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.

I think Santorum was probably about to say 'niggard', but then thought better of it...

This is just saying to me that Obama has about a 101% chance of getting another 4 years?

Right...?

olympia wrote:

Classic!

The sherrif is a niggard. He is niggardly.

'Niggles'?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22

malfred wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:To the first part:

It's not about Statistics; Figures don't lie, but liers figure. I'm not saying that poor people, black or white, do not need help. But to give a man a scholarship just because of his skin color, certain degree or no, is racism plain and simple. There is simply no denying this. And as we all know, Racism is wrong. Ergo, having a scholarship for race is wrong.

I am not for the creation of a White Scholarship, btw, as that's just segregating people; white people can only get cash from this ATM, minorities from this one. You didn't accuse, but I figured I would clear that up. Give the poor the help they need. If that means all twenty of the people you help are black, then help the black people. If all twenty are white, help the white people. But don't you dare exlude one of the poorest people there simply because he's a certain skin color.

Race based scholarships are more about economic opportunity than
anything else. More Blacks and Hispanics (by percentage) live in what's
classified by the word poverty than whites. Scholarships are not
supposed to be an advantage over whites in general, but help to
a group that starts out poorer. Just because you help one group doesn't
mean that you're hurting the other. It's not a zero-sum game.It's
recognition that a specific group of people, as a whole, has had to
work harder to get where they are today. Should white poverty ever
become majority percentage, I'd argue the same in the other direction.

Why not just base this on economics? Because the major internal
conflicts in our country that happened was not a working class rebellion
(though there have been a few here and there) but a race based one.

When I was going through my teaching program, there was a phrase that our instructors kept drilling into our heads: "fair doesn't always mean equal." Now, in this case it was discussing kids with learning disabilities, not members of differing races. Scholarships for members of races that typically do not have better or even equal housing, income or opportunities is not equal if other races (white) do not receive the same scholarships, but it is fair in that it levels the two groups out. Fair=/=equal, yet it tends to close the gap.

However, in the spirit of playing both sides of the argument, I understand how some people are offended that other people get rights, and they can't. As such, I leave you with a slightly altered quote from an awesome duo:
Randal Graves: Well,I still don't think P-Monkey should be considered a racial term. I mean, I've always used it to describe lazy people, not lazy black people! I think if we really tried, we could re-claim it, and save it.
Dante Hicks: It can't be saved, Randal! The sole purpose for its creation, the only reason it exists in the first place, is to disparage an entire race! And even if it could be saved, you can't save it because you're not black!
Randal Graves: Well listen to you! Telling me I can't do something because of the color of my skin! You're the racist!"

Why am I thinking of this movie now xD

Nigudufneya Nigudufneya Nigudufneya Nigudufneya Nigudufneya Nigudufneya

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Why am I thinking of this movie now xD

Because Santorum is strikingly similar to that character...

timetowaste85 wrote:

malfred wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:To the first part:

It's not about Statistics; Figures don't lie, but liers figure. I'm not saying that poor people, black or white, do not need help. But to give a man a scholarship just because of his skin color, certain degree or no, is racism plain and simple. There is simply no denying this. And as we all know, Racism is wrong. Ergo, having a scholarship for race is wrong.

I am not for the creation of a White Scholarship, btw, as that's just segregating people; white people can only get cash from this ATM, minorities from this one. You didn't accuse, but I figured I would clear that up. Give the poor the help they need. If that means all twenty of the people you help are black, then help the black people. If all twenty are white, help the white people. But don't you dare exlude one of the poorest people there simply because he's a certain skin color.

Race based scholarships are more about economic opportunity than
anything else. More Blacks and Hispanics (by percentage) live in what's
classified by the word poverty than whites. Scholarships are not
supposed to be an advantage over whites in general, but help to
a group that starts out poorer. Just because you help one group doesn't
mean that you're hurting the other. It's not a zero-sum game.It's
recognition that a specific group of people, as a whole, has had to
work harder to get where they are today. Should white poverty ever
become majority percentage, I'd argue the same in the other direction.

