lord commissar klimino wrote:

Albatross wrote:You know what you never hear? 'I AM racist, but...'


'I am racist, but that Beyonce? Hell of a singer.'

that was a twist. your racist?!?!?!

What are you talking about? Albtross doesn't own a racist, that would be slavery (however well justified).

Texas: The Lone Star state(because the rest of the south doesn't like the way they spell "y'all".)

halonachos wrote:Texas: The Lone Star state(because the rest of the south doesn't like the way they spell "y'all".)

...Or the way they drive.. ..here's a hint...take the John Wayne hats off, you can see the road better that way. ..I kid..I kid.

Sebster wrote:I think that's really doubtful. Here in Australia there's a strong representation of Aboriginals in Australian Rules Football. What becomes clear if you care to look in more detail is that Aboriginals will fill the roles of small forwards and running midfielders, they tend to be more lightly framed but very nimble and skilled. It's very rare to see aboriginals filling the roles of big men, such as key positions and ruckmen.

If it was just a case of them playing the game a lot, they'd fill all roles equally. Instead it appears that they tend towards positions that best suit the physiques that are more common among Australian Aboriginals. I think the same thing is true in American sports - you tend to see white quarterbacks, and black running backs, for instance.

It appears to me that differences in physique actually make a difference in who can make it in elite sport, and where they play.

Physique certainly plays a role in fitness to a particular sport and position played, however to what degree does physique depend on "race"?

Perhaps aborigines tend to be smaller because they tend not to get steak and eggs for breakfast as often.

halonachos wrote:So it works this way Sebster(although the lower selection rate can be white males and the larger selection rate could beblack females), and you can say that I am wrong all you want... but I do have an entire field of psychology behind me on this one.

You were wrong in that a clear explanation for the process was given, and yet you continued to act as if it was a mystery. All you did above was repeat what Polonius said.

And you still left out the part where being outside the 0.8 doesn't invalidate the hiring practice, it just requires more testing to see if there is some bias in the hiring system that isn't actually part of the job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

starhawks wrote:...buuut a vast majority of the time it is

That's far too subjective and diverse an issue to answer conclusively, and any answer given says a lot about the worldview of the speaker, but nothing about anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Physique certainly plays a role in fitness to a particular sport and position played, however to what degree does physique depend on "race"?

Perhaps aborigines tend to be smaller because they tend not to get steak and eggs for breakfast as often.

Really? Is it so hard to believe that genetic differences that might cause one group to have more or less melanin in the skin might also cause them to be slightly more likely to have broader shoulders, or more developed leg musculature?

I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Albatross wrote:You know what you never hear? 'I AM racist, but...'


'I am racist, but that Beyonce? Hell of a singer.'

that was a twist. your racist?!?!?!

What are you talking about? Albtross doesn't own a racist, that would be slavery (however well justified).

Spoiler:

It's you're.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Incidentally, KK and sebster - I remember reading something somewhere about black people and 'fast-twitch' muscles... like, more fibres or greater density.

Or something. I forget.

Sebster Wrote:
Really? Is it so hard to believe that genetic differences that might cause one group to have more or less melanin in the skin might also cause them to be slightly more likely to have broader shoulders, or more developed leg musculature?

This is the problem. People are so afraid of appearing racist they can't accept the idea that were aren't all the same. It is very likely that there are some groups who are better at certain activities. There isn't any point doing an scientific investigation into it because people won't except it, just like people ignore any studies highlighting the difference between males and females. Too many people ignore things that go against there beliefs- they don't wan't to hear it/

starhawks wrote:
...buuut a vast majority of the time it is

Nope.

Most of the time its people with no knowledge of race X pretending they have something to say, because they want to feel smart, instead of people actually paying attention to race X in order to form a reasoned opinion about race X.

It's come to my attention that I didn't make it obvious enough that I was being tongue-in-cheek in my last post. I'm posting this so there can be no doubt.


Still though, they ARE great dancers. THAT much is not a myth.






Again, kidding.

Albatross wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Albatross wrote:You know what you never hear? 'I AM racist, but...'


'I am racist, but that Beyonce? Hell of a singer.'

that was a twist. your racist?!?!?!

What are you talking about? Albtross doesn't own a racist, that would be slavery (however well justified).

Spoiler:

It's you're.

Spoiler:

It's Albatross

...

Hell, I am not racist I just dont like anybody

Obama: Godless communist hippy
Mcain: sad old war veteran

Albatross wrote:It's come to my attention that I didn't make it obvious enough that I'm British.

Fix'd. This also comes to mind.

Blacks do sell good weed, unlike Mexicans.

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Actually in the medical field racism is rather accepted under genetic reasons for certain medical conditions.

Sickle Cell Anemia is higher in people of African descent due to genetics, people from Native American descent can suffer from certain diseases more easily than whites. There was also an inhaler medicine that had adverse reactions in blacks as opposed to whites.

Familial Mediterranean Fever is a common disease to carry(gene is present but person has no symptoms)... if you're of Sephardic Jewish, Armenian, Arab, or Turkish descent. If you were born in England to two parents outside of those gene pools you're never going to catch FMF.

Go Hereditary Medicine!

So when it comes to diseases certain races are genetically more prone to disease. It doesn't factor into most emergency medicine where the color spectrum is reduced dramatically, people are either pink or blue and in some cases people can be black, red, yellow, or green.

Well, the problem is that relying on race to test for genetic disorders, while a useful shortcut, runs into problems as interracial families become more common.

But yes, there are medical traits much more pronounced in various races.

That's why you find symptoms and narrow a cause down to a group of diseases and test those. If a series of symptoms matches a hereditary disease then you test for it.

The biggest issue comes from adopted children who may not know the hereditary of their birth parents or the adoptive parents don't know the heredity either.

Interacial families are an issue but they typically know where their lines go to, its hard to not know if you're a Sephardic Jew or not. But I guess that's the kicker, just like there are people who "don't know" how a banana got into their rectum.

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Actually in the medical field racism is rather accepted under genetic reasons for certain medical conditions. .

I went to medical school and I know that.

Thalassaemia isn't evidence that black people have genes for high jumping, aborigines have genes for playing mid-field positions in Australian Football, orientals have genes for doing statistics, and white men have genes for being in charge of everything.

Like most aspects of human ability, to claim the difference is solely genetic is unsupportable, but to claim that the difference has no genetic component at all is to ignore evidence.

Of course, most genetic studies have focused on averages, which show that racial differences in nearly any measurable category are slim. It'd be interesting to see if races are more likely to produce "exceptional" talents.

