So I discovered just today that one of my cousins is a racist pig headed douche. I havnt talked to him in about 9 years really, but we were close friends when we were teenagers. Anywho, my brother the Giant was telling me about some really ignorant posts he had made on facebook about the current state of the world. A couple of his posts grabbed my attention pretty hard and then made me laugh at just how stupid and ill informed my cousin really is. In the first post he was yammering on about how he cant stand Mexicans and how they are stealing American jobs and stealing our country and he then said
(Ill spoiler this because its fairly bad)


Followed by his next post where he was then complaining about how he "hates" people that brag about how many MPG their "foreign" cars get. He says F them all, he will rather keep his Chevy Avalanche, a REAL American made vehicle. This is where I started laughing my ass off at just how dumb he has become. So I replied on his facebook with some links to websites showing percentages and such on just how "American" American cars really are. AND how America makes MANY foreign cars here. Then, saving the best for last, showed him how his beloved American made Avalanche is actually assembled in a factory in Mexico, making his previous racist statement all the more awesome.



There....I really needed to vent. Cant stand people that are blatantly ignorant. If your going to be a racist, yanno what, thats on you, at least be a well informed racist would ya?

I can only thing of one person I've know in real life that was really racist or at least open and talked about it. He was a real arse overall though and the racism was really just the cherry. He eventually stopped coming to the FLGS after he was booted from a 40k tournament for cheating.

I know someone whose that racist, just had his child takin by Protective Services so in an odd way, Karma?

HaHa, KingCracker sticks it to the Man AKA his cousin.

KingCracker wrote:Followed by his next post where he was then complaining about how he "hates" people that brag about how many MPG their "foreign" cars get. He says F them all, he will rather keep his Chevy Avalanche, a REAL American made vehicle. This is where I started laughing my ass off at just how dumb he has become. So I replied on his facebook with some links to websites showing percentages and such on just how "American" American cars really are. AND how America makes MANY foreign cars here. Then, saving the best for last, showed him how his beloved American made Avalanche is actually assembled in a factory in Mexico, making his previous racist statement all the more awesome.



There....I really needed to vent. Cant stand people that are blatantly ignorant. If your going to be a racist, yanno what, thats on you, at least be a well informed racist would ya?

The car thing has always been a sore point for me. I got lots of coworkers and friends who love to drum up the "buy American" bandwagon and even if you talk to them about how their "American cars" are made in Mexico they still continue on about "but you support an American business!" ...

I usually tell them that I have two personal criteria when it comes to buying "American"

1) I will not buy a vehicle just because it is "American". Build a quality product and I will support you, not because of blind patriotic loyalty.
2) If I have to choose between an American company sending jobs out of the country, or a foreign company hiring American workers...then I will always support the American workers as long as condition #1 is met.

If you want, since he's your cousin and you were good friends, maybe you should talk to him about it? It's quite possible he just doesn't know any better or hasn't really thought much about the things he was posting. I mean, obviously it's your call, but maybe you could be a good influence on him?

This isn't on you KC, and I'm not trying to single you out here, but it seems that a lot of people (on Dakka and elsewhere) are really happy to point out how ignorant racists are (and they are, I'm not disputing that at all), but it seems most people just kind of pat themselves on the back for recognizing that racism is bad and racists are ignorant but few people actually try to engage someone who makes racist comments in a calm discussion to try to educate them a bit and maybe reduce the problem. I realize this won't always work, and there are certainly hardcore racists who belong to hate groups and stuff, as well as older people who probably aren't going to change, but it seems like there are a lot more people who are, for lack of a better term, "casually" racist or say things that are racist without even really realizing the gravity of it who could probably benefit from a reasonable discussion instead of just calling them ignorant racists and leaving it at that. That's usually not going to make the situation any better, and if anything it'll likely only make it worse, potentially encouraging someone to cling even harder to racist views that they might not have been so attached to originally. Calling someone an ignorant racist bigot because it makes you feel righteous isn't going to do anything to challenge their racist views, but engaging them in a respectful dialogue and having a discussion about it might.

Again, I'm not talking about you or your cousin specifically here KC, it's just an observation I've made after reading quite a few threads where the issue of racism comes up.

Its surprising how you can realise people y'know really are.
My friend i realized is completely prudish, to the point where my christian values mother said he was too prudish and has no fun.
I also realized my cousin in a conservative, not the nice "I think differently and respect you are your life" kind but the one who thinks that everyone should be forced to think the way you do.

Hordini wrote:If you want, since he's your cousin and you were good friends, maybe you should talk to him about it? It's quite possible he just doesn't know any better or hasn't really thought much about the things he was posting. I mean, obviously it's your call, but maybe you could be a good influence on him.

There is no fix for stupid. I have tried to talk to people about this before. All you do is alienate yourself from them even further. You find friendly gatherings uncomfortable when people starting spewing bs like KC's cousin. Then you start distancing yourself from them and when they call you out, you become weird and stuck up because you have different views.

In the end you stay away from them all the same.

I've learned to not take racial issues seriously; it's a big world and theirs many ways to live in it, not just my way.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Hordini wrote:If you want, since he's your cousin and you were good friends, maybe you should talk to him about it? It's quite possible he just doesn't know any better or hasn't really thought much about the things he was posting. I mean, obviously it's your call, but maybe you could be a good influence on him.

There is no fix for stupid. I have tried to talk to people about this before. All you do is alienate yourself from them even further. You find friendly gatherings uncomfortable when people starting spewing bs like KC's cousin. Then you start distancing yourself from them and when they call you out, you become weird and stuck up because you have different views.

In the end you stay away from them all the same.

You're right that there's no fix for stupid, but the point is sometimes people aren't stupid, just ignorant or inexperienced or they grew up somewhere without a lot of racial diversity. Some of those people have just never been challenged about racism or haven't really put much thought into it. Sometimes people say things and don't even realize others consider it racist. You'll never find out which it is though if you just antagonize them, call them racists and give your buddies a round of high-fives for pointing out they made a racist comment.

I'm not saying it's the easy thing to do, but sometimes it's worth doing.

Not to mention a lot of Toyotas, Hondas, etc are actually produced IN the US. calling them foreign made is a little silly.

I'm in a similar boat to KC. My uncle, who I was always really close to has always been rather racist, but to my young ears I never heard it, or realized what was being said. Then I grew up and married an Arab woman... well after almost 10 years we're talking again
and there's no cure for stupid. What you call 'casually racist' is usually just lazyness. For the most part trying to educate them only causes friction. Trust me, I always try in the futile hope that they'll grow the feth up and pull their head out of their asses. Considering how mixed blood my family is, it's truly surprising to me.

CoI wrote:I'm in a similar boat to KC. My uncle, who I was always really close to has always been rather racist, but to my young ears I never heard it, or realized what was being said. Then I grew up and married an Arab woman... well after almost 10 years we're talking again

Wow.... wish my wife wouldn't talk to me for 10 years.

KingCracker wrote:If your going to be a racist, yanno what, thats on you, at least be a well informed racist would ya?

If people were well informed, then people wouldn't be racists... just sayin...

Racism is Australia is a very, very different thing...

d-usa wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Followed by his next post where he was then complaining about how he "hates" people that brag about how many MPG their "foreign" cars get. He says F them all, he will rather keep his Chevy Avalanche, a REAL American made vehicle. This is where I started laughing my ass off at just how dumb he has become. So I replied on his facebook with some links to websites showing percentages and such on just how "American" American cars really are. AND how America makes MANY foreign cars here. Then, saving the best for last, showed him how his beloved American made Avalanche is actually assembled in a factory in Mexico, making his previous racist statement all the more awesome.



There....I really needed to vent. Cant stand people that are blatantly ignorant. If your going to be a racist, yanno what, thats on you, at least be a well informed racist would ya?

The car thing has always been a sore point for me. I got lots of coworkers and friends who love to drum up the "buy American" bandwagon and even if you talk to them about how their "American cars" are made in Mexico they still continue on about "but you support an American business!" ...

I usually tell them that I have two personal criteria when it comes to buying "American"

1) I will not buy a vehicle just because it is "American". Build a quality product and I will support you, not because of blind patriotic loyalty.
2) If I have to choose between an American company sending jobs out of the country, or a foreign company hiring American workers...then I will always support the American workers as long as condition #1 is met.

Indeed. My Honda (now the Boy's that lucky bastard) had way higher content than the Ford Taurus. Plus Toyota, Honda, and Nissan plants are primarily in the South. Take that Yankees!

I really, REALLY hate racists, almost as much as I hate homophobes.

The "BUY AMERICAN!" thing pisses me off beyond belief (I know, I'm British so I can't really comment) as indeed does any variation on saying we must buy something just because it's from our home country. Heck, the Reliant Robin is a British car, but I'd still rather buy a Honda Civic.

The other thing that really annoys me is when people say that when a person of a particular race does something illegal, cruel or otherwise objectionable, that they did it because they are of a particular race. Chinese guy steals a car? Someone says it's because the Chinese are naturally lawless and immoral. Black guy beats up his wife? Someone says it's because black people are inherently misogynistic and violent. It really gets my goat.

/rant.

I hate racists almost as much as I hate people who gang rape teenage girls.

LordofHats wrote:Not to mention a lot of Toyotas, Hondas, etc are actually produced IN the US. calling them foreign made is a little silly.

Yeah, my Civic was made in Ohio.

LordofHats wrote:Not to mention a lot of Toyotas, Hondas, etc are actually produced IN the US. calling them foreign made is a little silly.

Yep. Lots of American jobs are from their assembly. Unlike a number of GM plants that have moved to Mexico and elsewhere.

Well I cant actually try to talk to my cousin about hos stupid he sounds, my brother the Giant tried many times, all he responds back with is "You just dont understand how it is here!" He lives a few states south currently but is moving back to Michigan. Thats his argument, whenever you try to show him the errors of his ways, thats his awesomely potent rebuttal, you just dont understand! So I come back with, well explain it to me then why you feel the need to spam feth facebook with your incredibly insightful BS, because if you were to ask me, it sounds like your just trying to sound like a tough guy on the internet. Again, Well I cant you just wont understand

So yes, I cant tell if he met a couple new people down there and is trying to impress them with his awesomeness, or what, but you can easily tell that hes one of those that hears a little of someone ranting away, liked the reactions they were getting and so follows suit, without a friggin clue as to what he is actually saying.

Twice, twice the facepalm. And yes, racists CAN be well informed, I used to have a buddy that his only real flaw, was he was a serious racist against African Americans. The guy was smart, and was so good at debating that he could ALMOST convince you it was a good idea Like I said, if your going to flaunt your ideals so others can hear you, whatever those ideals may be, please for the love of God, know WTF your talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Not to mention a lot of Toyotas, Hondas, etc are actually produced IN the US. calling them foreign made is a little silly.

Yep. Lots of American jobs are from their assembly. Unlike a number of GM plants that have moved to Mexico and elsewhere.

Yep, I live in Michigan man, I can tell ya, this states auto industry dried up something fierce in the last 10ish years

See, this is why you should all become british: No-one buys british because everyone knows it'll fall apart after a few seconds. In fact the only british stuff I can remember buying was some strawberries so that they hadn't been bashed up while being imported. I still come across friends at school who tell me that, and I quote word for word, "we should hate kenyans because they all hate us." I didn't know whether to laugh or kill him, because he was being deadly serious.


In fact, now I think about it, I needed to vent as well. Thanks for the great thread. It'd be even greater if it hadn't been created by someone with green skin of course

Great, we got ourselves a green skin hater, Im so mod alerting you


Dont feel bad, Im sure this wont surprise you, but in America, we get that type of hate ALL THE TIME! Its partially why I feel for the Muslim community that is here. "Well those Iraqis hate us, lets hate them right back!!!" Uhm......really? Did you think...at all before spilling those words out?

p_gray99 wrote:See, this is why you should all become british: No-one buys british because everyone knows it'll fall apart after a few seconds. In fact the only british stuff I can remember buying was some strawberries so that they hadn't been bashed up while being imported. I still come across friends at school who tell me that, and I quote word for word, "we should hate kenyans because they all hate us." I didn't know whether to laugh or kill him, because he was being deadly serious.


In fact, now I think about it, I needed to vent as well. Thanks for the great thread. It'd be even greater if it hadn't been created by someone with green skin of course

The only reason I don't buy British is because you guys have the habbit of making everything incredibly expensive and / or work backwards from "normal" folks.

If I had the money for it I would jump into a Aston Martin DB 9 tomorrow. And the wife is slowly convincing me to buy her the new Range Rover Evoque.

Out of curiosity, what state does your cousin live in?

Race relations are very different in the South. People are much less homogenized which lends to the "Us vs. Them" aspect of Racism. There's also a greater illegal alien issue in some states which sounds like your cousins issue. Albeit really poorly stated, it is an issue.

The car thing is just rampant ignorance. It is also more Nationalism than Racism.

Ok, some of the British top-end cars are alright. But other than them and strawberries, just don't bother.

KingCracker wrote:A couple of his posts grabbed my attention pretty hard and then made me laugh at just how stupid and ill informed my cousin really is. In the first post he was yammering on about how he cant stand Mexicans and how they are stealing American jobs and stealing our country

Frazz is your cousin?

PhantomViper wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:See, this is why you should all become british: No-one buys british because everyone knows it'll fall apart after a few seconds. In fact the only british stuff I can remember buying was some strawberries so that they hadn't been bashed up while being imported. I still come across friends at school who tell me that, and I quote word for word, "we should hate kenyans because they all hate us." I didn't know whether to laugh or kill him, because he was being deadly serious.


