NationStates Jolt Archive

Way to take Cat's ironic statement WAY out of context.

Not a greater advantage, it stives to level levels of privelage. The concept of "privelage" goes beyond the isolated incident where AA is employed; it is merely an (imperfect) mechanism to redress existing inequalities.
No it does not! Why is it automatically assumed that if you are black, you must have lived in a bad neighborhood, went to bad schools, etc. Last I;ve heard, living in bad conditions doesn't automatically turn your skin black, and living in good conditions doesn't turn it white. Sure the average black is worse off than white, but that doesn't mean that ALL blacks are worse off than whites, while ALL blacks get affirmative action. Collin Powel's kids, who are black, are much better off than me(white). But yet they still get affirmative action over me. SO not only am I disadanvataged because I didn't get private tutors, best private schools etc, but also because I am white.

Minorities should have no special treatment whatsoever. Afterall, they are in someone elses' country for Christs sake.
Do you honestly think you should be able to go to somone else country and demand to be treated the same as them?
I don't necesarily agree with that...

I don't necesarily agree with that...
Why not? It is true.

I s'pose I'm back arguing because I seen something midly disturbing and had to keep reading...

For the "The Lightening Star" who said: I agree, SB. Whenever people (such as myself, I am afraid) take pride in how they are of Slavic Descent, everyone is "Go you!" Whenever someone tries to be proud of their Aryan Heritage, they are run out of town as racists.

the reason people get so 'uppity' about Aryan pride is that..."Aryan pride" is the same as Neo-Nazism. Aryan was a product of anti-sematic Germans who distorted and misinterpreted linguistics and it made a jump into what Hitler called the "Aryan race". It really isn't a race at all:

Word History: It is one of the ironies of history that Aryan, a word nowadays referring to the blond-haired, blue-eyed physical ideal of Nazi Germany, originally referred to a people who looked vastly different. Its history starts with the ancient Indo-Iranians, Indo-European peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, and India. Their tribal self-designation was a word reconstructed as *arya- or *rya-. The first of these is the form found in Iranian, as ultimately in the name of Iran itself (from Middle Persian rn (ahr), “(Land) of the Iranians,” from the genitive plural of r, “Iranian”). The variant *rya- is found unchanged in Sanskrit, where it referred to the upper crust of ancient Indian society. These words became known to European scholars in the 18th century. The shifting of meaning that eventually led to the present-day sense started in the 1830s, when Friedrich Schlegel, a German scholar who was an important early Indo-Europeanist, came up with a theory that linked the Indo-Iranian words with the German word Ehre, “honor,” and older Germanic names containing the element ario-, such as the Swiss warrior Ariovistus who was written about by Julius Caesar. Schlegel theorized that far from being just a designation of the Indo-Iranians, the word *arya- had in fact been what the Indo-Europeans called themselves, meaning something like “the honorable people.” (This theory has since been called into question.) Thus “Aryan” came to be synonymous with “Indo-European,” and in this sense entered the general scholarly consciousness of the day. Not much later, it was proposed that the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans had been in northern Europe. From this theory, it was but a small leap to think of the Aryans as having had a northern European physiotype. While these theories were playing themselves out, certain anti-Semitic scholars in Germany took to viewing the Jews in Germany as the main non-Aryan people because of their Semitic roots; a distinction thus arose in their minds between Jews and the “true Aryan” Germans, a distinction that later furnished unfortunate fodder for the racial theories of the Nazis.


Most people get touchy when they deal with people who have "Aryan pride" mostly because the "Aryans", as they called themselves, preach white supremacy and are horribly racist....but the part that gets most people is they KILLED 6 MILLION JEWS. I'll say that again "THEY BUTCHERED SIX MILLION INNOCENT CIVILIAN JEWS"....They started World War Two....70 some million people died in World War Two because of Hitler....and you wonder why people get uppity when you want to preach your "Aryan" race pride? It's not a race, and it didn't apply to 'blonde-haired blue-eyed' people either. It's not historically correct first of, and they MURDERED SIX MILLION JEWS based on a distorted, disallusioned view.


It appears I'm not mature enough to remain silent and attatch myself from the squabble as I thought I could. That kinda sucks.

Why not? It is true.
Because in my belief, anyone who adapts the American culture, and lives in America is an American. After all the true native Americans are Indians, everyone else moved here and took their lands.

As has been said, afirmative action is meant to reverse EXISTING IMBALANCES, and ensure reasonable representation of diverse groups in powerful positions: employment, government, or educational.

Because we know that minorities are too stupid, lazy, and incompetent to reverse this imbalances themselves, like all other people. :rolleyes: Seriously, people in support of affirmative action seem to think minorities are too stupid to help themselves...

No, you read the thread again. It doesn't matter what it's meant for. The Holocaust was meant for improving humans, which is, if taken independantly is a good cause, but not by the means of genocide. It can be meant for giving all orphans food, for all I care, it still gives a certain group an advantage simply because of their race/gender/sexuality/religion.

Comparing GENOCIDE to EQUALITY is a fallacy. And again, it was the persecution of a minority by a majority... while I can see where you are coming from with the whole it is racism idea (which I do concede that it is to an extent, but there is FAR too much more discrimination by the majority for it to be considered even equal yet) your use of the Holocaust analogy is weak at best. The Germans weren't being oppressed by the Jews... not even a little bit. The Holocaust is not a good example in the slightest.

Minorities should have no special treatment whatsoever. Afterall, they are in someone elses' country for Christs sake.
Do you honestly think you should be able to go to somone else country and demand to be treated the same as them?
Someone else's country!? Excuse me, but black people, and people from different backgrounds have just as much ownership and responsibility towards the country in which they reside, and are citizens of, as anyone else whose family happened to live there a little longer. We are all people, evolved from the same monkeys and the minutiea of "mine" and "your" country have little meaning in the big humanist perpective.
But wait...this is The Hitler Jugend I'm talking to....so just forget it.

Because in my belief, anyone who adapts the American culture, and lives in America is an American. After all the true native Americans are Indians, everyone else moved here and took their lands.
So if a Chinese man moves here and adapts to our culture, suddenly the past 200,000 years of human history is forgotten? Give me a break.

And as for the "natives".....America didnt exist until Whites claimed it to be "America." We didnt steal their land either, the signed it over to us. And besides, the greatest irony in the natives arguments is that they didnt even understand the concept of owning land. Therefore, if they didnt own it, we couldnt have possibly stolen it.

Someone else's country!? Excuse me, but black people, and people from different backgrounds have just as much ownership and responsibility towards the country in which they reside, and are citizens of, as anyone else whose family happened to live there a little longer. We are all people, evolved from the same monkeys and the minutiea of "mine" and "your" country have little meaning in the big humanist perpective.
But wait...this is The Hitler Jugend I'm talking to....so just forget it.

Whites built this country from the ground up. Blacks have been nothing but trouble since we brought their asses here. Blacks were the first humans, dating back 200,000 years, yet they are the least advanced. Dont tell me that they helped.
And NO, we didnt all evolve from the same monkeys.

Because we know that minorities are too stupid, lazy, and incompetent to reverse this imbalances themselves, like all other people. :rolleyes: Seriously, people in support of affirmative action seem to think minorities are too stupid to help themselves...
Clearly, this is not a question of inteligence. There are plenty of examples of remarkable people who have almost singlehandedly turned their lives around and become succesful. That kind of drive and motivation is commendable.
HOWEVER, there are also much more prevasive instances where circumstances beyond a person's control severly limit their abilities. What you said is very close to saying that all poor people are dumb, and that all the populations of third world countries somehow deserve what they get. Disgusting.
If everyone was left to "help themselves" when they were low, this society would be even creuler than it is already.

I am going to assume you live in North America, and will write from this perspective.

>Women glare at you for not holding the door for them, but yell at you for doing it >as well, calling it chauvinistic.

Women are not a minority. I do agree with you however on the 'double standard' men often face.

>The most horrifying aspect of my argument, however, is in regards to race. I am a >true believer in racial equality, and I wish I could prove that if all social stigmas >(blacks being more athletic, Asians being better at math, etc.) are thrown aside, >and each person is raised similar, all people could be the same. (barring intellect >naturally…but that’s just natural selection.)

Certain 'races' (I have to qualify 'races', since from an anthropological perspective that word is meaningless) ARE better at certain activities - for example, Ethiopians consistently do very well in running events at the Olympics. Obviously broad generalizations like 'Blacks are more athletic' (assuming of course that 'black' is a discrete racial group) should be avoided.

Why would you 'naturally' bar intellect because it's 'natural selection'? I don't think you know what that means. Furthermore, cultural differences, not 'social stigmas' are more responsible for differences in performance across 'racial' groups. For example, (in my experience, living in Canada) many of my asian friends I went to school with had far more strict parents than my white friends, and were pushed more to do well in school (even forced to sit and do homework for hours a day - something I never did). None of my asian friends performed better in math because they consciously wanted to fit a stereotype.


>but something like “Eggshell Magazine” would simply be a way of discriminating. >BET, or Black Entertainment Television, celebrates African’s achievements in >film, but if someone dared to make WET, they would be labeled a racist right off >the bat.

Dude... EVERY OTHER TV CHANNEL is white entertainment television. EVERY OTHER MONTH is white history month. It says something about our society that these 'Black-specific' tv channels, magazines, etc. are needed - because main-stream media does not cater to the interests of minorities.


>Why is it that the black minority, and many others, decides to push the fact that >they are in fact different, “better” in their views, “worse” in the minds of racists, >instead of pushing the fact that they are equal to those around them?

Is this to be taken as fact? None of my black friends act this way. You're speaking anecdoatally, from personal experience. Furthermore, I can't remember a black leader (or female leader, etc.) that said 'we want MORE pay for equal work', or we want 'MORE rights.' Martin Luther King fought for EQUAL rights.

>Is it all a big misunderstanding? No. Am I just a stupid racist with an uncommon >intelligence? Hardly. It is because no ground truly wants equality. Each minority >group is put in place to “one-up” the majority it is outnumbered by.

Each minority group is 'put in place'? What does that mean?

>It is only when we cast aside our “black pride” or our “girl power” or our “rights >of the working man” that we will truly come together as people, as humans,

Homogenity is boring. 'Black Pride' hardly equals 'White People Suck', and for every black man that says nasty things about white people, I can guarantee there's a white person out there talking shit about n***ers. Our differences make for an interesting culture - if everyone acted like we were exactly the same (which we are not), things would get pretty boring pretty quickly.

You have some interesting rhetoric in your post, but it should hardly be taken as fact. As for issues like affirmative action, I agree that it does represent a 'double standard' (along with the insane heights political correctness has come to). However, you cannot deny that prejudices and racial discrimination still exist in our society. The difficulty in proving that racial discrimination has occured (for example, in a job interview) means we need mechanisms (like affirmative action) to ensure minority rights are protected.

That being said, I do agree that political correctness has gone too far. However, I think it is better to move in this direction than the opposite - more polarity in society and less tolerance. Cheers.

Because we know that minorities are too stupid, lazy, and incompetent to reverse this imbalances themselves, like all other people. :rolleyes: Seriously, people in support of affirmative action seem to think minorities are too stupid to help themselves...

We're called minorities for a reason... we suffer discrimination by the majority. Take a walk in a black man's shoes down a posh neighborhood and see what disappoving and fearful looks he gets. Hear the snickers as a Mexican man innocently goes through a gardening section of the supermarket simply looking for a new gardening hose for his wife's vegetable patch. Look at the sneers a Middle Eastern man gets from the airport security guard as he passes through a security checkpoint and sets off a metal detector because of some errant change. Change can happen, but it takes cooperation on BOTH sides to make it work, and AA was simply a stepping stone towards a more equal society. We are not stupid becuase we cannot help ourselves, we just have SO MUCH to fight against. I support AA because it makes things a little more fair for me and my family. Stereotypes, prejudices and hate... we have to endure it all, and it gets tiring. We are not stupid, we just have a long fight, and sometimes I think it's a losing battle.

We're called minorities for a reason... we suffer discrimination by the majority. Take a walk in a black man's shoes down a posh neighborhood and see what disappoving and fearful looks he gets. Hear the snickers as a Mexican man innocently goes through a gardening section of the supermarket simply looking for a new gardening hose for his wife's vegetable patch. Look at the sneers a Middle Eastern man gets from the airport security guard as he passes through a security checkpoint and sets off a metal detector because of some errant change. Change can happen, but it takes cooperation on BOTH sides to make it work, and AA was simply a stepping stone towards a more equal society. We are not stupid becuase we cannot help ourselves, we just have SO MUCH to fight against. I support AA because it makes things a little more fair for me and my family. Stereotypes, prejudices and hate... we have to endure it all, and it gets tiring. We are not stupid, we just have a long fight, and sometimes I think it's a losing battle.
If its sooo tough for you here, go the fuck back home!
We dont want you here anyway, and we never will.

Oh please. People would only vote Cat Tribes because he is black, and black's are "oppressed", so naturally, he has to be the president, not the one who is better qualified. (If Cat Tribes is actually black)

Of course, no one could support civil rights unless they were one of those uppity blacks seeking to put down the white man.

I happen to be white and male. I am just not ignorant or prejudiced.

Yes. Minorities in US, as was already stated, are very spoiled, and think that the whole world owes them because 100something years ago, they were opressed.

1. Your tendency to stereotype all minorities in a derogative manner is telling.

2. Again, have you ever heard of segregration? It was a tad inconvenient for blacks and a bit more recent.

3. Care to address the evidence (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8535004&postcount=44) that widespread discrimination against minorities persists? Or do you just want to ignore it?

4. Have any evidence whatsoever that US minorities are not discriminated against, but rather are spoiled?

I know facts are very inconvenient to your views. That's why I like 'em.

Yes it is. We already proved it.
rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Since affirmative action discriminates against white people, it is racism.


Skipped right over the definition of affirmative action didn't you? Bit inconvenient to your argument.

You people would have been very happy with "separate but equal." The exact same arguments about (a) minorities seeking special rights, (b) civil rights meaning discrimination against the white man, and (c) minorities not knowing what is good for them were made against the civil rights movement. Desegregation was the ultimate oppression of the white man.

Grow up and join reality.

We're called minorities for a reason... we suffer discrimination by the majority. Take a walk in a black man's shoes down a posh neighborhood and see what disappoving and fearful looks he gets. Hear the snickers as a Mexican man innocently goes through a gardening section of the supermarket simply looking for a new gardening hose for his wife's vegetable patch. Look at the sneers a Middle Eastern man gets from the airport security guard as he passes through a security checkpoint and sets off a metal detector because of some errant change. Change can happen, but it takes cooperation on BOTH sides to make it work, and AA was simply a stepping stone towards a more equal society. We are not stupid becuase we cannot help ourselves, we just have SO MUCH to fight against. I support AA because it makes things a little more fair for me and my family. Stereotypes, prejudices and hate... we have to endure it all, and it gets tiring. We are not stupid, we just have a long fight, and sometimes I think it's a losing battle.

Except for MIddle Easterners, those prejudices and situations are highly exaggerated..

