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

So wait, you're saying "gangsta" "culture" has negative impacts?
FN Posted: Fri Apr 13 05:40:48 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2055148,00.html


 
addi Posted: Fri Apr 13 06:49:26 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  speaking of negative impacts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070413/ap_on_en_ot/imus_protests


 
FN Posted: Fri Apr 13 07:17:35 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Frightening to see what the world is becoming when keeping in mind that outside of the Western world you don't exactly stumble over freedom of speech either.

As Orwell said so well: If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.


 
addi Posted: Fri Apr 13 07:33:31 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  all this brings up some interesting age old debates.

We have freedom of speech guranteed in our Constitution here, and in this case Don Imus wasn't thrown into the slammer, but there certainly were some serious consequences for his words.
I don't want to be in the camp for defending the stupidy of his words, but the double standards and hypocracy of some calling for his head is troubling to me.
Quite often what seems to be the case is that the majority has to tread very carefully when it comes to any public remarks about a minority group, but the minority group (jews, blacks, gays, muslims, etc..) have much more wiggle room in what demeaning remarks they can say about the majority group.


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Apr 13 10:13:34 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I was going to open a new thread for Imus, but no. Goddamn does this piss me off.

It's not a simple racial issue- if it were, a dialogue would have been opened and discourse would have been undertaken, instead of a boycott, lots of race baiting, even more yelling & screaming, and Don Imus' eventual firing. A firing the day before a fundraiser for a children's disease charity- that's a classy move, MSNBC & CBS.
Mob tactics and bullying, saying "I don't like what you are saying, so I will take away your livelihood," and we ceases to have freedom of speech. It becomes a state of fear and mediocrity, but mostly fear.

And yes, there is a serious race problem in our nation. And yes, the power of the purse is a great way to stop bad things. But no, the group led by the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson are not the demographic and listenership (yeah, I made up the word) of Imus. The throat-slitting of Imus does not heal, it does not fix or ease tensions. The discourse was slammed shut. Now it even borderline criminal, as the FCC is getting to be involved, to bring the discussion to the table.
So now I guess we'll sit down and shut up and shut down and have no sealing of wounds and have nothing that could or would ever be divisive or interesting or relevant. Everything on TV and radio will just be American Idol, bland and useless. (yes, it is relevant and yes, I did need to bring it up- What else _can_ be on radio now?)


 
addi Posted: Fri Apr 13 10:34:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:

>What else _can_ be on radio now?)

fear not, my good man. You've still got O'Reilly, Rush and Falwell.


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Apr 13 10:43:06 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>fear not, my good man. You've still got O'Reilly, Rush and Falwell.

And Randi Rhodes, Sam Seder, and Opie and Anthony, and Ron & Fez. You know, quality and interesting radio.


 
addi Posted: Fri Apr 13 10:48:41 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:

>And Randi Rhodes

they took off "Air America" down here on the local radio...so I can't get Randi's edgey (occasionally over-the-top) commentary anymore. :(


 
FN Posted: Fri Apr 13 11:22:49 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Here in Belgium it's actually worse.

You can literally go to jail when you for example say/print that the holocaust didn't happen/didn't kill as many jews as is believed or when you say something that could be considered as racially offending.

It's "free speech, but...", and the but means that there is no free speech, plain and simple.

I'm getting really tired of the simpletons not wanting to be offended and taking every single thing as a serious attack.

But if you're a minority you can say pretty much anything you want.

And more often than not the more openminded they claim to be the more they go ballistic if you go against what they want to hear.




An interesting example of what freedom of speech (and censorship) can do is the story of the extreme right party in flanders, previously the "Vlaams Blok" and how and why they disbanded and got to be "Vlaams Belang".

It is interesting on many levels, and in my opinion also beyond the boundaries of Flanders because it has a lot of lessons to teach to people who look beyond the fašade.

The reason for this is because it shows what democracy becomes when it goes against its own nature and how extremists can turn both victory and defeat into a victory anyway, with defeat being even more of a victory when it is on their terms.

It also shows that freedom of speech either means what it explicitly says, or it isn't freedom of speech any way you look at it.


Some stuff from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaams_Belang , but first keep in mind that in terms of % of votes this is the largest party in Flanders:

-

Trial

In 2002, three non-profit organisations, that in practice were the core of the Vlaams Blok party, were brought to court by the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism and the Liga voor Mensenrechten (League For Human Rights) for "incitement to hate and discrimination." The organisations were condemned by the Appeals Court of Ghent in April 2004 for the "repeated incitement to discrimination." An appeal by the party was thrown out by the High Court in November 2004.[8]

Following this conviction, the Vlaams Blok party disbanded itself in 2004. The former Vlaams Blok party leadership and members consequently established the Vlaams Belang. According to the Belgian state security service, this is merely a cosmetic operation.[9] Comments made by the party leadership read along the same line.[10] The Belgian State Security Service noted that the party was forced to change her name and to rid the party platform of racist elements.[11] The "launch of the new name Vlaams Belang was paired with a publicity campaign that had the intention of creating an image of respectability,"[12]

Changes to the party platform have been made to allow it to comply with the law, and the motto of Vlaams Blok, Eigen volk eerst ("Own people first"), has been dropped, though it is still used by party leaders and members in meetings.

Vlaams Belang supporters, such as N-VA member and law professor Matthias Storme, see the trial in which the Vlaams Blok was condemned as a political trial.[13] Some also claim that the Belgian establishment has changed the law for the purpose of this trial.[14]



(Note by myself: This is intriguing to me. I'm of the opinion that it indeed was a political trial, considering the "cordon sanitaire" (see below). It begs the question: if a democraticly elected government can change the laws so that other parties are basicly indirectly outlawed, does this mean that in principle democracy is bound to eradicate itself by banning more parties untill 1 remains?.)



Pro Flandria, an independent organization consisting of academia and businesspeople, wrote an open letter about the trial in 2003, saying that "political opponents should be fought in open forums, using arguments, so that a voter can make up one's mind...A court should not be misused for a political retaliation that cannot be made through political means."[15]

According to professor Lamine (KUL), a former VB member and main advisor of the party's legal team, the party for propaganda reasons purposely carried a weak defence, in order to lose the case : "For the party leaders, losing was much more interesting. Winning just wasn't an option."[16]

Lamine himself had earlier stated that the VB should have carried the trial to the European Court of Human Rights, but VB senator Joris Van Hauthem had already stated in 2005, that: "If we had gone to Strasbourg [ECHR] based on procedural arguments, we might have had a case. But Lamine already put in a private claim to overturn the Appeals Court verdict, on the basis of substantive arguments. If Vlaams Belang were to put forth a claim against the verdict as well, at Strasbourg, the Court will bundle both cases. Then we would lose the case for sure. Lamine has thus given us the final blow." Law professor Lamine denied this: "The party legal department's head doesn't know what he's doing."[17] The judicial service of the Flemish Parliament noted that a procedure at the ECHR would not be able to overturn the Appeals Court conviction that condemnded the Vlaams Blok. Such procedure however could lead to a conviction of the Belgian state to pay damages.[18]

Gerolf Annemans (note by me: the party's 3rd in command, also a lawyer) created instant controversy during the inauguration event of the new party by condemning the prosecutors and judges who presided over the case in the Supreme Court and courts of appeal: "The names of all main legal figures in this trial are forever engraved in this lawyer's memory; they are warned for the rest of their careers."[19] Mr. Annemans claimed he was provoked to say this, because Marc Timperman, the Supreme Court public prosecutor, laughed at the Vlaams Blok lawyers during the decisive Supreme Court session the week before. Vlaams Belang alleges that Timperman was a "political appointee" (Timperman was deputy chief of staff to VLD justice minister Marc Verwilghen).


---


Government subsidy

Vlaams Belang, and the former Vlaams Blok is a very divisive issue in Belgium, particularly in Flanders. One response to Vlaams Belang has been attempts to cut state funding for the party[27][28] (see the Belgian "dry up" law). On the Flemish level, there is no political majority yet for such actions against other parties, as this approach is generally viewed as being counter-productive. Some (less in Flanders, more amongst Francophones) have a different opinion.

On May 18, 2006, the progressive organizations Kif Kif and MRAX (Movement against Racism, Antisemitism and Xenophobia), backed (as demanded by law) by the political parties sp.a, spirit, PS, MR and CDh (the parties also paid for the legal translation of the complaint[29]), filed a complaint against Vlaams Belang with the Belgian Council of State. This court has six months to decide whether or not to cancel part of the state funding (dotation) the party receives, up to 2.1 million Euros yearly. The complaint claims that the Vlaams Belang party is "opposed to the rights granted in the European Convention on Human Rights". It refers to the utterance of Filip Dewinter calling his party "islamophobic" in a Jewish newspaper."[30] The plaintiffs also state that "the party, for all intent and purpose, still uses the same platform and communication as the Vlaams Blok", that was condemned after a similar complaint.[31] The complaint had been prepared for several months, and some of the complaining political parties had been hesitant to file it. The Vlaams Belang has stated its intention to denounce the majority of the judges because they are francophone or because they are allegedly hostile towards the party.


---


Cordon Sanitaire

Vlaams Belang is currently one of the largest Belgian parties, although other parties usually form alliances with their counterparts across the Flemish/Francophone divide (Christian-Democrats, Liberals, Socialists and Greens). Several polls carried out in 2005 and 2006 predict Vlaams Belang will be the largest party in the next election.[25] It has been growing steadily since 1978, when its predecessor "Vlaams Blok" was formed. Nonetheless, it has no direct power due to the Cordon Sanitaire, a pact between the other Belgian parties that rejected Vlaams Blok from any governing coalition because the party's views were considered to be morally and politically unacceptable. Vlaams Belang says that the platform now is on the right track, making the Cordon Sanitaire without reason. The party however would need to convince others to join a coalition because the Belgian political system is based on proportional representation.

After the regional elections in 2004, changes in the perception of the party by the population, as well as the growing strength of the party made it possible for the Vlaams Blok to be invited briefly for negotiations at the start of the formation of the regional government. In the runup towards the local elections of late 2006, there were signs that the cordon sanitaire could be breached in some municipalities, but it wasn't.

Critics of the Cordon Sanitaire argue that it is undemocratic, or that it is not effective in fighting the Vlaams Belang. Indeed, some figures in the other major Flemish political parties question its viability, and some have participated in debates with VB politicians. One Flemish newspaper, De Standaard, has declared it's intention to treat Vlaams Belang like any other party.

In an interview with the popular weekly Humo, Flemish PM Yves Leterme (CD&V) however declared that a local chapter of his party that would form a coalition or close agreements with the Vlaams Belang, wouldn't be considered a part of the CD&V anymore.[26]

---




Interesting, isn't it?


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sat Apr 14 04:43:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I didn't read everything Christophe posted in the last thread, but i wanted to throw some things out there too.

1) How many of you are the minority where you live? And i don't just mean locally but nationally too.

2) The constitution does indeed defend everyone's rights to free speech. it also defends everyone's right to equal opportunity. But when those of low socio-economic status [and typically are minorities] must suffer the "consequences" of their culture through bad/ poor education, what do you say to that? I guess what I'm trying to point out in this question is the cyclical nature of racism, institutionalized racism, and economic status in America.

3) For those of you who actually analyze the ads and print that's delivered to your eyes every day [or that surrounds you every day], how much of it do you find racially influenced? Why or why not?

4) If high crime rates are influenced by popular hip-hop/ "black"/ "urban" culture, why doesn't it "affect" the several other thousands of teenagers who follow the same culture? Or what about the thousands of teenagers who follow the culture but share nothing in common with the stereotype?

5) When does free speech stop being governed by political correctness if at all? [i just wanted to point out that if America is supposed to be leading this "democracy" campaign and all for free speech, but still answering to the limiter of political correcteness, then do we really have free speech? Also, if we do and we must merely suffer the consequences of our actions, shouldn't imus suffer his? After all, CBS is most likely a Caucasian-majority company [its board of directors certainly is [if my research is correct, only one black guy [and the only minority on the slate [not counting "Jewish" as an ethnicity]]], and didn't NEED to fire Imus. But it was someone's CHOICE to. And if Blacks are the minority, I'm sure CBS would still have had a fair hold on the media industry. So really... why the NEED to fire Imus?




Those're the questions I can think of for now.

Some thoughts to spew:

1) As a minority, I'll admit: I have a heightened sense to race issues. But something I've noticed more and more is that the majority has no idea when it's being racist. It thinks it's being "normal" or simply stating a "fact." But the FACT is that their verbal defecation is race-influenced and prejudiced [which, for words' sake, i'll use as the common meaning of racism]. Ex: My friend and I were driving around. We come to a stop in the road- some sort of road jam with police. My friend gets sick of waiting and turns around. A block later, she gets pulled over. [Both of us are Asian, btw... though neither of us dress differently or appear in anyway different from other kids [except, of course, our faces, which we were born with]] The FIRST THING the cop says to us: "Y'all speak English?" If you can't see what's racist about this, we REALLY need to talk. But my point is that the cop had NO IDEA he was being racist. He probably got the hint when [and i quote my friend] he felt the "anger RADIATING" from me. I'm still pissed that the incident happened, but i've learned that the majority is [as racism is typically adjoined with] ignorant. And the sooner the majority understands that and tries to learn and understand the minority, the sooner they'll stop being ignorant.

2) People get fired or don't get hired for their race or something race-affiliated. Their livelihood is taken away from them; what then? The sword always goes both ways. [which brings me to...]

3) I'll admit. A tighter leash is held on the majority when it comes to racism against the minority. But consider these reasons why [I'm not excusing it. I'm just saying why]

a) The majority vs. the minority. The majority is given the responsibility to be more civil and more understanding simply because it's the majority. Think about it: As the majority, everything revolves around you. You are the favored race; majority rules. We've all been taught that since little. [And in a way, it makes sense.] But as the majority that's been blessed with the good graces of society, so you should reflect your knowledge of good graces to your fellow man. Just because we're of a different color doesn't make us any more inadequate. Unfortunately, it DOES make us less understood. Do any of you know what it's like to grow up as the minority in a majority-run nation? To be the only kid at your school with your skin color? To be judged for that?