*Imagines the gak hitting the fan if somebody comes out with proof that different ethnicities have different intellectual aptitudes based solely on genetics.*

I'm pretty sure this has been disproven and as KK said earlier is to do with upbringing and environment etc.

If not, i'd hope nobody would publish the findings. They would do more harm than good.

This is the problem. People are so afraid of appearing racist they can't accept the idea that were aren't all the same. It is very likely that there are some groups who are better at certain activities. There isn't any point doing an scientific investigation into it because people won't except it, just like people ignore any studies highlighting the difference between males and females. Too many people ignore things that go against there beliefs- they don't wan't to hear it/

Really? Is it so hard to believe that genetic differences that might cause one group to have more or less melanin in the skin might also cause them to be slightly more likely to have broader shoulders, or more developed leg musculature?

Incidentally, KK and sebster - I remember reading something somewhere about black people and 'fast-twitch' muscles... like, more fibres or greater density.

It's Jimmy the greek time. It's not just about pure natural racial evolution though, is it. I know it's controversial, but during slavery, slaves were breed like animals. I am in no way trying to degrade African American Athletes! There is a reason great horses come from breeding great bloodlines. For four hundred years they were breed to be physical work specimens. Some idiots used to think that Blacks had extra muscles "That's why they can jump higher". It's just Darwinism. I think it's funny (terrible) that slavery did for the slaves, what Hitler wanted to do to his own pure race, to breed the ubermench.

I am not trying to say that Whites are responsible for all great African American athletes, or any of them. I'm not saying that all African Americans are great athletes. Please don't read into this more than you have too. All I'm stating is the facts. I'm sure there would be plenty of great African American Athletes without slavery. I'm not saying breeding was good for them, or that they needed it.

My point is I guess, that racial differences are more than just the tone of your skin. There are social, cultural, and historic reasons that people are different, very few of those can be seen just by the color of someones skin. And they are different, we should celibate those differences instead of using them as excuses to hate each other. I'm a white mut, my children are going to be half white mut have indian. We will be joining the mocha world that everyone talks about. I just think that while the mocha world is good, the united colors of beniton are just as good. There really must have been a better way to put that, but I have to go to the store.

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Actually in the medical field racism is rather accepted under genetic reasons for certain medical conditions. .

I went to medical school and I know that.

Thalassaemia isn't evidence that black people have genes for high jumping, aborigines have genes for playing mid-field positions in Australian Football, orientals have genes for doing statistics, and white men have genes for being in charge of everything.

Wow, now that's a bit on the racist end KK. Although genetic history can help predict some behaviors, anglos didn't behave the same way blacks did in ancient history. Look at how they got food; in Africa being fleet of foot got you food and saved your life, in Europe there were more markets and you didn't have to worry about man-eating creatures as much. This means that over time the genetic ability to run quickly would be passed down more in the African gene pool, this is a basic evolutionary principle set forawrd by Darwin.

Although they don't hold true 100% of the time, its not like Darwin was wrong with evolution either. Its why Native Americans are more susceptible to diabetes and obesity, Native Americans were hunter/gatherers who burned a lot of calories hunting for their food. With the introduction of fast food and supermarkets the need to chase after food has been removed and their geneticaly derived metabolism can't handle the increase of food intake and decrease of energy expenditure.

Culture is still far more important than genes,though, otherwise we'd see more haitian sprinters and fewere jamaiicans.

The slavery theory also breaks down when you look at Kenyen long distance runners.

Also, you guys do realize that most of Africa was civilized (in terms of being primarily agricultural) before Europe, right?

halonachos wrote:That's why you find symptoms and narrow a cause down to a group of diseases and test those. If a series of symptoms matches a hereditary disease then you test for it.

The biggest issue comes from adopted children who may not know the hereditary of their birth parents or the adoptive parents don't know the heredity either.

Interacial families are an issue but they typically know where their lines go to, its hard to not know if you're a Sephardic Jew or not. But I guess that's the kicker, just like there are people who "don't know" how a banana got into their rectum.

You watch too much House MD.

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Actually in the medical field racism is rather accepted under genetic reasons for certain medical conditions. .

I went to medical school and I know that.

Thalassaemia isn't evidence that black people have genes for high jumping, aborigines have genes for playing mid-field positions in Australian Football, orientals have genes for doing statistics, and white men have genes for being in charge of everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEyPoulhw9g

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Actually in the medical field racism is rather accepted under genetic reasons for certain medical conditions. .

I went to medical school and I know that.

Thalassaemia isn't evidence that black people have genes for high jumping, aborigines have genes for playing mid-field positions in Australian Football, orientals have genes for doing statistics, and white men have genes for being in charge of everything.

Wow, now that's a bit on the racist end KK. Although genetic history can help predict some behaviors, anglos didn't behave the same way blacks did in ancient history. Look at how they got food; in Africa being fleet of foot got you food and saved your life, in Europe there were more markets and you didn't have to worry about man-eating creatures as much. This means that over time the genetic ability to run quickly would be passed down more in the African gene pool, this is a basic evolutionary principle set forawrd by Darwin.

Although they don't hold true 100% of the time, its not like Darwin was wrong with evolution either. Its why Native Americans are more susceptible to diabetes and obesity, Native Americans were hunter/gatherers who burned a lot of calories hunting for their food. With the introduction of fast food and supermarkets the need to chase after food has been removed and their geneticaly derived metabolism can't handle the increase of food intake and decrease of energy expenditure.

To begin with this bit... you referring to KK's explanation as "racist" is like the kettle calling the pot black... pun intended, but still a valid point. Throughout your posts you constantly refer to whites; blacks; anglos; etc. These terms in themselves are racist.

To address another point: Abilities are not passed through genetics. The trait of longer legs or a particular cardio-vascular network and larger lung capacity may enable stamina for athletics, but the athletics in itself is not a genetic trait.

Finally, if you truly understood susceptibility you would know that diabetes and obesity are more pronounced in sub-cultures or minority "races". However, this is not due to the reasons you have listed. To begin, obesity is a problem with life-choice; diet and exercise and while some genetic evidence is available. If you sit on the couch all day and eat incorrectly you will become obese. This will occur regardless of your "race". However, diabetes is a bit more complex.

