to stick to actual matters of hate and intolerance, not searching for petty reasons to pull the race card to make their lawyers more money and draw excessive PC attention to themselves.

please, read this, that I am posting again...

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/31/Tampabay/Is_the_NAACP_still_re.shtml



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yak9UT wrote:There are good and bad apples in all races. people need to see each other as individuals and not race

my point exactly. the NAACP and Al Sharpton etc keep bringing race into the subject....gawd, at lease somebody gets it.

IG_urban wrote:
read the topic, please.

So you, the the originator of the thread, called yourself a bigot in the topic line that you wrote?

IG_urban wrote:
no, once again I am just defending my position.

Defending one's position is not tacit to civilized criticism. You seem to enjoy moving the goal posts.

IG_urban wrote:
In the original post, no, I was not. But like I have already stated, we have expanded a bit beyond that, and that is the situation I am referring to; mainly our ongoing debate. Perhaps neutral was not the right word, but I already used civilized in the same paragraph and it felt wrong to say it twice...feth it....

Civilized was also the wrong word. By your own admission this thread has not been civilized.

You've taken a position, and you're defending it. There is no shame in that, and I commend your resolve given the response. I don't agree with you, but I commend your resolve.

IG_urban wrote:
dude stop picking apart my wording, it makes you look sad and silly. stick to the point at hand.

I don't know what the point at hand is, given our present conversation. You don't like the NAACP, I know this, but I don't know why that is the case. At least outside what seem to be illogical associations.

this is dribbling into idiocracy, on all sides...I am tired and this is getting locked anyway....call it giving up, you can take the win, we are not going to agree, and you can think whatever you want about me.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:No it hasn't.

Did they over react? Quite possibly.... They clearly felt (rightly or wrongly) that the card was degrading to a certain element of the populace, and took steps to correct this. More power to them.

Even if they correctly heard the word "whores" the line is still... "and you black holes (or whores), you are so ominous... and you planets, watch your backs."
So I would suppose the card isnt just insulting to black women but Large Black Women. Better call the President, this is a weighty issue.

Maybe if the NAACP reps in L.A. were better educated they would have not only heard the card correctly, but would have understood the word "ominous"

having a menacing or threatening aspect.

and realized that it really was about the Universe.

dogma wrote: Who were you referring to if not the people involved in the NAACP; including me, a white guy whom they gave scholarship money to?

Did you take tanning pills to qualify for that scholarship

This thread reminds me of the band refusing to abandon the Titanic...

I just thought of something:

A thread was started with a provacative, controversial title with link.

The OP then rolls out swinging against "liberals" and "trolls" that disagree.

The OP has a tenuous grasp on the difference between facts, opinions, and arguable assertions.

Is the OP Frazz's alt account?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously, if you're simply trying to point out that the NAACP, or more accuratly, that local chapters of the NAACP do their share of race baiting, than I agree.

I think where we'd disagree is in the nature of racism in this country, particularly in it's effects on the races. All the racism against whites doesn't seem to hurt whites in any tangible way, while racism against black people still is a factor (not the only one) in the huge differences in every measurable quality of life factor between white and black.

If you think black people get bank loans less often, or are arrested far more often, or receive harsher sentences, or are under represented in nearly all professional and governmental ranks because of the NAACP, then I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

It is interesting that Frazzled hasn't locked this yet. Very interesting.

The thread is actually pretty civil. I think the OP is getting a bit heated, and my and ahtman's discussion was a little tense, but I'm not seeing any real reason to lock it.

There's an intersting conversation buried here, which is asking to what extent a race is responsible for the racism against that. The OP seems to hold, and I'm not sure about this, either that black people are discriminated against because of actions like the card protest, or that the card protest is itself somehow racist against whites, and that the NAACP is an example of the most virulent racism in the country today.

Polonius wrote:The thread is actually pretty civil. I think the OP is getting a bit heated, and my and ahtman's discussion was a little tense, but I'm not seeing any real reason to lock it.

There's an intersting conversation buried here, which is asking to what extent a race is responsible for the racism against that. The OP seems to hold, and I'm not sure about this, either that black people are discriminated against because of actions like the card protest, or that the card protest is itself somehow racist against whites, and that the NAACP is an example of the most virulent racism in the country today.

I guess what I'm driving at is that some of the views expressed here are... questionable, to say the least. Way more so than in recent threads on Israeli issues.


We all know how THOSE turned out.

There's a fine line between willingly blind to reality (that racism is still pervasive in this country and that groups can and should exist to fight it) and being racist.

Race is a very tricky issue in the US, and one of the ways a lot of white people can sleep at night is to convince themself that "well, at least everything is ok now." I'm not sure it's sinister, merely a product of a somewhat self centered world view.

I find the idea of a bunch of white people walking around going 'yeah, there's no racism anymore - everything's cool now' totally hilarious.

At least, it would be if it wasn't so tragic.

it's important to distinguish between racism (the process of assigning attributes to entire races, not individuals), discrimination (deny people things based on race), and inequality (people having fewer of things in some races than others).

I'd argue that all three still exist, and are at least somewhat linked. The OP is going to have a hard time explaining the inequalities in the US today between black and white (an inequality not shared with any immigrant minority, including recent african immigrants, btw), without either using race itself, or the the history of racism, as a reason. There's a very small needle by which a person could argue that current African American culture is self defeating and destructive, and that leads to lower achievement, but that's probably not enough to cover everything.

The other thing I find a bit disturbing, as Dogma relentlessly pointed out above, is that the OP has engaged in nearly every internet debating tactic: claiming opinion as fact without any citations or back up, accusing others of being trolls without any real provocation, calling out people as ideologue, moving the goal posts, etc.

These things don't immediately disqualify a person's thesis, but it does make it more likely that the person can't defend the thesis on it's own merits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IG_urban wrote:
"If I was offended by every huffy white guy who thinks he's a persecuted minority" that had better not be directed at me. You have no idea who I am. Try not acting closed-minded liberal for once.

Are you not a white guy? If so, I apologize for the error. If you are, well, then i stand by the remark.

Polonius wrote:There's a very small needle by which a person could argue that current African American culture is self defeating and destructive, and that leads to lower achievement, but that's probably not enough to cover everything.

It also neglects the fact that the social problems which (it could be argued) are self defeating and destructive to African-American culture, are rarely exclusive to African-Americans - unless one believes that they are inherent ethnic characteristics, which is a monstrous thing to think, and completely unsupported by any proof.

Albatross wrote:

Polonius wrote:There's a very small needle by which a person could argue that current African American culture is self defeating and destructive, and that leads to lower achievement, but that's probably not enough to cover everything.

It also neglects the fact that the social problems which (it could be argued) are self defeating and destructive to African-American culture, are rarely exclusive to African-Americans - unless one believes that they are inherent ethnic characteristics, which is a monstrous thing to think, and completely unsupported by any proof.

It also ignores the fact that educated black people still earn (slightly) less than comparable white people:

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/47_four-year_collegedegrees.html

the article is a bit dry, and uses info from 2003, but it shows that not even education can erase the income gap.

My two cents. Racism exists because there are still enough people ridiculous enough to assign blame to all the different groups and still feel we are all too different to just unite. Call me naive but I'm sick of all this "African-American, Latin-American, etc" Why the feth do we need these racial subcategories? Why can't we just be Americans? Unless someone asks where a person's ancestry is from why should it even matter?