Racism, gently put, is dehumanizing and harrowing. To be hated for something you can't change is painful and wrong; surely all of you can understand that. Most minorities are trying to help the majority understand that; unfortunately, some minorities, pained by their past experiences, simply can't forget.

Something to think about: Asians didn't ever had to deal with slavery. Yeah, we had concentration camps [which weren't as bad as other concentration camps [some US run, some not], but we've also been "blessed" with the "obedient" race stereotype. It works in our favor. Antisemitism is/ was also a problem; but the holocaust is fairly widespread and recognized as a holocaust. Granted, it's not always recognized in the capacity it should be, but most of the time it is. Also, Jewish people have been able to attain fairly high positions, especially in the entertainment industry. But African-Americans have rarely had slavery acknowledged as a holocaust [which is what it was]. And they continue to be FAR behind in positions of power. Why is that? As one of the oldest minorities in the US, why has the African-American minority been so "slow" in its ability to rise in "American" culture?

b) When a minority takes possession of a derogatory term and changes the meaning to something more positive or less offensive, that doesn't give the majority the license to use it. Why? Because the derogatory term was first used by the majority to degrade. It was never used by the minority as such. And should the minority community accept the majority's use of the term in a positive manner is up to the minority. This is because the minority wasn't the first one to use it to offend/ degrade/ dehumanize.

c) If an individual of the majority says a racial slur [depending on his esposure within a community [which, btw, each individual undertakes [no one FORCED imus to take a job as a public figure... but he chose to]]] to the minority, he always has the fact that he's part of the majority to fall back on. Simply put, he's part of the majority community and he can play up to that [bluntly]. But the minority? If he says a racial slur to the majority, who does he have to fall back on? His minority community, right? And what shall that minority community do WITHIN the majority community? What CAN it do? Raise dissonance and upset, but little else.

And I think that's what we see with a lot of what's going on in American. We see the dissonance and upset raised by the minority [and occasionally the majority], but the majority does little about it except say sorry [or, occasionally, acquiesce to the minority]. If the majority doesn't start learning to be educated, the dissonance and upset will always be there. And the minorities don't stop trying to raise havoc and instead start trying to educate, we'll always run into the same problem.



After SO MANY ARGUMENTS about racism, I've become tired of the fighting.

It's here; it's a problem. I get that. But pretending like that's all it'll ever be pisses me off to no end. We're a progressive people; how long is it going to take us to stop pointing fingers and start understanding?

And I'm sorry, but it IS the majority's problem and responsibility [and in a way, HONOR] to learn to understand the minority. Simply because we ARE the minority and not only have we had to SUFFER SO MUCH for it [despite being LOYAL CITIZENS], but because changes starts with the majority. Minorities have done a lot to accommodate the wishes of the majority, but if the majority wants the minorities to stop complaining, it better start listening and learning.

A relevant way to put it is this:

As a Christian-majority nation, I'm pretty sure many people will agree that the nation caters a fair bit to "Christians". [Not necessarily to true Christians, but to Christian "culture"]. After all, Bush is still pres, no? [hahaha, jk!] But anyway, yeah. I would say that our nation does, and that Christianity [popular Christianity] has a fair presence within our culture. But as the majority, in my opinion, I think that Christians have a responsibility to respect and learn about other religions. It's not fair for Christians to bowl over those of other religions, but by being obnoxious, rude, hypocritical, and spiteful, that's what we do. And those of less-represented religions cannot bowl over us either [simply because mass-culture is on our side]. So the responsibility lies with us to learn about the people we live with simply because, in order to learn, we must make the choice to humble ourselves and to learn. Otherwise, everything just stays the same.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sat Apr 14 05:21:27 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>(Note by myself: This is intriguing to me. I'm of the opinion that it indeed was a political trial, considering the "cordon sanitaire" (see below). It begs the question: if a democraticly elected government can change the laws so that other parties are basicly indirectly outlawed, does this mean that in principle democracy is bound to eradicate itself by banning more parties untill 1 remains?.)
>

well, that can't be right, so i suppose we must look at this another way. i'm assuming you're looking at this in a similar way as you're looking at the free speech issue: how can something exist if it's being driven against itself? and while it's a good point, here are my two-cents [which you may or may not care for]:

1) free-speech: personally, i think that choices have been made and consequences have followed. imus knew that by becoming a public figure he must truly be a public figure. the public was going to critique him, and his views would be judged in the capacity of his job. and when those who hired him deemed him out of line, they fired him. [or, following PR/ PC protocol, they did so. [as was THEIR individual choice [and THEIR freedom of speech]]] so, it's not that he doesn't have freedom of speech. he does. he just has to accept the consequences. Similarly, so do we. To say that his complete livelihood was taken away is, in my opinion, an exaggeration. he can still do other jobs aside from a talkshow host. and if he did nothing wrong, i'd probably be taking his side. but calling strong, black women nappyheaded ho's?? Are you defecating me out of your anus? In response, I'd ask about the dozens of minorities that are denied jobs or fired for reasons influenced by race.

And as for being thrown in jail, I agree. It's too much. And each person's opinion is his or her own to express. But what's alarming to me is that rather than seeking to be educated on the issue, why would someone go so far as to say it didn't happen? Or if it wasn't so bad, do they not provide proof?

For me, the importance is in education and purpose. If people are saying stuff just to say it, that's useless and causes dissension. They should prepare for it. But if they're actively trying to spread or gain knowledge, they should honestly try to do that.

2.) Democracy: For me, I'm divided in this issued raised by the political party. Do I believe they should be allowed the chance to run and given equal opportunities as the other parties? Yes. But the fact that this was such a HUGE success as a party is alarming to me.

For me, the questions raised go beyond that of racism but more so, if an immoral or racist party runs and garners a lot of favor, so we allow it for the sake of democracy? Or do we stop it because we believe in something else beyond democracy?

In my opinion, much of Western culture has stopped worshiping religion and has started worshiping their desired form of government.

The KKK comes to mind. I've been taught in history class that the KKK actually held a fair bit of sway, particularly in a few southern states. But I suppose the reason it didn't continue to last is that the American constitution defends equal rights for everyone, including the right to a fair and representative government. and if the KKK were to be allowed, then the equivalent minority groups should have been too... After all, fair representation of everyone, right? I mean, even if we are the minorities, our interests should be presented equal in importance [even if not in vastness] as the majority, shouldn't they??

So I suppose that I believe that the group should be allowed, but that the counter-groups be allowed too.

I dunno. Maybe that's a stupid conclusion; after all, it's late. But it's times like these that I wish I were a poli sci major so i could know more. : (


 
addi Posted: Sat Apr 14 07:39:05 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't think I could even begin to touch all the issues and questions you brought up, innocence...so I don't think I'll try : )

If you perceived a tone of anti-minorityism in my posts that wasn't my intent. I have no clue what it feels like to be a minority living in America being a white male. I have no doubt that racist attitudes against ethnic groups exists...just as I have no doubt that racist attitudes from minority groups towards white males exists too. Both are unjust and unfair.

My point with the Imus situation was only that, in my opinion, the punishment is not in line with the transgression. If someone is going to argue that it is then they need to be consistant and also apply the same guidelines to all the other prominent minority public figures that have made gedrading remarks about whites.
But that won't happen because there are double standards on what is considered racially offensive here. If a white says something considered non-politically correct he/she is burned at the stake. If a minority figure says something about whites then it's most often overlooked.
I'm not defending Imus here. I thought the origonal punishment of losing his source of income for 2 months was just. But I do think firing him went too far, and only serves to foster more hatred between groups...especially in light of his crime being some ignorant words uttered. It wasn't like he was trying to incite a group of white sheet covered Bubba's to burn crosses on the lawns of minority homes.


 
addi Posted: Sat Apr 14 07:56:05 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ps

I also know that I'm not above feeling racist attitudes myself. I try very hard to judge a person on his/her own merits, but I know I still have issues to deal with in generalizing unfair characteristics of certain ethnic groups.
If I see a group of young black "gansta" males walking towards me my sense of nervousness goes up involuntarity.
If i see a group of middle-eastern garbed males walking towards me my sense of distrust goes up.
If I see a group of hispanics walking towards me my desire for margaritas goes up.
If I see a group of young canadian women walking towards me my horniness goes up.


 
FN Posted: Sat Apr 14 08:24:40 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>2) The constitution does indeed defend everyone's rights to free speech. it also defends everyone's right to equal opportunity. But when those of low socio-economic status [and typically are minorities] must suffer the "consequences" of their culture through bad/ poor education, what do you say to that? I guess what I'm trying to point out in this question is the cyclical nature of racism, institutionalized racism, and economic status in America.

I say that where I live, as a minority you actually have truly more opportunities than somebody of the majority who's on the same socio-economic level.

>3) For those of you who actually analyze the ads and print that's delivered to your eyes every day [or that surrounds you every day], how much of it do you find racially influenced? Why or why not?

I see a lot of it being racially influenced in the sense that it *has* to have a black/arab guy in there somewhere.

>4) If high crime rates are influenced by popular hip-hop/ "black"/ "urban" culture, why doesn't it "affect" the several other thousands of teenagers who follow the same culture? Or what about the thousands of teenagers who follow the culture but share nothing in common with the stereotype?

If high crime rates are caused by a bad socio economic status how come thousands of people aren't affected by it in that way?

The point with hip hop and black culture is that it glorifious crime and everything surrounding it, which is something very different indeed.

Also, funny you should mention hip hop and urban while that wasn't really talked about, so it means you yourself know perfectly well what he meant and recognize the validity and perhaps are even racist that way yourself because you made the connection?

>5) So really... why the NEED to fire Imus?

Because it's cool to be multicultural and to point fingers at racists

>1) [Both of us are Asian, btw... though neither of us dress differently or appear in anyway different from other kids [except, of course, our faces, which we were born with]] The FIRST THING the cop says to us: "Y'all speak English?" If you can't see what's racist about this, we REALLY need to talk.

See, I don't get why this is racist. Chances are the cop has pulled over quite a lot of asians before who did not speak english, so efficiency-wise it's better to first ask wether they speak english or not, it's the common sense thing to do.

> And the sooner the majority understands that and tries to learn and understand the minority, the sooner they'll stop being ignorant.

So why would the majority feel obliged to "understand" (read: accomodate to) the minority?

I understand the points of the minority and I think I can safely say I have at least a grasp of cultural differences and significances and what not, but does that mean I should take that into account or bend myself around it because said minorities don't want to? No, not really.

>2) People get fired or don't get hired for their race or something race-affiliated. Their livelihood is taken away from them; what then? The sword always goes both ways. [which brings me to...]

Works both ways

>3) I'll admit. A tighter leash is held on the majority when it comes to racism against the minority. But consider these reasons why [I'm not excusing it. I'm just saying why]
>
>a) But as the majority that's been blessed with the good graces of society, so you should reflect your knowledge of good graces to your fellow man.

Bullshit. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. What tyou are actually saying is that if you've grown up in a white family chances are you're a good kid, if you've grown up in a black or arab family, chances are you're a bad kid, because the white kids get everything just served on a platter and the black kid has to fight has way through life. How racist is that?

> To be the only kid at your school with your skin color? To be judged for that?

That might have been the case but that isn't any longer, in some schools the minority even is the majority.

> Most minorities are trying to help the majority understand that; unfortunately, some minorities, pained by their past experiences, simply can't forget.

Ah right. So the 15 year old gangsta who goes on a gang rape does so because he's pained by the past of his enslaved ancestors and can't forget? Niggah phleaze.

>But African-Americans have rarely had slavery acknowledged as a holocaust [which is what it was].

Hold your horses. I'm not going to downplay slavery here but comparing it to systematic and industrial murder with the intent of just that, genocide, is a bit too far.

Slavery was/is harsh/bad/inhuman but it isn't with the intent of wiping out an entire race in conveyor belt fashion.

>b) This is because the minority wasn't the first one to use it to offend/ degrade/ dehumanize.

Do you actually hear yourself talking?

If a black guy can call himself a nigger, I can call him a nigger just as well. But not the double standard thing.

>c) But the minority? If he says a racial slur to the majority, who does he have to fall back on? His minority community, right? And what shall that minority community do WITHIN the majority community? What CAN it do? Raise dissonance and upset, but little else.

Not really, you seem to forget the leftist do-gooders who feel the urge to give meaning to their life by "selfishly helping others".

Also, this acceptance of minorities and psoitive discrimination by white people is to me perhaps one of the worst forms of racism around (in this day and age). It degrades the minority person to a pet project. How racist is that?

>It's here; it's a problem. I get that. But pretending like that's all it'll ever be pisses me off to no end. We're a progressive people; how long is it going to take us to stop pointing fingers and start understanding?

The thing is, you seem to limit racism to white people towards others, and many people do.

I've linked to it before, but here is the example again of popular artists of said community, who were never really called upon for doing what they did

http://home.att.net/~phosphor/introtogrammys.html

yet if it's the other way around and it's a white guy saying it about a black guy you're publicly denounced.

>And I'm sorry, but it IS the majority's problem and responsibility [and in a way, HONOR] to learn to understand the minority.

Haha

Look, I'm a 20 year old western european white male from good families. It doesn't get much better than that in terms of positioning in the world.

Now seriously, why the hell would I want to downgrade my own life and freedom because some minority doesn't want to and expects me to do it when they come to live on my own turf.

It is the minorities problem, and duty, to adapt to the majority when they come and live and benefit on the majority's territory.

That's all there is to it.