In fact, now I think about it, I needed to vent as well. Thanks for the great thread. It'd be even greater if it hadn't been created by someone with green skin of course

The only reason I don't buy British is because you guys have the habbit of making everything incredibly expensive and / or work backwards from "normal" folks.

If I had the money for it I would jump into a Aston Martin DB 9 tomorrow. And the wife is slowly convincing me to buy her the new Range Rover Evoque.

We do the real expensive stuff quite well, Saville Row, Rolls Royce, Bently, Aston Martin etc. It's the likes of Rover and Austin that were a pile of gak, there's one story of a Rover that left the factory and had a lump in the boot, turned out to be a packet of cigarettes under the paint that had been left there when the car was sprayed.

KingCracker wrote:So I discovered just today that one of my cousins is a racist pig headed douche. I havnt talked to him in about 9 years really, but we were close friends when we were teenagers. Anywho, my brother the Giant was telling me about some really ignorant posts he had made on facebook about the current state of the world. A couple of his posts grabbed my attention pretty hard and then made me laugh at just how stupid and ill informed my cousin really is. In the first post he was yammering on about how he cant stand Mexicans and how they are stealing American jobs and stealing our country and he then said
(Ill spoiler this because its fairly bad)

Spoiler:

I wish those fething *racist slur for Mexicans* mamas would just stop pumping out babies

Followed by his next post where he was then complaining about how he "hates" people that brag about how many MPG their "foreign" cars get. He says F them all, he will rather keep his Chevy Avalanche, a REAL American made vehicle. This is where I started laughing my ass off at just how dumb he has become. So I replied on his facebook with some links to websites showing percentages and such on just how "American" American cars really are. AND how America makes MANY foreign cars here. Then, saving the best for last, showed him how his beloved American made Avalanche is actually assembled in a factory in Mexico, making his previous racist statement all the more awesome.



There....I really needed to vent. Cant stand people that are blatantly ignorant. If your going to be a racist, yanno what, thats on you, at least be a well informed racist would ya?

Trouble is KC a lot of people are afraid for genuine reasons. Demographic changes resulting in massive societal changes are coming to America, at least its for good reasons. America has always been at least partly Hispanic, they have as much (or as little) right to be there as whitey.

This issue is not restricted to you, In fact there was an explosion of outrage after a former Labour minister blogged last week what some had suspected for years. The UK ran an open door immigration problem in order to change the demographic structure for party political ends. Vast numbers of eastern Europeans were invited in and given preferential treatment for employment, even to the extent that some companies openly employed only eastern Europeans in blatant disregard of the UK's equal opportunities policies. This even hit the mainstream press and the Brown government still did nothing, so much for their equality dogma. Those who bring Labour up on this are still shouted down as 'racist', they still try, but at least there is someone high up who was on the inside who points out that that was in fact deliberate policy. More non-English the population of England is the smaller the established English culture is, which is seen internally as favouring Tory.
This causes a lot of tension, yes jobs becomes restricted, yes such abominations like 'affirmative action' occur, and that is immoral. People want to complain and many end up racist, because concerns over demographic change are ignored.
Anyone who laughs off the 'threat should answer this: How well did it end up for the Native Americans, and what happened when they protested the changes.

I can to some extent sympathise for your cousin in the same way I sympathise with the Sioux and Apache who started attacking wagon trains. This isn't an easy moral black and white (sic) case, it just appears that way, and a lot of people are feeling trapped. Because noone mainstream has the courage to address demographic issues only the extremists do so, so people listen to the extremists.

Listen to your cousin and educate him. Its not the 'fault' of the Mexican immigrants of the breeding rate of the Hispanic population. And in the USA's case there is no direct justification for WASP dominance per se, its not inherently a white country. If Hispanics want to settle in Texas and California, well they have at the vest least as much reason to be there as any white man, and in all likelihood more.
On the other hand the problems that are coming are not just racist bile from your cousins head. Demograhpic changes cause strife especially if two subcultures breed at different rates. Fiji is an nasty demographic histrory lesson we should not forget.

Orlanth wrote:The UK ran an open door immigration problem in order to change the demographic structure for party political ends. Vast numbers of eastern Europeans were invited in and given preferential treatment for employment, even to the extent that some companies openly employed only eastern Europeans in blatant disregard of the UK's equal opportunities policies. This even hit the mainstream press and the Brown government still did nothing, so much for their equality dogma. Those who bring Labour up on this are still shouted down as 'racist', they still try, but at least there is someone high up who was on the inside who points out that that was in fact deliberate policy. More non-English the population of England is the smaller the established English culture is, which is seen internally as favouring Tory.

Britain allowed Europeans to work here. Just as we were allowed to work in Europe. That isn't an "open door" policy, it is a free market policy, which is inherently conservative, as is using cheaper immigrant labour. Companies employed Eastern Europeans because they believe, based on anecdotal evidence, that they have a stronger work ethic. As for the Labour party trying to make the population less English, that's BNP nonsense, Labour has massive support by the English, Welsh and Scots, and I think you may need to get yourself a tin foil hat.

It is obvious you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, you carry on with such nonsense if you so wish, but please don't present what you've read in a BNP leaflet as fact.

KingCracker wrote: If your going to be a racist, at least be a well informed racist would ya?

Done.

I nearly died laughing when I called for Linda and she walked into the living room looked me dead in the eye and said,
"What can Brown do for you?"

gregor_xenos wrote:

CoI wrote:I'm in a similar boat to KC. My uncle, who I was always really close to has always been rather racist, but to my young ears I never heard it, or realized what was being said. Then I grew up and married an Arab woman... well after almost 10 years we're talking again

Wow.... wish my wife wouldn't talk to me for 10 years.

Have you tried forgetting your wedding anniversary?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

p_gray99 wrote:Ok, some of the British top-end cars are alright. But other than them and strawberries, just don't bother.

And Aeroplane engines. Our high quality stuff is up there as some of the best in the world, it's just that we fail at making it cheaper without fething it up.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:Ok, some of the British top-end cars are alright. But other than them and strawberries, just don't bother.

And Aeroplane engines. Our high quality stuff is up there as some of the best in the world, it's just that we fail at making it cheaper without fething it up.

Basically this...
Anything we make cheap is already doomed to break as soon as it hits the design stage.
The expensive stuff we make is somewhat more awesome... if not also quite expensive...

dæl wrote:
Britain allowed Europeans to work here. Just as we were allowed to work in Europe. That isn't an "open door" policy, it is a free market policy, which is inherently conservative, as is using cheaper immigrant labour. Companies employed Eastern Europeans because they believe, based on anecdotal evidence, that they have a stronger work ethic.

Saying white dont work hard is similar to saying black commit more rapes, it might even have some statistical basis, but its blatant bigotry.

Equal opportunities means allowing people to be seen on their own merits rather than based on their ethnicity. In an ideal world equal opportunities would apply for all, transparently they do not, but annoyingly those who propose equality often do not either. New Labour was all for equality, but didnt actually practice it. Ethnic only recruiting is a good example, doing nothing when companies blatantly flouted their own race relations laws en masse is also suspicious.

So, you approve, or at least do not oppose, the ideology that eastern Europeans have a 'stronger work ethic' than British people so British people should be disciminated against directly based on assumptions of their personality linked to their ethnicity.

dæl wrote:
As for the Labour party trying to make the population less English, that's BNP nonsense,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Accusing those who bring this up as 'racist', or even Neo-Nazi/BNP is a common propaganda tool, it makes people too afraid to speak up until they find relevations like this.
This wasn't the revelation from last week though, that occurred on BBC Radio 4 Any Questions.

dæl wrote:
Labour has massive support by the English, Welsh and Scots, and I think you may need to get yourself a tin foil hat.

I wouldnt call it massive support. This is why Labour is scared of a Uk breakup, without Scottish votes they will be in almost permanent opposition.

dæl wrote:
It is obvious you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, you carry on with such nonsense if you so wish, but please don't present what you've read in a BNP leaflet as fact.

I repeat you have no problem if British people should be disciminated against directly based on assumptions of their personality linked to their ethnicity......and you are accusing we of being a bigot.

Am I a Company, or in charge of one? No, therefore my statement doesn't apply to me does it. So you accuse me of bigotry if you wish (why not after the "moral equivalent of a holocaust denier" accusation), but at least read what you're complaining about, you will look less of an idiot if you do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And on your conspiracy theory, to quote the adviser "there was no plot."

dæl wrote:Am I a Company, or in charge of one? No, therefore my statement doesn't apply to me does it.

You accuse those who critique discrimination by companies concerned as getting their opinions from the BNP.
Burying head in the sand about discrimination while very rudely accusing others who critique said discrimination of being associated with racist extremist parties is not only hypocritical it's nonsensical.

Yet still you do so, which accusing me of not having 'the faintest idea what you are talking about', and looking like an 'idiot'.

dæl wrote:
So you accuse me of bigotry if you wish (why not after the "moral equivalent of a holocaust denier" accusation), but at least read what you're complaining about, you will look less of an idiot if you do.

I did, hence the link provided.
I tried to find a link to the story of the factory that imported c2000 eastern Europeans while Gordon Brown was PM are refused to hire any locals because they had inferior 'work ethic'. I cannot find it, though it was front page in many newspapers, it was IIRC in 2008-9.
It flied in the face of all New Labour purportedly stood for, yet Brown did nothing. I argue this is because actual 'equality and diversity' was not what New Labour was after, diversity - yes, equality - depends on who you are . The link provided backs this up.

Now I have replied with more effort than you deserve, but do so in the event someone reads your post and mistakenly believes you have a point to make. I have actually washed my hands of you dael,

Orlanth wrote:

dæl wrote:Am I a Company, or in charge of one? No, therefore my statement doesn't apply to me does it.

You accuse those who critique discrimination by companies concerned as getting their opinions from the BNP.
Burying head in the sand about discrimination while very rudely accusing others who critique said discrimination of being associated with racist extremist parties is not only hypocritical it's nonsensical.

Yet still you do so, which accusing me of not having 'the faintest idea what you are talking about', and looking like an 'idiot'.

dæl wrote:
So you accuse me of bigotry if you wish (why not after the "moral equivalent of a holocaust denier" accusation), but at least read what you're complaining about, you will look less of an idiot if you do.

I did, hence the link provided.
I tried to find a link to the story of the factory that imported c2000 eastern Europeans while Gordon Brown was PM are refused to hire any locals because they had inferior 'work ethic'. I cannot find it, though it was front page in many newspapers, it was IIRC in 2008-9.
It flied in the face of all New Labour purportedly stood for, yet Brown did nothing. I argue this is because actual 'equality and diversity' was not what New Labour was after, diversity - yes, equality - depends on who you are . The link provided backs this up.

Now I have replied with more effort than you deserve, but do so in the event someone reads your post and mistakenly believes you have a point to make. I have actually washed my hands of you dael,

I accuse people who claim grand Machiavellian conspiracies to wipe out the indigenous English population of getting their ideas from the far right. Yeah, because they do.

The link you provided took the adviser way out of context and you will notice, in the link I provided, that he distanced himself from that article and claimed himself misquoted. Which implies that your argument is based on a falsehood dreamt up by a right wing publication.

By all means play your "screw you guys, I'm going home" card that you like to when you can't actually back up your opinions, it doesn't make you less wrong, in fact it makes you more ridiculous.

CT GAMER wrote:

KingCracker wrote:A couple of his posts grabbed my attention pretty hard and then made me laugh at just how stupid and ill informed my cousin really is. In the first post he was yammering on about how he cant stand Mexicans and how they are stealing American jobs and stealing our country

Frazz is your cousin?

that. I hate everyone equally.

dæl wrote:
I accuse people who claim grand Machiavellian conspiracies to wipe out the indigenous English population of getting their ideas from the far right. Yeah, because they do.

there is misreading a post, then there is this. There really is no level you wont sink to. Wipe out the English population?!?

dæl wrote:
The link you provided took the adviser way out of context and you will notice, in the link I provided, that he distanced himself from that article and claimed himself misquoted.

There was a lot of damage control afterwards, New Labour still are. Hence when on Any Questions last week the New Labour panelist shouted down the commentary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

KingCracker wrote:A couple of his posts grabbed my attention pretty hard and then made me laugh at just how stupid and ill informed my cousin really is. In the first post he was yammering on about how he cant stand Mexicans and how they are stealing American jobs and stealing our country

Frazz is your cousin?

that. I hate everyone equally.

Nice pot shot, poor Frazzie, but nice pot shot.

I do what I can.

Orlanth wrote:

dæl wrote:
I accuse people who claim grand Machiavellian conspiracies to wipe out the indigenous English population of getting their ideas from the far right. Yeah, because they do.

there is misreading a post, then there is this. There really is no level you wont sink to. Wipe out the English population?!?

So your citing of Native Americans was pure coincidence? Nice emotive example to randomly appear.

Orlanth wrote:

dæl wrote:
The link you provided took the adviser way out of context and you will notice, in the link I provided, that he distanced himself from that article and claimed himself misquoted.

There was a lot of damage control afterwards, New Labour still are. Hence when on Any Questions last week the New Labour panelist shouted down the commentary.

Ah, so when an adviser gets misquoted in a right wing rag, that's fact. But when he himself claims to have been misquoted, that's "damage control." I will say again, it is European policy to have free movement of individuals among EU countries. Guess who signed up for such a policy, I'll give you a clue, it wasn't Labour.

Hordini wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Hordini wrote:If you want, since he's your cousin and you were good friends, maybe you should talk to him about it? It's quite possible he just doesn't know any better or hasn't really thought much about the things he was posting. I mean, obviously it's your call, but maybe you could be a good influence on him.

There is no fix for stupid. I have tried to talk to people about this before. All you do is alienate yourself from them even further. You find friendly gatherings uncomfortable when people starting spewing bs like KC's cousin. Then you start distancing yourself from them and when they call you out, you become weird and stuck up because you have different views.

