Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Racial profiling - right or wrong ?
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Dec 20 11:57:57 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Racial profiling
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Charges of racial, religious and ethnic profiling swirl in the wake of US Airways' removal of six imams. According to police reports, the men made anti-American statements, were praying and chanting "Allah," refused the pilot's requests to disembark for additional screening and asked for seat-belt extensions for no obvious reason. Three of the men had no checked baggage and only one-way tickets.

According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), five of the men have retained lawyers and are probably going to bring a discrimination lawsuit against US Airways.

Racial profiling controversy is nothing new. For a number of years, black Americans have made charges of racial profiling by police and store personnel who might give them extra scrutiny. Clever phrases have emerged, such as "driving while black" and now "flying while Muslim," but they don't help much in terms of understanding. Let's apply some economic analysis to the issue.

God, or some other omniscient being, would never racially profile. Why? Since He is all-knowing, He'd know who is and is not a terrorist or a criminal. We humans are not all-knowing. While a god would have perfect and complete information about everything, we humans have less than perfect and incomplete information. That means we must use substitutes such as guesses and hunches for certain kinds of information. It turns out that some physical attributes are highly correlated with other attributes that are less easily, or more costly, observed.

Let's look at a few, and the associated "profiling," that cause little or no controversy. Mortality rates for cardiovascular diseases were approximately 30 percent higher among black adults than among white adults. The Pima Indians of Arizona have the world's highest known diabetes rates. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as white men. Would anyone bring racial profiling charges against a doctor who routinely ordered more frequent blood tests and prostate screening among his black patients and more glucose tolerance tests for his Pima Indian patients? Of course, God wouldn't have to do that because He'd know for sure which patient was more prone to cardiovascular disease, prostate cancer and diabetes.

It is clear, whether we like it or not, or want to say it or not, that there is a strong correlation between terrorist acts and being a Muslim, and being black and high rates of crime. That means if one is trying to deter terrorism and in some cases capture a criminal, he would expend greater investigatory resources on Muslims and blacks. A law-abiding Muslim who's given extra airport screening or a black who's stopped by the police is perfectly justified in being angry, but with whom should he be angry? I think a Muslim should be angry with those who've made terrorism and Muslim synonymous and blacks angry with those who've made blacks and crime synonymous. The latter is my response to the insulting sounds of car doors locking sometimes when I'm crossing a street in downtown Washington, D.C., or when taxi drivers pass me by.

It would be a serious misallocation of resources if airport security intensively screened everyone. After all, intensively screening someone who had a near zero probability of being a terrorist, such as an 80-year-old woman using a walker, would not only be a waste but it would take resources away from screening a person with a much higher probability of being a terrorist.

You say, "Williams, are you justifying religious and racial profiling?" No. I'm not justifying anything any more than I'd try to justify Einstein's special law of relativity. I'm trying to explain a phenomenon. By the way, I think some of the airport screening is grossly stupid, but I'm at peace with the Transportation Security Administration. They have their rules, and I have mine. One of mine is to minimize my association with idiocy. Thus, I no longer fly commercial.




Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.



 
FN Posted: Wed Dec 20 15:46:20 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I am all for racial profiling, but the way the guy in this article presents it is of such a "niveau" (can't think of the english term at the moment) that is all too often used by people who want to come across like more amiable than they are, which makes the whole subject that they are defending, wether it is right or wrong and originates from just motivation and reasoning or not, highly suspicious and doubtful along with their persona.


Long story short: I agree with the matter he is defending, I strongly, very strongly, dislike the way he goes about it.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Dec 21 02:08:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  As a minority, gotta say that while I understand WHY people believe racial profiling is "right" or even "good," I'm not sure I whole-heatedly agree.

This sentence particularly made me uncomfortable:

>It is clear, whether we like it or not, or want to say it or not, that there is a strong correlation between terrorist acts and being a Muslim, and being black and high rates of crime.

Ok...

1. Are we totally neglecting all of the terrorism being committed in Africa and South America? Call me crazy... but I don't think the believe in Islam is the cause of many of those attacks [I like how he doesn't even differentiate between Sunni and Shi'ite]. And by terrorism, I'm not limiting it to car bombs or other similar items that CNN and Fox like to wave around in our faces. I'm also considering economic terrorism on top of government-condoned [or at least, not government stalled...] terrorism. Muslims are not responsible for terrorism, period. Fundamentalist Muslims were responsible for a historic, widely-televised terrorist attack on America. I mean, who IS this writer to just generalize a whole group of people like that? How many Muslims does he know?

I mean... the more I think about it, the more disgusted I get. It's a similar attitude that allowed slavery to happen, that allowed segregation to continue for so long, and that continues to ignore the institutionalized racism of today.

WHAT STRONG CORRELATION IS THERE BETWEEN TERRORIST ACTS AND MUSLIMS?! HMMM?!?!

The only way I can think of is the way the media's portrayed practically ALL Muslims as evil, American-hating fundamentalists OR indecisive, incompetent military leaders OR corrupt leaders ready to sell America to Hell. I mean... WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE MEDIA?!

Whenever I start thinking about it, I get SO SICK! And all riled up!

2. The next point I raise is being Black and high crime rates...

Ok, an interesting statistic:

11% of America is Black... yet 60% of our jails are Black... Does that make sense to ANYONE because it sure doesn't make sense to me. Are you telling me that [and this is an approximation] the 70% of America that's White, which only makes up approximately 10% or so percent of people in jail] IS NEARLY FAULTLESS?!

WHAT IS THAT?!

I believe it's called RACIAL PROFILING. We're fed all of these lies and stereotypes by the media that we don't even think TWICE about ANYTHING. We accept it as truth.

And don't even get me STARTED on how institutionalized racism works into all of this. I've argued SO many times with people about this, the same people who say, "Whatever, I'm not racist.... FAG." or "Go back to studying" or "Mess with me and hang from a tree!"

WHAT THE.... If I cursed, a big fat flying... word would be RIGHT THERE.

3. Next point... can I just bring up how America is a ridiculous consumer of natural resources? And how many of our companies destroy people's lives and yet we continue to buy from them because we value our dollar more than our morals and goodwill and fellow man? Can I also point out how MOST of humanity has a tendency to rape whatever is in its path and call on us to remember this the next time we're completely self-serving?





I'll admit, I'm not perfect. I'm prejudiced against races, and I do like cheap clothes. But I'm trying to change that, and I'm acknowledging my faults.

The writer of that article should start doing the same rather than acting like his opinions of races are pure fact and completely uninfluenced by surrounding media...

If ignorance is bliss, and knowledge is pain, I'd rather hurt for the rest of my life.


 
FN Posted: Thu Dec 21 06:47:25 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>1. Are we totally neglecting all of the terrorism being committed in Africa and South America?

Most terrorists in arica are muslims as well. Janjaweed anyone?

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

>It's a similar attitude that allowed slavery to happen, that allowed segregation to continue for so long, and that continues to ignore the institutionalized racism of today.

Not everything is comparable to slavery, and everything doesn't sprout from that when it comes to the perception of non-whites.

Racism is not institutionalized, people who say that should look up what "institutionalized" means.

Does racism exist? Ofcourse it does, but it goes both ways, and in the end, statisticly, in this day and age who's stirring shit up the most?

>WHAT STRONG CORRELATION IS THERE BETWEEN TERRORIST ACTS AND MUSLIMS?! HMMM?!?!

Probably the fact that today, again, most terrorists are muslims. This does not equate to every muslim is a terrorist, and nobody says that either, but that's what people who feel offended by it make of it. That they do on their own account as far as I'm concerned.

>The only way I can think of is the way the media's portrayed practically ALL Muslims as evil, American-hating fundamentalists OR indecisive, incompetent military leaders OR corrupt leaders ready to sell America to Hell. I mean... WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE MEDIA?!

Again, the facts are there.

When people like this guy are put into power:

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

what do you expect the media to say about them.

I don't know what muslims do in the US, but the european kind is more extremist hear (wearing headscarfs and what not in the case of women) than in their country of origin. Those are simple, objective, and measured facts.

The only one who's to blame for that is the muslim community, since it's supposed to be so much more family based and yadda yadda yadda than our western culture, why can't they keep a grip on those "few" that cause trouble

>Whenever I start thinking about it, I get SO SICK! And all riled up!

Like most muslims ;o) Need a flag to burn? :o)

>2. The next point I raise is being Black and high crime rates...
>
>Ok, an interesting statistic:
>
>11% of America is Black... yet 60% of our jails are Black... Does that make sense to ANYONE because it sure doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, it means crime rates are higher for blacks than whites. Again that is not speculation but fact.

I don't know the numbers for the US, but where I live arabs for example are on average 6 to 8 times more likely to commit violent crimes.

>Are you telling me that [and this is an approximation] the 70% of America that's White, which only makes up approximately 10% or so percent of people in jail] IS NEARLY FAULTLESS?!

Again, that is what you make of it. You don't get thrown in jail for a parking ticket, you go to jail because you shoot people in a gang war or sell drugs.

>WHAT IS THAT?!
>
>I believe it's called RACIAL PROFILING. We're fed all of these lies and stereotypes by the media that we don't even think TWICE about ANYTHING. We accept it as truth.

That's because stereotypes don't pop up out of the blue, they come into existance just because they have a general number of parameters which are interconnected.

Example: obese people are more likely to have cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. That's no stigmatising, it's a fact, just like black people in the us and arabs and blacks in the eu are more likely to commit serious crimes.

>And don't even get me STARTED on how institutionalized racism works into all of this. I've argued SO many times with people about this, the same people who say, "Whatever, I'm not racist.... FAG." or "Go back to studying" or "Mess with me and hang from a tree!"

That's because a lot of people are fed up with people from minorities bitching all the time. Don't kill people and stick to the law and you won't go to jail, what's the problem.

>WHAT THE.... If I cursed, a big fat flying... word would be RIGHT THERE.

Where

>3. Next point... can I just bring up how America is a ridiculous consumer of natural resources? And how many of our companies destroy people's lives and yet we continue to buy from them because we value our dollar more than our morals and goodwill and fellow man?

So is the eu, so is china.

You buy from them because they sell superior quality products at better prices, plain and simple. ethics has nothing to do with it.

>Can I also point out how MOST of humanity has a tendency to rape whatever is in its path and call on us to remember this the next time we're completely self-serving?

I don't get what you mean by this

>I'll admit, I'm not perfect. I'm prejudiced against races, and I do like cheap clothes. But I'm trying to change that, and I'm acknowledging my faults.

Well whoopty-do, that doesn't mean anything.

Also, you might see being prejudiced as a fault and try and change it, I do not see it as a fault and have no intention to "change" it (no way you can either)

>The writer of that article should start doing the same rather than acting like his opinions of races are pure fact and completely uninfluenced by surrounding media...

Again I disagree in general, but when it comes to the writer of this article, I said it before that guys like that are the reason people who don't agree with the view being laid out get a chance to take pot shots at it because he creates a lot of holes in his front by the manner in which he's saying what he says

>If ignorance is bliss, and knowledge is pain, I'd rather hurt for the rest of my life.


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Thu Dec 21 18:12:39 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's not right, but I'm not opposed to it, it's necessary to a degree.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Thu Dec 21 22:17:08 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Most terrorists in arica are muslims as well. Janjaweed anyone?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janjaweed
>

I know. But the issue isn't religion; rather it's skin color isn't it? I thought that darker skinned people were being killed, not those of a different religion.

The reason I bring this up is because the article above is citing Muslim extremists as terrorists in the sense that they're fighting for Islam; however, in the example you're citing, the issue that's arisen is skin color- two VERY different things.

>Not everything is comparable to slavery, and everything doesn't sprout from that when it comes to the perception of non-whites.

I know. What I'm talking about is the idea of accepted racism. Rather than holding ourselves to a higher standard, we accept portrayals of certain races and stereotypes as opposed to searching for the truth ourselves.

>Racism is not institutionalized, people who say that should look up what "institutionalized" means.

I know what institutionalized means. And racism is. If you look up the definition of "institutionalize," you find that one of the definitions is the incorporation of something into a well-organized institution. And racism has [dunno about Europe, but it's true in the United States]. That's why there's been the development of Black and White areas, or even more generally, rich and poor areas. That's also the reason why resumes with African American names are fifty percent LESS likely to be called back for a job interview despite two applications being the same, and it's the same reason why it's easier for the majority to attain something than the minority [which makes sense because we live in a majority-rules sorta world... i just don't think that's right [or a part of American tradition... after all, wasn't our government designed to protect the minority? [I believe it's a main argument in one of the federalist papers]]].

I'd go into more about institutionalized racism, but it's a huge topic. I suggest looking it up online to learn more about it.

>Does racism exist? Ofcourse it does, but it goes both ways, and in the end, statisticly, in this day and age who's stirring shit up the most?
>

Prejudice exists, yes, and of COURSE the minority's going to be upset-- we're the ones being oppressed [particularly in institutionalized racism]. I'll admit; some people are hyper-sensitive about the issue and look for every opportunity possible to yell "RACIST!" BUT, and most minorities would agree with me, things aren't easy if you're not white. We have to work harder to prove ourselves and to do what we want. Some might say, "Of course! You're the ones who immigrated!" But if you look at world-wide trends, white people are guaranteed special treatment even when they're the minority.

I mean, if you lived as the minority somewhere and you faced racism your whole life [institutionalized and not], would you not be in a position to cry for equality because you've worked harder than a white person to get where you are? I would think so.

>Probably the fact that today, again, most terrorists are muslims. This does not equate to every muslim is a terrorist, and nobody says that either, but that's what people who feel offended by it make of it. That they do on their own account as far as I'm concerned.
>

Perhaps they are muslim, but not all terrorists are driven by religion.

>
>When people like this guy are put into power:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
>
>what do you expect the media to say about them.

It's not that I expect the media to say nothing. But I want my media to represent all facets of the truth; not the ones that'll play into popular american perceptions [which they created].


>I don't know what muslims do in the US, but the european kind is more extremist hear (wearing headscarfs and what not in the case of women) than in their country of origin. Those are simple, objective, and measured facts.
>

in what way are they more extremist?

>The only one who's to blame for that is the muslim community, since it's supposed to be so much more family based and yadda yadda yadda than our western culture, why can't they keep a grip on those "few" that cause trouble
>

Again, maybe. But if America's excuse for its over consumption is our overwhelming freedom and capitalistic market, who's to blame us? Our country can't force us to waste less; it's our American right, isn't it?

>>Whenever I start thinking about it, I get SO SICK! And all riled up!
>
>Like most muslims ;o) Need a flag to burn? :o)

hahaha. Several, please.


>Yes, it means crime rates are higher for blacks than whites. Again that is not speculation but fact.

Do you really think that's true? Because I know for a fact that several rich white people do drugs. And how come they RARELY if EVER get busted for it? How come the scandal is always downplayed?

>Again, that is what you make of it. You don't get thrown in jail for a parking ticket, you go to jail because you shoot people in a gang war or sell drugs.
>

And most Black people CLEARLY do those things... even though I've never met a black person that sells pot and every person I can think of that I've met that sells it is Jewish. Right. OR that the only hardcore drug instances I've heard of concern mostly white people... [I say mostly because I didn't hear of any Blacks being there, but I can't for sure say none.]

>
>That's because stereotypes don't pop up out of the blue, they come into existance just because they have a general number of parameters which are interconnected.

But just as much as stereotypes are steeped in truth, they often prove false.

Take for instance a "harmless" one: Asians are nerds.

OK-- I know more hard-partying, crazy Asians and Asians that NEVER study except for the day of a test THAN any nerdy asian. Actually, I think I can only count myself as the only nerdy Asian I know [and I don't even study that much!]. People assume we're nerds because of the idea that asians are "hard working"... particularly at school. But the truth is, that [and I don't even know if this is MOST] when Asians study, we study all out hardcore and do what it takes the make the grade. And when we do well, people assume we study a lot and have no social life. Misconception to the maxxx, if you ask me.


>Example: obese people are more likely to have cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. That's no stigmatising, it's a fact, just like black people in the us and arabs and blacks in the eu are more likely to commit serious crimes.

No... one's a health fact. Health facts can't be disputed and aren't racist. They're cold facts because they're physical and have physical evidence to back them up. But you can't base crimes rates on cold facts for several reasons. One, you never know if the person convicted is actually guilty. I mean, in the ideal cases, you would. But there are instances where innocent men have been sentenced to punishments for crimes they didn't commit. Two, based on the argument i was building above PLUS the argument that institutionalized racism brings PLUS the idea that our perceptions are largely influenced if not completely built by media, we can't really say that we're not purposely targeting those of a certain race... because, as racial profiling shows, we are. And not necessarily because of actual probable cause but because of perceived probable cause.


>That's because a lot of people are fed up with people from minorities bitching all the time. Don't kill people and stick to the law and you won't go to jail, what's the problem.
>

I'm not sure... but maybe you missed how a lot of the replies I got were people being racist or prejudiced. People are fed up because they think they've been SO nice to minorities. But like the situation shown in Native Son, no one cares if you give a bunch of black kids some ping pong tables at the boys and girls club. Give them a fair education. Give them back their social rights.

At what point is it when a difference between a black child's life and a white child's life is made clear? Why is it that that black child is more likely to end up in jail and the white child not?

Are you telling me most Black parents are worse than most White parents at raising their children? At teaching them to uphold the law?

How can we expect citizens to value a system that not only doesn't work for them but works against them?

>>WHAT THE.... If I cursed, a big fat flying... word would be RIGHT THERE.
>
>Where

after the "the"
>


>You buy from them because they sell superior quality products at better prices, plain and simple. ethics has nothing to do with it.

Ethics has a lot to do with it because those "superior quality products" that a woman made in a sweatshop in a small village somewhere-- we fueled that by purchasing the product. We can tell ourselves "I buy it for the quality" but when these shops are simply sewing different tags onto basically the same thing... how can we say it's SO much superior quality? It all comes from the same place! So those clothes from Walmart are the same ones from Abercrombie [dunno if that means anything to you... basically the difference between a generid brand and a brand name]. And by supporting that system and the sweat shops and the cheap labor, we support the devaluation of people's lives.

Some would make the argument that by paying them "more" than they'd normally receive from other jobs in the same area, we're helping them. But by failing to uphold standards found within our own countries [all for the cheap citizen!], we're lying to ourselves and trying to comfort ourselves into feeling better about cheating people out of a good livelihood.

It's like saying you completed the course even though you failed it. Doesn't matter much that you completed it; you still failed.


>I don't get what you mean by this
>

it was a poorly worded sentence, sorry. what i meant was that people have a tendency to be self-serving and conquer/ take whatever they want. and i was saying that the next time we're acting in such a manner to remember history and remember the consequences. we always regret them in history class, but we fail to look at the examples we have in our own lives.

>>I'll admit, I'm not perfect. I'm prejudiced against races, and I do like cheap clothes. But I'm trying to change that, and I'm acknowledging my faults.
>
>Well whoopty-do, that doesn't mean anything.

I don't remember if I finished the thought. What I probably should have added in is that we can't just ignore what's happening around us and then proceed to complain about how much the world sucks. Everyone has to own up to their own mistakes and try to fix those rather than solely going and blaming everyone else.

>Also, you might see being prejudiced as a fault and try and change it, I do not see it as a fault and have no intention to "change" it (no way you can either)
>

haha. Didn't expect to. But I don't see how you can NOT perceive it as a fault.

I mean... prejudiced against the prejudiced I can get. Or prejudiced against the hateful or the spiteful, I can get... but prejudice against races or religions or even political parties?

I guess my whole problem with it is that prejudice not only is narrow minded, but it spawns a lot of misplaced hate and false stereotypes [not to mention what I mentioned before-- slavery, segregation, institutionalized racism, etc etc]


 
J. Posted: Fri Dec 22 01:05:44 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Remember fellas!

Christophe is (maybe) part Western European and part chinchy, his shit don't stink!




 
FN Posted: Fri Dec 22 06:45:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>the article above is citing Muslim extremists as terrorists in the sense that they're fighting for Islam; however, in the example you're citing, the issue that's arisen is skin color- two VERY different things.

It isn't, in general there is a relation between skin color and religion and therefor culture.

Again, just like there is a relation between obesitas and diabetes, but 1 factor doesn't automaticly imply the other even though the odds are pretty good.

>I know. What I'm talking about is the idea of accepted racism. Rather than holding ourselves to a higher standard, we accept portrayals of certain races and stereotypes as opposed to searching for the truth ourselves.

Stereotypes are a basis of human survival. Just like you stereotype a stove by not touching it if you're not sure wether it is hot or not, you tend to be sceptical about groups of people of whom you know have very much higher chances of getting you burned

>>Racism is not institutionalized, people who say that should look up what "institutionalized" means.

>after all, wasn't our government designed to protect the minority? [I believe it's a main argument in one of the federalist papers]]].

We are living in a democracy, hence the majority decides what happens, I don't like it either, but that's how it is, and for the better probably or you'd have civil wars and massacres going on 24/7.

>I'd go into more about institutionalized racism, but it's a huge topic. I suggest looking it up online to learn more about it.

I have, now tell me where is it institutionalised on an organisational level like the law

>Prejudice exists, yes, and of COURSE the minority's going to be upset-- we're the ones being oppressed [particularly in institutionalized racism].

Opressed?

Jesus, do you know what actual oppression is...

You get 10 000 times the possibilities, freedom, security and chance for intellectual development in any western country than most immigrants would probably have in their country of origin. Am I wrong?

>I'll admit; some people are hyper-sensitive about the issue and look for every opportunity possible to yell "RACIST!" BUT, and most minorities would agree with me, things aren't easy if you're not white.

Seriously dude, life isn't a cake walk just because you're white either.

Non-whiteness is all too often an excuse for people to be slackers and point fingers at others for their frustrations.

>We have to work harder to prove ourselves and to do what we want. Some might say, "Of course! You're the ones who immigrated!" But if you look at world-wide trends, white people are guaranteed special treatment even when they're the minority.

Ofcourse you have to work harder, you immigrated. That's not discrimination, that's the price you pay for a life outside of the gutter.

And I disagree with the special treatment of white people whereever they go, what do you base that on?

>I mean, if you lived as the minority somewhere and you faced racism your whole life [institutionalized and not], would you not be in a position to cry for equality because you've worked harder than a white person to get where you are? I would think so.

No, I hate equality with a passion.

Everybody who wants to get somewhere has to work hard, yet minorities are always bitching about how white people just get money and social status thrown into their lap.

>Perhaps they are muslim, but not all terrorists are driven by religion.

I don't see your point?

>It's not that I expect the media to say nothing. But I want my media to represent all facets of the truth; not the ones that'll play into popular american perceptions [which they created].

So what would you like people to say about that guy and the people who allow him to stay in power

>in what way are they more extremist?

They are more extremist because the immigrants in western europe are less westernized than their counterparts in their own country of origin when talking about morrocans and turks for example

>>"The only one who's to blame for that is the muslim community, since it's supposed to be so much more family based and yadda yadda yadda than our western culture, why can't they keep a grip on those "few" that cause trouble"
>>
>
>Again, maybe. But if America's excuse for its over consumption is our overwhelming freedom and capitalistic market, who's to blame us? Our country can't force us to waste less; it's our American right, isn't it?

That does not make any sense at all to what I said.

>>"Yes, it means crime rates are higher for blacks than whites. Again that is not speculation but fact."
>
>Do you really think that's true?

It's not something subjective, the facts are there

Because I know for a fact that several rich white people do drugs. And how come they RARELY if EVER get busted for it? How come the scandal is always downplayed?

Yes, several rich people do drugs, yet your average junk isn't a rich white guy now is it.

Also notice the distinction between doing and dealing drugs.

Besides, the drugs thing wasn't the poinjt I was making, and you know it, the point I'm making is that non-whites that have immigrated are more prone to violent crimes.

>And most Black people CLEARLY do those things... even though I've never met a black person that sells pot and every person I can think of that I've met that sells it is Jewish. Right. OR that the only hardcore drug instances I've heard of concern mostly white people... [I say mostly because I didn't hear of any Blacks being there, but I can't for sure say none.]

Again I think the most important thing to remark here is that you only bother to focus on the drugs part because I'm guessing you know the part about violent crime (like murder) is something that's a bit harder to debunk, is it not.

>Take for instance a "harmless" one: Asians are nerds.

Never heard that one before, but I'll tag along

>when Asians study, we study all out hardcore and do what it takes the make the grade.

Aren't you stereotyping here?

That's the kind of hypocrisy that ticks me off when minorities are pointing fingers

>No... one's a health fact. Health facts can't be disputed and aren't racist. They're cold facts because they're physical and have physical evidence to back them up. But you can't base crimes rates on cold facts for several reasons.

Lol, that's a new one, what are you going to base them on if not on facts

>One, you never know if the person convicted is actually guilty. I mean, in the ideal cases, you would. But there are instances where innocent men have been sentenced to punishments for crimes they didn't commit.

No doubt about it, but when the numbers are something like 6 times higher, you're accusing just about all the judges, of which there are several black ones, of racism that would border on apartheid mentality.

Can I just add that I highly doubt that is the case and that the police just goes cruising to fill the quota of niggers to catch every night and lift those poor law-abiding souls out of their bed for no reason at all.

>Two, based on the argument i was building above PLUS the argument that institutionalized racism brings PLUS the idea that our perceptions are largely influenced if not completely built by media, we can't really say that we're not purposely targeting those of a certain race... because, as racial profiling shows, we are. And not necessarily because of actual probable cause but because of perceived probable cause.

Aha, but there IS a probable cause, again the "cold facts" as you say are there, what more is there to it

>I'm not sure... but maybe you missed how a lot of the replies I got were people being racist or prejudiced. People are fed up because they think they've been SO nice to minorities. But like the situation shown in Native Son, no one cares if you give a bunch of black kids some ping pong tables at the boys and girls club. Give them a fair education. Give them back their social rights.

Stuff like this always leaves me flabbergasted.

I don't know the situation in america as well as I know the one in western europe, but from the info I have it doesn't seem to be *that* different to warrant this kind of thing.

People have always been nice to minorities. They don't get killed off, they have social rights (even special ones because you can't be racist over here, there are actual jail sentences on "spreading racism" (granted, they don't get inforced but still))

Get one thing straight, minorities who have immigrated do not have the *right* to anything.

You (and I don't mean you as a person, but people who immigrate, to avoid confusion) come here trying to crawl out of the abyss, and then you expect to immediately have the same standard of living and all that surrounds it as the people who have built that system up while your own people can't get its act together even though the chances are there. On top of that, most immigrants simply refuse to assimilate into the culture but notoriously stick to their own which has proved to be a fallacy in their country of origin and come and screw things up over here crying havoc when special exceptions and privileges aren't made.

Some high profile examples are rice and powell, are you saying they were just tokens or what?

There are a lot of white kids in the us who don't get a proper education either, why should an exxeption be made for black kids.

>At what point is it when a difference between a black child's life and a white child's life is made clear? Why is it that that black child is more likely to end up in jail and the white child not?

That's an entirely different discussion that I want to go into if you feel like it but not at this point because it will sidetrack the conversation.

Right now were talking about how black kids are far more likely to commit violent crime than white kids.

The reasons for that have nothing to do with the fact that that's simply the way it is, and add nothing to this discussion.

>Are you telling me most Black parents are worse than most White parents at raising their children? At teaching them to uphold the law?

No, again, that's minority talk.

I'm saying that relatively, there are more blacks/arabs who give their children an unworthy upbringing to get along in a western society than white people.

A quick example is that white people, (I'm talking about where I live) are much more likely to keep their kids off the street when they're young and keep more of an eye on them instead of having them hang out at the stations all day without the parents ever checking wether they're in school or not.

And that, my friend, isn't a question of skin color, but a question of culture and its implications.

Are you going to deny that culture and skin color don't show any correlations when it comes to probability?

Because in the end that's what racial profiling is: you can't screen everybody for the full 100% so you search for what you have the highest chances to intercept troublemakers.

>How can we expect citizens to value a system that not only doesn't work for them but works against them?

If you don't like it go to russia.

>Ethics has a lot to do with it because those "superior quality products" that a woman made in a sweatshop in a small village somewhere-- we fueled that by purchasing the product.

You just said yourself that you're buying them, so why are you pointing fingers?

Because you *try* to change it? So what you mean is you still do it but you feel bad about it for half a second afterwards? What kind of ethics is that?

>And by supporting that system and the sweat shops and the cheap labor, we support the devaluation of people's lives.

You're talking about clothes only, there is a lot of other stuff going on like elcetronica.

Also, again you're only focusing on 1 aspect.

Look at china, people are being lifted out of poverty at blinding rates, just because that system allowed for it.

But again, lets stick to the subject because there's a few things to say about china and india as well, obviously.

>Some would make the argument that by paying them "more" than they'd normally receive from other jobs in the same area, we're helping them. But by failing to uphold standards found within our own countries [all for the cheap citizen!], we're lying to ourselves and trying to comfort ourselves into feeling better about cheating people out of a good livelihood.

They get a better livelihood than they would have had, if not who keeps them from going back to the outskirts of the cities.

>It's like saying you completed the course even though you failed it. Doesn't matter much that you completed it; you still failed.

No, it's saying that you can't have it all just because somebody else has it all.

Western countries had to go through waves of poverty and such as well before arriving where they are now

>it was a poorly worded sentence, sorry. what i meant was that people have a tendency to be self-serving and conquer/ take whatever they want.

It's human nature

>and i was saying that the next time we're acting in such a manner to remember history and remember the consequences. we always regret them in history class, but we fail to look at the examples we have in our own lives.

Regret what?

>I don't remember if I finished the thought. What I probably should have added in is that we can't just ignore what's happening around us and then proceed to complain about how much the world sucks.

Here's the thing: the world does suck but you're way better off in western countries, so how surprising is it that westerners aren't all that enthousiastic about people who can't get their act together moving in and bitching about how they don't get everything they want while in their country of origin if they opened their mouths they would have had their family killed

>Everyone has to own up to their own mistakes and try to fix those rather than solely going and blaming everyone else.

Yeah, try and start with that I'd say to the minorities.

>haha. Didn't expect to. But I don't see how you can NOT perceive it as a fault.

Because it's human nature, it's a mechanism, and it has its logical benefits and use.

>I mean... prejudiced against the prejudiced I can get.

Haha, typical

>Or prejudiced against the hateful or the spiteful, I can get... but prejudice against races or religions or even political parties?

How is it different

>I guess my whole problem with it is that prejudice not only is narrow minded

It is narrowminded that you cannot see that the stuff you're prejudiced against is exactly the same thing: you are prejudiced against different views and believes, wethet that is a culture or a view on prejudice is exactly the same thing, you just add a whim of hypocritical morality to it

>but it spawns a lot of misplaced hate and false stereotypes [not to mention what I mentioned before-- slavery, segregation, institutionalized racism, etc etc]

You know what spawns a lot of hate as well? Gang wars, armed robberies, refusal to adapt to the rules of the host, riots, flag burning and leeching of the social security in a way that is completely out of proportion when compared to the host people.


 
FN Posted: Fri Dec 22 06:46:52 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  suenos said:
>Remember fellas!
>
>Christophe is (maybe) part Western European and part chinchy, his shit don't stink!

The personal and green-smiled jesting aside, if you disagree with anything feel free to debunk it.

I know that what I say isn't always happily recieved, but I also know the reasons for that.


 
FN Posted: Fri Dec 22 07:43:43 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>People have always been nice to minorities.

In the western world during the past 50 or so years, longer if you exclude the holocaust which was not that much about blacks and such


 
FN Posted: Fri Dec 22 07:46:11 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Some high profile examples are rice and powell, are you saying they were just tokens or what?

Who have made it even though they're a minority I mean


 
J. Posted: Fri Dec 22 07:59:26 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>suenos said:
>>Remember fellas!
>>
>>Christophe is (maybe) part Western European and part chinchy, his shit don't stink!
>
>The personal and green-smiled jesting aside, if you disagree with anything feel free to debunk it.
>
>I know that what I say isn't always happily recieved, but I also know the reasons for that.


Here is my "debunk" for you, Christophe:


A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."



 
FN Posted: Fri Dec 22 08:16:30 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So you're saying all my arguments are wiped off the table because you pulled some fictional story out of a feel good e-mail for people envious of intellectuals and therefor feel that true enlightment can only be reached by people on their own level?

What does that thing actually say anyway when stripped of the benefit of the doubt just because it's about "a famous zen master"? That you first have to empty your brain before the zen master can pour in his own brand of tea and that an education prohibits the adding of "the famous zen master"'s self improvement BS?


That might inspire some ooh's and ah's by people who'd feel good about "grasping what the famous zen master means" (like there is anybody out there who wouldn't) and then go back to being an intellectual ant, but for a serious conversation it's not good enough by a long shot lol


 
FN Posted: Fri Dec 22 08:18:06 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'd like to add that I just crack myself up sometimes haha


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Dec 22 08:19:06 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The professor who wrote the article in the first post is a black man who grew up in the streets of Philadelphia.
I believe that, along with his education, makes him qualified to speak about racism and racial stereotypes.

The racial profiling he was speaking of was in relation to airport security and fighting terrorism.

Do you really think anything other than racial profiling concerning airport security is lunacy ?


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Sat Dec 23 02:18:01 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I get "randomly selected" every time I enter an airport. I'll be the first to admit that it's really a pain to have to go through that but at the same time, I would never say that I think it's wrong.

If it helps security I'm willing to give up that little bit of freedom.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sun Dec 24 01:53:06 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>
>It isn't, in general there is a relation between skin color and religion and therefor culture.
>
>Again, just like there is a relation between obesitas and diabetes, but 1 factor doesn't automaticly imply the other even though the odds are pretty good.