So when you start comitting violent crimes en masse, with numbers endlessly overdoing those of the majority criminals while you're a minority, you riot over every single thing that you want to misinterpret, you try and limit freedom of speech and with that freedom of thought to the point that you can't even take it into consideration anymore, and you openly refuse to drop your previous culture which has proven to be flawed (islam anyone?) and on top of all that *demand* with nothing to back your demands up but moaning and a bad record that the majority makes changes to accommodate you, what do you expect?

A lot of friends of mine are if not racists then leaning towards it. It wasn't always like that but more and more they see the absurdity of what's going on. But even the most extreme people I know agree: if the person in question embodies the same (western) culture, skin colour doesn't matter and they're free to live their lives.

But it becomes very different when they demand to build mosques with the states money, paid for by the majority, and demands changes in the law so that the majority can go to jail for saying anything that has to do with race, even if it is true, to the point that you can't state facts like "non-white people commit more crimes over here" without being racist.

The reason for that and such doesn't matter, it is simply a fact, nothing lied or biased about it, but you can't state it anymore.

Even in as much that tv stations are asked to not say the ethnicity of criminals anymore on tv and that the police probably soon will be prohibited from giving ethnic characteristics with detaining orders (like if there's a street full of people in the same clothes, all whites and one black guy, the police can't say that who they're after is a black guy because that'd be racial).

> SUFFER SO MUCH

If it is truly that bad they're free to leave just as they or their parents were free to come here.

You suffer so much by living in the western world with a roof over your head and a car and a tv than you'd do under a dictatorial regime amidst civil wars?

Poor minorities.

>As a Christian-majority nation, I'm pretty sure many people will agree that the nation caters a fair bit to "Christians". [Not necessarily to true Christians, but to Christian "culture"].

Wouldn't it be plain absurd if it didn't?

>I think that Christians have a responsibility to respect and learn about other religions.

Why, because it suits the minorities better and you happen to be a part of them (not necessarily directed at you, but if the shoe fits you can put it on)?

That's like a poor guy saying he's a socialist out of idealistic motivation.

>And those of less-represented religions cannot bowl over us either [simply because mass-culture is on our side].

Yet they expect to and they can by limiting what you can say (denmark cartoons anybody? anti-racial laws? political correctness? the list goes on).

Minorities are like Hitler that way. It should have been stamped out from the very start instead of appeasing it untill it goes beyond the point of control and the shit hits the fan.

>So the responsibility lies with us to learn about the people we live with simply because,

Again, why do we have to learn while the minority just gets to bring their inferior views and models like islam over here to screw things up a little without having to adapt, but we, as a majority, should adapt to a minority?

Did I just say a bad thing for calling islam inferior?

What you're saying is the exact opposite of democracy, the majority beinding to the minority.

You're undermining democracy and everyhting it stands for by what you're saying.

(I don't mean the last part but in actual verbal conversations it's fun to throw in stuff like that to throw the other party off balance a bit by getting them agitated)

>in order to learn, we must make the choice to humble ourselves and to learn. Otherwise, everything just stays the same.

Humble myself? Humble myself to learn?

To learn what, how to hang around a public area harrassing people passing by, how to cry allah akbar when slaughtering animals without sedation?

Or maybe just how to blow myself up to get some virgins, since women are a commodity anyway and allah seems to have a few extra lying around somewhere.


 
FN Posted: Sat Apr 14 08:43:19 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>Christophe said:
>>(Note by myself: This is intriguing to me. I'm of the opinion that it indeed was a political trial, considering the "cordon sanitaire" (see below). It begs the question: if a democraticly elected government can change the laws so that other parties are basicly indirectly outlawed, does this mean that in principle democracy is bound to eradicate itself by banning more parties untill 1 remains?.)

>1) free-speech: personally, i think that choices have been made and consequences have followed. imus knew that by becoming a public figure he must truly be a public figure.

I disagree, a public figure doesn't mean he has to please everybody. He tries to please the public he's aiming at, not what the rest of the public wants to force him into.

>the public was going to critique him, and his views would be judged in the capacity of his job. and when those who hired him deemed him out of line, they fired him. [or, following PR/ PC protocol, they did so. [as was THEIR individual choice [and THEIR freedom of speech]]]

If that's your reasoning, firing somebody because he's black and it's your individual choice to do so is freedom of speech as well.

I also don't see how firing somebody really has to do with freedom of speech beyond some flawed reasoning, but do continue.

>so, it's not that he doesn't have freedom of speech. he does. he just has to accept the consequences.

Like how in china you have the freedom to be falun gong, you just have to accept that as a consequence you're going to get murdered? Or like in the third reich you had the freedom to be a jew but you were going to be put in a concentration camp?

Utter bullshit.

The whole point behind "freedom" of speech is that you are free to declare the opinion you want without any threats necessarily springing from it.

If you're going to say: you can say what you want but if I don't like it you're fired/get thrown into jail, that isn't freedom of speech and you know it.

>Similarly, so do we. To say that his complete livelihood was taken away is, in my opinion, an exaggeration. he can still do other jobs aside from a talkshow host. and if he did nothing wrong, i'd probably be taking his side. but calling strong, black women nappyheaded ho's??

The guy's income has been taken away, with all the consequences thereof, because of 2 words.

Think about it, and I mean actually think about it instead of resonating what you're fed through the preferred media channel of choice.

What he said should have about as much impact as a "yo momma" joke by somebody who doesn't know "yo momma" to a levelheaded person.

The mass hysteria about it all shows only one thing: grave inferiority complexes and utter stupidity and herd mentality by the people who took it as being personally offensive, a normal person wouldn't even see it as a blip on the radar.

If stuff like that can knock you off your feet, how "strong" are you then, really?

>Are you defecating me out of your anus? In response, I'd ask about the dozens of minorities that are denied jobs or fired for reasons influenced by race.

There's a very large gap between not being hired and being fired from a position you have been in for many years. If you can't see that it's only because you don't want to.

>For me, the importance is in education and purpose. If people are saying stuff just to say it, that's useless and causes dissension. They should prepare for it. But if they're actively trying to spread or gain knowledge, they should honestly try to do that.

Like how when you say that black guys commit more violent crimes there's never anybody around saying "but", wiping the arguement completely off the table and turning it into something else, preferably with a racial background, instead of actually acknowledging the problem.

It's like saying "look the house is on fire", but instead of helping to put the fire out you grab the owner, who's children are still inside, so he can't move to tell him that the house is on fire but that's because the wood was dry and it isn't the wood's fault.

But if he had said before that "it seems to be in the wood's nature to be dry and cause fire hazards" he'd be nailed to a cross.

>2.) Democracy: For me, I'm divided in this issued raised by the political party. Do I believe they should be allowed the chance to run and given equal opportunities as the other parties? Yes. But the fact that this was such a HUGE success as a party is alarming to me.

Or, you could say you might want to look at the reasons behind its success, which are often ignored, unlike the supposed reasons behind minority criminality.

>For me, the questions raised go beyond that of racism but more so, if an immoral or racist party runs and garners a lot of favor, so we allow it for the sake of democracy? Or do we stop it because we believe in something else beyond democracy?

So democracy is whatever fits you best?

That's tyranny.

>So I suppose that I believe that the group should be allowed, but that the counter-groups be allowed too.

The thing is, the counter groups are allowed (like the communist party and th e AEL (arab-european league)), there's only 1 that isn't allowed.

>I dunno. Maybe that's a stupid conclusion; after all, it's late. But it's times like these that I wish I were a poli sci major so i could know more. : (

Some rationality and insight in human nature can go a long way.


 
FN Posted: Sat Apr 14 08:53:56 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>(like if there's a street full of people in the same clothes, all whites and one black guy, the police can't say that who they're after is a black guy because that'd be racial).

It's like the giant elephant in the room everybody pretends they can't see.

I feel that to be 10 times more racist to conspire to act like somebody isn't black at all and patronise them like that.

Funny thing is, most people are too dumb to grasp that, which says a lot about the validity of their other opinions.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Apr 14 09:33:49 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Interesting that Don Imus' firing happened the same day as the charges were dropped against the Duke lacrosse players.
Two racially charged incidents with vastly different results.
I won't defend Mr. Imus, he got what he got, and he won't have to suffer too much for it, but where the fuck is the contrition from all the assholes who publically convicted those young men from Duke ?
Mr. (hymietown) Jackson and Mr. (Tawana Brawley) Sharpton have no business telling Mr. Imus anything about what could be morally correct.



 
addi Posted: Sat Apr 14 10:37:39 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I've been glued to the tube for the past 48 hours, hif and so far no stories yet on Mr. Jackson and Sharpton holding press conferences to apologize to the young Duke players in question for seriously harming their futures with their previous media cries of moral outrage for "raping" the black strippers...
but I'll keep watching and let you know when it happens.

Maybe they're still too busy now calling for the death sentence of Imus


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Apr 14 10:46:51 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This guy is spot on.

http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html


 
DanSRose Posted: Sat Apr 14 12:46:21 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Dammit hif. I was going to link that.
T


This isn't 1950. There aren't legalized racial laws. There are plenty implied racial laws (mandatory minimums, gerrymandering, arresting policies) and plenty socioeconomic problems. The difference between now and then is that there are hurdles to the middle-class, not walls. The lack of mobility has been replaced, from tremendous work, from Dr. King and Malcolm X and others, and from slow invisible changes, coming from how stupid racism is, how little logic it contains and how worthless it is. Upward mobility is now a possibility.

Just a question: What do Sharpton and Jackson want? Really. What is the end game for them? Really. I've seen them marching through NY for years and I don't know what they want to do.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Apr 14 13:33:22 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Dammit hif. I was going to link that.
>
HA ! maybe we are not as different you think we are.

>Just a question: What do Sharpton and Jackson want? Really. What is the end game for them? Really. I've seen them marching through NY for years and I don't know what they want to do.
>
They have no interest in making things better for Black Americans.
They are driven by their own lust for power and money.
That is what separates them from Dr. King and Malcom X, those guys were for real. All Jackson and Sharpton want to do is perpetuate the myth of victimhood on their own people and they do it in $1000 Armani suits.
They are victimizing their own people to sate their own disgusting appetite for power and money.
They have no end game, they just want more, more, more . . .


 
FN Posted: Sat Apr 14 14:10:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sounds like those guys are making a killing out of selling bullshit.

Living the american dream? ;o)


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sun Apr 15 14:38:36 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>If you perceived a tone of anti-minorityism in my posts that wasn't my intent.


Nah. Never you, dear addi. : )

>just as I have no doubt that racist attitudes from minority groups towards white males exists too. Both are unjust and unfair.
>

agreed.

>If a minority figure says something about whites then it's most often overlooked.

slightly agreed. i think it also depends what the person said. i mean, i haven't seen serious negative consequences from people who claim minorities as racist against whites. i mean, it happens but these people don't ever lose their jobs. but if a minority were to make similar racial slurs about the majority as the majority has done to the minority, i do think the treatment/ consequence should be the same.

>But I do think firing him went too far, and only serves to foster more hatred between groups...especially in light of his crime being some ignorant words uttered.

I can see where you're coming from, but I can't agree. Personally, I woulda fired him [regardless of PR or PC protocol]. I mean, what he said was just SO degrading and so incredibly backward to me... For me, I'd equate it to calling a group of respectable, young white women trashy whores. It's just, to me, completely uncalled for.

I dunno; that's where I stand. But i can always agree to disagree. After all, [to be trite] variety is the spice of life!

It wasn't like he was trying to incite a group of white sheet covered Bubba's to burn crosses on the lawns of minority homes.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sun Apr 15 14:42:35 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ps
>
>I also know that I'm not above feeling racist attitudes myself. I try very hard to judge a person on his/her own merits, but I know I still have issues to deal with in generalizing unfair characteristics of certain ethnic groups.
>If I see a group of young black "gansta" males walking towards me my sense of nervousness goes up involuntarity.
>If i see a group of middle-eastern garbed males walking towards me my sense of distrust goes up.
>If I see a group of hispanics walking towards me my desire for margaritas goes up.
>If I see a group of young canadian women walking towards me my horniness goes up.

hahaha. I agree with the first statement. I think the reason it's SO hard for everyone is because it's been built into our respective cultures since before we've been born. Because it complete surrounds us [even to the extent of being reflected in our parents], we're wont to believe/ think all of it is "true." It's what we've been taught and told; it's what's reflected in our society and culture.

But I think that eventually, things come to a point where you just can't keep living a lie. At some point, ppl realized that blacks weren't an inferior race [well, at least most people], and at some point, people [again, most] realized women had the mental and emotional capacity to vote. The world is round and worms don't rain from the sky. But I think that truths take time to really become a part of our society.


 
addi Posted: Sun Apr 15 16:02:08 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>addi said:
>>If you perceived a tone of anti-minorityism in my posts that wasn't my intent.
>
>
>Nah. Never you, dear addi. : )


and every time I see a young asian-american female I think to myself, "I bet she spells real good and can kick ass on a violin."

: )




 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sun Apr 15 16:28:46 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I say that where I live, as a minority you actually have truly more opportunities than somebody of the majority who's on the same socio-economic level.
>

why? [It's not a loaded question; I want to know the actual reasoning]

>I see a lot of it being racially influenced in the sense that it *has* to have a black/arab guy in there somewhere.
>

But most of them don't. Or many that do have races portrayed in a particular light, right? My point with the question is that media tends to shape and also use our interpretation of race as a culture.

My favorite ads to analyze are those selling fashion/ clothing. I wonder how many Fubu and Enyce ads feature caucasian men, and I wonder how many fashion magazines feature minority models. I'll admit, with globalization, more minorities have been popping up in media, but the way they're portrayed is sometimes... odd... [like how asian women tend to be portrayed with asian stereotypes [ie- dragon lady, asian doll, exotic temptress, submissive "wifey" etc etc etc]]

>If high crime rates are caused by a bad socio economic status how come thousands of people aren't affected by it in that way?