In the end you stay away from them all the same.

You're right that there's no fix for stupid, but the point is sometimes people aren't stupid, just ignorant or inexperienced or they grew up somewhere without a lot of racial diversity. Some of those people have just never been challenged about racism or haven't really put much thought into it. Sometimes people say things and don't even realize others consider it racist. You'll never find out which it is though if you just antagonize them, call them racists and give your buddies a round of high-fives for pointing out they made a racist comment.

I'm not saying it's the easy thing to do, but sometimes it's worth doing.

True enough. I guess you really need to find out if the person is ignorant or just plain stupid first. It is a hard line to find but if you can it would be worth finding it.

So in the thread about the Nazi deviantart 40k club, you were like "who cares if he's racist, I like his art"

but now you're complaining that your cousin is racist?

You're a hypocrite!

KhornePysker wrote:So in the thread about the Nazi deviantart 40k club, you were like "who cares if he's racist, I like his art"

but now you're complaining that your cousin is racist?

You're a hypocrite!

You could argue that someone's beliefs doesn't necessarily reduce the quality of their art whereas their beliefs may well affect their personality...
Not to defend Nazi's or anything...

purplefood wrote:

KhornePysker wrote:So in the thread about the Nazi deviantart 40k club, you were like "who cares if he's racist, I like his art"

but now you're complaining that your cousin is racist?

You're a hypocrite!

You could argue that someone's beliefs doesn't necessarily reduce the quality of their art whereas their beliefs may well affect their personality...
Not to defend Nazi's or anything...

Besides there is a lot to learn from the art of 20th century totalitarian states.

I love Soviet art, I have less love for the Soviet Union.




i had a massive poster of Yuri Gagarin (not the one above) a friend brought back from Moscow during a school trip in the 80's. Though I am a fan of Gagarin and the Soviet Space program as much as Soviet art.

Fascist filmmakers like Leni Riefenstahl added a lot to the art of cinematography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will

The above film Triumph of the will is considered a masterpiece, much of cinematography today has its roots in it. As a quick example both Star Wars and 2001:A Space Odyssey. I would not see any reason to accuse Lucas or Kubrick of Nazsim because they learned the lessons in cinematography Riefenstahl teaches us.

If that is not enough most students of politics and oratory study Hitler. He is considered to be one of the most skilled orators in human history, possibly as good or better than Cicero. Though Cicero didnt have the advantage of speaker systems and cinematography. Even Churchill who was a most impressive speaker pales in comparison to Hitlers skill. Hitler is studied quietly for obvious reasons, but he is studied by anyone who wants to develop the orators art seriously.

This is getting a bit too tense on all sides. Please remember that the site rules apply in the Off-Topic section. Keep your arguments to criticizing people's positions rather than the people themselves.

Thanks!

I'd argue that Churchill's oratory was at least equal to Hitler's...

Hitler is pretty much the guide sheet for all modern politicians. He made huge use of the radio and flew from town to town in order to talk directly to the people, something which his opponents did not do.

As a politician and speaker Hitler was a master.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:I'd argue that Churchill's oratory was at least equal to Hitler's...

Churchill was good but would he have been able to persuade the people of Britain to start World War 2?

He was great at being stubborn in the face of defeat but I would put it forth that it is a lot harder to persuade your people to support starting a war purely as an offensive than it is to persuade them to join a war to defend yourself or your ally (in Britain's case, Poland).

Did you know he studied German opera of the time to get the speech patterns, and most importantly, gestures down. There are even pics in one show he took of himself to perfect his gestures.

Frazzled wrote:Did you know he studied German opera of the time to get the speech patterns, and most importantly, gestures down. There are even pics in one show he took of himself to perfect his gestures.

He would also practice in front of a mirror.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Hitler is pretty much the guide sheet for all modern politicians. He made huge use of the radio and flew from town to town in order to talk directly to the people, something which his opponents did not do.

As a politician and speaker Hitler was a master.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:I'd argue that Churchill's oratory was at least equal to Hitler's...

Churchill was good but would he have been able to persuade the people of Britain to start World War 2?

He was great at being stubborn in the face of defeat but I would put it forth that it is a lot harder to persuade your people to support starting a war purely as an offensive than it is to persuade them to join a war to defend yourself or your ally (in Britain's case, Poland).

He managed to turn a totally demoralised nation who had just witnessed their military suffer a total defeat and only escape by the skin of their teeth to suck it up and out last Germany's bombing for another few years...
I'd say he is Hitler's equal especially when there were many people simply expecting Britain to roll over at that point...

That said this is getting OT so we'd best stop before Manchu comes back...

One of Churchill's sayings was, "Jaw, jaw is better then war, war."

I think he never would have tried to persuade the British Empire into a purely offensive war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said, there is no doubt that Hitler had a massive charisma, or "baraka", if you will.

So did Steve Jobs.

Oh, KingCrackers cousin. You so racist.

I used to live down in a small town in Texas where my family and I got a lot of dirty looks and hate for being Mexican. It was a lot worse for my siblings and I at school where we heard the same racial slurs from the same people everyday. All of that didn't really bother me because I simply ignored the insults, I don't want to stoop to their moronic level and spit racial slurs. Funny thing once I did snap and went up to some guy asked him if he had a issue, he simply mummbled a faint "no" and walked away.

A couple of weeks ago the American Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan was, as it is every year, confronted by the same old collection of bigots, calling on them to repent their religion and embrace Jesus. Apart from being incredibly nasty and offensive (the bigots had among other things a pig's head on a stick), it was also incredibly stupid, as the majority of Arab Americans are Christian, not Muslim.

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/06/how_not_to_evan.html

That's kind of the thing about racism that a lot of people miss - it makes you stupid.

There are unfortunately a great deal of racist people where I live. Something I find surprising given Boulder's reputation for being a tolerant hippie town.
In the end it just boils down to fear. People fear what is different, hate what they fear, destroy what they hate.

Squigsquasher wrote:I really, REALLY hate racists, almost as much as I hate homophobes.

The "BUY AMERICAN!" thing pisses me off beyond belief (I know, I'm British so I can't really comment) as indeed does any variation on saying we must buy something just because it's from our home country. Heck, the Reliant Robin is a British car, but I'd still rather buy a Honda Civic.

The other thing that really annoys me is when people say that when a person of a particular race does something illegal, cruel or otherwise objectionable, that they did it because they are of a particular race. Chinese guy steals a car? Someone says it's because the Chinese are naturally lawless and immoral. Black guy beats up his wife? Someone says it's because black people are inherently misogynistic and violent. It really gets my goat.

/rant.

QFT, this type of racisum is especially bad around the east midlands around sheffield (is this in the east midlands? not quite sure) and nottingham areas, now i have a perticually "loved" neighbour whos "all partriotic" when it suits him, you know the type home cinima in the loft without planning permission in a counsil house and on benifits for apprently being unable to walk more than 50 yards, (one of the requirements for getting a blue badge and you get the gist) had a perticualler offensive rant set off by the england/ukraine game the other day... well blow me backwards and call me an ork, in almost 23 years i have NEVER heard such lanquage! It would make an Ork blush! (if you havent guessed, im duel English/Ukrainian) then he started going on about the polish stealing our jobs all those "terroist" arabs (this one actually hit a nerve since my misses is morroccan) want to take over england and kill everyone etc etc, you get the point.

deathholydeath wrote:There are unfortunately a great deal of racist people where I live. Something I find surprising given Boulder's reputation for being a tolerant hippie town.
In the end it just boils down to fear. People fear what is different, hate what they fear, destroy what they hate.

It's fear, but it's also status. If your family is pretty poor, well at least you aren't the bottom of the ladder, because the blacks/mexicans/whatever are beneath you. This is a large part of the reason you see more overt bigotry among poorer people than you do among the middle and upper classes.

That same drive for status is why the middle class snubs their noses at the poor for their bigotry, ironically enough.

angel of ecstasy wrote:Oh, KingCrackers cousin. You so racist.

In his defense we're all racist, except maybe a saint. Its just by degree. If you think you aren't at least in some manner you're delusional.

Frazzled wrote:

angel of ecstasy wrote:Oh, KingCrackers cousin. You so racist.

In his defense we're all racist, except maybe a saint. Its just by degree. If you think you aren't at least in some manner you're delusional.

I think we might be able to make an argument for prejudice vs. racism to an extend. I do think that we all have our own prejudice that we inherit from the culture around us. Racism seems more extreme than that, but maybe it is just me trying to justify things in my mind.

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

angel of ecstasy wrote:Oh, KingCrackers cousin. You so racist.

In his defense we're all racist, except maybe a saint. Its just by degree. If you think you aren't at least in some manner you're delusional.

I think we might be able to make an argument for prejudice vs. racism to an extend. I do think that we all have our own prejudice that we inherit from the culture around us. Racism seems more extreme than that, but maybe it is just me trying to justify things in my mind.

Sure, but arent they the same thing?

And here is a question for you...

If I see a Muslim with a big beard and a back pack near me on the tube, I grab my missus and we move to the other end of the carriage on the million-to-once chance he is going to blow himself up. Sure 99.99% of Muslims aren't like that, but some are.

So is that racist, prejudiced, or just common sense?

what was the question?

If I see a guy with a beard on the subway my first thought will be "when did Texas get a subway? WHERE THE HELL AM I!?!?!?!"

mattyrm wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

angel of ecstasy wrote:Oh, KingCrackers cousin. You so racist.

In his defense we're all racist, except maybe a saint. Its just by degree. If you think you aren't at least in some manner you're delusional.

I think we might be able to make an argument for prejudice vs. racism to an extend. I do think that we all have our own prejudice that we inherit from the culture around us. Racism seems more extreme than that, but maybe it is just me trying to justify things in my mind.

Sure, but arent they the same thing?

And here is a question for you...

If I see a Muslim with a big beard and a back pack near me on the tube, I grab my missus and we move to the other end of the carriage on the million-to-once chance he is going to blow himself up. Sure 99.99% of Muslims aren't like that, but some are.

So is that racist, prejudiced, or just common sense?

Pragamtic and could quite possibly be interpreted as offensive

Myths and stereotypes often have a seed of reality. Even Jesse Jackson put this question to people and said he'd be less nervous if he turned around and saw a group of white teenagers vs. black teenagers behind him.

So don't everyone get too high on their high horse. The only real difference between you and the racist you make fun of is degree.

Well, it's not like i announce it to strangers and suggest everyone else follow suit.. So I vote for pragmatic.

mattyrm wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

angel of ecstasy wrote:Oh, KingCrackers cousin. You so racist.

In his defense we're all racist, except maybe a saint. Its just by degree. If you think you aren't at least in some manner you're delusional.

I think we might be able to make an argument for prejudice vs. racism to an extend. I do think that we all have our own prejudice that we inherit from the culture around us. Racism seems more extreme than that, but maybe it is just me trying to justify things in my mind.

Sure, but arent they the same thing?

And here is a question for you...

If I see a Muslim with a big beard and a back pack near me on the tube, I grab my missus and we move to the other end of the carriage on the million-to-once chance he is going to blow himself up. Sure 99.99% of Muslims aren't like that, but some are.

So is that racist, prejudiced, or just common sense?

It's racist and prejudiced, because you've made the assumption that people who don't look like your fantasy muslim suicide bomber are100% safe. Which is nonsense.

I don't think he assumed that. I sure don't.

*wannabe gangbanger - not safe. racist?
*teenybopper white boy - safe (because I can break him into little bitty pieces). racist?
*the chinka chinka music being played down the block. Without thinking I know they're far more likely to be from Mexico or Central America (or from here), and not Nigeria. Racist?

Wow if someone can find a point I'm trying to make just tell me, I appear to be babbling. Not enough coffee and I'm already ticked at associates.

I do agree with Frazz (shocking I know) on those points. I honestly tell my wife to not be ashamed if she sees some young rabble walking towards her to clutch her purse tighter, to lock her doors and so on. Is it discrimination? Of course it is, but those kinds of things can also save your life. Id rather Matty offend that Muslim on the subway and post here about it, then watching the news and tell my wife "Oh that fething sucks, I knew that guy" To me those type of prejudices are ok mainly because they can (even if rarely) save a life, and agree everyone is prejudice to a point.

But there is a pretty big difference from seeing some young black kids and locking your doors, to spitting racist slurs and insulting entire cultures just to sound cool and be all super American.

Maybe to me the difference between prejudice and racism could be intent. Prejudice might be more about how you act yourself (clutching a purse tighter) and racism includes maybe more external actions (automatically calling out the black guy when a purse is missing), if that makes any sense.

You can have prejudice and not let it affect the way you act with others, racism might be more about how you act with others?

But again, that could be me trying to rationalize.

Kilkrazy wrote:
It's racist and prejudiced, because you've made the assumption that people who don't look like your fantasy muslim suicide bomber are100% safe. Which is nonsense.

I don't assume that at all, you are just being his usual cantankerous hippy self. It is utterly ridiculous to sit there and make such a claim to a man who is as vocal about his distaste for the white-trash Englishmen that infest our streets. Me, the anti-chav, pro capital punishment kinda guy, thinks people that aren't big beardy Muslim blokes are 100% safe! Really?!

If a gang of white teenagers more than 6 or 7 strong was at the foot of a street drinking cans, I would about turn and feth off the long way round with my missus rather than risk their ire. Its sensible, why risk a confrontation for 60 seconds of detour?

Same goes for a gang of dodgy looking anything, be they white, black, or deranged-hobo looking. Its not "prejudiced" its common sense.