So if a Chinese man moves here and adapts to our culture, suddenly the past 200,000 years of human history is forgotten? Give me a break.
And as for the "natives".....America didnt exist until Whites claimed it to be "America." We didnt steal their land either, the signed it over to us. And besides, the greatest irony in the natives arguments is that they didnt even understand the concept of owning land. Therefore, if they didnt own it, we couldnt have possibly stolen it.

Bullshit! You took it off them, that was their home whether they owned it or not. Im not disputing here your right to take it, as Im a firm believer in your country only belonging to you for as long as your able to defend it, but dont say you didnt take it in any form, whether by brute force, or decieving them with false treatys, because you did. Own your past, whether its right or wrong.

Steel Butterfly, I agree with completely. I've been saying many of the same things you said for a very long time. Too bad society does listen. Too many egos unwilling to give in and work towards the greater good, instead they continue to do the "me me me!!!" way.

Bullshit! You took it off them, that was their home whether they owned it or not. Im not disputing here your right to take it, as Im a firm believer in your country only belonging to you for as long as your able to defend it, but dont say you didnt take it in any form, whether by brute force, or decieving them with false treatys, because you did. Own your past, whether its right or wrong.
Your opinion is noted, but I stand by my position.

If its sooo tough for you here, go the fuck back home!
We dont want you hear anyway, and we never will.


Here's what's really funny... people do hear me. I never said it was tough for me personally, just for minorities, which includes my family. Oh, and another thing... I'm completely an American. 5th generation. And I STILL recieve some of the prejudices despite also being half White. You may not want to hear me, but as more and more people like me stand out against people like you, you will have no choice. Our voice is growing deafening and soon, mark my works, you WILL hear us, loud and f***ing clear whether YOU want to or not.

EDIT: Moreover, there WILL be equal rights. I'm willing to fight, and I'm sure others are as well... I'm not saying that it's not tough, but guess what, me and everyone else that's strong enough will stand up to you. Be afraid. It's coming.

Here's what's really funny... people do hear me. I never said it was tough for me personally, just for minorities, which includes my family. Oh, and another thing... I'm completely an American. 5th generation. And I STILL recieve some of the prejudices despite also being half White. You may not want to hear me, but as more and more people like me stand out against people like you, you will have no choice. Our voice is growing deafening and soon, mark my works, you WILL hear us, loud and f***ing clear whether YOU want to or not.

Here's 2 clues that we DONT want you here

In California
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4675

In Florida
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4638

If its sooo tough for you here, go the fuck back home!
We dont want you hear anyway, and we never will.


Here's what's really funny... people do hear me. I never said it was tough for me personally, just for minorities, which includes my family. Oh, and another thing... I'm completely an American. 5th generation. And I STILL recieve some of the prejudices despite also being half White. You may not want to hear me, but as more and more people like me stand out against people like you, you will have no choice. Our voice is growing deafening and soon, mark my works, you WILL hear us, loud and f***ing clear whether YOU want to or not. There will be equal rights. I'm willing to fight, and I'm sure others are as well... I'm not saying that it's not tough, but guess what, me and everyone else that's strong enough will stand up to you. Be afraid. It's coming.

However, how come everyone conviniently ignores all the inequalities against whites? Such as affirmative action, praise of black culture promotion organizations and tv stations, but booing of white promotion equivalents, etc.

What inequities against whites?

It is, by the way, just as illegal to discriminate against someone because they are white or male as it is to discriminate against someone because they are black of female.

Try learning about what affirmative action is from a non-biased source. It has nothing to do with discrimination against whites. (And I know that is unpopular on these forums, but it happens to be true. George W. Bush isn't continuing affirmative action programs during his administration because he hates whites or fears the wrath of minorities. He is doing it because even he knows its right.)

How does black culture and a single black TV network discriminate against you? How are you harmed?

Care to name a "white promotion equivalent" that isn't either not booed or is white supremicist?

snip
this is going too far...and you know what that means.

:fluffle:

this is going too far...and you know what that means.
I feel bad for you.....you are afraid to face reality.

this is going too far...and you know what that means.

I'm willing to let it go now. I've said my piece.

I feel bad for you.....you are afraid to face reality.
I'm sure he means that it's time to let the thread die. We can fight till we're blue in the face and we're just gonna keep going in circles. None of us are willing to budge.

I'm willing to let it go now. I've said my piece.
well I'm not. This is what moderation is for. I too, have said all I want for now.
EDIT: for clarification, I don't mean let the thread die. By any means.

Whites built this country from the ground up. Blacks have been nothing but trouble since we brought their asses here. Blacks were the first humans, dating back 200,000 years, yet they are the least advanced. Dont tell me that they helped.
And NO, we didnt all evolve from the same monkeys.

Someone didn't pay attention to biology. No where in the theory of evolution did it ever say we evolved from monkeys. It did say however, we evolved from a common ancestor...not monkeys. Fool.

Ancient Egyptians would beg to differ about the least advanced. They were pretty good off until their labor source ran away...(Exodus).

Africans gave us Math, Algebra, Geometry, and Trigonometry, including the
Arabic Numbers. Africans also originated the world's first known universities.
The Arabic numbers we use today came fromt he ancient Arab people who were originally Black Africans - and many of them still are!


Chemistry(Alchemey) and the word itself is from Black Egypt. And where would the world be without the ALPHABET.

It would appear everything from the most advanced civilizations took foundation from the "least advanced". Since all intellectually challanged people produce the smartest people. Retard + Retard = Genius, apparantly.

well I'm not. This is what moderation is for. I too, have said all I want for now.
EDIT: for clarification, I don't mean let the thread die. By any means.
I agree... but it gets tiring arguing with the ignorant.

And "racism" will only cease to exist when the races seperate.

Oh goody. I've been wanting an excuse to paraphrase Jon Stewart. :D

Calling yourself the Hilter Youth is really unfair.

The Nazis worked very hard to be evil.

And for any Tom, Dick and Harry to use that label is an insult to the Third Reich, to say nothing of the First and Second Reich and other Reichs.

well I'm not. This is what moderation is for. I too, have said all I want for now.
Then I too am done. Anyone who has anything further to ask me only needs to refer to my earlier post.


Here's 2 clues that we DONT want you here

In California
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4675

In Florida
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4638

Well said.

Doom777, does it give you any pause for thought that The Hilter Youth heartily agree with you?

Then I too am done. Anyone who has anything further to ask me only needs to refer to my earlier post.
God Bless America and the rights granted by the First Amendment... this is not proof that America doesn't want minorities here... just a select few who see us as a threat. Sorry... you're not nearly as pwerful as you think.

I agree... but it gets tiring arguing with the ignorant.

Don't I know it.

Among other things, that is one reason your contributions have been appreciated. :fluffle:

(I now wait for SB to tell us that only those who agree with him are allowed to agree with each other.)

:fluffle:
Made me smile!! not the happiest thread ever, but cool photographers are always welcome!!

God Bless America and the rights granted by the First Amendment... this is not proof that America doesn't want minorities here... just a select few who see us as a threat. Sorry... you're not nearly as pwerful as you think.
Learn to read, I said "clues" not "proof"

Learn to read, I said "clues" not "proof"

I know what you meant, though.

Comparing GENOCIDE to EQUALITY is a fallacy. And again, it was the persecution of a minority by a majority... while I can see where you are coming from with the whole it is racism idea (which I do concede that it is to an extent, but there is FAR too much more discrimination by the majority for it to be considered even equal yet) your use of the Holocaust analogy is weak at best. The Germans weren't being oppressed by the Jews... not even a little bit. The Holocaust is not a good example in the slightest.
But my point is that affirmative action is not equality, but an inequality favoring minorities. And white men do not oppress anyone today, show me any law that oppresses a minority. Also Cat showed evidence that minorities live worse than white men. However, he never showed it how the worse living conditions are white men's fault, and why we need to be punished by affirmative action.

[/quote]Take a walk in a black man's shoes down a posh neighborhood and see what disappoving and fearful looks he gets. Hear the snickers as a Mexican man innocently goes through a gardening section of the supermarket simply looking for a new gardening hose for his wife's vegetable patch. Look at the sneers a Middle Eastern man gets from the airport security guard as he passes through a security checkpoint and sets off a metal detector because of some errant change. Change can happen, but it takes cooperation on BOTH sides to make it work, and AA was simply a stepping stone towards a more equal society.[/quote]
So because idiots sneer, I should be punished?

1. Your tendency to stereotype all minorities in a derogative manner is telling.
And saying that all minorities are disadvantaged is not stereotyping?

2. Again, have you ever heard of segregration? It was a tad inconvenient for blacks and a bit more recent.
So, 50 years, not 100. Big deal. No laws exist disadvantaging minorities today.

3. Care to address the evidence that widespread discrimination against minorities persists? Or do you just want to ignore it?
Again, they may exist, but its not our fault, and it doesn't happen to all minority members. A nice alternative to AA, would be if students were asked to write an essay about their conditions, when applying to colleges, not just assume of the bat that because you are black, you are worse off than me.

4. Have any evidence whatsoever that US minorities are not discriminated against, but rather are spoiled?
They may be still slightly discriminated, but:
AA.
Black only scholarships.
Black Enterntainment Television. You may argue that every other channel is White enterntainment television, but you can imagine what would happen if there was a chanel named WET.

Just to name a few.

Doom777, does it give you any pause for thought that The Hilter Youth heartily agree with you?
Saying that anyone who is a Nazi supporter is wrong in EVERYTHING is stereotyping too. Although I wonder of Nazi Junder knows that I am a Jew.

But my point is that affirmative action is not equality, but an inequality favoring minorities. And white men do not oppress anyone today, show me any law that oppresses a minority. Also Cat showed evidence that minorities live worse than white men. However, he never showed it how the worse living conditions are white men's fault, and why we need to be punished by affirmative action.

I have not stated a LAW... such laws are unconstitutional and have been since 1964 I believe... maybe a bit later, maybe a bit earlier. My exact knowledge on dates is lacking. What I have been saying all along that it's the majority that is doing the discrimination regardless if they know it or not. It's all about individual and institutionalized discrimination, whether overt or covert. Hiring practices, housing developments, hell, even the preferential treatment that you can sometimes see in the freaking supermarket all points to decreased living conditions. Until relatively recently, ethnic minorities were passed up for homes, jobs, and anything that could possibly bring their living standards up. Like moving to the suburbs with all the middle class white families. Never said it was the white man's fault directly... just the MAJORITIES. And don't you dare say that white men do not opress anyone now... look at our friend The Hitler Jugend. Given half a chance, he'd gladly do it. And there are more of him out there. And also there are those that do it without knowing or even meaning to do it. You just can't see it because you don't live it, apparently.

[/quote]So because idiots sneer, I should be punished?[/quote]

Now, I'll agree, that is a tad unfair, but to understand what a minority must go through, you have to take each statement I made with the previous statement that you used.

I have not stated a LAW... such laws are unconstitutional and have been since 1964 I believe... maybe a bit later, maybe a bit earlier. My exact knowledge on dates is lacking. What I have been saying all along that it's the majority that is doing the discrimination regardless if they know it or not. It's all about individual and institutionalized discrimination, whether overt or covert. Hiring practices, housing developments, hell, even the preferential treatment that you can sometimes see in the freaking supermarket all points to decreased living conditions. Until relatively recently, ethnic minorities were passed up for homes, jobs, and anything that could possibly bring their living standards up. Like moving to the suburbs with all the middle class white families. Never said it was the white man's fault directly... just the MAJORITIES. And don't you dare say that white men do not opress anyone now... look at our friend The Hitler Jugend. Given half a chance, he'd gladly do it. And there are more of him out there. And also there are those that do it without knowing or even meaning to do it. You just can't see it because you don't live it, apparently.

So because idiots sneer, I should be punished?[/quote]

Now, I'll agree, that is a tad unfair, but to understand what a minority must go through, you have to take each statement I made with the previous statement that you used.[/QUOTE]
As I already said, an AVERAGE minority member is worse off than an AVERAGE white male. However, I, whose family earns 24k/year, am much worse off than the son/grandson of Colin Powell who gets tutors, best private schools, etc. Nevertheless, he still gets affirmative action privelage just because he is black.

You may argue that every other channel is White enterntainment television, but you can imagine what would happen if there was a chanel named WET.

something tells me that if there was a channel named "WET" it would probably be the sort that would, erm, appeal to adults of all races...if you know what i mean ;).

something tells me that if there was a channel named "WET" it would probably be the sort that would, erm, appeal to adults of all races...if you know what i mean ;).

First thing that came into my mind. Am I a pervert?

sadly, for most, racism and sexism towards the minority shall always be around whether you notice it or not, but for the 5000 some people who read this thread there views toward this will change in at least the slightest bit.

So because idiots sneer, I should be punished?

Now, I'll agree, that is a tad unfair, but to understand what a minority must go through, you have to take each statement I made with the previous statement that you used.[/QUOTE]
As I already said, an AVERAGE minority member is worse off than an AVERAGE white male. However, I, whose family earns 24k/year, am much worse off than the son/grandson of Colin Powell who gets tutors, best private schools, etc. Nevertheless, he still gets affirmative action privelage just because he is black.[/QUOTE]

Well, you're making it apply to a greater minority... the rich minority. For them, they don't ever use it. AA was purely meant for the average person, as you stated. With money, you can buy your way out of opression. You're looking really at an econmoic issue with rich vs. poor, which branches off into it's own thing, really.

Did you just overlook Katganistan's post or did you deliberately ignore it because it was inconvenient?
.


Not only did I read his post, I responded to it.

I mentioned earlier that anyone attacking affirmative action probably could not accurately describe it. My point is proven.

As we appear to wish to reduce civil rights to dictionary definitions, Here is the definition of Affirmative Action from your same source:



Where, pray tell, does it say anything about discrimination or prejudice against anyone on the basis of race or any other characteristic?

And if you are going to say that is what Affirmative Action means in real life, you'd better back that up with reliable sources.In New Zealand we have scholarships that are available only to Maori students.

This fits both the definition of Affirmative Action (a policy intended to redress past discrimination) and the definition of Racism (a policy which discriminates based on race).

Call it "good racism" if you like.

Much of it is based in personal situations we've encountered with certain people. It cannot be based as a whole race, gender, or any minority group for that reason alone.

Yes, some things don't make sense, but much of it does.

In New Zealand we have scholarships that are available only to Maori students.
This fits both the definition of Affirmative Action (a policy intended to redress past discrimination) and the definition of Racism (a policy which discriminates based on race).
Call it "good racism" if you like.

Call it what it really is, a double standard.

You did say that it was a homosexual and drug (iv) user disease, period. I can only go by what you say. Now who's flip-flopping? Andwho is Magic Jordan? Obviously you didn't pay enough attention to the news....Magic Johnson was the biggest name in basketball until Michael Jordan. Obviously you have some sort of news filter or something.
The point was a bit more forceful than it should have been. It would be flip flopping to reverse my position. All I have done is broaden it.


And obviously I meant Magic Johnson. I wrote Jordan instead of Johnson by mistake, surely you must have realized that.

You can blame Afirmative Action. You can blame the white man. You can blame a minority double standered. But all that blaming is is an attempt to get the burden off of your own shoulders.