It seems like you understand they aren't the same thing, but you sound like you believe one practically causes the other [or that they go hand in hand]. But I mean, you can't place religions and cultures and people into equations like that. They're not math formulas or chemicals; they're not laws of physics or even things you can tangibly see/ touch like a sign of disease. They're the stuff that runs through our heads and in that way are manifested physically by the things we do and create and say. So can we really say that, like obesity and diabetes, culture begets terrorism should you be raised within a certain culture? Do we deny that it's a question instead of personal morals and thoughts and of personal developement?

I dunno. I just can't write off a person for their religion. If I were to be written off in a similar way, I'd feel as if a great injustice had been done to me, and it wouldn't feel fair to do that to someone else.

>
>Stereotypes are a basis of human survival. Just like you stereotype a stove by not touching it if you're not sure wether it is hot or not, you tend to be sceptical about groups of people of whom you know have very much higher chances of getting you burned

Human nature, but human nature also isn't the best indicator of what's right. Plus, isn't the idea that ANYONE can be a terrorist? I mean, it's not like some types of stoves are more likely to be hotter than others...

>We are living in a democracy, hence the majority decides what happens, I don't like it either, but that's how it is, and for the better probably or you'd have civil wars and massacres going on 24/7.
>

I know the majority typically decides what happenes; however, the minority should still be protected against the majority, right?


>I have, now tell me where is it institutionalised on an organisational level like the law

It's not TECHNICALLY within the law because it's illegal. But it's within other institutions of society that are connected to the law. Like law enforcement, real estate/ land, and education among other things.



>You get 10 000 times the possibilities, freedom, security and chance for intellectual development in any western country than most immigrants would probably have in their country of origin. Am I wrong?
>

No. But oppression within the country through the system is what we were discussing. Of course on the grand scale, minorities in the US have little to gripe about. As does anyone in the world for that matter unless we're talking about those suffering from the oppression that you're talking about.


>
>Seriously dude, life isn't a cake walk just because you're white either.
>

I'm not saying it is. But it's easier [well, it is in America] if you're white.

>Ofcourse you have to work harder, you immigrated. That's not discrimination, that's the price you pay for a life outside of the gutter.
>

But even if you're not the one that's immigrated?

>And I disagree with the special treatment of white people whereever they go, what do you base that on?
>

Statistics and life experience. It's easier for a white man to get a raise as opposed to say... a black woman. People are more likely to warm up to you if you're white, etc etc. If you don't believe, watch how different people are treated. Plus, ask different races for stories about racism.

>Everybody who wants to get somewhere has to work hard, yet minorities are always bitching about how white people just get money and social status thrown into their lap.
>

You agreed that minorities had to work harder, right? So I'm not saying that people can get somewhere without hard work. But it takes White people less work to get somewhere than a minority. And minorities complain because, despite having obeyed the system and worked harder and being 2nd generation or MORE, they typically get the short end of the stick.

>>Perhaps they are muslim, but not all terrorists are driven by religion.
>
>I don't see your point?

so why base our scans and searchs by people who "look" Muslim? which brings up another point... If we're targeting "Muslims," what're the signs of the religion??

>
>So what would you like people to say about that guy and the people who allow him to stay in power
>

well, just like how i hate it when people assume I love Bush, I'm sure they feel similarly.


>They are more extremist because the immigrants in western europe are less westernized than their counterparts in their own country of origin when talking about morrocans and turks for example
>

But how is that extremist? Less westernized = extremist?

>>>"The only one who's to blame for that is the muslim community, since it's supposed to be so much more family based and yadda yadda yadda than our western culture, why can't they keep a grip on those "few" that cause trouble"
>>>
>>
>>Again, maybe. But if America's excuse for its over consumption is our overwhelming freedom and capitalistic market, who's to blame us? Our country can't force us to waste less; it's our American right, isn't it?
>
>That does not make any sense at all to what I said.

what i mean is that you're bringing up this supposed right of our comminties to keep us in check based on stereotypes. but the american community lacks suck a stereotype, but it doesn't justify how obnoxious we can be. similarly, every time a christian or a republican or a democrat or a _________ does something crazy, are we to judge the entire demographic based on that?

even if we say that SOOO many of a certain group act a certain way, we can't say its' a good representation because you're still not seeing a majority of the group. you're only seeing a certain percentage [the same percentage that's been highly manipulated in the media to appear a certain way]



>
>Yes, several rich people do drugs, yet your average junk isn't a rich white guy now is it.

It isn't? Gotta say that I know more white people who do drugs than any other race.

>
>Also notice the distinction between doing and dealing drugs.
>

Again, still white people [and if i recall correctly, a majority of them are jewish... but I'm not gonna assume all jewish people deal drugs because what I've seen isn't a fair representation of all jewish people.]

>Besides, the drugs thing wasn't the poinjt I was making, and you know it, the point I'm making is that non-whites that have immigrated are more prone to violent crimes.
>

Like Asians??


>Again I think the most important thing to remark here is that you only bother to focus on the drugs part because I'm guessing you know the part about violent crime (like murder) is something that's a bit harder to debunk, is it not.
>

I used drugs as an example because it's a less-violent crime that can easily be busted. I mean, finding a drug dealer seems a bit easier than a murderer. plus, drug dealers are more numerous than murderers. BUT, if you want to talk a bout murderers, the only murderer i've ever heard of attacking the community i live in was a disgruntled white employee.

the point i'm trying to make is that people focus on blacks as being gangsters and criminals, much like how many people gave that stereotype to italians. but we all know that italians are not all mobsters and killers. we don't see a large italian man and think, "He's connected with the mob!" But we see a big black man, and chances are most of us would hold our handbags a little tighter or stand a little farther away.


>>when Asians study, we study all out hardcore and do what it takes the make the grade.
>
>Aren't you stereotyping here?

Nah. i was talking about the stereotype that this applies to.

>> " that [and I don't even know if this is MOST] when Asians study, we study all out hardcore and do what it takes the make the grade. And when we do well, people assume we study a lot and have no social life. "

so what i'm saying, to rephrase, is that for the asians that DO study hard, it's typically like most kids-- right before the test. we tend to go all out hardcore and make the grade. i don't even know if that behaviour is that of most asians; just most of the asians I hang out with.

>
>That's the kind of hypocrisy that ticks me off when minorities are pointing fingers
>

good thing it wasn't hypocrisy. if you want to make generalizations, go for it. but make generalizations based on a large sampling of the race. and by majority, i mean like... 80% or more... THAT'S a majority.

>
>Lol, that's a new one, what are you going to base them on if not on facts

i'm just saying that more plays into crime than something like health. in crime, like i said, you have too many social factors. something like health or diseases are much more tangible than crimes and their connection with race.


>
>No doubt about it, but when the numbers are something like 6 times higher, you're accusing just about all the judges, of which there are several black ones, of racism that would border on apartheid mentality.
>

i'm not saying every black man in jail isn't guilty. my problem with the system is that people have been conditioned by the media and by society to think that a certain race is more likely to commit a crime. and when you have everyone looking out for that race, of course you're going to catch more of that race as opposed to just being neutral.

>Can I just add that I highly doubt that is the case and that the police just goes cruising to fill the quota of niggers to catch every night and lift those poor law-abiding souls out of their bed for no reason at all.
>

I'm not going to go crazy about the racist slur because I'm sure you can guess how pissed I was when I read it. But, again, I know they're not consciously looking to fill a quota. But, when you're out LOOKING for something, you're going to find it. Like I said, if you're looking to blame someone of a certain race, you'll find someone to blame.

Plus, just because we thought we were so forward and upright about ending segregation, do you think that's really the same as treating and thinking someone of a certain race is equal? If we treat an entire race like they're doomed to become gangsters or hookers, if we de-value them and their humanity, how're they supposed to feel and think?


>Aha, but there IS a probable cause, again the "cold facts" as you say are there, what more is there to it
>

But those cold facts have been influenced by social forces. So they're not just cold.


>
>People have always been nice to minorities. They don't get killed off, they have social rights (even special ones because you can't be racist over here, there are actual jail sentences on "spreading racism" (granted, they don't get inforced but still))
>
>Get one thing straight, minorities who have immigrated do not have the *right* to anything.
>
>You (and I don't mean you as a person, but people who immigrate, to avoid confusion) come here trying to crawl out of the abyss, and then you expect to immediately have the same standard of living and all that surrounds it as the people who have built that system up while your own people can't get its act together even though the chances are there. On top of that, most immigrants simply refuse to assimilate into the culture but notoriously stick to their own which has proved to be a fallacy in their country of origin and come and screw things up over here crying havoc when special exceptions and privileges aren't made.
>
>Some high profile examples are rice and powell, are you saying they were just tokens or what?
>
>There are a lot of white kids in the us who don't get a proper education either, why should an exxeption be made for black kids.
>

It shouldn't be an exception for anyone, regardless of race. But what I mean is that we've IMMIGRATED. we've ASSIMILATED. and yet, we still get stereotypes thrown against us.

I was born in Iowa and lived in America my entire life. But you're telling me that because MY PARENTS are a certain race and thus I'm a certain race and because I LOOK that race, I SHOULD have racist comments thrown my way? That, despite being as American as anyone else, I should have to work harder and PROVE myself? Then how come other American kids, the ones who also were born and grew up here, how come they don't have to?

It's a matter of equality. Of a level playing field. America claims it has it, but it doesn't. And that's what pisses me off. That big fat lie.

>That's an entirely different discussion that I want to go into if you feel like it but not at this point because it will sidetrack the conversation.
>

fair enough, but i think it belongs in the domain of institutionalized racism.

>Right now were talking about how black kids are far more likely to commit violent crime than white kids.
>
>The reasons for that have nothing to do with the fact that that's simply the way it is, and add nothing to this discussion.
>
it's that way because of institutionalized racism. how can you explain how two kids given [supposedly] the same things despite their skin color turn out so differently? And are so "likely" to turn out differently?

>
>Are you going to deny that culture and skin color don't show any correlations when it comes to probability?
>
>Because in the end that's what racial profiling is: you can't screen everybody for the full 100% so you search for what you have the highest chances to intercept troublemakers.
>

I know that. But you really think that those parents don't check on their kids?

Or to add to it, that they can? Maybe they're working those lower level jobs that SO many immigrants have to work [in order to "assimilate" because as immigrants they have rights to nothing] and because those jobs pay less, they must work more and harder and thus have no time or energy to watch their kids. And why would they have to work those jobs? Oh yes... Because they're immigrants. And yet, when we turn their kids into vagrants because we demand the time of their parents, we condemn them for not taking better care of their kids.

>>How can we expect citizens to value a system that not only doesn't work for them but works against them?
>
>If you don't like it go to russia.
>

I don't believe in the idea of giving up on my home.

>>Ethics has a lot to do with it because those "superior quality products" that a woman made in a sweatshop in a small village somewhere-- we fueled that by purchasing the product.
>
>You just said yourself that you're buying them, so why are you pointing fingers?
>
>Because you *try* to change it? So what you mean is you still do it but you feel bad about it for half a second afterwards? What kind of ethics is that?
>

No. It's that I don't buy them anymore and that i'm always on the look out for ways to improve my consumerism so i'm not ruining someone else's life.

if it makes my life a little harder, so what? better than mooching off someone else's misery.


>
>
>No, it's saying that you can't have it all just because somebody else has it all.
>
>Western countries had to go through waves of poverty and such as well before arriving where they are now
>

but if we have the power to help people more, why not do it?

>
>Regret what?
>

typically all the mistakes America has made. such as how we've treated Native Americans, African-Americans, immigrants of the far past [though this is typically less discussed], and other historical blunders.

>
>Here's the thing: the world does suck but you're way better off in western countries, so how surprising is it that westerners aren't all that enthousiastic about people who can't get their act together moving in and bitching about how they don't get everything they want while in their country of origin if they opened their mouths they would have had their family killed
>

well, perhaps Europe not so much, but America was built on invading and conquering. so it seems kind of hypocritical for us, when our history is based on immigration if NOT take-over, that when others want to move in we get all antsy-pantsy and throw hissy fits.

and again, i dunno if this is the case in Europe, but in the US, most people who complain have BEEN in america for a long time [as far as generations go]. but we're still required to prove ourselves and we still face discrimnation because of race, despite having been born there or teaching there or working there or serving there.

>
>Yeah, try and start with that I'd say to the minorities.
>

how can you tell someone to fix something they can't fix? how can I fix stereotyping and racism? i can't. it's the people who are stereotyping and being racist that have to fix it.

it's like blaming someone who got shot with a gun that it's their fault, when really they're not the ones that pulled the trigger.


>>I mean... prejudiced against the prejudiced I can get.
>
>Haha, typical
>

because you're hating hate. that's natural to me because it translates into every culture. everyone hates it when hate is done unto them.

>>Or prejudiced against the hateful or the spiteful, I can get... but prejudice against races or religions or even political parties?
>
>How is it different

because races and religions and political parties aren't hate. they don't hate other people, so they shouldn't be hated. now, people hate others, but we can't place that blame on that person's race or religion or political party because it's not their race, religion, or party that's hating us. it's that person.

>It is narrowminded that you cannot see that the stuff you're prejudiced against is exactly the same thing: you are prejudiced against different views and believes, wethet that is a culture or a view on prejudice is exactly the same thing, you just add a whim of hypocritical morality to it
>

i'm not prejudiced to different views and beliefs. i'm fine if people disagree. But if people hate each other for disagreeing, that's what I'm against.

How can hate for views and beliefs be a view or belief? I mean, I know what you're saying on the fundamental level. Yes, hatefully you can see someone's viewpoints. That's a WAY to see something.

But it's not the same as being Jewish or being White or being female or being pro-choice. you can look at all those things hatefully or respectfully. there's nothing wrong with disliking someone who views differeing opinions or difference with hate. because it's a way you're viewing something.

i'm not eloquent, so i'm not sure if i explained what i meant adequately. but it's basically like how i can agree with what you say but hate the way you say it.

>You know what spawns a lot of hate as well? Gang wars, armed robberies, refusal to adapt to the rules of the host, riots, flag burning and leeching of the social security in a way that is completely out of proportion when compared to the host people.

and what do you think spawns all of those things?



 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sun Dec 24 01:54:25 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Christophe said:
>>Some high profile examples are rice and powell, are you saying they were just tokens or what?
>
>Who have made it even though they're a minority I mean

but the proportion of those who have "made it" vs. how many are in the country... it's not representative of the country.

plus, as a side note, a lot of black people don't like either of them...


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sun Dec 24 02:02:57 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>The professor who wrote the article in the first post is a black man who grew up in the streets of Philadelphia.
>I believe that, along with his education, makes him qualified to speak about racism and racial stereotypes.
>
>The racial profiling he was speaking of was in relation to airport security and fighting terrorism.
>
>Do you really think anything other than racial profiling concerning airport security is lunacy ?


Yes. And I've met asians [my dad included] who think that as a Chinese person, I shouldn't speak up about racism EVER unless it's been a personal case against me and THEN only to the person it was wrought by.

There was also a special report on racism presented by [i think] Paula Zahn on... Fox? CNN? whatever. anyway, on there was this black man [who was likewise "well suited for answering questions"] who thought that many black people pulled the racism card because they were trying to make themselves feel better.

my point is that, while we say some people are "qualified" to speak about racism and racial profiling, does that make others of the same caliber [the majority, typically] less qualified because we disagree with them?

i mean, if we want to analyze the article, i think we'd find that the professor doesn't take a direct stance on racial profiling. he even says himself that he's "explaining" the "phenomenon." plus, he understands the implications of racial profiling [as he talks about its effect on him].

but even if you understand something doesn't mean you have to think it's right.

i understand the "need" for racial profiling. and i understand why i "should" have to work harder. i understand why i'm at a disadvantage because of my race.

but despite being so fjsdklfjslk understanding, i don't think it's right. not because i want to be lazy or because i don't value my country, but because i value equality and the understanding of others more.


 
FN Posted: Sun Dec 24 08:41:50 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>They're the stuff that runs through our heads and in that way are manifested physically by the things we do and create and say. So can we really say that, like obesity and diabetes, culture begets terrorism should you be raised within a certain culture? Do we deny that it's a question instead of personal morals and thoughts and of personal developement?

Yes, because the things that we do, create and say sprout from our intellectual foundation: our culture.

And yes, muslim culture has easier paths to self destruction and terrorist acts than the western kind.

Ofcourse a lot of muslims aren't terrorists, but just like not all white people are racists that doesn't automaticly exclude them having sympathies for it when push comes to shove.

And yes, I acknowledge that not everybody is like that, I'll go as far as to say that the vast majority isn't even sympathetic towards it (although that's on the edge of reasonable doubt here) but I do see that acts of terrorism and the dormant condoning of it are more prominent in muslim culture.

>I dunno. I just can't write off a person for their religion. If I were to be written off in a similar way, I'd feel as if a great injustice had been done to me, and it wouldn't feel fair to do that to someone else.

It's not about writing somebody off. This is exactly why debates are killed and the minorities themselves keep botching all debate about it and thereby worsen their own situation in the eyes of others.

Writing somebody off has nothing to do with it in any way. If you behave as is expected from you in the country you live in and you stick to those rules, written and unwritten, as a minimum of politeness and maybe even gratitude for a better life, you don't get thrown into jail.

But then on the other hand, if you insist in strongheadedly maintaining your own rules to live by in a country that you immigrated to where those laws are not the way things are done, what else would you expect than conflict and disbelief in how people could be so unpolite and brutish.

>Human nature, but human nature also isn't the best indicator of what's right.

That's open for discussion.

However, in a nutshell I'l say I tend to agree with that. The question here however is not about right or wrong, this is beyond good and evil (grin), it is about minimizing risks.

>Plus, isn't the idea that ANYONE can be a terrorist? I mean, it's not like some types of stoves are more likely to be hotter than others...

Yes it is.

Old full metal stoves are more likely to be hot all over (old stoves = muslim culture). New stoves are insulated and have flashy lights showing wether they're warm or not and only a few hot surfaces.

Muslims culture is less evolved, wether you like it or not, than for example western european culture (which can be extraplated to american culture to a very large degree). One of the more obvious examples of that would be the lack of events like the french revolution in muslim culture, the failure to disconnect religious leaders from political leaders (although I admit in the us it's a bit dubious too, but I doubt anybody would go as far as to compare it to regimes in places like Iran) and the lack of general drive of a population to overthrow dictators, like europeans did quite a few centuries ago.

Same thing goes for most african cultures where you can't have an election without 30 people getting killed with machetes and rioting.

However, I can hear you getting on your horse eager to say that the above is not true, so I'll add in something that you like to hear instead of something you'd probably rather stick your head in the sand about: take the effects culture has had on behaviour during the interbellum and the years that followed. Not all germans were part of the gestapo or camp leaders, but a lot of them condoned it, because that's how the culture at that time was arranged in part by the nazi's (from child to soldier/breeder) and also in part due to previous german nature (read: the earlier evolvement of german culture).

That is in the end the product of the respective cultures and the norms and values they breed for an individual and for the group itself. To deny that an individual is shaped by his or her culture is plain ridiculous.

So long story short: I do not believe cultures are equal and I do not believe there is no correlation between your culture and the manner in which you behave.

One of the dominant aspects of culture is religion. It influences everything: norms, values, architecture, art, you name it.

That in itself leads to saying that religion, culture and skin color are often related.

There are more muslim arabs than non-muslim arabs, there are more christian white people than muslim white people, etcetera.

So which stove is more likely to get you burned without a warning? The old model.

>I know the majority typically decides what happenes; however, the minority should still be protected against the majority, right?

It depends on how you define protection.

>It's not TECHNICALLY within the law because it's illegal.

There you have it.

>But it's within other institutions of society that are connected to the law. Like law enforcement, real estate/ land, and education among other things.

That's what you say, but again are you denying that blacks for example aren't involved a lot more in violent crimes than their white counterparts?

Maybe that's why they get into contact with the police more often.

>>"Am I wrong?"
>>
>No.

>Of course on the grand scale, minorities in the US have little to gripe about.

Exactly.

>As does anyone in the world for that matter unless we're talking about those suffering from the oppression that you're talking about.

I'd say people dying of starvation have something to complain about as well.

>I'm not saying it is. But it's easier [well, it is in America] if you're white.

If you're white and you haven't had a proper education chances are you won't be president either.

>But even if you're not the one that's immigrated?

Yes, because even though americans living today didn't kill the natives they still have to hear about it, just like europeans today still have to hear about how they were colonialists.

I'm just kidding, that's not the real reason but I felt like adding that.

The real reason is reality. You might not have liked it but that's just too bad. It's too bad that people in russia are now having to deal with the economic consequences of the choice their (grand)parents made. Such is life.

So if you're an immigrant, even though you yourself did not immigrate, what would stop you from being a good citizen and doing what you're supposed to do without running into trouble.

>Statistics and life experience. It's easier for a white man to get a raise as opposed to say... a black woman.

Well statistics and life experience say non-whites are about 7 times more likely to commit violent crimes than white people but you throw that on the pile of discrimination by the system.

However, I doubt, strongly doubt, that what you say still holds true, because the race card is pulled pretty fast and you know no employer likes that.

If the white guy is better at the job he should get the most money, if not it should be the other way around, obviously.

But let's cut the crap again for a second and be realistic here. The problem again is here that whenever the white guy gets the raise the black person would pull the race card and by default say it was because of that. When the black person would get the raise you just wouldn't hear about it in the same way.

>People are more likely to warm up to you if you're white, etc etc. If you don't believe, watch how different people are treated. Plus, ask different races for stories about racism.

Yeah, tourists get treated better than an immigrant because tourists bring in money and then leave again.

>You agreed that minorities had to work harder, right?

Yes, I believe that is a very small price to pay for having a life outside of the bush or desert herding malnurtured livestock.

>So I'm not saying that people can get somewhere without hard work. But it takes White people less work to get somewhere than a minority.

I'd say again that is highly, extremely highly subjective, as I tried to make clear in the text above about the situations where first the white guy would get the raise and then the black woman.

>And minorities complain because, despite having obeyed the system and worked harder and being 2nd generation or MORE, they typically get the short end of the stick.

When you have to pray 5 times a day, or you insist to wear head scarves or barely speak the language, if at all (which is true for a lot of 2nd or more generation immigrants here) what do you expect.

>so why base our scans and searchs by people who "look" Muslim? which brings up another point... If we're targeting "Muslims," what're the signs of the religion??

Because chances are that when you pick an equal number of random white and arab people, you'll end up with a lot more muslims in the random arab group. The signs of the religion would be the arab look itself.

>>"So what would you like people to say about that guy and the people who allow him to stay in power"
>>
>well, just like how i hate it when people assume I love Bush, I'm sure they feel similarly.

That's not the question.

>But how is that extremist? Less westernized = extremist?

Extremist = refusing to adapt to your host and worse, and when the host is left out of the equation and it's in tehir own countries I'd say supporting religious regimes and selfdestruction is pretty extremist.

So in a way yes, less westernized = more extemist.

>what i mean is that you're bringing up this supposed right of our comminties to keep us in check based on stereotypes.

Ofcourse it is, we built our society and you're expecting to reap the benefits of it just like that?

How would "we" not have the right to check whoever "we" want.

>but the american community lacks suck a stereotype, but it doesn't justify how obnoxious we can be. similarly, every time a christian or a republican or a democrat or a _________ does something crazy, are we to judge the entire demographic based on that?

Don't you most of the time?

>even if we say that SOOO many of a certain group act a certain way, we can't say its' a good representation because you're still not seeing a majority of the group.

Totally beside the point. I've never said it's about a majority being terrorists, I said it's about a higher chance. Which there is.

>you're only seeing a certain percentage [the same percentage that's been highly manipulated in the media to appear a certain way]

Just like you're only seeing a percentage of black women not getting a raise.

>>"Yes, several rich people do drugs, yet your average junk isn't a rich white guy now is it."
>
>It isn't? Gotta say that I know more white people who do drugs than any other race.

No. There is a large difference between a rich guy doing drugs and not bothering anybody with it or a poor guy doing drugs and being a junk and stealing/robbing/whatever to get money for it.

>Like Asians??

Glad you brought that up (it took you longer than I expected :o).

Asains are the perfect back up for what I am saying.

Asains (here) commit about as much crime as white people.

They are far less unemployed than their arab/black counterparts who immigrated, and as said before don't commit as much crime by a very long shot.

How could this be? Because in the end, they too are immigrants so they too would have been open for the same kind of negative racial stereotyping.

Why then, are arabs and blacks stigmatized and asians are not (well, not in the same way, I'm sure there are people out there who dislike asians).

Could the answer be culture and its effects?

I'm sure it's all just a co´ncidence.

>BUT, if you want to talk a bout murderers, the only murderer i've ever heard of attacking the community i live in was a disgruntled white employee.

It's not about only the community you live in, it's about trends. Racial profiling isn't based on your local community.

And again, murder is just one example. Street fighting/robbery/etc is more common than murder and affects more people.

>the point i'm trying to make is that people focus on blacks as being gangsters and criminals, much like how many people gave that stereotype to italians.

But who's to blame?

Look at black popular music compared to the backstreet boys.

>"He's connected with the mob!"

Not anymore no. But ask people who lived during those days and I bet you'd get a different story.

Which again is exactly what I'm saying: stereotypes don't pop into existence out of nowhere. They are there because there's a base of truth behind them.

>But we see a big black man, and chances are most of us would hold our handbags a little tighter or stand a little farther away.

That's because you have a higher chance of getting robbed by the black man, just like when you're an isreali you'll probably be a little more skiddish when an arab walks into a bar (sounds like a joke) compared to when another jew walks in, simply because that jew isn't as likely to blow himself up.

In the end it's exactly the same thing just on a different level of violence.

>>>when Asians study, we study all out hardcore and do what it takes the make the grade.
>>
>>"Aren't you stereotyping here?"
>
>Nah. i was talking about the stereotype that this applies to.

I'd say that was pretty racial, but in a good way so then it's super!

>so what i'm saying, to rephrase, is that for the asians that DO study hard, it's typically like most kids-- right before the test. we tend to go all out hardcore and make the grade. i don't even know if that behaviour is that of most asians; just most of the asians I hang out with.

Again I don't really know what point you are making here.

>good thing it wasn't hypocrisy. if you want to make generalizations, go for it. but make generalizations based on a large sampling of the race. and by majority, i mean like... 80% or more... THAT'S a majority.

Aha but again, here's the difference that you seem to fail to grasp.

When people look at a black guy, they don't think "90% of the black people are thugs", but they think "black people are 7 times more likely to rob me"

So no, stereotyping has nothing to do with a majority, it is about a higher chance when somebody if said group is involved.

A minimum of understanding in how maths work should suffice to grasp the idea behind that.

>i'm just saying that more plays into crime than something like health. in crime, like i said, you have too many social factors. something like health or diseases are much more tangible than crimes and their connection with race.

Stop right there.

The discussion is not about *why* black people commit more crimes, we're talking about the *fact* that they commit more crimes.

The why is an entirely different discussion which should be handled seperately.

However instead of recognising that fact you blame it on the legal system and discrimination from the side of law enforcement.

And when you see that's failing you turn away and start an entirely different discussion.

>i'm not saying every black man in jail isn't guilty. my problem with the system is that people have been conditioned by the media and by society to think that a certain race is more likely to commit a crime.

For crying out loud, they *are* more likely to commit a crime.

>and when you have everyone looking out for that race, of course you're going to catch more of that race as opposed to just being neutral.

What kind of bullshit, pardon my french, is that?

So you're saying basicly that more black criminals are getting caught because they black and that this is a bad thing even though we're talking about criminals being arrested?

You feel there should be a quota on how many black people you can arrest when the quote of whites hasn't been filled up?

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so mindboggling.

>I'm not going to go crazy about the racist slur because I'm sure you can guess how pissed I was when I read it.

Haha, I just wanted to lure you out with that nigger thing :o) Kudos for not falling for it.

>But, again, I know they're not consciously looking to fill a quota. But, when you're out LOOKING for something, you're going to find it. Like I said, if you're looking to blame someone of a certain race, you'll find someone to blame.

That's just crazy. Looking for a black criminal won't force a black guy into committing a crime.

Again it's very simple: don't commit a crime and you don't go to jail.

>Plus, just because we thought we were so forward and upright about ending segregation, do you think that's really the same as treating and thinking someone of a certain race is equal?

I totally agree, it's not the same, and I'm not the one claiming it is, but neither am I the one claiming it should be.

>If we treat an entire race like they're doomed to become gangsters or hookers, if we de-value them and their humanity, how're they supposed to feel and think?

Why would I be supposed to care?

Fact of the matter is they're still way more better off, and if not who stops them from leaving.

They don't, yet africans for example are risking their lives by the hundreths on a monthly basis to swim across to europe. Why is that you think, because it's so much worse over here? Or you figure they don't hear how bad it is here for those poor minorities from their counterparts who already made it here.

The thing is, you should really try and zoom out a bit and see the big picture of it all instead of feeling it's an affront to the black race when a black murderer goes to jail and gets a rough sentence.

>But those cold facts have been influenced by social forces. So they're not just cold.

That's what you say. At the end of the day though, the numbers are on my side in this discussion, and if they wouldn't be you'd be the first to shove them under my nose probably and say "see, see".

But now, again because you might not like them, the race card is pulled once more and the match should be brought to a stop and extra points given to the losing team for no reason at all.

That's not the way the world works, and you can doubt scientific fact and the legal system as much as you want, there's not very much I can do about that, but I say that those 2 players in this game seem to me more trustworthy than a black intrest group feeling they don't get what they have the *right* to thrown into their lap and therefor must be discriminated against.

What I'm saying is that those same minorities are biting the hand that feeds them and sooner or later could get smacked for it and then they'll feel like it's an injustice done to them again.

>It shouldn't be an exception for anyone, regardless of race. But what I mean is that we've IMMIGRATED. we've ASSIMILATED. and yet, we still get stereotypes thrown against us.

Probably because "you" (again not you as a person) aren't so immigrated as you'd think you are.

>I was born in Iowa and lived in America my entire life. But you're telling me that because MY PARENTS are a certain race and thus I'm a certain race and because I LOOK that race, I SHOULD have racist comments thrown my way?

No, but I'm saying you shouldn't be surprised when a significant part of your race is fucking up in a major way that people tend to be more sceptical about you, just like you'll be less likely to see somebody with a white hood over his head just for the person who he is from the start.

>That, despite being as American as anyone else, I should have to work harder and PROVE myself? Then how come other American kids, the ones who also were born and grew up here, how come they don't have to?

They have to as well or they're stuck working for mcdonalds for the rest of their lives.

>It's a matter of equality. Of a level playing field. America claims it has it, but it doesn't. And that's what pisses me off. That big fat lie.

Can't blame you there, I dislike hypocrisy as well. Hence I'm saying right from the start that the playing field isn't even and on top of that that I do not feel that is *has* to be.

>it's that way because of institutionalized racism. how can you explain how two kids given [supposedly] the same things despite their skin color turn out so differently? And are so "likely" to turn out differently?

Their upbringing (= culture).

But again, that's about the "why", I'm talking about the fact that immigrants commit more crimes, the why is a different story entirely than just wether you accept those facts or not.

>I know that. But you really think that those parents don't check on their kids?

I don't say none of them do, or that the majority doesn't, but I'm saying that relatively speaking you'll indeed have more immigrant parents allowing their children to fuck up than non-immigrant parents.

>Or to add to it, that they can?

That's not my problem and again does not substract anything from the fact that immigrants commit more crimes.

>Maybe they're working those lower level jobs that SO many immigrants have to work [in order to "assimilate" because as immigrants they have rights to nothing] and because those jobs pay less, they must work more and harder and thus have no time or energy to watch their kids.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

All I say is that it's the same thing for a lot of non-immigrants and still the relative results are very different.

So yes, I believe it is indeed a question of culture. Besides, all you hear about is how western society is so individualistic (= bad) and non-western society isn't.

That, *that* could be a handy card to play if one wanted to. Because if that kind of internal bond and structure is there, that would lead to believe that violent behaviour is condoned at least.

Only to say that once more I don't believe in equality of culture.

>>"If you don't like it go to russia."
>>
>I don't believe in the idea of giving up on my home.

I was kidding. Besides, in russia chances are you'd get beaten up/killed when you'd venture outside of the protection of international universities.

>No. It's that I don't buy them anymore and that i'm always on the look out for ways to improve my consumerism so i'm not ruining someone else's life.

You're potentially ruining peoples lives by taking away their livelihoods by not buying those products.

>if it makes my life a little harder, so what? better than mooching off someone else's misery.

You're mooching off their job, which will improve itself over the course of time, just like it had to evolve in europe as well.

This is where the true problem with minorities lies: "you" see how western people have it, yell "gimme gimme gimme" and expect to be on par immediately, and then when it doesn't happen you feel discriminated while discrimination has nothing to do with it, it's how reality works.

>>Western countries had to go through waves of poverty and such as well before arriving where they are now
>>
>but if we have the power to help people more, why not do it?

I'm sorry but "the power to change it" is a load of crap by people who either don't know what they're talking about or who say it for popular acclaim.

>well, perhaps Europe not so much, but America was built on invading and conquering. so it seems kind of hypocritical for us, when our history is based on immigration if NOT take-over, that when others want to move in we get all antsy-pantsy and throw hissy fits.

Au contraire, americans know what happened and probably wouldn't like it happening to them.

>how can you tell someone to fix something they can't fix? how can I fix stereotyping and racism? i can't. it's the people who are stereotyping and being racist that have to fix it.

Are you actually reading what you're typing?

You can't change people leeching of the social security system, being violent and what not, however western people should fix racism and stereotyping?

