It may not be you. Sometimes I have to do it two or three times before it takes. Anyway, I went on YT and looked at the video in question, and he got nearly all the way through the word in question because he awkwardly stumbled his way out of it. He's definitely busted!
Ratius wrote:Leaving aside any sort of /care Factor (as a Paddy), did anyone LOL like I did, great stuff CT, the repeatable was class
hahahha
HES CLEARLY A ******!
Serious Q before I hit a nasty club:
Do you Americans rate this guy over Anyone that runs against him? Y/N/ I hate Europe is valid, or anything inbetween!
Most of the wingnuts do, quite frankly I think. If given a choice between stantorum and obama i would choose obama each time.
This guy runs only on Rhetoric and not thought out arguments or issues.
I mean, The guy wants to ban porn, y'know the industry that makes more the hollywood.
If you want to see what most americans think of him, go to urban dictionary and search for santorum. that really just sums him up nicely
I swear the republicans are not even trying this year, they just want to keep obama for another 4.
See mate as an serious guy who....lets leave aside US Hegemony FTM, what am I viewing here....or supposed to support?
Is he right/left/middle,Christian/anti/gay up/Middle East/anti EU/post 80s,/;ultra Corp/or down/Israeli/Pacific/antiChina/post US Corp/Proxy UK /right/Middle US Southern/Anti Abortiahn/Anti
Gay/ Middle Militarry complex/Imperialist WTF?
I can see all sorts off Posts over this one but - F*k IT.
I decide? Ok, he didn't almost use the N word. I have no idea what he was actually going to say, other that it started with an N. A lot of words start with N. The "ig" that followed it, that's just not clear to me and I think it's really a rorshach about how you feel.
This is a man who despite having (comparatively) little money and outlandish views had managed to make himself relevant and stay there as a serious contender in the race for the President of the United States of America. He's obviously quite intelligent because you simply cannot do what he has done otherwise. Even if there were evidence he's a closet racist (and there isn't, despite him being a professional politician for many years with infinite opportunities to expose himself); he's too polished, practiced, and in-control to make such a sloppy leak at this exceedingly late point in time. It cannot happen, it did not happen.
With the things Santorum actually says, we don't need to grasp for things he might have said to find him loathful.
Ouze wrote:I decide? Ok, he didn't almost use the N word. I have no idea what he was actually going to say, other that it started with an N. A lot of words start with N. The "ig" that followed it, that's just not clear to me and I think it's really a rorshach about how you feel.
This is a man who despite having (comparatively) little money and outlandish views had managed to make himself relevant and stay there as a serious contender in the race for the President of the United States of America. He's obviously quite intelligent because you simply cannot do what he has done otherwise. Even if there were evidence he's a closet racist (and there isn't, despite him being a professional politician for many years with infinite opportunities to expose himself); he's too polished, practiced, and in-control to make such a sloppy leak at this exceedingly late point in time. It cannot happen, it did not happen.
With the things Santorum actually says, we don't need to grasp for things he might have said to find him loathful.
Hold up peeps, no one so far has accused him of the flaming "N".
Jaysus GT posted a heavily edited Vid of the N bomb being "dropped".
Dont you get the implication? No?
Time to tune off Fox News and look elsewhere for a News Hit
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is a man who despite having (comparatively) little money and outlandish views had managed to make himself relevant and stay there as a serious contender in the race for the President of the United States of America. He's obviously quite intelligent because you simply cannot do what he has done otherwise
Wow, I like your posts overall Ouze but, WTF?
Uhhhm as a US Citizen you would support him ?
Assuming you cannot..........
Pick me an alternative - thats an open Q, no baiting intended.
Ratius wrote:Wow, I like your posts overall Ouze but, WTF?
Uhhhm as a US Citizen you would support him ?
Assuming you cannot..........
Pick me an alternative - thats an open Q, no baiting intended.
Me, support Santorum? Absolutely not. I find Santorum's rise to be a deeply disturbing trend in American politics. I am horrified by some of his ideas, disturbed by his utter obsession with what gay people do; and repulsed by his desires to further entwine religion into government (so long as you're the right religion, anyway). As an American, every day when I read about Santoum doing well in this primary or other, it's like reading the goddamn Onion - it's surreal and hard to believe.
However, despite how reprehensible I find Santorum, I'm able to recognize he has excellent political skills in getting this far. It just seems unlikely someone with the N word on the very tip of his tongue would be able to successfully suppress it for so long of an incredibly public career. I don't need to infer unsaid things he may have thought to find him repellent because looking at his past statements provide adequate evidence whatever he was going to say would have been just as repellent anyway, just differently so.
So far as who i support, personally... I don't. I'm registered as no party, and that's exactly who I like this election. I'm disinclined to vote at all, but since I've never failed to vote in a national election at all, I guess my civil duty will kick in and I'm likely to vote for the person I find the least odious; in this case Obama. I don't see any serious distinction between Obama and Romney, though, just minor niggles between them here and there over just how fast to sell out to the multinational corporations and landed gentry that actually run this country (hey look, an N word that wasn't that word!). I follow politics like people follow football; I'm fascinated with the game even if I'm not very fond of any of the teams.
I am with Ouze that I can't imagine that he was going to say it, or even was meaning to say the word. To do so would be political suicide and I imagine he would like to be in the game beyond this primary or Presidential election.
That being said, it was still close enough to cause him problems.
He might not have meant to say it...
You know that thing sometimes when you think something and you accidentally say it or do it?
That might have happened...
My major problem with voting for Obama is that there isn't really anything on the news about him (Other than Fox News) ever since the health care thing.
Now, I don't really watch TV, but the Internet gives me everything and faster....
Also, as a personal problem, the bastard let ND build a pipeline for Oil that cost us thousands of dollars and would have saved Americans much more than that, but right after we spend the money and get it up and running, he smacks us with legislation that makes the damn pipe just sit there..... So yes, it is his fault Gas is so high....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:He might not have meant to say it...
You know that thing sometimes when you think something and you accidentally say it or do it?
That might have happened...
While possibly true, why was the word in his mind at any point?
Hardly a good idea to have someone whose positions on something as important as that in control of the most powerful country on the planet, is it?
Uhmm, me neither guys - As an Oirish - whoite, Euuuuropean - (mis-spelled deliberatly!)
I was trolling slightly there, dont even think CT was gunning for him.
Point is, when the Average US Joe turns on "dah TV chunnel" dis iz whut dey might see - Yeah thats dead harsh VS Americans but CT nailed it - Anyways NN
purplefood wrote:He might not have meant to say it...
You know that thing sometimes when you think something and you accidentally say it or do it?
That might have happened...
While possibly true, why was the word in his mind at any point?
Hardly a good idea to have someone whose positions on something as important as that in control of the most powerful country on the planet, is it?
Not to mention his stance on Porn.....
No admittedly it isn't...
Though even if he wasn't racist (which he might not be) i wouldn't feel comfortable with him in office...
And i live far enough away from the US...
I might move to Norway... just in case...
Ouze wrote:I decide? Ok, he didn't almost use the N word. I have no idea what he was actually going to say, other that it started with an N. A lot of words start with N. The "ig" that followed it, that's just not clear to me and I think it's really a rorshach about how you feel.
This is a man who despite having (comparatively) little money and outlandish views had managed to make himself relevant and stay there as a serious contender in the race for the President of the United States of America. He's obviously quite intelligent because you simply cannot do what he has done otherwise. Even if there were evidence he's a closet racist (and there isn't, despite him being a professional politician for many years with infinite opportunities to expose himself); he's too polished, practiced, and in-control to make such a sloppy leak at this exceedingly late point in time. It cannot happen, it did not happen.