Indeed, if there were a few unsavoury white people sat at one end of a tube, then bet your ass I would feth off to the other end of the tube with my missus because I dont want to listen to the techno they are playing off their phones, listen to their gak conversation, tell them I dont smoke when they ask for one, or possibly risk being started on/stabbed.

Basically, you are full of gak. I vote Conservative (centre-right, but lets be honest, very bloody centre!) yet you equate me with a foaming neo-nazi simply because I find your cringing attitude repellant, and I always have done.

Like most people of your ilk, you wish to force your opinions onto everyone else and you get annoyed when people disagree with you, and that's why you have given me endless gak for the last 12 months. I am pleased to inform you that a staggering amount of non BNP voting British citizens feel the exact same way as I do, and would do the exact same thing when faced with a suspect looking bloke, regardless of their ethnicity. I think the chances of a big beardy bloke blowing me up on the tube are a million to one, but why take a risk? If there was a million to one chance you could get a brain tumour off a certain kind of toothpaste, wouldnt you change brands anyway?

Kilkrazy wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

angel of ecstasy wrote:Oh, KingCrackers cousin. You so racist.

In his defense we're all racist, except maybe a saint. Its just by degree. If you think you aren't at least in some manner you're delusional.

I think we might be able to make an argument for prejudice vs. racism to an extend. I do think that we all have our own prejudice that we inherit from the culture around us. Racism seems more extreme than that, but maybe it is just me trying to justify things in my mind.

Sure, but arent they the same thing?

And here is a question for you...

If I see a Muslim with a big beard and a back pack near me on the tube, I grab my missus and we move to the other end of the carriage on the million-to-once chance he is going to blow himself up. Sure 99.99% of Muslims aren't like that, but some are.

So is that racist, prejudiced, or just common sense?

It's racist and prejudiced, because you've made the assumption that people who don't look like your fantasy muslim suicide bomber are100% safe. Which is nonsense.

I didn't see any exclusivity in Matty's statement; he just didn't outline every person he would move for. It is prejudiced, but it's not racist. I'm sure he'd move down the tube if the person were offensively ginger vice Muslim.

AustonT wrote:I didn't see any exclusivity in Matty's statement; he just didn't outline every person he would move for. It is prejudiced, but it's not racist. I'm sure he'd move down the tube if the person were offensively ginger vice Muslim.

Exactly. I hate all this hippy PC nonsense.. prejudiced.. racist, everyone is bloody prejudiced or racist these days!

If someone smells like they haven't washed for a month and you move is that prejudiced against the smelly? If some big fat bird is eating a bucket of chicken directly across from you and its grossing you out and you move, is that prejudiced against greedy bastards?! Are you racist against the obese race?

feth me, and even if you ARE racist or prejudiced, as long as they don't actually say anything, or do anything, or encourage their kids to say anything, then who gives a feth anyway!?

Everyone hates something, or someone, or some group. You are entitled to your opinion, and you only cross the line into douche-bagville if you actually do anything about it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:I'm sure he'd move down the tube if the person were offensively ginger vice Muslim.

Of course not, what? Do you take me for a bigot?

I would force them to wear a balaclava for the rest of the journey.

Ginger Spice? Is she a terrorist now? I'm so confused.

Frazzled wrote:Ginger Spice? Is she a terrorist now? I'm so confused.

Aren't they all?

Edit: Not because he's Irish

I live in the south so actually I'm used to racism. I am not racist myself, but I actually have three friends ( I use that term loosley) that are racist. Its ignorant but in the end you cant really say anything to change them. For these three they picked it up from their parents. And where did their parents get it? Thats right. Their parents.

Some people just don't change.

Racism is acting upon a prejudice based on race...
Prejudice is impossible to avoid but acting on it isn't.

purplefood wrote:Racism is acting upon a prejudice based on race...
Prejudice is impossible very difficult to avoid and will hopefully become easier to avoid in future generations but acting on it isn't.

Fix'd that for you.

With the current cultural biases we're constantly hammered with, it is very very difficult not to develop prejudices. But, I firmly believe that prejudice is entirely a social phenomena and doesn't develop on its own. In future generations, I sincerely hope that prejudice will be entirely removed from human society.

Grakmar wrote:

purplefood wrote:Racism is acting upon a prejudice based on race...
Prejudice is impossible very difficult to avoid and will hopefully become easier to avoid in future generations but acting on it isn't.

Fix'd that for you.

With the current cultural biases we're constantly hammered with, it is very very difficult not to develop prejudices. But, I firmly believe that prejudice is entirely a social phenomena and doesn't develop on its own. In future generations, I sincerely hope that prejudice will be entirely removed from human society.

Not true.
The first thing you when you see anyone for the first time is judge them based on their appearance...
You take into account everything. Body language, posture, how they walk, what they wear etc etc
We can avoid prejudices based on skin colour admittedly but not based on other factors.

Grakmar wrote:

purplefood wrote:Racism is acting upon a prejudice based on race...
Prejudice is impossible very difficult to avoid and will hopefully become easier to avoid in future generations but acting on it isn't.

Fix'd that for you.

With the current cultural biases we're constantly hammered with, it is very very difficult not to develop prejudices. But, I firmly believe that prejudice is entirely a social phenomena and doesn't develop on its own. In future generations, I sincerely hope that prejudice will be entirely removed from human society.

No.

Go and watch how toddlers interact with each other. Prejudice for what is different / unknown is pretty much human nature and as such is impossible to remove from our society. Racism can be eradicated, but I personally bet against it since there will always be ignorant people around...

PhantomViper wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

purplefood wrote:Racism is acting upon a prejudice based on race...
Prejudice is impossible very difficult to avoid and will hopefully become easier to avoid in future generations but acting on it isn't.

Fix'd that for you.

With the current cultural biases we're constantly hammered with, it is very very difficult not to develop prejudices. But, I firmly believe that prejudice is entirely a social phenomena and doesn't develop on its own. In future generations, I sincerely hope that prejudice will be entirely removed from human society.

No.

Go and watch how toddlers interact with each other. Prejudice for what is different / unknown is pretty much human nature and as such is impossible to remove from our society. Racism can be eradicated, but I personally bet against it since there will always be ignorant people around...

Huh, most toddlers I've seen get on pretty well with each other as long as one isn't hogging/snatching all the toys.

Color studies actually disprove that. Toddlers react differently to strangers who have a different tan level or facial features than mom.

Frazzled wrote:Toddlers react differently to strangers who have a different tan level or facial features than mom.

Is this our chance to segway into "Your mama" jokes?

d-usa wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Followed by his next post where he was then complaining about how he "hates" people that brag about how many MPG their "foreign" cars get. He says F them all, he will rather keep his Chevy Avalanche, a REAL American made vehicle. This is where I started laughing my ass off at just how dumb he has become. So I replied on his facebook with some links to websites showing percentages and such on just how "American" American cars really are. AND how America makes MANY foreign cars here. Then, saving the best for last, showed him how his beloved American made Avalanche is actually assembled in a factory in Mexico, making his previous racist statement all the more awesome.



There....I really needed to vent. Cant stand people that are blatantly ignorant. If your going to be a racist, yanno what, thats on you, at least be a well informed racist would ya?

The car thing has always been a sore point for me. I got lots of coworkers and friends who love to drum up the "buy American" bandwagon and even if you talk to them about how their "American cars" are made in Mexico they still continue on about "but you support an American business!" ...

I usually tell them that I have two personal criteria when it comes to buying "American"

1) I will not buy a vehicle just because it is "American". Build a quality product and I will support you, not because of blind patriotic loyalty.
2) If I have to choose between an American company sending jobs out of the country, or a foreign company hiring American workers...then I will always support the American workers as long as condition #1 is met.

I will never own a Ford, even if one was given to me. This "American" company pissed me off back in the 1970's. When I found out they had a factory in Russia that was cranking out military vehicles bound for North Vietnam.

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Toddlers react differently to strangers who have a different tan level or facial features than mom.

Is this our chance to segway into "Your mama" jokes?

Of course!

Frazzled wrote:Color studies actually disprove that. Toddlers react differently to strangers who have a different tan level or facial features than mom.

Is that prejudice or fear of strangers? If a child is just afraid of someone that looks different from their mother isnt is likely that is is precisely not their mother and could be a threat? Like when my newborn nieces got scared when i held them just after their mother?

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Color studies actually disprove that. Toddlers react differently to strangers who have a different tan level or facial features than mom.

Is that prejudice or fear of strangers? If a child is just afraid of someone that looks different from their mother isnt is likely that is is precisely not their mother and could be a threat? Like when my newborn nieces got scared when i held them just after their mother?

That's just their natural fear of bronies.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Is that prejudice or fear of strangers? If a child is just afraid of someone that looks different from their mother isnt is likely that is is precisely not their mother and could be a threat? Like when my newborn nieces got scared when i held them just after their mother?

Prejudiced against strangers. What's the difference?

Relapse wrote:
I will never own a Ford, even if one was given to me. This "American" company pissed me off back in the 1970's. When I found out they had a factory in Russia that was cranking out military vehicles bound for North Vietnam.

It was never really a secret that GAZ and Ford were working together. If you are talking about an actual Ford plant in Russia post 1938 I would appreciate a link.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Color studies actually disprove that. Toddlers react differently to strangers who have a different tan level or facial features than mom.

Is that prejudice or fear of strangers? If a child is just afraid of someone that looks different from their mother isnt is likely that is is precisely not their mother and could be a threat? Like when my newborn nieces got scared when i held them just after their mother?

You missed the point. Strangers that look like mom get a better reaction than strangers that don't.

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Color studies actually disprove that. Toddlers react differently to strangers who have a different tan level or facial features than mom.

Is that prejudice or fear of strangers? If a child is just afraid of someone that looks different from their mother isnt is likely that is is precisely not their mother and could be a threat? Like when my newborn nieces got scared when i held them just after their mother?

You missed the point. Strangers that look like mom get a better reaction than strangers that don't.

Hmmmm....



I've got it!

We require mothers to always wear masks around their children.

BAM! Racism solved.

You're welcome.

Frazzled wrote:You missed the point. Strangers that look like mom get a better reaction than strangers that don't.

Coming back to England at the age of 2 after living in the middle and far east for 99% of my life, I apparently asked my mum upon walking down Southend Highstreet "Where are all the brown people?"

Strangers are only strange when they are not the norm; I was more used to seeing "brown people" having lived in the countries I lived in than white people (like myself and my family).

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You missed the point. Strangers that look like mom get a better reaction than strangers that don't.

Coming back to England at the age of 2 after living in the middle and far east for 99% of my life, I apparently asked my mum upon walking down Southend Highstreet "Where are all the brown people?"

Strangers are only strange when they are not the norm; I was more used to seeing "brown people" having lived in the countries I lived in than white people (like myself and my family).

Makes you wonder how white toddlers with black nannies would have reacted in antebellum US to the Civil Rights movement. A clear social structure existed and another subculture of social interaction with white children depending on black pseudo-parents. The mind fairly boggles.

@AustonT

I dont think it matters much to the kids when they get used to a person

but then the parents take them aside and start talking about "them and us"

thats where the problem begins i think.

Bakerofish wrote:@AustonT

I dont think it matters much to the kids when they get used to a person

but then the parents take them aside and start talking about "them and us"

thats where the problem begins i think.

How many toddlers do you think parents pull aside to talk about "them and us" let alone understand and apply the concept?

@AustonT

"Them and us" is a fairly basic and easy concept to understand. I would hazard that you can start talking to kids about the concept as soon as they are able to ask questions like "what" immediately followed by the never ending "why'. And since we were talking about Civil War era US, this happened a LOT.

saw it happen once, but not in a race way but more in a "rich and poor" way

yes it pissed me off.

Yea I dont think to many parents do that anymore. I think in a few more generations, the whole race card will pretty much fizzle out. Well for the majority anyways

Frazzled wrote:

You missed the point. Strangers that look like mom get a better reaction than strangers that don't.

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

You missed the point. Strangers that look like mom get a better reaction than strangers that don't.

DaDa?

Bakerofish wrote:@AustonT

"Them and us" is a fairly basic and easy concept to understand. I would hazard that you can start talking to kids about the concept as soon as they are able to ask questions like "what" immediately followed by the never ending "why'. And since we were talking about Civil War era US, this happened a LOT.

saw it happen once, but not in a race way but more in a "rich and poor" way

yes it pissed me off.

I know for sure it was never explained to me in any way, shape or form...
Actually thinking back my parents really didn't shape much of my opinions...

This I can understand:


This needs explanation:

Orlanth wrote:

This I can understand:


This needs explanation:

Some things should not be explained.

Grakmar wrote:



I've got it!

We require mothers to always wear masks around their children.

BAM! Racism solved.

You're welcome.

How does that help out Us bronies though?

d-usa wrote:

Some things should not be explained.

Tell me this is a photoshopped meme.

The other picture looked too real.

Black Nazis!?!?

Well...1st post to last post...racism to WTF/WTH...

Orlanth wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Some things should not be explained.

Tell me this is a photoshopped meme.

The other picture looked too real.

Black Nazis!?!?

Well they are both real.
The older picture is from a 60 minutes interview IIRC and the other one is from a making of video for a trailer of a fake movie on Jimmy Kimmel.
It's called Movie: The Movie.

I had worked the second one out from the name of the actress, let alone the whole image.

I wondered if it was one obvious and one less obvious part of a comic meme.

Unrelated

mattyrm wrote: If someone smells like they haven't washed for a month and you move is that prejudiced against the smelly? If some big fat bird is eating a bucket of chicken directly across from you and its grossing you out and you move, is that prejudiced against greedy bastards?! Are you racist against the obese race?

feth me, and even if you ARE racist or prejudiced, as long as they don't actually say anything, or do anything, or encourage their kids to say anything, then who gives a feth anyway!?