>it's like blaming someone who got shot with a gun that it's their fault, when really they're not the ones that pulled the trigger.

No, it's like blaming people for putting the murder in jail because he's a black guy and he's just a product of rampant racist discrimination and not getting the luxury he's entitled to for being a negroid.

>because you're hating hate. that's natural to me because it translates into every culture. everyone hates it when hate is done unto them.

Pretty paradoxical to hate hate.

>>"It is narrowminded that you cannot see that the stuff you're prejudiced against is exactly the same thing: you are prejudiced against different views and believes, wethet that is a culture or a view on prejudice is exactly the same thing, you just add a whim of hypocritical morality to it"
>>
>i'm not prejudiced to different views and beliefs. i'm fine if people disagree. But if people hate each other for disagreeing, that's what I'm against.

I don't say you're a bad person for "hating hate" or whatever, but as I said I strongly dislike the hypocrisy and faked morality woven into it.

>How can hate for views and beliefs be a view or belief? I mean, I know what you're saying on the fundamental level. Yes, hatefully you can see someone's viewpoints. That's a WAY to see something.

Glad we agree.

It's just like how you could possibly say that hate for hate isn't hate.

>i'm not eloquent, so i'm not sure if i explained what i meant adequately. but it's basically like how i can agree with what you say but hate the way you say it.

And I can hate what you say and who you are for saying it. Because in the end are you not what you say to be your views as it sprouts from your own will and views.

>>You know what spawns a lot of hate as well? Gang wars, armed robberies, refusal to adapt to the rules of the host, riots, flag burning and leeching of the social security in a way that is completely out of proportion when compared to the host people.
>
>and what do you think spawns all of those things?

Immigrants.


 
FN Posted: Sun Dec 24 08:44:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>but the proportion of those who have "made it" vs. how many are in the country... it's not representative of the country.

Why should it be proportionate by default? That's not how a democracy works, you don't have quota's.

Everybody has 1 vote, that does not translate into automatic racial representation.

If it did, that would be true seggregation


 
FN Posted: Sun Dec 24 08:47:34 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>anyway, on there was this black man [who was likewise "well suited for answering questions"] who thought that many black people pulled the racism card because they were trying to make themselves feel better.

I agree.

And if they all behaved like that guy do you really (really) believe that racism would take on the proportions that it has today, towards black people in this case.

>but even if you understand something doesn't mean you have to think it's right.

It is not about right or wrong. It is about practical and necessary or not.

>i understand the "need" for racial profiling. and i understand why i "should" have to work harder. i understand why i'm at a disadvantage because of my race.

It should not have to be percieved as a disadvantage per se.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Dec 24 09:13:56 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>The professor who wrote the article in the first post is a black man who grew up in the streets of Philadelphia.
>>I believe that, along with his education, makes him qualified to speak about racism and racial stereotypes.
>>
>>The racial profiling he was speaking of was in relation to airport security and fighting terrorism.
>>
>>Do you really think anything other than racial profiling concerning airport security is lunacy ?
>
>
>Yes. And I've met asians [my dad included] who think that as a Chinese person, I shouldn't speak up about racism EVER unless it's been a personal case against me and THEN only to the person it was wrought by.
>
>There was also a special report on racism presented by [i think] Paula Zahn on... Fox? CNN? whatever. anyway, on there was this black man [who was likewise "well suited for answering questions"] who thought that many black people pulled the racism card because they were trying to make themselves feel better.
>
>my point is that, while we say some people are "qualified" to speak about racism and racial profiling, does that make others of the same caliber [the majority, typically] less qualified because we disagree with them?
>
No, it doesn't. It only means you should respect his point of view, not necessarily agree with him.

>i mean, if we want to analyze the article, i think we'd find that the professor doesn't take a direct stance on racial profiling. he even says himself that he's "explaining" the "phenomenon." plus, he understands the implications of racial profiling [as he talks about its effect on him].
>
>but even if you understand something doesn't mean you have to think it's right.
>
>i understand the "need" for racial profiling. and i understand why i "should" have to work harder. i understand why i'm at a disadvantage because of my race.
>
>but despite being so fjsdklfjslk understanding, i don't think it's right. not because i want to be lazy or because i don't value my country, but because i value equality and the understanding of others more.
>
Racial profiling might not be "right", but in this case it is "the right thing to do".
>
I would like to add that I don't think Asians have anywhere near the disadvantages due to racism as blacks or hispanics in this country, at least not in my region.
It seems their stereotype is mostly educated and hard working honest people.
I live amongst the rednecks here in Kentucky, but somehow most of the engineers around here are Asian.


 
FN Posted: Sun Dec 24 09:24:36 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>(which can be extraplated to american culture to a very large degree).

extrapolated



Hm, I won't go about correcting the typo's come to think of it, you'll figure it out


 
FN Posted: Sun Dec 24 09:39:26 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Probably because "you" (again not you as a person) aren't so immigrated as you'd think you are.

*assimilated


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Mon Dec 25 04:33:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>innocenceNonus said:

>Yes, because the things that we do, create and say sprout from our intellectual foundation: our culture.
>

but culture isn't terrorism.

but let's say for the sake of the argument that it was [say someone was raised in a "terrorist" culture]- do you really think that everyone is so simple as to never question what they're taught? and just because you're raised within a certain culture means that you can't disagree with it?

>And yes, muslim culture has easier paths to self destruction and terrorist acts than the western kind.
>

in what ways? through prayer? by wearing head-scarves? are those the things terrorism is made of?

>Ofcourse a lot of muslims aren't terrorists, but just like not all white people are racists that doesn't automaticly exclude them having sympathies for it when push comes to shove.
>
>And yes, I acknowledge that not everybody is like that, I'll go as far as to say that the vast majority isn't even sympathetic towards it (although that's on the edge of reasonable doubt here) but I do see that acts of terrorism and the dormant condoning of it are more prominent in muslim culture.
>

how is it dormantly condoned in any way? what do you want them to do? speak out against it? they have. fight wars against their brothers? they have. so what do you want them to do? all become westernized and wear business suits and sip tea while reading the New York Times?

>Writing somebody off has nothing to do with it in any way. If you behave as is expected from you in the country you live in and you stick to those rules, written and unwritten, as a minimum of politeness and maybe even gratitude for a better life, you don't get thrown into jail.
>

wait, so do certain countries have this monopoly on a better life where they tell people who they've not only allowed but supposedly "welcomed" into their country that they must live, act, and speak a certain way in order to retain any rights at all? Dunno about Europe, but that's not America [at least not to me]. Ameica's about freedom [granted with responsibility], and if those minorities aren't hurting others, don't see why they should suffer.

and i know you're gonna say something like "they are hurting others." but in my opinion, the same ratio the "homelanders" are hurting themselves. [though i WILL say this: tell a child he's a moron, and he will not perform as well as he would if you told him he were brilliant. rob a man of his humanity, tell him to relinquish his heritage for food for his family, and you might as well tell him he's a moron.

and i have a feeling that you'd say he should happily give it up for a chance at a better life. and chances are, he would. BUT, I don't think that's right. he's just as human as you or i, so why should he give up something we hold so precious just to feed his family? it's wrong.]

>But then on the other hand, if you insist in strongheadedly maintaining your own rules to live by in a country that you immigrated to where those laws are not the way things are done, what else would you expect than conflict and disbelief in how people could be so unpolite and brutish.
>

i think the main problem is this argument is that you believe one culture can be superior to another, while I don't. i believe there are better ways of doing things, yes. but i also believe that each person has to find their own way.

even if you think you have the "better" way, should you force other people to take that way? and even if you say "no, but let them reap the consequences" and give them negative consequences, what else are you doing but essentially coercing them into doing whatever you think is right?

>However, in a nutshell I'l say I tend to agree with that. The question here however is not about right or wrong, this is beyond good and evil (grin), it is about minimizing risks.
>

and that's the other problem with our argument. i think that choosing right over wrong and good versus evil is more important than minimizing risks.

and YES, that did just come out of my mouth BECAUSE when you're doing something wrong to "do something right," you're still doing something wrong. and that, for me, is inexcusable.

>Muslims culture is less evolved, wether you like it or not, than for example western european culture (which can be extraplated to american culture to a very large degree). One of the more obvious examples of that would be the lack of events like the french revolution in muslim culture, the failure to disconnect religious leaders from political leaders (although I admit in the us it's a bit dubious too, but I doubt anybody would go as far as to compare it to regimes in places like Iran) and the lack of general drive of a population to overthrow dictators, like europeans did quite a few centuries ago.
>

old stove or not, it's still gonna burn you. so what if one is a few more degrees hotter than the other or one isn't a convection oven? they'll still burn your hand. [btw... last i checked, older ovens [because of their lack of insulation] could be more easily told that they would burn ya... as opposed to new models where you have to look for the discreet, modest blinking light [because honestly, what REAL housewife would have an oven with a garish blinking light if it already has good insulation?]

anyway, stove analogy aside because i've lost track of where it was going, just because a culture isn't westernized doesn't mean it's bad. i mean, asian culture is far from "wsternized" [legit asian culture anyway], and both you and hif said that we're not getting much heat at all. [i just like bringing asian stereotypes up because i've had personal experience with them... what can i say?] ; however, rather than not being westernized, we don't cause problems for western culture [at least not televised ones/ widely public ones... cept for North Korea].

so REALLY, rather than saying cultures should evolve or become westernized, shouldn't you really be saying that we not pop the Westernization happy bubble?

i mean, Africa didn't for a long time until the messages of poverty and disease started finally getting to the ears of a lot of westerners... and now, far more people are willing to get in the muck whereas before people just kinda let it slide. i've heard more about Darfur in the past year than i have in the past 5 or 10 years.

plus, with movies like Rwanda, Blood Diamond, The Interpreter, etc etc etc coming out, more awareness is being raised. [not to mention the ploy on LOST... which btw, I always imagine Hif as Locke... for some WEIRD reason]

>Same thing goes for most african cultures where you can't have an election without 30 people getting killed with machetes and rioting.
>

kinda hard to overthrow a dictator when you're starving and/or possibly dying of AIDS...

>However, I can hear you getting on your horse eager to say that the above is not true, so I'll add in something that you like to hear instead of something you'd probably rather stick your head in the sand about: take the effects culture has had on behaviour during the interbellum and the years that followed. Not all germans were part of the gestapo or camp leaders, but a lot of them condoned it, because that's how the culture at that time was arranged in part by the nazi's (from child to soldier/breeder) and also in part due to previous german nature (read: the earlier evolvement of german culture).
>

i don't understand when personal attacks came into this, but it's okay. i can still respect you even though i hate your opinion : ). BUT, I agree with you in that respect: that we are shaped by our culture [though I still maintain that as people with brains, we make a choice on what parts of our culture we hold onto].

So what I'm saying is that in the same way you consider Muslims to be influenced by their culture to be terrorists, I feel that a lot of people [all people] have been influenced to be racist. But because White people are the majority and thus hold a majority of power and resources, their decisions have a lot more weight to them against a minority than say... as Asian to a White person [within that context].

>That is in the end the product of the respective cultures and the norms and values they breed for an individual and for the group itself. To deny that an individual is shaped by his or her culture is plain ridiculous.
>

that's why i don't disagree. i agree whole-heartedly that they are shaped. BUT, you can't ignore that as a part of culture, you play an active role in it by deciding what you believe and don't within culture.

>So long story short: I do not believe cultures are equal and I do not believe there is no correlation between your culture and the manner in which you behave.
>

Long story short: i disagree with everything in that last blurb.

>One of the dominant aspects of culture is religion. It influences everything: norms, values, architecture, art, you name it.
>
>That in itself leads to saying that religion, culture and skin color are often related.
>

religion does influence everything, including culture. but it doesn't influence skin color. people of any color are free to be what religion they want [which reminds me: if we're so busy looking at the "arabs," what're we gonna do when terrorists of other color slip through our fingers? i mean, not to mention the fact that people typically suck at guessing races... but terrorists aren't exactly idiots... i'm pretty sure they've caught onto "racial profiling" by now...]

>So which stove is more likely to get you burned without a warning? The old model.
>

but you still get burned by both... one with less warning but still by both...

so maybe the idea is that we shouldn't use stoves? RAW FOODS DIET, GO!

>
>It depends on how you define protection.
>

their rights and best interests should be at the same level as the majority.

i mean, the bottom line for all of my thoughts is that we are all people. it doesn't matter in the end where we live or our skin color. [this is cheesy, i know] but the truth is that we're all mankind. and i'm following the simple principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

>>It's not TECHNICALLY within the law because it's illegal.
>
>There you have it.
>

but it's still there.

and because it "technically" isn't there, it makes it all the harder to fight. but institutionalized racism is a far broader topic that we really shouldn't get into because this is getting out of hand as is.

>That's what you say, but again are you denying that blacks for example aren't involved a lot more in violent crimes than their white counterparts?
>

Not completely.

Ok. Let's break this down.

I believe that blacks are caught more often than whites, but i believe that people [regardless of color] with the same background [poor, went to a bad school]-- their crime rates in proportion to their racial population are about the same. in other words, a poorly educated, desperate white man is just as likely to commit a crime as a poorly educated, desperate black man.

also, i believe that blacks are caught more often because they always have a negative rap and thus, they're more often targeted by police. that's not to say police are filling a quota or that they ignore white people [though this is sometimes the case] or even that black people aren't really committing the crimes.

i'm not saying every black man in jail is innocent.

what i am saying is that the white men who SHOULD be in prison for dealing drugs and starting fights and stabbings and murders aren't as likely to be in jail as the black men who've committed those same crimes.

what i'm asking for is equality [which apparently, according to you, people don't deserve because of their skin color???]


>>As does anyone in the world for that matter unless we're talking about those suffering from the oppression that you're talking about.
>
>I'd say people dying of starvation have something to complain about as well.
>

Agreed. But you understand the point I'm making right? Even if in the "whole world" respect, it's not that bad, I'm not talking about it with respect to the whole world. I'm not trying to fix the whole world [just yet]. I'm trying to focus on my home first.

>If you're white and you haven't had a proper education chances are you won't be president either.
>

agreed. but you'd probably have a lot easier time at it than an asian or black man with the same education and work.


>Yes, because even though americans living today didn't kill the natives they still have to hear about it, just like europeans today still have to hear about how they were colonialists.
>
>I'm just kidding, that's not the real reason but I felt like adding that.
>

Even though you were kidding, just wanted to add too that immigrants didn't kill any natives in an attempt of a mass take-over... or force them to march several miles in snow with young children...

Nah. we just do things like wanna send our kids to school and try to find a better life and try to maintain some dignity while doing it. [though that's pretty hard when the system doesn't allow you any dignity because you're a "dirty immigrant"]

>The real reason is reality. You might not have liked it but that's just too bad. It's too bad that people in russia are now having to deal with the economic consequences of the choice their (grand)parents made. Such is life.
>

but if we accept bad realities and don't try to change them to make them better, aren't we committing the same "dormant condoning" that we're accusing the muslims of?

[then again, doesn't really apply to you because you think that cultures can be superior to one another... so i spose it's not really a bad reality for you?? [oh right... just for me]]

>So if you're an immigrant, even though you yourself did not immigrate, what would stop you from being a good citizen and doing what you're supposed to do without running into trouble.
>

nothing except everyone telling me i'm bound for trouble from my birth to my death. and then telling me i deserve nothing because i'm descended from immigrants. oh, and also giving me poorer houses to live in, a job that should be considered below my aptitude that doesn't pay as well [but hey! at least i'm employed!], and telling my children they're good for nothing too... YEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH. nothing to keep me from running into trouble. nothing at all.

>Well statistics and life experience say non-whites are about 7 times more likely to commit violent crimes than white people but you throw that on the pile of discrimination by the system.
>

well, that poor white guy must have been discrimnated to get a better opportunity. bet that black woman's a big racist to let him take that from her!

>However, I doubt, strongly doubt, that what you say still holds true, because the race card is pulled pretty fast and you know no employer likes that.
>

yet, amazingly, they seem to get away with it. because out of all the racist cases that have occured, do you want to know how often the whistle actually gets blown?

plus, let's not call attention to the fact that every time it's a miscall and someone did it for attention, the media likes to go CRAZY over that [because it makes for a better story].

>If the white guy is better at the job he should get the most money, if not it should be the other way around, obviously.
>

agreed.

>But let's cut the crap again for a second and be realistic here. The problem again is here that whenever the white guy gets the raise the black person would pull the race card and by default say it was because of that. When the black person would get the raise you just wouldn't hear about it in the same way.
>

no. because the black person wouldn't have gotten the raise if it was different.

but let's say it was a black company and the white man didn't get the promotion because his black boss is racist against white people [which can happen]. at which, tell that white boy to pull the race card!

and it's not like tons of people wouldn't flood to support him because a majority of white people hate affirmative action with a vengeance [as do a lot of Asians, actually...]

>
>Yeah, tourists get treated better than an immigrant because tourists bring in money and then leave again.
>

Ah, but they still don't get treated as well as the natives with the same education and class level. well, unless you're in a non-westernized country.

>I'd say again that is highly, extremely highly subjective, as I tried to make clear in the text above about the situations where first the white guy would get the raise and then the black woman.
>

that's due to affirmative action. but if affirmative action wasn't there? could you still tell me that that would be the case if they put in the same amount of hard work?

>When you have to pray 5 times a day, or you insist to wear head scarves or barely speak the language, if at all (which is true for a lot of 2nd or more generation immigrants here) what do you expect.
>

Uh... maybe you missed it, but i said assimilated. besides, while I can understand about the language part because you need it to function within the society you've moved to, you're telling me that I should change my religion and my clothes to fit in??

Are we back in high school?!

>
>Because chances are that when you pick an equal number of random white and arab people, you'll end up with a lot more muslims in the random arab group. The signs of the religion would be the arab look itself.
>

i'll take that argument, but i'll raise you another: it might give you a better chance of catching a "muslim" but not an extremist. i mean, aside from the twin towers, the US has had many more public bombings and shootings... and call me crazy, but I don't remember those being Muslim extremists related... [though, as a back up, a few of them might have been... but i'm pretty sure most of them weren't]

>That's not the question.
>

ok. then here's a complete answer: i'd like for them to represent them fairly, just as they'd want to be represented.

>
>Extremist = refusing to adapt to your host and worse, and when the host is left out of the equation and it's in tehir own countries I'd say supporting religious regimes and selfdestruction is pretty extremist.
>

the host is always in the equation. since when were they OUT?!! and not everyone supposed religious regimes and self destruction. you make it seem like everyone who's not White is a terrorist! [or, for the same of the argument, a very likely candidate] But there's a reason they're extremists... they're the extreme... they're not the norm! so when we discriminate by race, we're discrimnating on a majority of the norm and hopefully [let's keep our fingers crossed!] we catch the extremist in the net.

>So in a way yes, less westernized = more extemist.

i'm just going to pretend i didn't read that because i just might have to cry tears of blood and ask Christ to take me home.

>
>Ofcourse it is, we built our society and you're expecting to reap the benefits of it just like that?
>

uhh... last i checked, we helped build your society too. know those guns? or that trade? Or that railroad? Or heck... paper?!?!?!

>How would "we" not have the right to check whoever "we" want.
>

well, i suppose when you're not checked first, best go for the pre-emptive strike!

>Don't you most of the time?
>

No! and when i find myself doing it, i force myself to stop because i make a conscious decision not to pre-judge others when i don't even know them or their story.

i hate racism. i don't hate white people or black people or asians. i hate prejudice and hate and war. i don't hate the people who hold those prejudices or ARE hateful or who wage the war. [sometimes i blame them or DO find myself hating them, but i try to forgive them... it's hard but fairly liberating.]

>
>Totally beside the point. I've never said it's about a majority being terrorists, I said it's about a higher chance. Which there is.
>

Point taken.

>
>Just like you're only seeing a percentage of black women not getting a raise.
>

Tell me the percentage who do based on hard work compared to the percentage who don't because a white man is there.


>No. There is a large difference between a rich guy doing drugs and not bothering anybody with it or a poor guy doing drugs and being a junk and stealing/robbing/whatever to get money for it.
>

There are both of both kinds. Like said before, people within the same fiscal class tend to have similar behavioural trends, no matter what the color... it just so happens [SURPRISE!] that those of color are found as the majority of the lower classes.

>Why then, are arabs and blacks stigmatized and asians are not (well, not in the same way, I'm sure there are people out there who dislike asians).
>
>Could the answer be culture and its effects?
>
>I'm sure it's all just a co´ncidence.
>

Nah. Like said, how assimilated do you think Asians are? There are solid communities in CA where not one asian speaks a word of English. in fact, China Town in San Francisco [or was it NY?] doesn't pay taxes. the city doesn't clean it, and China Town's dirty.

But we're still seen as "obedient and quiet and well-behaved." Why? Because most of us [well, stereotyping anyway] don't cause trouble [that's what YOU think]. but the truth is, that's a stereotype that's been accepted and thus asians are even less likely to get caught than white people.

>And again, murder is just one example. Street fighting/robbery/etc is more common than murder and affects more people.
>

i know it isn't based on my community alone. but at the same time, you act like black people commit a majority of those crimes. WHEN, it's more likely that it's about even between blacks and whites but blacks get caught more often.

>Look at black popular music compared to the backstreet boys.
>

Whitney houston? Beyonce? Brandy? Ne-yo? Tu-pac with "Changes"? Several Kanye West lyrics?

>Not anymore no. But ask people who lived during those days and I bet you'd get a different story.
>

So... there's no longer an italian mob?! ::cries::

>Which again is exactly what I'm saying: stereotypes don't pop into existence out of nowhere. They are there because there's a base of truth behind them.
>

there's a base truth. but the problem is that for every "base truth" you know, a good portion of the "base" group has something that contradicts it.


>That's because you have a higher chance of getting robbed by the black man, just like when you're an isreali you'll probably be a little more skiddish when an arab walks into a bar (sounds like a joke) compared to when another jew walks in, simply because that jew isn't as likely to blow himself up.
>

that's because we've been trained to respond in such a way. but the truth is that you never KNOW. you just guess. you assume. and you know what they say about assuming...!

>In the end it's exactly the same thing just on a different level of violence.
>

it is. and i still dislike it.

>>Nah. i was talking about the stereotype that this applies to.
>
>I'd say that was pretty racial, but in a good way so then it's super!
>

no no no. it's not a stereotype because i'm saying that because a few [at LEAST-- because, like you said, for every stereotype there's a base truth...] asians when they study go all out hardcore last minute and pull throught, people stereotype asians as being "really smart" or "nerds." but that's not the case. the proportion of smart asians is pretty much the same as the proportion of smart any other race.


>
>Again I don't really know what point you are making here.
>

probably because you didn't take it with the part of the argument it was going with...

the POINT is that stereotype are often wrong, only half if at ALL true, and often lend to widening the big cup of hate that stands between us and a big loaf of peace. [it's late, and i'm making jokes to myself.]

>When people look at a black guy, they don't think "90% of the black people are thugs", but they think "black people are 7 times more likely to rob me"
>

really? because i thought it was simply down to "black people = scary" i mean... when most people see a black guy, do they really store that neat little statistic in their head?

>
>A minimum of understanding in how maths work should suffice to grasp the idea behind that.
>

Pity... I'm a math major, though I suck at math. I'm an English major though I'm not eloquent at all. guess all i'm suited for is raising a bunch of non-westernized children so they can end up crackheads and NOT getting caught by the police. pity, pity...

>
>The discussion is not about *why* black people commit more crimes, we're talking about the *fact* that they commit more crimes.
>

Ah. perhaps another reason why this argument is going in circles. I'm concerned with the why, because without knowing the why you will never change the fact or understand why the fact has come to be, but you are concerned with the fact alone.

in that case... i'll say this: Black people get CAUGHT for more crimes.

haHA!

>The why is an entirely different discussion which should be handled seperately.
>

agreed. this argument keeps taking a large portion of my sleeping time, though it IS excellent brain food.

>However instead of recognising that fact you blame it on the legal system and discrimination from the side of law enforcement.
>

nah. i fully recognize that they get caught more often. and you can't say that's not true either. the thing is, until we can see TRUE statistics where people finally own up to all the crimes they've committed, we will NEVER know if your statistic is true or not. just because they get caught doesn't mean it actually is that way.

and you can't say the legal system is infallible or that the law enforcement is without prejudice in itself... after all, if our culture has influenced, then it should be as prejudiced as me and you...

and to even think about that really freaks me out. [not because i think you're a bigot or a racist... I don't [though why i don't, i'm a little surprised...] but to think about how racit i have been and am right now... that's scary.]

>And when you see that's failing you turn away and start an entirely different discussion.
>

do I? OH LOOK! BLUEBERRIES!

>For crying out loud, they *are* more likely to commit a crime.
>

uh, proof? you gonna stick a white man and a black man in a room with a suitcase of men and see which one goes for it first?

because, while more black men get caught, we still don't know the real crime rates of the black community, the white, or the asian, or any other race you wanna throw in the mix.

>So you're saying basicly that more black criminals are getting caught because they black and that this is a bad thing even though we're talking about criminals being arrested?
>

Nope. I'm saying that they shouldn't be more likely to get caught than a white man. They should both be caught and should both be privy to the same discrimnation.

It's not like I'm waving a banner for criminals. I'm waving a banner for no racism/ prejudice... Or, if that's not possible, equal discrimation. : )

>You feel there should be a quota on how many black people you can arrest when the quote of whites hasn't been filled up?
>

once again, no. but you really think the percentage of white men making up our jails is true, despite the US being about 70% white?! only 10% of jails are white... though 70% of the country is white... that makes sense to you?!

>This would be hilarious if it wasn't so mindboggling.
>

or so heartbreaking.

>Haha, I just wanted to lure you out with that nigger thing :o) Kudos for not falling for it.
>

It was very difficult.

>That's just crazy. Looking for a black criminal won't force a black guy into committing a crime.
>

Uh, psychology might say otherwise. BUT, that goes into a different realm altogether. to stay closer to the topic, I know what you mean. but at the same time, I'm just worried... if only 11% of America is responsible for APPARENTLY 60% of our crimes... and another 70% only 10%... can those statistics actually accurately reflect those cultures and those people and the crime rates within the country?

>The thing is, you should really try and zoom out a bit and see the big picture of it all instead of feeling it's an affront to the black race when a black murderer goes to jail and gets a rough sentence.
>

no, you mistake me. i don't think a murderer going to jail is wrong. i do think a white murderer getting an easier sentence than he would if he were black... or, even worse, not as likely to be caught because he isn't black... i think THAT'S the bad part.

and once AGAIN, i realize that minorities in western countries don't have it that bad.

and once AGAIN, i'm saying that i'm raising my voice because i don't agree with how it is. why settle for sub-par when you can have better?

>That's what you say. At the end of the day though, the numbers are on my side in this discussion, and if they wouldn't be you'd be the first to shove them under my nose probably and say "see, see".
>

hahah. actually, i first found my statistics when in search of just such a statistic. i wanted one that said white people composed a majority of jails.

and when i found the opposite, it didn't make sense to me. not because it didn't fit what i wanted; i mean, the statistic i got didn't surprise me. but it didn't make sense to me...

70%... 10%... 11%... 60%... that's pretty much inverted... i mean... just by sheer numbers, white people should have more crimes. but... they don't.

so help me make sense of that in a way that doesn't involve discrimnation of a race. give me something tangible and real and a cold, hard fact. and i'll believe you. show me that, caught or not, black people commit more crimes because their culture creates them to.

then i'll be all for the racial profiling bandwagon.

but i don't understand it. i've never seen a statistic to, without influence or bias, show that black ppl really do commit more crimes. so i can't jump on the bandwagon.


>That's not the way the world works, and you can doubt scientific fact and the legal system as much as you want, there's not very much I can do about that, but I say that those 2 players in this game seem to me more trustworthy than a black intrest group feeling they don't get what they have the *right* to thrown into their lap and therefor must be discriminated against.
>

SCIENTIFIC FACT?! Is there a FACT that says that black people will commit more crimes than white people?! WHAT?! please... by all means... show me where wikipedia says this because i really would want to know.

>What I'm saying is that those same minorities are biting the hand that feeds them and sooner or later could get smacked for it and then they'll feel like it's an injustice done to them again.
>

have you ever heard a black person say he shouldn't have to work just as hard as everyone else? have you ever heard a minority asking for treatment above the others?

chances are no. we're not asking for special treatment. we're asking for equal treatment.

if you're gonna pull up "affirmative action," i'm just going to say that it was made to alleviate the discrimination faced by minorities. it actually works against asians [at least when it comes to colleges].

>Probably because "you" (again not you as a person) aren't so immigrated as you'd think you are.
>

studies show that while blacks are seen as more easily assimilable, asians are seen as more "valued" because they behave well and what-other-nonsense-have-you.

it's hard to convince people you've assimilated when they don't think you have and won't no matter what you do. because, somewhere out there, there's always gonna be someone who has done enough but because their "race" didn't "assimilate" they're gonna get the short end of the stick.


>
>No, but I'm saying you shouldn't be surprised when a significant part of your race is fucking up in a major way that people tend to be more sceptical about you, just like you'll be less likely to see somebody with a white hood over his head just for the person who he is from the start.
>

i don't think we're that surprised.

also, it's a little hard not to "screw up" in a major way when you're always being told you're gonna trip up and every move you make it watched like a hawk to find that you've tripped up. ALSO doesn't help when that trip up is then broadcasted over every television network possible.

>
>They have to as well or they're stuck working for mcdonalds for the rest of their lives.
>

Not the same way I do. Or how my parents did. Or how any minority does.

Maybe it's something the majority can't understand because few of the majority have experienced it. And maybe that's why they scoff and jeer and hate.

>
>Can't blame you there, I dislike hypocrisy as well. Hence I'm saying right from the start that the playing field isn't even and on top of that that I do not feel that is *has* to be.
>

Well, I'm saying it should and it does have to be. Difference of opinion [which is why we're arguing].


>I don't say none of them do, or that the majority doesn't, but I'm saying that relatively speaking you'll indeed have more immigrant parents allowing their children to fuck up than non-immigrant parents.

that's what you think. you don't think there are tons of immigrant parents telling their kids they represent their race?

>
>All I say is that it's the same thing for a lot of non-immigrants and still the relative results are very different.
>

i wouldn't say they're all that different. those kids are all likely to go to low-income jobs or get into the same activities, though not the same crowds.

>So yes, I believe it is indeed a question of culture. Besides, all you hear about is how western society is so individualistic (= bad) and non-western society isn't.
>

really? because i hear differently all the time... maybe because i'm always complaining about the US and how it could be better that people feel compelled to tell me how great Western civilization is.

>Only to say that once more I don't believe in equality of culture.
>

Once more to say that I do... Oh, how it turns!


>
>I was kidding. Besides, in russia chances are you'd get beaten up/killed when you'd venture outside of the protection of international universities.
>

I know you were kidding. And chances are you might be right.

>
>You're potentially ruining peoples lives by taking away their livelihoods by not buying those products.
>

No. Companies will still go to them for cheaper labor; however, the idea is that conditions and pay would improve. They'd still be the cheap labor because of money conversions, but they'd have a better life.

>
>You're mooching off their job, which will improve itself over the course of time, just like it had to evolve in europe as well.
>

how is it mooching off their job by not buying products that the company is killing them to sell?

>This is where the true problem with minorities lies: "you" see how western people have it, yell "gimme gimme gimme" and expect to be on par immediately, and then when it doesn't happen you feel discriminated while discrimination has nothing to do with it, it's how reality works.
>

Nope. Sorry, but after slavery ended and then segregation ended, not THAT much is different. I mean, we could always pat ourselves on the back and say the few great strides that have been made. But the truth is, it isn't how it's supposed to be.

It's not a matter of "gimme." It's a matter of equality. People aren't stupid, and the majority isn't the only greedless population. Tons of minorities understand that it takes time to work its way up. Just that when we are trying to work and be told it's not good enough, we can't sit by and say it's all gravy. Because we're not being given a fair opportunity to improve our lives to the western standard of living.

>I'm sorry but "the power to change it" is a load of crap by people who either don't know what they're talking about or who say it for popular acclaim.
>

well, i just think a 7 billion dollar wall is a little much when there's far more pressing matters at hand for the world, much less US itself.

so where do you not understand the "power to change it" deal?

>Au contraire, americans know what happened and probably wouldn't like it happening to them.
>

... isn't that what I said? So if we wouldn't like it happening... why would force it on others??

>You can't change people leeching of the social security system, being violent and what not, however western people should fix racism and stereotyping?
>

they wouldn't have to leech off of social security and be violent if the system didn't set them up for it.

it's not like all minorities are lazy and have no dignity and don't believe in equality or justice as much as the next person. they aren't lazy; they WANT dignity and they believe in equality and justice.

but when they're told they're lazy [no matter what they do] and their dignity [don't give me another "zoom out and re-examine" argument... let's instead keep the argument in context. i'm not talking about sub-saharan Africa. I'm talking about the US and other westernized countries] is considered null and void and that they shouldn't get equality because they're immigrants [though justice is blind, so she's for free], what are minorities supposed to do? Say nothing?

Plus, these minorities that you're complaining about... can I just point out that Blacks in particular are pretty well assimilated? If anything, they have quite a bit of influence over culture despite being only 11% of the population. And yet... despite assimilating and being well-behaved [going through slavery... then segregation... and currently the denial of social rights...], they're portrayed as gangsters and thugs and the guy who'll take your purse.

i'm starting to think more and more that it's not a question of assimilation but more a question of being the "model minority." of being "well-behaved" and staying out of the majority's way...

>
>Pretty paradoxical to hate hate.
>

but isn't the funny thing about a paradox that it's true despite seeming untrue?