With the things Santorum actually says, we don't need to grasp for things he might have said to find him loathful.
People jumble words some times, it happens. He didn't drop that famous word so as far as I'm concerned he never said it. I also believe that if people want to believe that's what he was going to say their going to hear it as such.
As Ouze said, the guys made it this far, so he's skilled in some regard, there's no denying it. I seriously doubt he would say that word in front of a crowd of people while cameras are on him.
Its quite obviuos that he mispoke and said said "governmentnick" or something to that extent... this thread is ridiculous. I hate Santorum just as much of the next guy, but to accuse him of saying n***** is just low.
Ouze wrote:I decide? Ok, he didn't almost use the N word. I have no idea what he was actually going to say, other that it started with an N. A lot of words start with N. The "ig" that followed it, that's just not clear to me and I think it's really a rorshach about how you feel.
This is a man who despite having (comparatively) little money and outlandish views had managed to make himself relevant and stay there as a serious contender in the race for the President of the United States of America. He's obviously quite intelligent because you simply cannot do what he has done otherwise. Even if there were evidence he's a closet racist (and there isn't, despite him being a professional politician for many years with infinite opportunities to expose himself); he's too polished, practiced, and in-control to make such a sloppy leak at this exceedingly late point in time. It cannot happen, it did not happen.
With the things Santorum actually says, we don't need to grasp for things he might have said to find him loathful.
Exactly. Santorum is many things, but he hasn't shown himself to be a racist. And, honestly, given how ridiculous some of his proposals have been politically, I'm not sure he could cover it up if he were.
Exactly. Santorum is many things, but he hasn't shown himself to be a racist.
I'll take your word on that, though when he made a campaign stop in Jan. and was speaking about government aid he stated " I don't want to give black people other people's money, i want them to earn their own..."(paraphrasing).
It is important t note that he singled out black people in his response even though I assume we can all agree that not just "black people" benefit from gov. aid...
As for this clip. It stands on it's own.
And I'll apologize to Santorum for highlighting this "low blow" gainst him when he apologizes for all the homophobic and untrue thing she has said about various people and groups repeatedly.
I have a tiny bit of experience with (at the time) Sen Santorum and his staff. Frankly, he disgusts me. Having said that, based on my admittedly limited experience, he isn't a racist.
Ratius wrote:Wow, I like your posts overall Ouze but, WTF?
Uhhhm as a US Citizen you would support him ?
Assuming you cannot..........
Pick me an alternative - thats an open Q, no baiting intended.
Me, support Santorum? Absolutely not. I find Santorum's rise to be a deeply disturbing trend in American politics. I am horrified by some of his ideas, disturbed by his utter obsession with what gay people do; and repulsed by his desires to further entwine religion into government (so long as you're the right religion, anyway). As an American, every day when I read about Santoum doing well in this primary or other, it's like reading the goddamn Onion - it's surreal and hard to believe.
However, despite how reprehensible I find Santorum, I'm able to recognize he has excellent political skills in getting this far. It just seems unlikely someone with the N word on the very tip of his tongue would be able to successfully suppress it for so long of an incredibly public career. I don't need to infer unsaid things he may have thought to find him repellent because looking at his past statements provide adequate evidence whatever he was going to say would have been just as repellent anyway, just differently so.
So far as who i support, personally... I don't. I'm registered as no party, and that's exactly who I like this election. I'm disinclined to vote at all, but since I've never failed to vote in a national election at all, I guess my civil duty will kick in and I'm likely to vote for the person I find the least odious; in this case Obama. I don't see any serious distinction between Obama and Romney, though, just minor niggles between them here and there over just how fast to sell out to the multinational corporations and landed gentry that actually run this country (hey look, an N word that wasn't that word!). I follow politics like people follow football; I'm fascinated with the game even if I'm not very fond of any of the teams.
Have faith. Santorum is a lightweight, like Kacinich and a plethora of Democratic and Republican candidates before. Thats what the vetting process is for. Unfortunately they are all lightweights and the Presidency has been run by rank amateurs since Barabara Bush was the iron hammer behind Bush Sr. Where is Nixon when you need him?
Experiment 626 wrote:Isn't Santorum the one who outright said he'd end Iran's nuke programe by simply launching a pre-emptive strike and bombing all their plants?!
The video shown in the original post REALLY sounds like he is about to use the N-word. You clearly hear the first three letters. However, this is a broken video, that repeats 3 times and has definitely been adjusted by somebody down the lines-so salt needed. Is he about to say it, or is it videoshopped that he is about to say it? I'm not defending him-I think Santorum is a douchebag. But I'm saying the video in the first post shows him about to say it, whether the video is real or forged.
So people are what other people think they are? Would you like it if I judged you on your stupid question?
And for the record, changing "er" to "a" really doesn't help. the intent is still the same.
And frankly I feel it says more about someone who uses the N word than it does to who it's being used on.
As far as I know [see forum posting rules] (thx for the spelling) is used to describe a group of people in a way that it conveys the knowledge about the people in current context. I don't that offensive in any way.
Aren't you from Finland? If so, it's apparent you have no idea how offensive the word is to African-Americans. It's a thing that I think most of the world won't really understand.
Personally, I hate the N-bomb for the double standard; it's racist if a white guy says it, but if a black guy says it it's ok, and that's NOT racist at ALL! Now, I'm not saying I should be able to go around saying N-word, N-word, but neither should anyone else, really.....
illuknisaa wrote:As far as I know [see forum posting rules] (thx for the spelling) is used to describe a group of people in a way that it conveys the knowledge about the people in current context.
Then you don't know much of what you are speaking about it would seem.
illuknisaa wrote:I don't that offensive in any way.
Considering it doesn't apply to you, you don't understand the meaning, and are unclear on the cultural connotations, that really isn't a shock.
Frazzled wrote:
Unfortunately they are all lightweights and the Presidency has been run by rank amateurs since Barabara Bush was the iron hammer behind Bush Sr. Where is Nixon when you need him?
Eh, I think Clinton and Herbert Walker were above average, with Clinton verging on excellent (he dodged impeachment and still remained quite popular) with Bush II and Obama sitting right around the middle.
Slarg232 wrote:Personally, I hate the N-bomb for the double standard; it's racist if a white guy says it, but if a black guy says it it's ok, and that's NOT racist at ALL! Now, I'm not saying I should be able to go around saying N-word, N-word, but neither should anyone else, really.....
>>Gain black friends
>>Slowly slip it in here and there
>>Everyone get's used to it, no butt is pained
>>feelsgoodman.zip
I've used it a couple times around black friends, but even then it slipped out mistakenly primarily due to their excessive use of the word. They didn't even seem to notice it, but it felt awkward.
Slarg232 wrote:Personally, I hate the N-bomb for the double standard; it's racist if a white guy says it, but if a black guy says it it's ok, and that's NOT racist at ALL! Now, I'm not saying I should be able to go around saying N-word, N-word, but neither should anyone else, really.....
Yes, its so unfair towards us white people! We aren't allowed to say the n-word! And all we get in return are higher incomes, better education, history rewritten in our favor and 44 out of 45 presidents! Why, we ought to form our own organization, just for white people, where we fight back against the oppressive blacks.
Amaya wrote:Aren't you from Finland? If so, it's apparent you have no idea how offensive the word is to African-Americans. It's a thing that I think most of the world won't really understand.
Ahh interesting I didn't know african americans are also butthurt about n-word with 150 years old slaves from Nigeria.