I'd say that most are. I used to live in a low socio-economic status environment that was half caucasian, a few african-americans, a few hispanics... and no asians ( : ( ). There was a fair bit of crime [even in my neighborhood [suburbs [predominately white neighborhood]]].

Though I would say that I believe higher rates of crime follow population density [which makes sense to me since i figure more ppl more crimes [kinda like country vs. city]]

>Also, funny you should mention hip hop and urban while that wasn't really talked about, so it means you yourself know perfectly well what he meant and recognize the validity and perhaps are even racist that way yourself because you made the connection?
>

I do recognize the stereotype. And I am incorporating it into the question for argument's sake. But do I believe that hip-hop culture has an influence in crime rate? Yes. Black culture? NO. A giant RESOUNDING NO. Urban? Possibly. Depends what kind of urban scenario [typically that of a lower economic status].

>Because it's cool to be multicultural and to point fingers at racists
>

It's definitely cool to be multicultural. But it's also cool to fight racism. I dunno if it's necessary to fire people for being racist [otherwise everyone's fired]. Personally, I believe in promoting culture education [though I do believe Imus should have been fired [look above in the post to Addi]].

>See, I don't get why this is racist. Chances are the cop has pulled over quite a lot of asians before who did not speak english, so efficiency-wise it's better to first ask wether they speak english or not, it's the common sense thing to do.
>

Just because you can't understand someone's accent doesn't mean they don't speak the language. And call me nuts, but the proportion of Asians who speak English vs. those who don't [especially within the young adult age range [18-23]] is surprisingly high, favoring those who speak English. Also, the cop easily could have told we spoke English. Our window was rolled down and music was on. Our manner of dress: all American [and clearly American pop-culture influenced]. Before just opening his mouth and making assumptions, he could have easily taken TWO SECONDS to think about it. Or he could have just treated us like he treats most other people and asked for a license. After all, the asians who pass the written portion driving test do it how?? By using the appropriate "Asian" language version?? OH WAIT. They don't have that...

Plus, a majority of people who live in the united states SPEAK ENGLISH. Ninety-seven percent so they say. Call me crazy, but it's a very small minority that doesn't. And to be assumed to be unable to speak English just because i look asian is kinda offensive.

>So why would the majority feel obliged to "understand" (read: accomodate to) the minority?

Well, i think the majority should "understand" [read: understand] the minority because not only will it increase national strength/ unity, but it'll also help stomp out awful racial arguments, some needless violence, and promote equality.

>I understand the points of the minority and I think I can safely say I have at least a grasp of cultural differences and significances and what not, but does that mean I should take that into account or bend myself around it because said minorities don't want to? No, not really.
>

What're you talking about?! Minorities have bent to the majority the entire time. All we ask for is to be treated equally because we've contributed great things to this country too [arguing from the American perspective]. We're people just as the majority is, and we can't understand why the majority should get special treatment when it is in no way better. It's just the majority.

>What tyou are actually saying is that if you've grown up in a white family chances are you're a good kid, if you've grown up in a black or arab family, chances are you're a bad kid, because the white kids get everything just served on a platter and the black kid has to fight has way through life. How racist is that?
>

that'd be pretty racist. EXCEPT THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. What i said is that as the majority [read: MAJORITY], you're allowed to live in the majority rule and thus, things are in your favor. As the minority, you must live under majority rule [which is rarely, if ever, easy for the minority]. So, the majority [as a sign of maturity and respect for fellow human beings], should try to understand and reflect the good graces back to the minority. That's it as is.

>That might have been the case but that isn't any longer, in some schools the minority even is the majority.
>

it is the case in a good number of schools. i'm no one special and i lived in an are where i was the only asian [ONLY asian kid] at my elementary school in my year. two or three years after me was one kid and one year after that, his brother.

>Ah right. So the 15 year old gangsta who goes on a gang rape does so because he's pained by the past of his enslaved ancestors and can't forget? Niggah phleaze.
>

I'm not excusing any minors committing crimes. What I was doing was explaining bitterness some minorities harbor against the majority.

>Hold your horses. I'm not going to downplay slavery here but comparing it to systematic and industrial murder with the intent of just that, genocide, is a bit too far.
>

It might not have been THE Holocaust, but it was a holocaust. Systematic? Blacks were rounded up from homes and shipped thousands of miles away to be auctioned off on a block for the sake of an economic system's gain. It was systematic. And they had no say. And these were men and women treated as animals. if they died on the ship, no one cared. If they died during service, their masters rarely cared. Not to mention lynching that occured. And the murder may not always have been physical, but every move was made to strip human beings of their humanity.

>Slavery was/is harsh/bad/inhuman but it isn't with the intent of wiping out an entire race in conveyor belt fashion.
>

i would disagree. do i think it as bad as the WWII Holocaust? No. Or as the genocide in Darfur? No. But do I think that it was a systematic destruction of an entire ethnic group based on skin color? Yes.

>If a black guy can call himself a nigger, I can call him a nigger just as well. But not the double standard thing.
>

Wait, what? i'm saying that the minority will "re-possess" words and give them an affirmative connotation. Feminists do this, races do this, sexualities do this. But the majority cannot use those words in the same way because they first used them as an offense. How can you try to support/ affirm someone's identity through the use of a word if you at one time used it to bring them pain?

>Not really, you seem to forget the leftist do-gooders who feel the urge to give meaning to their life by "selfishly helping others".
>

and how much of what they want actually gets done, aside from the money and time that they themselves put into it? Dunno about Europe, but in the US, the extreme "leftist do-gooders" are looked at just about as crazy as the extreme right.

>Also, this acceptance of minorities and psoitive discrimination by white people is to me perhaps one of the worst forms of racism around (in this day and age). It degrades the minority person to a pet project. How racist is that?
>

I semi-agree. I would hate to think that someday when someone looks at what i've been able to achieve, they'll think it's just because I'm a minority... and that's the only reason I deserve it. That is disgusting and is in a way racist itself. But at the same time, I want to know that I'm NOT going to be discrimnated for a job simply because I'm a minority. And if discrimination happens just because someone looks at me and judged me based on my race, how am I supposed to know I wasn't discriminated against? Let them tell me??

Let the liar and the thief tell you how innocent he is? No thanks... [And in case you try to say that that's what I'm doing, I'm not. I'm not excusing crimes or hate. I'm [mostly] explaining why they develop and how I think they can stop from developing.]

>The thing is, you seem to limit racism to white people towards others, and many people do.
>

i don't. I completely acknowledge and understand that minorities are racist in the sense of racism as defined above in some post somewhere.

>Now seriously, why the hell would I want to downgrade my own life and freedom because some minority doesn't want to and expects me to do it when they come to live on my own turf.
>

uhhhhh... no one is asking you to forget your culture or to not exhibit it in public. no one blames your culture for increasing crime rates and no one hates you for your skin color [with some excecptions; but most people don't]. how're you "downgrading" your life by educating yourself?? And do you have ANY idea how much minorities get downgraded?? [Again, taking into consideration we're on different continents, much less countries, this may vary [though i'm wary of it being so]].

>It is the minorities problem, and duty, to adapt to the majority when they come and live and benefit on the majority's territory.
>
>That's all there is to it.
>

minorities have done that; however, you seem bent on this idea that the minority doesn't. and you say that the minority doesn't so the majority doesn't have to either. [though the minority clearly has].

>So when you start comitting violent crimes en masse, with numbers endlessly overdoing those of the majority criminals while you're a minority, you riot over every single thing that you want to misinterpret, you try and limit freedom of speech and with that freedom of thought to the point that you can't even take it into consideration anymore, and you openly refuse to drop your previous culture which has proven to be flawed (islam anyone?) and on top of all that *demand* with nothing to back your demands up but moaning and a bad record that the majority makes changes to accommodate you, what do you expect?
>

1. that was the grossest [pun!] exaggeration EVER. 2. the majority is "limiting" its own freedom of speech [at least in the US], but even so, not really. you can say whatever you want; just be prepared for consequences. and that's how life is. 3. demand what? understanding? equality? i think it's pretty clear just by our debate alone that the majority doesn't understand the minority. and i think it's pretty clear by many lives and statistics and scenarios that minorities are not equal to the majority.

>But it becomes very different when they demand to build mosques with the states money, paid for by the majority, and demands changes in the law so that the majority can go to jail for saying anything that has to do with race, even if it is true, to the point that you can't state facts like "non-white people commit more crimes over here" without being racist.
>

the first scenario i think the mosque should be built if churches are being built with state money. but if not, there has to be better reasoning [or better persuading] if they want it to happen. [which i'm going to take a neutral stance on]. and as for the second one, i think the purpose with which the statement is said should be taken into account. if the intent is to slander a race and that statistic is being portrayed in such a way as to help the argument, you should be considering the argument in total. but if it's just saying it to state a fact, state facts away. don't forget to state those against the majority too!

>Even in as much that tv stations are asked to not say the ethnicity of criminals anymore on tv and that the police probably soon will be prohibited from giving ethnic characteristics with detaining orders (like if there's a street full of people in the same clothes, all whites and one black guy, the police can't say that who they're after is a black guy because that'd be racial).
>

i think if you're going to apply race, apply it to everyone. but many places refrain because of the trouble it'd cause. [but i'd like to say right here that i think most people [even minorities] would agree that if you're going to apply race, apply it to everyone. ex: two women accepted into college, one white and the other black. the white woman receives a letter asking if she would mind having a black roommate. she later tells her black roommate what the letter said. the black roommate, furious, goes to the dean and asks for an explanation. the dean says, "I'm sorry. We shouldn't have asked if she would have minded rooming with a black woman." The student replies, "No. You should have asked me if I would have minded rooming with a white woman." Equality.]


>If it is truly that bad they're free to leave just as they or their parents were free to come here.

for some reason, you always say this and i always reply the same. just because you're unhappy with a system doesn't mean you turn tail and run from it. you try to change it for the better.

i wasn't belittling the suffering of others. i know they suffer far more so than we do. but at the same time, suffering is there. perhaps you've had the luck to have evaded racism against you, but it sucks.

>Wouldn't it be plain absurd if it didn't?
>

yeah. majority rules. i wasn't arguing against it.

>Why, because it suits the minorities better and you happen to be a part of them (not necessarily directed at you, but if the shoe fits you can put it on)?

no. because it promotes unity and brotherhood. [cheesy, but true] with understand comes a better chance at peace with one another. and isn't that what we want?

>That's like a poor guy saying he's a socialist out of idealistic motivation.
>

not exactly. it'd be like a poor white guy saying he renounces his privilege as a white man and wants true equality between races.

when i speak from the perspective of the majority, i speak from the perspective of part of the majority that i hold [which is, admittedly, influenced by being the minority]. and when i speak as a minority, i speak as a minority that has been influenced from the majority identities of myself.

sorry, but i can't betray myself so easily.

>Yet they expect to and they can by limiting what you can say (denmark cartoons anybody? anti-racial laws? political correctness? the list goes on).
>

they limit it by reacting to your actions. and you could respond with similar actions. and then the world would be in chaos. so the question is who bends and where and when. you say the minority where it's the minority when it's the minority. i say the majority when it's the majority when the minority has already bended.

>Minorities are like Hitler that way. It should have been stamped out from the very start instead of appeasing it untill it goes beyond the point of control and the shit hits the fan.
>

for some reason, i read it, "until it goes beyond the point of white control" and i almost had a heart attack... but then i re-read it. i think that if the minority respects the majority, then the majority should respect it back. but if the majority isn't, the minority, as it is now a part of the same nation as the majority, doesn't have to either [except out of courtesy].

and don't even SAY the majority "owns the land" or some crap like that. native americans owned the land and WERE the majority until the minority came in and pushed them out. yet, for some reason, we're not clamoring to seek justice for them. and we can't even really give them full justice because it's too late. so now, rather than fighting and bickering, we should learn from what we've done. the majority should be accommodating and the minority should be too.

i really don't see what's so hard about this... equality all around. if it's there, it's golden. if not, it should be.

>Again, why do we have to learn while the minority just gets to bring their inferior views and models like islam over here to screw things up a little without having to adapt, but we, as a majority, should adapt to a minority?
>

because, since you're so big on freedom, people are allowed to believe what they want based on that mode of philosophy. and [perhaps it's different in Europe] many minorities DO adapt and DO understand/ embrace majority culture, but at the same time, the majority should seek to do the same. i think this should go for any country.

>Did I just say a bad thing for calling islam inferior?
>

yes. in my opinion. in yours?? i really wouldn't know.

>What you're saying is the exact opposite of democracy, the majority beinding to the minority.
>

but part of democracy is the representation of EVERYONE, right? part of democracy is not that the many control all but that everyone is represented, right?? or maybe i just mis interpreted the constitution... maybe it should have a little clause [read: the majority will rule over you and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. too bad!]

>You're undermining democracy and everyhting it stands for by what you're saying.
>

wow..... bringing down the system. what a punk i've turned out to be.

>(I don't mean the last part but in actual verbal conversations it's fun to throw in stuff like that to throw the other party off balance a bit by getting them agitated)
>

and it's fun to pretend like i get agitated.

>Humble myself? Humble myself to learn?
>
>To learn what, how to hang around a public area harrassing people passing by, how to cry allah akbar when slaughtering animals without sedation?
>
>Or maybe just how to blow myself up to get some virgins, since women are a commodity anyway and allah seems to have a few extra lying around somewhere.

............................................... wow. learn to harass people because individuals of the majority haven't done that to minorities? and i'm SO sure "allah akbar when slaughtering animals without sedation" is the perfect summary of Islamic beliefs. Or better yet, my favorite summary by Islam-specialist Dr. Christophe, "how to blow myself up to get some virgins, since women are a commodity anyway and allah seems to have a few extra lying around somewhere."

Right. What do you need to learn about culture? You seem to UNDERSTAND it so well.