>I don't say you're a bad person for "hating hate" or whatever, but as I said I strongly dislike the hypocrisy and faked morality woven into it.
>

how is there hypocrisy or faked morality woven into it? I mean, it's as simple as doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

i wouldn't want anyone hating me for my opinion, but they can hate my opinion all they want. i don't even see how morality is an issue here.


>It's just like how you could possibly say that hate for hate isn't hate.
>

It's not hate against a person. It's a hate against an ideal.

I can respect you, but I don't have to like what you say. And as for how far I'm concerned, you can do the same to me. [which I think you already have, if not more]

It's the same idea behind that voltaire quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it"


>
>And I can hate what you say and who you are for saying it. Because in the end are you not what you say to be your views as it sprouts from your own will and views.
>

you've never disagreed with someone and yet still remained friends with them? you've never thought someone's actions were wrong but still remained friends with them?

>>>You know what spawns a lot of hate as well? Gang wars, armed robberies, refusal to adapt to the rules of the host, riots, flag burning and leeching of the social security in a way that is completely out of proportion when compared to the host people.
>>
>>and what do you think spawns all of those things?
>
>Immigrants.

oh. i woulda said racism. : )


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Mon Dec 25 04:36:24 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>innocenceNonus said:
>>but the proportion of those who have "made it" vs. how many are in the country... it's not representative of the country.
>
>Why should it be proportionate by default? That's not how a democracy works, you don't have quota's.
>
>Everybody has 1 vote, that does not translate into automatic racial representation.
>
>If it did, that would be true seggregation

i'm not saying you need direct quotas or even automatic racial representation. what i AM saying is that minorities should be properly represented. and one or two or three people just doesn't seem like an appropriate number to me when others have worked just as hard if not more but failed to follow the "model minority" form.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Mon Dec 25 04:40:30 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>innocenceNonus said:
>>anyway, on there was this black man [who was likewise "well suited for answering questions"] who thought that many black people pulled the racism card because they were trying to make themselves feel better.
>
>I agree.
>
>And if they all behaved like that guy do you really (really) believe that racism would take on the proportions that it has today, towards black people in this case.
>

no. i understand that some ppl pull the racism card just for the heck of it with no real reason.

also just wanna mention that it also wouldn't have reached the proportions [or disgracing niche] without the help of the media.

blame a couple attention seekers all you want, but people have to give them the spotlight too and play their attention up for other people to buy.

after all... isn't that how television works?


>It is not about right or wrong. It is about practical and necessary or not.
>

well, i'm about the right and wrong... if the "practical" is not right, then we need to find another way to be practical.

>It should not have to be percieved as a disadvantage per se.

then what should it be perceived as?

an extra leg of the race reserved for the minorities only? a little bit of a small exercise? that "celebratory jaunt"?


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Mon Dec 25 04:44:12 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>>my point is that, while we say some people are "qualified" to speak about racism and racial profiling, does that make others of the same caliber [the majority, typically] less qualified because we disagree with them?
>>
>No, it doesn't. It only means you should respect his point of view, not necessarily agree with him.
>

agreed. what i'm saying is that we shouldn't just consider the side we like to hear or that we want to hear. we should consider all the valid ones, and find the truth. we ARE on the quest for truth, aren't we?

>Racial profiling might not be "right", but in this case it is "the right thing to do".
then i think we need to find another way to do it.

>I would like to add that I don't think Asians have anywhere near the disadvantages due to racism as blacks or hispanics in this country, at least not in my region.

we don't. i fully get that.

>It seems their stereotype is mostly educated and hard working honest people.

lol. mostly. but it occasionally backfired, and there is of course that we're not very assimilable into western culture.

>I live amongst the rednecks here in Kentucky, but somehow most of the engineers around here are Asian.

ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... i think most engineers are asian [statistic?]


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Dec 25 08:25:11 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>>
>>No, it doesn't. It only means you should respect his point of view, not necessarily agree with him.
>
>agreed. what i'm saying is that we shouldn't just consider the side we like to hear or that we want to hear. we should consider all the valid ones, and find the truth. we ARE on the quest for truth, aren't we?
>
>>Racial profiling might not be "right", but in this case it is "the right thing to do".
>then i think we need to find another way to do it.
>
Sure, I'm open to ideas, what you got ?

>>I would like to add that I don't think Asians have anywhere near the disadvantages due to racism as blacks or hispanics in this country, at least not in my region.
>
>we don't. i fully get that.
>
>>It seems their stereotype is mostly educated and hard working honest people.
>
>lol. mostly. but it occasionally backfired, and there is of course that we're not very assimilable into western culture.
>
I disagree, I think all cultures are fully assimilable, but it takes a generation for some.
That is one of the things that I believe makes this a great country.
You can come here and become a citizen from anywhere in the world, and you will be just as American as I am.
>>I live amongst the rednecks here in Kentucky, but somehow most of the engineers around here are Asian.
>
>ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... i think most engineers are asian [statistic?]
>
Dunno, but a lot of them are. I guess that depends on where in Asia they come from. It seems that a lot of Koreans become merchants, though there are not a lot of Koreans in this town. The Vietnamese seem have a lot of groceries and restaurants.
But they all have in common that they work their butts off to get somewhere in life.
If you go to the univerisity library on Friday evening when most kids are out getting laid or drunk or both, you will see Asian kids in there studying, and you will see no one else but Asian kids in there.
Maybe that's a racist stereotype, but it's pretty accurate and if I were Asian, I would be proud of it.


 
FN Posted: Mon Dec 25 09:40:47 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>but culture isn't terrorism.
>
>but let's say for the sake of the argument that it was [say someone was raised in a "terrorist" culture]- do you really think that everyone is so simple as to never question what they're taught? and just because you're raised within a certain culture means that you can't disagree with it?

For the love of allah, could you please stop putting words in my mouth.

How many times more do I have to say that one thing does not automaticly imply the other but that it's about how being raised in a terrorist culture naturally increases the likelihood of problems

>>And yes, muslim culture has easier paths to self destruction and terrorist acts than the western kind.
>>
>
>in what ways? through prayer? by wearing head-scarves? are those the things terrorism is made of?

By rewards for martyrs for one thing.

I'm not saying that that isn't in every culture, the big difference is due to muslim culture muslims take it seriously and also the reward is a bit more concrete to say the least.

I'm 100% sure that if people were not convinced that the reward was there you wouldn't see even half of the suicide attacks.

But yes, things like head scarves in the end are a sign of refusal to adapt once they leave their muslim countries of origin, even more so because percentage wise morrocan or turkish muslim women for example wear less head scarves than their european counterparts.

Also, don't forget that for a lot of muslims (and again, it's true for a lot of religions but muslims in particular) their religion and their identity the same.

Given that and the violent nature of islam that's believed and lived with a passion, what do you expect.

>how is it dormantly condoned in any way? what do you want them to do? speak out against it? they have.

Just for comparison: compare the way muslims spoke out against the september 11 attacks and then compare how they spoke out against those mohammed cartoons. Proportionate?

Yes, that leads to believe that a lot of muslims condone terrorism, especially in the muslim countries.


Also, even the riots with the cartoons in themselves give a hint of how muslims identity IS islam and how little they have evolved in that, due to the lack as I said before of great and significant events like the french revolution

>fight wars against their brothers? they have.

No kidding, and this also proves what I've claimed from the start: muslim culture is primitive when compared to for example western culture because what they're doing now is roughly equivalent of what european powers did about a millenium ago. I'd say that's pretty primitive in terms of culture.

I wonder if you've read the clash of civilizations by the way (the book not the essay). It has a few tables with some interesting figures about conflicts around the world and then with parameters of in how many conflicts muslims are directly involved compared to other cultures. Do I need to look it up or can you imagine what the trend is?

>so what do you want them to do? all become westernized and wear business suits and sip tea while reading the New York Times?

I want them to behave and integrate without bitching all the time or turn around and herd sheep in the mountains of morroco.

>wait, so do certain countries have this monopoly on a better life where they tell people who they've not only allowed but supposedly "welcomed" into their country that they must live, act, and speak a certain way in order to retain any rights at all?

Well, I know you don't believe in facts, but at the end of the day this way of life proves to be I'd say a tad more successful than the muslim way of life. Am I wrong? Pretty unlikely.

So yes, I'd say some countries know better.

If you feel the need to adapt and behave to be too great a burden, once more I don't see why you'd immigrate in the first place or why you wouldn't move out if behaving and a minimum of politeness is so much to ask.

>Dunno about Europe, but that's not America [at least not to me]. Ameica's about freedom [granted with responsibility], and if those minorities aren't hurting others, don't see why they should suffer.

I'm not talking about suffering, I'm saying that if you don't play by the rules you're out of the team.

>and i know you're gonna say something like "they are hurting others." but in my opinion, the same ratio the "homelanders" are hurting themselves.

Well, they *are* hurting the "homelanders". I don't know those numbers by heart but trust me when I tell you this is a matter that I know a thing or two about. Take european social security: it is getting utterly destroyed by immigrants. Again this is not some hear say, it's something even the left wing politicians start to acknowledge.

>[though i WILL say this: tell a child he's a moron, and he will not perform as well as he would if you told him he were brilliant. rob a man of his humanity, tell him to relinquish his heritage for food for his family, and you might as well tell him he's a moron.

That's all good in theory, in reality once you start being a slacker or a criminal it's your own fault and in the end your dignity is in your own hands.

>and i have a feeling that you'd say he should happily give it up for a chance at a better life. and chances are, he would. BUT, I don't think that's right. he's just as human as you or i, so why should he give up something we hold so precious just to feed his family? it's wrong.]

That's what you say. I say that everything comes with a price. And what higher thing could you attain than a better life for your family, especially when all you have to do for that is not be a criminal and not be a slacker and speak the language and generally behave along the rules of the society you live in.

I've used this analogy countless times before, but I'll use it again because I feel that it perfectly summarizes the whole situation:

If you're standing in the pouring rain freezing to death and looking for shelter and you go to a house to ask them if they could give you shelter and those people do their best to keep their house clean so they ask you to take of your shoes before you come in since you're soaking wet and they don't want their floor in their home to look like the street pavement you come from, what is the normal thing to do? You take of your shoes and you're thankful that you live to see another day, in the security of a home that isn't made out of bamboo or cow shit.

But you expect to just come inside, with your shoes on, undo all the hard work to keep the house clean even though you've been asked nicely, drop down on the couch and yell at the women in the house to put their head scarves on, grow moustaches and get you some halal food along with an arab sign outside of the door.

That my friend is what causes seggregation.

>i think the main problem is this argument is that you believe one culture can be superior to another, while I don't. i believe there are better ways of doing things, yes. but i also believe that each person has to find their own way.

That's typical. It's like talking to religious fanatics who debunk everything by saying the lord moves in mysterious ways. In the real world it isn't like that. Western culture is superior, you say so yourself that there are better ways of doing it and when situation are compared I'm guessing that the better way was a reference to anything but the muslim way.

>even if you think you have the "better" way, should you force other people to take that way?

If they come to my country escaping poverty and true oppression? Hell yes.

>and even if you say "no, but let them reap the consequences" and give them negative consequences, what else are you doing but essentially coercing them into doing whatever you think is right?

I didn't say no.

>and that's the other problem with our argument. i think that choosing right over wrong and good versus evil is more important than minimizing risks.

In theory it is, in reality people get blown up because of people who think like you are too hypocritical or naive to take action.

(I'd like to add though that I mean that in a very non-aggressive way even though I realize that might not come across like it in text, which is why I'm adding this)

>and YES, that did just come out of my mouth BECAUSE when you're doing something wrong to "do something right," you're still doing something wrong. and that, for me, is inexcusable.

By that type of reasoning you can't put people in jail either, because you're doing something wrong (physical restraint of a human being) to do something good (justice).

What you're saying is all very nice but once applied to the real world it doesn't make any sense and all logic behind it proves to be a fallacy in my opinion.

The whole problem with this kind of reasoning that you and others adovcate is the number of double standards you always build in. I think that's wrong and causes more trouble than it fixes.

>old stove or not, it's still gonna burn you. so what if one is a few more degrees hotter than the other or one isn't a convection oven? they'll still burn your hand.

Ah but you can't touch an old stove without getting burned, while a modern one doesn't pose as high a risk or danger by a long shot.

>[btw... last i checked, older ovens [because of their lack of insulation]

I'm not a native english speaker so bear with me through the vocabulary mistakes if you please.

>could be more easily told that they would burn ya...

Here's the thing though: they better not burn me once they're in my house, because if they did they'd be on the dump within a week.

>anyway, stove analogy aside because i've lost track of where it was going, just because a culture isn't westernized doesn't mean it's bad.

It does when it leads to stuff the muslim culture leads to.

>i mean, asian culture is far from "wsternized" [legit asian culture anyway], and both you and hif said that we're not getting much heat at all.

It is more westernized, in part due to technology, than islamic culture.

But I agree, asian culture isn't the same, yet the foundations of it being a sense of politeness and duty and to some degree secularism are a very important common ground.

>so REALLY, rather than saying cultures should evolve or become westernized, shouldn't you really be saying that we not pop the Westernization happy bubble?

I have been talking about muslim culture because that's the one causing trouble at this point in time. When asian people don't cause problems and do what's expected of them why would anybody have problems with that.

Thing is though, both relatively and in absolute numbers, islamic people cause more trouble, a lot more, and are therefor being targeted as the problem. How surprising is that.

>i've heard more about Darfur in the past year than i have in the past 5 or 10 years.

This is relevant how?

>plus, with movies like Rwanda, Blood Diamond, The Interpreter, etc etc etc coming out, more awareness is being raised. [not to mention the ploy on LOST... which btw, I always imagine Hif as Locke... for some WEIRD reason]

No shit, I always felt like hif was locke as well.

Don't ruin it for me though, I've only seen the first season yet due to a lack of time

>kinda hard to overthrow a dictator when you're starving and/or possibly dying of AIDS...

Europeans did it. Wether you're dying from aids or other infectious diseases isn't that much of a difference.

Beside, the aids problem spreading like it does is entirely their own fault, again due to african culture.

>i don't understand when personal attacks came into this, but it's okay.

It's not an attack. Not everything said personally is automaticly meant as a charge.

>i can still respect you even though i hate your opinion : ).

Respect has little to do with it, bith in terms of gaining or losing it.

However, ofcourse it's a personal thing, since you're expressing personal opinions. It gets personal from the second you open your mouth, or in this case start typing.

>BUT, I agree with you in that respect: that we are shaped by our culture

>So what I'm saying is that in the same way you consider Muslims to be influenced by their culture to be terrorists, I feel that a lot of people [all people] have been influenced to be racist.

I partly agree with you in this but in saying that it is not culture that makes people racists, it's evolutionary biology that makes people racist.

You dislike what is different, especially when it tries to bite you or suck your blood.

>that's why i don't disagree. i agree whole-heartedly that they are shaped. BUT, you can't ignore that as a part of culture, you play an active role in it by deciding what you believe and don't within culture.

Yes, I agree. Which is also part of why I'm saying that a lot of what is going on must be at least dormantly condoned by muslims because dicators still rule, religious fanatics still call the shots, their people still have the highest crime rates, and the list goes on. It's not like all of this happened during the last 2 years. It is a part of the culturally stagnant islam and its followers that have a fused identity with it.

>>So long story short: I do not believe cultures are equal and I do not believe there is no correlation between your culture and the manner in which you behave.
>>
>Long story short: i disagree with everything in that last blurb.

Doesn't seem like it, you said so yourself, several times even in this last post, that cultures and the manner in which you behave are linked. You also agreed that some ways of handling things are better than others, ergo some ways of life (=cultures) are superior to others.

I don't get this inherent fear of people with acknowledging superiority and inferiority.

>religion does influence everything, including culture. but it doesn't influence skin color.

Thats not what I said. You only read want you want there to be written, I've stated, more than clearly and several times, that it is not a discussion in absolute terms but it is a question about likelihood anc chance.

And yes, as I said, arabs are more likely to be muslims (with all the consequences thereof) than white or asian people.

>people of any color are free to be what religion they want

Never said they aren't, and that's all good, but here in the west christianity is the norm so you don't go enforcing islam. Those days are over but islam is still living that era.

>i'm pretty sure they've caught onto "racial profiling" by now...

No doubt, but I'm also pretty sure that the chances of that are much more unlikely.

>but you still get burned by both... one with less warning but still by both...

The old one gets you burned wherever you tocuh it (even if it is with a bunch of childish cartoons), the other only gets burned when for example you throw airplanes at them.

>>It depends on how you define protection.
>>
>their rights and best interests should be at the same level as the majority.

I disagree, because they do not have a *right* to anything the same way a citizen has it because they're the ones that moved, not the other way around.

>i mean, the bottom line for all of my thoughts is that we are all people. it doesn't matter in the end where we live or our skin color.

Reality tells you differently.

>i believe that blacks are caught more often because they always have a negative rap and thus, they're more often targeted by police. that's not to say police are filling a quota or that they ignore white people [though this is sometimes the case]

What do you base that on

>or even that black people aren't really committing the crimes.

I still don't see how criminals getting arrested is a bad thing

>what i'm asking for is equality [which apparently, according to you, people don't deserve because of their skin color???]

The skin color is only the physical manifestation of the idea behind it.

But if you want to reduce it to that instead of everything I've said before, sure, skin color.

>I'm trying to focus on my home first.

Same here

>agreed. but you'd probably have a lot easier time at it than an asian or black man with the same education and work.

I agree with that in part, saying first that this is very much exaggerated by minority groups and secondly that in the end (when education and work is equal) it's more logical that the job goes to the "homelander".

When hungry you'll give food to your own kin faster than to others/somebody you know better (sharing culture for example) even though they're equally hungry. Again you might not like that but that's reality.

>Even though you were kidding, just wanted to add too that immigrants didn't kill any natives in an attempt of a mass take-over... or force them to march several miles in snow with young children...

Because they can't.

>Nah. we just do things like wanna send our kids to school and try to find a better life and try to maintain some dignity while doing it.

I don't have that much of a problem with that, never said I did, which is also in part why I feel that problem cases in minorities should be dealt with more vigorously because 1 bad apple in a minority can do much larger damage to "his group" than 1 bad apple in the majority.

I still don't see the problem: don't break the law and stick to the rules, take care of your kids, don't bitch about being discriminated when you aren't or still are uncountably better off than you would have been and nobody has a problem with you.

>but if we accept bad realities and don't try to change them to make them better, aren't we committing the same "dormant condoning" that we're accusing the muslims of?

There is dormant condoning of racism, never said there wasn't.

Wether reality is bad or not in those terms is something else.

I don't think racism automaticly implies negative consequences or violence. The problem is people immediately throw it onto the pile of hitler and apartheid and the "less eloquent" (to put it mildly) racists screw things up for the people who back their views up with serious and thought out arguements, just like how troublemakers destroy the credibility of entire minority groups.

>nothing except everyone telling me i'm bound for trouble from my birth to my death.

That's how you see it because minorities feel like that's how they are being treated even though all the black guys on cops are getting arrested for being a criminal.

Every time action is taken against a non-white person it is discrimination and racism.

Every. Single. Time.

So that idea is in a very large part due to rolling in misplaced self pity.

>and then telling me i deserve nothing because i'm descended from immigrants.

Again, that is not what I said.

You deserve everything you can get, but you have the *right* to nothing more than that.

There's a very significant difference between having the *right* to something (which implies it being given to you no matter what) and deserving something because you merrit it.

>nothing to keep me from running into trouble. nothing at all.

No, the real problem is actually quite the opposite.

When you see that here for example criminal arabs get out of jail before the paperwork is done and they still get their social security at the same level of normal arab families that immigrated and are happy they're out of the sewers and eager to make something of their lives, that to me is worse.

That is also why I do not believe in posing the "why" question.

Because once you start saying that somebody is a criminal because he is (for example) black and therefor discriminated against and *that* is the true reason why he hasn't had an education or a job, *that* and *that* alone, and he has no control over how he behaves because he can't have any responsibility seeing as how he is just a product of rampant discrimination, how do you sell that to the far more numerous immigrants who do what they're supposed to do without causing any harm to anybody even though they have the same problems (imaginary or not) to deal with.

So no, to me the "why" isn't a justification or explanation, because for every "why" you can come up with there are people in a similar situation who behave like a human being should. So in the end wether you're scum or human is your own choice, even if your culture dictates otherwise, but fact of the matter is that you're far more likely to be scum when your culture or the version that you've been dealt of it leads to there.

All the above again to say that even though islamic culture (for one, you could just as easily substitute it by african culture) is more open towards the path of violence than for example western culture, it is not the same as saying all arabs or black people are marginalised criminals, it's only saying that the chances of them being like that are much higher, wether you like that or you don't is a seperate issue, but the empirical evidence is there.

>well, that poor white guy must have been discrimnated to get a better opportunity. bet that black woman's a big racist to let him take that from her!

I don't get that part

>yet, amazingly, they seem to get away with it. because out of all the racist cases that have occured, do you want to know how often the whistle actually gets blown?

Yes.

>plus, let's not call attention to the fact that every time it's a miscall and someone did it for attention, the media likes to go CRAZY over that [because it makes for a better story].

Just like the media likes to go crazy over every black guy that has the crap beaten out of him during a riot, while had it been a white guy it would have been a damn hippy.

>no. because the black person wouldn't have gotten the raise if it was different.

Yet the black person would grumble racism pretty easily, wouldn't you agree?

>but let's say it was a black company and the white man didn't get the promotion because his black boss is racist against white people [which can happen]. at which, tell that white boy to pull the race card!

Yes, but that's another interesting thing: white racism is always percieved to be somehow more prevalent and worse than racism coming from non-whites, and gets handled likewise.

I'll clarify by 2 examples that have happened in my own country during the past year:

1) white kid gets stabbed in the heart by 2 roma's (gypsies made up out of a variety of ethnic backgrounds due to their traveling, in thise case north african types), it's a robbery/murder.

2) white kid shoots other white kid + the black nanny -> it's a racist murder.

See what I mean?

>and it's not like tons of people wouldn't flood to support him because a majority of white people hate affirmative action with a vengeance [as do a lot of Asians, actually...]

I hate it with a vengeance too

>Ah, but they still don't get treated as well as the natives with the same education and class level. well, unless you're in a non-westernized country.

No because those western tourists are going to spend more money since they're on vacation

>that's due to affirmative action. but if affirmative action wasn't there? could you still tell me that that would be the case if they put in the same amount of hard work?

I believe so yes

>Uh... maybe you missed it, but i said assimilated. besides, while I can understand about the language part because you need it to function within the society you've moved to, you're telling me that I should change my religion and my clothes to fit in??

Yes, because I'm an avid non-believer when it comes to multiculturalism.

However, and I want to stress this so please read it the way I say it instead of making your own version of it: this is the trickiest part of the entire immigrant debate:

I do believe in the freedom of people being who they want to be. I also believe in adopting the rules of the host who offers you food/shelter/whatever.

So I do *not* believe that stuff like clothing or religion could/should be enforced by law, but it is something that should come naturally when people truly want to become part of a society instead of invading an existing one and imposing their own brand by not taking over the one they are moving in to.

And that translates into a lot of different things, like clothing, language, public houses of prayer (for the record: I'm an atheist myself but I fully recognize the importance of christianity in my culture), etcetera.

Failure to do so is a refusal to adapt and an occupation of territory which will cause (and is causing) internal fragmentation of the host society.

You cannot seriously imagine different cultures living peacefully side by side. It doesn't work on an international scale and it is proven on a daily basis that it doesn't work on a local scale.

You can not get along with people who have inherently different value systems and morality than you and have that infused from the day they were born.

Concrete examples of that are women rights, family structure, work ethics, the idea of what *is* freedom of speech, secularism, law,...

Actually, to come back to those cartoons and the freedom of speech: Compare the islamic notion of freedom of speech to the western version. How could you seriously live together with the core idea as a westerner that you are free to express what you want *but* you can't say anything about allah/mohammed because the people who moved in dictate that onto you.

How can you live side by side with people who feel that women are mere tools of men. That is true for a lot of islamic immigrants as well.

>Are we back in high school?!

It's a bit more complicated.

>i'll take that argument, but i'll raise you another: it might give you a better chance of catching a "muslim" but not an extremist.

"Catching" more muslims means higher chancesof catching more extremist ones as far as I know.

It isn't about "catching" muslims, it's about catching potential terrorists, which are often muslims.

>i mean, aside from the twin towers, the US has had many more public bombings and shootings... and call me crazy, but I don't remember those being Muslim extremists related... [though, as a back up, a few of them might have been... but i'm pretty sure most of them weren't]

No, but like the columbine high school shootings those weren't politically or religiously inspired and just your average killing spree, while islamic terrorism is.

>you make it seem like everyone who's not White is a terrorist! [or, for the same of the argument, a very likely candidate]

No, I make it seem like your random arab is a more likely candidate than your random white guy when it comes to terrorism. I don't see how that's a false estimate. The implications you attach to that are up to you.

>But there's a reason they're extremists... they're the extreme... they're not the norm!

There's a difference between not being the norm and being extremist.

Observe:

A punk guy who likes to have a mohawk and think he's real tough because of it is not the norm, but he isn't hurting anybody.

A religious fanatic or a "good/true" muslim who treats his wife like a pariah or plans on killing as many americans/europeans as he can get his hands on is an extremist.

So I'd say there's a pretty big difference between not being the norm which does no harm and being an extremist which leads to misery.

>>So in a way yes, less westernized = more extemist.
>
>i'm just going to pretend i didn't read that because i just might have to cry tears of blood and ask Christ to take me home.

Haha

You have to see that in the context of what I said, hence the "in a way" part, which you probably conveniently left out while interpreting the above sentence.

>uhh... last i checked, we helped build your society too. know those guns? or that trade? Or that railroad? Or heck... paper?!?!?!

Yes there was some technological exchange, which went both ways mind you, especially from west to east during the last few centuries, but saying that equals the cultural buildup and social organisation is something else entirely.

>>How would "we" not have the right to check whoever "we" want.
>>
>well, i suppose when you're not checked first, best go for the pre-emptive strike!

For the record, I was never a fan of the iraq war, people who've been around here as long could back that up.

When you ask me though: what about pre-emptive strikes in general (meaning when they are backed up), I say that I agree, but not in the way it was handled in iraq, as I said then and as I am still saying now.

But a pre-emptive strike on iran's nuclear facilities wouldn't hurt, neither would taking out north korea's enrichment facilities have been a bad thing considering the aftermath of not having done so.

>>Don't you most of the time?
>>
>No! and when i find myself doing it, i force myself to stop because i make a conscious decision not to pre-judge others when i don't even know them or their story.

Which only goes to show that it is a natural thing, and when people tell you what they stand for and believe in in no uncertain terms, be it by religious or political affiliation, you know enough of their story to make up your mind about it

>i don't hate white people or black people or asians.

Neither do I, but I hate it when they come "here" and start making demands to which they have neither right or authority to and on top of that bite the hand that feeds them.

>Tell me the percentage who do based on hard work compared to the percentage who don't because a white man is there.

I can pose the same question?

>There are both of both kinds. Like said before, people within the same fiscal class tend to have similar behavioural trends, no matter what the color... it just so happens [SURPRISE!] that those of color are found as the majority of the lower classes.

I agree. However even in the same social class (and I base this on european numbers, but I'm guessing the us is similar enough to assume that it is the same) non-whites still have much higher crime rates. So when the socio-economic status is equal the only other explanation is culture (unless you would go as far to say that it's a biological thing, but that's not as far as I'd go).

>Nah. Like said, how assimilated do you think Asians are? There are solid communities in CA where not one asian speaks a word of English. in fact, China Town in San Francisco [or was it NY?] doesn't pay taxes. the city doesn't clean it, and China Town's dirty.

Not familiar enough with that to make any constructive remarks about it, but speaking from what I see myself, asians are much more assimilated on average than africans and arabs.

>i know it isn't based on my community alone. but at the same time, you act like black people commit a majority of those crimes. WHEN, it's more likely that it's about even between blacks and whites but blacks get caught more often.

That would be a reasonable thing to say if the numbers were roughly equal, but seeing crime rates up to 8 times as high and saying that's just law enforcement racism at work in this day and age is plain laughable.

A small discrepancy I'd be willing to agree to that there could be some level of prejudice involved (wether that's a bad thing is something else as I've said before), but not like that with those kind of numbers.

>>Look at black popular music compared to the backstreet boys.
>>
>Whitney houston? Beyonce? Brandy? Ne-yo? Tu-pac with "Changes"? Several Kanye West lyrics?

An ironic remark to show that there is no denying in the fact that popular black music is predominantly about bitches, ho's, and the highest standard one can attain if being a pimp.

How do you put that next to mozart?

Speaking of which, ever heard about Idomeneo?

>So... there's no longer an italian mob?! ::cries::

Probably not in similar proportions no

>>"That's because you have a higher chance of getting robbed by the black man, just like when you're an isreali you'll probably be a little more skiddish when an arab walks into a bar (sounds like a joke) compared to when another jew walks in, simply because that jew isn't as likely to blow himself up."
>>
>
>that's because we've been trained to respond in such a way.

That's because experience tells you, just like you'd seize up wether you can take that giraffe down or not judging from past successes and dangers

>but the truth is that you never KNOW. you just guess. you assume. and you know what they say about assuming...!

You assume based on what you have witnessed to be the inherent risks

>the POINT is that stereotype are often wrong, only half if at ALL true, and often lend to widening the big cup of hate that stands between us and a big loaf of peace. [it's late, and i'm making jokes to myself.]

I'm not a believer in a happy rainbow society

>really? because i thought it was simply down to "black people = scary" i mean... when most people see a black guy, do they really store that neat little statistic in their head?

I know I do, just like I know that when it's cold outside I'm more likely to catch a cold than when it isn't.

>Pity... I'm a math major, though I suck at math.

Then it should be pretty clear.

>Ah. perhaps another reason why this argument is going in circles. I'm concerned with the why, because without knowing the why you will never change the fact or understand why the fact has come to be, but you are concerned with the fact alone.

See a few alinea's above for why I think the "why" is counterproductive

>in that case... i'll say this: Black people get CAUGHT for more crimes.

Probably in very large part because they commit more crimes which make you eligible to be arrested.

>agreed. this argument keeps taking a large portion of my sleeping time, though it IS excellent brain food.

It is :o)

>just because they get caught doesn't mean it actually is that way.

So you're indirectly saying that the black guys are probably more stupid as well since they get caught more often, or is it again 100% the blame of racist policing.

>and you can't say the legal system is infallible or that the law enforcement is without prejudice in itself... after all, if our culture has influenced, then it should be as prejudiced as me and you...

I never said it is, I dispute however that it is in those numbers

>and to even think about that really freaks me out. [not because i think you're a bigot or a racist... I don't [though why i don't, i'm a little surprised...]

Probably because you associate racism with rednecks or guys with swastika's on their heads, but there are poeple out there who think about what they believe in ;o)

>>For crying out loud, they *are* more likely to commit a crime.
>>
>uh, proof?

Can you read dutch because I don't have anything at hand for the US.

>Nope. I'm saying that they shouldn't be more likely to get caught than a white man. They should both be caught and should both be privy to the same discrimnation.

I think it's safe to say that rapists and murderers usually get caught and sentenced, no matter wether they're white or something else

>once again, no. but you really think the percentage of white men making up our jails is true, despite the US being about 70% white?! only 10% of jails are white... though 70% of the country is white... that makes sense to you?!

Does it makes sense to you that all of that is 100% the result of racial policing who just happen to stumble on black robbers and drive by when they see a white guy raping a woman on the curb

>can those statistics actually accurately reflect those cultures and those people and the crime rates within the country?

I feel like it does yes, when I put those numbers next to my own experience.

For example, the times I've seen fights happening when going out in 90% (if not more) of the cases they're caused and started by non-whites. And I'm talking about stuff where racism had nothing to do with it, but for example people dancing and bumping into eachother by accident with their backs turned to eachother.

So when zooming out I don't have much of a problem believing those numbers because I've witnessed it myself, numerous times, be it on a smaller scale.

>and once AGAIN, i realize that minorities in western countries don't have it that bad.

They don't have it bad at all. Because the way you make it look like and the way a lot of minorities seems to feel is that there is no white underclass, and that the black middle class is underneath the white underclass, which is simply not true, but every black guy who's lower class blames it on racism and discrimination just like the jails are supposedly filled with innocents when you ask the people in them.

>why settle for sub-par when you can have better?

I agree completely, but I'm saying that working to have it better and gaining it on your own instead of expectiong positive discrimination and blaming all that goes wrong on racism is plain ingratitude for a better life when you're an immigrant.

>>That's what you say. At the end of the day though, the numbers are on my side in this discussion, and if they wouldn't be you'd be the first to shove them under my nose probably and say "see, see".
>>
>hahah. actually, i first found my statistics when in search of just such a statistic. i wanted one that said white people composed a majority of jails.

Lol

>70%... 10%... 11%... 60%... that's pretty much inverted... i mean... just by sheer numbers, white people should have more crimes. but... they don't.

And the only possible reason you can think of is not because of the non-whites but it *must* be because of racist policing and law.

>so help me make sense of that in a way that doesn't involve discrimnation of a race.

Tell me how the oceans work without involving water.

>give me something tangible and real and a cold, hard fact. and i'll believe you. show me that, caught or not, black people commit more crimes because their culture creates them to.

On a world scale an example is quick to find: islamic martyrdom

On a more local scale and upbringing: everything that goes wrong for you is caused by racist whites, you are not responsible for your own actions

>but i don't understand it. i've never seen a statistic to, without influence or bias, show that black ppl really do commit more crimes. so i can't jump on the bandwagon.