It is not the fault of the Race that people are Racist against them. It is the falut of the Racists, who in turn point to the Race and say they started it.

A white guy just gave the the finger!

I guess all whites are assholes. D:

The point was a bit more forceful than it should have been. It would be flip flopping to reverse my position. All I have done is broaden it.


And obviously I meant Magic Johnson. I wrote Jordan instead of Johnson by mistake, surely you must have realized that.

You went from saying it was transmitted through and spread by homosexuals and people who use IV drugs. Now you're saying the opposite. To broaden means to elaborate, not reverse your entire point. You're contradicting yourself.

something tells me that if there was a channel named "WET" it would probably be the sort that would, erm, appeal to adults of all races...if you know what i mean ;).
Was thinking the same thing lol

Now, I'll agree, that is a tad unfair, but to understand what a minority must go through, you have to take each statement I made with the previous statement that you used.
As I already said, an AVERAGE minority member is worse off than an AVERAGE white male. However, I, whose family earns 24k/year, am much worse off than the son/grandson of Colin Powell who gets tutors, best private schools, etc. Nevertheless, he still gets affirmative action privelage just because he is black.[/QUOTE]

Well, you're making it apply to a greater minority... the rich minority. For them, they don't ever use it. AA was purely meant for the average person, as you stated. With money, you can buy your way out of opression. You're looking really at an econmoic issue with rich vs. poor, which branches off into it's own thing, really.[/QUOTE]
Who says that they don't use it? Is there a clause in the Supreme Court decision that allowed AA that rich minorities cannot use it?

A white guy just gave the the finger!

I guess all whites are assholes. D:
Exactly, two black kids stole my CD player. But I don't go around saying that ALL black kids are thieves.

Those two sentences are the biggest flaw in your entire line of thinking.

I already gave ample evidence that, no, we aren't anywhere near a satisfactory level of equality, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8535004&postcount=44).

If you wish to dispute the fact that discrimination is widespread, pervasive, and serious, I will provide more evidence.

Try to reconcile your views with reality and we'll talk.

I'll getting really sick of whites (predominately white males) declaring they know better than minorities how minorities should act and think. It is not pretty.

Yes well you make some very OBVIOUS choices... however, under the LAW all these people have the same rights ... EQUALITY does not nessesarly mean there will be equal numbers of ethnicities and sexes in every field nor should this be the goal. I dont disagree that there are more white male corprate execturives, but women have only been allowed to enter the corporate field within the last 30 - 50 years, how can we expect there to be an equal number of such executives avalible.. they lack the experiance and education to do so... HOWEVER, i DO see properly experianced female CEO's in some powerful positions singling to me it is QUITE possible for them to acheive it, providing them want it.

As for unemployment rates.. how can we really compare these percentages considering 60% of the nations population is white while a considerably smaller percentage for blacks, and the fact that more blacks are in far less an economic position because they only acheived real equality within the last few decades. While socio-economic movement is possible for individuals within their lifetime in this nation, it still infact TAKES TIME... we can't expect such changes in just 10 or 20 years.

The 1990 census reflected that 2.4 percent of the nation's businesses are owned by blacks. Almost 85 percent of those black owned businesses have no employees

I fail to see how this is a statistic relevant to Discrimination when anyone is able to open their own buisness... perhaps it is just reflective of a culture defiency lacking in an entreporial spirit.

Quite frankly almost all the issues you name are a direct result of lacking in education which is less a racial issue and more a socio-economic one ! All of the problems you describe can be directly linked to socio-ecnomic diffencies and poverty knows no race, it inflicts all. Instead of passing legisliation protecting minorities we should be passing legislation protecting the impoverished, which helps those same minorities and the whites which are as well encompassed in this field..

THIS is the fundamental flaw in AA... its bringing people out by the color of their skin.. not their education, or economic status.. so basicaly if your poor and white, you've no crutch to hang on to get yourself in those nice IVY legue schools. As a matter of RACE we HAVE infact reached an acceptable level of equality under the law... it is Socio-economic conditions we should be targeting.. not race. Minorities arn't being kept out of better working positions because of the color of their skin, but because of their lack in education due to their economic position... nothing less. I agree there are more blacks in impoverished conditions.. so why are we just targeting their skin.. why not target their economic condition and then we the people will truely beable to say we are not being ratially biased

I would like to also add to the findings of those so called "random tests" just because people are equally qualified and the minority dosn't get the position dosn't indicate discrimination... in an interview there are more factors in play then just qualifications like demeanor and an individuals ability to present themeslves.. we maybe equally qualified but if you studder and are nervous and I am not, I can almost garantee I will get the position...

These are meant to be less excuses then they are alternatives to the age old omg it must be discrimination at work. Im not saying its non-existant.. but on a whole its far less a factor then most make it out to be. Everyone questions the American CEO but look at examples like Sony who just apointed an American as their CEO (a historical move as most japanese companies only hire japanese executives) to head the company. There is somethign to be said about the experiance American CEO's hold and why white males still remain in these positions in large numbers

To the other person whom said noone respects Christians, do not be dismayed. It's a moot point, why are you so offended by the Christmas tree? Did Jesus have one? No. Did Jesus ever talk of the Easter bunny or Saint Nicholas? No. Christmas is as secular as Halloween or Thanksgiving. It may be American, but it isn't necessarily Christian. Jesus did teach, however, the world hated him and will also hate us. But he did overcome the world so that we may also. Be not friends of the world, for it is an abomination to God. Be in the world but not of the world. Will not having a Christmas tree at high school stop you from your eternal salvation? No. Does it offend God that you may not have a Christmas tree? Hardly. Should we be offended the world does not want our teachings in public? No. Jesus said "lend up to Ceaser's what is Ceaser's and what is God's to God". Seperation of Church and state a corrosion of Christian morals? Unless Jesus is a homosexual, vegan liberal, I would say not. (No offense to our 'liberal' friends, that is the stereotype.) I thought it was fair to stereotype since the originator of the post also did that. You are assuming every minority wants a hand-out when that is rarely the case. I've seen more lazy, white alcoholics on welfare than I have lazy, black addicts on welfare. There is a limit in most states of three years, so it isn't as if there are people perpetually on the system. How can you sympathize with the hungry when you have food? The miniorities when you are the majority? The poor when you have the money? Suffering when you're not. You can't. The only way to feel the fear of not having food tomorrow can only be sympathized when you have no money, no hope of tomorrow. Give your entire lively hood to charity and live on the streets. Have barely enough to scrounge for your next meal, if that, and see how fluid the economy is and see how many 'rich' people will push aside their differences and embrace you. See how fluid it is for those who are on the bottom of soceity.
I'm reviving this for the sole reason of responding to this. First of all, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TAKING PEOPLE OFF WELFARE! And yes, I have lived at the bottom of the barrel. I was raised by a single mother with 2 brothers on an income of less than $20 000 a year. I wore second-hand clothing for most of my childhood.

Besideswhich, I'm not talking about that bs that you just went off about. I was talking about respecting our culture. Of at least calling the tree a Christmas tree, or not being afraid to say 'Merry Christmas'. I don't tell them they can't say "Eid Mubarak" or wish everyone a Happy Kwanza.

Man. You need to take valium, buddy.

I agree completely, and now the code of chivalry has been completely knocked down, we have women who say they want to be as equal as men but at the same time dont want to pay for their movies etc. and a black person can scream any racial thing he wants at you and if you call him black you may get thrown in jail.

Women glare at you for not holding the door for them, but yell at you for doing it as well, calling it chauvinistic.
Yes, this isn't a generalization.

And last I checked, men are the minority on this planet, not women.

I agree completely, and now the code of chivalry has been completely knocked down, we have women who say they want to be as equal as men but at the same time dont want to pay for their movies etc. and a black person can scream any racial thing he wants at you and if you call him black you may get thrown in jail.

Yes and you also have some men who respect women as equals, but others who objectify them. What's your point?

I'm reviving this for the sole reason of responding to this. First of all, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TAKING PEOPLE OFF WELFARE! And yes, I have lived at the bottom of the barrel. I was raised by a single mother with 2 brothers on an income of less than $20 000 a year. I wore second-hand clothing for most of my childhood.

Besideswhich, I'm not talking about that bs that you just went off about. I was talking about respecting our culture. Of at least calling the tree a Christmas tree, or not being afraid to say 'Merry Christmas'. I don't tell them they can't say "Eid Mubarak" or wish everyone a Happy Kwanza.

Man. You need to take valium, buddy.

Culture is always changing. My point was saying the things you are so vehemnt about are moot and have little significance. I never said anything about taking people off welfare either. You need to read. I said there was, in most states, a three year limit. Your story, however touching, is not necessarily typical. Many people struggle economically and will do so for the rest of their lives. Debt is a hole that you try to dig yourself out but find yourself deeper in. I'm glad to hear you're doing well. My mother is rasing us on a 30 k job and there's five of us. Hats off to your mother.

I never said you couldn't say "Merry Christmas". If you want to, do so. But why is that phrase so dear? It has nothing to do with religion, it is purely American. I say Happy Jesus' Birthday to people. Nobody has once commented on it and if they did I would tell them to respect the way I choose to practice my religion because I respect the way they do. If you want to call it a Christmas tree, do so. I never said anyone should be stopped. I do not agree with calling it the "Warmth" tree but in a public school you do have to cater to everyone. I'm not condoning or rebuking the administrations' policy.

And lastly, I do not need to take medication nor do I need to abuse such controlled substances. That would be a practice not only unhealthy and criminal in both naturally and spiritually.

And I the 'bs' I was talking about was to the person who was talking about how Christians are singled-out and are punished more than others about their religion. I do not remember who exactly that was to nor do I want to take the time or energy to do so. So if it doesn't pertain to you, you don't have to comment on it, dear.

In New Zealand we have scholarships that are available only to Maori students.

This fits both the definition of Affirmative Action (a policy intended to redress past discrimination) and the definition of Racism (a policy which discriminates based on race).

Call it "good racism" if you like.
No such thing, all racism is destructive, it devides when people should unite.

In the past Affirmative Action helped out the minorities, but now there is no to little discrimination or difference in level of education and charachter, so it is not neccessary so it must be dispossed of.

Or else, people will still complain about it and there will still be hostility over an unneccassary policy.

I agree completely, and now the code of chivalry has been completely knocked down, we have women who say they want to be as equal as men but at the same time dont want to pay for their movies etc. and a black person can scream any racial thing he wants at you and if you call him black you may get thrown in jail.
Man if someone yells a racial slur that's more insulting then craker, I throw down, if they want to call me a Redneck Inbred, I call them a Brainless Niggar, and once I'm finished kicking their ass (most of the time) I help them up and tell them why I was offended. Then I normally start hangin with them, then it comes down to a joke.

I agree completely, and now the code of chivalry has been completely knocked down, we have women who say they want to be as equal as men but at the same time dont want to pay for their movies etc. and a black person can scream any racial thing he wants at you and if you call him black you may get thrown in jail.

One thing you need to be careful about this sort of comment is the fact that not every woman expects you to pay for her and not every woman wants to necessarily be your equal. Because a woman wants to be your equal doesn't mean you have to be crude or impolite. I hold doors open for my girlfriend, pay for movies, dinner, etc. but there are times in which she wants to "go dutch" or actually pay for me. I let her when she requets, after I insist a couple of times. You have to be respectful to the wishes of others. If a woman wants to open her own door, does it make you less of a man for letting her? My girlfriend is my equal, we have equal share in our decisions, but I hold the door for her. I assume you meant in the context of dating because you made a reference to paying for movies, unless you pay for strangers' movies. And as a whole, I may be wrong, but I don't think chivalry is that big of a deal to women as you think. A girl wants someone kind, curteous, but that doesn't mean she'll break up with you because you don't hold her door or you do.

As far as the black reference, not every black is racist or makes racist remarks. Not every black is overly sensitive to racist remarks. Generalizations aren't always true, sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Be careful in your assumptions of a group as a whole when you deal with individuals. There are racists in all races.

You should be all things to all men, which means that you should approach and handle situations with individuals on an individual terms. If a person is sensitive to racist remarks, don't be racist in front of that person. Just have common courtesy. If your girlfriend likes you to pay for her, then do it. If she likes to feel independent and pay for her, certainly don't argue with a free movie. There's always compromise. For instance, tell her you will be paid for if and only if she lets you pay for her next time. Tell that billigerent black if he's in your face you'll be in his face.

As far as government policy, they do not have the same decadence in flexibility. Don't be too hard, they have to be all things to all people all the time. The US government doesn't aim to always come with the best possible result imagineable, but rather, their aim is to come with the most satisfactory to the most amount of people possible. That's because what you think the best decision is contrastly different from someone from the opposite political spectrum. They try to hit in the middle the most fair, but you have to remember, their middle may also be different from the middle itself or from where you think it is. Everything, when dealing with people, is subjective.

And last I checked, men are the minority on this planet, not women.
seriously. why does the male minority think the female majority should cater to them? why does the male minority think that the female majority should be obligated to care how men feel about the supposed "death of chivalry?" can't the male minority just shut up and take it?

;)

Hey, the life expectancey gap is closing, it went down from 7 years to 4 that means a lot if you think about it. It means guys are living longer and women are starting to experience the same stress we do. Hell I don't mind the plus years onto my life. How bout you?

NO! Because the female majority doesn't understand that we aren't as emotionally secure as them. Which results in a lot of problems, I mean it, I'm, getting ulsers over whether to ask my freind out or not. Dude this is hard, and you wonder why we die first.

See way back, when we had chivilary, we had rules to follow in the dating game, that made things easier, but no, you had to kill chivilary. Damn it, we're only men, we can't read your damn mind, so tell us the rules and we'll follow them as best we can.

But as for you question, I ask you, why does the female majority think it's our responseibility to make their lives easier, at the expense of our own?

Hey, the life expectancey gap is closing, it went down from 7 years to 4 that means a lot if you think about it. It means guys are living longer and women are starting to experience the same stress we do. Hell I don't mind the plus years onto my life. How bout you?

NO! Because the female majority doesn't understand that we aren't as emotionally secure as them. Which results in a lot of problems, I mean it, I'm, getting ulsers over whether to ask my freind out or not. Dude this is hard, and you wonder why we die first.

See way back, when we had chivilary, we had rules to follow in the dating game, that made things easier, but no, you had to kill chivilary. Damn it, we're only men, we can't read your damn mind, so tell us the rules and we'll follow them as best we can.

But as for you question, I ask you, why does the female majority think it's our responseibility to make their lives easier, at the expense of our own?

Can you prove that the female majority thinks that ... or is it just your perception

No such thing, all racism is destructive, it devides when people should unite.

In the past Affirmative Action helped out the minorities, but now there is no to little discrimination or difference in level of education and charachter, so it is not neccessary so it must be dispossed of.

Or else, people will still complain about it and there will still be hostility over an unneccassary policy.
Keep living in fantasy land there... Meanwhile, those of us in Australia know that Indigenous people have a life expectancy 20 years lower than the general population, that children are locked up in detention centres, etc.

There's a LONG way to go yet.

Keep living in fantasy land there... Meanwhile, those of us in Australia know that Indigenous people have a life expectancy 20 years lower than the general population, that children are locked up in detention centres, etc.