Onto diabetes, the evidence available provides us with the knowledge that while the are genetic markers for susceptibility, the change in our diets - including a higher intake of processed foods full of sugar, salt and other additives - has been the main cause. This may be more pronounced in native peoples of the world who lead a hunter-gatherer lifestyle until more recently than the English. Your inferrence that the prevalence is due to how they acquire their food is incorrect on the part of diabetes. It is actually what is IN their food products which is the catalyst. Remembering, these cultures subsisted upon diets of lean meats; roughage and root vegetables, we can see that canned foodstuffs which are high in added processed sugars; salts; and other additives would more adversely affect their anatomies. While this remains true for all humans, there is evidence that minorities of pure heritage are clearly more susceptible.

Polonius wrote:Culture is still far more important than genes,though, otherwise we'd see more haitian sprinters and fewere jamaiicans.

The slavery theory also breaks down when you look at Kenyen long distance runners.

Also, you guys do realize that most of Africa was civilized (in terms of being primarily agricultural) before Europe, right?

I don't know about that polonius. I played gradeschool and highschool football with and against some NFL hall of famers. It was pretty apparent that Genetics played a giant factor. Trying to tackle Eddie george in highschool was like getting hit by a fright train. The Golics are from my highschool. Let me tell you, nobody in that family ever had to do much more than push ups to get to that size, once they did really hit the weights in college they really turned into monsters.

Though I'm sure culture plays into to look at Clay Mathews and Clay Mathews JR. These athletes bring their kids up in the competitive culture.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Polonius wrote:Culture is still far more important than genes,though, otherwise we'd see more haitian sprinters and fewere jamaiicans.

The slavery theory also breaks down when you look at Kenyen long distance runners.

Also, you guys do realize that most of Africa was civilized (in terms of being primarily agricultural) before Europe, right?

I don't know about that polonius. I played gradeschool and highschool football with and against some NFL hall of famers. It was pretty apparent that Genetics played a giant factor. Trying to tackle Eddie george in highschool was like getting hit by a fright train. The Golics are from my highschool. Let me tell you, nobody in that family ever had to do much more than push ups to get to that size, once they did really hit the weights in college they really turned into monsters.

Though I'm sure culture plays into to look at Clay Mathews and Clay Mathews JR. These athletes bring their kids up in the competitive culture.

Oh, for individuals genetics is a massive factor, for health, intelligence, athelticism, etc. But for populations? Probably less so.

Oh yeah, you can't base your expectations on an entire race of people. Any race is going to necessarily have the standard variations.

I meant, Clay Mathews, Clay Mathews JR, and now Clay Mathews III. Three generations in the NFL.

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

I think we can consider it likely, a reasonable explanation of observed phenomena, and move on.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Absolutely. One major problem with assigning any kind of trait is that it is so often used as an excuse for social problems. It seems every impoverished minority quickly attaches a myth that they can't process alcohol as well as white folk, and that's why there's so much drunkeness in the community. Never mind that alcoholism becomes a probably in every poor community, no matter the ethnicity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I went to medical school and I know that.

Thalassaemia isn't evidence that black people have genes for high jumping, aborigines have genes for playing mid-field positions in Australian Football, orientals have genes for doing statistics, and white men have genes for being in charge of everything.

No, we don't have to take it that far. But you look at the list of finalists for the 100m sprint at the Olympics, and you have to ask yourself if you really believe that there's a cultural problem among white societies that makes them reject sprinting, or if maybe they just aren't genetically as good at it.

Social factors that explain most of our lives, but we'd just be kidding ourselves if we pretended there weren't basic genetic differences on some level.

I mean, look at height. Some groups, by pure genetics, have taller general populations. If height is a factor in being good at something, then surely that group is inherently just a little better at that task.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:*Imagines the gak hitting the fan if somebody comes out with proof that different ethnicities have different intellectual aptitudes based solely on genetics.*

I'm pretty sure this has been disproven and as KK said earlier is to do with upbringing and environment etc.

If not, i'd hope nobody would publish the findings. They would do more harm than good.

Well, the problem there is that there is no general intelligence. There's a diverse range of skills, and while there's a general relation between them (high performance in one generally predicts high performance in another) you'd have a bugger of a time determining someone's overall intelligence, as that would involve determining how important spatial awareness is compared to reasoning or memory or whatever.

The other problem is that intelligence is steadily growing, year by year. Every couple of years they have to reset IQ tests so that the average score of 100 is a little harder to get, because the population is getting smarter. Wind that growth back 100 years, and you see that the average intelligence is about 60 odd. By our standards today, the average person 100 years ago would be considered a simpleton. They weren't, of course, it's just that they didn't have 12 or more years of schooling which gives you one very important skill, abstract thought. It's the skill that lets you read a question, understand it as a purely hypothetical issue, and answer it on those grounds alone.

That skill for abstract reasoning is something that's developed immensely in the past 100 years, but that growth hasn't been universal. Cultures that don't teach abstract thought as heavily will perform worse on IQ tests as a result, even thought they may actually be equally capable in the various forms of intelligence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEyPoulhw9g

Why is racism so funny sometimes?

When does racism become acceptable? I mean you don't see the Irish freaking out over the fighting irish logo, a more sterotypical drunk irish figure would be hard to find, yet nobody gets offended by it. But chief whaoo and the redskins logo get crap all the time. I have never taken offense to being called whitebread or cracker, actually found it pretty amusing. I've also never felt that racism is a problem that I have to deal with on a daily bases though.

Andrew1975 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEyPoulhw9g

Why is racism so funny sometimes?

When does racism become acceptable? I mean you don't see the Irish freaking out over the fighting irish logo, a more sterotypical drunk irish figure would be hard to find, yet nobody gets offended by it. But chief whaoo and the redskins logo get crap all the time. I have never taken offense to being called whitebread or cracker, actually found it pretty amusing. I've also never felt that racism is a problem that I have to deal with on a daily bases though.

Well, you partially answered your own question: when people get offended by it. Nobody is offended by the fighting irish logo, at least partially because it was picked by, well... Irish people. Compare that to Chief Wahoo, who is a pretty grotesque stereotype that was not selected by any natives.

Slurs against whites suffer for lack of context. When you call a black person most good racial epithets, there's a lot bundled into it: insinuations of laziness, criminality, low intelligence, etc. What exactly does it mean to be called whitebread? Or cracker? "hey, you, guy whose race is in charge. You guys suck for being richer and of higher social status!"

Actually, the thing with the genes is that there's a specific gene responsible for resting metabolism, people with a mutated version of said gene are typically obese. Native Americans(Pima Indians to be exact) are four times more likely to have that mutation.