My God, we're all just people, no group is better or worse than anyone else. Blacks, Whites, Gays, Hispanic, Asian, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Man, Woman... why are we all so bent out of shape? Yes, we should learn the history so we don't repeat it but using that same history as an excuse to keep this kind of outrageous stupidity occurring in perpetuity is the worst mistake we could do.

Slavery is a horrible mistake that has been made innumerable times throughout history. However, if we never let it go we'll never, EVER be united as a people. As long as there are those whose entire existence is dedicated to bringing up racial differences and finding offense at the slightest provocation I fear this topic will never end. If we never let it go I shudder to think how long we'll fight with each other. Will 100 years from now it still be this same issue?

I'm not so stupid to believe that these deeply ingrained hatreds and preconceptions can go away overnight, but I'll put myself as an example. I was born and raised in South Carolina and my family (God I love them) had some deeply ingrained misconceptions, never to the point of being racist but there's still the "southern slant" to their thinking. I grew up that way, same against gays. I never once used the offensive language or even considered acting out against them but there was still a certain "wariness". That all changed when I went to college and enrolled in their theatre program. I was bombarded by homosexuality and so many different racial groups that I felt that I would drown. I didn't. Instead I surfaced with a much broader understanding of my fellow humans and I could be comfortable around anyone.

I sincerely hope that everyone could have this kind of life-changing experience and that we could let it all go. Pouring out mountains of evidence of lower paying jobs and the like and someone will counter it with "Racial quotas" and other such nonsense. I tell you this, as long as we divide ourselves there can be no healing. As long as there is an NAACP and a KKK, or a Miss Black America or a Miss White America. Hell, even calling a TV network Black Entertainment just proves how far we have yet to come.

Personally I'd love to take every hate-mongerer from the KKK to Al Queda and drop them on a small island with a cache of guns and say "Go nuts fellas". So they could hate and kill to their evil little heart's content and leave the rest of us to move on with our lives.

Bigotry exists in every group in the world today, someone, somewhere perpetuates it. Be it a terror bombing in Israel or Iraq to just a 5 page article argument on Dakka Dakka. (that is not calling ANYONE on here a racist, please don't take it that way, I've got love for all my Dakkaites)

Sorry for the soapbox I'm just so tired of the constant back and forth. Instead of trying to assign blame, let's please all just come together and figure out a way to stop it.

-Sandman

Just to add fuel to the fire or perhaps water to this already sinking Titanic I have to agree with the OP on a lot of things.

Liberals/leftists/humanitarians/sympathizers/whatever they want to call themselves think it's justified that the NAACP and/or minorities play the race card whenever possible. My question is why does everything that minorities don't like/agree with have to be racist? If I don't shake hands with a minority it's because I'm racist. If I don't want to sit next to a minority on the bus I'm racist. If I refuse to let a minority into my store (if I owned one) I'm racist. Why can't I refuse to shake the hands of a minority because his hand is covered in feces? Why can't my reason for not sitting next to a minority is because he stinks?

Here in Mn the Native Americans are some of the most racist people I've had the displeasure of meeting which is ironic because they also live better than most people in Mn. It must be a hard life getting a tribal check, welfare and the "government owes us oppressed people" checks.

The truth is Dogma, and it comes as no surprise that you can't see it, is that if some white dude(s)/woman(en) wanted to start a group called the NAAWP or the White Tigers they would be sued, attacked and called racists by 99% of minorities and for sure Al Sharpton and JJ themselves. The Native Americans here in Mn love to wear shirts with "Native Pride" silkscreened/printed on the front. If I had a tshirt made saying "White Pride" I'd be jumped at every bar, the mall and anywhere else I went. I'd be called racist by all the liberal store owners in the state and probably even refused admission by some into their businesses.

I'm sorry if certain people with certain viewpoints can't see the hypocrisy of minorities playing the race card for every reason known to man, fathomable or infathomable. Maybe if more of these minority groups and minorities stopped to think "maybe whitey doesn't like me because I stink or because I'm an donkey-cave" instead of "whitey doesn't like me because I'm black".

Al Sharpton and JJ think the AZ immigration law is racist; Al and JJ and many other minorities think black conservatives are sellouts and Uncle Toms.

Racism exists on both sides but to pretend that the NAACP doesn't ex-acerbate the problem with idiotic claims of racism where they don't exist is willful ignorance

Fateweaver wrote:Just to add fuel to the fire or perhaps water to this already sinking Titanic I have to agree with the OP on a lot of things.

Liberals/leftists/humanitarians/sympathizers/whatever they want to call themselves think it's justified that the NAACP and/or minorities play the race card whenever possible. My question is why does everything that minorities don't like/agree with have to be racist? If I don't shake hands with a minority it's because I'm racist. If I don't want to sit next to a minority on the bus I'm racist. If I refuse to let a minority into my store (if I owned one) I'm racist. Why can't I refuse to shake the hands of a minority because his hand is covered in feces? Why can't my reason for not sitting next to a minority is because he stinks?

Ah, here we go...

If you don't shake hands with a member of a minority race due to their race, then you are a racist.

If you don't want to sit next to someone on the bus due to the colour of their skin, then you are a racist.

If you refuse someone access to your shop due to racial heritage, then you are a racist.

No sane individual would question your refusal to shake someone's hand if it was covered in poo. Good grief, fartweaver that was poor even for you.

Your comparisons are childish and illogical. Quelle surprise...

Extreme examples but there is someone out there who would claim I refused to be civil on racial grounds.

My point is 99% of the time when a minority is gak on for any reason OTHER than race it IS because he/she is minority and so therefore it must be racial hatred.

Perhaps over in GB the racism isn't as obvious as it is here but IME the minorities are the biggest racists I've ever come across.

Why does it have to matter what race you are? Black people make fun of whites, and vice versa. If a white guy kills a black guy because he is black, it`s rascism and a hate crime, no matter what motive he has! And aren`t all crimes caused by hate, not only crimes against black people? Half the jews in the world (or in Europe, im not sure...Anyway 6 million) were killed, but people make jew jokes all the time.
Rascism is looking down on a race and thinking of all people within that race are lesser people. Please remember that.
(rant over)
OT, i think it`s ignorant of the NAACP to call the makers of the card rascist. they aren`t.

Fateweaver wrote:Extreme examples but there is someone out there who would claim I refused to be civil on racial grounds.

My point is 99% of the time when a minority is gak on for any reason OTHER than race it IS because he/she is minority and so therefore it must be racial hatred.

Perhaps over in GB the racism isn't as obvious as it is here but IME the minorities are the biggest racists I've ever come across.

I live in a rough area of Bristol, the minorities here are barely minority, they are not different coloured nationals from several generations, they are often recently arrived into the country. The most notable are the Somalians. I am a 'lefty' as you know but have found those I've encountered to be abrupt, rude, pushy and antagonistic from the get go. That's not an issue of the colour of their skin, but of the culture they are from.

As to racism on the whole in the UK, it's a very real issue, in a small and heavily populated island, rest assured race and especially immigration are very strong topics.