There's a LONG way to go yet.

Twenty years lower than the average population? That's bad.

If it were not so pathetic and disgusting, I would be more amused by 20-plus pages of white males whining and complaining about how unfair it is that minorities do not simply accept their lot. Apparently white males can complain about minor dents in their superior privileges, but minorities should keep quiet.

I had hoped this thread would die, so hadn't responded in a while.

For those whose concerns center solely around affirmative action, I will concede it is not a simple issue and there is more than room for reasonable minds to question such programs. One should neither oversimplify the issue, however, nor discuss it in the absence of understanding of the reality of the need for some proactive measures to end current racism and the legacy of past discrimination. No rational discussion of the issue seems possible here.

But AA is but one of the myriad of jumbled complaints against minorities raised in this thread. That it is rational to question AA does not make the other whining any more meritorious or less despicable.

And, yes, my posts on this issue have been and will continue to be abrasive. Many of the opinions expressed herein make me sick and the authors should be ashamed. I will not apologize for being confrontational.

Yes well you make some very OBVIOUS choices... however, under the LAW all these people have the same rights ... EQUALITY does not nessesarly mean there will be equal numbers of ethnicities and sexes in every field nor should this be the goal. I dont disagree that there are more white male corprate execturives, but women have only been allowed to enter the corporate field within the last 30 - 50 years, how can we expect there to be an equal number of such executives avalible.. they lack the experiance and education to do so... HOWEVER, i DO see properly experianced female CEO's in some powerful positions singling to me it is QUITE possible for them to acheive it, providing them want it.

As for unemployment rates.. how can we really compare these percentages considering 60% of the nations population is white while a considerably smaller percentage for blacks, and the fact that more blacks are in far less an economic position because they only acheived real equality within the last few decades. While socio-economic movement is possible for individuals within their lifetime in this nation, it still infact TAKES TIME... we can't expect such changes in just 10 or 20 years.

I fail to see how this is a statistic relevant to Discrimination when anyone is able to open their own buisness... perhaps it is just reflective of a culture defiency lacking in an entreporial spirit.

Quite frankly almost all the issues you name are a direct result of lacking in education which is less a racial issue and more a socio-economic one ! All of the problems you describe can be directly linked to socio-ecnomic diffencies and poverty knows no race, it inflicts all. Instead of passing legisliation protecting minorities we should be passing legislation protecting the impoverished, which helps those same minorities and the whites which are as well encompassed in this field..

THIS is the fundamental flaw in AA... its bringing people out by the color of their skin.. not their education, or economic status.. so basicaly if your poor and white, you've no crutch to hang on to get yourself in those nice IVY legue schools. As a matter of RACE we HAVE infact reached an acceptable level of equality under the law... it is Socio-economic conditions we should be targeting.. not race. Minorities arn't being kept out of better working positions because of the color of their skin, but because of their lack in education due to their economic position... nothing less. I agree there are more blacks in impoverished conditions.. so why are we just targeting their skin.. why not target their economic condition and then we the people will truely beable to say we are not being ratially biased

Thank you for at least reading my post and addressing the issue of inequality.

Also, you appear to be rather unique among those posting here in that you recognize that inequality still exists. You appear to feel there is no active discrimination and inequality will go away over time without further action. We disagree, but at least you are not blind to the problem.

You also recognize that, even in the absence of continued discrimination, it takes time to recover from past discrimination. This is part of the point of why minorities are still more than justified -- even if you accept the premise that they face no continued discrimination -- in seeking to improve themselves. Again, that runs counter to the theme of this thread.

You appear to wish to blame minorities for their own situation -- despite recognizing that have at least recently been subject to active legal discrimination. Any proof? Or to you just assume that minorities are lazy and shiftless.

I'm not sure what is an "acceptable level" of equality, but we are far from it. At a minimum it must be equal protection under the laws and equal opportunity. Again, we are not there.

You appear to misunderstand some of the statistics, which show unemployment, poverty, etc. that is vastly disproportionate.

Anyway, even if you wish to quibble about how exactly inequitable the status quo is, what you fail to explain is how anyone could look at the statistics and claim the white male is the one who faces inequality.

I would like to also add to the findings of those so called "random tests" just because people are equally qualified and the minority dosn't get the position dosn't indicate discrimination... in an interview there are more factors in play then just qualifications like demeanor and an individuals ability to present themeslves.. we maybe equally qualified but if you studder and are nervous and I am not, I can almost garantee I will get the position...

These are meant to be less excuses then they are alternatives to the age old omg it must be discrimination at work. Im not saying its non-existant.. but on a whole its far less a factor then most make it out to be. Everyone questions the American CEO but look at examples like Sony who just apointed an American as their CEO (a historical move as most japanese companies only hire japanese executives) to head the company. There is somethign to be said about the experiance American CEO's hold and why white males still remain in these positions in large numbers

So, the only evidence so far that anyone has offered in this thread to prove that racism no longer exists is that a white male is now in charge of a Japanese corporation. My, the rate of progress is dizzying.

And the "so-called" random tests are not as poorly designed as you seem to imagine. There have been dozens of such studies conducted by a multitude of organizations with a host of different controls for variables like the ones you hypothesize.

The evidence of on-going pervasive racial and gender discrimination is overwhelming. I'll gladly post more if necessary.

No one has yet bothered to pause in their rants to post a single shred of evidence that (a) there is little or no racial or gender inequality, (b) there is little or no ongoing racial or gender discrimination, or (c) white Christian males suffer any significant discrimination.

Instead, you wish to throw mindless tantrums. Carry on, I guess.

Can you prove that the female majority thinks that ... or is it just your perception
If women do know, then the majority of them are really being asses if you ask me.

Keep living in fantasy land there... Meanwhile, those of us in Australia know that Indigenous people have a life expectancy 20 years lower than the general population, that children are locked up in detention centres, etc.

There's a LONG way to go yet.
Yeah, in AUSTRALIA. You know about Australia, I don't, and visa versa. Got it ... mate?

Yeah, ofcourse it's disappropiate, when you lob the entire "Minority Community" into one sum. Hell I used to live in a fucking trailer park for the first 14 years of my life. So don't tell me shit bout inequality. The truth is, that people like you who push the subject don't want equality you want superiority. So either come up with an origanal argument, or cut it. Because you can only listen to the same damn crap for so long, before you get tired of it.

The reason the poor are poor is because the rich. The truth is the majority of dicrimination that happens these days happens between the rich and poor. NOT blacks and whites, or the ladder. So don't pull that shit, I'm tired of people always complaining that minorities are being suppressed. Or that the rest of society is down the drain because of illegals. I say down with this bullshit democracy and down with all border.

DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES!DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES!

We are one species, one people.

When i was a child in the UK, one of the best things about our education system was (to me) everyone could get a degree if they worked hard enough at their A'levels.

This is no lobger the case, not because the universities favour the upper class, not because the poor cant affort to go, simply because the UK education system and especially the degree system has been digraded.

I recomend british people apply to the US for their degree courses now. I'll bet you cant get a degree in golf overthere, nor lawn management, nor wall building.

the UK sysem was once the best in the world. Now it's a laughing stock.

I would rather have respect for my qualification and be in debt than be in debt and have a worthless qualification as is the case here these days.

When i was a child in the UK, one of the best things about our education system was (to me) everyone could get a degree if they worked hard enough at their A'levels.

This is no lobger the case, not because the universities favour the upper class, not because the poor cant affort to go, simply because the UK education system and especially the degree system has been digraded.

I recomend british people apply to the US for their degree courses now. I'll bet you cant get a degree in golf overthere, nor lawn management, nor wall building.

the UK sysem was once the best in the world. Now it's a laughing stock.

I would rather have respect for my qualification and be in debt than be in debt and have a worthless qualification as is the case here these days.


Australia seems to be heading the same way. The government is now charging $210 000 dollars for my degree, to allow students who didn't the cut to get in. Yeah, RICH students who didn't make the cut.

Yeah, ofcourse it's disappropiate, when you lob the entire "Minority Community" into one sum. Hell I used to live in a fucking trailer park for the first 14 years of my life. So don't tell me shit bout inequality. The truth is, that people like you who push the subject don't want equality you want superiority. So either come up with an origanal argument, or cut it. Because you can only listen to the same damn crap for so long, before you get tired of it.

The reason the poor are poor is because the rich. The truth is the majority of dicrimination that happens these days happens between the rich and poor. NOT blacks and whites, or the ladder. So don't pull that shit, I'm tired of people always complaining that minorities are being suppressed. Or that the rest of society is down the drain because of illegals. I say down with this bullshit democracy and down with all border.

DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES!DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! DOWN WITH BORDERS! DOWN WITH CLASSES! DOWN WITH RACES!

We are one species, one people.

Wow... well, we know of at least ONE anarchist in the forums... :)

seriously. why does the male minority think the female majority should cater to them? why does the male minority think that the female majority should be obligated to care how men feel about the supposed "death of chivalry?" can't the male minority just shut up and take it?

;)

Women are not the majority in actuality... men are. Majorities experience the social advantage in society and I think we can agree that in the past and still to an extent now, that the ones that still experience social disadvantage are women.

Women are not the majority in actuality... men are.
um, no. there are more women than men. women are the majority.

Majorities experience the social advantage in society and I think we can agree that in the past and still to an extent now, that the ones that still experience social disadvantage are women.
apparently, in this case, the majority does not enjoy those benefits.

um, no. there are more women than men. women are the majority.

All right... here we go again... definition in sociology is:

Majority: Distinguished physically or culturally, at a socially ADVANTAGED posistion.

Minority: Distinguished physically or culturally, at a socially DISADVANTAGED position.

Not everything is about numbers folks. Look at the state of women. They've had to fight for many things in America... suffrage... equal opportunity employment (which brings us back to AA, but I already pounded that subject in this thread) and STILL, STILL things are not equal. They are the numerical majority, but the social minority, and as long as you're going to talk about race, gender and class, you have to think about things in terms of sociology which is the study of groups and grouping.

apparently, in this case, the majority does not enjoy those benefits.

Huh? Men are the social majority, and if you doubt me, then go look at the Labor department stats on wages in America for men and women.... DISTINCT differences. I'm too lazy to hunt for them myself, but I have handouts with the sats in front of me and in some cases, the difference is men get paid twice what women do for eqivalent jobs.

All right... here we go again... definition in sociology is:

Majority: Distinguished physically or culturally, at a socially ADVANTAGED posistion.

Minority: Distinguished physically or culturally, at a socially DISADVANTAGED position.

Not everything is about numbers folks. Look at the state of women. They've had to fight for many things in America... suffrage... equal opportunity employment (which brings us back to AA, but I already pounded that subject in this thread) and STILL, STILL things are not equal. They are the numerical majority, but the social minority, and as long as you're going to talk about race, gender and class, you have to think about things in terms of sociology which is the study of groups and grouping.



Huh? Men are the social majority, and if you doubt me, then go look at the Labor department stats on wages in America for men and women.... DISTINCT differences. I'm too lazy to hunt for them myself, but I have handouts with the sats in front of me and in some cases, the difference is men get paid twice what women do for eqivalent jobs.

i understand the definition you are using. the point i was making is that women are actually not a minority because the MAJORITY OF HUMANS ARE FEMALE. women may be marginalized and treated with the same inequality and/or scorn as actual minorities, but they aren't technically a minority if you go by the numbers.

to be even more clear: the primary definition of "minority" is:

1. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole.
2. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes.

you are using the secondary definition, which is:

1. An ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society.
2. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
3. A member of one of these groups.

the odd thing is that there is (to my knowledge) no other example of a group which is NOT a minority by the primary definition but IS one by the secondary.

All right... here we go again... definition in sociology is:

Majority: Distinguished physically or culturally, at a socially ADVANTAGED posistion.

Minority: Distinguished physically or culturally, at a socially DISADVANTAGED position.

Not everything is about numbers folks. Look at the state of women. They've had to fight for many things in America... suffrage... equal opportunity employment (which brings us back to AA, but I already pounded that subject in this thread) and STILL, STILL things are not equal. They are the numerical majority, but the social minority, and as long as you're going to talk about race, gender and class, you have to think about things in terms of sociology which is the study of groups and grouping.



Huh? Men are the social majority, and if you doubt me, then go look at the Labor department stats on wages in America for men and women.... DISTINCT differences. I'm too lazy to hunt for them myself, but I have handouts with the sats in front of me and in some cases, the difference is men get paid twice what women do for eqivalent jobs.

Your heart is in the right place and I agree with most of what you are saying ... BUT you are arguing semantics with someone that has the same basic perspective as you do.

With all the inanity in this thread, is disagreeing with Bottle's definition of majority really worthwhile?

Actually, affimative action quotas have been ruled unconstitutional. I think the system as a whole should be abolished, though. If someone wants to hate blacks, let them hate blacks. It's just that I won't be buying from them.

i understand the definition you are using. the point i was making is that women are actually not a minority because the MAJORITY OF HUMANS ARE FEMALE. women may be marginalized and treated with the same inequality and/or scorn as actual minorities, but they aren't technically a minority if you go by the numbers.

to be even more clear: the primary definition of "minority" is:

1. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole.
2. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes.

you are using the secondary definition, which is:

1. An ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society.
2. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
3. A member of one of these groups.

the odd thing is that there is (to my knowledge) no other example of a group which is NOT a minority by the primary definition but IS one by the secondary.

This is a sociological debate! This is not a secondary term! It's the sociological term used by sociologists! And there is another. Blacks in South Africa. Numerical majority, but the sociological minority.

Huh? Men are the social majority, and if you doubt me, then go look at the Labor department stats on wages in America for men and women.... DISTINCT differences. I'm too lazy to hunt for them myself, but I have handouts with the sats in front of me and in some cases, the difference is men get paid twice what women do for eqivalent jobs.

That's not true. In jobs where women do the same amount of work as men, and work as many hours, women actually make MORE. I wouldn't propose govenrment intervention if what you say were true anyway.

This is a sociological debate! This is not a secondary term! It's the sociological term used by sociologists! And there is another. Blacks in South Africa. Numerical majority, but the sociological minority.

Lemme try this again.

Imagine we're in a room. Over there are those claiming minorities are privileged and white males are oppressed. Over here are those claiming minorities face discrimination and white males are just whining.

Bottle is on our side of the room.

Wanna try turning around and aiming at the enemy?

(This is a classic example of why conservatives are often better organized and cohesive than liberals.)

That's not true. In jobs where women do the same amount of work as men, and work as many hours, women actually make MORE. I wouldn't propose govenrment intervention if what you say were true anyway.

Any proof?

Evidence of the contrary has already been posted.

Actually, affimative action quotas have been ruled unconstitutional. I think the system as a whole should be abolished, though. If someone wants to hate blacks, let them hate blacks. It's just that I won't be buying from them.

Affirmative action was never meant to instill quotas... that's a myth. What it WAS meant to do was if a firm has a lower number of a certain minority group (ethnic or gender), and there was a race between two equally qualified candidates for the same job, then in the hiring process, preference was to be given to the minority. If the hiring firm was not getting enough any minority candidates in its current hiring pool, then it was to expand its search radius. There has never been quotas for hiring practices in AA. Now, the education side of AA (which IS entirely different from the equal empoyment side) which was ONLY meant for race, THAT has been declared unconstitutional at least twice in my recollection... both from Michigan State if I recall.