Why not just base this on economics? Because the major internal
conflicts in our country that happened was not a working class rebellion
(though there have been a few here and there) but a race based one.

When I was going through my teaching program, there was a phrase that our instructors kept drilling into our heads: "fair doesn't always mean equal." Now, in this case it was discussing kids with learning disabilities, not members of differing races. Scholarships for members of races that typically do not have better or even equal housing, income or opportunities is not equal if other races (white) do not receive the same scholarships, but it is fair in that it levels the two groups out. Fair=/=equal, yet it tends to close the gap.

However, in the spirit of playing both sides of the argument, I understand how some people are offended that other people get rights, and they can't. As such, I leave you with a slightly altered quote from an awesome duo:
Randal Graves: Well,I still don't think P-Monkey should be considered a racial term. I mean, I've always used it to describe lazy people, not lazy black people! I think if we really tried, we could re-claim it, and save it.
Dante Hicks: It can't be saved, Randal! The sole purpose for its creation, the only reason it exists in the first place, is to disparage an entire race! And even if it could be saved, you can't save it because you're not black!
Randal Graves: Well listen to you! Telling me I can't do something because of the color of my skin! You're the racist!"

Clerks 2 was youtubed earlier in the thread. Nice, though

malfred wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:

malfred wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:To the first part:

It's not about Statistics; Figures don't lie, but liers figure. I'm not saying that poor people, black or white, do not need help. But to give a man a scholarship just because of his skin color, certain degree or no, is racism plain and simple. There is simply no denying this. And as we all know, Racism is wrong. Ergo, having a scholarship for race is wrong.

I am not for the creation of a White Scholarship, btw, as that's just segregating people; white people can only get cash from this ATM, minorities from this one. You didn't accuse, but I figured I would clear that up. Give the poor the help they need. If that means all twenty of the people you help are black, then help the black people. If all twenty are white, help the white people. But don't you dare exlude one of the poorest people there simply because he's a certain skin color.

Race based scholarships are more about economic opportunity than
anything else. More Blacks and Hispanics (by percentage) live in what's
classified by the word poverty than whites. Scholarships are not
supposed to be an advantage over whites in general, but help to
a group that starts out poorer. Just because you help one group doesn't
mean that you're hurting the other. It's not a zero-sum game.It's
recognition that a specific group of people, as a whole, has had to
work harder to get where they are today. Should white poverty ever
become majority percentage, I'd argue the same in the other direction.

Why not just base this on economics? Because the major internal
conflicts in our country that happened was not a working class rebellion
(though there have been a few here and there) but a race based one.

When I was going through my teaching program, there was a phrase that our instructors kept drilling into our heads: "fair doesn't always mean equal." Now, in this case it was discussing kids with learning disabilities, not members of differing races. Scholarships for members of races that typically do not have better or even equal housing, income or opportunities is not equal if other races (white) do not receive the same scholarships, but it is fair in that it levels the two groups out. Fair=/=equal, yet it tends to close the gap.

However, in the spirit of playing both sides of the argument, I understand how some people are offended that other people get rights, and they can't. As such, I leave you with a slightly altered quote from an awesome duo:
Randal Graves: Well,I still don't think P-Monkey should be considered a racial term. I mean, I've always used it to describe lazy people, not lazy black people! I think if we really tried, we could re-claim it, and save it.
Dante Hicks: It can't be saved, Randal! The sole purpose for its creation, the only reason it exists in the first place, is to disparage an entire race! And even if it could be saved, you can't save it because you're not black!
Randal Graves: Well listen to you! Telling me I can't do something because of the color of my skin! You're the racist!"

Clerks 2 was youtubed earlier in the thread. Nice, though

It was? Bummer. I was browsing on my phone for most of the thread and the youtube video must not have popped up when I went through before-I read through the entire thing too. Sadface, I thought I was being original here...Thanks a lot Malfy

You know what? I can't find it.

Maybe it was posted on the OT zone and just happened to be
when I was reading this thread.