Universidad Europea de Madrid wrote:Heterozygosity for the ADRB3 Trp64Arg polymorphism seems to be associated with elite endurance performance, while other variants of the β-adrenergic receptors' genes do not seem to significantly influence top-level sports performance, at least in athletes of Spanish origin.

Ooh, and I have a study that says that those with the mutated gene tend to have better athletic endurance. The reason why they say 'in athletes of Spanish origin." is because the study included Spanish athletes and normal people only.(100 endurance athletes, 100 power athletes, and 100 non-athletic controls).

BTW: I use the term black because the term African American is another thing I don't believe in. You see a black person and they are automatically an African-American even if they trace back to the Caribbean(don't say that back in time they were brought over from Africa, because a longer time ago humans left Africa and took over the world), and a white person is always a Caucasian even if they were born in Africa. I don't like those PC terms because they're incredibly misleading.

Hispanics= Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Cubans. Hispanics are typically democrats despite the fact that Cubans tend to be republican.

So yeah, too many differences in my opinion to clump them all together.

@ Polonius, white people do have the terms 'honkey' and 'white trash'/'trailer trash' which are pretty negative.

halonachos wrote:Actually, the thing with the genes is that there's a specific gene responsible for resting metabolism, people with a mutated version of said gene are typically obese. Native Americans(Pima Indians to be exact) are four times more likely to have that mutation.

Universidad Europea de Madrid wrote:Heterozygosity for the ADRB3 Trp64Arg polymorphism seems to be associated with elite endurance performance, while other variants of the β-adrenergic receptors' genes do not seem to significantly influence top-level sports performance, at least in athletes of Spanish origin.

Ooh, and I have a study that says that those with the mutated gene tend to have better athletic endurance. The reason why they say 'in athletes of Spanish origin." is because the study included Spanish athletes and normal people only.(100 endurance athletes, 100 power athletes, and 100 non-athletic controls).

Spanish are not "normal people"?

BTW: I use the term black because the term African American is another thing I don't believe in. You see a black person and they are automatically an African-American even if they trace back to the Caribbean(don't say that back in time they were brought over from Africa, because a longer time ago humans left Africa and took over the world), and a white person is always a Caucasian even if they were born in Africa. I don't like those PC terms because they're incredibly misleading.

This rationale would mean that:

All Muslims = terrorists AND All terrorists = Muslims...?

That is some flawed rationale right there. What is an Australian Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander were to cross your path? Would you automatically deem them African American? By your reckoning, they are.

Also, you may wish to check your historical facts.

Hispanics= Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Cubans. Hispanics are typically democrats despite the fact that Cubans tend to be republican.

So yeah, too many differences in my opinion to clump them all together.

@ Polonius, white people do have the terms 'honkey' and 'white trash'/'trailer trash' which are pretty negative.

Racism is racism, the origin does not make it less criminal.

If I simply choose not to believe in something does that automatically mean it no longer exists? Sure would be an easy way to get out of traffic tickets.

AvatarForm wrote:

Racism is racism, the origin does not make it less criminal.

so true. and this right here is all that matters at the end of the day.

Wait Avatar, WTF are you reading in my posts? Either I have some kind of uber subliminal messaging going on or your prescription glasses need some work.

I said that African American is a bad term because it clumps too many people together. I have no idea where you get that I would call an Aborigini an African American.

Secondly I have no idea where you're insinuating that I think Spaniards are not normal people. I said Spanish athletes and normal people meaning Spanish athletes and Spanish normal people(you know the people who aren't elite athletes).

You seriously need to put down your haterade so you can see past the bottom of the glass, it distorts the words actually written.

LunaHound wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:heres a thought for everyone.

im racist against racist people

Ya... this year Japan suffered greatly and some racist ********* ********* ************ think it was fun to make joke out of their expense
http://karmajapan.tumblr.com/
http://ignorantandonline.tumblr.com/

Espcially the ones that says its "payback" for Pearl Harbour and WW2.

FOR GODS SAKE the people that were a part of that is probably gone now by old age.
The ones suffering had NO PART of the war.

This is why humans will always suffer, the revenge for something that should have been past history.
And people like this should be beat up

Its crap like this i wish i had the power and time to bitch slap these aholes.

Polonius wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEyPoulhw9g

Why is racism so funny sometimes?

When does racism become acceptable? I mean you don't see the Irish freaking out over the fighting irish logo, a more sterotypical drunk irish figure would be hard to find, yet nobody gets offended by it. But chief whaoo and the redskins logo get crap all the time. I have never taken offense to being called whitebread or cracker, actually found it pretty amusing. I've also never felt that racism is a problem that I have to deal with on a daily bases though.

Well, you partially answered your own question: when people get offended by it. Nobody is offended by the fighting irish logo, at least partially because it was picked by, well... Irish people. Compare that to Chief Wahoo, who is a pretty grotesque stereotype that was not selected by any natives.

Slurs against whites suffer for lack of context. When you call a black person most good racial epithets, there's a lot bundled into it: insinuations of laziness, criminality, low intelligence, etc. What exactly does it mean to be called whitebread? Or cracker? "hey, you, guy whose race is in charge. You guys suck for being richer and of higher social status!"

That's kind of what I thought. Once you are no longer oppressed you really don't care. Did the Irish pick that logo, as in actual Irish people to represent all Irish people?

halonachos wrote:Wait Avatar, WTF are you reading in my posts? Either I have some kind of uber subliminal messaging going on or your prescription glasses need some work.

I said that African American is a bad term because it clumps too many people together. I have no idea where you get that I would call an Aborigini an African American.

Secondly I have no idea where you're insinuating that I think Spaniards are not normal people. I said Spanish athletes and normal people meaning Spanish athletes and Spanish normal people(you know the people who aren't elite athletes).

You seriously need to put down your haterade so you can see past the bottom of the glass, it distorts the words actually written.

Keep your ad hominem in check. Perhaps you need to use your words and explain your ideas in full, rather than leaving them unfinished. Afterall, if you cannot articulate your ideas, we are only left with the option to ask further questions of you and make inferrences where required.

By your above posts, you are not disproving anything and simply digging yourself a racist hole.

Yes, in your explanation of why you do not prefer the PC term African-American, you stated that all "black" people (racism in its purest form right there) are African-American. By your loose definition, you have grouped a much larger % of the world's population than simply African-Americans. By stating that all those of a darker shade of skin tone = black.

sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I went to medical school and I know that.

Thalassaemia isn't evidence that black people have genes for high jumping, aborigines have genes for playing mid-field positions in Australian Football, orientals have genes for doing statistics, and white men have genes for being in charge of everything.