That's not true. In jobs where women do the same amount of work as men, and work as many hours, women actually make MORE. I wouldn't propose govenrment intervention if what you say were true anyway.

Where the hell did you see that?

Lemme try this again.

Imagine we're in a room. Over there are those claiming minorities are privileged and white males are oppressed. Over here are those claiming minorities face discrimination and white males are just whining.

Bottle is on our side of the room.

Wanna try turning around and aiming at the enemy?

(This is a classic example of why conservatives are often better organized and cohesive than liberals.)

I am only trying to instill the fact that numerous times I have seen the wrong definition used for a certain important term. Numbers mean nothing in debate over equality.

EDIT: Well... numbers of members in a group.

This is a sociological debate! This is not a secondary term!

it's nice you feel that way. i feel both definitions are pertinent to the discussion.


It's the sociological term used by sociologists! And there is another. Blacks in South Africa. Numerical majority, but the sociological minority.
it's also a term used by people, like me, according to the definitions in the dictionary. as i have pointed out, there is both a primary and secondary definition of the word, and both are accurate uses of the word. i don't quite know why you are insisting on arguing this point.

I am only trying to instill the fact that numerous times I have seen the wrong definition used for a certain important term. Numbers mean nothing in debate over equality.

1. it is not a wrong definition.
2. numbers mean a HUGE amount in debates over equality.
3. get over it.

(This is a classic example of why conservatives are often better organized and cohesive than liberals.)Indeed. It's unfortunate that the intellectualism of liberal politics is the source of it's own defeat. And it's ironic that it has been further exploited by conservative forces to paint liberals as pie-in-the-sky and elitist. Heh.

Lemme try this again.

Imagine we're in a room. Over there are those claiming minorities are privileged and white males are oppressed. Over here are those claiming minorities face discrimination and white males are just whining.

Bottle is on our side of the room.

Wanna try turning around and aiming at the enemy?

(This is a classic example of why conservatives are often better organized and cohesive than liberals.)
seriously. i don't get what is going on here. it seems to be, "MINORITY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH NUMBERS! NO, THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT! I SAY MINORITY MEANS 'OPPRESSED' AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT! YOU'RE WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!"

though, for the record, i'm not a liberal :).

though, for the record, i'm not a liberal :).

I know. But, coming from me, consider it a compliment. :)

I know. But, coming from me, consider it a compliment. :)
will do. i suppose i am pretty durn close to the definition of a classic liberal, but since i am an American i have a very different definition of "liberal" than the classic one...and i certainly don't fit that particular definition.

stupid semantics!

1. it is not a wrong definition.
2. numbers mean a HUGE amount in debates over equality.
3. get over it.

Whatever. And I'm sorry if I come off as a bleeding heart liberal sometimes. I'm a liberal, but I am also rational most of the time. Issues with friends at the moment have me worked up.

Whatever. And I'm sorry if I come off as a bleeding heart liberal sometimes. I'm a liberal, but I am also rational most of the time. Issues with friends at the moment have me worked up.
no sweat. i get bitchy sometimes and bring my rage onto General forum, so i certainly can't fault anybody who gets a little hot under the collar around here :).

My main problem with this is that minorities are disrespecting the fundamentals that our nations were built on. I'm sorry, but this is the West.

I don't know if this has been said before, but I'd rather not go through 25 pages of stuff to find one small point.

I'd just like to mention that the US government (the nation I assume you are referring to) was created in order to protect the minorities; specifically the select educated, wealthy, white males, who were a minority at the time. They had power and they wanted to keep it. So the Founding Fathers created a government that appeased the masses and at the same time protected their authority.

Just thought I'd mention that.

I don't know if this has been said before, but I'd rather not go through 25 pages of stuff to find one small point.

I'd just like to mention that the US government (the nation I assume you are referring to) was created in order to protect the minorities; specifically the select educated, wealthy, white males, who were a minority at the time. They had power and they wanted to keep it. So the Founding Fathers created a government that appeased the masses and at the same time protected their authority.

Just thought I'd mention that.

It's sad cause it's actually very true.

I only like white people, so sue me. :rolleyes:

I only like white people, so sue me. :rolleyes:
Not unless you try to make that viewpoint law.

i think it's considered ok to have things like black pride, gay pride, etc. because it's not the "norm." there's gay pride day because without it everyone assumes you're straight. when the majority takes a straight pride or a white pride or whatever, it's like flaunting the power you already have.

i think it's considered ok to have things like black pride, gay pride, etc. because it's not the "norm." there's gay pride day because without it everyone assumes you're straight. when the majority takes a straight pride or a white pride or whatever, it's like flaunting the power you already have.

Im white and I dont have any power, what the hell are you on about? Arent I allowed to even be proud of my own skin colour?

Not unless you try to make that viewpoint law.

I wouldnt. Its just my prefernce in general, of cause Ive met asians and blacks an middle easteners that I like, but if I had to live with only one racial type it would definitely be white.

I only like white people, so sue me. :rolleyes:


Bully for you.

I won't sue you for being racist, but gravedigging this inane thread.

You know what's weird? That all the people who agree with whatsisface.. the blatantly racist guy who started the thread.. all seem to think that there was something "bold" about him issuing this "unique" and/or "admirable" statement. As if his rant wasn't word-for-word exactly the kind of crap we've been hearing from talk radio -- and all its mantra-chanting, zombified listeners -- for the last 20 years or so.

Honestly, this past year has confounded me, the way the arguments from the other side seem to be frozen in time: circa 1994, I'd say, maybe a few years before that. And yet despite having won and won big that year and every year since, they still labor under the misapprehension that they're being "oppressed"; that what they're saying is in any way, shape, or form, fresh. At best, it's early '90s nostalgia...

You know what's weird? That all the people who agree with whatsisface.. the blatantly racist guy who started the thread.. all seem to think that there was something "bold" about him issuing this "unique" and/or "admirable" statement. As if his rant wasn't word-for-word exactly the kind of crap we've been hearing from talk radio -- and all its mantra-chanting, zombified listeners -- for the last 20 years or so.
Honestly, this past year has confounded me, the way the arguments from the other side seem to be frozen in time: circa 1994, I'd say, maybe a few years before that. And yet despite having won and won big that year and every year since, they still labor under the misapprehension that they're being "oppressed"; that what they're saying is in any way, shape, or form, fresh. At best, it's early '90s nostalgia...

Seems like you have something against free speech.

Seems like you have something against free speech.

Seems like you misunderstand what free speech is.

You are free to express an opinion.

I am free to say your opinion is wrong.

That is free speech. That is the marketplace of ideas.

It is only when we cast aside our “black pride” or our “girl power” or our “rights of the working man” that we will truly come together as people, as humans, and not as black or white, male or female, rich or poor, or some other petty dividing factor between us. To put it simply, I’m interested in your response. This isn’t meant to be an essay, more of a rant actually, but it’s meant to inspire debate. Go ahead…post your replies and responses.

Shakah brah! I agree with ya man. I live nearby DC and gotta deal with that kinda crap everyday...All for equality here, and I sure as hell ain't racist, and I'm not a 'male chauvinist pig'...But dude, it ain't gonna happen for a loooong time, if it is possible...

There's no "white pride" because whites have been in control for so long. For a bunch of illiterate, toothless and hygenically questionable mental defectives to march up and down the streets of northern Idaho (or wherever they are now) and chant "white power" while brandishing the Confederate Battle Flag is ridiculous.

Then again, someone with inferior qualifications who is selected ahead of another because their race is historically unequal is just as ridiculous -- and certainly not very free market.

So what's the solution? "Tie goes to the darkie" as national policy? It's difficult to say when the language is still so replete with hints as to which culture/race is dominant. However, the younger the USan, the more likely they are to be in some way influenced by the now-dominant Black culture. Rebellious teenagers began adopting Black culture as early as the Jazz Age (20s), and now that culture is firmly in control. Entertainment as a whole is now approaching parity with regard to how much Black influence there is as a measure of the Black population. As goes mass entertainment, politics usually follows. Don't believe me? Check out the color of the driver of the stupid over-amped car at teh next stop light whose bass is so ridiculously loud that his frame and panels are rattling. Chances are, at least around here, that he's white.

I don't know what the solution is. I do agree with the original post, but I also can see why some would disagree.

I just went through the hell that is applying to medical school (I got accepted; thanks for asking). When talking to several medical students and physicians that I know, I was repeatedly informed that I had three things going against me right from the beginning: I'm white, I'm male, and I'm from the middle class.

As a med school applicant, I was very frustrated to learn that many schools award extra points (yes, points: lots of schools use a point-based system to decide whom to accept) simply for the color of an applicant's skin. Does the fact that another applicant is Asian or Native American or Hispanic make them more qualified than me? Does it make their MCAT score and GPA more meaningful? Think about it this way: would you want to take your child to see a doctor whose place in medical school was granted as a result of their race rather than their qualifications?

I'm a strong believer that affirmative action, political correctness, and other like-minded attempts to articifially level the playing field do nothing more than fuel gender- and ethnic-based schisms and perpetuate the flawed idea that all men and women are not created equal. Equal rights are not special rights, and nobody deserves a free lunch more than anyone else. I have no more patience for any white, black, red, yellow, green, orange, or purple people who think that the color of their skin automatically makes them any more special or deserving than the rest of humanity.

So admittedly, I only read the first and the last page of posts, but I get the feeling that the middle was pretty much more of the same. Anyway, I just wanted to toss in that having done a fair amount of reading on the topics of affirmative action, and wnated to let oyu guys know that you're almost all kinda tools of the man. Not that I blame you or anything, that's just sort of how it goes. But basically all of these conversations are indicative of the righteous indignation that goes along with a healthy amount of legitimate critical thought, and just a ltitle bit of prodding by various pundits with truisms that make a lot of sense at first.

So i realize that thi seems a tad pedantic and condescending, but bear with me for a little longer.

For the past 10 years or so (and more), members of a rather elitist right have had the most success when they are able to speak to people's senses of morality and justice. Initially, though, this makes it difficult to pursue the perennial conservative goals like "not wasting money feeding hungry people," "discriminating against women and minorities," "persecuting people with different views (gays, non-christians, pro-choicers, people in favor of birth control in general, etc)," and "helping the extremely rich hang onto their money without paying as much taxes."
Obviously, these things are all realy hard to make sound moral if you just say that that's the goal, but with a little bit of creative thinking we invent "the (probably black) welfare queen who keeps having children to stay on welfare," "reverse discrimination keeping the white man down and crazy femi-nazis who are just out to get men," "the sanctity of marriage, the culture of life, and abstinence only sex-ed," and "the ownership society (which encourages us to repeal the 'death tax')" respectively. We've all heard and read these phrases or caricatures of people from Reader's Digest, CNN, Fox News, Focus on the Family, etc., and because they're appeal to people's common sense (and are repeated so frequently), it doesn't really matter if they're relevant, true, or actually justifiable by any reasonable means.

So while some of these ideas, specifically the (unnamed in the first and last page of the thread) ideas that reverse discrimination is a strong force that's hurting you and me in our daily lives and that "the crazy, illogical ideal of political correctness is rampaging out of control" may resonate with specific experiences we've had, or things we've read, and may even have a kernel of truth, I sincerely doubt that any of us are as victimized by them as has been portrayed. And if you've ever read the comic strip Mallard Fillmore (or even if you haven't), just remember that the people who complain about specific groups (or Americans, or westerners in general) trying to (inappropriately) act like a victim, they're probably just whiny (self-victimizing) bastards themselves.

I just went through the hell that is applying to medical school (I got accepted; thanks for asking). When talking to several medical students and physicians that I know, I was repeatedly informed that I had three things going against me right from the beginning: I'm white, I'm male, and I'm from the middle class.

Ah, nothing like anecdotal hearsay to prove a point.

And, yet, you got accepted -- despite being white, male, and middle class. Miracles never cease. So few medical students and doctors are white and male and come from the middle class. :rolleyes:

As a med school applicant, I was very frustrated to learn that many schools award extra points (yes, points: lots of schools use a point-based system to decide whom to accept) simply for the color of an applicant's skin. Does the fact that another applicant is Asian or Native American or Hispanic make them more qualified than me? Does it make their MCAT score and GPA more meaningful?

If you've really looked into it, you know that medical school admissions are a bit more complicated than that. You also know that MCAT scores and GPAs count the same.

Think about it this way: would you want to take your child to see a doctor whose place in medical school was granted as a result of their race rather than their qualifications?

A classic canard with blatant racist undertones.

Affirmative action does not change the criteria for graduating from medical school. Even assuming someone with less qualifications is admitted to medical school due to affirmative action (which is a false premise), they must nonetheless compete with other students and pass all the same requirements to become a doctor. So they are as qualified as any other doctor from that medical school.

As this is rather obvious, it raises the question of why this "the darkie doctor must be less qualified" argument comes up so often. Hmm?

I'm a strong believer that affirmative action, political correctness, and other like-minded attempts to articifially level the playing field do nothing more than fuel gender- and ethnic-based schisms and perpetuate the flawed idea that all men and women are not created equal.

Yes. Without affirmative action and political correctness, there would be racial and gender harmony.

No need to level the playing field. White males like their advantages, dammit. And minorities and women should just keep quite about it.

Equal rights are not special rights, and nobody deserves a free lunch more than anyone else. I have no more patience for any white, black, red, yellow, green, orange, or purple people who think that the color of their skin automatically makes them any more special or deserving than the rest of humanity.

Good. Then you will gladly yield the many privileges of being a white male. You will not object to diversity and to equal representation. If white males are disporportionately favored by a system that treats them as special and more deserving, then that system must be corrected. Oh, wait -- that would be affirmative action and civil rights laws. Doh!

Under any law making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, etc., it is just as illegal to discriminate against a white male as it is to discriminate against anyone else.

Seems like you misunderstand what free speech is.
You are free to express an opinion.
I am free to say your opinion is wrong.
That is free speech. That is the marketplace of ideas.

But what if you support ways that suppress my opinion?
As in not simply disagreeing, but throwing insults or slander, not saying that you would, but with the politically correct this seems certainally a popular path to follow.

=The Cat-Tribe]
No need to level the playing field. White males like their advantages, dammit. And minorities and women should just keep quite about it.

Yeah riiiight, like the family law courts right?
Your views of whos being discriminated against now are so outdated, yand your either playing possum about it or pretty thick.

Under any law making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, etc., it is just as illegal to discriminate against a white male as it is to discriminate against anyone else.

Hello family law courts...

But what if you support ways that suppress my opinion?
As in not simply disagreeing, but throwing insults or slander, not saying that you would, but with the politically correct this seems certainally a popular path to follow.

What, pray tell, counts as "ways the suppress [your] opinion"?

Political correctness is a label that people love to throw around as prejorative with little understanding and even less specificity.

Yeah riiiight, like the family law courts right?
Your views of whos being discriminated against now are so outdated, yand your either playing possum about it or pretty thick.

Hello family law courts...

LOL.