Must be the same way you understand me when I argue. : )


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sun Apr 15 17:15:04 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>
>I disagree, a public figure doesn't mean he has to please everybody. He tries to please the public he's aiming at, not what the rest of the public wants to force him into.
>

I agree. But that doesn't mean a public figure is exempt from consequences for his actions. And those consequences are typically not within his choosing. And if they happen to be bad, too bad. Deal with it.

Ex: Bill Clinton. He pursued what made him happy; too bad it made a fair bit of America pissed.

>
>If that's your reasoning, firing somebody because he's black and it's your individual choice to do so is freedom of speech as well.
>

you can't change your skin color, but you DO have a say in what comes out of your mouth.

>I also don't see how firing somebody really has to do with freedom of speech beyond some flawed reasoning, but do continue.
>

this was all about the imus issue and how it related to freedom of speech and race issues.


>Like how in china you have the freedom to be falun gong, you just have to accept that as a consequence you're going to get murdered?

well, you do have to understand that it's a possible consequence. also, i wasn't saying he wasn't allowed to hold the views he does [whether or not he actually meant holds them in that capacity i don't know]. i'm saying that if you're going to express it, you better know the consequences before you decide how you're going to express it.

ex: i know by going on protests, there's a possibility [even the slightest] that i COULD get arrested. and i accept that. should i just for expressing my freedom of speech? i don't think so. but i acknowledge that's how things are. [AND, just in case you are going to bring this up, I don't think I should be arrested but I do think Imus should have been fired BECAUSE by protesting, I'm protesting against a law that can be changed. By saying a racial slur, Imus is disagreeing with someone's race [sounds a little preposterous... I know. I just finished Relay for Life and am kinda inept at English right now], and no one can change their race.

>Or like in the third reich you had the freedom to be a jew but you were going to be put in a concentration camp?
>

ONCE AGAIN, you can't change your race and you can't change the expression of it. hence, the rule doesn't apply. but you CAN control what defecation you decide to allow out of your mouth.

>Utter bullshit.
>

i thought so too. imus should really work on that.

>The whole point behind "freedom" of speech is that you are free to declare the opinion you want without any threats necessarily springing from it.
>

then what's to keep us from lying?

>If you're going to say: you can say what you want but if I don't like it you're fired/get thrown into jail, that isn't freedom of speech and you know it.
>

i agree. we shouldn't be suspect to some opinion. but we should be suspect to justice. throwing someone in jail or firing him for something he can't help is disgusting and wrong. but if it's something he COULD help [if you tell me imus has a disease that forces him to spout racial slurs, i'd place the blame on those that hired him, but imus], then he should be suspect to consequences because he has an active choice in the matter.

>What he said should have about as much impact as a "yo momma" joke by somebody who doesn't know "yo momma" to a levelheaded person.

a racial slur does NOT = a "yo momma" joke. for one, "yo momma" applies to everyone and everything, no discrimination.

>If stuff like that can knock you off your feet, how "strong" are you then, really?
>

perhaps I'm not normal because when i learned what he said, i flipped out. i was in total shock. i would be more likely to have believed that Imus was gay.

and it's not a matter of "sticks and stones" either. it's a matter of racism manifested in culture and being approved. just like i wouldn't let kids read certain peta pamphlets because they're SO ridiculous and just inspire hate, i wouldn't want my media containing such things either. like... really, why would he say that? what GOOD reason did he have?

>
>There's a very large gap between not being hired and being fired from a position you have been in for many years. If you can't see that it's only because you don't want to.
>

what i can't see is why people act like race is something you can change. "Oh, i don't feel like being African-America today... Maybe I'll be Caucasian!" I agree that being fired from a job because of your skin color is different from being fired from a job because you said something negative about someone else's skin color. In that in the first, you can't change your skin color and in the second, you can learn some common courtesy for your fellow man.

>Like how when you say that black guys commit more violent crimes there's never anybody around saying "but", wiping the arguement completely off the table and turning it into something else, preferably with a racial background, instead of actually acknowledging the problem.
>

but that problem isn't so simple because you have to ask yourself WHY they're committing more violent crimes. And there have been many reasons that have been brought up. But don't you dare say race because in that case, every young black male should be a criminal.

>It's like saying "look the house is on fire", but instead of helping to put the fire out you grab the owner, who's children are still inside, so he can't move to tell him that the house is on fire but that's because the wood was dry and it isn't the wood's fault.
>

this is the most convolute and ridiculous use of a metaphor i've ever seen. and i've made a few doozies in my day.

BUT, you can't just stop crime by simply "stopping it." what do you do? go around and kill everyone who commits a crime? that's pretty messed up [Boondock Saints style].

and after the "nstead of helping to put the fire out you grab the owner, who's children are still inside, so he can't move to tell him that the house is on fire but that's because the wood was dry and it isn't the wood's fault," i became fairly lost.

but i'm saying that the cause of crime needs to be found. and i think a part of it is related to things that glorify crime [btw, it's not only gangsta rap. crime movies? [when i think of gangsta rap, i think of "shoot the police" or robbing stores, etc. when it comes to REALLY violent stuff, i think of heavy metal [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/k/korn/kill+you_20080258.html] [which, incidentally has parallels to the Doors song, "The End."]]] plus, gang culture is a culture of its own [which would explain why all ethnic groups get caught up in it]

>But if he had said before that "it seems to be in the wood's nature to be dry and cause fire hazards" he'd be nailed to a cross.
>

now i understand the metaphor. and it doesn't work because to stop crime, you need to find the cause... i think i already said this.


>Or, you could say you might want to look at the reasons behind its success, which are often ignored, unlike the supposed reasons behind minority criminality.
>

well then, why was it so popular? [i assumed it was because it was the whole "serve yourself first" and "minorities hurt the majority" deal. i don't think it's so much ignored as it is known and disregarded. I would say it's because "'serve yourself first' and 'minorities hurt the majority'" don't really speak brotherhood, unity, and nationalism to me... but maybe that's just me.]

>So democracy is whatever fits you best?
>
>That's tyranny.
>

or anarchy. but that's not what i meant. democracy [to me] is where all groups are represented fairly and have an equal say when it comes to approving laws made [at least]. maybe i'm a commie at heart or something and i just don't know it, but for me, for the majority to completely bowl over the minority without giving it a chance is disgusting. as people, we should have more respect than that for each other.

>The thing is, the counter groups are allowed (like the communist party and th e AEL (arab-european league)), there's only 1 that isn't allowed.
>

well, if those leagues are for self-serving and pitting the minority directly against the majority, then it should be allowed. i hate to say that [just like when certain issues i disagree with fall before the constitution], but fair should be fair. perhaps i'll rationalize all of this out better later, but this is the best i could come up with right now.

>Some rationality and insight in human nature can go a long way.

Haha. And some respect for fellow man and at least SOME belief in solidarity could go a long way in making the world a better place.

Here's where I'm facetious and say, "Which is more important? Arguing about politics or creating a better world?"

And here's where I open another can of worms and say, "Or does one necessarily entail the other?"


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sun Apr 15 17:16:42 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>and every time I see a young asian-american female I think to myself, "I bet she spells real good and can kick ass on a violin."
>
>: )
>
>

hahaha. i don't think you suffer from anti-minoritysm as much as pro-womenismismism.


 
addi Posted: Sun Apr 15 18:05:31 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:

>hahaha. i don't think you suffer from anti-minoritysm as much as pro-womenismismism.

I think you're right, doc.
Is there hope for me, or is this a terminal sickness?


 
FN Posted: Sun Apr 15 19:01:30 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>Christophe said:
>>I say that where I live, as a minority you actually have truly more opportunities than somebody of the majority who's on the same socio-economic level.
>>
>
>why? [It's not a loaded question; I want to know the actual reasoning]

Due to all kinds of special organisations and funds for minorities which are added on top of what is available to everybody. You don't have that for the majority kids.

So yes, if you have the same socio-economic status you actually get more opportunities.

>Though I would say that I believe higher rates of crime follow population density [which makes sense to me since i figure more ppl more crimes [kinda like country vs. city]]

So you're basicly opposing yourself compared to when I first said that black culture glorifies crime and everything surrounding it and you said that there are thousands that have no connection to it.

I'd say culture (ergo ethics) are more influential than your socio economic status. There are plenty of decent poor people, I don't agree that the same is true for people who take pride in calling themselves a "gangsta".

>But do I believe that hip-hop culture has an influence in crime rate? Yes. Black culture? NO. A giant RESOUNDING NO. Urban? Possibly. Depends what kind of urban scenario [typically that of a lower economic status].

Hip hop culture *is* black culture, with about 1 non-black "artist" to what, 200 black ones?

>Personally, I believe in promoting culture education [though I do believe Imus should have been fired [look above in the post to Addi]].

See, I don't agree with that. Because when you say culture education it means it will be enforced through the educational system and that's indoctrination.

I for one don't deem it acceptable to serve halal food at catholic schools, or to have seperate islam teachers.

Kids have more than enough courses here, I don't know how it works in the states, but when I have kids I don't want important subjects to be blotted out by being forced to study islam.

>Before just opening his mouth and making assumptions, he could have easily taken TWO SECONDS to think about it.

Why should he? That's the whole point: the whole touchy feely bussiness is the embodiment of racism in itself as well.

Having to think about that when you see an asian person is just as racist as asking wether they speak english.

>After all, the asians who pass the written portion driving test do it how?? By using the appropriate "Asian" language version?? OH WAIT. They don't have that...

Fair enough, I'm not familiar with how it is dealt with in the US, but when you say he should see it by the way you dress and such, I'm guessing it isn't that much different from the average chinese girl or the images I get from Asian cities must be extremely misleading that way. Same goes for the music. Not all people who go to an opera understand german or italian.

>>So why would the majority feel obliged to "understand" (read: accomodate to) the minority?
>
>Well, i think the majority should "understand" [read: understand] the minority because not only will it increase national strength/ unity, but it'll also help stomp out awful racial arguments, some needless violence, and promote equality.

That's the point, I understand the muslim minority but I disagree with a lot of it, yet I'm racist for doing so, or so they say. So it is indeed "read: accomodate to" while the minority itself for a considerable part does not want to.

>We're people just as the majority is, and we can't understand why the majority should get special treatment when it is in no way better. It's just the majority.

And I don't get why the minority should get special treatment, *especially* considering that it's the minority.

Because once you say that the majority should be learning about them and it's the minority's obligation to learn and not the other way around and you downplay the minority's own responsibility in how it is percieved, that's special treatment.

>that'd be pretty racist. EXCEPT THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. What i said is that as the majority [read: MAJORITY], you're allowed to live in the majority rule and thus, things are in your favor. As the minority, you must live under majority rule [which is rarely, if ever, easy for the minority].

So tell me, how is it not easy (and easier) for you to live in the us when you imagine how it would most likely be in the country of origin you/your parents came from.

I don't deal in the victimhood of the minority, not in this day and age.

In the days of ML King they had good reason to moan, but not any more.

>>Slavery was/is harsh/bad/inhuman but it isn't with the intent of wiping out an entire race in conveyor belt fashion.
>>
>i would disagree. do i think it as bad as the WWII Holocaust? No. Or as the genocide in Darfur? No. But do I think that it was a systematic destruction of an entire ethnic group based on skin color? Yes.

It isn't with the intent of wiping out a race, which was the point of the holocaust. The point to slavery was slavery, the point to the holocaust was industrialised genocide.

>But the majority cannot use those words in the same way because they first used them as an offense. How can you try to support/ affirm someone's identity through the use of a word if you at one time used it to bring them pain?

Goes both ways, if it really is that offensive then either they shouldn't use it amongst themselves and then cry murder about it when it is used by somebody else.

Who's going to stop me from saying what I want to who I want. Really.

It would be a different matter when they wouldn't use it themselves, then I could refrain from using some words *by my own decision*, not enforced, but not when they still use it.

And dare I say I highly doubt it that there goes much thought into one niggah with a handkerchief around his scalp calling another guy niggah.

If they'd have half a brain they wouldn't degrade themselves. If they do, they deserve to be ridiculed.

>Dunno about Europe, but in the US, the extreme "leftist do-gooders" are looked at just about as crazy as the extreme right.

Europe is cursed with socialists. In a really bad way.

The pendulum is swinging back but due to some of the things happening during the last 2-3 years it seems like it's going to swing too much to the other side with all the consequences thereof (like the VB party).

>I semi-agree. I would hate to think that someday when someone looks at what i've been able to achieve, they'll think it's just because I'm a minority... and that's the only reason I deserve it.

Or they'll look at every "minority person" who has accomplished something thinking "poor minority, must have been really tough to get where you are, but good for you! *pat on the head*.

That's what a lot of people are putting into practice and the atmosphere a lot of minorities are (unknowingly) creating, and it degrades them to the status of pet because when you look at a black woman and think that for her it must have been harder than for a white woman then you racially stereotype both and degrade both the black woman by implying that she had a longer way to come and is therefor inferior and you degrade the white woman by downplaying her own efforts compared to other people.

>And if discrimination happens just because someone looks at me and judged me based on my race, how am I supposed to know I wasn't discriminated against? Let them tell me??

Because if they tell you to your face chances are you'll sue them.

And you're a racist for thinking that when you don't get hired there's a substantial chance that it was because the white guy was a racist. Read that again because this is the stuff people don't think about when they point fingers.

However, when the white guy thinks there's a substantial chance the black guy is lazy, that's not the same thing?

I'd say in this day and age being accused of racism in general is considered worse than being accused of being lazy.

So who's the racist.


An example I mentioned here before is a belgian case, not too long ago, where you had a family run business of people who installed electric garage doors, cameras, alarms, etc.

Their customers didn't like it when an arab or a black guy came to install it because it made them feel uneasy both during installation and after because it involved security codes and similar things and obviously the people who install it know where the weak points are.

This has nothing to do with the owners of the company being racist but with the simple reality that their clients don't like it (who base their own opinion on the simple reality that minorities commit up to 7 times more crime).