They commit more violent crimes. White people commit more non-violent crimes like tax evasion.

When you ask me what's worse, raping a woman or murdering somebody or paying less taxes and contributing less so welfare payments the choice is easy to make.

>SCIENTIFIC FACT?! Is there a FACT that says that black people will commit more crimes than white people?!

Again you only read what you want to read, it isn't a fact that they "will" commit crime, it says that they are more likely to.

>have you ever heard a black person say he shouldn't have to work just as hard as everyone else?

No, but when the white guy gets the better job, for whatever reason, racism is automaticly the explanation for it.

>have you ever heard a minority asking for treatment above the others?

Yes. I've heard people protesting for minimum quota's of non-white employees and enforced positive discrimination in the workplace, and this is not a fringe group that's saying it.

>studies show that while blacks are seen as more easily assimilable, asians are seen as more "valued" because they behave well and what-other-nonsense-have-you.

Exactly, asians tend to contribute, others tend to pollute.

>that's what you think. you don't think there are tons of immigrant parents telling their kids they represent their race?

I never said that, you keep talking in absolute numbers which will never work out since to date minorities are still "minorities" while I'm talking in relative numbers, just like you can compare the GNP of a state to the GNP of the entire US in absolute numbers.

>Companies will still go to them for cheaper labor; however, the idea is that conditions and pay would improve. They'd still be the cheap labor because of money conversions, but they'd have a better life.

Quite the contrary, because it'll never be good enough anyway, just like in the western world pay is never high enough to satisfy the unions either.

You being such an advocate of utilitarianism and equality should agree that it's better for chinese people right now to all work for low wages and get better collectively than getting higher wages and making the economic momentum burn out before it started.

But again, that's a different (be it very interesting) discussion. I'll just throw in that you can already see the beginnings of labour unions trying to emerge in china and that in the end china's economy will start to stagnate as well because it is built almost entirely upon cheap labour. Take cheap labour away and the bubble bursts and people drop into poverty again.

>how is it mooching off their job by not buying products that the company is killing them to sell?

Again, the fact that they prefer to move out to the cities to work for those companies probably means they prefer that over what they had

>Nope. Sorry, but after slavery ended and then segregation ended, not THAT much is different.

You're kidding, right?

>It's not a matter of "gimme." It's a matter of equality.

Equality is a matter of gimme, just like communism is the climax of ego´sm from the side of the poor and disgruntled.

>Because we're not being given a fair opportunity to improve our lives to the western standard of living.

I say that considering where most immigrants come from they shouldn't complain at the kind of chances they get here in any way at all.

>well, i just think a 7 billion dollar wall is a little much when there's far more pressing matters at hand for the world, much less US itself.
>
>so where do you not understand the "power to change it" deal?

I understand what you imagine it to be, but I'm saying that throwing money onto it and disregarding a countries sovereignity to fix it as you see it goes directly into how you're advocating it should all be.

You can throw as much money as you want at africa, with the culture they have there now it will never work out.

The best proof of that is when you look at south africa compared to the rest of africa. The rest of africa is crawling through the dust with ak 47's while south africa is doing reasonably well. Why? It's a hunch but probably because it was and in part still is ruled by people of european descent and culture.

>... isn't that what I said? So if we wouldn't like it happening... why would force it on others??

We're not forcing it unto others, people before us forced it unto the native americans, that's beyond our control. Making sure it doesn't happen to us isn't.

>they wouldn't have to leech off of social security and be violent if the system didn't set them up for it.

They *couldn't* if "the system" didn't give them a chance to.

>it's not like all minorities are lazy and have no dignity and don't believe in equality or justice as much as the next person. they aren't lazy; they WANT dignity and they believe in equality and justice.

Again I'm talking about percentages and you're talking about "all".

>what are minorities supposed to do? Say nothing?

In my humble opinion, they're supposed to get on with life like everybody else does and be grateful they aren't scowering the savannah picking berries anymore.

I'm exagerrating, but you get the idea.

I say the same thing to people who bitch about welfare not being high enough but who still have their own car and tv.

>they're portrayed as gangsters and thugs and the guy who'll take your purse.

Because that's a profile they seem to be happy to don and which is reinforced time and time again (according to you because of the racist police, even though quite a few judges and police officers are non-whites themselves).

Look at popular black music for one thing. Wigga's aside, that isn't something that just popped into existance either.

>i'm starting to think more and more that it's not a question of assimilation but more a question of being the "model minority." of being "well-behaved" and staying out of the majority's way...

What's wrong with being well behaved and being out of other people's way and having a better life because of it compared to yelling "racists!" and rioting if you don't get a mosque.

>>Pretty paradoxical to hate hate.
>>
>but isn't the funny thing about a paradox that it's true despite seeming untrue?

But to hate hate is a prejudice and intollerant state of mind in itself.

I'll give you an example: when a while ago the leader of the right wing party over here came out of the party headquarters after the last local elections left wingers "boo'd" him and his following (in a pretty agressive way to say the least) and even though I don't like the guy at all, what he spontaneously said and was overheard by a camera following him was "tolerance in action" and he was dead on.

>>"I don't say you're a bad person for "hating hate" or whatever, but as I said I strongly dislike the hypocrisy and faked morality woven into it."
>>
>how is there hypocrisy or faked morality woven into it? I mean, it's as simple as doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It is hypocritical to support a paradox like hating hate, especially when to that you attach the moral judgement to it of "hate" being something wrong and unworthy.

Which is another interesting thing by the way which is more than mere semantics: racism doesn't automaticly imply hate as much as it implies a dislike, but avid non-racists always pull it across the line into racism being hatred.

>i wouldn't want anyone hating me for my opinion, but they can hate my opinion all they want. i don't even see how morality is an issue here.

Ofcourse you can be hated/disrespected for your opinion.

I hate people who are of the opinion that by blowing themselves up and killing people in the process is a good thing. I do not respect them.

Just like I don't respect communism nor the people who advocate it just like that. Hatred is something else.

>>It's just like how you could possibly say that hate for hate isn't hate.
>>
>It's not hate against a person. It's a hate against an ideal.

Who or what are you if not the ideals and believes you believe in and stand for? A bag of blood and bones?

>I can respect you, but I don't have to like what you say. And as for how far I'm concerned, you can do the same to me. [which I think you already have, if not more]

I respect what you say because you make a reasonable attempt at backing it up and you clearly have what to me is an admirable and just attitude towards life and responsibility, so that's not a problem.

>It's the same idea behind that voltaire quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it"

Sure, but voltaire didn't say that you have the *right* to act on what you say without repercussion.

Example: I don't care somebody saying "i'll kill that son of a bitch", but acting on it and killing the other person that's a line too far.

>you've never disagreed with someone and yet still remained friends with them? you've never thought someone's actions were wrong but still remained friends with them?

Yes, but when it comes to serious stuff like women rights, then no, I couldn't be friends with some guy who feels like all a woman should do is pop out children and get hit by a frustrated husband.

>>"Immigrants."
>
>oh. i woulda said racism. : )

I bet you would have ;o)


 
FN Posted: Mon Dec 25 09:43:30 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That's one very big post.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Mon Dec 25 16:38:14 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Sure, I'm open to ideas, what you got ?
>

best one is that everyone gets the same screening and same treatment. no racial profiling.

but that, apparently, is "impractical." so if someone else has a "practical" solution that's just and fair, let's go.

>I disagree, I think all cultures are fully assimilable, but it takes a generation for some.
>That is one of the things that I believe makes this a great country.
>You can come here and become a citizen from anywhere in the world, and you will be just as American as I am.

I agree. But a common stereotype/ train of thought is that asians have a harder time assimilating because we're so "tied" to our culture. i mean, that's why you have so many people assuming asians can't speak english very well, regardless of how they dress or act.

>Dunno, but a lot of them are. I guess that depends on where in Asia they come from. It seems that a lot of Koreans become merchants, though there are not a lot of Koreans in this town. The Vietnamese seem have a lot of groceries and restaurants.
>But they all have in common that they work their butts off to get somewhere in life.

well, most minorities do. anyone does, actually. but the argument i'm making with christophe is that minorities [particularly black people because they've been branded as being lazy and ill-educated [which means they have to work all the harder [which of course probably makes a lot of them mad because they've been here in greater numbers far more than many hispanics [with the exception of the Spanish specifically] or asians and have had to bear the worst brunts of discrimination]] have to work harder than the majority in order to prove themselves because we have to show that we are just as or more educated, hard-working, American, loyal to the US, or whatever else have you.

>If you go to the univerisity library on Friday evening when most kids are out getting laid or drunk or both, you will see Asian kids in there studying, and you will see no one else but Asian kids in there.

Depends. Nerds are nerds, no matter what race. : ) But tell someone they're destined to be a nerd, and chances are they will be. Granted, I like to think that we still have a choice in deciding our niches, but psychology suggests that what we are told we are, we tend to play into.

>Maybe that's a racist stereotype, but it's pretty accurate and if I were Asian, I would be proud of it.

eh, it's not an ugly stereotype but it is a stereotype none-the-less. as an asian... not so proud of it. i mean, i have no problem with it.

but i'm more "proud" of us socially ept ones that still get the grades. : )


 
Kira Posted: Mon Dec 25 23:26:13 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>
>best one is that everyone gets the same screening and same treatment. no racial profiling.
>
>but that, apparently, is "impractical." so if someone else has a "practical" solution that's just and fair, let's go.
>

Take government out of the airports. The airlines would save time and money and redirect those resources to increased security (making their customers feel safe) ON BOARD the airplanes (reducing the need for Find-the-Terrorist on the ground, not to mention the time and hastle involved - again, happy customers).

I don't know if that qualifies as practical... and it's never gonna happen, so I don't know why I bothered.

Disclaimer: I don't profess to know a lot about the inner workings of airports/airlines or about airport/government relations. I speak out of general knowledge and a love for the rule of the dollar.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Tue Dec 26 02:58:45 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>How many times more do I have to say that one thing does not automaticly imply the other but that it's about how being raised in a terrorist culture naturally increases the likelihood of problems
>

i'll go ahead and agree with that. but being raised in a terrorist culture doesn't guarantee a person to be a terrorist, right? so how can you discriminate against someone based on the fact that he LOOKS [not even IS] from a terrorist culture and publicly label a whole group of people as "possible terrorists"? That's like taking a whole gift basket of fruit and labeling it all "possibly" apples without knowing what any of the fruit are... and then proceed to cook and sell said "apples" in an apple pie! yes, that's a crappy analogy, but you get the point.

or, in a slightly better analogy, thinking that every well-dressed man could be gay and treating him accordingly [which might not be different from others for you [you being Christophe], though for use within the context of this argument, it would mean that you [you as in anyone] demand for him to prove that he's not gay... publicly. at an airport.]

>
>By rewards for martyrs for one thing.
>

but not every muslim is seeking to be a martyr, just like not every Christian seeks to be a martyr.

>I'm not saying that that isn't in every culture, the big difference is due to muslim culture muslims take it seriously and also the reward is a bit more concrete to say the least.
>

WHAT?! For a second, I almost missed that you said that martyrdom is taken more seriously by Muslims... For the sake of argument, let's use a popular media opponent/ foil- Christians. Do you really think Christians [and I mean real Christians, not people who only say they are and don't believe it since that's the "cool" thing to be] don't take martyrdom as seriously as Muslims? You DO have Christian zealots who go to head hunting tribes in order to convert people [or, let's not forget the crusaders... or KKK...]. And martyrs are also given tangible rewards, and they're also given the same respect/ honor within their respective communities. The only difference is that islamic martyrdom has been villified and that the minority of muslims [those sects] who take martyrdom to the extreme as a vehicle for hate have also been widely publicized by the media.

>
>But yes, things like head scarves in the end are a sign of refusal to adapt once they leave their muslim countries of origin, even more so because percentage wise morrocan or turkish muslim women for example wear less head scarves than their european counterparts.
>

how is wearing something representing your culture a refusal to adapt/ adopt a different one?! last i checked, people even adopted asian traditional clothing as a PART of fashion. and should we wear our traditional clothing, no one's going to think we're about to blow up a building. if anything, we're "celebrating our heritage." but it's different for a muslim person simply because of the rap that the media has developed for them.

>Also, don't forget that for a lot of muslims (and again, it's true for a lot of religions but muslims in particular) their religion and their identity the same.
>

but it's not their only identity. just like while you are white, that's not the ONLY identity you possess. you have lots of other ones, like being male or your political beliefs or your religion or your height or your sense of fashion or your taste in music, etc etc. there are lots of ways to define a person, but doing so by one facet and one facet alone is dangerous because you misrepresent that person. always.

>Given that and the violent nature of islam that's believed and lived with a passion, what do you expect.
>

christianity's had a violent nature too. old testament? the crucifiction? the crusades? extremists also believe and live the violent aspects of christianity with a passion; however, that's less publicized [possibly because it ties in with the majority?? who knows...]

>Just for comparison: compare the way muslims spoke out against the september 11 attacks and then compare how they spoke out against those mohammed cartoons. Proportionate?
>

No, and it shouldn't be. In the first case, they're speaking to a small group of very specific people and admionishing them for their effects of a different and alienated country. In the second case, something they love and hold sacred to them has been completely desecrated. It'd be like someone pissing on the cross or something even worse.

I'll admit, the riots were a poor response. But to have something that important to you desecrated in a way you never thought possible? It may have been poor and [in my opinion] the wrong way to go about it, but I can understand why.

anyway, point i'm making is that the two cases are completely different. if you want them to fight amongst themselves and wage war with each other, i believe that's already been going on for years. so what do you want them to do now? have all of them riot and go on rampages and become the very people we told them we didn't want?

>Also, even the riots with the cartoons in themselves give a hint of how muslims identity IS islam and how little they have evolved in that, due to the lack as I said before of great and significant events like the french revolution
>

their religious culture hasn't changed much, but many countries are changing very rapidly to become as westernized as you seem to want [specifically countries that have access to western media]. but ignoring that,

i'll admit, a person's religion is one of the key parts of their identity. but again, that is not their only identity.

we can't understand how a muslim felt when seeing those cartoons for the simple reason that we aren't muslim. we can only imagine. but to desecrate something they hold higher than their families or their own lives [which, as a reminder, is how Christians are supposed to treat the will of God]... what kind of response would you expect?

i'll admit, Islamic culture seems as a whole to be a lot more active/ activist-oriented than Christian culture. Christians tend to spend more time talking [as the "majority," i suppose it's what's expected of us because if we were to riot, cities might get totally annihilated], while Muslims tend to spend more time doing something. actually, come to think of it, Christians don't have to do that much "speaking out" and having "public outcries" because they don't really get discriminated or have their religious figures desecrated in the same way as Muslims do.


>No kidding, and this also proves what I've claimed from the start: muslim culture is primitive when compared to for example western culture because what they're doing now is roughly equivalent of what european powers did about a millenium ago. I'd say that's pretty primitive in terms of culture.
>

well, it IS one of the new religions when it comes to the old ones.

it may not be as developed as European culture, but that doesnt mean it's a bad one. it's its own culture, and it has its own development.

>I wonder if you've read the clash of civilizations by the way (the book not the essay). It has a few tables with some interesting figures about conflicts around the world and then with parameters of in how many conflicts muslims are directly involved compared to other cultures. Do I need to look it up or can you imagine what the trend is?
>

I'm not saying they won't wage wars or they won't fight. [btw... how many conflicts have Christians been involved in? Or Europeans? Or, keeping the youth of the US in mind, the US? also, how many wars were against themselves?] What I AM saying is that we cannot assume by their religious culture that they're violent people. they're trying to survive and thrive as much as the rest of us.

and, like you said, they're a developing culture with their own developing pace. that entails those historical growing pains of poverty and war, right? [plus, fighting for a spot in a world that's against you can't be easy or that fast to recover from] but just because they're developing doesn't mean they're violent people. otherwise, the US should be known as violent [though i hear that Europe does think we're pretty violent] and so should every other country that's ever been war-stricken.

>I want them to behave and integrate without bitching all the time or turn around and herd sheep in the mountains of morroco.
>

well, since muslims are within their own coutries and thus own nothing to the majority, they have no need to do that. but speaking about the minorities, when they've tried that and it didn't work, what else were the minorities supposed to do? go herd sheep? drop and leave the homes they've invested so much time and work into already?

also, this thought just occured to me: how long were the Europeans working and developing and how long were those minorities present as well? if i'm correct, [at least for the US], we've always had a bunch of minorities here. there are records of asian people serving in the civil war. and of course, black people have been americans since forever and a day... so when do we finally make the time cut and people finally tell us that we're considered American enough and that discrimnation or racism aren't problems/ existent?

>
>Well, I know you don't believe in facts, but at the end of the day this way of life proves to be I'd say a tad more successful than the muslim way of life. Am I wrong? Pretty unlikely.
>

successful in your times... in theirs?? depends on who you talk to.

just like a rich business man who values wealth would say he's more successful than a high school english teacher. but ask that teacher that loves her job, and i doubt she'd trade it for his to be "more successful."

>If you feel the need to adapt and behave to be too great a burden, once more I don't see why you'd immigrate in the first place or why you wouldn't move out if behaving and a minimum of politeness is so much to ask.
>

It's not that adapting and behaving are a great burden. I don't know how many times I'm gonna have to say this, but I'll say it again. When you've adapted and behaved and it wasn't good enough for you to be considered as part of the majority [because the problem is that the majority is delineated by race], then what are we supposed to do? Say nothing and just keep "behaving"?

because the true majority, the majority of people who work hard and want a good life in the US and DO work for that living, transcends color. yet, the benefits from such hard work are often marked by divisions in color or class. SO, the problem isn't that we're not working hard enough or that we don't want to assimilate. it's that, no matter what we do, it's not good enough. and when we can't take the "it's not good enough" anymore and speak out against it, we're griping. and then a beloved leader gets shot, and forty years [or unfortunately even more] later the majority finally realizes they weren't so right.

[a little exagerrated, i know, but what can i say? i'm an angry person of color]

>
>I'm not talking about suffering, I'm saying that if you don't play by the rules you're out of the team.
>

and i'm saying that despite playing by the rules and despite being just as good as the other players, we're told to sit on the bench and told day after day to wait our turn until some coach decides he's gracious enough to give us a break.


>Well, they *are* hurting the "homelanders". I don't know those numbers by heart but trust me when I tell you this is a matter that I know a thing or two about. Take european social security: it is getting utterly destroyed by immigrants. Again this is not some hear say, it's something even the left wing politicians start to acknowledge.
>

i don't doubt or deny that; but if they weren't forced to be on such things and were given equal opportunities, it would n't be a problem! but then you deny them those opportunities because you say they're alienated and weird and don't dress right and they cause crimes.

Time forbid we trust anyone...

>
>That's all good in theory, in reality once you start being a slacker or a criminal it's your own fault and in the end your dignity is in your own hands.
>

Or it's all good as proven through psychological research. : ) tell a child he's an idiot, and he'll score less on that test. don't give him as many chances to answer in class, and he won't know the answers.

>
>That's what you say. I say that everything comes with a price. And what higher thing could you attain than a better life for your family, especially when all you have to do for that is not be a criminal and not be a slacker and speak the language and generally behave along the rules of the society you live in.
>

that's not all you have to do as a minority. you have to PROVE that you don't act or resemble a minority in any way except appearance [which some people STILL don't consider enough].

it's not that people don't work hard for their families. it's that they do and still aren't given the chances that other people are given because they're minorities. [at which we go round the circle once again because you shall say that they don't deserve the chances because they ARE minorities... at which i say that they've worked for them and no longer act aliented... but then you say they're violent and misbehave... but then i say that it's because the system tells them they suck.. and which you say they do... at which i say they don't and it's only been played out that way... at which you say that you have tangible facts like crime statistics... at which i say that those statistics aren't complete because they don't represent all the people committing crimes... at which you give me another response and i give you another and we continue this until we are old and wrinkly and i'm embittered. YAY!!!!]

>
>But you expect to just come inside, with your shoes on, undo all the hard work to keep the house clean even though you've been asked nicely, drop down on the couch and yell at the women in the house to put their head scarves on, grow moustaches and get you some halal food along with an arab sign outside of the door.
>

.......... uhhhhhh... last i checked, we took off our shoes and then worked for our keep. and when we asked to be paid for our work, you told us we were ingrateful and to find another house to live in because you, by your kind heart, let us our of the rain and rather than being thankful, we dare ask for equal chances as the rest of the help!

HOW DARE WE!!

>That my friend is what causes seggregation.
>

exactly.

>That's typical. It's like talking to religious fanatics who debunk everything by saying the lord moves in mysterious ways.

hahahahaha. Sometimes... He does. But sometimes, we're just too foolish to see the answer.

>In the real world it isn't like that. Western culture is superior, you say so yourself that there are better ways of doing it and when situation are compared I'm guessing that the better way was a reference to anything but the muslim way.
>

haha. but even if they are "better" ways to do things [again, better is a tricky word because, as explained before, what may be better to us might not be better to someone else... though in some cases, better is better], we can't force everyone to take the same road. everyone chooses what road they're gonna take. and i personally don't believe in discrimating against someone for the way they chose to live.

maybe it's idealistic and optimistic and a whole bunch of other -istics, but i think that this nuance of the argument is just one thing we're going to have to agree to disagree... because it's a fundamental basis like this [ that 1. sometimes, what's really "better" is a matter of opinion and that 2. when it's not a matter of opinion, that we can't force other people to do what's better because of free will] that you just can't really change.


>If they come to my country escaping poverty and true oppression? Hell yes.
>

so then the majority is exempt from making itself do what's "better," but the minority better behave or we'll get deported...??

>
>In theory it is, in reality people get blown up because of people who think like you are too hypocritical or naive to take action.
>
>(I'd like to add though that I mean that in a very non-aggressive way even though I realize that might not come across like it in text, which is why I'm adding this)
>

lol. nice disclaimer clause. you should caps it and place it at the beginning of everything you say.

and in reality... ::sigh:: it's a hard road, but it means working harder to find better solutions.

i wouldn't mind so much if people said "RACIAL PROFILING IS WRONG... and we're looking for another way to find terrorists, but currently, creating prejudice and hate is the best way we can go about it" before they actually did the racial profiling... at least it'd be up front and honest rather than trying to pretend that racial profiling is totally okay and not at all disgusting or as necessary as people make it out to be.

>By that type of reasoning you can't put people in jail either, because you're doing something wrong (physical restraint of a human being) to do something good (justice).
>

i don't even know if we're on the same page here. I'm saying that the ends do not justify the means, right? And you're saying that they do, right?

two completely different cases. in one case [ideally], the criminal is held for tangible charges. there's always evidence and the evidence indicates that the person is guilty. [stay with me, this is going to get hard to understand] the person serves for these charges on the basis of justice; he is not [or at least shouldn't be] forced to physically or emotionally suffer [at least not purposefully] for his crimes [not a big believer in the death penalty].

to be even more specific to what you said, I don't consider physical restraint of a human being wrong dependent on a situation. say your friend is about to lose his head and go in with fists swinging, but you hold him back to protect him. you don't hurt him, but he is restrained. wrong? nope.

but say you tie someone down for no reason with no cause just to watch them suffer. wrong? yes.

or say you put someone within a living facility where they are monitered though [in most jails] are still given things like privacy, you still feed them, clothe them, and take care of them because they ARE citizens to society DESPITE the fact that they have hurt someone. that i would said is fairly justified. you're not hurting them physically or emotionally [if anything, it's a chance for them to get their lives together].

and once they're out of jail, they should be integrated back into society. [which, unfortunately, they often aren't]

to be more clear, i disagree with tasers and guns [not just by use of police force but by people anywhere. and again, i understand why people have them but they shouldn't. same thing with war and violence.]

we should just stick with fists. [JK!]

anyway, in the example of racial profiling, you have no tangible evidence of someone being a terrorist, just that they share the same skin color of the a lot of the terrorists you've been presented with. and that, for me, just doesn't cut it.

i dunno. imprisoning someone seems a lot less personal because you have facts and clues to lead you to the criminal. but racial profiling, it's YOU making the call. it's YOU who's discriminating and pre-judging someone.

also, despite how lightly i've depicted prison, i KNOW it's not like that. again, this is how i think things should be because [last i checked] we're arguing over the reasoning... whether something is justified or not.

>What you're saying is all very nice but once applied to the real world it doesn't make any sense and all logic behind it proves to be a fallacy in my opinion.
>

I'll admit it. I'm idealistic and optimistic, but I also can't believe that in order to have justice we have to dole out injustice. I mean, the real world doesn't make much sense to me so maybe that's why i don't make sense to it.

>The whole problem with this kind of reasoning that you and others adovcate is the number of double standards you always build in. I think that's wrong and causes more trouble than it fixes.
>

which double standards? that everyone should be treated equally?

>Ah but you can't touch an old stove without getting burned, while a modern one doesn't pose as high a risk or danger by a long shot.
>

but you still get burned... because it's a hot stove... i'll accept for the sake of argument that the risk is "less" but you still get burned... so why not find a new way to cook altogether?

[oh... right. because it's impractical and idealistic.]

>Here's the thing though: they better not burn me once they're in my house, because if they did they'd be on the dump within a week.
>

YOU BOUGHT THE STOVE! and it's not like you can RETURN or dump people.

>It does when it leads to stuff the muslim culture leads to.
>

there really is NO arguing with you.

>It is more westernized, in part due to technology, than islamic culture.
>

more westernized than islamic culture but not as much as Black. and yet, we STILL get less heat.

>
>I have been talking about muslim culture because that's the one causing trouble at this point in time. When asian people don't cause problems and do what's expected of them why would anybody have problems with that.
>

right. the whole problem is that these minorities "cause problems." so really, what you mean is that as minorities we don't really so much need to be westernized even. all we really need to do is "behave" and not pop the western happy bubble.

>Thing is though, both relatively and in absolute numbers, islamic people cause more trouble, a lot more, and are therefor being targeted as the problem. How surprising is that.
>

bout as surprising as generalizations, stereotypes, and racism.

>>i've heard more about Darfur in the past year than i have in the past 5 or 10 years.
>
>This is relevant how?

saying that the media influences how we live our lives and how we perrceive global problems.

>No shit, I always felt like hif was locke as well.
>

seriously? how much of a coincidence is that??

anyway, i'm starting a lost thread...

>Don't ruin it for me though, I've only seen the first season yet due to a lack of time
>

with no spoilers.

>Europeans did it. Wether you're dying from aids or other infectious diseases isn't that much of a difference.
>

well, the fact that a lot of citizens aren't centralized within well-developed cities/ communities doesn't help either.

>Beside, the aids problem spreading like it does is entirely their own fault, again due to african culture.
>

and since none of us have a resposibility as fellow people, there's no need for us to care??

>I partly agree with you in this but in saying that it is not culture that makes people racists, it's evolutionary biology that makes people racist.
>
>You dislike what is different, especially when it tries to bite you or suck your blood.
>

haha. i also partly agree with you, except that i think even if evolutionary biology is taken into effect, we still have to consider how media has influenced our views on different races and generated stereotypes.

>Yes, I agree. Which is also part of why I'm saying that a lot of what is going on must be at least dormantly condoned by muslims because dicators still rule, religious fanatics still call the shots, their people still have the highest crime rates, and the list goes on. It's not like all of this happened during the last 2 years. It is a part of the culturally stagnant islam and its followers that have a fused identity with it.
>

but just like you can't force others to agree with you, muslims can't force other muslims to do whatever they want [unless you want them to be extremists]. i mean, as much as you're saying "you need to overthrow your leader," it's not like it's easy and it's not like they even know what to do next. plus, and i think you were drawing on this example from before, the french revolution? how much do third world muslims know about world history? aren't women even disallowed from going to school?

they can answer for themselves, but they can't answer for their race, just like a white person can answer for him or herself but not for the race. so we can't be racist and declare all of them to be bad or troublemakers simply because they are ruled by someone awful [North Koreans? Iraqis?].

i don't think their culture is stagnant, and I don't think they are either. i think that everything is constantly changing, and as globalization becomes more and more evident, we'll probably see greater and greater changes within Muslim cultures.

>Doesn't seem like it, you said so yourself, several times even in this last post, that cultures and the manner in which you behave are linked. You also agreed that some ways of handling things are better than others, ergo some ways of life (=cultures) are superior to others.
>

The way you handle something may be influenced but not dictated by your culture. It can easily be influenced by other factors of an identity. I believe that all cultures are equal in that all of them have thier own value and should be respected and remembered. I don't think any culture should be forgotten or allowed to fade into obscurity, even "bad" ones. I guess part of it is sentimentality and another part is the need to preserve history and historical facts.

And as a side note, misread the second half of what you wrote. I suck at double negatives.

There is a correlation between culture and the values you hold [thus, the way you act]; however, I don't think one aspect of your culture takes the cake for all your behaviours.

>I don't get this inherent fear of people with acknowledging superiority and inferiority.
>

It's not a fear. I'll admit if someone's better than me at something, and I don't really care if someone's worse than me at something so long as they're not doing it.

BUT, I don't believe in superiority and inferiority so much as right and wrong. They might seem like synonyms to you, but I think that there's a slight difference than can mean the world.

>>religion does influence everything, including culture. but it doesn't influence skin color.
>
>Thats not what I said.

i know. you said that they're often related. i'm stating that it doesn't influence skin color... i mean, it's not exactly like you can disagree with that.

>You only read want you want there to be written, I've stated, more than clearly and several times, that it is not a discussion in absolute terms but it is a question about likelihood anc chance.
>

and, i suppose we come to another reason why we won't agree: i don't think people should be judged based on chances. and i don't think they should be pulled aside in lines and made to submit to a search just because they're dark skinned and have dark hair. you can't tell someone's religion by their race, and even if you were likely to get THAT question right, chances are you suck at guessing races!

so pull aside everyone you think is arabic [or muslim]-- chances are, you're only getting a few percentage right and a whole bunch of muslims that don't fit the stereotype are slipping right through your fingers.

>And yes, as I said, arabs are more likely to be muslims (with all the consequences thereof) than white or asian people.
>

and the chances of people being able to point out an "arab" correctly still suck as much as people being able to point out someone "chinese" correctly.

>Never said they aren't, and that's all good, but here in the west christianity is the norm so you don't go enforcing islam. Those days are over but islam is still living that era.
>

nah. you just enforce christianity. : )

>No doubt, but I'm also pretty sure that the chances of that are much more unlikely.
>

wait... what?

>
>The old one gets you burned wherever you tocuh it (even if it is with a bunch of childish cartoons), the other only gets burned when for example you throw airplanes at them.
>

or complain about racism. or tell them they're privileged. or step onto their property. or go to their schools. or ask for equality. or ask to be respected and treated as the citizens we are.

>I disagree, because they do not have a *right* to anything the same way a citizen has it because they're the ones that moved, not the other way around.
>

a majority of the minority didn't even MOVE here! you only have SO many immigrants coming in; a good number of the minority... and this might come as a shock to you... is second generation... OR MORE.

>Reality tells you differently.

so some of us aren't people but are... aliens? OH SNAP!

>
>What do you base that on

a filipino kid dresses up for a thug party and he gets stopped by the police. a black man drives a nice car in a white neighborhood-- he gets stopped by the police. a middle eastern student in UCLA can't produce a student id and begins to leave the library when a guard grabs him by the arm and refuses to let go... at which the middle eastern student is tazered.

instances like that-- that's what i base it on. trends and stories that echo ALL over the US.

>I still don't see how criminals getting arrested is a bad thing

it's not... unless you're not a criminal and you get sentenced anyway because no one will believe you and the evidence points against you.

>When hungry you'll give food to your own kin faster than to others/somebody you know better (sharing culture for example) even though they're equally hungry. Again you might not like that but that's reality.
>

but if the only thing you have in common is skin color... shoot, for all you know, the black man that was just turned down was a second cousin by a biracial marriage.

also, by that logic, people who have been here just as long as you and worked just as hard as you are getting cheated out of jobs and work simply for their skin color.

and even if you say "that's reality!" doesn't mean it's right. [which, i guess, is why Affirmative Action is there]

>Because they can't.

that and white people aren't exactly defenseless like the native americans were.

>I don't have that much of a problem with that, never said I did, which is also in part why I feel that problem cases in minorities should be dealt with more vigorously because 1 bad apple in a minority can do much larger damage to "his group" than 1 bad apple in the majority.
>

you mean that they'd do the same amount of damage but proportionately, since the minority are fewer in number, their community would in effect suffer great damage? at which, when such instances occur, no slack is given to the minority community because it was their fault that bad apple got out of line. also, might just wanna add that the majority explains its case away by saying the person was a crazy.

>I don't think racism automaticly implies negative consequences or violence. The problem is people immediately throw it onto the pile of hitler and apartheid and the "less eloquent" (to put it mildly) racists screw things up for the people who back their views up with serious and thought out arguements, just like how troublemakers destroy the credibility of entire minority groups.
>

so what has racism helped? i mean... i can think of numerous contributions made by minorities despite being disliked by the majority, but racism?? not so much.

>That's how you see it because minorities feel like that's how they are being treated even though all the black guys on cops are getting arrested for being a criminal.
>

for assumedly being a criminal. ALSO, with the majority sounding like you, you're saying that minorities shouldn't feel that way? it's not like minorities don't know how to understand english. sure, some of us might not speak it so great, but we CAN [unlike chris tucker wants us to believe in Rush Hour] understand you and we know what discrimination is when we see it. [because we do it to other people too. only when we do it, it's not costing thousands of hard workers jobs, raises, and whatever else to help them get out of debt or welfare]

>Every time action is taken against a non-white person it is discrimination and racism.
>

really? 'cause i thought you were just saying it was for crime.

i believe you mean the widely televised cases are the ones that pull the discrimination and racism card. [especially when the card is wrongly pulled are they all the more televised]

>So that idea is in a very large part due to rolling in misplaced self pity.
>

hahaha. a biting retort i wanted to make was "just like white people roll in a lot of misplaced self glory" but i decided that was rather out of line.