No, we don't have to take it that far. But you look at the list of finalists for the 100m sprint at the Olympics, and you have to ask yourself if you really believe that there's a cultural problem among white societies that makes them reject sprinting, or if maybe they just aren't genetically as good at it.

Social factors that explain most of our lives, but we'd just be kidding ourselves if we pretended there weren't basic genetic differences on some level.

I mean, look at height. Some groups, by pure genetics, have taller general populations. If height is a factor in being good at something, then surely that group is inherently just a little better at that task.

There are very few black oarsmen. Is that because white people have a genetic disposition to be good at rowing, or perhaps because rowing is still pretty much an upper-class western European kind of sport?

It’s true that Masai tend to be taller and thinner than most other populations. However once you start to look at that kind of disposition you find all sorts of clumps of dispositions within “racial” groups. It’s hardly surprising that related groups share traits. The danger is when people fasten on a trait and generalise it from the discrete group to the “racial” group, and start to think that it is related to skin colour.

Masai are tall. Pygmies are short. They are both black African populations. Japanese tend to be shorter than white people, except for the ones who ate lots of meat when they were children, which boosts growth of the long bones.

The range of genetic variation within a particular related group is less than the range of variation in the entire human population. However, without identifying the related group, it’s wrong to generalise based on skin colour.

Yes, in your explanation of why you do not prefer the PC term African-American, you stated that all "black" people (racism in its purest form right there) are African-American. By your loose definition, you have grouped a much larger % of the world's population than simply African-Americans. By stating that all those of a darker shade of skin tone = black.

I remember a few years ago one of the local news channels was reporting about a riot of African Americans in France. She was so afraid to say blacks, she was referring to Black french people as African Americans. Incorrect political correctness or Political incorrectness, whichever I almost fell off the couch laughing.

. But you look at the list of finalists for the 100m sprint at the Olympics, and you have to ask yourself if you really believe that there's a cultural problem among white societies

That's alright, we get the winter Olympics, oh and nascar!

Roy Boy: How come you never see any black guys playing hockey?
Kabral: Now do you think it's easy to just gradually take over every professional sport? Let me tell you something, man. Brothers have started figuring out this ice thing. Hope you enjoyed it!
One of my favorite quotes from Canadian Bacon.

halonachos wrote:BTW: I use the term black because the term African American is another thing I don't believe in. You see a black person and they are automatically an African-American even if they trace back to the Caribbean(don't say that back in time they were brought over from Africa, because a longer time ago humans left Africa and took over the world), and a white person is always a Caucasian even if they were born in Africa. I don't like those PC terms because they're incredibly misleading.

I remember a conversation that played out on-line, that I sat there reading. A dude self-identified as black, and another poster, who I presume was also black, asked him if he could use African American as black was offensive. The dude responded that he was neither African nor American, he was German, and more specifically he was a black German. He then asked if he was a white South African who moved to American should also be called African American.

At first, the lesson I took away from that was that PC terms like African American were stupid. In time, though, with other experiences I began to realise that it wasn't any term that mattered, but how it was used. In the above example, the problem was that the guy was trying to use the term he liked, to describe other people who simply didn't see themselves in that light.

So really, the answer is to call people as they want to be called.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:That's kind of what I thought. Once you are no longer oppressed you really don't care. Did the Irish pick that logo, as in actual Irish people to represent all Irish people?

Pretty much. It's worth remembering that Irish people have only been considered 'white' for a few generations. Go back the 30s and make some Irish jokes, and see how hard you get punched.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:There are very few black oarsmen. Is that because white people have a genetic disposition to be good at rowing, or perhaps because rowing is still pretty much an upper-class western European kind of sport?

The reality that social class prohibits access to certain sports doesn't mean that one group of people might have a genetic trait or two that would allow them to be better at the sport.

It’s true that Masai tend to be taller and thinner than most other populations. However once you start to look at that kind of disposition you find all sorts of clumps of dispositions within “racial” groups. It’s hardly surprising that related groups share traits. The danger is when people fasten on a trait and generalise it from the discrete group to the “racial” group, and start to think that it is related to skin colour.

Absolutely. And it's worth remembering that skin colour is just skin colour, while it is the most obvious racial difference, it doesn't really mean anything in and of itself.

Japanese tend to be shorter than white people, except for the ones who ate lots of meat when they were children, which boosts growth of the long bones.

Absolutely, again, we shouldn't confuse social factors, such as the amount of protein in the diet, with racial differences.

Some groups are taller or shorted because of genetic tendencies within the population, some groups because of diet.

The range of genetic variation within a particular related group is less than the range of variation in the entire human population. However, without identifying the related group, it’s wrong to generalise based on skin colour.

Oh, absolutely, skin colour in itself means nothing.

Not sure if it has been raised (I confess to not reading the whole thread fully) but I thought a medical study carried out in the last few years found that the reason that there were very few (if any) world class black swimmers (Beyond the obvious socio-economic reasons of not having access to pools, training etc) was to do with bone density? Apparently, black people have a slightly greater disposition to having denser bone composition, which in turn puts them at a slight disadvantage in buoyancy and thus makes the difference at world class competitive levels?

I seem to remember seeing something about it on the news a while back.

sebster wrote:So really, the answer is to call people as they want to be called.

By their parent-appointed names?

Not by social or other categorised terms?

Im not racist, but I just dont like foreign people, or Irish people, or gamesworkshop people

sebster wrote:

I remember a conversation that played out on-line, that I sat there reading. A dude self-identified as black, and another poster, who I presume was also black, asked him if he could use African American as black was offensive. The dude responded that he was neither African nor American, he was German, and more specifically he was a black German. He then asked if he was a white South African who moved to American should also be called African American.

At first, the lesson I took away from that was that PC terms like African American were stupid. In time, though, with other experiences I began to realise that it wasn't any term that mattered, but how it was used. In the above example, the problem was that the guy was trying to use the term he liked, to describe other people who simply didn't see themselves in that light.

So really, the answer is to call people as they want to be called.

How on earth is "black" offensive!? The German guy makes the most sense.

If something is that plainly obvious, I fail to see how it is offensive, I mean.. merely your colour?

If "black" is offensive, then surely white is offensive?