If they do not cater to the wishes of their clients chances are next time the client goes somewhere else and won't recommend them to friends and such.

So what happened was that the company did indeed notice a drop of clients specificly because of this so they stopped hiring people who weren't white or asian.

Result? Racism! Racism! Racism! And the company owners being bestowed with the sins of sodom and gommorah and nailed to the post in the news for weeks on end as the case dragged on, while from interviews it was clear that those people only acted in the interest of their average sized family business.


Another?

A few weeks ago there was a huge row over how a few couples refused to be married by some black official in some town and they demanded to be married by the major instead (which is normally the custom anyway).

I say if you don't want a black guy to do it and you're the one paying for it, then it's your right to get what you want.

>how're you "downgrading" your life by educating yourself??

Call me arrogant (you wouldn't be the first), but I consider myself to be at the very least averagly educated, particularly in these matters.

To tell me it's all because I'm not educated about this is about as valid as some religious nutcase having a case when he proves creationism because "it is written".

I am downgrading my own life because of minorities when
I have to look at arab shop signs in my own cities
I see how people flat out refuse to learn the language I speak when they come and live here but expect me to "become educated and enlightened" to see how that's all ok and how in reality, I am the asshole and the ignoramus in the equation
I see a mosque totally out of place
I have to look at women being degraded both by having to wear burka's and in hip hop culture, both of which didn't exactly sprout from white people
I have to pay along for religions I have no affinity with (as opposed to christianity which is in a considerably significant way the basis of western culture) and without having any choice in the matter and do nothing but cause friction here
I can't state basic facts like minorities commit up to 7 times more crime (which is the case for morrocans compared to flemish people) without people with about a 10th of my intelligence calling me stupid without they themselves ever having put a moment's serious thought in it
I have to hear about how poorly minorities are being treated like we're still lynching them by the thousands while in fact not having 2 cars and a flat screen tv is enough to be considered discriminated against. If you think you don't have enough money get of your ass and get an education and a job for fuck's sake. There are several hundreds of jobs open with the state for people without any type of degree, but they don't get filled in even though there are over 10 people for every spot, in those areas where it is a big problem, who are unemployed and uneducated, which is, like the prison population, a segment of society where minorities are the majority relatively speaking.
I have to pay for the welfare of huge quantities of unemployed and uneducated minorities (which might be a valid point in the US, but not where I live where education is basicly free once you go under a certain level of income, and if you're above that it means it is very affordable because it is always for the most part paid for by the state)
I have to pay for muslim teachers
I have to see women being called whores because they aren't shrouded
I have to see kids getting beaten up by "minorities" and then have to hear people spew the "it's society's fault" vomit like that actually matters a single bit once the crime is commited and it has to be punished

The list can go on nearly endlessly. The reason I'm stopping is not because I'm out of stuff but because I feel you might be getting the point and because this in itself can fill an entire thread.

>And do you have ANY idea how much minorities get downgraded?? [Again, taking into consideration we're on different continents, much less countries, this may vary [though i'm wary of it being so]].

Tell me

>minorities have done that; however, you seem bent on this idea that the minority doesn't.

How? By also wanting to be mass consumers? How thoughtful of them. I should applaud the willingness of a minority to also have an actual house and a car instead of a straw house and a cart pulled by a skinny mule?

>1. that was the grossest [pun!] exaggeration EVER.

Ha. I try.

>2. you can say whatever you want; just be prepared for consequences. and that's how life is.

Alright fair enough, but if you want to play the game that way I say to you in response that how life actually is, is survival of the fittest more than it is saying something and facing the consequences, so if you're a minority: tough luck and keep your trap shut because I'm the majority and the only reason you're living past the age of 40 is because the majority allows you to live here instead of the hell on earth you fled from.

That's how life is.

But, instead of that, we go against how life normally is and we live in a civilised society, unlike many others.

And here we say that if you're a minority you have the same rights, no more, no less, and as part of our civilisation we say that unlike how life in the jungle is, any person can say anything he or she wants without having to fear imprisonment, physical harm or loss of livelihood.

>3. demand what? understanding? equality?

I don't believe in equality.

Fact of the matter is, if in a region you're of a minority culture then by default you are not equal to the majority culture on their own territory.

>if the intent is to slander a race and that statistic is being portrayed in such a way as to help the argument, you should be considering the argument in total.

I don't see how a credible statistic can in any way be considered slander.

>ex: two women accepted into college, one white and the other black. the white woman receives a letter asking if she would mind having a black roommate. she later tells her black roommate what the letter said. the black roommate, furious, goes to the dean and asks for an explanation. the dean says, "I'm sorry. We shouldn't have asked if she would have minded rooming with a black woman." The student replies, "No. You should have asked me if I would have minded rooming with a white woman." Equality.]

Sure, I think something like the above is perfectly morally correct and legitimate.

Except when they're making use of scholarships.

>>If it is truly that bad they're free to leave just as they or their parents were free to come here.
>
>for some reason, you always say this and i always reply the same. just because you're unhappy with a system doesn't mean you turn tail and run from it. you try to change it for the better.

No but the fact that it isn't bad enough to make people go back to where they originate from probably means that it isn't as bad as many make it out to be.

>no. because it promotes unity and brotherhood. [cheesy, but true] with understand comes a better chance at peace with one another. and isn't that what we want?

Not really no.

I have no intention or reason to long for unity and brotherhood with somebody who brings another culture over here with the explicit refusal to for the full 100% adapt to the one that applies here.

And by that I mean for example when people start and put limits on what I can say and think as a member of the cultural majority.

>not exactly. it'd be like a poor white guy saying he renounces his privilege as a white man and wants true equality between races.

I don't believe in equality and I never will.

Just like I don't believe in communism and never will.

Everybody who craves for equality does so for egotistical and opportunistic reasons, it's as simple as that.

At least I'm being honest about it when I say I don't want another culture here out of egotistical reasons because I don't feel like lowering my own comfort and well being for the sake of somebody else, and there's nothing anybody can do about that. Even I couldn't change that, even if I wanted to.

>they limit it by reacting to your actions. and you could respond with similar actions. and then the world would be in chaos. so the question is who bends and where and when. you say the minority where it's the minority when it's the minority. i say the majority when it's the majority when the minority has already bended.

I say that the majority has no reason to bend, and more importantly, no obligation. If they do "bend" it's out of benevolence, not because they *have* to because when it comes down to it the majority can put its foot down and that'd be the end of it.

>and don't even SAY the majority "owns the land" or some crap like that. native americans owned the land and WERE the majority until the minority came in and pushed them out.

Yeah, but that's "how life is", isn't it?

Tough luck, dances with buffalo.

Which is why western people should be careful not to let history repeat itself to their disadvantage.

>i really don't see what's so hard about this... equality all around. if it's there, it's golden. if not, it should be.

As long as I, or anybody like me lives you'll never get your equality, you damn commy.

(meant in good fun ;o)

>because, since you're so big on freedom, people are allowed to believe what they want based on that mode of philosophy. and [perhaps it's different in Europe] many minorities DO adapt and DO understand/ embrace majority culture, but at the same time, the majority should seek to do the same. i think this should go for any country.

I am big on freedom, and I also believe that if you want to be a muslim/whatever, fine, but don't demand from your eployer that he gives you extra days off and gives you extra free time during the day to do your prayers or make demands that other people build mosques for you and then cry havoc of how people aren't accepting you when you are the one who refuses to adapt in the first place.

I'm not a believer in multiculturalism and I don't believe that western culture should mingle with others, it diludes and it will lead to identity loss and a downgrade of our culture.

Because yes, I truly believe that at this point in time all other cultures are inferior to the western one. If you want to know why look around you.

>>Did I just say a bad thing for calling islam inferior?
>>
>yes. in my opinion. in yours?? i really wouldn't know.

So tell me how it is not inferior when it means sharia, terrorism, unity of church and state, dictatorship, backwardness and a total loss of the self in a group with all the heinous results of that.

>but part of democracy is the representation of EVERYONE, right?

Sure, but it also means that the minority has absolutely no basis to make demands, and everything that is granted to it is not because they demand it but because the majority simply gives it.

>and i'm SO sure "allah akbar when slaughtering animals without sedation" is the perfect summary of Islamic beliefs.

Actually in a way it does, because being a muslim means you should eat halal food.

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

>Or better yet, my favorite summary by Islam-specialist Dr. Christophe, "how to blow myself up to get some virgins, since women are a commodity anyway and allah seems to have a few extra lying around somewhere."

Lol. Specialist, no. Informed, yes.

I'll just assume you can spot sarcasm when it looks you in the eye, and get the point I was making.

>Right. What do you need to learn about culture? You seem to UNDERSTAND it so well.

Militarism is an integral part of muslim culture. Just like criminality is an integral part of modern black culture.


 
FN Posted: Sun Apr 15 19:04:01 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I'm guessing it isn't that much different from the average chinese girl or the images I get from Asian cities must be extremely misleading that way.

By that I mean the average chinese girl who lives in a chinese city, the ones on the country out of the equation for a second as they're far less likely to have the means to get out of there, or a japanese girl living in a japanese city, whichever you prefer.


 
FN Posted: Sun Apr 15 19:43:01 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:
>Deal with it.
>you can't change your skin color, but you DO have a say in what comes out of your mouth.
>ONCE AGAIN, you can't change your race and you can't change the expression of it. hence, the rule doesn't apply. but you CAN control what defecation you decide to allow out of your mouth.
>i agree. we shouldn't be suspect to some opinion. but we should be suspect to justice. throwing someone in jail or firing him for something he can't help is disgusting and wrong. but if it's something he COULD help then he should be suspect to consequences because he has an active choice in the matter.

Alright fair enough.

Then accept that if you're going to name your kid muhammed he isn't going to get a job and wearing a burka means not being accepted into society.

>then what's to keep us from lying?

What's keeping us now?

>>If stuff like that can knock you off your feet, how "strong" are you then, really?
>>
>and it's not a matter of "sticks and stones" either. it's a matter of racism manifested in culture and being approved.

Did imus came up with the term "ho's" when talking about black women?

>i wouldn't want my media containing such things either. like... really, why would he say that? what GOOD reason did he have?

Who are you to decide what can be in the media and what not.

To you it is unacceptable, to me it's a basic right. I'm the majority, you're the minority. Where does that leave us.

>common courtesy for your fellow man.

Common courtesy would be to take over the culture you come to. Here there's freedom of speech, deal with it instead of seriously considering putting limits on it.

>>Like how when you say that black guys commit more violent crimes

>but that problem isn't so simple

Who gives a fuck once the crime has been committed?

>But don't you dare say race because in that case, every young black male should be a criminal.

My point is that if you say black guys probably are better at sports on average, it's all good, if you say they're more prone to commit crimes, or you say that on average white and asian people seem to be more intelligent you should be executed.

>>It's like saying "look the house is on fire", but instead of helping to put the fire out you grab the owner, who's children are still inside, so he can't move to tell him that the house is on fire but that's because the wood was dry and it isn't the wood's fault.
>>
>
>this is the most convolute and ridiculous use of a metaphor i've ever seen. and i've made a few doozies in my day.

Again, I try ;o)

>BUT, you can't just stop crime by simply "stopping it." what do you do? go around and kill everyone who commits a crime? that's pretty messed up [Boondock Saints style].

Meh, you say it is, I say every rapist and sadistic murderer should be put down.

>but i'm saying that the cause of crime needs to be found.

And I'm saying that's all well but that's not something that is of any value once some guy has killed or raped somebody yet people like you still bring it up every single time which leads the discussion away from the situation at hand.

>and i think a part of it is related to things that glorify crime [btw, it's not only gangsta rap. crime movies? [when i think of gangsta rap, i think of "shoot the police" or robbing stores, etc. when it comes to REALLY violent stuff, i think of heavy metal [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/k/korn/kill+you_20080258.html] [which, incidentally has parallels to the Doors song, "The End."]]]

http://home.att.net/~phosphor/introtogrammys.html

>plus, gang culture is a culture of its own [which would explain why all ethnic groups get caught up in it]

You're going to deny the direct links between black and gang culture?

>now i understand the metaphor. and it doesn't work because to stop crime, you need to find the cause... i think i already said this.

You will never stop crime. And you will certainly never stop it by making up excuses for it.

For every excuse there is for criminal behaviour there are literally hundreds of people dealing with the exact same stuff who do stay on the straight path.

So to me, the whole "reasons behind" theory is completely out of the equation when you have to deal with gang wars for example.

>don't really speak brotherhood, unity, and nationalism to me... but maybe that's just me.]

That's because brotherhood with empoverished minorities only benefits the minorities which is why they're so keen on it and the majority usually isn't, but they're the only ones being called egotistical.

>or anarchy. but that's not what i meant. democracy [to me] is where all groups are represented fairly and have an equal say when it comes to approving laws made [at least].

That's not democracy at all. That would mean that a minority has just as much to say as the majority.

>as people, we should have more respect than that for each other.

Ah, there we are.

Should, would, yadda yadda yadda, welcome to reality.

How much respect does a gangsta have towards the hands that feed him?

>>Some rationality and insight in human nature can go a long way.
>
>Haha. And some respect for fellow man and at least SOME belief in solidarity could go a long way in making the world a better place.

In theory yes, in practice no.

>Here's where I'm facetious and say, "Which is more important? Arguing about politics or creating a better world?"

That doesn't have any relevance at all.

>And here's where I open another can of worms and say, "Or does one necessarily entail the other?"

I don't care about creating a better world, I care about sustaining and improving my own lifestyle and that of the people like me.

The rest of the world can do whatever they feel like, and they can even come here and join the party, but on the terms that apply here and not on their own.