I will certainly admit there is an element amongst racial lobbying groups and liberal white supporters of such, that talk directly from their arses and can't wait to blame some woe on skin colour, even whilst demonstrating against extreme white nationalistic bodies in the UK like the National Front and Combat 18, I would find myself arguing with some white girl with a double barrel name and beads in her hair who was crying out that 'only the white man brings such cruelty and hate'.

But, the fact remains that racism is still with us and still strongly felt by the ignorant. The big difference is it is now accepted as wrong by most of society. Whilst the tale the OP presented shows a potentially ludicrous case of 'overbombing' the issue in the wrong area, hate crimes against minorities exists all over the world, because it's a part of the uglier side of human nature to focus on what is different rather than what is the same.

I mean, a girl was kicked to death in a british park a little while ago for being a goth, just a fashion code. Imagine then the feelings towards someone with different coloured skin or accent or mannerism. It has been again surfacing here in the UK principally towards immigrants.

It's not on to just point at this fairly ludicrous example of political correctness in the original post and say 'there's no racism, it's just people like this fuelling the fire'.

To be fair MGS, I think that might the one thing both sides of the fence get better in the UK than the US, that whilst I might think you are a product of a culture I find unpleasent, that is not in itself racism. For example, I don't have any time for mysoginistic arseholes, and yet some cultures seem to promote that. If I have a problem with someone from said culture, it's not about where they are from, as the attitude itself.

I, and MGS have something in common (other than Warhammer). I too live in an area where the minorities outnumber the caucasians and it gets really old and tiring when the ones crying the most about racism are the biggest culprits and most definately milk the system for all it's worth concerning entitlement and benefits.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To be fair MGS, I think that might the one thing both sides of the fence get better in the UK than the US, that whilst I might think you are a product of a culture I find unpleasent, that is not in itself racism. For example, I don't have any time for mysoginistic arseholes, and yet some cultures seem to promote that. If I have a problem with someone from said culture, it's not about where they are from, as the attitude itself.

The initial sentiments, yes, but they are rapidly coalesced into a prejudice which certainly includes race. The stigma becomes racial tension. The blur exists as 'I don't like x religion or x nationality' sits next to 'I don't like black people or I don't like arabs' etc.

The resentment about immigration for example, is principally directed at black or asian or hispanic immigrants into a largely caucasian population, since the media (blessed be the Daily Mail...) tells us about the floods of immigrants and the paranoid and ill educated look about and see black/asian/hispanic etc.

Then it becomes racially based.

True enough fella.

I do think sheer paranoia plays a large part in Racial tensions, but then so does heavy handed political correctness. For example (and not a great one, but bare with) the radical Muslims who apparently want Britain as a whole to convert and embrace Sharia. Thanks to PC, it's now racists to point out that there are in fact countries offering that, and they might be happier in one of them. Ludicrous, is it not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And no, you're not seeing things. Cpt Liberal himself has just decried political correctness!

True enough, as a liberal, as a left wing believer in equality and fairness and ending discrimination of race and gender, I've had plenty of arguments with my peers. I've been accused of racism and called a 'red neck'. But, finally, my own beliefs about the rights of women and the freedom to express and enjoy education and tolerance have forced me to draw a line in the sand against the behaviour of a significant number of those of the islamic faith who stand with liberals and do indeed use the shelter and tolerance of those committed to freedom, but who actually represent and enforce a type of religious fascism and bigotry.

Still, again the pit fall is prejudicing as a whole. I know I've been guilty of that. I wish I could find a clip of it on youtube, but there was a news clip showing a young extremist muslim, on the green outside the Houses of Parliament, telling the channel 4 interviewer about how the muslim yoof were feeling and how much they hated it in the UK and were working to overthrow it all and convert the infidel scum, citing from the qur'an about 'striking down the enemies' etc etc, when another young man walks over and firstly apologises for interrupting and then politely introduces himself as an Islamic scholar and berates the 'angry muslim yoof' guy, citing the qur'an and excepts from it about tolerance and civilised behaviour and seeking to better one's self. For every angry and vengeful sound bite the first could come up with or just invent, the second countered him politely but resolutely.

I really wish we'd hear more from that second bloke in our daily news and less from the first.

Pft. Tolerance and civilised behavior don't make for good news stories.

Unless it's something absolutely absurd that makes no sense or gets a laugh out of folks.

Polonius wrote:I just thought of something:

A thread was started with a provacative, controversial title with link.

The OP then rolls out swinging against "liberals" and "trolls" that disagree.

The OP has a tenuous grasp on the difference between facts, opinions, and arguable assertions.

Is the OP Frazz's alt account?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously, if you're simply trying to point out that the NAACP, or more accuratly, that local chapters of the NAACP do their share of race baiting, than I agree.

I think where we'd disagree is in the nature of racism in this country, particularly in it's effects on the races. All the racism against whites doesn't seem to hurt whites in any tangible way, while racism against black people still is a factor (not the only one) in the huge differences in every measurable quality of life factor between white and black.

If you think black people get bank loans less often, or are arrested far more often, or receive harsher sentences, or are under represented in nearly all professional and governmental ranks because of the NAACP, then I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

You really need to stop making assumptions about me.

My point has always been that the NAACP and people like Al Sharpton and JJ propegate racism and encourage racism (what I have been calling reverse racism, possibly to my demise). It has nothing to do with your last sentence. In making claims about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that might possibly be construed as racism, the NAACP, in the eyes of ALL races, loses credibility, and makes themselves look stupid, which in turn, fuels even more racism.

The NAACP, and people like Al Sharpton and JJ are trolls, seriously...what is a troll? Lets get this from wikipedia, anybody can update it, so you know its true.

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response" By pulling the RACE card EVERY TIME, they are using RACISM to fuel their standpoint. Evil begets evil, violence begets violence, racism begets racism.

Their stance is that racism is bad. They generate support based on the abhorrence of racism, and therefore its continued existence. However, they do not themselves propagate racism. You're mistakenly equating two distinct ideas.

That said, many NAACP chapters also mistakenly identify certain things as racist. The greeting card, as based on the presented audio, for example.

dogma wrote:Their stance is that racism is bad. They generate support based on the abhorrence of racism, and therefore its continued existence. However, they do not themselves propagate racism. You're mistakenly equating two distinct ideas.

That said, many NAACP chapters also mistakenly identify certain things as racist. The greeting card, as based on the presented audio, for example.

They are one and the same, though. If they are generating support by proclaiming the abhorrence of racism, but crying RACISM at every possible facet, it's ridiculous. Can't you see the redundancy of that?

I am one for odd examples, but imagine I start a coalition to erase the color blue from all advertising and print....all of my signs are blue, with blue letters, and they say "THIS IS BLUE!!! WE NEED TO GET RID OF BLUE!" It's just spreading more blue everywhere....negating my purposes. Instead, I might make red signs with red letters and even if it is just my opinion, and people disagree I can say.. "THIS IS RED!!! DO YOU SEE HOW MUCH BETTER RED IS? WE CAN ALL BE HAPPIER AND MORE PEACEFUL WITH THIS COLOR!!!" Instead of pointing out blue wherever I see it, I replace it with red and try to promote how much better I think it is.

I am sure you can switch the example around and figure out my point....

Sorry, but you've totally lost me and I haven't been drinking tonight.

You started the thread by claiming that the NAACP causes racism by complaining about racism, and how somehow it's bad to make signs out of blue or red paint. I fail entirely to see how the two points are connected.