If you believe white males are discriminated against, please provide evidence that this is the case. Should be easy if they are so oppressed.

This thread is alive again?! WOOoooo!

Because the white male moaning and gnashing of teeth appears to be starting up again amongst those you have not read the thread, I will repeat some of the evidence I posted earlier of ongoing discrimination against women and minorities.

If you believe white males are discriminated against, you should be able to counter with similar evidence. I won't hold my breath.

Widespread discrimination and exclusion and their ripple effects continue to exist in the US. Here are some (I know practically verboten here) facts:


Minorities and women remain economically disadvantaged: the black unemployment rate remains over twice the white unemployment rate; 97 percent of senior managers in Fortune 1000 corporations are white males; (28) in 1992, 33.3 percent of blacks and 29.3 percent of Hispanics lived in poverty, compared to 11.6 percent of whites. (29) In 1993, Hispanic men were half as likely as white men to be managers or professionals; (30) only 0.4 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries are Hispanic. (31)


Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit" studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants. (32)


Less direct evidence on discrimination comes from comparisons of earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. (33) Even after adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts. The average income for Hispanic women with college degrees is less than the average for white men with high school degrees. (34)


In 1994 alone, the Federal government received over 90,000 complaints of employment discrimination. Moreover 64,423 complaints were filed with state and local Fair Employment Practices Commissions, bringing the total last year to over 154,000. Thousands of other individuals filed complaints alleging racially motivated violence and discrimination in housing, voting, and public accommodations, to name just a few.


White males continue to hold 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management are African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic.


African Americans hold only 2.5 percent of top jobs in the private sector and African American men with professional degrees earn only 79 percent of the amount earned by their white counterparts. Comparably situated African American women earn only 60 percent of the amount earned by white males.


Women hold 3 to 5 percent of senior level management positions -- there are only two women CEOs in Fortune 1000 companies.


The fears and prejudices of lower-rung white male executives were listed as a principal barrier to the advancement of women and minorities. The report also found that, across the board, men advance more rapidly than women.


The unemployment rate for African Americans was more than twice that of whites in 1994. The median income for black males working full-time, full year in 1992 was 30 percent less than white males. Hispanics fared only modestly better in each category. In 1993, black and Hispanic men were half as likely as white men to be managers or professionals.


In 1992, over 50 percent of African American children under 6 and 44 percent of Hispanic children lived under the poverty level, while only 14.4 percent of white children did so. The overall poverty rates were 33.3 percent for African Americans, 29.3 percent for Hispanics and 11.6 percent for whites.


Black employment remains fragile -- in an economic downturn, black unemployment leads the downward spiral. For example, in the 1981-82 recession, black employment dropped by 9.1 percent while white employment fell by 1.6 percent. Hispanic unemployment is also much more cyclical than unemployment for white Americans. (39) Hispanic family income remains much lower, and increases at a slower rate, than white family income.


Unequal access to education plays an important role in creating and perpetuating economic disparities. In 1993, less than 3 percent of college graduates were unemployed; but whereas 22.6 percent of whites had college degrees, only 12.2 percent of African Americans and 9.0 percent of Hispanics did.


The 1990 census reflected that 2.4 percent of the nation's businesses are owned by blacks. Almost 85 percent of those black owned businesses have no employees


Even within educational categories, the economic status of minorities and women fall short. The average woman with a masters degree earns the same amount as the average man with an associate degree. (42) While college educated black women have reached earnings parity with college educated white women, college educated black men earn 76 percent of the earnings of their white male counterparts. (43) Hispanic women earn less than 65 percent of the income earned by white men with the same educational level. Hispanic men earn 81 percent of the wages earned by white men at the same educational level. The average income for Hispanic women with college degrees is less than the average for white men with high school degrees.


A study of the graduating classes of the University of Michigan Law School from 1972-1975 revealed significant wage differentials between men and women lawyers after 15 years of practice. While women earned 93.5 percent of male salaries during the first year after school, that number dropped to 61 percent after 15 years of practice. Controlling for grades, hours of work, family responsibilities, labor market experience, and choice of careers (large firms versus small firms, academia, public interest, etc.), men are left with an unexplained 13 percent earnings advantage over women.


Here is my source (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html). Its the Clinton Administration's Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President. Please feel free to check its accuracy. In fact, read it. Learn it. Love it. Here are the footnotes (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/footnotes.html#aa28).

The only way to destroy this thread is to drive a wooden stake through it's heart.

LOL.

If you believe white males are discriminated against, please provide evidence that this is the case. Should be easy if they are so oppressed.

ARE YOU FUCKIN STUPID??? FAMILY LAW COURTS! FAMILY LAW COURTS!
GET IT????

The only way to destroy this thread is to drive a wooden stake through it's heart.

It had died, but Ringrot did some serious gravedigging.

ARE YOU FUCKIN STUPID??? FAMILY LAW COURTS! FAMILY LAW COURTS!
GET IT????

My, such eloquence. I can feel goosebumps.

What about family law courts?

Wow. . . . I should so be in bed, getting a few hours sleep before my pathology exam tom, errr, today. I just can't go and miss The Cat-Tribe and his impending slaughtering of white ignorance and self-absorbed debasment.

What, pray tell, counts as "ways the suppress [your] opinion"?
Political correctness is a label that people love to throw around as prejorative with little understanding and even less specificity.

Oh we understand it alright, its awhole system thats has been bought into place by socialists deliberately pointed directly at white male suppression and nothing else.

Fuck it is soooo obvious, but you have the nerve to disagree, fuck you, your nothing but a liar.

My, such eloquence. I can feel goosebumps.
What about family law courts?

You know damn well you filthy liar!!

Oh we understand it alright, its awhole system thats has been bought into place by socialists deliberately pointed directly at white male suppression and nothing else.

Fuck it is soooo obvious, but you have the nerve to disagree, fuck you, your nothing but a liar.


That's the best you can do? If you want to win a debate you actually have to debate. . .otherwise you are nothing more than a child throwing a temper tantrum that you haven't gotten your way.

Oh we understand it alright, its awhole system thats has been bought into place by socialists deliberately pointed directly at white male suppression and nothing else.

Fuck it is soooo obvious, but you have the nerve to disagree, fuck you, your nothing but a liar.

Again, pure poetry.

The big mean socialist women and minorities are suppressing (oppressing?) the helpless white men. Heap big bad. Got it.

Any evidence? Or just the power of your oratory?

I'm a strong believer that affirmative action, political correctness, and other like-minded attempts to articifially level the playing field do nothing more than fuel gender- and ethnic-based schisms and perpetuate the flawed idea that all men and women are not created equal. Equal rights are not special rights, and nobody deserves a free lunch more than anyone else. I have no more patience for any white, black, red, yellow, green, orange, or purple people who think that the color of their skin automatically makes them any more special or deserving than the rest of humanity.
Here's a scenario I came up with for a different thread, but for y'all who don't see the grand plan that affirmative action is part of achieving, just go through the steps:

Lets say that in a population there's 75% crunchy people and 25% juicy people. So say there's this job, and 50% of the crunchy people are more or less qualified for it. Say only 20% of juicy people are qualified for the same job because of differences in the average level of education and economic wealth. Maybe on average, these juicies are even a bit less qualified for the job.

Though the relative proportion of crunchy people hired should be bigger than that for juicy people, since they are more, and better qualified, the company insists on hiring exactly 75% crunchies, and 25% juicies, so if you are a qualified juicy, you have a better chance of getting the job than if you're a qualified crunchie. That sounds like descrimination, right?

Well, not really. The juicies hired will learn skills and make money and have families. The next generation of juicies will have a higher percentage of people qualified for that same job in their population, since they were probably raised in a more prosperous environmant, due to their parents getting that job. Say now 30% are qualified, as opposed to the (still) 50% of crunchies.

Now the same company had to 'discriminate' proportionally less than it did before in order to fulfill the 75% crunchie, 25% juicy quota. A couple generations down the line, and 50% of juicies will be qualified for the job, same as their crunchy counterparts. The company will not have to exercise any control (if equitable hiring practices are in place) for their to be proportional representation of the general population in the workplace. Voila!!

The quota may still be in place, but its meaningless, since it should be naturally fulfilled.

Point being that you can't pay lip service to equality and ignore historical, societal impacts that will take generations to overcome. Everyone is NOT equal now, and in order to reverse that trend things have to be done that we may find, in principle, distatsteful.
__________________

That's the best you can do? If you want to win a debate you actually have to debate. . .otherwise you are nothing more than a child throwing a temper tantrum that you haven't gotten your way.

You might as well get some rest. This clearly isn't going anywhere.

Taking candy from babies and drowning newborn kittens is fun but hardly a challenge.

You might as well get some rest. This clearly isn't going anywhere.

Taking candy from babies and drowning newborn kittens is fun but hardly a challenge.


You're right of course. . .but you know us big-bad liberals, we get off on drowning kittens. And besides, I've got enough of a challenge in trying to differentiate all of the different endocrine, orthopedic, and rheumatological disorders, diseases, and neoplasms.

You know damn well you filthy liar!!

In return for you kindness, some advice:

1. You might want to check the forum rules.

2. You might want to actually make a point. That helps in a debate.

Again, pure poetry.
The big mean socialist women and minorities are suppressing (oppressing?) the helpless white men. Heap big bad. Got it.
Any evidence? Or just the power of your oratory?

The evidence is all around you fool, have you been under a rock for the last thirty years?
Why cant you just admit its the truth? Fuck debating, its a waste of time anyway.

In return for you kindness, some advice:
1. You might want to check the forum rules.
2. You might want to actually make a point. That helps in a debate.

Sorry but something doesnt smell good about you, and I call a spade a spade, you are a liar.
As for debating, its a waste of time, and a pointless exercise that takes people around in circles.

The evidence is all around you fool, have you been under a rock for the last thirty years?
Why cant you just admit its the truth? Fuck debating, its a waste of time anyway.

I'm trying to decide if your oratorical style is more Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Paul Robeson. I think you are actually a Malcolm X man.

While your rhetoric has me bedazzled, you still appear rather short on evidence.

You might as well get some rest. This clearly isn't going anywhere.
Taking candy from babies and drowning newborn kittens is fun but hardly a challenge.

OOh you big tough internet debater you :rolleyes:

I'm trying to decide if your oratorical style is more Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Paul Robeson. I think you are actually a Malcolm X man.
While your rhetoric has me bedazzled, you still appear rather short on evidence.

Go and sit in the family law courts for a few weeks, you will see and hear all the evidence you need.

A classic canard with blatant racist undertones.

Not at all. I think you've misunderstood my meaning entirely, and I apologize for not being more clear.

The message I meant to convey in my previous post is that I believe in the advancement of people of all races, genders, and socioeconomic origins based on their own abilities and talents.

I am well aware that GPAs and MCATs are only two of many things influencing med school admissions decisions. Certainly there are a multitude of factors that determine which applicants will be accepted and which will not. It is my opinion that race and gender should not be considered as qualifying characteristics. Unfortunately, evidence that is more than anecdotal hearsay that leads me to believe that they are.

When I was interviewing at a med school in the Midwest, I spoke with the associate dean of admissions. Another interviewee asked him about recent lawsuits alleging that the school was guilty of illegal discrimination. The dean replied that the courts had found in favor of the university and had upheld their right to practice affirmative action in the admissions process. In fact, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the use of race-conscious admissions policies by institutions of higher education since 1978. (Bakke v. Regents of the University of California. Judge Powell wrote that schools could consider race in admissions decisions in higher education as long as the school did not use quotas.)

Anyway, I chose the example of med school admissions to underline a larger concern simply because it's something that I went through recently. I really don't care who gets in to med school and who doesn't so long as they get in on their own merits. I was very disappointed when the associate dean of admissions who I mentioned earlier informed me and several other applicants that gender and ethnicity were taken into consideration on admissions decisions at that school.

I did not mean to imply that a doctor or any other professional might not be fully qualified simply because they're from an ethnic minority. I also did not mean to imply that ethnic minorities are only awarded places in educational programs based on their race. I simply believe that it is a mistake to use gender and race when determining who should be admitted to which programs.

I also did not mean to imply that affirmative action is the only thing contributing to racial disharmony. There are significant divisions that have existed between different groups of people for thousands of years, a problem that we are not likely to completely overcome in a relatively short period of time. Affirmative action certainly isn't the root cause of all that. But I really don't think it's doing much to alleviate racial tension, either.

You may feel free to disagree with my opinion; that's why free speech is so cool. I didn't mean to seem uninformed or bigoted, and I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I harbor any ill feelings toward any individual based on their race or gender. I simply believe that there are more effective ways of promoting racial equality than practicing affirmative action.

In the future, I would appreciate it if you would not accuse me of racism simply because you misunderstood my intentions.

Mybe you two shoud attenuate your ego trips and call it quits for tonight. It is clear that this is going nowhere.

For people that haven't read the thread, there's some good stuff in there that may be worth reading, if not rehashing endlessly.

Sorry but something doesnt smell good about you, and I call a spade a spade, you are a liar.
As for debating, its a waste of time, and a pointless exercise that takes people around in circles.
http://img38.exs.cx/img38/1479/forum-troll.jpg

That's the best you can do? If you want to win a debate you actually have to debate. . .otherwise you are nothing more than a child throwing a temper tantrum that you haven't gotten your way.

I didnt come here to debate fool, I came to set the record straight!!

http://img38.exs.cx/img38/1479/forum-troll.jpg

Is that a picture of your mother? yuk yuk yuk :sniper:

I didnt come here to debate fool, I came to set the record straight!!

For the love of all things holy, chill out. Blogs are for making your own soapbox. Forums are for intelligent debate.

I didnt come here to debate fool, I came to set the record straight!!


Wow. . .that just ruined my life. I was just called a fool by a forum troll. I'm not sure how I will manage to go on . . . . .

snip.
This is a classic example of a well intentioned, upright, and honest person, who just doesn't want to accept that societal inequities will not just go away if we're nice enough. You and I, and most people may not harbour any ill-fealings toward minorities, nor treat them differently. Why should they be favoured then? To correct EXISTING inequities, that you and I had nothing to do with creating, but must be part of the solution.

Go read the scenario I posted; its basic, but that's the basic logic for AA.

For the love of all things holy, chill out. Blogs are for making your own soapbox. Forums are for intelligent debate.

Intelligent debate on here? What aload of cods! This like other forums on the net is just chokas full of leftys who will only agree on anything if its deemed politically correct, what the hell is intelligent about that?

Intelligent debate on here? What aload of cods! This like other forums on the net is just chokas full of leftys who will only agree on anything if its deemed politically correct, what the hell is intelligent about that?
Beter question what is not intelligent about that (not saying it is true but you post as if every viewpoint but your own is not intelligent)

Wow. . .that just ruined my life. I was just called a fool by a forum troll. I'm not sure how I will manage to go on . . . . .

Hopefully you wont, maybe a truck will run you over today or something good like that.
Fingers crossed.

Hopefully you wont, maybe a truck will run you over today or something good like that.
Fingers crossed.
Lol and you were the one complaining about non intelligent debate? :rolleyes: LOL

I just went through the hell that is applying to medical school (I got accepted; thanks for asking). When talking to several medical students and physicians that I know, I was repeatedly informed that I had three things going against me right from the beginning: I'm white, I'm male, and I'm from the middle class.