You can't come unto a soccer field and claim being out of bounds doesn't apply to you when everybody else says that it does and that is how soccer is played.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sun Apr 15 21:33:02 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>innocenceNonus said:
>
>>hahaha. i don't think you suffer from anti-minoritysm as much as pro-womenismismism.
>
>I think you're right, doc.
>Is there hope for me, or is this a terminal sickness?

as long as women and men have reproductive organs, i'm afraid you'll be suffering this disease


 
DanSRose Posted: Sun Apr 15 23:57:56 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  But what's the endgame? Is it tangible? Is it how most people of our generation (I think innocence we're about the same age) don't think of race of anything more than fashion and clothing? (I'm perpetually jealous that my best friend Adam, who've been close as brothers from the 3rd grade, can wear those awesome Kanga hats while I just look "special" when I wear them, or can I not say "special"?) Our generation thinks of racism as atavism and those of the Klan or any racist group, no matter what color they are, as Neanderthals. Wasn't that the original endgame?



 
innocenceNonus Posted: Mon Apr 16 02:42:36 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>So you're basicly opposing yourself compared to when I first said that black culture glorifies crime and everything surrounding it and you said that there are thousands that have no connection to it.

i have no idea how what i said is a contradiction. City culture isn't the same as gang culture. [A part of city culture/ characteristic would be the high population density...]

>I'd say culture (ergo ethics) are more influential than your socio economic status. There are plenty of decent poor people, I don't agree that the same is true for people who take pride in calling themselves a "gangsta".
>

i would say both are influential since one plays into the other. as for "gangsta" culture, i think certain aspects have negative impacts [like those that glorify violence or abuse/ objectification of women [not every aspect of "gangsta" culture does this].

>
>Hip hop culture *is* black culture, with about 1 non-black "artist" to what, 200 black ones?
>

that's like saying all rectangles are squares. they're not the same thing.

what about Black literature? Art? Dance? all of those = hip-hop? i think not. are there common threads? possibly. but definitely not the same thing.

>See, I don't agree with that. Because when you say culture education it means it will be enforced through the educational system and that's indoctrination.
>

WHAT?! how is that indoctrination? providing students with a more balanced view of the world [or even a multi-faceted view as a opposed to a one-sided view] is indoctrination?

>I for one don't deem it acceptable to serve halal food at catholic schools, or to have seperate islam teachers.
>

we keep religion and state separate [supposedly]... i dunno how they do it in Europe, but in the US, ppl would throw a fit if anything Christian were to go into our schools as part of the curriculum. but i'm not talking about teaching religions; i'm talking about culture. religion is a part of culture, but it's not the one defining aspect.

>Kids have more than enough courses here, I don't know how it works in the states, but when I have kids I don't want important subjects to be blotted out by being forced to study islam.
>

it may not HAVE to be required, but it should be an open option to high school students at least.

if you're talking about college courses, I believe the culture ones are called "ethnic studies." careful not the take those! they'll waste your time.

>Having to think about that when you see an asian person is just as racist as asking wether they speak english.
>

i don't mean he should think about whether or not he's being racist [though he should for respect and manners sake]. he shouldn't have had to think whether we spoke english at all. i dunno if you caught this, but NINETY SEVEN PERCENT OF AMERICA SPEAKS ENGLISH. That's THREE out of every HUNDRED people who don't speak it. And you're telling me that the only people who drive poorly are non-English speakers?? Are you joking?

>Fair enough, I'm not familiar with how it is dealt with in the US, but when you say he should see it by the way you dress and such, I'm guessing it isn't that much different from the average chinese girl or the images I get from Asian cities must be extremely misleading that way. Same goes for the music. Not all people who go to an opera understand german or italian.
>

When someone dresses in an American fashion, you can tell. If i were to put the picture of a stereotypical "American" outfit on an asian girl next to an asian girl decked out in asian street fare, you could definitely spot who wasn't "assimilated." [I hate that term.]

Saying, "Not all people who go to an opera understand german or italian," within this context would be like saying not every teenager in America who listens to Britney Spears understands English. in a very unlikely chance, it could be true. but it's SO unlikely that no one would normally think that.

just like the statistics show that it's 97% likely we'd speak English... if we're going by what makes the most sense, he shouldn't have needed to ask us that question. If you're going to try and say that because we're Asian-american and he somehow just COULD NOT tell we spoke english/ were "assimilated" [gack], I'd also like to point out that 71% of Asian-Americans are native-born or have citizenships. That's nothing to say of those who have immigrated here and have flawless English [still undergoing naturalization process] or those who simply know the language [of which there are quite a few, given that English is a staple language needed for international business and education]. there just ISN'T a good reason for a that question except ignorance. which is a good reason, but a bad one in the sense that it's a reason at all.

>
>That's the point, I understand the muslim minority but I disagree with a lot of it, yet I'm racist for doing so, or so they say. So it is indeed "read: accomodate to" while the minority itself for a considerable part does not want to.
>

how could you disagree with culture? that's like saying you disagree with people of certain hair colors or socioeconomic backgrounds [though both may entail their own separate cultures in a way]. also, if you really understood muslim culture [Note: knowing the fundamental beliefs does NOT mean you understand something. people who know that Christianity is the worship of Jesus and the belief that He's God on Earth doesn't mean people understand Christianity], you might disagree with parts of it, but you'd definitely have more constructive things to say about improving race relations than "us or them."

>And I don't get why the minority should get special treatment, *especially* considering that it's the minority.
>

the minority isn't asking for special treatment. we're asking for equality. the problem is, how do you ensure that?

>Because once you say that the majority should be learning about them and it's the minority's obligation to learn and not the other way around and you downplay the minority's own responsibility in how it is percieved, that's special treatment.
>

that's not at all what i'm saying. understanding something doesn't make it any less or more than what it is. it means fully understanding it. of course the minority is responsible for it's perceived; you think we don't know that with the majority constantly reminding, much less our OWN people?

if I could only COUNT the number of times I've been told, "You represent a member of our race. BEHAVE." Ever hear a white mother say that to her kids? lol. No... because they don't have to worry about that.

>
>So tell me, how is it not easy (and easier) for you to live in the us when you imagine how it would most likely be in the country of origin you/your parents came from.
>

ok. for the uncountable time i've mentioned this, i'm not saying that it would be easier in my parent's native country. but i AM saying that i'm not happy with the country i was BORN IN and that i've been loyal to my whole life. and i want to change it. and as a citizen, i have that right to move for political change because i am unhappy. and my parents have a right to also [even though they won't exercise it because they've been shown that being a minority and speaking out gets you in "trouble"] because they likewise have put their loyalty and tax money and sweat into this country.

and how is it NOT easier? well, luckily not for us [being my parents and i], but many minorities have to worry about housing discrimination. job discrimination. discrimination at school, at competitions, in court, at the grocery store... basically anywhere and everywhere.

y'know, one time this eldery white woman left her wallet at the same cash register my mom was at. my mom followed her to give it back, and the woman, kid you not, glared at my mother. didn't say a word to her; just took it back and looked in it. WHAT IS THAT?! you're telling me that would have happened if my mother was a white woman?? i doubt it. and say this old woman was serious and called down security. not only would my mother have been shamed in front of the ENTIRE store, but the guards would have had to detain her while looking for video. watch the video. show the old woman. the old woman would have gotten embarrassed. and after a while [hours, maybe more maybe less], my mom could go home. why? because some white woman thought my mother was trying to jack her purse.

>I don't deal in the victimhood of the minority, not in this day and age.
>
>In the days of ML King they had good reason to moan, but not any more.
>

yeah... poor housing and schools and neighborhoods that lack services the city is responsible [services that occur everywhere else] is really awesome. why complain? your child using science textbooks printed twenty years ago is totally cool.

>It isn't with the intent of wiping out a race, which was the point of the holocaust. The point to slavery was slavery, the point to the holocaust was industrialised genocide.
>

if the point of slavery was slavery, why were slaves not kept in the ancient roman fashion? and if slavery was for slavery, why target men and women of a specific race? while the outright purpose of slavery was not to KILL men and women physically, it did the job every other way possible. sometimes, it DID do the job of killing them. these people were treated as animals; not human beings. how is that not another form of killing someone?

>Goes both ways, if it really is that offensive then either they shouldn't use it amongst themselves and then cry murder about it when it is used by somebody else.
>

apparently, you don't understand how it's not the same thing. it'd be like someone taking a saw and beating you with it. then, you take the saw and use it to escape from the chains and shackle with which they held you. how'd you feel if the same person took the same saw and waved it at you in a friendly manner?

>And dare I say I highly doubt it that there goes much thought into one niggah with a handkerchief around his scalp calling another guy niggah.
>

it doesn't take thought to use a word. but the meaning of words can change. and they're using the word with different meaning in order to affirm the positive meaning.

>If they'd have half a brain they wouldn't degrade themselves. If they do, they deserve to be ridiculed.
>

mmm. and if other people had a brain at all, minorities wouldn't have been degraded in the first place.

>Or they'll look at every "minority person" who has accomplished something thinking "poor minority, must have been really tough to get where you are, but good for you! *pat on the head*.
>

but the fact of the matter is that it IS harder for MOST minorities to rise up in the world. and for a minority to rise IS an accomplishment. but the congratulations is not said with an air of condescension of self-righteousness but rather of solidarity. it's not about "helping the poor guy." it's about making things equal.

>That's what a lot of people are putting into practice and the atmosphere a lot of minorities are (unknowingly) creating, and it degrades them to the status of pet because when you look at a black woman and think that for her it must have been harder than for a white woman then you racially stereotype both and degrade both the black woman by implying that she had a longer way to come and is therefor inferior and you degrade the white woman by downplaying her own efforts compared to other people.
>

ok. i think something should be made clear here: I'm in no way saying minorities were MADE less competent. I'm saying the majority system within which they're working is harder to achieve in because the system is not made for EVERYONE but for the majority. which is understandable. but add in prejudice and you have unnecessary obstacles which must be further overcome. and i think we can all agree that prejudice/ bigotry is a problem.

i don't see how that would make the minority inferior. the minority is made inferior by the majority rule [which, again, understandable [even if i don't think it's right]].

as for degrading the majority, not saying that either. simply saying that the system is built for the majority. you can't deny that. and because it's built for the majority, it's going to be easier for the majority.

example: you want world in which it is based upon what you think is right and what you want, right? but what about other people who disagree but live in the same world? who gets the say in what's right and wrong and how to do things? if the world is built your way, of course it's easier for you. that's not to say you won't work or whatever, but it's still built to accommodate YOU. but those who disagree with you will undoubtedly have a harder time within your system. so how to compromise? affirmative action, etc etc.


>Because if they tell you to your face chances are you'll sue them.
>

uhh... that wasn't what i meant. the question i was raising is who should you believe when it comes to the matter of what discrimination. the majority or the minority? would the majority fault itself for the sake of the minority?

btw, it didn't until the minority said something. [Note: Civil Rights Movement]

>And you're a racist for thinking that when you don't get hired there's a substantial chance that it was because the white guy was a racist. Read that again because this is the stuff people don't think about when they point fingers.
>

hahaha. you're kidding... right? you think i'd rather blame someone for hating my skin color than think it's my own fault? You really think that I'd rather believe someone was so sinister and hated me for such a DUMB reason than believe I messed up and they actually disliked me for a GOOD reason?

on the bottom line, most of us are about the same. we want to believe in the good in people. we want to believe that the person we were going to trust as our boss doesn't have a racist bone in their body.

but sometimes, certain things happen that tell you different. sometimes, old women glare at you when you return their puses and sometimes cops think you don't speak English even though there's no reason for either to happen.

do some individuals cry wolf? yes. does it cheapen an incident when it really happens? Yes. But does it mean it doesn't happen? No.

And chances are, most racist events aren't even reported. I've never seen a single racist action in my life reported. Not when my friend was being hit in the head; not when the nerdy asian kid was being stopped in the hall. Just because those cases are highly painted by the media doesn't mean they're the only cases.

>However, when the white guy thinks there's a substantial chance the black guy is lazy, that's not the same thing?
>

depends. if he has good reason, okay. but if he doesn't and it's just bigotry [plus the fact that he'd give the same break to a white guy with the same characteristics], that's messed up. not saying he HAS to hire the black guy [i think he should, just for the record]. just saying that the mentality is highly messed up.

>I'd say in this day and age being accused of racism in general is considered worse than being accused of being lazy.
>

no kidding. that's why i hear more people accused of being lazy than i do racist.

>If they do not cater to the wishes of their clients chances are next time the client goes somewhere else and won't recommend them to friends and such.
>

but now you're going into the question of ethics within the workplace. do you sacrifice your own morals for the sake of profit.

ex: my dad's boss' wife [who kinda half-owns the company anyway] noticed that the boss had his eyes on a pretty, new employee. she told my dad to fire the girl out of jealousy.

should my dad have done it, forsaking his morals and beliefs?
or should he have said no and quit, losing profit and possibly putting his family into bankruptcy/ welfare/ homelessness?

for me, i consider beliefs/ personality the most sacred thing to a person. beyond anything else. because that's what makes each person an individual [in my opinion]. so to forsake that, to me... i dunno. it's sad.

>I say if you don't want a black guy to do it and you're the one paying for it, then it's your right to get what you want.
>

it is your right to get what you want. but that doesn't mean you're not racist. i mean, if they had a good reason [like the official being a child molester [hahaha, jk!]], i'd be more understanding about it. but just because?? what is that?!

>To tell me it's all because I'm not educated about this is about as valid as some religious nutcase having a case when he proves creationism because "it is written".
>

being educated is a step toward understanding. by my definition of education, i mean for it to be done so understanding is achieved [or viable].

>The list can go on nearly endlessly. The reason I'm stopping is not because I'm out of stuff but because I feel you might be getting the point and because this in itself can fill an entire thread.
>

I understand most of the things you're talking about, and I get that. but I don't see how you coming to understand a minority's culture would cause you to be downgraded. Understanding doesn't come from a building or learning a language. There's more to it.

Note: Most people on welfare in the US are Caucasian, but most people unemployed [in comparison to race proportions] are Black.