Kilkrazy wrote:Sorry, but you've totally lost me and I haven't been drinking tonight.

You started the thread by claiming that the NAACP causes racism by complaining about racism, and how somehow it's bad to make signs out of blue or red paint. I fail entirely to see how the two points are connected.

really?...REALLY????/

ok....then...for you....

I am one for odd examples, but imagine I start a coalition to erase RACISM from all advertising and print....all of my sings say "THIS IS RACIST!!! WE NEED TO GET RID OF RACISM!" It's just spreading more RACISM everywhere....negating my purposes. Instead, I might make DIFFERENT SIGNS and even if it is just my opinion, and people disagree I can say.. "THIS IS WHAT EQUALITY LOOKS LIKE! LOOK HOW PEACEFUL AND UNITED WE CAN BE WITH EQUALITY!" Instead of pointing out RACISM wherever I see it, I replace it with EQUALITY and try to promote how much better I think it is.


It's the same diff man....I have found, especially in debate in HS and in college (just one quarter), that odd scenarios, sometimes help illustrate a point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
you know, leading by example?

Fateweaver wrote:I, and MGS have something in common (other than Warhammer). I too live in an area where the minorities outnumber the caucasians and it gets really old and tiring when the ones crying the most about racism are the biggest culprits and most definately milk the system for all it's worth concerning entitlement and benefits.

You poor thing...

IG_urban wrote:
They are one and the same, though. If they are generating support by proclaiming the abhorrence of racism, but crying RACISM at every possible facet, it's ridiculous. Can't you see the redundancy of that?

It may be ridiculous, but it isn't racism, which is the point you seem to be trying to make.

It seems to me that you feel quite strongly about this issue, and that emotion is impairing your sensibility.

IG_urban wrote:
I am one for odd examples, but imagine I start a coalition to erase the color blue from all advertising and print....all of my signs are blue, with blue letters, and they say "THIS IS BLUE!!! WE NEED TO GET RID OF BLUE!" It's just spreading more blue everywhere....negating my purposes. Instead, I might make red signs with red letters and even if it is just my opinion, and people disagree I can say.. "THIS IS RED!!! DO YOU SEE HOW MUCH BETTER RED IS? WE CAN ALL BE HAPPIER AND MORE PEACEFUL WITH THIS COLOR!!!" Instead of pointing out blue wherever I see it, I replace it with red and try to promote how much better I think it is.

I am sure you can switch the example around and figure out my point....

I know what point you're attempting to make. It's just that your point is incorrect. You're assuming that the NAACP is behaving in a racist manner, when they are not. They are stating that racism is bad, and then working to actively eliminate it by pointing out things that they feel are racist. The NAACP is not making things racist by labeling them as such, they don't have that kind of power.

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
They are one and the same, though. If they are generating support by proclaiming the abhorrence of racism, but crying RACISM at every possible facet, it's ridiculous. Can't you see the redundancy of that?

It may be ridiculous, but it isn't racism, which is the point you seem to be trying to make.

It seems to me that you feel quite strongly about this issue, and that emotion is impairing your sensibility.

IG_urban wrote:
I am one for odd examples, but imagine I start a coalition to erase the color blue from all advertising and print....all of my signs are blue, with blue letters, and they say "THIS IS BLUE!!! WE NEED TO GET RID OF BLUE!" It's just spreading more blue everywhere....negating my purposes. Instead, I might make red signs with red letters and even if it is just my opinion, and people disagree I can say.. "THIS IS RED!!! DO YOU SEE HOW MUCH BETTER RED IS? WE CAN ALL BE HAPPIER AND MORE PEACEFUL WITH THIS COLOR!!!" Instead of pointing out blue wherever I see it, I replace it with red and try to promote how much better I think it is.

I am sure you can switch the example around and figure out my point....

I know what point you're attempting to make. It's just that your point is incorrect. You're assuming that the NAACP is behaving in a racist manner, when they are not. They are stating that racism is bad, and then working to actively eliminate it by pointing out things that they feel are racist. The NAACP is not making things racist by labeling them as such, they don't have that kind of power.

I feel strongly about attempting to keep a level head when people are being stubborn and barely giving an inch despite the fact that I am attempting to provide my side intelligently. You are being smug and that is kind of pissing me off, but this has nothing to do emotions impairing my sensibility, don't be an ass.

You can not just tell me I am incorrect, that is smug. I have NEVER said the NAACP makes things racist, if I did, then I did not mean to. What I DID say was that they bring race into the issue whenever and wherever possible, hell, even when it's highly improbable, or even non existent. THEY ARE behaving in a racist manner.

It goes back to this point...if I went public, and sued BET for racism, because they do not include enough white people in their broadcasts (which I DO NOT believe at all, I am just trying to think of something that is as ridiculous as an act the NAACP would pull). The aforementioned parties and their lawyers would have a field day with me.....

Now reverse it, and imagine I made a White Entertainment Network.






Calling somebody or something racist, when it is unwarranted, is Racism. Calling racism bad by labeling anything and anybody as a racist, is it of itself, RACISM.

racism begets racism, and until somebody steps up, breaks the cycle, and leads by example by completely taking race out of the struggle, and making it human, then all that will be accomplished is more racism. This goes for all sides.

IG_urban wrote:

Now reverse it, and imagine I made a White Entertainment Network.

I thought that was the channel that shows Nascar and C.O.P.S. 24/7?

I have it on my Cable package...

IG_urban wrote:
You can not just tell me I am incorrect, that is smug.

Its really the only option here though, as you are plainly misusing the word 'racism'.

IG_urban wrote:
I have NEVER said the NAACP makes things racist, if I did, then I did not mean to.

I didn't say that you did. I made an inference on the basis of what you did say. Namely that the NAACP perpetuates racism. I envisioned that this could be possible in two sense:
1)Annoying people, and thereby inciting them to assign negative characteristics to black people.
2)Labeling things as racist in order to justify their existence, and thereby influencing the popular understanding of what racism is, and what it can be applied to.

As the latter of the two arguments is the better, I obliquely referenced that one.

IG_urban wrote:
What I DID say was that they bring race into the issue whenever and wherever possible, hell, even when it's highly improbable, or even non existent. THEY ARE behaving in a racist manner.

Explain to me how attempting to label things as racist involves attributing qualities to an entire group of people defined only by racial or ethnic characteristics.

IG_urban wrote:
It goes back to this point...if I went public, and sued BET for racism, because they do not include enough white people in their broadcasts (which I DO NOT believe at all, I am just trying to think of something that is as ridiculous as an act the NAACP would pull). The aforementioned parties and their lawyers would have a field day with me.....

On what basis? The law isn't some magical thing that allows people to hassle each other. Its a set of codified regulations pertaining to accepted behavior. Sure, you'd probably get some negative press from the NAACP et al, but a counter-suit is unlikely. And again, that negative press isn't racism as it has nothing to do with attributing characteristics to a racial group.

IG_urban wrote:
Now reverse it, and imagine I made a White Entertainment Network.

Somebody would probably sue you for racial discrimination. Based on the precedent established by BET, they would probably lose. You'd probably also get a lot of negative press from the NAACP, but seeing as that isn't your target demographic it seems senseless to case. Again, this has nothing to do with racism on the part of people protesting your network, as they would not necessarily be assigning characteristics to a racial group.