As a med school applicant, I was very frustrated to learn that many schools award extra points (yes, points: lots of schools use a point-based system to decide whom to accept) simply for the color of an applicant's skin. Does the fact that another applicant is Asian or Native American or Hispanic make them more qualified than me? Does it make their MCAT score and GPA more meaningful? Think about it this way: would you want to take your child to see a doctor whose place in medical school was granted as a result of their race rather than their qualifications?

I'm a strong believer that affirmative action, political correctness, and other like-minded attempts to articifially level the playing field do nothing more than fuel gender- and ethnic-based schisms and perpetuate the flawed idea that all men and women are not created equal. Equal rights are not special rights, and nobody deserves a free lunch more than anyone else. I have no more patience for any white, black, red, yellow, green, orange, or purple people who think that the color of their skin automatically makes them any more special or deserving than the rest of humanity.

Not at all. I think you've misunderstood my meaning entirely, and I apologize for not being more clear.

The message I meant to convey in my previous post is that I believe in the advancement of people of all races, genders, and socioeconomic origins based on their own abilities and talents.

I am well aware that GPAs and MCATs are only two of many things influencing med school admissions decisions. Certainly there are a multitude of factors that determine which applicants will be accepted and which will not. It is my opinion that race and gender should not be considered as qualifying characteristics. Unfortunately, evidence that is more than anecdotal hearsay that leads me to believe that they are.

When I was interviewing at a med school in the Midwest, I spoke with the associate dean of admissions. Another interviewee asked him about recent lawsuits alleging that the school was guilty of illegal discrimination. The dean replied that the courts had found in favor of the university and had upheld their right to practice affirmative action in the admissions process. In fact, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the use of race-conscious admissions policies by institutions of higher education since 1978. (Bakke v. Regents of the University of California. Judge Powell wrote that schools could consider race in admissions decisions in higher education as long as the school did not use quotas.)

Anyway, I chose the example of med school admissions to underline a larger concern simply because it's something that I went through recently. I really don't care who gets in to med school and who doesn't so long as they get in on their own merits. I was very disappointed when the associate dean of admissions who I mentioned earlier informed me and several other applicants that gender and ethnicity were taken into consideration on admissions decisions at that school.

I did not mean to imply that a doctor or any other professional might not be fully qualified simply because they're from an ethnic minority. I also did not mean to imply that ethnic minorities are only awarded places in educational programs based on their race. I simply believe that it is a mistake to use gender and race when determining who should be admitted to which programs.

I also did not mean to imply that affirmative action is the only thing contributing to racial disharmony. There are significant divisions that have existed between different groups of people for thousands of years, a problem that we are not likely to completely overcome in a relatively short period of time. Affirmative action certainly isn't the root cause of all that. But I really don't think it's doing much to alleviate racial tension, either.

You may feel free to disagree with my opinion; that's why free speech is so cool. I didn't mean to seem uninformed or bigoted, and I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I harbor any ill feelings toward any individual based on their race or gender. I simply believe that there are more effective ways of promoting racial equality than practicing affirmative action.

In the future, I would appreciate it if you would not accuse me of racism simply because you misunderstood my intentions.

I am glad you chose to clarify your earlier comments, as they were apparently easy to misunderstand.

I believe I did not accuse you of racism. I did say that your question about a doctor who was admitted to medical school based on race was a canard with racist undertones. I stand by that statement.

I am quite familiar with Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/438/265.html ), 438 US 265 (1978) and with the more recent decision in Grutter v. Bollinger (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-516.html ), 539 US ___ (2003). I think those decisions explain quite clearly the limits of affirmative action in admissions policies and some of the justifications for such policies.

Beter question what is not intelligent about that (not saying it is true but you post as if every viewpoint but your own is not intelligent)

Well, I feel like Im part of the truly enlightened in todays society of fools, I know bullshit when I smell it, and the left is absolutely rank with it, alot of people agree with all my view points, or if not, at least some of them.

Lol and you were the one complaining about non intelligent debate? :rolleyes: LOL

It wasnt intended as debate, does everything on here have to be a fuckin debate, lighten up man!

Well, I feel like Im part of the truly enlightened in todays society of fools, I know bullshit when I smell it, and the left is absolutely rank with it, alot of people agree with all my view points, or if not, at least some of them.
And that has what to do with intelligent debate how?

It wasnt intended as debate, does everything on here have to be a fuckin debate, lighten up man!
Im not the one going into a rage about the left ... May not be me that needs to lighten up

I didnt come here to debate fool, I came to set the record straight!!

And I've asked you a half dozen times to actually do so rather than just call people names.

If you have an actual point, make it.

If you have actual evidence to "set the record straight," do it.

Otherwise, I can not respond further without being guilty of troll feeding.

And that has what to do with intelligent debate how?
Nothing, try to thinkoutside 'debate' if you can.

And I've asked you a half dozen times to actually do so rather than just call people names.
If you have an actual point, make it.
If you have actual evidence to "set the record straight," do it.
Otherwise, I can not respond further without being guilty of troll feeding.

Have you got selective eyesight or somthin, didnt I post earlier to you about actually goin into a family law court and wittnessing the incredible biasm placed in process and used against white males?

Nothing, try to thinkoutside 'debate' if you can.
I would if we were not origionating back to your statement that there is none that is what this is all based off of I am just staying within paramaters of the origional arguement it was in direct contradiction to your statement about the lack of intelegent debate

follow that?

Have you got selective eyesight or somthin, didnt I post earlier to you about actually goin into a family law court and wittnessing the incredible biasm placed in process and used against white males?

Again, I am quite familiar with family court in the US.

No such incredible bias.

If you have witnessed such or have evidence, please provide examples.

Simply saying it is so over and over does not prove anything.

I am glad you chose to clarify your earlier comments, as they were apparently easy to misunderstand.

I believe I did not accuse you of racism. I did say that your question about a doctor who was admitted to medical school based on race was a canard with racist undertones. I stand by that statement.His statement was perfectly clear. There's not need to jump down someone's throat when they're clearly not trying to offend. Especially when you don't qualify your acusatory statements of racist undertones- would you mind explaining how? Communicatio, not sterilized PC bulshit is the aim here.

For The Love Of God Just Let This Thread Die!

Im not the one going into a rage about the left ... May not be me that needs to lighten up

Well I think you should, you mistake my anger and passion for rage, which is a far differnt thing, rage has no reason to it,although sometimes justified, whereas anger is usually for a good reason, and that reason being the family law courts are completely bias 90 % of the time because of corrupt evil perverted femnazi lawyers, that should be removed one way or the other as soon as possible.

Well I think you should, you mistake my anger and passion for rage, which is a far differnt thing, rage has no reason to it,although sometimes justified, whereas anger is usually for a good reason, and that reason being the family law courts are completely biat 90 % of the time because of corrupt femnazi lawyers, that should be removed one way or the other as soon as possible.
Sorry by rage I ment something closer to rant with it

And great more claims with no proof :rolleyes: (note I am not saying you are wrong but you provide only personal experiances as proof which is not varifyable)

Sorry by rage I ment something closer to rant with it
And great more claims with no proof :rolleyes: (note I am not saying you are wrong but you provide only personal experiances as proof which is not varifyable)

Rant? Try telling that to all the fathers out there, who have been completely turned away from their kids, because of their stupid greedy wives, this isnt a rant, this is telling it how it is, and you better wake up to it fool, because if you dont you will see this whole society collapse around you in the future.

His statement was perfectly clear. There's not need to jump down someone's throat when they're clearly not trying to offend. Especially when you don't qualify your acusatory statements of racist undertones- would you mind explaining how? Communicatio, not sterilized PC bulshit is the aim here.

I think his original statement was perfectly clear. He chose to "clarify" it. If his first post was meant to mean what he said in his second post, then clarification was definitely necessary.

Asking whether you would want a doctor who may have been admitted to medical school due to race has obvious racist undertones. The question implies doctors that are not white and male (a) did not get into medical school based on merit and (b) are less qualified than their white, male counterparts. It is -- as I said -- a common canard -- often stated in a more obviously racist manner. Here it merely had racist undertones -- which is what I pointed out.

I hate to break it to you, but pointing out racist attitudes is not "sterlizing" communication -- it is being brutally honest.

Racism is inherent in US culture. We live and breath it. People should get a little less huffy about "he said I said something racist -- make him stop!" and examine their attitudes and statements. That is avoiding sterlized bullshit -- thank you very much.

Rant? Try telling that to all the fathers out there, who have been completely turned away from their kids, because of their stupid greedy wives, this isnt a rant, this is telling it how it is, and you better wake up to it fool, because if you dont you will see this whole society collapse around you in the future.
And I dont see it that way ... unless you have proof there is no reason I should I seem plenty awake

Great ad-hominim by the way claming everyone that does not agree with your unsubstantiated viewpoint is "sleeping" and "needs to wake up" and you wonder why we dont take you seriously?

Wow. You've managed to mix a lot of prejudices together into that rant. You are so all over the place it is hard to respond.
<<Snips>>


*round of applause*
Very nicely said, save me the trouble of trying to think up a reply this early in the morning (its 0750 and I'm at work!!).

Blessings
Lucrece

Well I think you should, you mistake my anger and passion for rage, which is a far differnt thing, rage has no reason to it,although sometimes justified, whereas anger is usually for a good reason, and that reason being the family law courts are completely bias 90 % of the time because of corrupt evil perverted femnazi lawyers, that should be removed one way or the other as soon as possible.

Rant? Try telling that to all the fathers out there, who have been completely turned away from their kids, because of their stupid greedy wives, this isnt a rant, this is telling it how it is, and you better wake up to it fool, because if you dont you will see this whole society collapse around you in the future.

Again, you do not provide any logic, evidence, or basis for your statements.

Instead, you resort to name calling and thinly veiled threats of violence.

You are right -- this cannot be a debate. Your statements speak for themselves.

<<snips>>
But the things I admire hime for are

1) the Isolation of Arrafat
2) Iraq war. Showed all the dictators in the world that they better reform or else. Needed an Example and this was a good one(already had an open declaration of war, violations of the cease fire, a beat up military, a population that disliked their leader, and oppressed MAJORITY, tons of natural resources,...what better place is there to make a statement?)
3) No one here will believe it, Bt I would place GW, on at least the same pedastal as Reagan...

Now, If he would reform social security(even if all he did was get it out of politicians hands) and end the war on drugs and poverty and arrest every BATF agent I would worship him as a god.

*ahem*
OK. Where to start. Refusing to have meaningful discourse with one side of a conflict whilst pruporting to be neutral and only in it for world peace was not a useful or a helpful thing to do.

The war in Iraq was a farce, and remains one to this day. It is helping to further destabilise the middle east, giving fuel to those who hate America, helping them call recruits to their banner. And, quite frankly, it doesn't do your argument of 'saving people from human rights violations' much good when you can't control your own soldiers. I thought these guys were meant to be well trained, not animals. It was also an illegal war, started on false pretenses.

On the other hand, I agree with putting GWB up there with Reagan. They're both nuts.
Just my opinion, of course.

Blessings
Lucrece

Here's a scenario I came up with for a different thread, but for y'all who don't see the grand plan that affirmative action is part of achieving, just go through the steps:

*snip*

Point being that you can't pay lip service to equality and ignore historical, societal impacts that will take generations to overcome. Everyone is NOT equal now, and in order to reverse that trend things have to be done that we may find, in principle, distatsteful.
__________________

I like the scenario.

A couple of comments, however.

1. Discrimination does continue to occur in US. It is not merely a thing of the past.

2. Actual quotas are extremely rare and generally illegal under current civil rights laws.

But your scenario does illustrate at least some of the justifications for affirmative action.

If his first post was meant to mean what he said in his second post, then clarification was definitely necessary.

After re-reading my original post, I agree that it was in serious need of clarification. Yikes. I apologize for not effectively communicating my thoughts the first time; the product of a lot of work and not enough sleep, I'm afraid.

In other news, Ringrot's continuing oh-so-eloquent rant reminded me of something very funny that I saw on the differences between conversations on the Internet and those in real life. http://files.redvsblue.com/NYC2/RvB_NYC2.mov Check it out, it's quite funny (and sadly accurate).

And on that note, I'll bid you all a good night.

And I dont see it that way ... unless you have proof there is no reason I should I seem plenty awake
Great ad-hominim by the way claming everyone that does not agree with your unsubstantiated viewpoint is "sleeping" and "needs to wake up" and you wonder why we dont take you seriously?

Who the hell is we? A bunch of educated snobs who wont take anyone elses view seriously if it conflicts in anyway with their own politically correct one? If anyone shouldn be taken seriously its you guys, you should get off campus and outa ya text books and try livin in the real world for a change like the rest of us.

Ok so I just finished reading this entire thread and it took me an HOUR AND A HALF to get through it. There were a lot of good points and a ton of mindless dribble. Since this is my first post in these forums I am quite curious as to how the response will be. I have a good idea but I dont want to speculate too much on it. Ok so on with my thoughts:

1. White people (especially males) do have a lot of advantages that they are not aware of. In order for them to stop their bitching they need to seriously stop and take a look at what they do have and go from there. The world is not out to get them as they might think, but coming down off their pedistal that they have been ruling off of for centuries is a hard thing for many of them to do.

2. HIV/AIDS is a horrible, HORRIBLE disease that can affect ANYONE! It is found in blood, semen, vaginal excretions, and breast milk. Saliva is so far the only bodily fluid that it does not transmit itself in. On a world wide level the VAST majority of people infected, and becoming infected are women through heterosexual contact. Many of these women are becoming infected from their heterosexual male partners, many of which do not participate in homosexual practices or IV drug use. Many of these men are infected by prostitues. It is also not just a sexual problem. Many countries deny that HIV/AIDS even excists. South Africa's president said that HIV/AIDS was in fact not real and that it was propaganda. This is extremely sad because South Africa has the highest HIV/AIDS rate in the world. There are MILLIONS of orphans due to this pandemic. There is no cure for HIV/AIDS and right now education and safe sex is the only way to attempt to prevent it. I will share a sad fact that my HIV/AIDS professor told us: In Africa, HIV infected males are told that they will be cured of the disease if they have sex with a virgin girl. This has caused many many young girls (as young as 8-10) to be raped and subsequintly become infected with HIV. For all of you saying this is just a disease for those in the "high risk" group, do us all a favor and do a little research before you start spouting "facts".

3. Affirmitive action is known as "counter-rasism". This was taught to me by a sociology professor. He explained that in order to counter-balance the rasism that had such a strong hold on our country (for those of you who dont know what I am talking about, then you need to read some history books) the education system started promoting other cultures and minorities that had been surpressed by the majority. Stop and think back to elementary school. Try to remember how we learned about great leaders and people who were not white. I remember in first grade how my teacher spent over a month talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. At the age of 6 I didnt understand her motives, but it gave me a learned outlook on people in history who in the past would have been ignored or blacklisted. Affirmitive action is no longer in action. The main people to profit from this effort were white women. NOT the minorities who "took" positions from white males. Because of affirmitive action women were given a better foothold into a majority male workplace.