Everyone hates something, or someone, or some group. You are entitled to your opinion, and you only cross the line into douche-bagville if you actually do anything about it.

Sort of. The issue really is whether your idea has any basis in fact. For example, seeing the fat lady eating the bucket of chicken and concluding 'she is probably fat because she eats badly and does very little exercise' isn't bigotry, because it's most likely true.

On the other hand, seeing an Arabic guy on the train and thinking there is a reasonable chance he's about to set off a bomb is bigoted, because there is a much greater chance he's part of the millions of Arabic people with no interest in terrorism, than part of the few who do.

That's really the issue that's gotten lost in all of this - factual reality. Everyone goes on about offensiveness and this kind of purely moral opposition to bigotry, as if that alone made any kind of sense. But the bigger issue is 'is that thought true?'

People shouldn't rail against bigotry because it's immoral, but because it's stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:Go and watch how toddlers interact with each other. Prejudice for what is different / unknown is pretty much human nature and as such is impossible to remove from our society. Racism can be eradicated, but I personally bet against it since there will always be ignorant people around...

With more integrated societies then people of different skin colours being unfamiliar won't be such an issue. That there's toddlers interacting with other toddlers of different skin colours mean they're learning now that that different skin isn't actually that big of a deal.

And even that fear/unfamiliarity is a lot different to 'oh he's of such and such a race, that means he is likely to have this list of characteristics' stupidity that become very common place in the 19th & 20th centuries.

Racism is alive and well. It will never die out completely. In America it is smoldering, but embers still flare up from time to time. As long as a significant percentage of humanity remains stupid and ignorant pointless hatred will exist.

Edit: A big part of the problem is that a lot of rural areas in America and even smaller metropolitan areas are not well integrated yet. It might actually be worse in the big cities, there are areas where you flat out don't go if you're white and not from that part of town.

Amaya wrote:Racism is alive and well. It will never die out completely. In America it is smoldering, but embers still flare up from time to time. As long as a significant percentage of humanity remains stupid and ignorant pointless hatred will exist.

Edit: A big part of the problem is that a lot of rural areas in America and even smaller metropolitan areas are not well integrated yet. It might actually be worse in the big cities, there are areas where you flat out don't go if you're white and not from that part of town.

You think racism doesn't exist in the big city?

Once again I have to wonder if you're illiterate Frazzled.

Amaya wrote:Once again I have to wonder if you're illiterate Frazzled.

I'll use your own quote:

A big part of the problem is that a lot of rural areas in America and even smaller metropolitan areas are not well integrated yet.

Next time write more gooder.

And rural areas are probably much more racist than big cities with the exception of various ghettos.

I'm not tracking on how you get "there is no racism in cities" from my post, but you always seem a bit confuzzled.

Amaya wrote:And rural areas are probably much more racist than big cities with the exception of various ghettos.

I'm not tracking on how you get "there is no racism in cities" from my post, but you always seem a bit confuzzled.

You just said it again. You have no proof but the smoke from your ass.

Frazzled wrote:You just said it again. You have no proof but the smoke from your ass.

"Joe has more money than Bill" does not mean Bill may not also have some or a lot of money, it just means he has less than Joe. As such, 'A big part of the problem is that a lot of rural areas in America and even smaller metropolitan areas are not well integrated yet' and 'rural areas are probably much more racist than big cities' are arguing there is more racism in rural areas than in cities, but it is not suggesting there is no racism in cities.

Seriously dude, that's the kind of reading comprehension tests they hand in primary school. We all know you're capable of following the argument as presented, at which point we have to ask why you chose to read it incorrectly.

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:Racism is alive and well. It will never die out completely. In America it is smoldering, but embers still flare up from time to time. As long as a significant percentage of humanity remains stupid and ignorant pointless hatred will exist.

Edit: A big part of the problem is that a lot of rural areas in America and even smaller metropolitan areas are not well integrated yet. It might actually be worse in the big cities, there are areas where you flat out don't go if you're white and not from that part of town.

You think racism doesn't exist in the big city?

I Cant beleive im saying this, But Frazz is Right, Racism in the big city is really prevalent, I live in the big city and the schools are veru divided among income and race.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I Cant beleive im saying this, But Frazz is Right, Racism in the big city is really prevalent, I live in the big city and the schools are veru divided among income and race.

I can't believe I have to explain this to a second person. No-one said there was no racism in cities, just that there was more in the country. I mean, I don't even know if I agree with the statement, I'd probably argue there's plenty of racism in both, it's just different kinds of racism.

But come on, people, it's really basic reading comprehension here.

AustonT wrote:

So, if you are white and dont vote Obama you're probably racist.

Very funny joke Orlanth, yes indeed!

You guys realise with out those "dirty Mexicans" your country would seize to fething function...

Poppabear wrote:You guys realise with out those "dirty Mexicans" your country would seize to fething function...

Kind of an interesting aside here is that because of the money from drug users, the cartels are turning Mexico into a warzone/living hell in which most sane people don't want to stay.
About half my friends are Mexican and they feel great worry for family members in Mexico, not knowing from one day to the next if they will recieve news of their death or kidnapping.
In the conversations we have about this, they blame drug users for the current enpowerment of the cartels and the murders in Mexico and ask if it were our families at risk, would we be content to leave them in that situation for years or even weeks, waiting on a visa while the killing goes on around them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:I Cant beleive im saying this, But Frazz is Right, Racism in the big city is really prevalent, I live in the big city and the schools are veru divided among income and race.

I can't believe I have to explain this to a second person. No-one said there was no racism in cities, just that there was more in the country. I mean, I don't even know if I agree with the statement, I'd probably argue there's plenty of racism in both, it's just different kinds of racism.

But come on, people, it's really basic reading comprehension here.

I think I'd like to see the statistics rather than take someone's opinion. I've lived both in the country and in big cities and it really is hard to tell where there is more racism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I don't think he assumed that. I sure don't.

*wannabe gangbanger - not safe. racist?
*teenybopper white boy - safe (because I can break him into little bitty pieces). racist?
*the chinka chinka music being played down the block. Without thinking I know they're far more likely to be from Mexico or Central America (or from here), and not Nigeria. Racist?

Wow if someone can find a point I'm trying to make just tell me, I appear to be babbling. Not enough coffee and I'm already ticked at associates.

It's something I never noticed until a Mexican told me, but a lot of Mexican music has its roots in German music. After I was told, I started noticing the oom pa sound in a lot of it.

Relapse wrote:
In the conversations we have about this, they blame drug users for the current enpowerment of the cartels and the murders in Mexico and ask if it were our families at risk, would we be content to leave them in that situation for years or even weeks, waiting on a visa while the killing goes on around them.

Probably not. But then they aren't our families.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
In the conversations we have about this, they blame drug users for the current enpowerment of the cartels and the murders in Mexico and ask if it were our families at risk, would we be content to leave them in that situation for years or even weeks, waiting on a visa while the killing goes on around them.

Probably not. But then they aren't our families.

After I heard their stories and saw the worry in their eyes, knowing a lot of it was caused by drug users here in the U.S. supplying cartels with the funds to cause the situation, I had no problem with letting their familes come in where it was safer. On the other hand, cartels take advantage of this to get drugs into this country.

A truly sad and dangerous situation all around.

Poppabear wrote:You guys realise with out those "dirty Mexicans" your country would seize to fething function...

Talk about a SERIOUS stretch of the truth. Our country would function without them just fine.

KingCracker wrote: If your going to be a racist, yanno what, thats on you, at least be a well informed racist would ya?

I am a racist, and am well informed with respect to my racism. I wasn't a racist until I was exposed to a certain culture, and I couldn't understand thy the bastids had a superiority complex until I did some learning. After learning I came to hate them really truly very much.................. moving along.... lovely weather out there, will be nice, warm and sunny for tomorrows stampede parade.

KingCracker wrote:

Poppabear wrote:You guys realise with out those "dirty Mexicans" your country would seize to fething function...

Talk about a SERIOUS stretch of the truth. Our country would function without them just fine.

I agree with KingCracker. The US has its massive prison-industrial complex to always fall back, which has effectively replaced the slave labour economy that the country was founded upon with a post-industrialized version of indentured labour.

Though I doubt that's what he actually intended.

KingCracker wrote:

Poppabear wrote:You guys realise with out those "dirty Mexicans" your country would seize to fething function...

Talk about a SERIOUS stretch of the truth. Our country would function without them just fine.

well, they're not citizens, so in that respect, yes it's true.... then on the other hand, there's the massive debt to considder. ARE the states doing just fine? I'm not so sure...... Don't worry, i share that same lack of confidence with canada.

The main problem that I have in Australian is the Vietnamese, Chinese and Lebonese drug cartels. I know they make a small percentage of the actual Immigrants to Australia, they pose a huge threat to the safety of it's citizens. Also, I hate people of any Nationality who come to Australia and refuse to learn how to speak English, the primary language here. Also, foreign nationalities especially Asians in my community segment themselves away from the community. In Australia, we have segmented cultures, which never interact really with each other except commercially, that's not real Multi-culturism.

rockerbikie wrote:The main problem that I have in Australian is the Vietnamese, Chinese and Lebonese drug cartels. I know they make a small percentage of the actual Immigrants to Australia, they pose a huge threat to the safety of it's citizens. Also, I hate people of any Nationality who come to Australia and refuse to learn how to speak English, the primary language here. Also, foreign nationalities especially Asians in my community segment themselves away from the community. In Australia, we have segmented cultures, which never interact really with each other except commercially, that's not real Multi-culturism.

don't i know it. I learned english when I came to canada, so did my parents, and they broke their backs in the span of about 10 years and managed to do wonders. It's not easy for a 40 year old person to start from scratch, never mind two with 3 children. We all managed to learn english, and some of the cheap outsourced labor my old man deals with on a regular basis...... when talking to their counterparts, they had to have an indian translating from unaccented english to indian accented english in order for the meeting to progress.... so, there's something to be said for the english speakers too.....

poda_t wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

Poppabear wrote:You guys realise with out those "dirty Mexicans" your country would seize to fething function...

Talk about a SERIOUS stretch of the truth. Our country would function without them just fine.

well, they're not citizens, so in that respect, yes it's true.... then on the other hand, there's the massive debt to considder. ARE the states doing just fine? I'm not so sure...... Don't worry, i share that same lack of confidence with canada.

Alright, lets call it down the middle, and say America would function as well as other modern countries without them

Relapse wrote:I think I'd like to see the statistics rather than take someone's opinion. I've lived both in the country and in big cities and it really is hard to tell where there is more racism.

I think it's a fairly hard thing to get stats on. I mean, you can look at those surveys on approval for multicultural marriage and the like, but I don't know if those report on city/rural divides (and I won't link to them, last time someone else posted them here all I said was 'the survey says there's an issue with race in whatever state it was, and that was enough to get me a couple of day suspension).

Really, its down to personal experience. Like you, my personal experience is that it is hard to tell which place has more racism. More than anything, it's just that the racism in the country tends to be different to the racism in the city, the actual extent seems to be about equal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rockerbikie wrote:Also, foreign nationalities especially Asians in my community segment themselves away from the community. In Australia, we have segmented cultures, which never interact really with each other except commercially, that's not real Multi-culturism.

Um, that is multi-culturalism. Multiple cultures.

There's this idea that multi-culturalism means you can come to our country, as long as you assimilate completely (except for opening foreign food restaurants because we like those) and anything other than that and you're causing trouble. That idea is bs.

There are two workable concepts for multi-culturalism - the melting pot and patchwork. The melting pot wants other cultures to come in and become part of the community, they take on parts of local culture, and give part of their culture to the local population. The other concept is the patchwork, that localised ethnic communities form and these communities as a whole interact with greater society, so cities get a Chinatown and a Little Italy.

These two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, but between them you get an outline for how a society can successfully absorb an immigrant population. What underpins each is that cultural absorption isn't a one way street, it isn't just about the immigrant population becoming like us (under the assumption that our culture is best). Instead, it's a two way street, they put as much culture into our population as they take away.

azazel the cat wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

Poppabear wrote:You guys realise with out those "dirty Mexicans" your country would seize to fething function...

Talk about a SERIOUS stretch of the truth. Our country would function without them just fine.

I agree with KingCracker. The US has its massive prison-industrial complex to always fall back, which has effectively replaced the slave labour economy that the country was founded upon with a post-industrialized version of indentured labour.

Though I doubt that's what he actually intended.

I dont want convicted prisoners ANYWHERE near my food.

rockerbikie wrote:The main problem that I have in Australian is the Vietnamese, Chinese and Lebonese drug cartels. I know they make a small percentage of the actual Immigrants to Australia, they pose a huge threat to the safety of it's citizens. Also, I hate people of any Nationality who come to Australia and refuse to learn how to speak English, the primary language here. Also, foreign nationalities especially Asians in my community segment themselves away from the community. In Australia, we have segmented cultures, which never interact really with each other except commercially, that's not real Multi-culturism.

No, it's not. Australian is the primary language. Don't you dare call that English.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

Poppabear wrote:You guys realise with out those "dirty Mexicans" your country would seize to fething function...

Talk about a SERIOUS stretch of the truth. Our country would function without them just fine.

I agree with KingCracker. The US has its massive prison-industrial complex to always fall back, which has effectively replaced the slave labour economy that the country was founded upon with a post-industrialized version of indentured labour.

Though I doubt that's what he actually intended.

I dont want convicted prisoners ANYWHERE near my food.

But I bet you're okay with them handling your cell phone and credit card customer service inquiries, aren't you?

You'd better be. They already do.

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:I think I'd like to see the statistics rather than take someone's opinion. I've lived both in the country and in big cities and it really is hard to tell where there is more racism.