>There's a very significant difference between having the *right* to something (which implies it being given to you no matter what) and deserving something because you merrit it.
>

sorry. i forget. in my opinion, they should be the same thing.

>Because once you start saying that somebody is a criminal because he is (for example) black and therefor discriminated against and *that* is the true reason why he hasn't had an education or a job, *that* and *that* alone, and he has no control over how he behaves because he can't have any responsibility seeing as how he is just a product of rampant discrimination, how do you sell that to the far more numerous immigrants who do what they're supposed to do without causing any harm to anybody even though they have the same problems (imaginary or not) to deal with.
>

chances are that he's had an education and a job; he just might have been discriminated at them too. [btw, i'm not saying NO black people belong in jail either. i'm just saying that the figures are incredibly misbalanced and you have to wonder why...] and what are you supposed to sell?

minorities already know what's up against them coming into this country. and the ones that aren't immigrating still know. and there are some minorities who'll say, "it's HIS fault i have to work so hard!" and there are those that will recognize that even when everyone did behave and do well and get along and it didn't change a thing, that maybe not saying ANYTHING and remaining "obedient" isn't the best answer.

>So no, to me the "why" isn't a justification or explanation, because for every "why" you can come up with there are people in a similar situation who behave like a human being should. So in the end wether you're scum or human is your own choice, even if your culture dictates otherwise, but fact of the matter is that you're far more likely to be scum when your culture or the version that you've been dealt of it leads to there.
>

partially agree. in the end, we do have a "choice" about what we do to live our lives. sometimes, we're lucky and that choice is as simple as "what college do i go to"? and sometimes, because we're not so lucky, we have to decide between doing something profitable though illegal or letting our family starve. and i'm not advocating doing anything illegal in order to feed a family, but i AM say that it wouldn't come to that if people were given the same breaks they would if they were white.

also, no matter majority or minority, someone else's culture is always influencing your own. and if you're a minority and that influencing culture happens to be a majority that blames you for what's wrong in america [regardless whether it's really your fault or not], life's not gonna be easy for you in the least.

>>well, that poor white guy must have been discrimnated to get a better opportunity. bet that black woman's a big racist to let him take that from her!
>
>I don't get that part

i was being facetious and saying how a poor white man would NEVER be discriminated by GETTING a job. but if a black woman worked harder and got it instead of him, he'd just say it was affirmative action [that is, if he's bitter about losing. if not and if he were a decent human being, he'd recognize that she deserved it. just like any respectful and decent human being that's a minority would do if it were the majority... WHICH, goes into the point on how a lot of minorities, in an effort to be well behaved, don't report on job discrimination [or even discrimination in general] for fear of being wrong or being that awful "cry-racism" minority everyone hates].

>Yes.

Roughly 60% to 65% of minorities feel they have eperienced racism in some way. Typically, about 95% of people who have experienced racism are able to describe a situation that delineates a clear incidence of racism.

unfortunatetly, i tried to find a statistic that would say what percentage of minorities actually file a report [or even don't file one], but i can't find any. most of the articles i rifled through only talk about a specific number of reports filed... BUUUUUUUUUTTT, i can kinda bet it's not 60% to 65% of minorities. if anything, i'd say those who file complaints out of ALL minorities probably tops it at 10%... probably less.

i mean, just take all the minorities you know and ask them if they've ever experience racism. then ask if they've ever reported it.


>Just like the media likes to go crazy over every black guy that has the crap beaten out of him during a riot, while had it been a white guy it would have been a damn hippy.
>

not as crazy as they go over the fake miscalls. like the Duke lacross players? Compare that to the UCLA middle eastern student... DEFINITELY not equaivalent air time.

>Yet the black person would grumble racism pretty easily, wouldn't you agree?
>

he might or might not, but chances are he wouldn't take it to court unless he really thought there was a case.

>Yes, but that's another interesting thing: white racism is always percieved to be somehow more prevalent and worse than racism coming from non-whites, and gets handled likewise.
>

true. but that's because that one white man missing out on a job can't hold a candle to the dozens of black men missing out on jobs every day because of their skin color.

plus, if he quits, it's still easier for him to find another job for another company than for any black man.

ain't sayin' that the discrimination should be there, but just saying [as you often do] that that's reality.

>
>1) white kid gets stabbed in the heart by 2 roma's (gypsies made up out of a variety of ethnic backgrounds due to their traveling, in thise case north african types), it's a robbery/murder.
>
>2) white kid shoots other white kid + the black nanny -> it's a racist murder.
>

was it played by the media/ people not involved as racist or did the lawyer actually spin it as a racist case?

>
>I hate it with a vengeance too
>
>>Ah, but they still don't get treated as well as the natives with the same education and class level. well, unless you're in a non-westernized country.
>
>No because those western tourists are going to spend more money since they're on vacation
>

exactly... isn't that what i said? if that wasn't clear, let me clarify. minorities that come to westernized countries to visit will still get poorer treatment than the majority natives of the same class; don't believe me? if a japanese family comes to visit disney world, you think they're going to get any better treatment than the majority of the same class? [treatment from the hotel staff, drivers, etc etc] or if a wealthy black family was on vacation in a western country, you think they would get better treatment than whites of the same class? chances are... no. if anything, a fair bit worse. heck, margaret cho was in Atlanta doing a tour and some guy called her a chink while she was walking down the street. western tourists to non-western countries, however, will receive better treatment than the natives there, particularly if they're white.

>I believe so yes

the black woman would get the raise after putting in the same amount of hard work as the white guy? and there was no affirmative action?

>So I do *not* believe that stuff like clothing or religion could/should be enforced by law, but it is something that should come naturally when people truly want to become part of a society instead of invading an existing one and imposing their own brand by not taking over the one they are moving in to.
>

i think i know what you're saying. you're saying that while there is no law, as a minority you should naturally want to follow the unspoken rules of society if you want to fit in, right?

but that's pretty much asking people to give up a part of their heritage and culture, isn't it? i mean, isn't the idea that you have to shed the old skin to put on the new, etc? but if the old skin is as much a part of you as the new skin, what are you supposed to do?

even the majority hasn't shed its old customs. you have different european traditions coming down generation after generation; beliefs too. yet minorities are expected to because they're the minority?

>Failure to do so is a refusal to adapt and an occupation of territory which will cause (and is causing) internal fragmentation of the host society.
>

internal fragmentation nothing. asians that haven't even been half as assimilated as some blacks would be cited as causing less "internal fragmentation." it's because it's not so much a matter of assimilating as not letting it pop the majority's happy bubble.

>You cannot seriously imagine different cultures living peacefully side by side. It doesn't work on an international scale and it is proven on a daily basis that it doesn't work on a local scale.
>

minorities, when they immigrate, do adopt the different culture. true some tend to do it in their own way, but typically the adoption is in favor of the majority's culture. and most people have a general base of morals and ethics; thus why people of vastly different cultures can still be friends [granted some cultures have it rough being around each other, but when it comes down to the personal level, it can work.].

the reason it doesn't work is because the majority/ "superior" country is so busy trying to be the "majority"/ "superior" that the minority gets all pissed about it.

[this is where i insert the clause about all of us learning to mature and how to get along... but clearly, the "UNREALISTIC!" argument shall be pulled. so i'll just settle for saying that just because the majority doesn't get along with the minority's culture [though the minority seems to be just fine with the majority until the majority wants to step all over the minority's face], doesn't mean the majority has to swallow up the minority in an attempt to maintain its majority-ness.]

i don't see why every ethnic whim must be quashed for the sake of the majority to remain the majority or even to remain blissfully happy.

>You can not get along with people who have inherently different value systems and morality than you and have that infused from the day they were born.
>

you don't have to like 'em, but you don't have to change 'em to fit you either. you've never lived with a bad neighbor or someone you have nothing in common with?

>Concrete examples of that are women rights, family structure, work ethics, the idea of what *is* freedom of speech, secularism, law,...
>
>Actually, to come back to those cartoons and the freedom of speech: Compare the islamic notion of freedom of speech to the western version. How could you seriously live together with the core idea as a westerner that you are free to express what you want *but* you can't say anything about allah/mohammed because the people who moved in dictate that onto you.
>

but because they moved into your neighborhood, they've agreed to the laws. secondly, you really have to say bad things about a religious figure in front of people who find that figure important? can you not just respect that?

freedom comes with responsibility, right? just like minorities have a responsibility to adapt to their country [i don't disagree with the fact that minorities have to adapt... i disagree with the extent] since they moved there.

>How can you live side by side with people who feel that women are mere tools of men. That is true for a lot of islamic immigrants as well.
>

you can try to convince them all you can, but you can't force them to believe the same as you. they have a right to their own beliefs too.

>>Are we back in high school?!
>
>It's a bit more complicated.
>

balls.

>No, but like the columbine high school shootings those weren't politically or religiously inspired and just your average killing spree, while islamic terrorism is.
>
ok, but what i'm saying is that a majority of the terrorist attacks on the US weren't religious fantatics... they were just extremists. so while we "protect" ourselves from one kind of terror, what're we doing about the others that are more likely to slip out of our grasp? [wasn't the washington shooter shortly after 9/11?? or am i just imagining things?]

>
>No, I make it seem like your random arab is a more likely candidate than your random white guy when it comes to terrorism. I don't see how that's a false estimate. The implications you attach to that are up to you.
>

but aren't a large portion of african americans muslim as well? they just aren't "typically" the extremist type [well, not when it comes to racial profiling for terrorists, anyway]. so how does that support the racial profiling of specifically "arabs" at all?

>So I'd say there's a pretty big difference between not being the norm which does no harm and being an extremist which leads to misery.
>

i know. what i meant was that if you have this minority within a group of people, you can't judge that entire group of people based off that one person. [much like, borrowing from another thread, hollywood women are not a good representation of all women.]

>You have to see that in the context of what I said, hence the "in a way" part, which you probably conveniently left out while interpreting the above sentence.

i did leave it out because all i could read was "less westernized = more extremist" over and over again in horror. even if the "in a way" is added to it, i'd still have to cry because despite bringing in the example, i don't see how supporting religious regimes and self-destruction has anything to do with westernization. it only has to do with extremism.

[note: were a bunch of religious groups during the crusades similar to that?]

>Yes there was some technological exchange, which went both ways mind you, especially from west to east during the last few centuries, but saying that equals the cultural buildup and social organisation is something else entirely.
>

well, culturally, if we're going at it your way, wouldn't asians have the best culture? well, japanese more specifically.

>For the record, I was never a fan of the iraq war, people who've been around here as long could back that up.
>

i'm not THAT new. i know.

>
>But a pre-emptive strike on iran's nuclear facilities wouldn't hurt, neither would taking out north korea's enrichment facilities have been a bad thing considering the aftermath of not having done so.
>

i hate america's inconsistency.

>
>Which only goes to show that it is a natural thing, and when people tell you what they stand for and believe in in no uncertain terms, be it by religious or political affiliation, you know enough of their story to make up your mind about it
>

it is natural, but it's not right. and you still can't tell everything about a person just from their religious stance or political one. everyone has a story that'll turn you on your head/ something you completely didn't expect about them.

what i'm saying is that by prejudging people, we act like we know all about them and that's that. but we don't. so it's a lie.

>>Tell me the percentage who do based on hard work compared to the percentage who don't because a white man is there.
>
>I can pose the same question?
>

yes. and i'll admit that i'm not about to spend several hours scouring google for a possible lead.

BUT, i will say that out of two resumes with identical credentials, one with a "black" name [something like "tyrone honeybee"] and one with a "white" name [thomas jefferson... kidding! both joking examples, but you get the point] submitted to a company, the white name is twice as likely to get called back than the black man. and that's for identical resumes...

>
>I agree. However even in the same social class (and I base this on european numbers, but I'm guessing the us is similar enough to assume that it is the same) non-whites still have much higher crime rates. So when the socio-economic status is equal the only other explanation is culture (unless you would go as far to say that it's a biological thing, but that's not as far as I'd go).
>

i'm still standing by the you-dunno-the-real-crime-rate thing.

>That would be a reasonable thing to say if the numbers were roughly equal, but seeing crime rates up to 8 times as high and saying that's just law enforcement racism at work in this day and age is plain laughable.
>

i don't deny that the crime rates for blacks are higher [even factoring in crimes we don't know about], but i think it's far more even than the statistics right now show.

>A small discrepancy I'd be willing to agree to that there could be some level of prejudice involved (wether that's a bad thing is something else as I've said before), but not like that with those kind of numbers.
>

i would say a larger discrepancy, but a portion of the true crime rates between the two for black i would also atttribute to racism and the phenomenom of self-fulfilling prophecy [or is it some other technical name?? dun remember. but it's the same reason why brown v. board is the way it is. when you tell a kid they're stupid, they somehow come up with test scores to prove it... no matter if they were truly stupid or not.]

>
>An ironic remark to show that there is no denying in the fact that popular black music is predominantly about bitches, ho's, and the highest standard one can attain if being a pimp.
>

.............. WHAT?! did you look up ANYTHING i said?!

btw, it's not popular black music. a lot of people across all races listen to that stuff.

>How do you put that next to mozart?
>

lol. How do you put ANYONE next to a genius who was composing by what... 10? 12? and perform for the court by... 6?!?

Some notably talented people, though:

Alicia Keys? Scott Joplin? Louis Armstrong? Duke Ellington? Pharrell? Dangerdoom?

ALSO, if we wanna travel beyond the realm of music, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, WEB Dubois, Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison?

PLUUSSSSSSSS, to modify a joke by Chris Rock, a ton of brilliant black people were killed during slavery because they were too smart for their own good [or they just died from the harshness of slavery]. to be a little lame and cheesy, kinda makes my heart hurt to think about all the creative minds we lost...

>Speaking of which, ever heard about Idomeneo?
>

no such luck. why?

>>So... there's no longer an italian mob?! ::cries::
>
>Probably not in similar proportions no
>

i think a little part of me just died.

>That's because experience tells you, just like you'd seize up wether you can take that giraffe down or not judging from past successes and dangers
>

did you really just pull a giraffe out of nowhere?? or is that a colloquialism?

typically, i don't have much experience in human bombs... the only ones that happened in the US that i know of [aside from 9/11] were white people.


>I'm not a believer in a happy rainbow society
>

pity. i am.


>I know I do, just like I know that when it's cold outside I'm more likely to catch a cold than when it isn't.
>

not much of a statistic there.


>Probably in very large part because they commit more crimes which make you eligible to be arrested.
>

do i really have to answer this again, because my reply's still the same from a few posts back...

>So you're indirectly saying that the black guys are probably more stupid as well since they get caught more often, or is it again 100% the blame of racist policing.
>

DARN THE RACIST POLICE! DARN THEM!

>I never said it is, I dispute however that it is in those numbers
>

again, half agree. i'd say the numbers are off, but i think a part of the numbers is also the psychological phenomenon i was talking about.


>Probably because you associate racism with rednecks or guys with swastika's on their heads, but there are poeple out there who think about what they believe in ;o)
>

haha. nah. it's probably more on the scale that it's a more of a personable argument, despite being online. it's not like you're some obscure professor that's written an essay and i have to write a counter-argument essay for class and can thus hate everything you say peacefully.


>Can you read dutch because I don't have anything at hand for the US.
>

not so talented. i can manage a little bit of latin and a fair bit of spanish, though.


>I think it's safe to say that rapists and murderers usually get caught and sentenced, no matter wether they're white or something else
>

thought the last paragraph of this was interesting [skimmed it]: http://www.counterpunch.org/drugwar.html

and according to the 2004 FBI crime sheet updated in Feb 2006, "In homicides where the race of the offender was known, 50.0 percent were black, 47.6 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were other races."


>Does it makes sense to you that all of that is 100% the result of racial policing who just happen to stumble on black robbers and drive by when they see a white guy raping a woman on the curb
>

no. not 100%.

>
>I feel like it does yes, when I put those numbers next to my own experience.
>
>For example, the times I've seen fights happening when going out in 90% (if not more) of the cases they're caused and started by non-whites. And I'm talking about stuff where racism had nothing to do with it, but for example people dancing and bumping into eachother by accident with their backs turned to eachother.
>

and you don't think any of that violence is influenced by racist culture and how it portrays black men and how they're supposed to be?

i mean, because if we think about it, certain veins run throughout a bunch of cultures within a country. like how all have a part in the media and pop culture and how all these different cultures play into the mass culture, which also plays back into each separate culture.

so if that main culture, because it's shaped predominately by whites, have underlying currents of the stereotyping of black men, don't you think those stereotypes influence black culture as well?

i mean, just like how "proper" white people are stereotyped to say every letter of the alphabet, and few will dare talk without that accent for fear that if they do, they're trying to "be" someone they aren't.

>So when zooming out I don't have much of a problem believing those numbers because I've witnessed it myself, numerous times, be it on a smaller scale.
>

maybe i do because i'm from a predominately white community [well... was].


>They don't have it bad at all. Because the way you make it look like and the way a lot of minorities seems to feel is that there is no white underclass, and that the black middle class is underneath the white underclass, which is simply not true, but every black guy who's lower class blames it on racism and discrimination just like the jails are supposedly filled with innocents when you ask the people in them.
>

nah. we recognize there's a white underclass, but you ask anyone in that white underclass if they would think their lives would improve by being black and they'll most likely say no. ask a black man in the underclass if he thinks his life would improve by being white, and chances are he'd say yes.

would you say he's wrong?

plus, how many lower class black men do you know that think their whole life's position is because of racism? they might think it's influenced, but personal stories typically play a part too.

and as for jails, if you're actually in one, i hear that people often brag about different crimes to each other to try and establish a reputation. but... i suppose there are those who would deny everything in court while admitting it backstage.

>
>I agree completely, but I'm saying that working to have it better and gaining it on your own instead of expectiong positive discrimination and blaming all that goes wrong on racism is plain ingratitude for a better life when you're an immigrant.
>

not all immigrants do that; plus, you can't say that racism doesn't play a role in it because it does.

>And the only possible reason you can think of is not because of the non-whites but it *must* be because of racist policing and law.
>

::SIGH:: not the ONLY possible reason. there are a few others. BUT, i think that the violence and "thug" nature of black men is overplayed, overhyped, and over-believed in society, which likewise works into crime rates [real and those established by men jailed].

>
>Tell me how the oceans work without involving water.
>

Two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule combine as a structure with several other similar structures to form oceans. Oh... and salt's in there too. To be consistent, some variation of NaCl. [I feel SO the asian stereotype]


>On a world scale an example is quick to find: islamic martyrdom
>

i don't see how that helps at all. islamic martyrs are FAR from a majority of muslims and definitely don't represent fairly AT ALL the entire muslim culture.

>On a more local scale and upbringing: everything that goes wrong for you is caused by racist whites, you are not responsible for your own actions
>

good thing you finally understand. was worried i'd have to say THAT again.

[btw, everything that goes wrong for me is typically my own doing. i'll own up to it. BUT... several, SEVERAL bad days and a penchant for yelling "RACIST!" as well as a scarred childhood i'll attribute to racism.]


>They commit more violent crimes. White people commit more non-violent crimes like tax evasion.
>

In my search to find supporting evidence of what you just said, I found this:

"But despite the statistics shown above, a recent CNN survey (May 1998) interviewed college students on twenty different college campus's. White students were four times as likely to report a hate crime than any minority group. 53% of the minorities polled stated that the main reason they didn't report such crimes is because they were used to such treatment."

Also, according to the FBI, of those police arrest, 70% are white and a little under 30% are black. but, oddly enough, 60% of our jails are black... i dunno. that doesn't seem to add up to me either.

>
>No, but when the white guy gets the better job, for whatever reason, racism is automaticly the explanation for it.
>

not always. just sometimes. and add those sometimes to all the other sometimes of housing and education and other such things, and you have a nice big bowl of bitterness.

>
>Yes. I've heard people protesting for minimum quota's of non-white employees and enforced positive discrimination in the workplace, and this is not a fringe group that's saying it.
>

but they weren't asking for preferential treatment. they're asking for equal treatment. those quotas and the positive discrimination is there to make up for all the other quotas and negative discrimination.

>I never said that, you keep talking in absolute numbers which will never work out since to date minorities are still "minorities" while I'm talking in relative numbers, just like you can compare the GNP of a state to the GNP of the entire US in absolute numbers.
>

sorry. i tend to do that [subconsciously or not, i dunno]. trying to work on it.

>Quite the contrary, because it'll never be good enough anyway, just like in the western world pay is never high enough to satisfy the unions either.
>

asking for clean, well-lit factories and decent pay and proper hours isn't an impossible feat for large corporations... after all, it's not like fair trade isn't working.

>You being such an advocate of utilitarianism and equality should agree that it's better for chinese people right now to all work for low wages and get better collectively than getting higher wages and making the economic momentum burn out before it started.
>

that'd be true if foreign companies weren't ruining our lives and i wasn't on the other side of the pond. chances are, if i were one of those factory workers, i WOULD keep on working and accept my way of life and accept others to do the same. but since i'm not and i'm instead the consumer, i think i have a right as a consumer to say what i want in a product, and that's for those who make it to be treated fairly and not taken advantage of. in what way would that jeopardize any country's economy? fair hours and facilities definitely not; the proper pay can be analyzed and found by different economists or whatever.

to be honest, so long as they're being paid enough to live a decent or even good life, i'm happy. but if they're barely being paid enough to buy food for their families [one mother of two] after working several hours, that's a little ridiculous.

>But again, that's a different (be it very interesting) discussion. I'll just throw in that you can already see the beginnings of labour unions trying to emerge in china and that in the end china's economy will start to stagnate as well because it is built almost entirely upon cheap labour. Take cheap labour away and the bubble bursts and people drop into poverty again.
>

it's not taking cheap labor away; it's merely making it so that cheap labor doesn't = dying/ starving people.

>Again, the fact that they prefer to move out to the cities to work for those companies probably means they prefer that over what they had
>

just because they're dying less doesn't mean they're not dying. just like how even if you're more likely to get burned by one oven, you'll still get burned by both if you're not careful.

>
>You're kidding, right?
>

after the civil rights movement, the only difference is that laws aren't written. racism is less direct. but it's still thriving. so long as people keep teaching they're kids the racism they knew and so long as they media'll hype it up and so long as people will believe it.

yes, you have more black people coming into success. BUT, where it's not where it should be. at all. it's barely enough for people to say, "We're not racist! look! condoleeza rice!"

plus, civil rights don't equate to social rights. [which i believe minorities are entitled to... which i know you don't]

>
>Equality is a matter of gimme, just like communism is the climax of ego´sm from the side of the poor and disgruntled.
>

fine. equality is the matter of everyone getting the same "gimme" as everyone else.

>I say that considering where most immigrants come from they shouldn't complain at the kind of chances they get here in any way at all.
>

i dunno if you forgot, but i thought we were weren't gonna focus on a global aspect because that's really just bringing in WAY too much [ie- i can't complain about all that too with this much complaining to get done already]


>I understand what you imagine it to be, but I'm saying that throwing money onto it and disregarding a countries sovereignity to fix it as you see it goes directly into how you're advocating it should all be.
>
>You can throw as much money as you want at africa, with the culture they have there now it will never work out.
>
>The best proof of that is when you look at south africa compared to the rest of africa. The rest of africa is crawling through the dust with ak 47's while south africa is doing reasonably well. Why? It's a hunch but probably because it was and in part still is ruled by people of european descent and culture.
>

correct me if i'm wrong [Afri


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Tue Dec 26 02:59:40 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>That's one very big post.

they're all getting VERY VERY big.

i spent a few hours on this one... even more if you include all the searching for those statistics...

ALL IN THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH. so it's okay. but still...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Dec 26 07:40:20 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Maybe this will simplify it for you:
Look at the list below and tell me why we should screen everybody when it's only a very small segement of the population commiting these crimes.

November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.
1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for six and a half years.
April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.
October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.
December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.
September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.
December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.
June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.
October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.
December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.
April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.
December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.
(Then came an amazing, historic pause in Muslim extremists' relentless war on America after Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by doing the opposite of everything recommended by Democrats, depriving Islamic terrorists of their Soviet sponsors. This confuses liberals because they don't understand the concept of terror sponsors, whether it's the Soviet Union or Iraq.)
February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.
Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.
November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.
June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.
August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.
October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.
Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.



 
FN Posted: Tue Dec 26 10:44:02 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Due to lack of time (exams coming up in under 3 weeks) I'll reply to the most aggravating bits first

innocenceNonus said:
>or, in a slightly better analogy, thinking that every well-dressed man could be gay and treating him accordingly [which might not be different from others for you [you being Christophe], though for use within the context of this argument, it would mean that you [you as in anyone] demand for him to prove that he's not gay... publicly. at an airport.]

The difference being that apples and homosexuals don't blow up. Although they can be flaming.

>but not every muslim is seeking to be a martyr, just like not every Christian seeks to be a martyr.

No, but more of them are in both absolute and relative numbers. I'm guessing that's pretty clear, no?

>WHAT?! For a second, I almost missed that you said that martyrdom is taken more seriously by Muslims...

It is, if you don't take it seriously you don't blow yourself up

>You DO have Christian zealots

Never said there aren't any, just not of the extreme violent type in those numbers

>how is wearing something representing your culture a refusal to adapt/ adopt a different one?!

Read what I said please. It is not only not adapting but it is even setting off against the host culture because they do it more than in their country of origin.

>last i checked, people even adopted asian traditional clothing as a PART of fashion. and should we wear our traditional clothing, no one's going to think we're about to blow up a building. if anything, we're "celebrating our heritage." but it's different for a muslim person simply because of the rap that the media has developed for them.

The media doesn't blow people up.

>but it's not their only identity.

For a lot of immigrants/citizens in muslim countries it is for about 90% as everything starts from there and it is the most central part of their daily lives.

>christianity's had a violent nature too.

Yes exactly, had.

I can't go on a killing spree because people before me did so either.

>old testament? the crucifiction?

I don't see how crucifitcion was an evil commited by jesus but I digress

>the crusades?

So you're saying that because in prehistoric times, to go even further back, people hit eachother on the head with clubs you can't pass judgement on any violent culture today because thousand+ years ago your own culture did the same?

I'm not talking about the dark ages, I'm talking about the here and now.

>>"Just for comparison: compare the way muslims spoke out against the september 11 attacks and then compare how they spoke out against those mohammed cartoons. Proportionate?"
>>
>No, and it shouldn't be. In the first case, they're speaking to a small group of very specific people and admionishing them for their effects of a different and alienated country.

Not really, because they were specificly doing it, according to them, for islam. I'd say a danish cartoon artist for the posten is also a rather specific group.

>In the second case, something they love and hold sacred to them has been completely desecrated.

So what? It's freedom of speech.

That's what I mean with incompatible with western culture: you can laugh at everything expect at our believes.

It doesn't work that way, muslims cannot enforce their own insecurities onto other countries.

>It'd be like someone pissing on the cross or something even worse.

I don't know how it is handled in the us but have you ever seen a single christian violent riot? Or death threats because somebody drew a satirical picture of jesus saying something funny while hanging on a cross?

>I'll admit, the riots were a poor response. But to have something that important to you desecrated in a way you never thought possible? It may have been poor and [in my opinion] the wrong way to go about it, but I can understand why.

>what kind of response would you expect?

Jesus and christianity gets desecrated on a daily basis. In europe for sure.

This time I'm having a hard time at keeping my head cool to be honest, but I'll try and manage even though I can feel myself starting to boil inside.

How in any way you can say that those riots were justified or even understandable is completely beyond me.

People were killed for fucks sake. Do you have any idea at all of the scale of what happened over some freaking cartoons or did you just see a 2 second video clip of some muslims peacefully protesting?

* As of February 24, 2006, around 146 people have been killed in religious riots in Nigeria, touched off by attacks against Christians in the predominately Muslim North [2][3].

* As of March 22, 2006, 139 people have died, and at least 823 people have been injured as a result of the cartoons (those figures do not count riots in Nigeria).[7]

And that's not even talking about the economic damage and property destruction.

Open your eyes, seriously, *that* is islam without western influence.

I agree that a lot of muslims in western countries (who have been infuenced by western rationalism) behave like people ought to behave, but islam is more than the good guy that you meet when you drop your kids off at school.

And then those same people come over here with that ideology and not only demand their *rights* but also on top of that impose the prohibition of mocking anything that they hold dear for whatever reason there may be, directly going in against the basic foundations of western civilization: the freedom of speech

I'm not kidding when I say that christianity here gets mocked, and pretty severely, on a daily basis. *Never* have there been any death threats, as had been testified by numerous comedians who are renowned for their "attacks" on christianity. The gravest repraisal was according to them a newsletter.

You also might have missed it but those riots were on a global scale, even in european cities.

But in your view you feel that it's a greater disgrace to islam to make cartoons of mohammed (and keep in mind that depictions of mohammed have been made even in islamic art itself) than some guys flying into the WTC in the name of islam?

And therefore that you can imagine that the cartoons get more response than the WTC towers being knocked out?

How many protests were there in muslim countries after 9/11 happened (against what happened instead of for what happened)? How many people were killed in riots against the extremists? And you still say it isn't condoned?

Unbelievable.

Really, I am honestly disgusted by that kind of double standard and naivety/hypocricsy.

>because they don't really get discriminated or have their religious figures desecrated in the same way as Muslims do.

Remember the guy in (I think it was iran) sentenced to death because he converted to christianity?

How many 1000's of blasphemous depictions of christianity do you want? Again are you actually seriously letting it sink in what you are saying? I don't get it

http://liberalserving.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/jc.jpg

http://www.usuck.com/files/thumbs/t_funny_jesus_6_188.gif

http://leefur.blogspirit.com/images/medium_jesus_preview.gif

http://www.extremefunnyhumor.com/avatars/ZOMBIE_JESUS.JPG

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j314/jojoapcfreak/Funny%20shit/pope.jpg

http://wave.prohosting.com/picsonly/funny_pictures/pope.jpg

Seen any riots over that or over the thousands (millions?) more of those?

But no you're right, christianity doesn't have to deal with any kind of blasphemy and desecration of religious figures, not in the way those poor muslims have to bear, I mean, compare the above to

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png

Yes you're right, those are infinitly worse.

>it may not be as developed as European culture, but that doesnt mean it's a bad one. it's its own culture, and it has its own development.

It is a bad one when it starts screwing around with other cultures and posing its backward values on them without any authority or right to do so

>What I AM saying is that we cannot assume by their religious culture that they're violent people. they're trying to survive and thrive as much as the rest of us.

No, but you can assume when you see what they're doing

some numbers (from the clash of civilizations, the numbers were orginally from the new york times):

http://www.eriposte.com/war_peace/other/muslim_violence.htm

>but just because they're developing doesn't mean they're violent people.

Jesus christ do you have any grasp on global politics of the past 15 years?

>well, since muslims are within their own coutries and thus own nothing to the majority, they have no need to do that.

I agree, they're free to do whatever they want there. It would also be nice if they didn't make national death threats to danish cartoonists, or kill dutch movie makers.

>so when do we finally make the time cut and people finally tell us that we're considered American enough and that discrimnation or racism aren't problems/ existent?

Never. Racism will always exist, it's not something you can ban with a law. Which has nothing to do with being a legal citizen or not.

>but ask that teacher that loves her job, and i doubt she'd trade it for his to be "more successful."

Sure, but give the english teacher the chance to be a millionaire and how many would pass on it? And do I need to pull up some immigration numbers?

>Say nothing and just keep "behaving"?

Yes. You get a better life, you get more wealth than you could even dream of in your country of origin, by any standard, and the racial discrimination that exists is far from something fundamentally prohibiting for you to build out a successful life, as is proven by non-white politicians in western societies all the time without anybody giving them any crap (rightfully so by the way when they do their jobs).

>[a little exagerrated, i know, but what can i say? i'm an angry person of color]

Prone to violence

>i don't doubt or deny that; but if they weren't forced to be on such things and were given equal opportunities, it would n't be a problem! but then you deny them those opportunities because you say they're alienated and weird and don't dress right and they cause crimes.

Again I wonder how different the us must be, but in europe at least, and I know this from *leftist* people actually working in getting immigrants re-educated and helping them to get jobs: half of them just plain tells them they don't feel like working.

And that's coming from pro-multicultural die hards.

>Or it's all good as proven through psychological research. : ) tell a child he's an idiot, and he'll score less on that test. don't give him as many chances to answer in class, and he won't know the answers.

That's no different for anybody else, again there are numerous white people in the same or even worse circumstances, along with other coloured people in the same or worse circumstances, who still come out on top.

>that's not all you have to do as a minority. you have to PROVE that you don't act or resemble a minority in any way except appearance [which some people STILL don't consider enough].

Ofcourse you have to prove it.

>>That my friend is what causes seggregation.
>>
>
>exactly.

Again european and us standpoints on this must be miles apart.

In europe immigrants were told from day one that they were coming here to work (in the case of belgium in the mines), along side belgian/white workers mind you and for the same wages, and were then expected to go back. However they refused to leave, with all the consequences thereof.

>though in some cases, better is better], we can't force everyone to take the same road.

No, unless they, for their own personal benefit, chose to come to our countries. Then we can (in the sense of being entitled to) "force" them.

>>If they come to my country escaping poverty and true oppression? Hell yes.
>>
>so then the majority is exempt from making itself do what's "better," but the minority better behave or we'll get deported...??