And yes I'm from Finland that country that has been under the rule of two countries both of which of them have treated finland as a "buffer zone". And the real fun part starts when finland gets it's independence we (we actually did get invaded as people who survived latest war are still alive) get invaded by one of the greatest military mights of that time and nobody gave a gak.
People who suffered during american slavery are dead.
Also I find offensive that you use the word "Finland" to describe my country instead of its real name "Suomi" .
Slarg232 wrote:Personally, I hate the N-bomb for the double standard; it's racist if a white guy says it, but if a black guy says it it's ok, and that's NOT racist at ALL! Now, I'm not saying I should be able to go around saying N-word, N-word, but neither should anyone else, really.....
Yes, its so unfair towards us white people! We aren't allowed to say the n-word! And all we get in return are higher incomes, better education, history rewritten in our favor and 44 out of 45 presidents! Why, we ought to form our own organization, just for white people, where we fight back against the oppressive blacks.
[/sarcasm]
Yes, it's so unfair towards us white people! If you say anything bad about the one president, you get called a racist! There is a Black People Only scholarship fund, but to have a White People Only Scholarship is RACIST! Truely it's totally allowable and correct that the majority of Americans think that white men and women cannot be discriminated against, because their WHITE, which is a skin color!
We should totally allow the country to fall back into segregation, because it's obviously white mans turn to be discriminated against! (For those of you whom think that's ludicrous, look at WW and WWII; Germans were discriminated against because of WW, and so Hitler poisoned quite a few peoples' minds into thinking it was their turn to discriminate.....)
I beleive in equality; I get payed $40 an hour for a job (I wish), I expect the black woman to get paid the same exact amount. I, as a white male, have to go to the frontline if there is a war? I expect a black woman to go there too. I expect that if I get fired for saying one thing, a black woman deserves to get fired for saying the exact same thing. You do not get it both ways, you do not get to go back and forth; your my equal or your not, you can't have it both ways, and to expect anything else is to be not worth my time.
Slarg232 wrote:I beleive in equality; I get payed $40 an hour for a job (I wish), I expect the black woman to get paid the same exact amount.
But she doesn't.
I know and it's wrong, and if there was much I could do about it I would, but let's face it; there isn't much someone like me can do when America is more interested in Bert and Ernie being gay (on a god damned childrens show; seriously why should they even care ) than what's going on with politics/equality.
Slarg232 wrote:I, as a white male, have to go to the frontline if there is a war?
Only if you volunteer. and women serve on the front lines too these days.
I highly doubt "Volunteer" will have anything to do with it, due to todays politicians and the fact that we haven't been in a war for quite some time, so policy is sure to have changed.
Slarg232 wrote:I beleive in equality; I get payed $40 an hour for a job (I wish), I expect the black woman to get paid the same exact amount.
But she doesn't.
I know and it's wrong, and if there was much I could do about it I would, but let's face it; there isn't much someone like me can do when America is more interested in Bert and Ernie being gay (on a god damned childrens show; seriously why should they even care ) than what's going on with politics/equality.
Slarg232 wrote:I, as a white male, have to go to the frontline if there is a war?
Only if you volunteer. and women serve on the front lines too these days.
I highly doubt "Volunteer" will have anything to do with it, due to todays politicians and the fact that we haven't been in a war for quite some time, so policy is sure to have changed.
Seriously, I hate politicians.
America has an all volunteer force. It would be a real hard sell to the people to start up a draft again.
Its one thing to send volunteers over to fight and die in a never ending war in the middle east. Hey they volunteered for it. Plus as long as they keep the economy in the dumps, they'll always have a fresh supply of volunteers.
We are at war, we declared a war on terrorism which led us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and it seems Iran is next on the "to invade" list.
sirlynchmob wrote:We are at war, we declared a war on terrorism which led us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and it seems Iran is next on the "to invade" list.
Son, what we are in is classified as a Skirmish, we only ever fought in five Wars in our history; Revolutionary, Civil, WW, WWII, and the Vietnam (Not sure about that last one).
I hate to say it, and I know it's tragic in it's entirity, but when only five people die during a fight, that's a very, very good thing in an actual war.
sirlynchmob wrote:We are at war, we declared a war on terrorism which led us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and it seems Iran is next on the "to invade" list.
Son, what we are in is classified as a Skirmish, we only ever fought in five Wars in our history; Revolutionary, Civil, WW, WWII, and the Vietnam (Not sure about that last one).
I hate to say it, and I know it's tragic in it's entirity, but when only five people die during a fight, that's a very, very good thing in an actual war.
It's irrelevant as to what it's classified as. Anything with an excess of 50,000 casualties should be considered a war, albeit a small one in comparison to total wars.
Slarg232 wrote:Personally, I hate the N-bomb for the double standard; it's racist if a white guy says it, but if a black guy says it it's ok, and that's NOT racist at ALL! Now, I'm not saying I should be able to go around saying N-word, N-word, but neither should anyone else, really.....
Yes, its so unfair towards us white people! We aren't allowed to say the n-word! And all we get in return are higher incomes, better education, history rewritten in our favor and 44 out of 45 presidents! Why, we ought to form our own organization, just for white people, where we fight back against the oppressive blacks.
[/sarcasm]
Yes, it's so unfair towards us white people! If you say anything bad about the one president, you get called a racist! There is a Black People Only scholarship fund, but to have a White People Only Scholarship is RACIST! (1) Truely it's totally allowable and correct that the majority of Americans think that white men and women cannot be discriminated against, because their WHITE, which is a skin color! (2)
We should totally allow the country to fall back into segregation, because it's obviously white mans turn to be discriminated against! (For those of you whom think that's ludicrous, look at WW and WWII; Germans were discriminated against because of WW, and so Hitler poisoned quite a few peoples' minds into thinking it was their turn to discriminate.....) (3)
I beleive in equality; I get payed $40 an hour for a job (I wish), I expect the black woman to get paid the same exact amount. (4) I, as a white male, have to go to the frontline if there is a war? I expect a black woman to go there too. (5) I expect that if I get fired for saying one thing, a black woman deserves to get fired for saying the exact same thing. You do not get it both ways, you do not get to go back and forth; your my equal or your not, you can't have it both ways, and to expect anything else is to be not worth my time. (6)
Did you seriously just compare Affirmative Action to Nazi Germany?
Alright, let's go through your points. I've labelled them in your post.
1) This is an extremely ignorant view point. Black people are disadvantaged from the start. Statistically they grow up in poorer houses and get worse education. This makes it very hard to get into college, even though they are just as smart as white people. So, the scholarships were made to fight this. Even with the scholarships, colleges are still vastly dominated by rich white kids.
2) White people can be discriminated against. But it is extremely rare. And, statistically, black people get it way worse. They have a harder time getting hired, if they do get hired they get paid less and of course the justice system is drastically biased against them.
3) Okay, that's a ridiculous example that the US isn't even close to. In fact, that's so insane that it isn't even relevant to the conversation at all. Giving black people scholarships will not create Nazi Germany, no matter how you put it. Besides, I can come up with my own insane example; Hitler didn't care about giving black people scholarships and neither do you, so that means your policies will create Nazi Germany. See, it doesn't make sense. No sense at all. Completely insane. Completely bonkers.
4) Good.
5) I agree with this, the draft laws need to be modified. But that's a rare instance of sexism against men, not a rare instance of racism against white people.