Please don't post videos using the N word. For the purposes of discussion on this site, it doesn't matter how the word is being used or by whom. Thanks ~Manchu

Well, looks like it did hurt his campaign after all, since Santorum just suspended it.
Good Riddance.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/04/11/rick_santorum_suspends_presidential_campaign/

I very seriously doubt this contributed much, if at all, to him suspending his campaign.

Amaya wrote:Don't presume to know anything about American racial issues.

My thought was that on your previous post was you were being sarcastic/ironic but that comment makes me think you were serious. Is he incapable of being informed on American political issues? You didn't ask if he had lived in America and saw it first hand, you didn't ask him if he had studied the topic (which is very reasonable as I myself studied America as part of modern history, which means everything from the french revolution to current day, and by that I mean 1998 ). You dismissed him purely because of geographic location, that the rest of the world can't be aware of racial issues like America? See both the irony and that that could be taken in multiple ways as a comment on America?

Furthermore as was pointed out, Korea was technically a police action though I would agree with you it is a war imo, but technically he was correct to leave it out. No definition of war I have seen ever has an arbitrary amount of casualties as a prerequisite by the way.

On the main topic, did anyone consider a) As deft a politician as he may or may not be, as intelligent or as ignorant as he may or may not be, it was simply a slip of the tongue. I actually have a tendancy to blurt out what I was thinking quite often. Does it make me stupid? Well at the risk of being extremely egotistical, if I am then that does note bode well for the majority of the world according to many sources.

There is also the possibility that he could have went to use the term absent mindedly. It is possible to use racist slurs without actually being racists. Not saying it is enlightented or classy or isn't igorant, just that one can use an ostensibly racist comment without being racially motivated.

I will give that he may not have said it but in that context, and that no acceptable alternative has been offered from the pronunciation of the HALF that he DID say, I think it likely it was what he was going to say. If it was an acceptable alternative why did he stumble and backpeddal from that first sylable?

While homophobia and racism certainly are not the same thing, the fact is the hate and narcicism that spawns one is easily capable of spawning the other.

LoneLictor wrote:1) This is an extremely ignorant view point. Black people are disadvantaged from the start. Statistically they grow up in poorer houses and get worse education. This makes it very hard to get into college, even though they are just as smart as white people. So, the scholarships were made to fight this. Even with the scholarships, colleges are still vastly dominated by rich white kids.

So what of a poor white kid who grew up with no money and a poor education? It doesn't matter if Black and Hispanic kids in general grow up poorer (which I don't disagree with). Those kids would be eligble for the scholarship not because that individual kid grew up poorer, but because of the stereotype (true or not), that his ethnic group grew up poorer. It doesn't even matter if there are other prerequisites like the scholar herself has to be disadvantaged because no matter how disadvantaged any one white kid is they would not be elligble purely because of colour.
I am not excusing that there may be scholarships that discriminate against Black people, but fighting fire with fire sometimes is just stupid. I prefer to fight it with water .

2) White people can be discriminated against. But it is extremely rare. And, statistically, black people get it way worse. They have a harder time getting hired, if they do get hired they get paid less and of course the justice system is drastically biased against them.

Affirmative action is simply overcompensating double standards, it is in some ways as contemptible as Nazi Germany. Affirmative action also encourages discontent because it is is simply state authorized discrimination. Pretty sure America is the same but you can not pay a black person less here, it is law (though yes some racists will find ways around it). That is the issue, affirmative action forbids that, if you are a minority so discrimination against the majority, purely because of affirmative action is at least as systemic as regular discrimination.
As an example many government organizations (and some private industries I believe) have a quota on women or minorities they must hire. To hire someone based on those virtues is to not hire for example a white man for those reasons, suitability/experience etc is completely irrelevant in those quotas.
If there is a systemic cultural bias against minorities still existant today then it is no more than the systemic legislative garbage that affirmative action is and as such it is nothing to be lauded

3) Okay, that's a ridiculous example that the US isn't even close to. In fact, that's so insane that it isn't even relevant to the conversation at all. Giving black people scholarships will not create Nazi Germany, no matter how you put it. Besides, I can come up with my own insane example; Hitler didn't care about giving black people scholarships and neither do you, so that means your policies will create Nazi Germany. See, it doesn't make sense. No sense at all. Completely insane. Completely bonkers.