Basically, people fething love to be offended. Look at Religious people, you cant say boo to them on dakka, even though it is 100% pertinent to a conversation. (ie. the reason I think that is because of my Religion)

i am not racist nor do i discriminate, i just hate everyone equally; except for stupid people. they get extra hate.

i also think that modern society has pretty much destroyed the natural human evolution. there is no longer survival of the fittest, now any idiot can breed like rabbits.

i think the gene pool could use a good cleaning.

mattyrm wrote:

sebster wrote:

I remember a conversation that played out on-line, that I sat there reading. A dude self-identified as black, and another poster, who I presume was also black, asked him if he could use African American as black was offensive. The dude responded that he was neither African nor American, he was German, and more specifically he was a black German. He then asked if he was a white South African who moved to American should also be called African American.

At first, the lesson I took away from that was that PC terms like African American were stupid. In time, though, with other experiences I began to realise that it wasn't any term that mattered, but how it was used. In the above example, the problem was that the guy was trying to use the term he liked, to describe other people who simply didn't see themselves in that light.

So really, the answer is to call people as they want to be called.

How on earth is "black" offensive!? The German guy makes the most sense.

If something is that plainly obvious, I fail to see how it is offensive, I mean.. merely your colour?

If "black" is offensive, then surely white is offensive?

Basically, people fething love to be offended. Look at Religious people, you cant say boo to them on dakka, even though it is 100% pertinent to a conversation. (ie. the reason I think that is because of my Religion)

I've never seen a black person or a white person,except for Star Trek of course. I've seen lots of shades of brown though...

Well.. I suppose "varied shades of brown" and "sort of dark or light pink dependant on your sun exposure" are more accurate, but they dont roll off the tongue!

mattyrm wrote:Well.. I suppose "varied shades of brown" and "sort of dark or light pink dependant on your sun exposure" are more accurate, but they dont roll off the tongue!

Remember its easy to be unbiased when you think everyone is an donkey-cave.

It takes 22 muscles to frown
It takes 3 to smile
But it only takes 1 to give someone the finger.

AvatarForm wrote:

halonachos wrote:Wait Avatar, WTF are you reading in my posts? Either I have some kind of uber subliminal messaging going on or your prescription glasses need some work.

I said that African American is a bad term because it clumps too many people together. I have no idea where you get that I would call an Aborigini an African American.

Secondly I have no idea where you're insinuating that I think Spaniards are not normal people. I said Spanish athletes and normal people meaning Spanish athletes and Spanish normal people(you know the people who aren't elite athletes).

You seriously need to put down your haterade so you can see past the bottom of the glass, it distorts the words actually written.

Keep your ad hominem in check. Perhaps you need to use your words and explain your ideas in full, rather than leaving them unfinished. Afterall, if you cannot articulate your ideas, we are only left with the option to ask further questions of you and make inferrences where required.

By your above posts, you are not disproving anything and simply digging yourself a racist hole.

Yes, in your explanation of why you do not prefer the PC term African-American, you stated that all "black" people (racism in its purest form right there) are African-American. By your loose definition, you have grouped a much larger % of the world's population than simply African-Americans. By stating that all those of a darker shade of skin tone = black.

You serious? I really can't tell, but obviously you're getting somnething mixed up. First of all, all people of dark skin tone are either identified as Hispanic or as African American, hispanics tend to have a lighter skin tone than 'african americans' and you really can tell the difference, its as easy as 1,2,3 just as its easy to tell if someone is from mixed heritage. Secondly, I am not clumping a greater percent of people together I am merely taking the definiton of afrcan-american and changing it to black. The group is still there, but the assumption that they all are from Africa no longer is present.

If you want to call me a racist then by all means do so, its an ad hominem attack, and would allow me to call you ignorant. I don't believe in politically correct terms because they group too many people in so vague of a manner that we begin to make assumptions of their origin which cheats them of their cultural heritage. Calling me Caucasian is wrong because my family didn't originate anywhere near the Caucus mountains, I originated in Connecticut, so I much prefer the term 'white'.

Actually you know what, if we used the term African American all of the aboriginis in the world could live in america and everyone would assume that they're from Africa.

You serious? I really can't tell, but obviously you're getting somnething mixed up. First of all, all people of dark skin tone are either identified as Hispanic or as African American,

Or Asian. You kind of missed a continent.

Or Indian. Now I missed a subcontinent!

Or Arabic, crap I missed a region too.

or Samoan/islander. I'm sure I missed a few more.

Essex.

Kilkrazy wrote:Essex.

OKlahoma

The trouble is, for every genuine racist, there is someone who very much fulfils the negative stereotype they lay at the feet of an entire 'race'.

Put it this, way, I work in Car Insurance, and it's a sad fact that a disproportionate amount of dodgy Personal Injury Claims, and indeed staged/contrived accidents stem from a certain ethnic background. Due to this, even lefty liberal M Mystery thinks 'oh here we go' when certain names assosciated with that particular ethnic background crop up. Just when you think you're getting a handle on it, boom 'me and me entire family was sitting in our parked car on an impromptu midnight picnic and then this geezers car goes past, clips me wing mirror and now we is all spazzed up'.

It really doesn't help that every dodgy solicitor (yup, even those reputable firms with emails ending in hotmail.co.uk....) are of the same ethnicity.

You think chavs have a genetic pre-disposition to commit motor insurance fraud?

Kilkrazy wrote:You think chavs have a genetic pre-disposition to commit motor insurance fraud?

I wasn't aware that chav was a race! I'm American, we don't have chavs we have trash.

halonachos wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:

halonachos wrote:Wait Avatar, WTF are you reading in my posts? Either I have some kind of uber subliminal messaging going on or your prescription glasses need some work.

I said that African American is a bad term because it clumps too many people together. I have no idea where you get that I would call an Aborigini an African American.

Secondly I have no idea where you're insinuating that I think Spaniards are not normal people. I said Spanish athletes and normal people meaning Spanish athletes and Spanish normal people(you know the people who aren't elite athletes).

You seriously need to put down your haterade so you can see past the bottom of the glass, it distorts the words actually written.

Keep your ad hominem in check. Perhaps you need to use your words and explain your ideas in full, rather than leaving them unfinished. Afterall, if you cannot articulate your ideas, we are only left with the option to ask further questions of you and make inferrences where required.

By your above posts, you are not disproving anything and simply digging yourself a racist hole.

Yes, in your explanation of why you do not prefer the PC term African-American, you stated that all "black" people (racism in its purest form right there) are African-American. By your loose definition, you have grouped a much larger % of the world's population than simply African-Americans. By stating that all those of a darker shade of skin tone = black.