6) No, you can't. This is difficult to explain, but I'll try. You know how you're allowed to insult yourself ("I'm so stupid sometimes, heh") but not others ("He's so stupid sometimes, heh"). Its kind of like that. You can make fun of your own race or gender, but not any else. Women will get fired for saying, "Men were designed by God to serve as sex slaves for us women, the superior gender" and men will get fired for saying, "Women were designed by God to serve as sex slaves for us men, the superior gender". Does that make sense?
Slarg232 wrote:You do not get it both ways, you do not get to go back and forth; your my equal or your not, you can't have it both ways, and to expect anything else is to be not worth my time.
The whole idea of the races being equal because we say they died years ago. Now its all about the recognition racism, or at least its legacy, still has a strong impact on our daily lives.
There's an offshoot of the discourse surrounding racism that suggests white people can't be racially discriminated against, by definition. Its called Critical Race Theory, and its proponents are idiots.
There's also an offshoot of the discourse involving white people claiming that they are somehow being victimized because there are scholarships that available exclusively to certain minorities, among other things. I generally consider them to be self-entitled, among other things.
As for saying something in a certain context getting you fired: imagine saying , offhandedly, that you had sex with a woman named Carol. Imagine further that your boss overhears you, and becomes suspicious because a co-workers wife is named Carol, and a very good friend of yours who you play "tennis" with, and everyone but her husband knows there are quotes around "tennis". You may well find yourself terminated not because you spoke of a personal matter, but because you spoke of a personal matter that is likely disruptive to the office. Had Carol's husband said the same thing, however, there would not likely be an issue.
Slarg232 wrote:Personally, I hate the N-bomb for the double standard; it's racist if a white guy says it, but if a black guy says it it's ok, and that's NOT racist at ALL! Now, I'm not saying I should be able to go around saying N-word, N-word, but neither should anyone else, really.....
Yes, its so unfair towards us white people! We aren't allowed to say the n-word! And all we get in return are higher incomes, better education, history rewritten in our favor and 44 out of 45 presidents! Why, we ought to form our own organization, just for white people, where we fight back against the oppressive blacks.
[/sarcasm]
Yes, it's so unfair towards us white people! If you say anything bad about the one president, you get called a racist! There is a Black People Only scholarship fund, but to have a White People Only Scholarship is RACIST! (1) Truely it's totally allowable and correct that the majority of Americans think that white men and women cannot be discriminated against, because their WHITE, which is a skin color! (2)
We should totally allow the country to fall back into segregation, because it's obviously white mans turn to be discriminated against! (For those of you whom think that's ludicrous, look at WW and WWII; Germans were discriminated against because of WW, and so Hitler poisoned quite a few peoples' minds into thinking it was their turn to discriminate.....) (3)
I beleive in equality; I get payed $40 an hour for a job (I wish), I expect the black woman to get paid the same exact amount. (4) I, as a white male, have to go to the frontline if there is a war? I expect a black woman to go there too. (5) I expect that if I get fired for saying one thing, a black woman deserves to get fired for saying the exact same thing. You do not get it both ways, you do not get to go back and forth; your my equal or your not, you can't have it both ways, and to expect anything else is to be not worth my time. (6)
Did you seriously just compare Affirmative Action to Nazi Germany?
Alright, let's go through your points. I've labelled them in your post.
1) This is an extremely ignorant view point. Black people are disadvantaged from the start. Statistically they grow up in poorer houses and get worse education. This makes it very hard to get into college, even though they are just as smart as white people. So, the scholarships were made to fight this. Even with the scholarships, colleges are still vastly dominated by rich white kids.
2) White people can be discriminated against. But it is extremely rare. And, statistically, black people get it way worse. They have a harder time getting hired, if they do get hired they get paid less and of course the justice system is drastically biased against them.
3) Okay, that's a ridiculous example that the US isn't even close to. In fact, that's so insane that it isn't even relevant to the conversation at all. Giving black people scholarships will not create Nazi Germany, no matter how you put it. Besides, I can come up with my own insane example; Hitler didn't care about giving black people scholarships and neither do you, so that means your policies will create Nazi Germany. See, it doesn't make sense. No sense at all. Completely insane. Completely bonkers.
4) Good.
5) I agree with this, the draft laws need to be modified. But that's a rare instance of sexism against men, not a rare instance of racism against white people.
6) No, you can't. This is difficult to explain, but I'll try. You know how you're allowed to insult yourself ("I'm so stupid sometimes, heh") but not others ("He's so stupid sometimes, heh"). Its kind of like that. You can make fun of your own race or gender, but not any else. Women will get fired for saying, "Men were designed by God to serve as sex slaves for us women, the superior gender" and men will get fired for saying, "Women were designed by God to serve as sex slaves for us men, the superior gender". Does that make sense?
1) So wait, it's the POOR black kid versus the RICH white kid? Sounds like a problem that is not exactly determined by Race. If you go into a poor neighborhood that has blacks as a majority and say "I'm going to help the 10 poorest people here". A non-biased aide group will give it to the ten poorest people in that neighborhood. The "Black Only" Scholarship will see #6, who is white (Or hell, anything other than black, take your pick) and say "Let's skip him". Not because he needs less help, not because he is dumber, but because he. is. white. Racism right there, and to deny this is down right ignorant, as the cool kids put it these days.
If you go into a poor neighborhood and say "I want to help these kids out", you help those who need it most, not "Those of a specific skin color who need it most".
2) I just typed in "Whites can" on google, and the fourth most frequent search were "Only Whites can be racist". Blacks only get it worse in white dominant societies/neighbor hoods; In Black, Hispanic, Asian etc dominated societies/neighborhoods, this is not the case, and the exact opposite can be observed; the Whites will always be targeted over any other group, solely because they are white.
3) It will not, no. I see that if you don't post /Sarcasm it goes right over the heads of people, I will try to remember that for later use. The WW to WWII part was SOLELY to show that hard feelings don't often die.
4) Yes.
5) I used White Male and Black Female because they are opposites; white to black, male to female.
6) Bull. It's not about WHAT you say, it's about tone. If a dude and a gal meet eachother, they will often talk, things said may possibly include "Women are crazy anyway" or "Men are stupid and women are crazy, but mostly because men are stupid", And no one will think different. Now, take the same tone, and a black person can call a white person "Cracker", or rather a slur for white. No one will think twice about this. The moment a white person says "[see forum posting rules]" (Notice how one is blocked out, but the other isn't?), which is a slur for black, and everyone flips the FETH out. This is equality how?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:I highly doubt "Volunteer" will have anything to do with it
Then you don't know what you're talking about.
Your right, many people got out of their graves and went to vote during the 2008 Elections, and it's not as though the representatives in Congress are really voting the way their people want them to, anyway (Looking at you, Pomeroy)
Slarg232 wrote:so policy is sure to have changed.
It has changed... from draft to all volunteer.
The army itself does not want a draft. It's a logistical, morale, and discipline nightmare.
This is the same army that bends over for Congress to take away funding/paying the soldiers so they can enjoy their expensive lifestyles and avoid taxes, correct?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:There's also an offshoot of the discourse involving white people claiming that they are somehow being victimized because there are scholarships that available exclusively to certain minorities, among other things. I generally consider them to be self-entitled, among other things.
So what your saying is that it's perfectly fine to be given a hand out just because your skin color falls on the darker side? That if you met two people, one was a White straight A student, one was a Black straight B student, that you would rather see the straight B student get money solely because he's black?
As for saying something in a certain context getting you fired: imagine saying , offhandedly, that you had sex with a woman named Carol. Imagine further that your boss overhears you, and becomes suspicious because a co-workers wife is named Carol, and a very good friend of yours who you play "tennis" with, and everyone but her husband knows there are quotes around "tennis". You may well find yourself terminated not because you spoke of a personal matter, but because you spoke of a personal matter that is likely disruptive to the office. Had Carol's husband said the same thing, however, there would not likely be an issue.