IG_urban wrote:
Calling somebody or something racist, when it is unwarranted, is Racism. Calling racism bad by labeling anything and anybody as a racist, is it of itself, RACISM.

No, its not, plain and simple.

CT GAMER wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I, and MGS have something in common (other than Warhammer). I too live in an area where the minorities outnumber the caucasians and it gets really old and tiring when the ones crying the most about racism are the biggest culprits and most definately milk the system for all it's worth concerning entitlement and benefits.

You poor thing...

Yes, you should feel bad for me. Walmart thrives where I am because 80% of it's customers are Native American. I think Walmart should build in one of 2 reservations that immediately surround my town. They'd really get rich then.

dogma wrote:I didn't say that you did. I made an inference on the basis of what you did say. Namely that the NAACP perpetuates racism. I envisioned that this could be possible in two sense:
1)Annoying people, and thereby inciting them to assign negative characteristics to black people.
2)Labeling things as racist in order to justify their existence, and thereby influencing the popular understanding of what racism is, and what it can be applied to.

I think the most straightforward argument would be that the NAACP is racist (and so perpetuates racism) because it takes far more offense at actions that could be considered racist if they're done by white people; essentially, they stereotype white people as having ulterior motives and prejudices moreso than blacks. Of course, that would only be a contributor to black-on-white racism, which does limit it, unless you count Person X's racism as being derived from perceived racism by others rather than himself, in which case you probably end up with a lot of regression.

You could also argue that the only way for racism to truly end is for race to no longer be thought of as a significant social construct, in which case the NAACP may accidentally perpetuate racism by continuing to accept race as a useful classification.

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
You can not just tell me I am incorrect, that is smug.

Its really the only option here though, as you are plainly misusing the word 'racism'.

IG_urban wrote:
I have NEVER said the NAACP makes things racist, if I did, then I did not mean to.

I didn't say that you did. I made an inference on the basis of what you did say. Namely that the NAACP perpetuates racism. I envisioned that this could be possible in two sense:
1)Annoying people, and thereby inciting them to assign negative characteristics to black people.
2)Labeling things as racist in order to justify their existence, and thereby influencing the popular understanding of what racism is, and what it can be applied to.

As the latter of the two arguments is the better, I obliquely referenced that one.

IG_urban wrote:
What I DID say was that they bring race into the issue whenever and wherever possible, hell, even when it's highly improbable, or even non existent. THEY ARE behaving in a racist manner.

Explain to me how attempting to label things as racist involves attributing qualities to an entire group of people defined only by racial or ethnic characteristics.

IG_urban wrote:
It goes back to this point...if I went public, and sued BET for racism, because they do not include enough white people in their broadcasts (which I DO NOT believe at all, I am just trying to think of something that is as ridiculous as an act the NAACP would pull). The aforementioned parties and their lawyers would have a field day with me.....

On what basis? The law isn't some magical thing that allows people to hassle each other. Its a set of codified regulations pertaining to accepted behavior. Sure, you'd probably get some negative press from the NAACP et al, but a counter-suit is unlikely. And again, that negative press isn't racism as it has nothing to do with attributing characteristics to a racial group.

IG_urban wrote:
Now reverse it, and imagine I made a White Entertainment Network.

Somebody would probably sue you for racial discrimination. Based on the precedent established by BET, they would probably lose. You'd probably also get a lot of negative press from the NAACP, but seeing as that isn't your target demographic it seems senseless to case. Again, this has nothing to do with racism on the part of people protesting your network, as they would not necessarily be assigning characteristics to a racial group.

IG_urban wrote:
Calling somebody or something racist, when it is unwarranted, is Racism. Calling racism bad by labeling anything and anybody as a racist, is it of itself, RACISM.

No, its not, plain and simple.

Yes, I feel it is.

It's racism, its special rights, its double standards, its NOT HELPING THE SITUATION.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The law IS some magical thing that allows people to hassle each other. They are called lawsuits. Why do you think lawyers have such a shining reputation?

Honestly, until you learn that racism is not the same as discrimination or inequality, this conversation isn't going to end well for you. You can't expect anybody to respect your opinion on an issue when you don't understand the most basic terminology used to discuss it.

Racism is assigning attributes to groups and not individuals. Wanting more stuff for your group isn't racism, it's what everybody does all the time.

Also, white pride t-shirts would be frowned upon because most people don't identify with a unifying white identity. White americans have, in general, a race (white) and one or more ethnicities (irish, german, italian, etc.) You see "proud to be Irish" shirts everywhere, and even "redneck and proud" shirts. African Americans don't have a separate ethnic identity. Black consciousness fills the same role. So, the NAACP is more closely related to ethnic organizations than to any sort of vague, white pride organization.

Polonius wrote:Honestly, until you learn that racism is not the same as discrimination or inequality, this conversation isn't going to end well for you. You can't expect anybody to respect your opinion on an issue when you don't understand the most basic terminology used to discuss it.

Racism is assigning attributes to groups and not individuals. Wanting more stuff for your group isn't racism, it's what everybody does all the time.

Also, white pride t-shirts would be frowned upon because most people don't identify with a unifying white identity. White americans have, in general, a race (white) and one or more ethnicities (irish, german, italian, etc.) You see "proud to be Irish" shirts everywhere, and even "redneck and proud" shirts. African Americans don't have a separate ethnic identity. Black consciousness fills the same role. So, the NAACP is more closely related to ethnic organizations than to any sort of vague, white pride organization.

Honestly you can sit in your smug tower with your smug self.

Racism, as defined by Merriam Webster: 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination...but its not the same as discrimination, is it?

Racism is assigning attributes to groups and not individuals. Wanting more stuff for your group isn't racism, it's what everybody does all the time.

Racism is any occasion where a group or individual is discriminated against because of their ehtnicity or skin color.

I think you and I are not going to agree, and your smug attitude is really starting to make me feel a funeral in my brain....

I still find it interesting that the NAACP reps in the OP can "hear" a phantom 'R' but then fail to hear three very distinct and complete Words... "And you Planets".

And YES, it is very Racist of them to focus on what they obviously want to hear on the card published by a White owned company, using white (possibly) voice actors, with the purpose of not only removing said card, but also harming the reputation of said company and staff.

I don't see the NAACP trying to shut down rap artists that make similar comments about 'ho's and bitches" on nearly every title on the market.
It's a double standard that promotes certain insulting language on one side while revilining the same words from the other.
And the main difference is the color of the face the words are coming out of.

If that is not "Racism" then apparently I have it wrong.

IG_urban wrote:

Honestly you can sit in your smug tower with your smug self.

Racism, as defined by Merriam Webster: 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination...but its not the same as discrimination, is it?

It's distinct, in that it has to be discrimination because race. The NAACP are rabble rousing, and clearly causing trouble, but they're doing so not because they hate white people, but because they're seeking to gain publicity. Even if you want to accept the idea that the NAACP, in this instance, is racist (in that they seem to want to hurt non-blacks), that doesn't make the organization as a whole racist, or even make them a cause of racism in general. Racial politics in this country are controlled by the simple fact that black people are poorer, less educated, and don't live as long as white people. It's simply the facts as supported by nearly every demographic datum we can find. So, while you can make the argument that wanting something just for black people is racist, it's addressing an existing inequality. An inequality, based on the histories of every other non-native american minority, that exists because of the history of slavery and racism. Saying "that was in the past and we should move on" is like borrowing $500 from a friend, sleeping with his girlfriend, and then saying "well, that was in the past. We should move."