I believe in deportation of criminals for example, yes. Also because western prisons compared to non-western ones are hotels. Or are you disagreeing with that as well?

The indigenous people aren't exempt from it, but the big difference there is that you can't control white people from being european, but you can control which immigrants you allow to enter and stay in your country and under what conditions

>>In theory it is, in reality people get blown up because of people who think like you are too hypocritical or naive to take action.
>and in reality... ::sigh:: it's a hard road, but it means working harder to find better solutions.

Reality means you act on whats going wrong, not expect it'll all work out because of the goodness of human nature. And right now islam is being a problem.

>he is not [or at least shouldn't be] forced to physically or emotionally suffer [at least not purposefully] for his crimes [not a big believer in the death penalty].

Ah I see, there's no emotional or physical suffering in being imprisoned, nor is it necessary as a sentence.

>say your friend is about to lose his head and go in with fists swinging, but you hold him back to protect him. you don't hurt him, but he is restrained. wrong? nope.

How is that different from a pre-emptive strike on iran

>but say you tie someone down for no reason with no cause just to watch them suffer. wrong? yes.

I don't see where that is relevant

>to be more clear, i disagree with tasers and guns [not just by use of police force but by people anywhere. and again, i understand why people have them but they shouldn't. same thing with war and violence.]

We should throw flowers at people and how they get so touched by that that we can all dance circles around the bonfire?

Total detachment from reality must be great.

You also only think of situations where you are dealing with reasonable people. In case of terrorism/murderers/rapists you aren't dealing with reasonable people who understand things like you and I do.

>I'll admit it. I'm idealistic and optimistic, but I also can't believe that in order to have justice we have to dole out injustice. I mean, the real world doesn't make much sense to me so maybe that's why i don't make sense to it.

Probably

>but you still get burned... because it's a hot stove... i'll accept for the sake of argument that the risk is "less" but you still get burned... so why not find a new way to cook altogether?

That would only work out without stoves. So start eradicating humanity.

>>Here's the thing though: they better not burn me once they're in my house, because if they did they'd be on the dump within a week.
>>
>YOU BOUGHT THE STOVE! and it's not like you can RETURN or dump people.

I didn't buy any immigrants, nor did I invite any of them over to stay.

>>It does when it leads to stuff the muslim culture leads to.
>>
>there really is NO arguing with you.

Said the pot to the kettle? ;o)

>>It is more westernized, in part due to technology, than islamic culture.
>>
>more westernized than islamic culture but not as much as Black. and yet, we STILL get less heat.

Because you simply cause less trouble. If you had caused as much trouble you would have been just as stigmatized, much like hispanics in the us and arabs in europe.

>all we really need to do is "behave" and not pop the western happy bubble.

Yes, at least when you move over here. And to behave and not pop any social bubbles you should indeed be westernized.

>>Europeans did it. Wether you're dying from aids or other infectious diseases isn't that much of a difference.
>>
>well, the fact that a lot of citizens aren't centralized within well-developed cities/ communities doesn't help either.

Same thing for everybody, in the end, europeans did it and muslims don't even though they are centralized in large cities and have the means to do so if the drive was there.

>>Beside, the aids problem spreading like it does is entirely their own fault, again due to african culture.
>>
>and since none of us have a resposibility as fellow people, there's no need for us to care??

Exactly. If you burn your ass you sit on the blisters.

When you see that there are african countries where the tradition is that when a man dies (usually of aids) all his wives have to be "ritually cleaned" by a special guy that does that (= get raped by that guy, and you can guess how high of a chance those guys have of having aids) before they are "wed" again as slaves to a different guy, I'd say that adds to the spreading of aids

Want some more? I know people who have worked in africa (burundi for example) for organizations fighting aids. The stories you hear about people simply refusing to wear condoms and the consequences thereof (like raping 2 and 3 year old babies because they believe that that will pass the aids on to the baby and rid themselves of it so they don't need condoms), male/female circusmcisions with unclean knives, not to mention the constant violence and blood flying around.

Stuff like that opens your eyes to how the aids problem could be solved but isn't simply because african culture doesn't let it be solved.

So again I really wonder how much of what you say is actually based on reality instead of stuff you read in "progressive" transcripts.

>plus, and i think you were drawing on this example from before, the french revolution? how much do third world muslims know about world history? aren't women even disallowed from going to school?

That's not the point, the french didn't exactly have models to build upon from their own experience. If anything new revolutions have a lot more to look to in terms of how to handle it.

>so we can't be racist and declare all of them to be bad or troublemakers simply because they are ruled by someone awful [North Koreans? Iraqis?].

Again, not all, but a higher percentage yes. And as I said before, when you come from those countries where that type of behaviour is in fact the norm (look up the numbers for the demonstrations for those cartoons for example, you can't say that's a small core of extremists) you are more likely to be that way.

>i don't think their culture is stagnant, and I don't think they are either. i think that everything is constantly changing, and as globalization becomes more and more evident, we'll probably see greater and greater changes within Muslim cultures.

All muslim countries have going for them is rising oil prices, and they waste much of what benefits they could gain from it on unneccesary luxuray instead of structural improvement (take a look at saudi arabia). It's a matter of time before it backfires.

>It can easily be influenced by other factors of an identity. I believe that all cultures are equal in that all of them have thier own value and should be respected and remembered. I don't think any culture should be forgotten or allowed to fade into obscurity, even "bad" ones.

Mayan culture hasn't faded into obscurity either, and seeing how people were offered I'd say that was a pretty "bad" culture. It is not forgotten about but looked at in terms of how not to do stuff in order to get somewhere, just like you can look at islam today.

>I guess part of it is sentimentality and another part is the need to preserve history and historical facts.

To preserve historical facts you'd better not have much of islam around, or any extreme religion for that matter.

>BUT, I don't believe in superiority and inferiority so much as right and wrong. They might seem like synonyms to you, but I think that there's a slight difference than can mean the world.

I'm about as pragmatic and realistic as somebody can possibly be I think, so I do comprehend the difference between right and wrong and superior and inferior.

But something being superior doesn't automaticly mean it can't be right either. I stick by western culture being superior to islamic culture, and when not agreeing I'd like you to give me some reasons why it isn't, reasons why it is are abound (living standards, technology, secularism, and the list goes on and on and on).

>i know. you said that they're often related. i'm stating that it doesn't influence skin color... i mean, it's not exactly like you can disagree with that.

I don't see the point of it either? the fact that skin color and religion are often related still stands

>and, i suppose we come to another reason why we won't agree: i don't think people should be judged based on chances. and i don't think they should be pulled aside in lines and made to submit to a search just because they're dark skinned and have dark hair.

But the "should" is very important. The fact that you might not like it or see it as being "fair" doesn't mean it isn't a rationally good thing to do. What do you expect? Open up all the borders and just let everybody in without any control? Or check everybody and have people wait a full day to board and again when they leave an airplane?

It doesn't work that way, so you focus on your target group of who you know is most likely to be what you're looking for

>so pull aside everyone you think is arabic [or muslim]-- chances are, you're only getting a few percentage right and a whole bunch of muslims that don't fit the stereotype are slipping right through your fingers.

Who ever said that it's a failsafe system?

I'm saying that it is the system with the highest possible chance of arresting individuals who might be dangerous without having to stop all air travel

>and the chances of people being able to point out an "arab" correctly still suck as much as people being able to point out someone "chinese" correctly.

You can't tell the difference between a black guy and an arab guy? Or a white guy and an iraqi? Or an iraqi and an asian? Also don't you think that the people involved in picking people out have a little more training than "pick out the arabs".

>>Never said they aren't, and that's all good, but here in the west christianity is the norm so you don't go enforcing islam. Those days are over but islam is still living that era.
>>
>nah. you just enforce christianity. : )

No, "I" expect the adaptation to christian values of whoever choses to come here out of their own motivation and see refusal to do so as unmannered provocation and ingratitude for a better life

>a majority of the minority didn't even MOVE here! you only have SO many immigrants coming in; a good number of the minority... and this might come as a shock to you... is second generation... OR MORE.

Yes, and a good part of those haven't integrated yet either.

An example? Antwerp, the largest Flemish city (so the language here is Flemish/Dutch). A study last year showed that 68% of the people in antwerp city (who are in very large part 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants) do not speak flemish or dutch at home. Even though there are free courses available to learn the languages and such. It also showed that hundreds of women are being basicly "imprisoned" by their muslim husbands (women that they went to get in their country of origin, even though they're 2nd or 3rd generation and there are more than enough immigrated women to go around).

So when on top of that, those same people have disproportionate unemployment (even though their employment is closely monitored and stimulated with free re-education and numerous jobs that do not get filled in even though masses of immigrants get re-educated for them and hiring them is stimulated), they cause up to 8 times more *violent* crime that the white original population, yell at white women that they're whores when they're not wearing head scarves (imagine what kind of a racist you would be when yelling whore at a muslim woman and the consequences thereof), the grouping of unattended groups of immigrated youths that the parents don't look after hanging around in stations and threatening/robbing people and the list goes on and on and on.

How's that for integration.

And to top it off they cry "racists!" when anybody mentions any of the above as a problem or when the police acts on it.

>instances like that-- that's what i base it on. trends and stories that echo ALL over the US.

So that's not exagerrated by the media in any way at all, but trends and stories about immigrants and crime are

>>I still don't see how criminals getting arrested is a bad thing
>
>it's not... unless you're not a criminal and you get sentenced anyway because no one will believe you and the evidence points against you.

And we all know that does not happen to white people

>but if the only thing you have in common is skin color... shoot, for all you know, the black man that was just turned down was a second cousin by a biracial marriage.

You like social studies, there are numerous social studies on this kind of thing.

>also, by that logic, people who have been here just as long as you and worked just as hard as you are getting cheated out of jobs and work simply for their skin color.

No but they feel like they are whenever they don't get the job even though numerous whites don't get it either

>so what has racism helped? i mean... i can think of numerous contributions made by minorities despite being disliked by the majority, but racism?? not so much.

Racism doesn't exist to help minorities, it exists to safeguard the original people

>ALSO, with the majority sounding like you, you're saying that minorities shouldn't feel that way?

I'm saying that 80% of the misery people have they bring unto themselves, and that's the same in the case of minorities feeling discriminated all the time.

>what discrimination is when we see it. [because we do it to other people too. only when we do it, it's not costing thousands of hard workers jobs, raises, and whatever else to help them get out of debt or welfare]

No, simply because you're a minority, but if you weren't the effects would be the same so it's sheer hypocrisy

>>Every time action is taken against a non-white person it is discrimination and racism.
>>
>
>really? 'cause i thought you were just saying it was for crime.

Notice the irony in my statement

>>"There's a very significant difference between having the *right* to something (which implies it being given to you no matter what) and deserving something because you merrit it."
>>
>sorry. i forget. in my opinion, they should be the same thing.

In my opinion they aren't. I don't feel like criminals have the right to social security or that people who simply refuse to work have it (no matter which race they belong to).

It's the reason why communism doesn't work

>and sometimes, because we're not so lucky, we have to decide between doing something profitable though illegal or letting our family starve.

Please, you think that all "gangsta's" and "pimps" do it to take care of their dear sweet sick mothers?

>and i'm not advocating doing anything illegal in order to feed a family, but i AM say that it wouldn't come to that if people were given the same breaks they would if they were white.

Aggression levels rising again.

Saying what you say and in the way you say it, you are always putting the responsibility of misbehavior of minorities in the first place on white majorities and only then looking at personal responsibility of troublemakers who happen to be black or arabs.

White people don't get breaks, and black people shouldn't get them either.

You don't get a well-paid job for being a slacker no matter what color you are.

You make it sound like people who get a decent job probably didn't have to work as hard to get it as a black guy with the same pay. That isn't racism and prejudice?

How seriously do you think this stuff through anyway?

>but if a black woman worked harder and got it instead of him, he'd just say it was affirmative action [that is, if he's bitter about losing.

Much like every time a white guy gets a job over a black guy it's racism? Even if they're not "bitter" about losing

>Roughly 60% to 65% of minorities feel they have eperienced racism in some way. Typically, about 95% of people who have experienced racism are able to describe a situation that delineates a clear incidence of racism.

Extremely highly subjective results.

You can't make statistics that have a rational backup on how people "feel", and what passes as a clear incidence of racism?

Also, observe:

A kid with red hair gets picked on and the other kids say nasty stuff about being a redhead

a fat kid gets laughed at for being fat and has to hear about being fat

a black kid gets picked and and something is said about being black. Wait a minute! A clear instance of Racism!

>BUUUUUUUUUTTT, i can kinda bet it's not 60% to 65% of minorities. if anything, i'd say those who file complaints out of ALL minorities probably tops it at 10%... probably less.

Hearsay and highly subjective

>i mean, just take all the minorities you know and ask them if they've ever experience racism. then ask if they've ever reported it.

As I said before, what you call racism and how it is in fact racism in the way racism is meant is something very subjective and you know how eager people are to pull the racist card.

Why? Because it's a silver bullet to end any conversation.

>>Yes, but that's another interesting thing: white racism is always percieved to be somehow more prevalent and worse than racism coming from non-whites, and gets handled likewise.
>>
>true. but that's because that one white man missing out on a job can't hold a candle to the dozens of black men missing out on jobs every day because of their skin color.
>plus, if he quits, it's still easier for him to find another job for another company than for any black man.

Says you.

>was it played by the media/ people not involved as racist or did the lawyer actually spin it as a racist case?

Both. It's cool to say you're a multiculturalist so it's cool to be white and say something is racist.

Which to me is degrading for non-whites because that turns them into pets and status symbols.

>exactly... isn't that what i said? if that wasn't clear, let me clarify. minorities that come to westernized countries to visit will still get poorer treatment than the majority natives of the same class; don't believe me? if a japanese family comes to visit disney world, you think they're going to get any better treatment than the majority of the same class? [treatment from the hotel staff, drivers, etc etc] or if a wealthy black family was on vacation in a western country, you think they would get better treatment than whites of the same class? chances are... no.

If they are as rich compared to how rich western visitors are in relation to the "homelanders" being on vacation then yes they'll get special treatment, just like a normal arab guy will get the same treatment as a white guy in a european hotel, but the same european will get a much better treatment in a turkish hotel than a turkish visitor with much less money comparatively, just like an arab sheik will get a better treatment in a european hotel than an average european with much less money comparatively.

So what you're saying is a false logic.

>>"I believe so yes"
>
>the black woman would get the raise after putting in the same amount of hard work as the white guy? and there was no affirmative action?

Yes. I don't know wether you come from families with own businesses or know a lot of people in that "branch", but whoever does the best job gets the highest pay and benefits and is tried to keep with the company.

>i think i know what you're saying. you're saying that while there is no law, as a minority you should naturally want to follow the unspoken rules of society if you want to fit in, right?

Yes, because that would be truly showing that you are not an immigrant but a part of a society. And then what would stop you from getting somewhere? Just like you have plenty of immigrants in top positions, in europe and in the us.

>but that's pretty much asking people to give up a part of their heritage and culture, isn't it?

Yes, and that's what you do when you leave one society behind and you want to become part of a different one.

>i mean, isn't the idea that you have to shed the old skin to put on the new, etc? but if the old skin is as much a part of you as the new skin, what are you supposed to do?

Make up your mind and decide what means the most to you

>even the majority hasn't shed its old customs. you have different european traditions coming down generation after generation; beliefs too. yet minorities are expected to because they're the minority?

No, because they moved into that. Ofcourse europeans shouldn't change their traditions as long as they stay within their own borders.

But when you move into a territory for your own personal benefit as you are running from misery and desperation, the least you can do is not cause trouble

>it's because it's not so much a matter of assimilating as not letting it pop the majority's happy bubble.

It's not about popping a happy bubble. It's about not interfering with the majority and being happy that you have a better life instead of imposing your own rules onto a host and as a minority onto a majority

>i don't see why every ethnic whim must be quashed for the sake of the majority to remain the majority or even to remain blissfully happy.

Will you cut the blissfully happy crap please.

You know perfectly well what the point is, don't insult my intelligence or your own by acting like you don't.

>you don't have to like 'em, but you don't have to change 'em to fit you either. you've never lived with a bad neighbor or someone you have nothing in common with?

Again that's not the point, I indeed don't have to like them or don't have to change them, but when they come here and benefit from it and therefor I as a society give them something I don't see it as being wrong to ask something in return as part of the trade (like integration and assimilation into the host culture)

>you really have to say bad things about a religious figure in front of people who find that figure important? can you not just respect that?

The question is not wether it is appropriate to do so or not.

And wether a danish cartoon in a small newspaper means saying it in front of islamic countries half a world away is something I'd like to doubt as well.

The point is that you must be allowed to do so *if* you feel like it, because that is what freedom of speech is, the freedom to say what you want even if it offends.

When that means you get death threats or you actually get killed like Theo Van Gogh ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29 ) a while ago, that's a minority imposing limits on the freedom of speech which is the basic foundation of western civilization, because from that freedom of speech sprouts secularism and nationalism and when you try and cap that you're eating away the foundations.

>you can try to convince them all you can, but you can't force them to believe the same as you. they have a right to their own beliefs too.

Yes, but they do not have the right to act on them against the laws and regulations here, like mistreatment of women

Because if you're being consequent you should also agree that female circumcision is not wrong and should be allowed, and husband should be allowed to hit their wives as long as they're muslims and that's what is appropriate in their culture.

To take it even a bit further, you should also then say that muslims amongst themselves should be allowed to act on the sharia, even within european countries.

But that's not seggregation and that's how a society can hold together?

Which is why I say: in your own country you do whatever the hell you want, in europe or the us you stick to the rules that apply here.

>>>Are we back in high school?!
>>
>>"It's a bit more complicated."
>>
>balls.

Haha

>but aren't a large portion of african americans muslim as well? they just aren't "typically" the extremist type [well, not when it comes to racial profiling for terrorists, anyway]. so how does that support the racial profiling of specifically "arabs" at all?

Yes, I agree, a lot of africans are muslims as well and as I said before I doubt that the people picking possible problems out of the lines don't have the training to know what to look for

>i know. what i meant was that if you have this minority within a group of people, you can't judge that entire group of people based off that one person. [much like, borrowing from another thread, hollywood women are not a good representation of all women.]

I am not judging an entire group.

Judging them would be saying every arab is a terrorist.

Judgement however has nothing to do whatsoever with saying arabs are more likely to be a muslim and muslims are more likely to be arabs when that is what numbers tell you.

And to be honest I don't like people who simply disregard scientific fact and go on proclaiming what they were doing before with their heads stuck in the sand.

>even if the "in a way" is added to it, i'd still have to cry because despite bringing in the example, i don't see how supporting religious regimes and self-destruction has anything to do with westernization. it only has to do with extremism.

Yes, but westernization means being more individualistic due to capitalism (less prone to offer yourself up "for the greater good"), more rationalistic (is what that guy is saying just to be swallowed whole like that?) and secularistic (is this guy really sent by god?).

So yes, the more westernized you are the less likely you are to be supporting extremist religious regimes and terrorism.

>[note: were a bunch of religious groups during the crusades similar to that?]

As I said before, we're talking about the here and now.

What difference does it make to say that 500+ years ago christians were going on crusades to justify muslims now blowing themselves and others up.

Muslims haven't popped into existance when islam came around, they have had as much time to evolve as human beings as europeans and asians have had.

And even then, to wipe it all off the table as justifiable or even as *understandable* in this day and age of readily available mass comunnication (even in remote and underdeveloped regions) is hogwash.

>well, culturally, if we're going at it your way, wouldn't asians have the best culture? well, japanese more specifically.

Not really. A lot of modern technology asians have had in the last few decades is adaptation of western technology.

When you see how chinese culture for examples handles human rights and on which I wouldn't place them that high up either.

Japan is a different story, but again they're extremely westernized.

>>But a pre-emptive strike on iran's nuclear facilities wouldn't hurt, neither would taking out north korea's enrichment facilities have been a bad thing considering the aftermath of not having done so.
>>
>i hate america's inconsistency.

I hate all inconsistency.

>what i'm saying is that by prejudging people, we act like we know all about them and that's that. but we don't. so it's a lie.

No, we know all about the chances involved and stuff with higher risk you treat more cautiously, just like you don't allow people to smoke around even tightly closed barrels of oil.

>and that's for identical resumes...

However, have the same thing done by black bosses. What do you think that result would look like?

Which only proves my point that you will always pick your kin first.

>i'm still standing by the you-dunno-the-real-crime-rate thing.

Which is based on wishful thinking and nothing more.

All murders get reported and are taken as serious crimes.

Remember that I'm talking about violent crimes (you don't go to jail for a parking ticket).

Saying that there are more rapists and murderers in jail who are non-white is solely because the white rapists and murderers don't get arrested or punished as much as the black ones are is something I can not take seriously.

You can't make murders and rapes or other serious violent stuff just disappear into thin air, nor can you make it appear to throw people into jail over it.

It's not like a dead body or a raped woman is the same as a parking ticket you can print out at random because the car looks like a pimp mobile.

>btw, it's not popular black music. a lot of people across all races listen to that stuff.

Yes, but where did it originate?

It's injected foreign "culture" dragging a lot of the stupid folk along.

>to be a little lame and cheesy, kinda makes my heart hurt to think about all the creative minds we lost...

That is cheesy.

A lot of good people were probably lost during the world wars as well

>>Speaking of which, ever heard about Idomeneo?
>>
>no such luck. why?

Idemeneo is an opera by Mozart in which mohammed is killed.

Following your logic this is highly offensive to islam and thereby should be avoided at all costs because if troubles ensues over that it's only logical and natural.

So ban mozart and ban one of the greatest artists of western culture because he's a racist minority-offender.

>>That's because experience tells you, just like you'd seize up wether you can take that giraffe down or not judging from past successes and dangers
>>
>did you really just pull a giraffe out of nowhere?? or is that a colloquialism?

No, I'm reading "Nonzero: History, evolution & human cooperation" by robert wright during my study breaks and it had a passage in it about people working together to bring down giraffes in a chapter about how society evolved to more complex political levels because for harder stuff you need better organisation and yadda yadda yadda.

>>"I'm not a believer in a happy rainbow society"
>>
>pity. i am.

And you see where it gets you.

Not only does it cause trouble between the majority and the minority or on a global scale between cultures but it also divides the majority into camps.

>>I think it's safe to say that rapists and murderers usually get caught and sentenced, no matter wether they're white or something else
>>
>thought the last paragraph of this was interesting [skimmed it]: http://www.counterpunch.org/drugwar.html

That's it's a war on the dangerous classes? Ofcourse it is

>and according to the 2004 FBI crime sheet updated in Feb 2006, "In homicides where the race of the offender was known, 50.0 percent were black, 47.6 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were other races."

Those are US numbers, europe has *much* fewer blacks and a lot more arabs to make up for it.

By the way, take those numbers and then compare them to these:

White persons, 2004 (a)80.4%

Black persons, 2004 (a)12.8%

American Indian and Alaska Native persons, 2004 (a)1.0%

Asian persons, 2004 (a)4.2%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 2004 (a)0.2%

Persons reporting two or more races, 2004 1.5%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

So even though the black people commit 50% of the murders they only make up for 13% of the population.

Interesting.

Unless you're suggesting the police planted all those dead bodies and it's all a big conspiracy to round up some niggers.

>>"Does it makes sense to you that all of that is 100% the result of racial policing who just happen to stumble on black robbers and drive by when they see a white guy raping a woman on the curb"
>>
>no. not 100%.

See above

>and you don't think any of that violence is influenced by racist culture and how it portrays black men and how they're supposed to be?

No.

For the love of god.

I don't see how people with their backs turned to somebody bumping into a guy on accident, that happens to be a black guy are being racists and that when the black guy then starts getting physicly aggressive that is then portraying of how black men act or are supposed to act and is caused by being stereotyped as agressive.

How is that not agressive. And it's not like that's a 1 shot incident.

It's how they freaking act a lot of the time (the young ones), how is that "misportraying" when they're physicly beating the shit out of somebody in front of your own eyes

It's like how the "gangsta" type is always demanding respect while calling "their women" ho's.

>so if that main culture, because it's shaped predominately by whites, have underlying currents of the stereotyping of black men, don't you think those stereotypes influence black culture as well?

So you're saying that black cultural stereotyping by white people is the true reason that black people are more agressive...

>ask anyone in that white underclass if they would think their lives would improve by being black and they'll most likely say no. ask a black man in the underclass if he thinks his life would improve by being white, and chances are he'd say yes.
>would you say he's wrong?

I'd say that's just a sign of how everything is brought back to racism and discrimination of black people, because even though the guy was white he'd still be underclass.

>not all immigrants do that

No but they don't all "not" do it either

>>Tell me how the oceans work without involving water.
>>
>Two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule combine

That's involving water...

>and you have a nice big bowl of bitterness.

Biterness about being out of the rimbou.

>but they weren't asking for preferential treatment. they're asking for equal treatment. those quotas and the positive discrimination is there to make up for all the other quotas and negative discrimination.

How is positive discrimination and quota's in any, *any* *freaking* way equal treatment.

>for those who make it to be treated fairly and not taken advantage of.

To be taken advantage off implies that you're taken from your standard situation to a much worse situation at the benefit of somebody else.

Here both parties profit

>in what way would that jeopardize any country's economy?

Because cheap labor is what drives china, take it away and you take away the drive and it stagnates and plummets.

>fair hours and facilities definitely not; the proper pay can be analyzed and found by different economists or whatever.

Do you honestly think it's that simple and that economists are magicians?

And also that's very easy (and hypocritical) for you to say, but the day you can make a billion dollars more by giving your workers (who aren't used to anything anyway from the start) a dollar more or less you'll put that billion in your own pocket.

If you disagree with that I presume you're donating everything above what you absolutely need to welfare? It's the same thing but on a different scale

>it's not taking cheap labor away; it's merely making it so that cheap labor doesn't = dying/ starving people.

It doesn't.

Besides, if it is, what's keeping them from going back to their families instead of staying in the cities. Fact is they make more money in the factories.

>yes, you have more black people coming into success. BUT, where it's not where it should be. at all. it's barely enough for people to say, "We're not racist! look! condoleeza rice!"

I think that's offensive to every single non-white person who made something out of his/her life by passing them off as tokens.

Just like you pass white people with decent jobs off as if not entirely then at least for a serious part having attained that position due to their skin color instead of their merrit.



I'd like to add that you should be careful to being so openminded that your brain falls out.

And that it is generally a bad idea to let the turkey explain about how great christmas is ;o)


 
FN Posted: Tue Dec 26 11:03:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>freedom of speech sprouts secularism and nationalism and when you try and cap that you're eating away the foundations.

*rationalism


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Wed Dec 27 00:21:06 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Maybe this will simplify it for you:
>Look at the list below and tell me why we should screen everybody when it's only a very small segement of the population commiting these crimes.
>

it IS only a small segment; and i don't deny that muslim extremists carry out terrorist attacks. the only thing i have a problem with is how stereotypes are being drawn and enforced and this poor picture of muslims is being depicted because of that very small segment.

i mean, for me, i see little difference between racial profiling in airports and the japanese internment camps that were created for WWII.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Wed Dec 27 06:05:02 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Due to lack of time (exams coming up in under 3 weeks) I'll reply to the most aggravating bits first

haha. school starts in a few weeks. if this thread isn't toast by then [which it might not be], expect me to disappear... heck, expect me to disappear from GT anyway. lack of time : (

>
>The difference being that apples and homosexuals don't blow up. Although they can be flaming.
>

a small percentage of apples could be poisonous or a small percentage of homosexuals could be vehemently angry because of the prejudices against them. doesn't mean that all apples and homosexuals deserve to be treated poorly because of it.

>It is, if you don't take it seriously you don't blow yourself up
>

So in order to take martyrdom "seriously" they have to blow themselves up rather than revere it and honor it to a high degree degree? Because then most muslims don't take martyrdom seriously either.

>Read what I said please. It is not only not adapting but it is even setting off against the host culture because they do it more than in their country of origin.
>

but it's not worn in a form of refutation or rebellion. it's worn as a part of their culture.

>The media doesn't blow people up.

no, it doesn't. it just tells that you that a certain type of person more likely will and thus avoid that person at all costs.

>For a lot of immigrants/citizens in muslim countries it is for about 90% as everything starts from there and it is the most central part of their daily lives.
>

but it's not their only defining identity. it has a lot of weight, but it's not the only thing they base decisions on. other influences could include geography and family life, etc etc. but since people won't take the time to use that to discriminate and it's much easier to use skin color, racial profiling becomes accepted

>>old testament? the crucifiction?
>
>I don't see how crucifitcion was an evil commited by jesus but I digress
>

violence was the main idea [but as a side note, there are certain cultures that recreate the crucifiction [if not the stabbing of the side or the wait until death...]

>So you're saying that because in prehistoric times, to go even further back, people hit eachother on the head with clubs you can't pass judgement on any violent culture today because thousand+ years ago your own culture did the same?
>

well, unless we're passing judgment on our past culture and acknowleging that all people can make similar mistakes, yes. because at the time it was happening, people had the same misconceptions.

personally, i'm of the train of thought that people back then aren't that much different from people now except that we have more information and globalization is starting to become more and more pronounced. but as far as emotions and intelligence and creativity, i'd say we're relatively the same.

and just because our culture knows and understands something doesn't mean we can expect another culture to or even for the other culture to.

>>No, and it shouldn't be. In the first case, they're speaking to a small group of very specific people and admionishing them for their effects of a different and alienated country.
>
>Not really, because they were specificly doing it, according to them, for islam. I'd say a danish cartoon artist for the posten is also a rather specific group.
>

i don't see how that works in, but i want to clarify what i meant. when muslims where speaking out against the 9/11 attacks, they were admonishing a very specific group of people within their own community that they probably have more of an idea about than we have an idea about. they were admonishing group for specific actions against a country that, to them, is fairly aliented and very different.

>That's what I mean with incompatible with western culture: you can laugh at everything expect at our believes.
>

laughing is different from desecration. for example, i don't have a big problem with the movie Dogma. but i WOULD have a big problem with someone desecrating or totally disrespecting to a physical extent a Christian symbol.

and i think a lot of christians would agree [if not be more strict about it]. and chances are the perpetrator WOULD feel the heat for it. much like many muslims face discrimination in the US because those who discriminate believe that all muslims want to attack Christinaity or western culture.

>It doesn't work that way, muslims cannot enforce their own insecurities onto other countries.
>

but westernized countries can?

>I don't know how it is handled in the us but have you ever seen a single christian violent riot? Or death threats because somebody drew a satirical picture of jesus saying something funny while hanging on a cross?
>

no because i doubt anything would ever be attempted to upset a group of christians enough to be violent [though i MIGHT wanna point out the kkk] because that person knows they'd be totally wiped out.

>Jesus and christianity gets desecrated on a daily basis. In europe for sure.
>

how christians view desecration and how non-christians view desecration and how muslims view descration and how non-muslims view desecration... chances are all of them are very different.

the problem is that no matter how much we TRY to "understand," we'll never understand completely. and most people don't even bother trying to understand or they simply can't because of their life and its experiences.

what i'm saying is that there's a chance that you can't imagine how those muslims felt. and to you, while it might be "oh just a cartoon," it might not have been the same for them.

>How in any way you can say that those riots were justified or even understandable is completely beyond me.
>

Didn't say they were justified, but they are understandable [and i use this term loosely, because I do believe that you can never truly understand anyone... you can have a good idea though]. I don't mean that I condone them in any way, shape, or form. What I AM saying, however, is that if I were muslim and that had happened, I could see why fellow muslims would act in such a way. Add in mob psychology, and you have a very big problem.

The understand I feel is similar to how I view racial profiling. I think it's disgusting and unfair, but I understand the "need" for it. Similarly, I can't agree with the violence of the protests, but I do understand why or how it could have gotten that far. Again, realize that when I say "understand," I don't mean agree.

>People were killed for fucks sake. Do you have any idea at all of the scale of what happened over some freaking cartoons or did you just see a 2 second video clip of some muslims peacefully protesting?
>

no. i saw the news which spent several hours telling me about it. but do you really think all the rioters wanted those deaths to happen, much less Muslims? Plus, you can't ignore the implications of mob psychology. I'm not saying any of these things excuse what happened, and I'm not demeaning anyone's death. I'm not saying people didn't die needlessly.

What I AM saying is that a percentage of the protestors became rioters and a percentage of the rioters became killers. Also, after looking up different articles online, i see a lot of deaths reported but few of them delineate whether the deaths were those of bystanders or protestors or police. Where the reports DO tell us how many Christians or police were killed, we see it's concentrated in area and it's a fairly large number, but it's not in as many areas as the places where protestors were killed; however, conversely, the number of protestors killed in those areas are smaller.

> * As of February 24, 2006, around 146 people have been killed in religious riots in Nigeria, touched off by attacks against Christians in the predominately Muslim North [2][3].
>

http://www.watchermagazine.com/wp-mobile.php?p=3788&more=1

this site supports the number, but suggests that 93 of those people were muslims killed by christian retaliation; however, another site doesn't support the 146 but also directly contradicts the site i just listed in that is says that the same city where 93 muslims were killed, 80 people (mostly christians) were. i'm more inclined to believe the first about onitsha, however, because it's in the south of nigeria, which is predominately christian. the north is predominately muslim.

however, in a blurb from wikipedia about onitsha:

"In February 2006, armed militants killed at least 24 ethnic Hausa Fulani (Muslims) and burned a few Muslim sites including two mosques. The riots were in response to riots by Muslims in the city of Maiduguri days earlier where at least 18 Christian were killed, sparked by the cartoon controversy in Denmark. The retaliation of the Igbo is unusual given the frequency for anti-igbo pogroms in the north. Some commentators pointed to the bishop of Abuja, The Most Reverend Peter Akinola. His remarks in response to the killing of Igbo Christians in the north, "May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation" were seen as a thinly veiled threat of retaliation."

also, from another site:

"In the southern city of Onitsha, where the worst of the killing took place, Christians yesterday burnt the corpses of their victims and defaced mosques in revenge for attacks on Christians in the north of the country earlier this week."

but the more and more i read, the more and more variations of numbers i'm getting. some of the as low as 15... some up to 80. and it doesn't matter which religious side; they both vary from different news sources so drastically to the extent that I can't even for sure say I know.