That is not an arguement based upon race, but rather poor choices (First for doing it, second for bragging about it), and yes, yes you should be fired for that.
Ok, let's start over here, let me try to get my point across; A College allows Fraternities to form however they please, providing that they pay a fee (And for some odd reason, the college itself has to accept your money). A bunch of Minority students (Pick one), pretty cool dudes, get together and say "We want to make a Frat for people of our Minority". The college will have no problem with that, and it will accept their check with an open smile. Along comes Jason, a white student, pretty cool guy, sees this Frat and thinks "Hey, I love what they have done with the place," Asks to join them. The Frat Boys, being cool guys, like hanging out with him, but decline letting him into the house because "He isn't in our Minority".
Jason, at this point, has several options, one of which is going to the school board/deen/principle/whatever and says "Hey, I want in this Frat House, but they won't let me because I'm white." Jason is going to get laughed out of the meeting, because it's a House SOLELY for that Minority. Jason decides in a fit of anger that he is going to make a "Majority Fraternity", only Whites can join.
The School has two options at this point. One, they can reject it, because they are afraid of the media backlash of a "White Power Fraternity" being at their school. This is more likely to happen than Option 2. Option two has him go forward with it, and then the media gets ahold of it, and THAT looks alot like this:
No where in that storm of Gak will you ever hear mention of Minority Frat.
So why is it ok for there to be a Frat of Minority Only, but not a Frat of Whites Only?
If you honestly believe that any politician would commit political suicide and instate a draft, I think you're sorely mistaken. The last real chance they had to do that was in 2001, and something like that isn't likely to happen again any time soon.
Even in THAT time, when we were at our most vulnerable, the talks of a draft were considered ludicrous.
sirlynchmob wrote:We are at war, we declared a war on terrorism which led us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and it seems Iran is next on the "to invade" list.
Son, what we are in is classified as a Skirmish, we only ever fought in five Wars in our history; Revolutionary, Civil, WW, WWII, and the Vietnam (Not sure about that last one).
I hate to say it, and I know it's tragic in it's entirity, but when only five people die during a fight, that's a very, very good thing in an actual war.
hey boy, Skirmish my ass, we invaded, occupied, and deposed the government of another sovereign nation.
and the 5 are:
war of 1812,
mexican-american,
spanish-american,
WWI
WWII
The civil war was never even authorized by congress, so was that just a skirmish as well then?
Vietnam and Iraq were both Military engagements authorized by Congress.
sirlynchmob wrote:We are at war, we declared a war on terrorism which led us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and it seems Iran is next on the "to invade" list.
Son, what we are in is classified as a Skirmish, we only ever fought in five Wars in our history; Revolutionary, Civil, WW, WWII, and the Vietnam (Not sure about that last one).
I hate to say it, and I know it's tragic in it's entirity, but when only five people die during a fight, that's a very, very good thing in an actual war.
hey boy, Skirmish my ass, we invaded, occupied, and deposed the government of another sovereign nation.
and the 5 are:
war of 1812,
mexican-american,
spanish-american,
WWI
WWII
The civil war was never even authorized by congress, so was that just a skirmish as well then?
Vietnam and Iraq were both Military engagements authorized by Congress.
Apparantly.
Also, you are correct; Military Engagements. Notice how this is not the correct spelling of War.
Slarg232 wrote:
So what your saying is that it's perfectly fine to be given a hand out just because your skin color falls on the darker side? That if you met two people, one was a White straight A student, one was a Black straight B student, that you would rather see the straight B student get money solely because he's black?
Well, the scholarships given to minorities usually aren't (probably more like never) given to them solely because they're minorities, usually they're given out to as incentives to pursue degrees in certain vocations, or degrees of any sort, to minority students that demonstrate merit.
And yes, if statistically African Americans suffer several disadvantages in terms of being admitted to, and paying for, college (and they do) I have no problem with that. Honestly, I find the degree to which this issue gets to people to be bemusing, because it necessarily implies that being white places someone at some kind of disadvantage, which isn't true statistically. Maybe being white, and poor, but I have no numbers on that.
Slarg232 wrote:
That is not an arguement based upon race, but rather poor choices (First for doing it, second for bragging about it), and yes, yes you should be fired for that.
Dropping the n-bomb is also a poor word choice, especially if you happen to be not black, or not acting. The point being that context matters when you consider what it is you are saying at given time, and yes, who you are is part of that context.
Slarg232 wrote:
So why is it ok for there to be a Frat of Minority Only, but not a Frat of Whites Only?
Because the white "identity" is largely based on persecuting minorities, while the black identity largely follows from being persecuted. There is a very definite "black culture", but I would struggle to pin down "white culture" as anything other than "not black culture".
I said the word "knight" in class the way Monty Python parodied
the earlier pronunciation that pronounced it "kin-nicht" except
in Monty Python they say "ki-niggit." I had to explain the whole
thing right there.
It's not about Statistics; Figures don't lie, but liers figure. I'm not saying that poor people, black or white, do not need help. But to give a man a scholarship just because of his skin color, certain degree or no, is racism plain and simple. There is simply no denying this. And as we all know, Racism is wrong. Ergo, having a scholarship for race is wrong.
I am not for the creation of a White Scholarship, btw, as that's just segregating people; white people can only get cash from this ATM, minorities from this one. You didn't accuse, but I figured I would clear that up. Give the poor the help they need. If that means all twenty of the people you help are black, then help the black people. If all twenty are white, help the white people. But don't you dare exlude one of the poorest people there simply because he's a certain skin color.
To the second:
Not word choice; Choice in general. Charlie was dumb enough to get involved in something needing to be kept secret and then not keeping said thing a secret.
And again, it is ok for someone to say something if they are a certain skin color. Again, this is discrimination, which is racism, which is wrong. Why should any white person be held accountable for what white people did in the past? I am not my father, you are not yours.
To the third:
Ok, let's take out Black, and specifically make it Hispanic. Still ok? How about Asian? The point is that it is seen as A-OK for each of these to have their own clik, but not the white kids.
sirlynchmob wrote:We are at war, we declared a war on terrorism which led us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and it seems Iran is next on the "to invade" list.
Son, what we are in is classified as a Skirmish, we only ever fought in five Wars in our history; Revolutionary, Civil, WW, WWII, and the Vietnam (Not sure about that last one).
I hate to say it, and I know it's tragic in it's entirity, but when only five people die during a fight, that's a very, very good thing in an actual war.
hey boy, Skirmish my ass, we invaded, occupied, and deposed the government of another sovereign nation.
and the 5 are:
war of 1812,
mexican-american,
spanish-american,
WWI
WWII
The civil war was never even authorized by congress, so was that just a skirmish as well then?
Vietnam and Iraq were both Military engagements authorized by Congress.
Apparantly.
Also, you are correct; Military Engagements. Notice how this is not the correct spelling of War.
well isn't it funny, how you list 3 other "wars" that were not actually wars. But just because congress doesn't want to declare a war, doesn't mean its not a war.
war:"A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."
I'm not sure of the reason congress doesn't actually want to call it a war, probably just some political correctness. But regardless, its still referred to as the Iraq War. and by no means a skirmish.
skirmish:"a minor fight in war usually incidental to larger movements "
It's not about Statistics; Figures don't lie, but liers figure. I'm not saying that poor people, black or white, do not need help. But to give a man a scholarship just because of his skin color, certain degree or no, is racism plain and simple. There is simply no denying this. And as we all know, Racism is wrong. Ergo, having a scholarship for race is wrong.