You also seem to really enjoy personally insulting people that disagree with you. I'll admit, I've been harsh to your opinions, but so far you've called Dogma and myself smug. Now, I enjoy a certain confidence in my intellect and education, and no doubt I've treated your view with thinly veiled contempt, but I wonder if at any point you've read what I wrote and asked, "is he correct? Could I be wrong?" I know I've done that with your posts, and in many ways it's made me reform and refine my own view.

Racism is assigning attributes to groups and not individuals. Wanting more stuff for your group isn't racism, it's what everybody does all the time.

Racism is any occasion where a group or individual is discriminated against because of their ehtnicity or skin color.

I think you and I are not going to agree, and your smug attitude is really starting to make me feel a funeral in my brain....

So, how is the NAACP, in the Hallmark card case, being racist? They not discriminating against Hallmark because they're white, but because they think they're using a racial slur.

And before you launch into "but black entertainers use far worse" type arguments, there are two counters. First, actions that are wrong can be called out, regardless of when you don't call them out. Cops don't arrest every speeder and employers don't fire everybody for being late all the time. Second, there is a cultural allowance for using certain terms. A lot of rednecks proudly self identify as such, but would opposed the word being used in hate. Context it key.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:I still find it interesting that the NAACP reps in the OP can "hear" a phantom 'R' but then fail to hear three very distinct and complete Words... "And you Planets".

And YES, it is very Racist of them to focus on what they obviously want to hear on the card published by a White owned company, using white (possibly) voice actors, with the purpose of not only removing said card, but also harming the reputation of said company and staff.

I don't see the NAACP trying to shut down rap artists that make similar comments about 'ho's and bitches" on nearly every title on the market.
It's a double standard that promotes certain insulting language on one side while revilining the same words from the other.
And the main difference is the color of the face the words are coming out of.

If that is not "Racism" then apparently I have it wrong.

Well, the words were coming out of cartoon characters in a funny voice. I'm also not sure the ownership of Hallmark (which, like most companies is probably owned by mutual funds) is really the reason for the uproar. Obviously it's a ridiculous complaint, and the local chapter should be chided by the national HQ for being dumb. it's hard to paint what they did as racist, simply because they weren't doing what they did because they hate white people. they did what they did because they want attention, and accusing somebody of racism is a good way to do that.

Black people also are assumed not to hate black people when they use racial slurs. It's been a rule of comedy and enterainment for generations. Chris Rock has an infamous bit in which he claims he wished he could join the KKK. It's funny (and accepted) because obviously Chris rock isn't racist. It'd be less funny if, say, Larry the Cable Guy made that joke. Comedy relies partially on a violation of expectations, and having an educated black man spout a litany of insults against stereotypical black behaviors is not what you expect, and funny. Having a white guy adopting an uneducated southern persona spout the same is a little too close to reality to be funny.

As for music, it's part of culture, and as a part of a culture uses the language of that culture. To use the language of the culture in a performance, no matter how offensive it seems to outsiders, is part of what a culture is allowed to do.

Polonius wrote:
As for music, it's part of culture, and as a part of a culture uses the language of that culture. To use the language of the culture in a performance, no matter how offensive it seems to outsiders, is part of what a culture is allowed to do.

Hmmm, it is ok for people of a specific culture to use the language of that culture even if it offends people outside that culture. Correct?

SO, it is just fine for a group or individual from a neo-nazi culture to use the language of that culture no matter how offensive other people, outside the neo-nazi culture, find it. Even if that language is considered to be violently racist by the offended groups.

helgrenze wrote:

Polonius wrote:
As for music, it's part of culture, and as a part of a culture uses the language of that culture. To use the language of the culture in a performance, no matter how offensive it seems to outsiders, is part of what a culture is allowed to do.

Hmmm, it is ok for people of a specific culture to use the language of that culture even if it offends people outside that culture. Correct?

SO, it is just fine for a group or individual from a neo-nazi culture to use the language of that culture no matter how offensive other people, outside the neo-nazi culture, find it. Even if that language is considered to be violently racist by the offended groups.

Hmm, that's an interesting question. I think what makes it different is that the language being used is targeted at, performed by, and consumed by the same group. It's also important when a word has multiple uses, or tones. You see words used in almost opposite ways all the time. "he's my dog" is very positive, "she's a dog" is not. Such language clearly not offending overly many African americans. It can look like a troubling double standard, but what's important is the intent of the language. When a rapper uses the n-word, he's not intending to demean or intimidate black people. When a neo-nazi uses that word, he does.

I also don't grant your premise that neo-nazism is a culture, certainly not the same extent that african american culture is. Black performers, for example, don't use slurs against other races or ethnicities often. Jesse Jackson's campaign in the 80's was derailed for anti-semetic remarks.

A good example is when an elderly white person uses the term "negro" or "colored." If I were to use that, it'd be considered fairly offensive to many black people, but the culture of her time and age made that the PC term of it's day.

You see it in every culture. It's not polite to call me fatty (even though I am), but nobody is offended when I call myself one.

It should also be noted that it isn't as simple as all black people thinking it is ok to use such language. While we use such terms as "group" and "community" it really isn't that homogeneous.

Ahtman wrote:It should also be noted that it isn't as simple as all black people thinking it is ok to use such language. While we use such terms as "group" and "community" it really isn't that homogeneous.

Exactly. Finding issue with something that is obviously NOT what one claims it is, then claiming the problem is based only on a racial slur that most people do not hear, simply for the purpose of inciting controversy, is indeed a form of racism. It is one group of a larger community telling everyone that "You need to be offended by this" simply because that small group find it offensive.

Not all white people with blonde hair and blue eyes is a neo Nazi. Not all bald Punk Rockers are either. But enough individuals who fit these catagories are, infact, members of some white supremist groups that there is a perception among those groups that everyone that fits the profile needs to be offended by what they see as an injustice. So they take their messages of racial hate to those venues where they will find people that fit the same profile.

What these members of the NAACP is essentially the same thing. They took their message of perceived injustice to a venue where they could tell others "You Need to be Offended".Because they have better relations with the press, the L.A. NAACP was able to reach a national and even international audience. Add in the way the information was presented and it gives the appearance of Hallmark not being "Racially sensitive" enough to have such a card on the market.

What they did was done in an effort, conscientiously or subconscientiously, to incite a negative reaction from a specific racial group. It indirectly claimed that the issue was made by some-one that was insensitive to the "plight of the african american.".

Ahtman wrote:It should also be noted that it isn't as simple as all black people thinking it is ok to use such language. While we use such terms as "group" and "community" it really isn't that homogeneous.

I'll just add, I occasionally play dominoes with a couple of elderly Jamaican gents in a pub. We got onto rap and such and the use of the N word. They were both highly irritated and offended by it, saying 'how is it we expect the pain of the past to be eased and prejudices to fade away when those angry boys all shout N***** at each other, then some white kids listening to the music want to say it and then someone gets offended and everyone is kept at each other's throats!'