You serious? I really can't tell, but obviously you're getting somnething mixed up. First of all, all people of dark skin tone are either identified as Hispanic or as African American, hispanics tend to have a lighter skin tone than 'african americans' and you really can tell the difference, its as easy as 1,2,3 just as its easy to tell if someone is from mixed heritage. Secondly, I am not clumping a greater percent of people together I am merely taking the definiton of afrcan-american and changing it to black. The group is still there, but the assumption that they all are from Africa no longer is present.

If you want to call me a racist then by all means do so, its an ad hominem attack, and would allow me to call you ignorant. I don't believe in politically correct terms because they group too many people in so vague of a manner that we begin to make assumptions of their origin which cheats them of their cultural heritage. Calling me Caucasian is wrong because my family didn't originate anywhere near the Caucus mountains, I originated in Connecticut, so I much prefer the term 'white'.

Actually you know what, if we used the term African American all of the aboriginis in the world could live in america and everyone would assume that they're from Africa.

Regardless of what you "prefer", referring to someone as black is racist.

Also, I am of italian heritage, and by your above desciption you would label me Hispanic. Now, forgiving your ignorance, but the simple fact that you view the world in this way makes you undeniably racist.

Regardless of what you "prefer", referring to someone as black is racist.

No it isn't. Describing someone as black isn't racist in any way. Your just making an observation, you haven't said there are lower or stereotyped them in any way.

Definition of racism:
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

Care to explain how saying someone is black fits the definition?

It is, if someone believes that you are using that particlar word as an all-inclusive term.

Whilst we might not agree, as far as I'm aware, none of us are in a fit place to judge.

For instance, call me a Jock, and I will beat the living gak out of you. I am not a Jock, nor Scotch. I'm from Scotland, which makes me a Scot. This line is not for non-Scots to draw, but those who stand to offended. bs it might be, but that's the way things are. Doesn't stop me using the term black, but there you go, I understand that I risk offending someone by using it.

Mr Mystery wrote:It is, if someone believes that you are using that particlar word as an all-inclusive term.

So becuase people use a term wrong everything should just get tossed out.

Mr Mystery wrote:Whilst we might not agree, as far as I'm aware, none of us are in a fit place to judge.

I am.

Mr Mystery wrote:For instance, call me a Jock

Ok, does Jock mean something different over there? Over here it is a sports oriented person so that doesn't fit with going from sports to nationality.

Some people prefer to be referred to as black and some prefer African X, and other variations. To go back to the earlier point, ask the person what they prefer. There is no one label fits all for ethnicity.

Some people prefer to be referred to as black and some prefer African X, and other variations. To go back to the earlier point, ask the person what they prefer. There is no one label fits all for ethnicity.

Should there not be at least one acceptable legal term though? Whites have Caucasian. Not really accurate, but ok, I get it. They need something on a form for me. For Blacks, what is the correct legal non offensive term to use. If colored (NAACP) and black (BET)are out, and African-American is well totally illogical, what is the legal term? Is it Negro (UNCF).

No I'm fine with removing these labels from society in general (as soon enough these labels will be silly unless you are allowed to check more than one box) but I don't think society is, so until that point can we get a consensus from somewhere. I dated a girl from Jamaica and when she went in for a job in the US she was not sure what box to check, she did not consider herself African or American!

Colored seams to work in principle, but then it's historically offensive even though the NAACP uses it. And who is colored? Does that mean all non whites? Black just makes sense to me for Black people. I've never known of anyone that was black that was offended by being called black, except people that were mixed, but then again I don't know everyone.

I'm not really too worried about it though. As one of my black friends said to me when he felt I was being oversensitive in a situation. "If the biggest thing you have to worry about is what to call us, man would I like to be white!"

Andrew1975 wrote:No I'm fine with removing these labels from society in general

Without a fundamental paradigm shift in human consciousness we will always have labels.

Ahtman wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:It is, if someone believes that you are using that particlar word as an all-inclusive term.

So becuase people use a term wrong everything should just get tossed out.

Mr Mystery wrote:Whilst we might not agree, as far as I'm aware, none of us are in a fit place to judge.

I am.

Mr Mystery wrote:For instance, call me a Jock

Ok, does Jock mean something different over there? Over here it is a sports oriented person so that doesn't fit with going from sports to nationality.

Some people prefer to be referred to as black and some prefer African X, and other variations. To go back to the earlier point, ask the person what they prefer. There is no one label fits all for ethnicity.

The Jock thing is a derivative term for a Scotsman, equivocal to me as the 'n' word to a black person. It's like when someone attaches the word 'Scottish' to an insult. What has the place of my birth got to with the alleged marital status of my parent pre-birth*? Or indeed a ladies most personal area etc? Nothing, except said persons lack of wit, and inherent bigotry. Either way, a genuine kicking is on the cards for their near future.

*Scary thing is, I'm the youngest, and elder brother Mystery is genuine mental case. Call me one, and you've called him on. And he's the sort to beat you death with you're Grandmother's Pancreas.

KingCracker wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:heres a thought for everyone.

im racist against racist people

Ya... this year Japan suffered greatly and some racist ********* ********* ************ think it was fun to make joke out of their expense
http://karmajapan.tumblr.com/
http://ignorantandonline.tumblr.com/

Espcially the ones that says its "payback" for Pearl Harbour and WW2.

FOR GODS SAKE the people that were a part of that is probably gone now by old age.
The ones suffering had NO PART of the war.

This is why humans will always suffer, the revenge for something that should have been past history.
And people like this should be beat up

I always assumed we were even at least after we dropped a small sun on them twice *shrugs*

you know? thats what i thought too! not including the lasting mutations such as cancer for birth deformities still caused by lingering radiation

apparently we were wrong! :O

Without a fundamental paradigm shift in human consciousness we will always have labels.

Kind of my point, I mean if we must have them can we at least settle on which ones are appropriate.

It would make police work a little hard though without label.
"What did the suspect look like. "
"It was a person"
"What nationality"
"I'm not Racist, so i couldn't tell you"
"What sex"
"I'm not Sexist so I couldn't tell you"
"What was he wearing"
"I'm not the Fashion Police"
"What did they take"
"Ownership is thievery"
"Thanks, citizen"
"Fascist!"

Andrew1975 wrote:

Without a fundamental paradigm shift in human consciousness we will always have labels.

Kind of my point, I mean if we must have them can we at least settle on which ones are appropriate.

But to me, it's the difference between prejudice, and bigotry.