I think it's a fairly hard thing to get stats on. I mean, you can look at those surveys on approval for multicultural marriage and the like, but I don't know if those report on city/rural divides (and I won't link to them, last time someone else posted them here all I said was 'the survey says there's an issue with race in whatever state it was, and that was enough to get me a couple of day suspension).

Really, its down to personal experience. Like you, my personal experience is that it is hard to tell which place has more racism. More than anything, it's just that the racism in the country tends to be different to the racism in the city, the actual extent seems to be about equal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rockerbikie wrote:Also, foreign nationalities especially Asians in my community segment themselves away from the community. In Australia, we have segmented cultures, which never interact really with each other except commercially, that's not real Multi-culturism.

Um, that is multi-culturalism. Multiple cultures.

There's this idea that multi-culturalism means you can come to our country, as long as you assimilate completely (except for opening foreign food restaurants because we like those) and anything other than that and you're causing trouble. That idea is bs.

There are two workable concepts for multi-culturalism - the melting pot and patchwork. The melting pot wants other cultures to come in and become part of the community, they take on parts of local culture, and give part of their culture to the local population. The other concept is the patchwork, that localised ethnic communities form and these communities as a whole interact with greater society, so cities get a Chinatown and a Little Italy.

These two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, but between them you get an outline for how a society can successfully absorb an immigrant population. What underpins each is that cultural absorption isn't a one way street, it isn't just about the immigrant population becoming like us (under the assumption that our culture is best). Instead, it's a two way street, they put as much culture into our population as they take away.

the patchwork is horsegak. I have foreign nationals refusing to learn english and pushing their own language. (the only ones I will grant have any right to push their language are the chinese because their blood tied this country together) I'm sorry, but if you want to bring home with you, then go feth yourself and get on the boat back to where you came from. (yes, boat, you don't deserve the luxury of flying back). We came to canada because it's better here than where we came from. We picked up the language, and our main interests lie with canada. Sure, we kept our languages, stick to our communities, but we also have our local communities we stick to as well.

This is something I've said a hundred times over, and I get pretty pissing angry when I see some asshat going on about ____ pride first and foremost, and the nation they're living in, enjoying the tax benefits of, and will probably build the rest of their lives in comes second. I have hungarian heritage, but I identify myself as Canadian. People pick up on my accent, ask me where I'm from, and I tell them I'm from calgary (where I now live). Naturally, they'll start pressing about, "no, i meant where are you from", to which I get pissy, because it's been 16 years since I last lived in europe. Everyone's a bloody patriot, but not a one of them is a citizen. If _______ is so great, hop on the boat and find your way back there.

poda_t wrote:

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:I think I'd like to see the statistics rather than take someone's opinion. I've lived both in the country and in big cities and it really is hard to tell where there is more racism.

I think it's a fairly hard thing to get stats on. I mean, you can look at those surveys on approval for multicultural marriage and the like, but I don't know if those report on city/rural divides (and I won't link to them, last time someone else posted them here all I said was 'the survey says there's an issue with race in whatever state it was, and that was enough to get me a couple of day suspension).

Really, its down to personal experience. Like you, my personal experience is that it is hard to tell which place has more racism. More than anything, it's just that the racism in the country tends to be different to the racism in the city, the actual extent seems to be about equal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rockerbikie wrote:Also, foreign nationalities especially Asians in my community segment themselves away from the community. In Australia, we have segmented cultures, which never interact really with each other except commercially, that's not real Multi-culturism.

Um, that is multi-culturalism. Multiple cultures.

There's this idea that multi-culturalism means you can come to our country, as long as you assimilate completely (except for opening foreign food restaurants because we like those) and anything other than that and you're causing trouble. That idea is bs.

There are two workable concepts for multi-culturalism - the melting pot and patchwork. The melting pot wants other cultures to come in and become part of the community, they take on parts of local culture, and give part of their culture to the local population. The other concept is the patchwork, that localised ethnic communities form and these communities as a whole interact with greater society, so cities get a Chinatown and a Little Italy.

These two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, but between them you get an outline for how a society can successfully absorb an immigrant population. What underpins each is that cultural absorption isn't a one way street, it isn't just about the immigrant population becoming like us (under the assumption that our culture is best). Instead, it's a two way street, they put as much culture into our population as they take away.

the patchwork is horsegak. I have foreign nationals refusing to learn english and pushing their own language. (the only ones I will grant have any right to push their language are the chinese because their blood tied this country together) I'm sorry, but if you want to bring home with you, then go feth yourself and get on the boat back to where you came from. (yes, boat, you don't deserve the luxury of flying back). We came to canada because it's better here than where we came from. We picked up the language, and our main interests lie with canada. Sure, we kept our languages, stick to our communities, but we also have our local communities we stick to as well.

This is something I've said a hundred times over, and I get pretty pissing angry when I see some asshat going on about ____ pride first and foremost, and the nation they're living in, enjoying the tax benefits of, and will probably build the rest of their lives in comes second. I have hungarian heritage, but I identify myself as Canadian. People pick up on my accent, ask me where I'm from, and I tell them I'm from calgary (where I now live). Naturally, they'll start pressing about, "no, i meant where are you from", to which I get pissy, because it's been 16 years since I last lived in europe. Everyone's a bloody patriot, but not a one of them is a citizen. If _______ is so great, hop on the boat and find your way back there.

You are using nationality/citizenship and culture to mean the same thing, when in fact they are not. Not that culture is easy to define at times, it can be a learned behavior or have ideological ties or the more easily transferred physical form like blue jeans or maybe the culture speaks louder than others. Nationality is just where you legally live, you can come from a Chinese culture and background and be a citizen of Canada.

poda_t wrote:the patchwork is horsegak.

The problem with your answer is that to substantiate the claim above you give examples of immigrants failing to engage, and then conclude that means the idea of a patchwork is a failure. It's simply a nonsense conclusion.

The more sensible conclusion to draw is that some immigrants will fail to be part of that patchwork, fail to be part of an ethnic community that interacts with the greater society in a mutually beneficial way. The answer to this is to improve the way these communities relate by drawing in community leaders and stuff like that, not to just say 'patchwork sucks' and think that's some kind of answer to anything.

(the only ones I will grant have any right to push their language are the chinese because their blood tied this country together)

This kind of thinking, basically amounting to racial heritage is, to be perfectly frank, some serious bs. Some Chinese guy who got off the boat ten years ago has nothing to do with what some other Chinese guy did 100 years ago. They're different people.

We came to canada because it's better here than where we came from. We picked up the language, and our main interests lie with canada. Sure, we kept our languages, stick to our communities, but we also have our local communities we stick to as well.

What you're missing is that every immigrant group does this, it's just that it generally takes one or two generations. We hated the Italians when they came, because the men spoke broken English while the women often stayed in the home and didn't even learn that much... and then we forgot all about that when the second generation spoken fluent English, and then the third generation was unlikely to know much Italian at all. And we hated the Chinese when the exact same thing happened, and we promptly forgot about that when the generation pattern was exactly the same.

And now we're repeating it. And likely will again with whatever groups migrate twenty years from now.

KingCracker wrote:
Talk about a SERIOUS stretch of the truth. Our country would function without them just fine.

Depends on what you mean by "function". I like cheap produce.

sebster wrote:alot of stuff

well.... I was about to make a number of responses to this, but I wasn't sure whether continuing this line of discussion violated dakka's policy or not, so, instead I chose to abstain. I'm also disinclined to get into what might devolve into a flamebating war over the PM's so unless prompted I won't make a response.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:Racism is alive and well. It will never die out completely. In America it is smoldering, but embers still flare up from time to time. As long as a significant percentage of humanity remains stupid and ignorant pointless hatred will exist.

Edit: A big part of the problem is that a lot of rural areas in America and even smaller metropolitan areas are not well integrated yet. It might actually be worse in the big cities, there are areas where you flat out don't go if you're white and not from that part of town.

You think racism doesn't exist in the big city?

I Cant beleive im saying this, But Frazz is Right, Racism in the big city is really prevalent, I live in the big city and the schools are veru divided among income and race.

Exactly. In Calif most of the gangs are based on ethnicity. Jalhouse gangs are based on ethnicity. This "only the hicks are racist" is utter bullocks as the Brits would say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Poppabear wrote:You guys realise with out those "dirty Mexicans" your country would seize to fething function...

Thats cease to function.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
In the conversations we have about this, they blame drug users for the current enpowerment of the cartels and the murders in Mexico and ask if it were our families at risk, would we be content to leave them in that situation for years or even weeks, waiting on a visa while the killing goes on around them.

Probably not. But then they aren't our families.

After I heard their stories and saw the worry in their eyes, knowing a lot of it was caused by drug users here in the U.S. supplying cartels with the funds to cause the situation, I had no problem with letting their familes come in where it was safer. On the other hand, cartels take advantage of this to get drugs into this country.

A truly sad and dangerous situation all around.

1. Declare drugs a state issue.
2. Have the federal government actually regain control of the border. DOn't give me this nonsense about "can't." The parties just don't want to. A nuke goes off in NY and we'll suddenly find a way to control the border in about 18 seconds.
3. Immigrants here - put 'em through a background check and start the formal immigration process. They're just the sort of hard working peoples we want.

poda_t wrote:

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:I think I'd like to see the statistics rather than take someone's opinion. I've lived both in the country and in big cities and it really is hard to tell where there is more racism.

I think it's a fairly hard thing to get stats on. I mean, you can look at those surveys on approval for multicultural marriage and the like, but I don't know if those report on city/rural divides (and I won't link to them, last time someone else posted them here all I said was 'the survey says there's an issue with race in whatever state it was, and that was enough to get me a couple of day suspension).

Really, its down to personal experience. Like you, my personal experience is that it is hard to tell which place has more racism. More than anything, it's just that the racism in the country tends to be different to the racism in the city, the actual extent seems to be about equal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rockerbikie wrote:Also, foreign nationalities especially Asians in my community segment themselves away from the community. In Australia, we have segmented cultures, which never interact really with each other except commercially, that's not real Multi-culturism.

Um, that is multi-culturalism. Multiple cultures.

There's this idea that multi-culturalism means you can come to our country, as long as you assimilate completely (except for opening foreign food restaurants because we like those) and anything other than that and you're causing trouble. That idea is bs.

There are two workable concepts for multi-culturalism - the melting pot and patchwork. The melting pot wants other cultures to come in and become part of the community, they take on parts of local culture, and give part of their culture to the local population. The other concept is the patchwork, that localised ethnic communities form and these communities as a whole interact with greater society, so cities get a Chinatown and a Little Italy.

These two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, but between them you get an outline for how a society can successfully absorb an immigrant population. What underpins each is that cultural absorption isn't a one way street, it isn't just about the immigrant population becoming like us (under the assumption that our culture is best). Instead, it's a two way street, they put as much culture into our population as they take away.

the patchwork is horsegak. I have foreign nationals refusing to learn english and pushing their own language. (the only ones I will grant have any right to push their language are the chinese because their blood tied this country together) I'm sorry, but if you want to bring home with you, then go feth yourself and get on the boat back to where you came from. (yes, boat, you don't deserve the luxury of flying back). We came to canada because it's better here than where we came from. We picked up the language, and our main interests lie with canada. Sure, we kept our languages, stick to our communities, but we also have our local communities we stick to as well.

This is something I've said a hundred times over, and I get pretty pissing angry when I see some asshat going on about ____ pride first and foremost, and the nation they're living in, enjoying the tax benefits of, and will probably build the rest of their lives in comes second. I have hungarian heritage, but I identify myself as Canadian. People pick up on my accent, ask me where I'm from, and I tell them I'm from calgary (where I now live). Naturally, they'll start pressing about, "no, i meant where are you from", to which I get pissy, because it's been 16 years since I last lived in europe. Everyone's a bloody patriot, but not a one of them is a citizen. If _______ is so great, hop on the boat and find your way back there.

I agree with you on this one.

Frazzled wrote:
2. Have the federal government actually regain control of the border. DOn't give me this nonsense about "can't." The parties just don't want to. A nuke goes off in NY and we'll suddenly find a way to control the border in about 18 seconds.

Sure, if by "control" you mean "Do things that cost money, and make people feel safe, but aren't actually effective."

Israel can't do it, and their border is much smaller.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
2. Have the federal government actually regain control of the border. DOn't give me this nonsense about "can't." The parties just don't want to. A nuke goes off in NY and we'll suddenly find a way to control the border in about 18 seconds.

Sure, if by "control" you mean "Do things that cost money, and make people feel safe, but aren't actually effective."

Israel can't do it, and their border is much smaller.

You're talking absolute 100% no one gets through. i'm talking regaining control of the border like most other nations. It does have to be an either 'absolute hermetically sealed control' or 'absolutely open we don't give a gak' non existent border.

Frazzled wrote:
You're talking absolute 100% no one gets through. i'm talking regaining control of the border like most other nations. It does have to be an either 'absolute hermetically sealed control' or 'absolutely open we don't give a gak' non existent border.

It isn't absolutely open, there are ~21,000 Border Patrol Agents guarding the borders with Canada and Mexico. Most are on the Mexican border.

And most other nations don't have control of their borders. In Europe there essentially aren't any borders, and the remainder doesn't have the money to do it.

Europe is not an example to me.

Frazzled wrote:Europe is not an example to me.

So what country is?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Europe is not an example to me.

So what country is?

Oh Canada

@fraz

I'm not saying the border can't be made more secure, but I can't blame anyone with legitimate concerns about their family trying to smuggle them into this country.
It's a bit of an ironic twist when I hear people that I know use drugs complain about the influx of Mexicans when the drug users are accomplaces to the cartels in turning Mexico into a warzone that people are fleeing.

