Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LunaHound wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:heres a thought for everyone.

im racist against racist people

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

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

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

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

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

Polonius wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

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

Why is racism so funny sometimes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, absolutely, skin colour in itself means nothing.

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

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

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

By their parent-appointed names?

Not by social or other categorised terms?

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

sebster wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i think the gene pool could use a good cleaning.

mattyrm wrote:

sebster wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AvatarForm wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or Asian. You kind of missed a continent.

Or Indian. Now I missed a subcontinent!

Or Arabic, crap I missed a region too.

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

Essex.

Kilkrazy wrote:Essex.

OKlahoma

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

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

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

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

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

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

halonachos wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am.

Mr Mystery wrote:For instance, call me a Jock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahtman wrote:

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

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

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

I am.

Mr Mystery wrote:For instance, call me a Jock

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

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

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

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

KingCracker wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:heres a thought for everyone.

im racist against racist people

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

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

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

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

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

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

apparently we were wrong! :O

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

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

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