I do agree with you there but I am not sure if he was being serious.

6) No, you can't. This is difficult to explain, but I'll try. You know how you're allowed to insult yourself ("I'm so stupid sometimes, heh") but not others ("He's so stupid sometimes, heh"). Its kind of like that. You can make fun of your own race or gender, but not any else. Women will get fired for saying, "Men were designed by God to serve as sex slaves for us women, the superior gender" and men will get fired for saying, "Women were designed by God to serve as sex slaves for us men, the superior gender". Does that make sense?

Again I agree, in fact I was going to reply to a comment by someone else earlier though my example is you can say gak about your family or friends that would not be cool to say about others, though I don't want anyone to take any other connotations from that statement as it is only not meant to be comparing family and freinds with race, only the concept of otherwise reasonable double standards.
To sum up I think affirmative action is abominable, it is no different to regular discrimination. However I would take it over the rampant, systemtic blatant ignorance of previous eras. It is a step in the right direction. A step too far but it is part of the transition into genuine systemic equality.

dogma wrote:It is about statistics, because racism, as it is used in modern parlance, denotes the application of inherent inferiority or superiority of one race with respect to other races, and the resulting negative consequences. Minority scholarships don't do that, and aren't a negative consequence. Their existence does not disadvantage you for being white.

Racism and discrimination isn't only about negative consequences. It is judgement, postive or negative based on race/ethnicity. That is my whole problem with affirmative action. Positive discrimination in my books needs no delineation between 'regular' disrcimination.

Your point about it application of inherent superiority or inferiority of one race over another actually supports the idea that the scholarships are racist because it is an application of the idea that Black people have an inferior education/economic status and White people have a superior one.

While you might have a point about the statistics, racists also like to quote the statistics of Black and Hispanics having a much higher criminal offence percentage. Does that mean that that criteria should be used to judge all Blacks and Hispanics? Of course not, so why should the same be assumed for their economic status?

malfred wrote:There are white cliques in America, but they tend to be ethnic in nature. So
there are Polish communities, clubs and social groups. There are Russian
communities, clubs, and social groups. There are Irish groups that are
the same.

Another example would be (genuinly) rich white kids, the so called 'upper' class with million dollar trust funds and the like. There are as you point out, plenty of White cliques.

timetowaste85 wrote:When I was going through my teaching program, there was a phrase that our instructors kept drilling into our heads: "fair doesn't always mean equal." Now, in this case it was discussing kids with learning disabilities, not members of differing races. Scholarships for members of races that typically do not have better or even equal housing, income or opportunities is not equal if other races (white) do not receive the same scholarships, but it is fair in that it levels the two groups out. Fair=/=equal, yet it tends to close the gap.

I like that saying. However in the case of people with learning disabilities, it is applied to each and every person who inherently have that disadvantage (less they wouldn't be classified as such). Please note I am not excusing discrimination against said people, only that the relevant conditions are present. Racism on the other hands assumes conditions based on unrelated factors like colour. A Black kid could very well grow up disadvantaged and Black kids in general may well do the same but to apply almost any conditions based on race and not the individual is discrimination, it is judgement based on the colour of someones skin. Any judgement.

As a side there will always be some tribal hate that belongs in the stone age by certain individuals. Racism is unlikely to ever be completely eliminated but we can get to a point where it is basically a non issue.

As another side, I have seen people excuse the elderly time and again for outdated ignorance but to me that is no excuse. I don't care what you grew up with if you are presented with enough reasoned evidence to reasess your childhood beliefs than you should adapt imo.

As a final side I have taunted (in a joking way) a Black friend with the N word, and he called me White Trash (wondering if that will be censored..) in return. Neither of us took offence but I would never call someone I don't know that word.