Relapse wrote:@fraz

I'm not saying the border can't be made more secure, but I can't blame anyone with legitimate concerns about their family trying to smuggle them into this country.

I agree on both points.

It's a bit of an ironic twist when I hear people that I know use drugs complain about the influx of Mexicans when the drug users are accomplaces to the cartels in turning Mexico into a warzone that people are fleeing.

Really, you get those people complaining? Thats indeed ironic.

I think it would be great fun to sentence convicted drug users to a Mexican field trip of a few months so they can experience what they are helping to create down there.
This is a pet peeve of mine, and the conversation about drugs cartels is probably best left to it's own thread so this one doesn't get derailed.

Relapse wrote:
It's a bit of an ironic twist when I hear people that I know use drugs complain about the influx of Mexicans when the drug users are accomplaces to the cartels in turning Mexico into a warzone that people are fleeing.

We're all accomplices to the cartels. We keep drugs illegal, and give them that source of income. Singling out drug users is unfair.

Because legalizing Marijuana will crumble the cartels..........


Granted Im for the legalization of Marijuana for many reasons, but the cartels get cash from drugs that should definitely be illegal. I mean, no one agrees that making heroin legal would be a good idea, or meth, or whatever else is out there

They've also expanded beyond drug running to general criminal activity. However, lagalization of many narcotics would slam their profitability and ability to take on the Mexican government.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's a bit of an ironic twist when I hear people that I know use drugs complain about the influx of Mexicans when the drug users are accomplaces to the cartels in turning Mexico into a warzone that people are fleeing.

We're all accomplices to the cartels. We keep drugs illegal, and give them that source of income. Singling out drug users is unfair.

Legalising weed is one thing, legalising crystal meth or crack is something else.

Orlanth wrote:
Legalising weed is one thing, legalising crystal meth or crack is something else.

Why?

Why not punish users for the delinquent behavior they engage in after the use, rather than the use?

And if you're going to ban crack, you have to ban cocaine, because this...



...is how you make crack.

Frazzled wrote:They've also expanded beyond drug running to general criminal activity. However, lagalization of many narcotics would slam their profitability and ability to take on the Mexican government.

I lived in a crack house for 6 months, not because I did drugs, but because it was the only place I could afford to live at the time. I saw a lot of stuff going on and got quite an education there.

Believe me, you don't want meth and crack legalized

I went to school with a person, that now works at Amnesty International, who smoked crack she found in a gas station bathroom. She makes more money than I do and works half as many hours.

I'm less worried about the crack than I am about the circumstances that make people give up their lives for it.

I'm happy for her that she survived a very stupid decision. It sounds like she was in a hurry to win a Darwin award by smoking an unknown substance found in the gakker.
I had a fair number of people living around me that were ex college students that got hooked on the stuff and wrecked their lives.

I suspect it was less the crack than the realization that having a degree doesn't get you a job automatically.

Relapse wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They've also expanded beyond drug running to general criminal activity. However, lagalization of many narcotics would slam their profitability and ability to take on the Mexican government.

I lived in a crack house for 6 months, not because I did drugs, but because it was the only place I could afford to live at the time. I saw a lot of stuff going on and got quite an education there.

Believe me, you don't want meth and crack legalized

People who are going to use crack and meth are going to use it whether it is legal or not. To assume that there will be a massive spike in their use just because these substances are no longer illegal is a fallacy.

What we need is good, honest education on the effects of drugs, not the scare tactics which are used in the press and some classrooms now (Here in the UK the newspapers would have you believe that if you use ecstacy you will die instantly), which gives people the information they need to make an informed decision on what they do to their bodies.

As it is you have young people being told that these substances will kill you and are illegal but these other ones like tobacco and alcohol which are just as harmful (and in some cases more harmful) are allowed. Why should a young person believe what you say about the dangers of these drugs when you're lying about the dangers of others, just because the government gets money out of it?

What happened to the topic?

dogma wrote:I went to school with a person, that now works at Amnesty International, who smoked crack she found in a gas station bathroom. She makes more money than I do and works half as many hours.

I'm less worried about the crack than I am about the circumstances that make people give up their lives for it.

I wouldnt try and make an argument using a person as an example, that smoked something she THOUGHT was crack in a bathroom somewhere. Not to mention that she smoked what she thought was crack in the first place. I dont think your really making any good arguments in this thread there Dogma, I think your just posting for the sake of reading what you post

KingCracker wrote:
I wouldnt try and make an argument using a person as an example, that smoked something she THOUGHT was crack in a bathroom somewhere. Not to mention that she smoked what she thought was crack in the first place. I dont think your really making any good arguments in this thread there Dogma, I think your just posting for the sake of reading what you post

The point is that smoking crack doesn't instantly ruin your life. Rather, if crack ruins your life there were probably deeper issues at work than the drug; even given its chemically addictive properties.

I think people have this image of drug users as impoverished social outcasts despite that, many times, they're actually quite well off.

dogma wrote:
The point is that smoking crack doesn't instantly ruin your life. Rather, if crack ruins your life there were probably deeper issues at work than the drug; even given its chemically addictive properties.

I think people have this image of drug users as impoverished social outcasts despite that, many times, they're actually quite well off.

Yeah I think people don't see where you are coming from but I agree entirely.

To put it more bluntly. gak loads of pleasant sensible hard working people without criminal records take drugs.

I don't, I love booze so much I don't need drugs.

Another thing I have noticed, but I think casual drug use is far more common in the UK than the US, my missus was stunned when I told her I had taken LSD, coke etc when I was a teenager, she has never even seen most of them? Again, I am at a loss as to explain why that is.. maybe cos she is middle class and I am from a rougher town.

But I have tried them all, when I was about 15-17 we took all sorts of gak.. As a result, I have no desire to take any more LSD or cocaine, but I know people that do. I know people that dont get arrested, dont do any crazy gak, and go to work all week, but on a Friday and Saturday night like to take gak.

If you work, pay your taxes, and don't go fething ape gak.. frankly I don't care what you take. I think Relapse is being a bit unfair on all the sensible users to brand them as scum bags simply because they might like to take drugs for recreational purposes when the weekend comes around.

At the end of the day, my drug of choice (booze!) is surely responsible for more violence, more death, and more general carnage than anything else. Obviously this is primarily down to the fact it is common as feth, but people who smoke gak or take pills like E or LSD don't seem to be very aggressive when I see them on nights out. The only people who seem to wreck things and start fights for no reason, are primarily drunks, and occasionally coke heads, but the rest of the drugs just dont seem to cause anywhere near that warped needless aggression that booze does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am not saying I agree with Dogmas "legalize everything" stance, but I definitely see his point, and I think a fair case could be made.

mattyrm wrote:
Another thing I have noticed, but I think casual drug use is far more common in the UK than the US, my missus was stunned when I told her I had taken LSD, coke etc when I was a teenager, she has never even seen most of them? Again, I am at a loss as to explain why that is.. maybe cos she is middle class and I am from a rougher town.

One possibility is the comparative social character of each region. Just speaking from personal experience, my super liberal undergraduate school featured more drug use than I've seen anywhere else. Going further, the stories about Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth (inspiration for Animal House) are iconic.

Of course, that's not really a good answer because its basically just another way of saying that American is puritanical.

mattyrm wrote:
I am not saying I agree with Dogmas "legalize everything" stance, but I definitely see his point, and I think a fair case could be made.

I should be clear that I'm not really arguing for total legalization so much as asking ourselves, on a political level, why we make these drugs illegal and what we gain by doing so.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

That article says it all for me.

dogma wrote:
I should be clear that I'm not really arguing for total legalization so much as asking ourselves, on a political level, why we make these drugs illegal and what we gain by doing so.

Indeed, I feel the same then.

The point is, there is certainly a debate there, and both sides could give a strong argument. I don't feel well informed enough to make a decision either way at the present time, but it definitely shouldn't be a case of "NO NEVER EVER NO" as it is now. I think there is a robust argument to be presented by both sides, considering places with extremely liberal drugs laws really do seem to function fine.

Its not like Amsterdam is in ruins because you can feth hookers and snort cocaine with relative impunity. In fact, I fething love the place, I took the missus a couple months back and we had a great time, I don't feel at all uncomfortable wandering around its streets, and I wouldn't say that about half the cities in the comparatively strict US/UK.

In fact, the US isnt even comparatively strict, its fething silly and it proper pisses me off!

We got thrown out of Walmart about 2 years ago because they would not accept my passport as ID, then they wouldn't accept my missus California driving licence because "We know that liquor is for him now!" I was 30 and she was 24.. so then I said "Ok dont you think its a wee bit silly? We are clearly old enough, and I will just leave and sit in the car, and then she can wait 5 minutes and buy it anyway right?" and then the woman kicked off and told us to leave or she would call security.

So we drove to Ralph's and my passport was fine.. feth knows. If its good enough for immigration its good enough for a crate of beer surely?!

And then once they said it wasn't ok because "your height isn't written on that passport" and I said "What, do you think I stole this passport off my identical twin, who has the same face, but is much older and also a midget?!" and they threw me out of there as well... and in San Diego last year they only accept a British passport in fething 75% of the places I tried to drink...

And one redneck doorman in Virginia said "That ain't a passport dude, that's totally fake.. passports are blue!" at which point I pointed out, you know.. British ones aren't.

Anyway I went off on a tangent there, but the point is, I have fething hundreds of ridiculous epic stories involving buying booze as an over 25 in the US...... I think you lot are fething mental on that one frankly.

I bet I could buy a fething Mac-10 pretty easy though!

dogma wrote:I went to school with a person, that now works at Amnesty International, who smoked crack she found in a gas station bathroom. She makes more money than I do and works half as many hours.

That is actually a fairly sordid view of success.

"I work half as hard for twice the pay."
"What do you do?"
"I'm a sponge manager in a charity."

Plenty of people like that. Oxfam in particular is full of them. I don't look at them as high flyers but pond scum.

I have met enough charity worker elite, there are two types, the pond scum and those truly worthy of respect, with very little ground between. The later consist of those who make a fortune outside the charity system then donate their time and (usually considerable) expertise within it.

How about the folks who did not get rich and have never been rich, and work a zillion hours a week out of love for the cause?

I've known a lot more of those than the other two types. They tend to be the backbone of most charitable organizations.

mattyrm wrote:
Its not like Amsterdam is in ruins because you can feth hookers and snort cocaine with relative impunity. In fact, I fething love the place, I took the missus a couple months back and we had a great time, I don't feel at all uncomfortable wandering around its streets, and I wouldn't say that about half the cities in the comparatively strict US/UK.

Amsterdam would lose tons of tourism if marijuana were legalized in, say, London or Paris.

mattyrm wrote:
We got thrown out of Walmart about 2 years ago because they would not accept my passport as ID, then they wouldn't accept my missus California driving licence because "We know that liquor is for him now!" I was 30 and she was 24.. so then I said "Ok dont you think its a wee bit silly? We are clearly old enough, and I will just leave and sit in the car, and then she can wait 5 minutes and buy it anyway right?" and then the woman kicked off and told us to leave or she would call security.

So we drove to Ralph's and my passport was fine.. feth knows. If its good enough for immigration its good enough for a crate of beer surely?!

There's a bar my friends and I used to frequent in college that refused passports because they wanted to keep out the international students. This concern was legitimate, though, because international passports aren't something lots of people really recognize in the US, simply because they just don't see them. The international students that were accustomed to drinking in Europe would pass off their passports even though they knew they were underage.

mattyrm wrote:
Anyway I went off on a tangent there, but the point is, I have fething hundreds of ridiculous epic stories involving buying booze as an over 25 in the US...... I think you lot are fething mental on that one frankly.

I bet I could buy a fething Mac-10 pretty easy though!

The joke is that its easier to buy pot under 21 than booze.

Orlanth wrote:
I have met enough charity worker elite, there are two types, the pond scum and those truly worthy of respect, with very little ground between. The later consist of those who make a fortune outside the charity system then donate their time and (usually considerable) expertise within it.

Are you assuming she has no expertise?

The "pond scum", as you say, generally got where they are explicitly because they were involved in the charity at lower levels and, when offered a better job, they took it.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
I have met enough charity worker elite, there are two types, the pond scum and those truly worthy of respect, with very little ground between. The later consist of those who make a fortune outside the charity system then donate their time and (usually considerable) expertise within it.

Are you assuming she has no expertise?

No, I am assuming that with that expertise get a job in the private sector, if they want to contribute time contribute. After all from your post you imply she doesn't have to put the hours in.

dogma wrote:
The "pond scum", as you say, generally got where they are explicitly because they were involved in the charity at lower levels and, when offered a better job, they took it.

That accounts for a raise, not double salary for half workload.
Like I said big charities attract these leeches. Send out ad campaigns calling for people to donate to saving children/dissidents/tigers etc and as often as not 95% of the monies goes on admin.

Orlanth wrote:
No, I am assuming that with that expertise get a job in the private sector, if they want to contribute time contribute. After all from your post you imply she doesn't have to put the hours in.

I think you underestimate how much she works, its something like 60 hours a week last we spoke. I work about 90, but its all from home so its hard to tell really.

Orlanth wrote:
That accounts for a raise, not double salary for half workload.

Never said "double."

Orlanth wrote:

dogma wrote:The "pond scum", as you say, generally got where they are explicitly because they were involved in the charity at lower levels and, when offered a better job, they took it.

That accounts for a raise, not double salary for half workload.

He said she makes more money and works fewer hours than HE does. Not that her pay was doubled and her workload halved.

Orlanth wrote:Like I said big charities attract these leeches. Send out ad campaigns calling for people to donate to saving children/dissidents/tigers etc and as often as not 95% of the monies goes on admin.