I am not for the creation of a White Scholarship, btw, as that's just segregating people; white people can only get cash from this ATM, minorities from this one. You didn't accuse, but I figured I would clear that up. Give the poor the help they need. If that means all twenty of the people you help are black, then help the black people. If all twenty are white, help the white people. But don't you dare exlude one of the poorest people there simply because he's a certain skin color.
Race based scholarships are more about economic opportunity than
anything else. More Blacks and Hispanics (by percentage) live in what's
classified by the word poverty than whites. Scholarships are not
supposed to be an advantage over whites in general, but help to
a group that starts out poorer. Just because you help one group doesn't
mean that you're hurting the other. It's not a zero-sum game.It's
recognition that a specific group of people, as a whole, has had to
work harder to get where they are today. Should white poverty ever
become majority percentage, I'd argue the same in the other direction.
Why not just base this on economics? Because the major internal
conflicts in our country that happened was not a working class rebellion
(though there have been a few here and there) but a race based one.
To the second:
Not word choice; Choice in general. Charlie was dumb enough to get involved in something needing to be kept secret and then not keeping said thing a secret.
And again, it is ok for someone to say something if they are a certain skin color. Again, this is discrimination, which is racism, which is wrong. Why should any white person be held accountable for what white people did in the past? I am not my father, you are not yours.
Skipping this one. Let's just say I'm not paying close attention
To the third:
Ok, let's take out Black, and specifically make it Hispanic. Still ok? How about Asian? The point is that it is seen as A-OK for each of these to have their own clik, but not the white kids.
There are white cliques in America, but they tend to be ethnic in nature. So
there are Polish communities, clubs and social groups. There are Russian
communities, clubs, and social groups. There are Irish groups that are
the same.
sirlynchmob wrote:well isn't it funny, how you list 3 other "wars" that were not actually wars. But just because congress doesn't want to declare a war, doesn't mean its not a war.
war:"A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."
I'm not sure of the reason congress doesn't actually want to call it a war, probably just some political correctness. But regardless, its still referred to as the Iraq War. and by no means a skirmish.
skirmish:"a minor fight in war usually incidental to larger movements "
So I was wrong, sue me. Unfortunately for you and I, Congress kind of writes the laws and determines what is declared War or not, not us.
I didn't know the War on Obesity was considered a great war, either.....
Not word choice; Choice in general. Charlie was dumb enough to get involved in something needing to be kept secret and then not keeping said thing a secret.
And again, it is ok for someone to say something if they are a certain skin color. Again, this is discrimination, which is racism, which is wrong. Why should any white person be held accountable for what white people did in the past? I am not my father, you are not yours.
Skipping this one. Let's just say I'm not paying close attention
Totally didn't mean it like that, but there's no saving face now.
Slarg232 wrote:
It's not about Statistics; Figures don't lie, but liers figure. I'm not saying that poor people, black or white, do not need help. But to give a man a scholarship just because of his skin color, certain degree or no, is racism plain and simple. There is simply no denying this. And as we all know, Racism is wrong. Ergo, having a scholarship for race is wrong.
It is about statistics, because racism, as it is used in modern parlance, denotes the application of inherent inferiority or superiority of one race with respect to other races, and the resulting negative consequences. Minority scholarships don't do that, and aren't a negative consequence. Their existence does not disadvantage you for being white.
Slarg232 wrote:
Not word choice; Choice in general. Charlie was dumb enough to get involved in something needing to be kept secret and then not keeping said thing a secret.
And some people who are not black are dumb enough to drop the n-bomb.
Slarg232 wrote:
And again, it is ok for someone to say something if they are a certain skin color. Again, this is discrimination, which is racism, which is wrong. Why should any white person be held accountable for what white people did in the past? I am not my father, you are not yours.
You're being held accountable for what you, yourself, are doing when you drop n-bomb. Its an epithet, and one which is selectively about demeaning black people when its used by a white person. Its not discrimination of the sort you're implying but of the sort imposed by context and social expectations.
Slarg232 wrote:
Ok, let's take out Black, and specifically make it Hispanic. Still ok? How about Asian? The point is that it is seen as A-OK for each of these to have their own clik, but not the white kids.
Sure, because none of those identities exist exclusively because of the persecution of others. Again, "white" is only really meaningful in the sense of being "not black".
Not word choice; Choice in general. Charlie was dumb enough to get involved in something needing to be kept secret and then not keeping said thing a secret.
And again, it is ok for someone to say something if they are a certain skin color. Again, this is discrimination, which is racism, which is wrong. Why should any white person be held accountable for what white people did in the past? I am not my father, you are not yours.
Skipping this one. Let's just say I'm not paying close attention
Totally didn't mean it like that, but there's no saving face now.
I actually don't know what's going on. Not being snarky. I'm jumping
into this part of the discussion out of context as to what you're contending
and I'm too lazy to figure it out.
sirlynchmob wrote:well isn't it funny, how you list 3 other "wars" that were not actually wars. But just because congress doesn't want to declare a war, doesn't mean its not a war.
war:"A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."
I'm not sure of the reason congress doesn't actually want to call it a war, probably just some political correctness. But regardless, its still referred to as the Iraq War. and by no means a skirmish.
skirmish:"a minor fight in war usually incidental to larger movements "
So I was wrong, sue me. Unfortunately for you and I, Congress kind of writes the laws and determines what is declared War or not, not us.
I didn't know the War on Obesity was considered a great war, either.....
ya you were, keep that in mind before you start calling people son. Its a good thing only congress can declare wars or authorize military actions.
and since we're now just talking about improper uses of the word war: I'll throw in, the war against womens rights.
Frazzled wrote:
Unfortunately they are all lightweights and the Presidency has been run by rank amateurs since Barabara Bush was the iron hammer behind Bush Sr. Where is Nixon when you need him?
Eh, I think Clinton and Herbert Walker were above average, with Clinton verging on excellent (he dodged impeachment and still remained quite popular) with Bush II and Obama sitting right around the middle.
Clinton sat while Al Qaeda grew when he had the chance to get him.
He bombed Serbia - Kosova is a shithole now.
Still I'd take him over Obama and any of the Republican candidates.
Frazzled wrote:Unfortunately they are all lightweights and the Presidency has been run by rank amateurs since Barabara Bush was the iron hammer behind Bush Sr. Where is Nixon when you need him?
Eh, I think Clinton and Herbert Walker were above average, with Clinton verging on excellent (he dodged impeachment and still remained quite popular) with Bush II and Obama sitting right around the middle.
Clinton sat while Al Qaeda grew when he had the chance to get him.
I am not for the creation of a White Scholarship, btw, as that's just segregating people; white people can only get cash from this ATM, minorities from this one. You didn't accuse, but I figured I would clear that up. Give the poor the help they need. If that means all twenty of the people you help are black, then help the black people. If all twenty are white, help the white people. But don't you dare exlude one of the poorest people there simply because he's a certain skin color.
For those of you who care, there are scholarships available specifically for people of Scottish and Irish descent. Here's an example: http://www.ehow.com/list_6565107_scottish-american-scholarships.html Though, as noted by Dogma, categories of white and black don't actually have much to do with genetic heritage, dealing instead with issues of identity. So it's entirely possible recipients of Scottish and Irish scholarships could be "black" so long as they can demonstrate the requisite heritage.
Also worth noting I knew a "white" kid in high school who got an African American scholarship because he (or his parents, I can't remember which exactly) immigrated from South Africa--technically making him African American. Worthy of lulz if nothing else.