Many of the other middle aged to elderly Jamaican patrons of the pub agreed with the sentiments, whilst a couple of younger drinkers argued that it's their right to use the word due to the indignities of the past, at which stage they were heckled by the elder drinkers for not knowing crap all about the past since they hadn't lived it.

IG_urban wrote:
Honestly you can sit in your smug tower with your smug self.

Racism, as defined by Merriam Webster: 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination...but its not the same as discrimination, is it?

No, it isn't. Discrimination on the basis of race is not the same as discrimination in general.

This is a really, really basic idea.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

IG_urban wrote:
Yes, I feel it is.

Yes, you feel it is. This is why I stated that it seemed as though emotion was clouding your judgment. You have now, to my mind, confirmed that speculative comment.

IG_urban wrote:
It's racism, its special rights, its double standards, its NOT HELPING THE SITUATION.

No, none of those statements are true.

IG_urban wrote:
The law IS some magical thing that allows people to hassle each other. They are called lawsuits. Why do you think lawyers have such a shining reputation?

Because there are people, such as yourself, who believe the law is magical.

Read the legal code that you have been publicly provided with. It, miraculously, says exactly what it can be used to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:
Exactly. Finding issue with something that is obviously NOT what one claims it is, then claiming the problem is based only on a racial slur that most people do not hear, simply for the purpose of inciting controversy, is indeed a form of racism.

Nope, not necessarily. Nothing in what you have stated necessarily involves the assignment of qualities to a given group of people based only on their 'racial' characteristics.

helgrenze wrote:
It is one group of a larger community telling everyone that "You need to be offended by this" simply because that small group find it offensive.

Yep, but that's not racism.

Dogma, Are you telling me:
That it is only racism if it is done to one specific race, i.e. blacks?
That it is not possible to be racist toward either your own race or everyone that is not your race?
That racism can only be directed towards a minority?
That stating that an entire race is insulted by something because a small portion of that race found it offensive does not fall into the definition of racism?

Racism is at its base racial prejudice. Prejudice is defined as, amonge other things,

an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

The racial prejudice in this case is that the LA NAACP had "an irrational attitude of hostility" to the supposed characteristics of white opinion they felt the card conveyed.
They further showed their own prejudice toward their own race by going on the news and telling them that they should be offended, not by what the card actually said, but by what THEY claimed it said.

Simply stating "No, it isn't" does not foster debate but only establishes a contrary position. At that point it becomes a Monty Python Sketch...

helgrenze wrote:Dogma, Are you telling me:
That it is only racism if it is done to one specific race, i.e. blacks?
That it is not possible to be racist toward either your own race or everyone that is not your race?
That racism can only be directed towards a minority?
That stating that an entire race is insulted by something because a small portion of that race found it offensive does not fall into the definition of racism?

Racism is at its base racial prejudice. Prejudice is defined as, amonge other things,

an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

The racial prejudice in this case is that the LA NAACP had "an irrational attitude of hostility" to the supposed characteristics of white opinion they felt the card conveyed.
They further showed their own prejudice toward their own race by going on the news and telling them that they should be offended, not by what the card actually said, but by what THEY claimed it said.

Simply stating "No, it isn't" does not foster debate but only establishes a contrary position. At that point it becomes a Monty Python Sketch...

Why was the NAACP attitude irrational?

Kilkrazy wrote:Why was the NAACP attitude irrational?

You do not think it was irrational that they were not only hearing a single phantom letter while at the same time ignoring three whole words?

What the characters on the card said:

Hey world, we are officially putting you on notice. Yeah. And you black holes, you are so ominous. oooo, hahahaha. And you planets, watch your backs.

The audio provided by the link in the op is clear enough to hear everything in the quote above. You can hear it on crappy underpowered speakers quite clearly.
Yet the NAACP members state that they hear an "r" in the word "holes" and jump right past the words "And you planets" to the phrase "watch your backs".
They are convinced that this is what the voices say and have called the media to make their complaint known without further review.

A somewhat similar situation was played out in the Wolverine movie, when Wolverine says the word "Bub" the Fred Dukes character hears "Blob" and throws Wolverine into a wall.

Over reacting to something one has misheard is irrational. Further coloring that mishear as racism is also irrational. They made that leap. Considering the card was available for 3 years and no-one else made that connection says more about this group than anything they may have done in the past.

helgrenze wrote:Dogma, Are you telling me:
That it is only racism if it is done to one specific race, i.e. blacks?
That it is not possible to be racist toward either your own race or everyone that is not your race?
That racism can only be directed towards a minority?
That stating that an entire race is insulted by something because a small portion of that race found it offensive does not fall into the definition of racism?

this is where you lose me. Are you saying the NAACP is racist because they claim to speak for all blacks? I get that what the NAACP did in the incident was incorrect, wrong, bad, stupid, and simply a quest for the limelight, but I simply fail to see how a group saying "we find this offensive because we think it's a slur against black people" is racist. I'm not able to connect those dots.

Racism is at its base racial prejudice. Prejudice is defined as, amonge other things,

an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

The racial prejudice in this case is that the LA NAACP had "an irrational attitude of hostility" to the supposed characteristics of white opinion they felt the card conveyed.
They further showed their own prejudice toward their own race by going on the news and telling them that they should be offended, not by what the card actually said, but by what THEY claimed it said.

I think you have to stretch here to find that they're either hostile (the video I saw showed them to be pretty calm) or irrational. They're wrong, but it's because they are basing their arguments on faulty assumptions and facts, not on poor reasoning. I'm also not sure they're really attacking "white" opinion, and even if they were, it's not because the opinion was white.

If you (or anybody else in this thread) had a conflict with a black person in which you misunderstood what they said, and demanded an apology, even though you were wrong, does that make you racist? Or just wrong? Particularly since many of the people arguing that the NAACP are race baiting, you seem to be hasty in ignoring the possibility of a color blind issue. The issue wasn't that a "white corporation" allegedly used a slur, but that a slur was allegedly used at all.

I also don't see them making any assertions about white opinion. They're making assertions about a recording. They're not even saying anybody is racist. They're simply saying they heard a word that sounded like a slur. You seem to be saying that they're implying that hallmark is racist, because they're white and white people are racist; except that's not in any way what's happening.

The last sentence makes no sense at all. People are always telling others when they should be offended/shocked/outraged, based partially on what they claim to see. Is every person that ever advocated a position racist towards his own group? Are people that claim to speak for any group racist?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:
Over reacting to something one has misheard is irrational. Further coloring that mishear as racism is also irrational. They made that leap. Considering the card was available for 3 years and no-one else made that connection says more about this group than anything they may have done in the past.

I responded a bit earlier, but there are few things. First, there is something to be said for the benefit of the doubt. It's possible that the cards, in person, sound different than in a you-tube clip of a local news broadcast. There are facts available that you're not availing yourself of, and so while it seems likely that this is trumped up, immediately assuming it is could be hasty.

Second, you keep stating that they're alleging racism. I don't think they are. They're alleging a racial slur, which is different from racism. Racism requires a certain intent (as all moral acts do), while racial slurs are simply words that the NAACP wants removed from the lexicon, regardless of intent.

Minnie Hatley of the Los Angeles NAACP(possibly misidentified in either the video or the print version of the story) states ""It sounds like a group of children laughing and joking about blackness, again,"

This statement is not about a slur they misheard. This is a statement that brings the concept of racism into the conversation. If you watch the video you can hear the woman pausing before the word "Again" for emphasis and adopting a look of disgust at the thought.