Prejudice is perfectly natural, and dare I say it, relatively healthy. People have a natural prejudice against anything not part of 'the norm'. But, Bigotry, is when one goes beyond prejudice. Prejudice can be dealt with on a case by case nature. Bigotry is more akin to 'well, this one person was an arse, therefore you are an arse'. And that is not so natural, and is more a matter of education (or miseducation I suppose)

4M2A wrote:

Regardless of what you "prefer", referring to someone as black is racist.

No it isn't. Describing someone as black isn't racist in any way. Your just making an observation, you haven't said there are lower or stereotyped them in any way.

Definition of racism:
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

Care to explain how saying someone is black fits the definition?

Exactly, my Missus refers to herself as black, her Mother, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins all refer to themselves as Black...now are they racist?

Mr Mystery wrote:
For instance, call me a Jock, and I will beat the living gak out of you.

Are you in highschool?

See the following posts by myself...

Mr Mystery wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Without a fundamental paradigm shift in human consciousness we will always have labels.

Kind of my point, I mean if we must have them can we at least settle on which ones are appropriate.

But to me, it's the difference between prejudice, and bigotry.

Prejudice is perfectly natural, and dare I say it, relatively healthy. People have a natural prejudice against anything not part of 'the norm'. But, Bigotry, is when one goes beyond prejudice. Prejudice can be dealt with on a case by case nature. Bigotry is more akin to 'well, this one person was an arse, therefore you are an arse'. And that is not so natural, and is more a matter of education (or miseducation I suppose)

I'm not understanding your point here. I'm just saying I don't care for the labels, but if we must have them, can we at least makes them logical, consistent and have a consensus on which ones to use?

AvatarForm wrote:By their parent-appointed names?

Not by social or other categorised terms?

I was making the point that it's good to be sensitive when applying names to various groups of people. Pretending that no such groups exist is madness, especially when so many people self-identify themselves with those groups.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: How on earth is "black" offensive!? The German guy makes the most sense.

Well, yeah, that's the point of the story.

If something is that plainly obvious, I fail to see how it is offensive, I mean.. merely your colour?

It has a history of being used negatively.

If "black" is offensive, then surely white is offensive?

Only if the experiences of every ethnicity where identical.

Basically, people fething love to be offended. Look at Religious people, you cant say boo to them on dakka, even though it is 100% pertinent to a conversation. (ie. the reason I think that is because of my Religion)

And other people are always looking at ignoring whatever facts allow them to carry on saying and doing whatever they want, despite the real offence it causes to others. Both groups are equally tiresome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:It takes 22 muscles to frown
It takes 3 to smile

How many does it take to blow me?





(sorry, I just remember a mate's particularly annoying sister using that line one time, and another mate coming up with that response... comic gold)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:Regardless of what you "prefer", referring to someone as black is racist.

There are people who self-identify as black, who want to be called black by others. So, I ask you, what the hell are we supposed to do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:I'm not understanding your point here. I'm just saying I don't care for the labels, but if we must have them, can we at least makes them logical, consistent and have a consensus on which ones to use?

No, we can't. Because humans are complicated, and our social groups are even more complex. In most cases, the offensive nature of a word doesn't come from it's inherent nature, but from how it was used towards a certain person. I mean, the spanish word for black shouldn't be that offensive, except for the history of how that word was used in race relations.

Similarly, African American is about as bland as terms can get, except for a lot of black people it's come to stand for a very American approach to race relations, and one that leaves them right out of their own identity.

So really, I think the only practical solution is to find out how people prefer to be called, and use that.

So really, I think the only practical solution is to find out how people prefer to be called, and use that.

No I understand, I just don't understand how institutions are supposed to insure themselves against offense. I'm not concerned about people, I've got personal skills for that. I understand people are complicated, and that to force a label on them would cause more problems than it cures. But when I see news people scared and confused because they can't think of what the pc term for Black French people is, I just can't think there must be a better way.

FITZZ wrote:Exactly, my Missus refers to herself as black, her Mother, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins all refer to themselves as Black...now are they racist?

Herein exists the problem.

You end up with comedians like Chris Rock who make a living stereotyping themselves and their backgrounds, and noone has a problem.

It all circles back on itself and rests with groups identifying themselves as such, then crying racism when someone else uses it.

Whether intentionally derrogatory or not, the problem exists in the power certain labels have for the user and the target.

Everyone needs not to be butt hurt. Boom. Stoned Cannerus wins America.

AvatarForm wrote:Also, I am of italian heritage, and by your above desciption you would label me Hispanic. Now, forgiving your ignorance, but the simple fact that you view the world in this way makes you undeniably racist.

Actually you would be deemed as a Caucasian, although I've seen plenty of Italians and Greeks who are nowhere near as dark as most Puerto Ricans I know, I guess that you can say that you're an African American... I fail to see how you make any real valid arguments.

I would say that I am not a racist, I'm related to Mexicans, blacks, and just about everything except for oriental. My cousin is coming down from Maryland, he's mixed and we're going to get him some Space Marines this summer. My uncle is Mexican and he's the only member of that side of the family we care to associate with, mainly because the other members on that side of the family are horrible people. Seriously, when your grandmother on that side of the family ignores you for your entire life until her deathbed and disowns her daughter for being a lesbian, she is indeed a horrible person.

My mom used to babysit when I was younger and she looked after two black girls, they were over so often that they were like family and when their parents divorced we were saddened by the fact that their mother got off of her meds and got mad at accused our mom of abusing them, despite the fact that she(the kids' mother) hit them with a camera and my mother had never once hit them, hell we taught them how to swim.

My school was 70% black and I never got into trouble for doing anything discriminatory, now I did get mad and call some chick a 'female dog', now that I did get into trouble for. Its okay though, the principal decided to return the favor and called me said word, luckily my mom knows people on the schoolboard and well, that situation was dealt with.

My neighborhood makes me a minority, the court to the right of me is 100% black, my court is mixed; 2 black families, 2 philipino families, 3 white families(including one Italian family, so get off of your self-description I've seen Italians, hell my uncle is Italian and he married a Polish woman so I have no idea where you would be called black), 1 Mexican family, and 1 Puerto Rican family. Personally my favorite family is the Mexican family, they were living there when we started living there and they had kids our age and their mom made freaking fantastic tamales.

Again, I would call you ignorant if you think that you would be called 'Hispanic' for maybe having a tan and again I said that I don't use the term Hispanic. In fact I don't think you've actually read any of my argument, you keep insinuating that I am using the terms Hispanic and African-American despite the fact that I have clearly stated that I don't use those terms.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Everyone needs not to be butt hurt.

That doesn't sound like something you would normally say...

Some of those posts in the article were completely stupid IMO