It's not about Statistics; Figures don't lie, but liers figure. I'm not saying that poor people, black or white, do not need help. But to give a man a scholarship just because of his skin color, certain degree or no, is racism plain and simple. There is simply no denying this. And as we all know, Racism is wrong. Ergo, having a scholarship for race is wrong.
I am not for the creation of a White Scholarship, btw, as that's just segregating people; white people can only get cash from this ATM, minorities from this one. You didn't accuse, but I figured I would clear that up. Give the poor the help they need. If that means all twenty of the people you help are black, then help the black people. If all twenty are white, help the white people. But don't you dare exlude one of the poorest people there simply because he's a certain skin color.
Race based scholarships are more about economic opportunity than
anything else. More Blacks and Hispanics (by percentage) live in what's
classified by the word poverty than whites. Scholarships are not
supposed to be an advantage over whites in general, but help to
a group that starts out poorer. Just because you help one group doesn't
mean that you're hurting the other. It's not a zero-sum game.It's
recognition that a specific group of people, as a whole, has had to
work harder to get where they are today. Should white poverty ever
become majority percentage, I'd argue the same in the other direction.
Why not just base this on economics? Because the major internal
conflicts in our country that happened was not a working class rebellion
(though there have been a few here and there) but a race based one.
When I was going through my teaching program, there was a phrase that our instructors kept drilling into our heads: "fair doesn't always mean equal." Now, in this case it was discussing kids with learning disabilities, not members of differing races. Scholarships for members of races that typically do not have better or even equal housing, income or opportunities is not equal if other races (white) do not receive the same scholarships, but it is fair in that it levels the two groups out. Fair=/=equal, yet it tends to close the gap.
However, in the spirit of playing both sides of the argument, I understand how some people are offended that other people get rights, and they can't. As such, I leave you with a slightly altered quote from an awesome duo:
Randal Graves: Well,I still don't think P-Monkey should be considered a racial term. I mean, I've always used it to describe lazy people, not lazy black people! I think if we really tried, we could re-claim it, and save it.
Dante Hicks: It can't be saved, Randal! The sole purpose for its creation, the only reason it exists in the first place, is to disparage an entire race! And even if it could be saved, you can't save it because you're not black!
Randal Graves: Well listen to you! Telling me I can't do something because of the color of my skin! You're the racist!"
It's not about Statistics; Figures don't lie, but liers figure. I'm not saying that poor people, black or white, do not need help. But to give a man a scholarship just because of his skin color, certain degree or no, is racism plain and simple. There is simply no denying this. And as we all know, Racism is wrong. Ergo, having a scholarship for race is wrong.
I am not for the creation of a White Scholarship, btw, as that's just segregating people; white people can only get cash from this ATM, minorities from this one. You didn't accuse, but I figured I would clear that up. Give the poor the help they need. If that means all twenty of the people you help are black, then help the black people. If all twenty are white, help the white people. But don't you dare exlude one of the poorest people there simply because he's a certain skin color.
Race based scholarships are more about economic opportunity than
anything else. More Blacks and Hispanics (by percentage) live in what's
classified by the word poverty than whites. Scholarships are not
supposed to be an advantage over whites in general, but help to
a group that starts out poorer. Just because you help one group doesn't
mean that you're hurting the other. It's not a zero-sum game.It's
recognition that a specific group of people, as a whole, has had to
work harder to get where they are today. Should white poverty ever
become majority percentage, I'd argue the same in the other direction.
Why not just base this on economics? Because the major internal
conflicts in our country that happened was not a working class rebellion
(though there have been a few here and there) but a race based one.
When I was going through my teaching program, there was a phrase that our instructors kept drilling into our heads: "fair doesn't always mean equal." Now, in this case it was discussing kids with learning disabilities, not members of differing races. Scholarships for members of races that typically do not have better or even equal housing, income or opportunities is not equal if other races (white) do not receive the same scholarships, but it is fair in that it levels the two groups out. Fair=/=equal, yet it tends to close the gap.
However, in the spirit of playing both sides of the argument, I understand how some people are offended that other people get rights, and they can't. As such, I leave you with a slightly altered quote from an awesome duo:
Randal Graves: Well,I still don't think P-Monkey should be considered a racial term. I mean, I've always used it to describe lazy people, not lazy black people! I think if we really tried, we could re-claim it, and save it.
Dante Hicks: It can't be saved, Randal! The sole purpose for its creation, the only reason it exists in the first place, is to disparage an entire race! And even if it could be saved, you can't save it because you're not black!
Randal Graves: Well listen to you! Telling me I can't do something because of the color of my skin! You're the racist!"
Clerks 2 was youtubed earlier in the thread. Nice, though
It's not about Statistics; Figures don't lie, but liers figure. I'm not saying that poor people, black or white, do not need help. But to give a man a scholarship just because of his skin color, certain degree or no, is racism plain and simple. There is simply no denying this. And as we all know, Racism is wrong. Ergo, having a scholarship for race is wrong.
I am not for the creation of a White Scholarship, btw, as that's just segregating people; white people can only get cash from this ATM, minorities from this one. You didn't accuse, but I figured I would clear that up. Give the poor the help they need. If that means all twenty of the people you help are black, then help the black people. If all twenty are white, help the white people. But don't you dare exlude one of the poorest people there simply because he's a certain skin color.
Race based scholarships are more about economic opportunity than
anything else. More Blacks and Hispanics (by percentage) live in what's
classified by the word poverty than whites. Scholarships are not
supposed to be an advantage over whites in general, but help to
a group that starts out poorer. Just because you help one group doesn't
mean that you're hurting the other. It's not a zero-sum game.It's
recognition that a specific group of people, as a whole, has had to
work harder to get where they are today. Should white poverty ever
become majority percentage, I'd argue the same in the other direction.
Why not just base this on economics? Because the major internal
conflicts in our country that happened was not a working class rebellion
(though there have been a few here and there) but a race based one.
When I was going through my teaching program, there was a phrase that our instructors kept drilling into our heads: "fair doesn't always mean equal." Now, in this case it was discussing kids with learning disabilities, not members of differing races. Scholarships for members of races that typically do not have better or even equal housing, income or opportunities is not equal if other races (white) do not receive the same scholarships, but it is fair in that it levels the two groups out. Fair=/=equal, yet it tends to close the gap.
However, in the spirit of playing both sides of the argument, I understand how some people are offended that other people get rights, and they can't. As such, I leave you with a slightly altered quote from an awesome duo:
Randal Graves: Well,I still don't think P-Monkey should be considered a racial term. I mean, I've always used it to describe lazy people, not lazy black people! I think if we really tried, we could re-claim it, and save it.
Dante Hicks: It can't be saved, Randal! The sole purpose for its creation, the only reason it exists in the first place, is to disparage an entire race! And even if it could be saved, you can't save it because you're not black!
Randal Graves: Well listen to you! Telling me I can't do something because of the color of my skin! You're the racist!"
Clerks 2 was youtubed earlier in the thread. Nice, though
It was? Bummer. I was browsing on my phone for most of the thread and the youtube video must not have popped up when I went through before-I read through the entire thing too. Sadface, I thought I was being original here...Thanks a lot Malfy
Please don't post videos using the N word. For the purposes of discussion on this site, it doesn't matter how the word is being used or by whom. Thanks ~Manchu
Amaya wrote:Don't presume to know anything about American racial issues.