> * As of March 22, 2006, 139 people have died, and at least 823 people have been injured as a result of the cartoons (those figures do not count riots in Nigeria).[7]
>

i went to that site that lists the 139. of those deaths, i looked at the numbers; some of those were [supposedly] from nigeria. also, if you break them down, 86 are protestor or protestor affiliated deaths; 36 are unknown; 17 are those of victims not affiliated with the protestors.

>And that's not even talking about the economic damage and property destruction.
>
>Open your eyes, seriously, *that* is islam without western influence.
>

no... that's what happens when people who don't have guns fight with people who do...

>I agree that a lot of muslims in western countries (who have been infuenced by western rationalism) behave like people ought to behave, but islam is more than the good guy that you meet when you drop your kids off at school.
>

i don't really understand what you mean by that... i've never read the koran or studied islam [i probably should, though], but from what i hear, the sunni side has nothing about violence and the shi'ite side that does doesn't necessarily mean to the extremist extent.

>And then those same people come over here with that ideology and not only demand their *rights* but also on top of that impose the prohibition of mocking anything that they hold dear for whatever reason there may be, directly going in against the basic foundations of western civilization: the freedom of speech
>

i'm all for the freedom of speech, but with freedoms come responsibility. [btw, nigeria is majority muslim over all, but the concentrations are split between north and south]. if you say something, you're simultaneously acknowledging whatever responses you elicit. if you say something bad about someone's mother and they punch you in the face, what're you going to do?

say "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" and press charges for assault/ battery/ whatever it is? well... maybe if you're lame, but most people accept that sock in the face because it's part of what comes with freedom of speech.

similarly to how you say that as minorities we aren't entitled to equal rights because we're not the majority.

>I'm not kidding when I say that christianity here gets mocked, and pretty severely, on a daily basis. *Never* have there been any death threats, as had been testified by numerous comedians who are renowned for their "attacks" on christianity. The gravest repraisal was according to them a newsletter.
>

Never? Maybe not publicized... Well, several american authors [dunno about comedians] who write against christianity will admit that they've received death threats [though fairly aimless ones... like "i'm gonna kill you, ________"

>But in your view you feel that it's a greater disgrace to islam to make cartoons of mohammed (and keep in mind that depictions of mohammed have been made even in islamic art itself) than some guys flying into the WTC in the name of islam?
>

no. i'm saying that you upset a wider base with one than you do the other. and... [as you like to pull this one] statistically, you're going to have a more violent response because ONE of those actions will upset the extremists... one of those will not.

>And therefore that you can imagine that the cartoons get more response than the WTC towers being knocked out?
>

no. do you ever wonder how many muslims got beat up following 9/11? or racist comments?

i'll never forget that day on the bus, i'm sitting across from a white kid and an indian kid. he practices HINDUISM [the indian kis]. the white kid, as soon as he gets on the bus, "DUDE! what're your people doing to us, man?!" the indian kid, "Hey man... not my people! i'm hindi, not muslim!" white kid: "same difference..." indian kid: [hollow laughter]

>How many protests were there in muslim countries after 9/11 happened (against what happened instead of for what happened)? How many people were killed in riots against the extremists? And you still say it isn't condoned?
>

peaceful muslims don't condone it, and the response they gave was according to their ways: peaceful. violent muslims did.

BUT, neither would condone the cartoons. so of course you'd have riots by the violent muslims. chances are peaceful muslims stayed home or tried to leave.

you use the statistic argument SO often, yet you completely failed to see it here.

>Really, I am honestly disgusted by that kind of double standard and naivety/hypocricsy.
>

what double standard?! they're two completely different groups of people! it'd be like comparing catholics to protestants in practices! typically, they're COMPLETELY different!

>How many 1000's of blasphemous depictions of christianity do you want? Again are you actually seriously letting it sink in what you are saying? I don't get it

But the actual depiction of Christ isn't a problem for most Christians. And to be honest, I was offended but not THAT offended by most of those images; however, just the DEPICTION of mohammed is found a blasphemy. therein lies the difference.


>It is a bad one when it starts screwing around with other cultures and posing its backward values on them without any authority or right to do so
>

much like a bunch of western cultures.

>>but just because they're developing doesn't mean they're violent people.
>
>Jesus christ do you have any grasp on global politics of the past 15 years?
>

if christians were like militant muslims, i might have to go all jihad on your face for saying the Lord's name in vain. but since we're much more like the peaceful kind, i'll just feel kinda scarred.

and btw, many muslims are non-violent. a majority of them. [especially a majority of the ones that have immigrated].

i'm not saying there aren't violent muslims. i'm just saying that the religion itself and a majority of the people aren't. thus, we can't label everything as violent.

>Never. Racism will always exist, it's not something you can ban with a law. Which has nothing to do with being a legal citizen or not.
>

oh. dunno about europe, but america's got a law against it... civil rights act of.... '64? dunno. trying to pull it out of my head. anyway, prohibits the use of racism within the workplace and whatever else. so much for freedom of speech and expression, right?

>Sure, but give the english teacher the chance to be a millionaire and how many would pass on it? And do I need to pull up some immigration numbers?
>

sorry. i meant "terms" not times.

and no, i don't think the teacher would pass that up but if it meant that she would never teach again, not sure she would take the money [if she had a true passion for her job that is... which most people have for their culture].

and no, no statistics are necessary. i can quite imagine them myself.

>>[a little exagerrated, i know, but what can i say? i'm an angry person of color]
>
>Prone to violence
>

Really? Last I checked, I was a hippy-waiting-to-be-shot...

>Again I wonder how different the us must be, but in europe at least, and I know this from *leftist* people actually working in getting immigrants re-educated and helping them to get jobs: half of them just plain tells them they don't feel like working.
>
>And that's coming from pro-multicultural die hards.
>

ouch. wish i had solid evidence against, but the only thing i got about the US is that one time a white woman came up to me while i was working as a hostess, half-heartedly turned in an app and asked for a job, and then asked that we sign her papers so she could stay on welfare. most black people i know work. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... i dunno.

>That's no different for anybody else, again there are numerous white people in the same or even worse circumstances, along with other coloured people in the same or worse circumstances, who still come out on top.
>

i know. and my theory is that people within the same social class, regardless of race, are more likely to be within the same social culture rather than everything being purely on race.

kinda like if you had a graph. along one axis was income and along another was racec [ordered by presence within a community]. chances are the more you moved towards the minority and the more you moved to a higher income, the more successful you'd be. go in the opposite direction for both, and go in the opposite direction for success.

>In europe immigrants were told from day one that they were coming here to work (in the case of belgium in the mines), along side belgian/white workers mind you and for the same wages, and were then expected to go back. However they refused to leave, with all the consequences thereof.
>

interesting. black people and most asians and now increasing hispanics [specifically mexicans] are being brought in for cheap labor. but rather than being told to go back, they stayed [though i dunno if was REQUESTED that we stay... ah well. past is past.]

>No, unless they, for their own personal benefit, chose to come to our countries. Then we can (in the sense of being entitled to) "force" them.
>

you've made similar arguments elsewhere, and i'm going to say that this is something neither of us will agree on even REMOTELY because you simply believe that the majority is entitled to do so, and i don't. it's a little hard to debate on that... probably causes half the length of these posts.

>>so then the majority is exempt from making itself do what's "better," but the minority better behave or we'll get deported...??
>
>I believe in deportation of criminals for example, yes. Also because western prisons compared to non-western ones are hotels. Or are you disagreeing with that as well?
>
>The indigenous people aren't exempt from it, but the big difference there is that you can't control white people from being european, but you can control which immigrants you allow to enter and stay in your country and under what conditions
>

i understand your stance on how and why the minority should "behave," but i'm lost as to how you explained why the majority doesn't have to follow similar rules. well, i do, but i think you might have mistook my wording. no need to re-argue it. just explain what point you were trying to make; sorry for not being clear.

>Reality means you act on whats going wrong, not expect it'll all work out because of the goodness of human nature. And right now islam is being a problem.
>

islam is not being a problem. militant and extremist muslims, as with any other militant/ extremist group, is being a problem. and i don't expect everything to work out because of human nature; if anything, the opposite. but that doesn't mean that we settle for less and say "oh, it's okay to treat people poorly for right now... we can't think of anything better!" and leave it at that.

>Ah I see, there's no emotional or physical suffering in being imprisoned, nor is it necessary as a sentence.
>

i think most of the emotional suffering comes from being imprisoned with people who are murderers and criminals. as for physical suffering... pretty much the same reason.

and i do think it's necessary as a sentence because i think that when you mess up and things get out of control, you need to take a break and clear it up. [personally, i think prison should be less about punishment and more about rehabilitation... call that crazy]

>How is that different from a pre-emptive strike on iran
>

because if this scenario were a pre-emptive strike on iraq [assumed you meant iraq... i've been cut off from the world lately, but i'm assuming america hasn't legitly continued its eating of the middle east], it'd mean that you punch your friend's enemy in the face before he punched you or your friend.

>>but say you tie someone down for no reason with no cause just to watch them suffer. wrong? yes.
>
>I don't see where that is relevant
>

as in, in this case you have no reason to imprison anyone. you just do it and watch them suffer. THAT would be wrong because there is no cause or motivation.

>We should throw flowers at people and how they get so touched by that that we can all dance circles around the bonfire?
>

even better. then we can sing kumbayah and make smores.

>Total detachment from reality must be great.
>

typically. i only relish it when it makes self-proclaimed realists/ pessimits squirm with irritation.

>In case of terrorism/murderers/rapists you aren't dealing with reasonable people who understand things like you and I do.
>

no, i suppose they don't. but they're still people, and even if they've failed to treat me as such, i won't fail to treat them as such.

and this is something you just CAN'T argue on me with because chances are i won't budge [unless you come up with a FANTASTIC argument].

>That would only work out without stoves. So start eradicating humanity.
>

great. do we use nukes or ebola? [KIDDING!]

>I didn't buy any immigrants, nor did I invite any of them over to stay.
>

pity. the US did... or at least it likes to tell K through 10th graders that America is a place of equal opportunity and believes in all the virtues of diversity.

and yet... you find out sooner or later that those aren't really true. so maybe i'm not fighting for a better america so much as the fictional america of my childhood.

>
>Said the pot to the kettle? ;o)
>

i laughed. but i also wanted to point out that a pot is more useful than a kettle. : ) because i'm an awful and evil and vindictive person. : ) [KIDDING! chances are you find yourself infinitely more useful than me. and even if not, chances are society would say so. porque i am an optimist. ie dreamer. ie useless.]

>Because you simply cause less trouble. If you had caused as much trouble you would have been just as stigmatized, much like hispanics in the us and arabs in europe.
>

agreed. so i've come to the conclusion that it's not so much westernization that matters as it is "behaving."

>>all we really need to do is "behave" and not pop the western happy bubble.
>
>Yes, at least when you move over here. And to behave and not pop any social bubbles you should indeed be westernized.
>

case in point.

>Same thing for everybody, in the end, europeans did it and muslims don't even though they are centralized in large cities and have the means to do so if the drive was there.
>

then perhaps it is a part of the religion that says you should obey your leaders... who knows? didn't stop the christians!

>>and since none of us have a resposibility as fellow people, there's no need for us to care??
>
>Exactly. If you burn your ass you sit on the blisters.
>

OMGCNDNCLSLDNCSI.

>Stuff like that opens your eyes to how the aids problem could be solved but isn't simply because african culture doesn't let it be solved.
>

so you provide education and health clinics and doctors.

but oh yes... NO NEED TO CARE!

>So again I really wonder how much of what you say is actually based on reality instead of stuff you read in "progressive" transcripts.
>

most of it is based on myself. oddly enough, i don't read a lot of political books. did take a liberal class my freshman year of college, but most of my thoughts are influenced by my religion. occasionally take some ideas from model united nations conferences and what i've learned there : ) hahahaha. always living in a fictional world i suppose.

>That's not the point, the french didn't exactly have models to build upon from their own experience. If anything new revolutions have a lot more to look to in terms of how to handle it.
>

actually, i believe i read in my history textbooks that the french revolution was half-inspired by the american one.

>All muslim countries have going for them is rising oil prices, and they waste much of what benefits they could gain from it on unneccesary luxuray instead of structural improvement (take a look at saudi arabia). It's a matter of time before it backfires.
>

but who decides what to spend it on?! and how much do the people ACTUALLY have a say on that?

>To preserve historical facts you'd better not have much of islam around, or any extreme religion for that matter.
>

that statement i was fine with. wanna know what? because it says "or any extreme religion for that matter." well said.

>But something being superior doesn't automaticly mean it can't be right either.

that totally sounds like an argument i'd pull. i dunno if that disgusts you or even affects you at all, but it made me laugh.

>I stick by western culture being superior to islamic culture, and when not agreeing I'd like you to give me some reasons why it isn't, reasons why it is are abound (living standards, technology, secularism, and the list goes on and on and on).
>

for a bit, i struggled how to accurately convey my thoughts. and this is what i've come up with.

i don't you can can say a culture is superior to another. why? 1. because [personally] there are usually some aspects i like and don't like [plus, i'm definitely not suited to be the one to tell society what is better and what is not within a culture]. 2. you can have a better way of replacing a light bulb. you can have a better way of chopping onions. you can have a better way of filing papers. but if these aims aren't the same, then you can't compare methods. i mean, sometimes the aims are the same [at which, by all means, compare]. but sometimes the aims [such as values] aren't. and if those aren't the same, can you really compare two methods? no; however, you can compare their outcomes. SOOOOOOO, while you can't compare one to another, you can compare something within itself.

example: the riots.

would i compare christianity to islam? not really. i'd say their aims as religions are too different [though i often accept arguments for the sake of argument]. BUT, if you look within islam, many peaceful muslims handled it much better in that people were not hurt or killed.

>I don't see the point of it either? the fact that skin color and religion are often related still stands
>

right... so what're we arguing about? arguing for the sake of arguing? HURRAH!

in that case... THE SKY IS GREEN!

>But the "should" is very important. The fact that you might not like it or see it as being "fair" doesn't mean it isn't a rationally good thing to do. What do you expect? Open up all the borders and just let everybody in without any control? Or check everybody and have people wait a full day to board and again when they leave an airplane?
>

that's fine [the checking] because it's even for everybody who comes into the country as an immigrant. i'm okay with that. NOT so okay with racial profiling.

>It doesn't work that way, so you focus on your target group of who you know is most likely to be what you're looking for
>

except that people suck at telling race, much less guessing religion by race.

>I'm saying that it is the system with the highest possible chance of arresting individuals who might be dangerous without having to stop all air travel
>

as of right now, i'll concede. but only because i don't have an answer/ a better model of action [though i think Kira supplied one]. and as a final word, not like the highest possible chance is even that good. if anything, it rather sucks and it's creating a whole lot of damage while at it.

piece of crap racial profiling.

>You can't tell the difference between a black guy and an arab guy? Or a white guy and an iraqi? Or an iraqi and an asian? Also don't you think that the people involved in picking people out have a little more training than "pick out the arabs".
>

isn't it possible that black guy and arab guy bother are muslim? and that it's a light skinned iraqi? [or in the case of john whats-his-face, an american muslim extremist] and ALSO, btw, ppl often mix up indian and middle eastern... india's actually part of asian. PLUS, pacific islanders?

no matter how good the training, you tell me how ANYONE could get a hundred on this:

http://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_00-home.htm

>No, "I" expect the adaptation to christian values of whoever choses to come here out of their own motivation and see refusal to do so as unmannered provocation and ingratitude for a better life
>

to me, it seems a matter of potayto potahto, but for the sake of argument... evangelists?

>And to top it off they cry "racists!" when anybody mentions any of the above as a problem or when the police acts on it.
>

sounds like a bunch of asian communities in CA, actually. except they typically don't yell racist... then again, their problems typically aren't mentioned.

don't really know how to respond since i don't know much about antwerp. BUT, i'd suggest looking to see what reason they would have for crying "racist." i'm not a fan of crying racist unnecessarily [though i joke about it all the time], though i do think the system [in its entirety] is racist. chances are, some of the cases aren't racist but some of them are.

people often have misconceoptions about minorities, but rather than seek to undertand those misconceptions [where they stem from, how they aren't true, how they might be partly true, how the minorities themselves see them] people often just accept them as true and carry on.

>So that's not exagerrated by the media in any way at all, but trends and stories about immigrants and crime are
>

those were all personal anecdotes. not from the media but from the horse's mouth.

like i said, most of my information comes from personal experience and my own research. little of it, when i DO use stories, comes from second-hand story telling, like a news-source. i guess then my problem would be my own credibility.

>And we all know that does not happen to white people
>

it does. not saying it doesn't. but it's more likely to happen to a black person because of racism and how racism is presented within our society.


>You like social studies, there are numerous social studies on this kind of thing.
>

i REALLY don't understand what you mean by this. but if it's going back to the "white man looks out for the white man" argument, you don't really need to explain it. i know where you're coming from, and while i can't agree, i DO understand your reasoning. so you don't really have to explain it anymore.

>No but they feel like they are whenever they don't get the job even though numerous whites don't get it either
>

i dunno what kind of job you're thinking of, but typically promotions or jobs are only contended for by a small number of people. and i doubt someone would pull the race card if he were the only black amoung a large group of white people, and a white person got picked... because he'd have no argument.

now... if everyone but him got hired on the other hand...

>Racism doesn't exist to help minorities, it exists to safeguard the original people
>

i don't see how racism has helped the "original people" either.

>I'm saying that 80% of the misery people have they bring unto themselves, and that's the same in the case of minorities feeling discriminated all the time.
>

i wouldn't be so sure. not being a minority, you have NO idea how much one faces. and if you did, you might be a little surprised.

when i went to high school, one of my friends [a very pretty asian girl] was harassed and once even hit on the head by this preppy white guy. and call us crazy, but we knew that if she were white, he wouldn't do that to her. so then we started asking a bunch of our white friends what they thought about racism and how alive they thought it was in our community. a resounding number of them [all of them, i think] didn't think it would EVER come up in their community. they NEVER saw it. but once i started paying attention, i saw it often. quiet asian kids being blocked in the hall as a joke. muslim kids being mocked [asian kids got that too]. people dressing "black" for halloween. people talking down about the only school in our community that even SLIGHTLY had a sense of diversity.

dunno how it is in europe, but often, the majority has no idea what the minority faces. and often, the majority can't even recognize racism.

one time, i had a kid tell me that asian people don't fish [as in go on fishing trips like father and sons do] when i told him i used to go fishing with my dad all the time [our family has no boys so my sister and i were replacement sons]. when i told him he was being racist, he had NO idea what i was talking about. for him, he was stating a simple "fact." for me, he was being ignorant and offensive and prejudiced. and when other kids on the bus heard about it, the majority agreed with him while the minories agreed with me or just said nothing.

>
>No, simply because you're a minority, but if you weren't the effects would be the same so it's sheer hypocrisy
>

not quite sure what you mean by that, BUT if you're saying that if we weren't the minority and were instead the majority, i wouldn't be saying this... but i would.

for me, the problem is that minorities are getting the short end of the stick. prejudice isn't even a big deal to me because that can be fought on a more personal level [since it's achieved on a personal level].

but racism within hiring and firing of jobs, education, living areas, etc etc that affect generations to come- racism in THAT is what bothers me.

so if the tables were turned and white people were the minority and they were being discriminated out of jobs and housing and good schools for thier skin color, i'd be saying the same thing.

>Notice the irony in my statement
>

notice the facetiousness in mine.


>In my opinion they aren't. I don't feel like criminals have the right to social security or that people who simply refuse to work have it (no matter which race they belong to).
>

oh... i do!

>It's the reason why communism doesn't work
>

i always thought communism doesn't work because people are too self-serving... but again, this was formed personally. no textbooks or essays were consulted so maybe i'm just being ignorant and that's REALLY the reason why communism doesn't work but i never read it.

>Please, you think that all "gangsta's" and "pimps" do it to take care of their dear sweet sick mothers?
>

no. just like not all strippers do it for the starving kid at home. but some do.

>White people don't get breaks, and black people shouldn't get them either.
>

see, i would disagree. in comparison to minorities, they DO get breaks. they have a special privilege by being the majority that the minorities do not. [i thought that you agreed with this? and you justified it by saying it was because the majority was here first and made everything great so the minorities would come, so the minorities had better ship up or ship out]

>You don't get a well-paid job for being a slacker no matter what color you are.
>

never said you would.

>You make it sound like people who get a decent job probably didn't have to work as hard to get it as a black guy with the same pay. That isn't racism and prejudice?
>

you agreed with it yourself! minorities have to work harder to prove they're not a "troublemaker." so yes, the majority DOESN'T have to work as hard as the minority. and it's not racism or prejudice because i'm not saying you didn't work or don't deserve the job. i'm saying that if a minority were placed in the same position, chances are he had to work harder to get there.

>How seriously do you think this stuff through anyway?
>

pretty seriously. spend a lot of time thinking about it and rethinking it because at times, i wonder if your side is right and i am wrong.

>Much like every time a white guy gets a job over a black guy it's racism? Even if they're not "bitter" about losing
>

yeah. well, i mean... we WERE drawing comparable/ similar situations, right?

>You can't make statistics that have a rational backup on how people "feel", and what passes as a clear incidence of racism?
>

i don't have all the legit specs, but another stat i found was that about half of all complaints that are filed are actually admitted to court. the other half either don't have enough proof or don't have enough substance to argue. [found it after i submitted the post].

but now another question is raised: who's more suited to determine what defines racism? the minority it discriminates or the majority that is doing it?

>A kid with red hair gets picked on and the other kids say nasty stuff about being a redhead
>
>a fat kid gets laughed at for being fat and has to hear about being fat
>
>a black kid gets picked and and something is said about being black. Wait a minute! A clear instance of Racism!
>

yeah... it is. the other cases are other types of ignorance, but the last one is a case of racism. the first two don't have names and can't get you sued; the last one can. point?

>Hearsay and highly subjective
>

probably. but knowing what i know the 60 to 65% is fairly correct [in that minorities feel that way]. as for those that complain about it, a far smaller number. i myself have NEVER EVER known a single minority that's actually gone through with a complaint. i've more often seen them do nothing.

i mean, statistically, if every black man denied a job actually filed a claim in court for racism, do you even THINK those claims would make the news anymore? it'd be like filing for divorce or something...

>Why? Because it's a silver bullet to end any conversation.
>

shouldn't be.

>Says you.
>

so says i-- the shins

>>was it played by the media/ people not involved as racist or did the lawyer actually spin it as a racist case?
>
>Both. It's cool to say you're a multiculturalist so it's cool to be white and say something is racist.
>

then it either wasn't racist or it was. depends on the case and why he shot the nanny.

>Which to me is degrading for non-whites because that turns them into pets and status symbols.
>

what also bothers me is how [and i know my argument does this too] so many "RACIST!" arguments protray the minority as the weak one that needs to be helped. actually, since we have to work harder to get somewhere, the adversity makes us stronger. [the point of my arguments though is not that minorities can't do anything for themselves or can't fight for themselves. rather, it's the question of equality that bothers me]

>If they are as rich compared to how rich western visitors are in relation to the "homelanders" being on vacation then yes they'll get special treatment, just like a normal arab guy will get the same treatment as a white guy in a european hotel,

the normal arab guy would get the same treatment as a normal white guy?

> but the same european will get a much better treatment in a turkish hotel than a turkish visitor with much less money comparatively, just like an arab sheik will get a better treatment in a european hotel than an average european with much less money comparatively.
>

yeah, i get that. but i'm talking about same-level income class.

also, in relation to the illustration i made MUCH much earlier, i think the higher up you go in income/ social status, the more blurred the lines are for different treatment for races... because in the end, money beats out everything.

>So what you're saying is a false logic.
>

wait... what?!

>Yes. I don't know wether you come from families with own businesses or know a lot of people in that "branch", but whoever does the best job gets the highest pay and benefits and is tried to keep with the company.
>

right. but i'm saying if the jobs of both are equal. i mean, if the black woman's better, heck yeah she should get it. if the white guy's better, sure. if that's not happening, then we REALLY have a problem. but what i'm talking about is that if they put in the same amount of work, you think the black woman [within a majority of businesses] will be equally considered as the white man for this job?

>>i mean, isn't the idea that you have to shed the old skin to put on the new, etc? but if the old skin is as much a part of you as the new skin, what are you supposed to do?
>
>Make up your mind and decide what means the most to you
>

harsh. i think i felt the sting of that one.

>It's not about popping a happy bubble. It's about not interfering with the majority and being happy that you have a better life instead of imposing your own rules onto a host and as a minority onto a majority
>

"not interfering with the majority" = not popping the happy bubble.


>You know perfectly well what the point is, don't insult my intelligence or your own by acting like you don't.
>

i do. and then i was about to follow with more arguments, but i came up with all your answers in my head [because i now know your stances on most of this] and i became tired and realized that it would be once again reaching into those basic elements of stance that just can't be changed... SO, i stopped.

>To take it even a bit further, you should also then say that muslims amongst themselves should be allowed to act on the sharia, even within european countries.
>

no, you misunderstand me. i get the whole "trade to be a part of us" deal [though i don't agree with it in the same terms as you]. i thihnk that when you immigrate, you adopt the laws of the new country. but if muslims are of that opinion, they are entitled to it. i don't agree with it, but i can't force them to believe whatever i believe, right?

so whatever land they're living in, they must adopt the written laws [if they chose the live there]. but they're free to keep their own opinions.

now see what i mean?

>
>Which is why I say: in your own country you do whatever the hell you want, in europe or the us you stick to the rules that apply here.
>

isn't that what i just said...??

>And to be honest I don't like people who simply disregard scientific fact and go on proclaiming what they were doing before with their heads stuck in the sand.
>

i dunno what you mean by that but i have this sinking feeling that there's a personal dig hidden somewhere in there, but a couple of posts ago, i was still having trouble sifting the "might _____" form the "____"

as in racial profiling is not judging someone as a terrorist... it's just saying that they likely are up

sorry! i was merely explaining what i had meant in the previous post... not what i was arguing.

[and i still hate it, for the record]

>So yes, the more westernized you are the less likely you are to be supporting extremist religious regimes and terrorism.
>

bah. so the "in a way yes" does apply. bother.

>Japan is a different story, but again they're extremely westernized.
>

i thought we were arguing which one' best... so which is better. japanese culture or western culture?

[or [and i've just decided this] i'm forming my own nation in antarctica. i get enough people and we'll start our own colony. it'll be full of optimists and hippies and really, really, really cold. and it'll be the best culture in the history of LIFE]

>
>However, have the same thing done by black bosses. What do you think that result would look like?
>

the racial projection of the owners of the companies is unknown

>Which only proves my point that you will always pick your kin first.
>

hmm. dunno if you've ever heard of it, but a famous psychological test was performed to see how easily people would associate blacks with negative terms and whites with positive ones and vice verse. and both blacks AND whites were more likely to associate positives terms with whites and negative terms with blacks. [i think blacks were less likely than whites, but both were still more likely to do it over all]

>It's not like a dead body or a raped woman is the same as a parking ticket you can print out at random because the car looks like a pimp mobile.
>

i thought statistics showed that about the same number of both races commit murders. respectively within their racial communities, the percentage of course is different. BUT, within the spectrum of the crime, it's about even. [though i'll admit the leaning is toward blacks]

>It's injected foreign "culture" dragging a lot of the stupid folk along.
>

originated through tribal beats and i think slave songs, but i don't remember

>So ban mozart and ban one of the greatest artists of western culture because he's a racist minority-offender.
>

since when was mozart banned?

plus, freedom of speech.

i'm not saying ban cartoons. i'm saying that if you do something, realize that there will be consequences, big or small, bad or good. if you're lucky, they will be in line. if not, they won't.

>And you see where it gets you.
>

into arguments with stubborn, foreign men that take up mass amounts of my time

>Not only does it cause trouble between the majority and the minority or on a global scale between cultures but it also divides the majority into camps.
>

but if you don't believe in a better society, what do you have to work for?

besides, it's not so much a belief in a better society that divides as it is what IS that better society.

some people think it's better without those "troublesome" minorities. some don't.

>Those are US numbers, europe has *much* fewer blacks and a lot more arabs to make up for it.
>

didn't know that.

>So even though the black people commit 50% of the murders they only make up for 13% of the population.
>
>Interesting.
>
>Unless you're suggesting the police planted all those dead bodies and it's all a big conspiracy to round up some niggers.
>

it is.








jk. numbers are weird, but at least they're telling me a black person is just as likely to kill me as a white person. but chances are i won't know a black person because white ppl are greater in number.

HAHA!

>It's how they freaking act a lot of the time (the young ones), how is that "misportraying" when they're physicly beating the shit out of somebody in front of your own eyes
>

mispotrayal or portrayal, i still think culture plays a big part in it. because culture defines us and we define it [though i still maintain that from person to person, people make their own choices on what defines them]. and how other cultures perceive you also works into your identity too.

>It's like how the "gangsta" type is always demanding respect while calling "their women" ho's.
>

have you ever heard a black man call his woman a ho'?

>So you're saying that black cultural stereotyping by white people is the true reason that black people are more agressive...
>

not the only reason. i think racism also builds into it as well as insecurity and defensiveness [which i guess all makes for agression]

>I'd say that's just a sign of how everything is brought back to racism and discrimination of black people, because even though the guy was white he'd still be underclass.
>

and he'd have an easier time than a black man getting out of it. NOT because he's white but because the black man's black [if that makes it any clearer to you]. plus, seems like you're [and this is another one of those "critical argument structure" things] more focused on the physical and monetary improvement of one's conditions while i'm focused on social equality. ie-- we're not arguing about the same thing...

>That's involving water...
>

no... it's two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen one. they might make up water, but separately... they're NOT. so i'm really just mentioning separate components and talking about how they add up to make ocean.

i was going to make a cooking analogy, but that's working way too hard for an aimless argument.


>Biterness about being out of the rimbou.
>

what's rimbou?

>How is positive discrimination and quota's in any, *any* *freaking* way equal treatment.
>

it's not. but it's to make up for the negative one. so if there was no negative one, there'd be no need for the positive one. much like if there were no muslim extremists, there'd be no need for racial profiling in airports.

>Because cheap labor is what drives china, take it away and you take away the drive and it stagnates and plummets.
>

i thought i had said this, but you're not taking the cheap labor away... it's still there. it's still pretty cheap.

>Do you honestly think it's that simple and that economists are magicians?
>

nothing's ever as easy as anyone says, and economists aren't magicians. but i was saying that you find the appropriate wage to pay [like a living wage [which CAN be done]] and you pay that

>And also that's very easy (and hypocritical) for you to say, but the day you can make a billion dollars more by giving your workers (who aren't used to anything anyway from the start) a dollar more or less you'll put that billion in your own pocket.
>

how is that hypocritical?

AND [this is where i reveal that i'm practically a communist] i personally don't think that we should horde money and NOT use profits to do such things and thus "lose" money or whatever.

to be honest, i full acknowledge that none of my ideas will ever be used for the sake that they are not "realistic" and for that reason i'm pretty glad i don't run a country. BUT i'm pretty big on debating the right and wrong of something, so that's what i'm here for.

SO that might be why our arguments go nowhere because you're concered with the realistic stuff and i'm concerned with the right/ wrong of the matter.

>If you disagree with that I presume you're donating everything above what you absolutely need to welfare? It's the same thing but on a different scale
>

eh, i give what i can, but i won't deny that i do love spending my dollar as much as i love giving it.

>It doesn't.
>

it's not much of a step above.

>Besides, if it is, what's keeping them from going back to their families instead of staying in the cities. Fact is they make more money in the factories.
>

yeah, but it's not as much as they COULD get if companies would stop being so greedy.

>I think that's offensive to every single non-white person who made something out of his/her life by passing them off as tokens.
>

i'm not passing them off as tokens. i'm saying that while people ARE working hard and making it [if anything, i respect them all the more because they had to work HARDER to get there], not as many people are making it as they should because of an unfair system.

i mean, for all the people that made it, they could have made it even farther if a system wasn't in place that would undermine them [so to speak].

>Just like you pass white people with decent jobs off as if not entirely then at least for a serious part having attained that position due to their skin color instead of their merrit.
>

No. I'm not saying they get it because of their skin color. I'm saying they don't have to face the same trials or hardships that minorities do in order to get similar jobs.

>
>I'd like to add that you should be careful to being so openminded that your brain falls out.
>

hahahahaha. it occasionally does. that's when i find myself agreeing with what you say. [JK!]

>And that it is generally a bad idea to let the turkey explain about how great christmas is ;o)

which would explain that you side with the majority.

::LE SIGH::

i deleted a good portion of the debate [and it's still a beast] that i didn't feel like going through and pulling teeth over again. i figured we'd heard enough of the same arguments from each other and we both know where the other person stands.

keep in mind when i write these posts, it's typically WELL past midnight. sorry if i get a little fuzzled at times and mix things up. more sorry if you get frustrated and angry [which i believe you do].

maybe you should calm down... or just cede victory to me. that'd be nice.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]