Actually, take a look at this interesting little tidbit:

"However, the proportion
of non-Hispanic White men
employed in managerial and professional
specialty occupations (33 percent)
was higher than that of Black
men (18 percent). A larger proportion
of non-Hispanic White men than
Black men were employed in precision
production, craft, and repair
jobs (19 percent and 14 percent,
respectively). However, Black men
were more than twice as likely as
non-Hispanic White men to work in
service occupations (19 percent and
8 percent, respectively). They were
nearly twice as likely (28 percent
compared with 16 percent) to be
operators, fabricators, and laborers."

>Tell me

aside from our men being called effeminate and gay and our women consistently portrayed in disgusting stereotypes [asians], aside from having to deal with inexplicable hate at a young age, aside from having to consistently think about the "image" we represent for our race, aside from how often i've seen black people stereotyped with watermelon, or chicken and waffles/ beer, or asians with slanty eyes [thanks to abercrombie, two wongs make it white], or having my name practically be ching chang chong, or hearing poorly spouted indian accents, or hearing people confuse hinduism with islam, aside from having to watch a children's show proclaim that asian boys at the age of [what... 13?!] are betrothed by an arranged marriage, aside from all the jobs and opportunities and homes and livelihoods we've been denied, aside from having to explain that KOREA is not in CHINA, aside from having to explain that not ALL asians are chinese or korean or japanese, aside from having been asked SEVERAL times if i spoke english, if my mother spoke english, aside from having to watch my own parents DEGRADED, aside from KNOWING that my parents [the wisest people i know] have been degraded and have done NOTHING, aside from knowing that other kids have felt as i have and have felt hate as i have, aside from my fellow minorities who have been stereotyped as lazy, slow, incompetent, useless, inept, stubborn, women-haters, or weak, aside from my fellow minorities that have had people look at them with fear just because they're a big black man, aside from people using stereotypes when they don't even KNOW what minority someone is, aside from people who used stereotypes on me that don't even make sense, aside from people not even taking the time to REALIZE the difference between what's presented and what's true, aside from the numbers that don't match up, aside from the majority telling us who we need to be in order to fit in and our heritage telling us who to be in order to be true to ourselves, aside from people devouring stereotypes and the media perpetuating them, aside from every time some girl has been hit on just because the guy has a thing for "asians" or "black girls" or "latinas" and not because of her personality, aside from every new degrading term made to describe someone who's a minority, aside from every time someone has assumed i'm one of those cursed asian women stereotypes, aside from every time i've heard asian women objectified [surprisingly [or not] only by white men], aside from every time i've seen an asian guy get the hose for a less attractive and personality-lacking white guy, aside from every time i've been told that racism is not a problem, aside from every time i've been told "i'm not racist" after someone just said a blatantly racist comment, aside from everyone telling me i should just go study instead of telling me to go away, aside from everyone telling me i have a flat face, aside from everyone making fun of my parents' accents, aside from every time minorities have been made to feel like we don't belong, aside from every time minorities have been hated simply because of our skin color, because of something we can't change,

no. don't really got much to say.

>How? By also wanting to be mass consumers? How thoughtful of them. I should applaud the willingness of a minority to also have an actual house and a car instead of a straw house and a cart pulled by a skinny mule?
>

no. but we have learned the majority languages and culture. at least in the US. i highly doubt every minority you've run into only speaks their native tongue and only spends their time being distinctly within their culture and hating on the country. what percentage of your country doesn't speak any of the official languages?

>Alright fair enough, but if you want to play the game that way I say to you in response that how life actually is, is survival of the fittest more than it is saying something and facing the consequences, so if you're a minority: tough luck and keep your trap shut because I'm the majority and the only reason you're living past the age of 40 is because the majority allows you to live here instead of the hell on earth you fled from.
>
>That's how life is.

hahaha. two different things. one is where you're responsible for something you can control; another, you cannot. plus, minorities [at least in the US] are fairly well-behaved. [in my opinion]

>And here we say that if you're a minority you have the same rights, no more, no less, and as part of our civilisation we say that unlike how life in the jungle is, any person can say anything he or she wants without having to fear imprisonment, physical harm or loss of livelihood.
>

in that case, minorities should be allowed the same thing, shouldn't they?

>Fact of the matter is, if in a region you're of a minority culture then by default you are not equal to the majority culture on their own territory.
>

uhhh... i coulda SWORN i said this before. oh, i did. but i'm saying that this is wrong. why? because i don't think it's right to demand a culture lose their culture and pick up another in order to have a livelihood. freedom of speech? what about freedom of culture? does that not exist in theory?

>I don't see how a credible statistic can in any way be considered slander.
>
statistics can be presented and twisted in such a way as to mean something other than what they really do.

>Except when they're making use of scholarships.

how does that work?

>No but the fact that it isn't bad enough to make people go back to where they originate from probably means that it isn't as bad as many make it out to be.
>

No. it IS bad. just not as bad as it COULD be. and if we're talking about minorities as an international problem, we better start switching tables and start talking about white ppl and the war in Iraq. i'm talking about racism and how it works within the confines of a country.

this argument is already so out-of-hand that expanding it to a global comparison scale would drive it up the wall.

[btw, summer flashbacks]

>Not really no.

Wow, what a negative Nancy.

>I have no intention or reason to long for unity and brotherhood with somebody who brings another culture over here with the explicit refusal to for the full 100% adapt to the one that applies here.

People do adapt. But they want to retain part of their culture at the same time; their culture is a part of their identity. To ask someone to give up their culture completely is to ask them to give a part of themselves up. And so long as they "assimilate," why should they have to give up their native history?

>Everybody who craves for equality does so for egotistical and opportunistic reasons, it's as simple as that.

It's not so much material equality as it is equal respect and equal opportunity. Everyone can have the wealth they work for; however, people should similarly be "honest" in the sense that by restricting people to less of an education and a system that does nothing for them, it's [like you love] for egotistical and opportunistic reasons.

Personally, I think equality would be nice. And that's not egotistical or opportunistic. It's a chance for other people to have a chance; and I actually have no reason to want the system to change other than I think it's not completely justified. While a minority, I'm a favored minority. I get lavished with good stereotypes, and I've been able to do a lot of things.

So am I complaining just to blow hot air? My parents think so. But I do it because the problem remains that this system generates hate and dissonance. And that I just can't okay.

>Even I couldn't change that, even if I wanted to.

True but tragic. It seems as if the world is balanced by gain and loss. One person's loss is somehow another's gain.

>I say that the majority has no reason to bend, and more importantly, no obligation.

The majority's reason to bend is the fact that they were once the minority. [Maybe not in Europe, but it's true in the US] And that they at one point were discriminated. And it's not a good feeling, much less an environment for peace.

Equality might not be so big to you, but it's pretty big here in the US... mostly because of the idea ingrained into our heads since childhood that the US constitution guarantees equality for all. And so, since childhood, I'd believed that as a whole America believed that. But as i grew older, I realized it didn't. And now, I want that to change.

>If they do "bend" it's out of benevolence...

In a way, yes. I'd argue more out of social responsibility. And it's possible for the majority to ignore that responsibility and ignore whatever minorities have contributed to it and continue in its opposite way...

Sometimes I wonder if differing viewpoints are not so much that we're all trying to find the best way for the future so much as we're exhibiting our pasts.

>Which is why western people should be careful not to let history repeat itself to their disadvantage.

i knew you were going to bring this up. but shouldn't western people acknowledge that hostile takeover of someone else's lands was... oh, mmm, say... not so ethical?

>(meant in good fun ;o)

always.

i had a chance previously to write a really biting line. sorry i didn't do it now, but i'm too lazy to go back and find it.

and no worries, chris. as long as us commies are breathing, we'll never give you a minute of peace or breath.

>I am big on freedom, and I also believe that if you want to be a muslim/whatever, fine, but don't demand from your eployer that he gives you extra days off and gives you extra free time during the day to do your prayers...
>

How can you say someone has freedom of religion when you take part of their livelihood away for practicing it?

>I'm not a believer in multiculturalism and I don't believe that western culture should mingle with others, it diludes and it will lead to identity loss and a downgrade of our culture.

Hey... the KKK called. They want you to pay 50 cents for using their copy-righted motto. : )

>So tell me how it is not inferior when it means sharia, terrorism, unity of church and state, dictatorship, backwardness and a total loss of the self in a group with all the heinous results of that.
>

those aren't the only things it means. just like a majority of muslims aren't terrorists.

>Actually in a way it does, because being a muslim means you should eat halal food.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal
>

how cheeky.

i suppose all other aspects of islam don't matter then. just eating halal food.

>I'll just assume you can spot sarcasm when it looks you in the eye, and get the point I was making.

can i get the point? yes. can i agree? no. instead, i resolve myself to fight and lament and punch myself in the debate face.

>Militarism is an integral part of muslim culture. Just like criminality is an integral part of modern black culture.

Umm... what? Just how much muslim and black culture do you actually expose yourself to?

I could see how those are traits in some areas of the culture, but i would say that neither is marked by them. First off, a culture is so big that for either of those qualities to run the full gamut of the culture, Muslim people would always be intent on hostile takeovers and black people would always be causing crimes.

Don't say, "They are." You know there are those [a majority of them] who do not. So if those are such intrinsic parts of the culture, how can you explain the majority of the minority that doesn't follow it?


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Mon Apr 16 02:49:52 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>But what's the endgame? Is it tangible?

I think it is... finding it's the problem. hahaha.

>Our generation thinks of racism as atavism and those of the Klan or any racist group, no matter what color they are, as Neanderthals. Wasn't that the original endgame?
>

I would say no. Because racism is, in my opinion, being perpetuated through our culture. It'd be one thing if people actually didn't see race. But the problem is that people do.

And as long as that's happening and that's what we're teaching our children, no endgame.

But the peril at this stage is that if we apply that to ourselves now [as in, everyone says "I don't see race!" we're just ignoring our problem. Because people DO see race, and we can't help it because that's what we've been taught at this stage.]


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Mon Apr 16 04:00:31 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Then accept that if you're going to name your kid muhammed he isn't going to get a job and wearing a burka means not being accepted into society.
>

"you can't change your race and you can't change the expression of it"

granted, you have a certain point with the name. a parent could easily change a child's name to provide him a seemingly easier life. but then the question becomes one of whether this practice would be wrong or right.

>What's keeping us now?

for me, common courtesy. golden rule. Jesus [hahahahaha]. The belief that truth does win out in the end [even if the end is a long ways off].

>Did imus came up with the term "ho's" when talking about black women?

no. but it's offensive and using it approves its use. and by not giving him adverse consequences, it'd be like approving what he's done. [btw, you've argued something similar against the muslim community and how they do "nothing" against terrorists]

>Who are you to decide what can be in the media and what not.

hahaha. no one. BUT, personal opinions aside, he had no good reason to say it. except that he wanted to spew doodoo out of his mouth and look like an idiot. and then get "punished" for it.

>To you it is unacceptable, to me it's a basic right.

yup. but i acknowledge his right to say it. i'm just saying that, personally, i think he got what he deserved. and that in a way he asked for it.

>I'm the majority, you're the minority. Where does that leave us.

like everything else when it's majority vs. minority. you win and i lose.

>Here there's freedom of speech, deal with it instead of seriously considering putting limits on it.

i'm not putting limits on it. he can still make a livelihood, although not at the same job. now, if he were to say something and they were to remove any chance of livelihood, i'd say that's a little much. but i'm wont not to be sympathetic to public figures in general.

>My point is that if you say black guys probably are better at sports on average, it's all good, if you say they're more prone to commit crimes, or you say that on average white and asian people seem to be more intelligent you should be executed.
>

yes and no. if it's a legit stat, i don't care. but if it's just saying stuff with no legit backing, i think you should find something more substantial. as for saying stats that bring people down rather than build them up, it's an individual's prerogative. doesn't mean you're not a negative Nancy though.

>Meh, you say it is, I say every rapist and sadistic murderer should be put down.
>

sometimes i really wonder about you, christophe... but it's okay. because i'm the minority and you're the majority.

thus, you always win.

>And I'm saying that's all well but that's not something that is of any value once some guy has killed or raped somebody yet people like you still bring it up every single time which leads the discussion away from the situation at hand.
>

Finding the cause can help find something to stop it. And it's brought up every time because it's not being done. Instead, everyone likes to focus on his race rather than other information that could be truly important... like family life.

>You're going to deny the direct links between black and gang culture?

yes. because black culture is NOT the same a gang culture. gangsta rap [not all of which is black men rapping, btw] is only a small part of it. you think the only thing driving these kids is gangsta rap??

>So to me, the whole "reasons behind" theory is completely out of the equation when you have to deal with gang wars for example.

apparently, finding out the reasons causing something to stop it is the same as finding examples??

as for gang wars, people involved typically end up dead or in jail or they turn their life around. either way, it's not completely out of the question. maybe the reason crimes continue to happen is because things are rarely done to find/ fix the causes.

>That's because brotherhood with empoverished minorities only benefits the minorities which is why they're so keen on it

how does that benefit them?! you think they WANT to be poor and lack a solid education? you think that kids actually think gangs are FUN?!

>How much respect does a gangsta have towards the hands that feed him?

well, my guess is that he believes he's feeding himself through whatever profit his crime turns. and he believes that he has to turn to crime because society/ "no one" cares about him. at least, that's what i've gotten from documentaries and talking to a few ex-convicts.

>You can't come unto a soccer field and claim being out of bounds doesn't apply to you when everybody else says that it does and that is how soccer is played.

but that's not what's happening. what's happening is you're telling one of your team mates that he's wrong/ sucks because he isn't playing the way you want him to [even though you guys are still winning].










AND on a side note: class tomorrow. and it's already late.

because of lack of time and too many classes, i submit the following:

Majority wins and minority loses. Always.

Interpret it how you will, but that's the way it is right now.

And I shall post no more.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]