My thought was that on your previous post was you were being sarcastic/ironic but that comment makes me think you were serious. Is he incapable of being informed on American political issues? You didn't ask if he had lived in America and saw it first hand, you didn't ask him if he had studied the topic (which is very reasonable as I myself studied America as part of modern history, which means everything from the french revolution to current day, and by that I mean 1998 ). You dismissed him purely because of geographic location, that the rest of the world can't be aware of racial issues like America? See both the irony and that that could be taken in multiple ways as a comment on America?
Furthermore as was pointed out, Korea was technically a police action though I would agree with you it is a war imo, but technically he was correct to leave it out. No definition of war I have seen ever has an arbitrary amount of casualties as a prerequisite by the way.
On the main topic, did anyone consider a) As deft a politician as he may or may not be, as intelligent or as ignorant as he may or may not be, it was simply a slip of the tongue. I actually have a tendancy to blurt out what I was thinking quite often. Does it make me stupid? Well at the risk of being extremely egotistical, if I am then that does note bode well for the majority of the world according to many sources.
There is also the possibility that he could have went to use the term absent mindedly. It is possible to use racist slurs without actually being racists. Not saying it is enlightented or classy or isn't igorant, just that one can use an ostensibly racist comment without being racially motivated.
I will give that he may not have said it but in that context, and that no acceptable alternative has been offered from the pronunciation of the HALF that he DID say, I think it likely it was what he was going to say. If it was an acceptable alternative why did he stumble and backpeddal from that first sylable?
While homophobia and racism certainly are not the same thing, the fact is the hate and narcicism that spawns one is easily capable of spawning the other.
LoneLictor wrote:1) This is an extremely ignorant view point. Black people are disadvantaged from the start. Statistically they grow up in poorer houses and get worse education. This makes it very hard to get into college, even though they are just as smart as white people. So, the scholarships were made to fight this. Even with the scholarships, colleges are still vastly dominated by rich white kids.
So what of a poor white kid who grew up with no money and a poor education? It doesn't matter if Black and Hispanic kids in general grow up poorer (which I don't disagree with). Those kids would be eligble for the scholarship not because that individual kid grew up poorer, but because of the stereotype (true or not), that his ethnic group grew up poorer. It doesn't even matter if there are other prerequisites like the scholar herself has to be disadvantaged because no matter how disadvantaged any one white kid is they would not be elligble purely because of colour.
I am not excusing that there may be scholarships that discriminate against Black people, but fighting fire with fire sometimes is just stupid. I prefer to fight it with water .
2) White people can be discriminated against. But it is extremely rare. And, statistically, black people get it way worse. They have a harder time getting hired, if they do get hired they get paid less and of course the justice system is drastically biased against them.
Affirmative action is simply overcompensating double standards, it is in some ways as contemptible as Nazi Germany. Affirmative action also encourages discontent because it is is simply state authorized discrimination. Pretty sure America is the same but you can not pay a black person less here, it is law (though yes some racists will find ways around it). That is the issue, affirmative action forbids that, if you are a minority so discrimination against the majority, purely because of affirmative action is at least as systemic as regular discrimination.
As an example many government organizations (and some private industries I believe) have a quota on women or minorities they must hire. To hire someone based on those virtues is to not hire for example a white man for those reasons, suitability/experience etc is completely irrelevant in those quotas.
If there is a systemic cultural bias against minorities still existant today then it is no more than the systemic legislative garbage that affirmative action is and as such it is nothing to be lauded
3) Okay, that's a ridiculous example that the US isn't even close to. In fact, that's so insane that it isn't even relevant to the conversation at all. Giving black people scholarships will not create Nazi Germany, no matter how you put it. Besides, I can come up with my own insane example; Hitler didn't care about giving black people scholarships and neither do you, so that means your policies will create Nazi Germany. See, it doesn't make sense. No sense at all. Completely insane. Completely bonkers.
I do agree with you there but I am not sure if he was being serious.
6) No, you can't. This is difficult to explain, but I'll try. You know how you're allowed to insult yourself ("I'm so stupid sometimes, heh") but not others ("He's so stupid sometimes, heh"). Its kind of like that. You can make fun of your own race or gender, but not any else. Women will get fired for saying, "Men were designed by God to serve as sex slaves for us women, the superior gender" and men will get fired for saying, "Women were designed by God to serve as sex slaves for us men, the superior gender". Does that make sense?
Again I agree, in fact I was going to reply to a comment by someone else earlier though my example is you can say gak about your family or friends that would not be cool to say about others, though I don't want anyone to take any other connotations from that statement as it is only not meant to be comparing family and freinds with race, only the concept of otherwise reasonable double standards.
To sum up I think affirmative action is abominable, it is no different to regular discrimination. However I would take it over the rampant, systemtic blatant ignorance of previous eras. It is a step in the right direction. A step too far but it is part of the transition into genuine systemic equality.
dogma wrote:It is about statistics, because racism, as it is used in modern parlance, denotes the application of inherent inferiority or superiority of one race with respect to other races, and the resulting negative consequences. Minority scholarships don't do that, and aren't a negative consequence. Their existence does not disadvantage you for being white.
Racism and discrimination isn't only about negative consequences. It is judgement, postive or negative based on race/ethnicity. That is my whole problem with affirmative action. Positive discrimination in my books needs no delineation between 'regular' disrcimination.
Your point about it application of inherent superiority or inferiority of one race over another actually supports the idea that the scholarships are racist because it is an application of the idea that Black people have an inferior education/economic status and White people have a superior one.
While you might have a point about the statistics, racists also like to quote the statistics of Black and Hispanics having a much higher criminal offence percentage. Does that mean that that criteria should be used to judge all Blacks and Hispanics? Of course not, so why should the same be assumed for their economic status?
malfred wrote:There are white cliques in America, but they tend to be ethnic in nature. So
there are Polish communities, clubs and social groups. There are Russian
communities, clubs, and social groups. There are Irish groups that are
the same.
Another example would be (genuinly) rich white kids, the so called 'upper' class with million dollar trust funds and the like. There are as you point out, plenty of White cliques.
timetowaste85 wrote:When I was going through my teaching program, there was a phrase that our instructors kept drilling into our heads: "fair doesn't always mean equal." Now, in this case it was discussing kids with learning disabilities, not members of differing races. Scholarships for members of races that typically do not have better or even equal housing, income or opportunities is not equal if other races (white) do not receive the same scholarships, but it is fair in that it levels the two groups out. Fair=/=equal, yet it tends to close the gap.
I like that saying. However in the case of people with learning disabilities, it is applied to each and every person who inherently have that disadvantage (less they wouldn't be classified as such). Please note I am not excusing discrimination against said people, only that the relevant conditions are present. Racism on the other hands assumes conditions based on unrelated factors like colour. A Black kid could very well grow up disadvantaged and Black kids in general may well do the same but to apply almost any conditions based on race and not the individual is discrimination, it is judgement based on the colour of someones skin. Any judgement.
As a side there will always be some tribal hate that belongs in the stone age by certain individuals. Racism is unlikely to ever be completely eliminated but we can get to a point where it is basically a non issue.
As another side, I have seen people excuse the elderly time and again for outdated ignorance but to me that is no excuse. I don't care what you grew up with if you are presented with enough reasoned evidence to reasess your childhood beliefs than you should adapt imo.
As a final side I have taunted (in a joking way) a Black friend with the N word, and he called me White Trash (wondering if that will be censored..) in return. Neither of us took offence but I would never call someone I don't know that word.
). You dismissed him purely because of geographic location, that the rest of the world can't be aware of racial issues like America? See both the irony and that that could be taken in multiple ways as a comment on America?