If this was simply about a slur, real or imagined, then she would not have felt the need to make such an inflamatory statement.

So long as blacks are stuck in a lower economic position, the NAACP is necessary.

Story made me lol though...

helgrenze wrote:

Minnie Hatley of the Los Angeles NAACP(possibly misidentified in either the video or the print version of the story) states ""It sounds like a group of children laughing and joking about blackness, again,"

This statement is not about a slur they misheard. This is a statement that brings the concept of racism into the conversation. If you watch the video you can hear the woman pausing before the word "Again" for emphasis and adopting a look of disgust at the thought.

If this was simply about a slur, real or imagined, then she would not have felt the need to make such an inflamatory statement.

You consider that an inflammatory statement? She's explaining how it's a racial slur. She's also saying "it sounds like," which is less final than "It is."

And yes, they are bringing the concept of racism into the conversation. That is the job of the NAACP: to remind white America that there is racism, that it hurts blacks (and many others), and that we shouldn't be content with the progress we've made. In the end, that's why so many here are bothered by this: because we don't want to think about how racism, even today, can exist.

Racism isn't just in the cracks and corners, not everything the NAACP says or does is about petty or non-existent racism, and even if they made the whole thing up and are calling the card an instance of racism, that in itself isn't racist! It can't be. They're not saying "white people are racist," or "this card is racist because it was made by honkies." They're saying "saying this is racist. It mocks black people and offends us." How is that racist? How is it different from white people arguing against rap, or ebonics, or any other aspect of black culture? I don't think I'm racist for thinking pants sagging is stupid, and I don't think a school is racist for not allowing it. So, when the NAACP says "this aspect of your culture offends us," how exactly is that racist?

helgrenze wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Why was the NAACP attitude irrational?

You do not think it was irrational that they were not only hearing a single phantom letter while at the same time ignoring three whole words?

What the characters on the card said:

Hey world, we are officially putting you on notice. Yeah. And you black holes, you are so ominous. oooo, hahahaha. And you planets, watch your backs.

The audio provided by the link in the op is clear enough to hear everything in the quote above. You can hear it on crappy underpowered speakers quite clearly.
Yet the NAACP members state that they hear an "r" in the word "holes" and jump right past the words "And you planets" to the phrase "watch your backs".
They are convinced that this is what the voices say and have called the media to make their complaint known without further review.

A somewhat similar situation was played out in the Wolverine movie, when Wolverine says the word "Bub" the Fred Dukes character hears "Blob" and throws Wolverine into a wall.

Over reacting to something one has misheard is irrational. Further coloring that mishear as racism is also irrational. They made that leap. Considering the card was available for 3 years and no-one else made that connection says more about this group than anything they may have done in the past.

If you mishear something you by definition do not know what it 'actually' says, and you must react to your perception of it. This group is primed to perceive racist comments from the racist many jibes that have often been used against black people. In that light their complaints were rational.

Alternatively you have to suppose that the NAACP knew exactly what this card said and decided to lodge a complaint knowing it would not have any chance of being upheld.

In fact the complaint has been upheld, so from that viewpoint their actions were not irrational.

Polonius, it was not "an aspect of your culture", it was a misheard recording on a card. They reacted by calling a press conference to air their complaint publically. They did seem to have called Hallmark with their complaint first.

Kilkrazy, In calling this press conference, they removed the opportunity for Hallmark to act in any other manner than to remove the card from sale. Their claim was not "upheld". Hallmark took the only action that was left to them as a result of the press conference.

The act of pre-emtively calling a press conference, and airing their complaint can be viewed as them trying to create an atmosphere of racial insensitivity around Hallmark.

Of course, WE do not know whether this branch of the NAACP called Hallmark or not. We DO know that the news service did call them and recieved a statement from them on the subject, as well as a transcript of the contents of the card.

This group thought they heard something, took the contents of the recording out of context and decided to make a statement where they called it "racist". It wasn't motivated by anything other than a desire to get a headline to further their agenda.

I doubt that any member of the NAACP, including those that made this claim, go out and actively look for things like this. It was trivial and could have been dealt with quietly by simply calling Hallmark and requesting the removal of the card.

They chose to make it a larger issue. By calling a press conference, they acted to promote their own racial views over the opinions and views of other people.
They effectivly said, "This is a black issue."
And in doing so, established a preferance over people of other races.
They acted in a racist manner.

So, calling something a black issue is racist?

Does that mean that heart medications designed to work better for black people are the products of racism?

Are groups that speak of "christian issues" religious bigots?

The problem I have is the way you attribute their actions to racism. Some issues are more meaningful to people in the groups that target them. By saying "this is a black issue" they're saying, "this is something that is improtant to blacks, and something we want to have discussed and stopped."

And no, there really aren't a lot of "white" issues. Whites are far less homogeneous than blacks in this country, and black Americans aren't monolithic by any means. Black Americans (aside from recent african immigrants) share a massive collective history. They have a far more profound racial identity, seperate from mainstream culture.

Not that there aren't white issues. Osteoporosis is generally only seen in white and asian women. It's not racist to target white women with ads, is it? What about discussing Tay-sachs among jews? If the news recommends sunscreen if you're light skinned, is that racist?

Also, they're not arguing for special treatment. They want to not have words they find offensive used. Nearly every group does that. There's a pretty clear line between asking to be treated with respect, and asking for special treatment because your racist.

And, well, they're the NAACP. They want to, pretty much by definition, advance colored people. Are they saying they want to help blacks and not whites? Yes. Is that racist? No, because they're not trying to advance blacks ahead of whites, but to make them equal.

If hallmark had created a card that white folk found offensive (unlikely given their demographic), somebody woudl complain, it would get pulled, and nobody would care about race.

here's an example of a christian offended by a card:

http://www.planetfeedback.com/hallmark+cards+inc/other/religiously+offensive+holiday+card+at+hallmark/322456

Is she an anti-semite? Is she a bigot because she thinks Hallmark is anti-christian?

Religious groups have been offended by hallmark making cards for same sex marriages. Are they homophobes?

A simple google search shows that many people are offended by many different kinds of Hallmark cards, often for reasons as dumb as this NAACP case. Are they are fueled by racism?

Here's an example of they mayor of topeka finding a card offensive:

http://cjonline.com/stories/093005/loc_card.shtml

What form of bigotry fueled him?

In both those cases, there is no misinterpretation of the card in question. The offense taken was due to the questionable humor presented.
In both your cases its a matter of injured pride... one, in the city and the other, in that persons religious beliefs.

As I claim neither association, I saw the humor as intended.

In the case with the LA NAACP, it isnt't a question of missed humor or pride. It is a question of seeing an insult that is clearly not there.
They heard "Black" followed by another word they misunderstood that was subsequently followed by three words they summarily dismissed, which in turn were followed by "Watch your backs".
In effect, they stopped listening after the word "Black" and chose to call a press conference where they made what amounts to false claims in an effort to exert pressure on the company.
The only reason they appear to have for all of this is racism.

A white supremist that never says anything against any other race is still considered to be a racist for no other reason than promoting his own race.

How is this episode any different?

If you really cannot see the difference despite all the very clear explanations that have been made there is no point continuing this thread.