That's a rather disturbing and I daresay irresponsible statement. It's certainly worth checking out any charity you plan to make a significant donation to, to find out how much money actually goes to direct assistance, but 95% on admin is absurd and silly. Even that anti-Kony group with their Youtube videos, which was widely-panned for spending so much on their admin costs and video production, wasn't anywhere near 95%, as I recall.

There are resources out there, by the way, for checking out how charities spend their collected donations. Sites like charitynavigator.org, for example.

Mannahnin wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Like I said big charities attract these leeches. Send out ad campaigns calling for people to donate to saving children/dissidents/tigers etc and as often as not 95% of the monies goes on admin.

That's a rather disturbing and I daresay irresponsible statement. It's certainly worth checking out any charity you plan to make a significant donation to, to find out how much money actually goes to direct assistance, but 95% on admin is absurd and silly.

I wish this were so.

Telephone number salaries and overpaid management (the former hitting the press more clearly) are rife in some charities.

Amnesty is one of the charities known for this.
Sadly I have to resort to quoting Daily Mail on this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358537/Revealed-Amnesty-Internationals-800-000-pay-offs-bosses.html as the Sunday Times article (Feb 2011) cannot be reached without subscription.

Mannahnin wrote:
There are resources out there, by the way, for checking out how charities spend their collected donations. Sites like charitynavigator.org, for example.

Sadly it is easy to mask what a charity is doing, no harder than it is to mask the activities of a bank. Look at this little gem of a quote:

Oxfam
For every £1 given to Oxfam 80p is spent directly on our emergency, development and campaigning work; 11p is spent on support and governance; and 9p is invested to generate future income. Support and governance includes all the other costs associated with running the charity......

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/
http://www.smallcharitydirectory.co.uk/what-percentage-of-donations-go-to-charity

Oxfam appears 80% efficient, if only. How much of the 'emergency, development and campaigning work' actually reaches anyone not an Oxfam employee/grandee, sadly not a lot. In Oxfams case to claim 5% reached the third world recipients would actually be optimistic.

Charity Navigator shows Oxfam America at $78mm in revenue, $59mm spent on programs (78.9%), $5mm spent on admin, $10.6mm spent on fundraising.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4288

Right now you're citing the Daily Mail and slating charities in general very broadly and very badly.

Mannahnin wrote:

Right now you're citing the Daily Mail......

Citing Daily Mail only out of need, as stated the Sunday Times covered the same topic on 20 Feb 2011, but a link is not avialable due to Sundays Times policies. Anyway it indicates the point that Amnesty international is one of the charities that has excessive salaries and payoffs.

Mannahnin wrote:
and slating charities in general very broadly and very badly.

The bad generalisation is to look at the figures from the website you provided and assume that just because the persons leading these organisations handle massive amounts of money and are generally very well paid it means that they are completely above board and scrupulous. Of course spin on monetary percentage statistics is unthinkable, and anyone who thinks otherwise must be a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist
You can cut formal Administrative Expenses to 6.8% by the simple expedient of only counting salaries and expenses of those workers who are purely admin office based a part of the percentage. So say a senior exec paid a lot of money can go to Africa on a jolly, suddenly his salary is part of 'programs', as part of his work technically involves going abroad.

Figures like these are all too easy to massage as to be quite frankly pointless. A better way to sniff out the charity scene is though the charity scene, generally the 'inefficient' charities end up with a fairly consistent rep

Orlanth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Right now you're citing the Daily Mail......

Citing Daily Mail only out of need, as stated the Sunday Times covered the same topic on 20 Feb 2011, but a link is not avialable due to Sundays Times policies. Anyway it indicates the point that Amnesty international is one of the charities that has excessive salaries and payoffs.

Right now the evidence you're offering is one of dubious credibility, backing an assertion on your part that 95% of money collected being spent on admin is not uncommon. You don't think these claims put the burden of proof on you?

Orlanth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:...and slating charities in general very broadly and very badly.

The bad generalisation is to look at the figures from the website you provided and assume that just because the persons leading these organisations handle massive amounts of money and are generally very well paid it means that they are completely above board and scrupulous.

That's a false and dishonest argument and rather insulting. I'm certainly not doing that. I'm basing the idea that they're generally above board on the ideas that they have to make public disclosures of figures for tax purposes, and independent organizations are looking at their numbers and rating them.

Orlanth wrote:
Sadly I have to resort to quoting Daily Mail on this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358537/Revealed-Amnesty-Internationals-800-000-pay-offs-bosses.html as the Sunday Times article (Feb 2011) cannot be reached without subscription.

So you're claiming that the head of a major international charity (read: corporation) and her deputy, making less than 1 million GBP combined on retirement, are being overpaid?

Orlanth wrote:A better way to sniff out the charity scene is though the charity scene, generally the 'inefficient' charities end up with a fairly consistent rep

Is to rely on your "gut" and what people tell you, which is to say "nebulous bs." Hell, you just told us all that the numbers are easy to massage, and they are, but why should we trust the employees of these groups that can easily massage numbers? What makes them different?

You're not providing evidence, you're arguing "This is what I believe, because this what I believe."

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Sadly I have to resort to quoting Daily Mail on this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358537/Revealed-Amnesty-Internationals-800-000-pay-offs-bosses.html as the Sunday Times article (Feb 2011) cannot be reached without subscription.

So you're claiming that the head of a major international charity (read: corporation) and her deputy, making less than 1 million GBP combined on retirement, are being overpaid?

Yes. You want that money, get it in the private business sector.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:A better way to sniff out the charity scene is though the charity scene, generally the 'inefficient' charities end up with a fairly consistent rep

Is to rely on your "gut" and what people tell you, which is to say "nebulous bs."

Actually its to rely on networking with those who do the legwork. There is a cross culture between the journalist, charity worker and missionary community and to a large extent they look out for each other when working in the developing world. Some names keep on cropping up.

After all how do journalists research stuff, they go out and talk to people. This is no different.

Orlanth wrote:
Yes. You want that money, get it in the private business sector.

Charities are private businesses, for the most part. Public charities are not government bodies and are fully, or primarily, funded by private contributors.

Orlanth wrote:
Actually its to rely on networking with those who do the legwork. There is a cross culture between the journalist, charity worker and missionary community and to a large extent they look out for each other when working in the developing world. Some names keep on cropping up.

After all how do journalists research stuff, they go out and talk to people. This is no different.

Terrible journalists rely on human sources. If your research is either entirely qualitative or entirely quantitative, your research is awful.

People lie just as easily with words as they do with numbers. They do produce both after all.

dogma wrote:Charities are private businesses, for the most part. Public charities are not government bodies and are fully, or primarily, funded by private contributors.

Charities differ from private businesses on several key issues. Most nations have strict guidelines to discern charities from companies, they collectively and individually define the differences.

dogma wrote:
Terrible journalists rely on human sources. If your research is either entirely qualitative or entirely quantitative, your research is awful.

People lie just as easily with words as they do with numbers. They do produce both after all.

For your 'logic' to make sense all human data is irrelevant. The wiser way forward is to look for something called multiple sourcing, one source hearsay, two a pattern, several is pretty strong evidence. It covers most errors except a collective lie.



Anyway, ending this one, its way off topic. Have a 'free' reply if you wish.

Using multiple sources of data is indeed the best and most responsible approach. Measurable numeric data is one of the best, though of course can be manipulated. This is why good researchers review the available data carefully. Whether they're reporters or working for another nonprofit evaluating and rating charities.

Large charities do tend to pay their chief admins respectable amounts of money, but normally a lot less than comparably sized for-profit companies. Raymond Offenheiser, the President of Oxfam America, gets paid $327,192.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4288

Anyone got some numbers on how much the chief exec of a private company pulling in $78.5mm per year in revenue tends to get paid?

Orlanth wrote:
Charities differ from private businesses on several key issues. Most nations have strict guidelines to discern charities from companies, they collectively and individually define the differences.

No, they discern NPOs (you can have a for-profit charity) from FPOs. Both are private bodies, the difference is in the accounting.

Orlanth wrote:
For your 'logic' to make sense all human data is irrelevant. The wiser way forward is to look for something called multiple sourcing, one source hearsay, two a pattern, several is pretty strong evidence. It covers most errors except a collective lie.

You do realize that "multiple sourcing" eventually leads to "statistics", yes?

And no, for "my 'logic' to make sense" all human data does not become irrelevant, that isn't what I said. Do you not know what the word "rely" means?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:
Anyone got some numbers on how much the chief exec of a private company pulling in $78.5mm per year in revenue tends to get paid?

The average (of all CEOs) in Montana, the lowest in the US, is a little over 100k USD.

The average of all CEOs in the US administering groups over 5000 is is over 800,000 USD. AI employs way more than 5000 people.

Amaya wrote:What happened to the topic?

I think it's lost to time and space at this point

Mannahnin wrote:
Right now the evidence you're offering is one of dubious credibility

I know that you don't like to read facts if they don't say what you want them to say, but why is the story of dubious credibility?

Not that I agree with Orlanth particularly, or even read the Daily Mail, but the fact is, the Mail selects stories that promotes its agenda and then publishes them in a somewhat amusing and hysterical manner, but it doesn't fully make gak up. There is no reason to believe that the Bangladeshi bird who runs amnesty DIDN'T get £500,000 just because it was in the Daily Mail.

In fact, the last tabloid over here that I can think of that had to run an apology was The Guardian (ironically to the fething Sun of all the worthless rags!) and I am sure you and your pal KK would hold that paper up as a bastion of journalistic integrity.

Mannahnin is also persistently ignoring that thre article was backed up by double sourcing through the Sunday Times covering the same story.

I wouldn't have used Daily Mail as an unsupported source, but I see no reason not to if their article is also covered elsewhere.

My reason for not posting a link to the Sunday Times was a valid one, you need to subscribe to read it. You can still see links to the story by googling the info from the Daily Mail alongside Sunday Times and the date.

Writing it off as baseless 'Daily Fail' or some such is just clutching at straws.

mattyrm wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Right now the evidence you're offering is one of dubious credibility

I know that you don't like to read facts if they don't say what you want them to say,

Matty, after an insult like that why should I respond to anything you write? Try to be sober when you enter a debate.

mattyrm wrote:...but why is the story of dubious credibility?

Orlanth is making an extreme, some might say absurd claim, that large charities routinely ("not uncommon" was his phrase) spend 95% of their collected donations on administrative costs including salaries, leaving 5% for actual provision of services.

This statement is so out there that it calls for a fairly high standard of proof/support. Not a single story in the Daily Mail. He has claimed that another story which I can't get access to supports this claim, but A) I can't verify that, and B) Given the absurdity of the argument he's advancing in the first place, I am less inclined than usual to take his word for it.

mattyrm wrote:... There is no reason to believe that the Bangladeshi bird who runs amnesty DIDN'T get £500,000 just because it was in the Daily Mail.

I'm not contesting the exact rate of pay of their chief adminstrator. I'm expressing incredulity at the larger and broader claims that Orlanth has made.

Mannahnin wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Right now the evidence you're offering is one of dubious credibility

I know that you don't like to read facts if they don't say what you want them to say,

Matty, after an insult like that why should I respond to anything you write? Try to be sober when you enter a debate.

You should respond because my retorts are always witty and filled with thunderous revelry!

It was hardly an insult...

And I'm sober, its Sunday afternoon feths sake!

Regards my point, I really think we know Orlanth well enough by now to know he doesn't fully make gak up either. I disagree with him all the time, but he doesn't tell lies. If he said its in the Telegraph then I am more than happy to take his word for it.

As I said I don't even really agree with him, I probably agree with you! I doubt most charities routinely fleece people and pay their staff staggering amounts. I'm just playing Devils advocate because I think its a bit harsh essentially accusing him of making gak up!

I also have a hilarious anecdote involving myself, a small child, and a pushy amnesty international door to door salesman. Its not suited for the thread, but suffice to say it ended with me saying "YES, LETS TORTURE PEOPLE, ILL START!" at him. The full yarn involves booze, crowds and fisticuffs, and would split even the solidly fused sides of the usually sombre Rogal Dorn...

But it probably goes down better amongst soldiers than well meaning liberal types so ill shut up now.

Stereotypes hurt everyone, Matty. I would probably laugh harder at that anecdote than most soldiers. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I'm on my third glass of Rakia (it's my father in law's birthday and we called them up over Skype and had a few drinks already, as it's seven hours later there),



I normally find Orlanth to be a respectable fellow and make respectable arguments as well, but this time he really seems to be taking the piss.

Mannahnin wrote:Stereotypes hurt everyone, Matty. I would probably laugh harder at that anecdote than most soldiers. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I'm on my third glass of Rakia (it's my father in law's birthday and we called them up over Skype and had a few drinks already, as it's seven hours later there),



I normally find Orlanth to be a respectable fellow and make respectable arguments as well, but this time he really seems to be taking the piss.

Fairy nuff broseph, Ill wind my neck in.

My mate got me a bottle of Rakia from Kosovo, I thought it tasted like Vimto with booze in.

I'd ask you to shake, but neither of us knows where the others' hand's been.

I don't know Vimto; I'll have to give it a try sometime. Bulgarian Rakia is basically a strong (usually homemade) Grappa, though it can be made from other fruit than grapes. My father in law also makes it using his homegrown cherries, or tangerines. We should be receiving a batch made from strawberries shortly. It drinks more like a whiskey, with a litle bit of a "twist" of vegetable flavor. Kind of like whiskey with a dash of tequila.

Mannahnin wrote:How about the folks who did not get rich and have never been rich, and work a zillion hours a week out of love for the cause?

I've known a lot more of those than the other two types. They tend to be the backbone of most charitable organizations.

yep