4. Women's rights: Men may go on and on over the whole loss of chivalry and how you had this "code" of how you were supposed to behave, but do you acctually stop and think of how women were viewed upon in those times, how they are still viewed upon today? Women were chattal, property for men to do with as they pleased. World wide the majority of women have little or no rights when compared to men. Anyone who says otherwise is living with blinders on. I do not claim to be a feminist, I am by far no where near one, but to ignore fact and claim otherwise is by far the dumbest thing a person can do.

5. I think that everyone should stand up for their rights and strive to make their situation better. Wasnt that the original American dream? To be able to make your dreams and goals come true no matter your station in life? I think we lost that somewhere along the way. America has the highest division of wealth between its people. In my last economic's class (roughly about a year and a half ago) the difference was 47:1 in the rich to poor ratio. This is by FAR the largest anywhere. I think the next highest was 25:1 or something around there. I know that this divide has grown since I last heard about it. Someone in this thread stated that we need to work on the socio-economic inequalities now instead of the racial inequalities, and I fully agree.

In topics such as these you will have many different sides and opinions. You will NEVER get any one party to agree with another. Instead you will get many people responding without thinking and creating rediculous arguements that have no merit or substance. They do nothing but strive to make everyone who reads them more stupid than they were before.

The crux of the problem, again as someone else has stated, is that people long ago lost the ability to respect what others have said and believe. I by no means agree with everything another person will say, that is my right, but at the same time I CAN AND WILL respect that person's right to believe what they will. It is a sign of maturity in a person when they learn that concept.

I know that I will most likely be flammed for this post, and to those flammers, I truly do feel sorry for you, you are just proving what I have said and are making yourselves out to be the morons we all know you are.

So to end my long-winded statement and to clarify, I am a white female from a lower income family, with multiracial and multicultural family members throughout my relatives. I am working my way through college so that I will be able to make my life better, and I take responsibility for my words and actions. If people take offense with my posting, then they are the ones who need to grow up.

I just thought I'd throw in an arguement that was against Steel Butterfly, but at least tried to understand the point of view.


It seems that in today’s world, minorities of society want to have their cake and eat it too. Women glare at you for not holding the door for them, but yell at you for doing it as well, calling it chauvinistic. Many religions demand that Christian symbols be taken down across the nation, while in the meantime shoving their stars, moons, or pentagrams down your throat. The poor despise the rich, but expect the same people they can’t stand to support them through welfare.

I think you're generalising a bit here. I, personally, have never experienced any of the above happening. But it could just be me.


The most horrifying aspect of my argument, however, is in regards to race. I am a true believer in racial equality, and I wish I could prove that if all social stigmas (blacks being more athletic, Asians being better at math, etc.) are thrown aside, and each person is raised similar, all people could be the same. (barring intellect naturally…but that’s just natural selection.) It seems, however, that many minorities do not wish for this same goal. For my example, I shall use the African American minority group.

Black people broadcast the fact that they are indeed black, separating themselves from society, and only fueling the baseless, but very real, racial rage against them. Most of this, as I’ve pointed out, is due to double standards. A “Miss Black America” is standard, but a “Miss White America” would be racist. “Jet Magazine” promotes black culture, but something like “Eggshell Magazine” would simply be a way of discriminating. BET, or Black Entertainment Television, celebrates African’s achievements in film, but if someone dared to make WET, they would be labeled a racist right off the bat.


This is because most of the media is white orientated. I agree that making telelvision which would apeal to everyone would be a better idea, but this doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. Hence the need for a "black" channel. If there was a non racist "white" channel, I doubt anyone would bother watching it.


Why is it that the black minority, and many others, decides to push the fact that they are in fact different, “better” in their views, “worse” in the minds of racists, instead of pushing the fact that they are equal to those around them? Is it all a big misunderstanding? No. Am I just a stupid racist with an uncommon intelligence? Hardly. It is because no ground truly wants equality. Each minority group is put in place to “one-up” the majority it is outnumbered by.


I disagree with you there, I think the majority of these minority groups still feel that they are predjudiced against and therefore are drawing attention to their cause. Most have a desire to be equal, but do not feel they are getting it. I have no proof of this... but I don't think you have proof to the contrary.


It is only when we cast aside our “black pride” or our “girl power” or our “rights of the working man” that we will truly come together as people, as humans, and not as black or white, male or female, rich or poor, or some other petty dividing factor between us. To put it simply, I’m interested in your response. This isn’t meant to be an essay, more of a rant actually, but it’s meant to inspire debate. Go ahead…post your replies and responses.

I beleive in "Pride"... and it is difficult to explain it to someone who has never been discriminated against. Pride is not about rising above the the people who are not like you, but rising above those who oppress you, whether racist, sexist or heterosexist. It is about saying you will not tollerate being descriminated against, and it is an amazing feeling. The problem is, so much descrimination is hidden, it's not just the person who shouts "******" (s'cuse my language) across the street, it's the disapproving look of the job interviewer, it's not just the fundementalist christians picketing at a gay person's funeral, it's the sniggers in school or someone declaring exasperated "That's so gay!" it's not just the chauvinist wife-beater it's also the weak willed woman stereotypically portrayed in a movie. Pride is about showing that you exist and that you are a community just as worthy as the majority. Not better, just as good.

I agree that the day will come when "Black Pride", "Gay Pride and "Woman's Pride" will be rendered pointless. Even now things are changing and attitudes are becoming more accepting, but would this have happened had black people, gay people and women not stood up and shouted about being descriminated against?

I don't think so.

Your arguement, I think, presumes that everyone is not racist or sexist or heterosexist, and that if there was no more "pride" or niche market media then all racism would go... I do not believe this is the case.

Well I hope I put out a decent enough arguement. Feel free to nit pick it.

~Arcthinkshedidratherwellthere...

PS. I am white, I am male, I am a young person and I am gay. I have never once received descrimination for being the first two, but have received a HELL of a lot for those last two parts of my identity.

It is only when we cast aside our “black pride” or our “girl power” or our “rights of the working man” that we will truly come together as people, as humans, and not as black or white, male or female, rich or poor, or some other petty dividing factor between us. To put it simply, I’m interested in your response. This isn’t meant to be an essay, more of a rant actually, but it’s meant to inspire debate. Go ahead…post your replies and responses.

I agree with you to a point. However, I don't think this will go away until everyone truly feels equal. Think of it as two containers of water filled with unequal levels of liquid and connected by a tube that allows the water to flow from one container to the other. Which way do you think the water will flow and for how long?

I think these behaviors you describe stem from a deep-seated feeling of inferiority on the part of those who are behaving this way. Affirmative action types of programs succeed only in further weakening the minorities they are supposedly trying to help, since they now don't have to work as hard as the majority in order to achieve anything.

As for the religious remarks you mader earlier - who is shoving their moons and stars and pentagrams down your throat? Most Pagans are pretty quiet about their religious beliefs, as we realize spirituality is entirely a personal matter. We only ask that other religions do not shove their religious beliefs down our throats. It just so happens that the only religion that behaves this way (in the U.S. anyway) is Christianity (the type that Soren Kierkegaard railed against). Everyone else seems to accept that it is a personal matter. So the real question is, why do Christians feel the need to force their beliefs on the rest of the world and act like they are better than everyone else or that they should have some special rights that the rest of us don't have? Is there some sort of inferiority complex going on here, similar to what is going on with the minority races?

Who the hell is we? A bunch of educated snobs who wont take anyone elses view seriously if it conflicts in anyway with their own politically correct one? If anyone shouldn be taken seriously its you guys, you should get off campus and outa ya text books and try livin in the real world for a change like the rest of us.
Again you just try to insult the opposition rather then the argument ... that is a logical fallacy. When you commit them they detract from your argument, people don’t take other people who do that as seriously (which is one of the many reasons it is frowned upon).

Who the hell is we? A bunch of educated snobs who wont take anyone elses view seriously if it conflicts in anyway with their own politically correct one? If anyone shouldn be taken seriously its you guys, you should get off campus and outa ya text books and try livin in the real world for a change like the rest of us.

Exactly how in the real world are you? Living with mom and dad while you finish middle school isn't the real world. I will admit that I am still in school (getting my MD) but I have worked in the real world before and am still there every chance I get, working at soup kitchens and the local free clinic, helping those who discriminate against the middle class white man--you know those men and women who's only crime was being born poor.

While I do not believe it is the government's responsibility to provide health care to all and I am not proposing that, I have seen what discrimination is capable of. I have never been discriminated against for being white or middle class or young. But you can sure as heck bet that many of the people I've done my best to help over the last two years at that clinic and in those soup kitchens have been. And don't even get me started on those poor women with four kids who's "noble father" doesn't even bother to send his child-support checks to help them eat. Afterall, she's out to totally destroy him, but he is nobly struggling away so his kids can have. . . .nothing.

Fuck it is soooo obvious, but you have the nerve to disagree, fuck you, your nothing but a liar.
Ringrot, you've been warned and forumbanned before because of your flaming. You've crossed the line too many times, and your nation is no longer welcome on this site.

Ringrot, forumbanned for 2 weeks, pending deletion

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

This thread is very large and took me a while to get through as it did many im sure. I would just like to say that in principle I agree that we need to get rid of stereotypes and prejudice but I have not once seen a star of david or any other form of religious symbol with the expection of christian ones. If anything it's the christians that need to stop spreading their symbols and stop displaying them in public areas where they don't belong. Keep them in your churchers. There are many christian symbols in public areas but it being Santa Cruz, Ca they are quickly being elimanated.

First of all, I am not a racist, a sexist, or prejudice in any real form.

Saying so does not make it a fact. Rather the opposite. Many racists begin their rants this way.

Many religions demand that Christian symbols be taken down across the nation, while in the meantime shoving their stars, moons, or pentagrams down your throat.
And many civil rights groups (ACLU) demand that ANY religious symbols be taken down from public property. What's your position on this?

The poor despise the rich, but expect the same people they can’t stand to support them through welfare.

If the poor "can't stand" the rich, the two main reasons for that would be 1: simple human envy, which everyone, including you and me posseses and 2: the fact that the rich won't support the poor with welfare. Come to think of it, altough the rich pay taxes that go to the public sector, the government are the ones that give welfare directly. Seen any poor people consistently hating governments lately?

I am a true believer in racial equality
That makes it alright then

It seems, however, that many minorities do not wish for this same goal.
But all whites, christians and heterosexuals do? If you really want to come across tolerant, why don't you rightfully lay a little blame on the people that have opressed minority groups through history.

It is because no ground truly wants equality.
Then I must be "no one".
Seriously, the old "but they want it" excuse? The one that has been used by spouse - abusers, rapists and corporal punishment advocates for hundreds of years?

It is only when we cast aside our “black pride” or our “girl power” or our “rights of the working man”...
What about our "white pride", "women are things" and "I should be allowed to abuse my employees if I want to"?

I agree with your sentiment, it's just that I'm very wary of the way it's being broadcast, as it's been used so many times by bigots to excuse their behavior. I'm not saying you're a hatemonger, I just like to take my precautions. Anyway, I can never say no to a debate request.

Saying so does not make it a fact. Rather the opposite. Many racists begin their rants this way.

And many civil rights groups (ACLU) demand that ANY religious symbols be taken down from public property. What's your position on this?

If the poor "can't stand" the rich, the two main reasons for that would be 1: simple human envy, which everyone, including you and me posseses and 2: the fact that the rich won't support the poor with welfare. Come to think of it, altough the rich pay taxes that go to the public sector, the government are the ones that give welfare directly. Seen any poor people consistently hating governments lately?

That makes it alright then

But all whites, christians and heterosexuals do? If you really want to come across tolerant, why don't you rightfully lay a little blame on the people that have opressed minority groups through history.

Then I must be "no one".
Seriously, the old "but they want it" excuse? The one that has been used by spouse - abusers, rapists and corporal punishment advocates for hundreds of years?

What about our "white pride", "women are things" and "I should be allowed to abuse my employees if I want to"?

I agree with your sentiment, it's just that I'm very wary of the way it's being broadcast, as it's been used so many times by bigots to excuse their behavior. I'm not saying you're a hatemonger, I just like to take my precautions. Anyway, I can never say no to a debate request.

In defence of Steel Butterfly, I think that this is exactly the sort of attitude that prevents a proper debate on this sort of issue being conducted. The whole point of Steel Butterfly's post seems to be that 'black pride' is essentially the same as 'white pride.' So we already know the answer to 'what about white pride?' He is obviously against it.

Nor is he using the the 'but they want it' excuse, clearly. He is not justifying discrimination because minorities want it. Precisely the opposite - he is saying that discrimination isn't justified by anyone.


I don't entirely agree with Steel Butterfly's arguments - I think that comparing the situation of the majority with that of a minority is not always fair - but I think his post should get a fair hearing at least.

All you people claiming to not be sexist, racist, and etcetera are donig a pretty damn good job of classifying all people in a certain race, religion, or sex as believing or wanting stuff a certain way and are all against YOU. It is not the general minority that want stuff like that, it is the extremists. Just like the extremists white male Christians who claim everything should be done exactly the way they want then claim discrimination when it isn't. The general "minority" doesn't give two shits if it's called a Christmas tree or The Magical Tree of Holiday Bullshit, it's the extremists who care. Just like its the self-proclaimed neutral people bitching their asses off about the minority instead of shit that is actually happening and who it is being carried out by.


Read a book by the author David Horowitz published in 1999, it is entitled "Hating Whitey and other progressive causes", while you might disagree with him, he makes alot of good points in his book, and while he is a "conservative" he is really a new liberal, and, gasp hack wheeze, was a champion of the civil rights movement, until he had a falling out with the NAACP over this very topic, now he is an author and news commentator for Fox, C-SPAN, and Nightline.

Why do majorities think that minorities saying "A little less opression would be nice." is catering to them?

In the pathetically politically correct world we live in, something has come up gradually though time that's particularly disturbing: the idea that as a minority, you are more deserving that those of the majority.

First of all, I am not a racist, a sexist, or prejudice in any real form. I say real due to certain >>>>>>snip<<<<<<
yah you are, you ignorant m*******r. you just made a sweeping generalization that all minorities this, and all black people that. well, hey man- take a flying fuck at a rolling donut. i am a minority, a devotee of an extreme right wing party, and myself, my family, and many other minorities that i grew up around completely denounce affirmative action, jesse jackson, indian and slavery reparitions, among other things. you should research the world a bit more before you go lumping everyone in together. as a side note, there are many white and jewish majorities that push affirmative action and other liberal agendas FOR the minorities. you post was uninformed, not to mention creepy. if you are a closet white nat'lst, or a NS whatever, just say it.

You see, as a Marxist, the more often I observe and aggravate the injustices in society, the more people start to think communism is a good idea. So it really is beneficial or me, and to many other people, to despise the rich and dehumanize them. Classism will help me to help the working-class, and will help the rest of us in general.

If it benefits your group, and your group is being taken advantage of by some other group, is it not fair to demonize that other group? It works great for expanding racial tolerance (except against white people). Why not simply hate the elite in this country? True, we shouldn't hate those people who are worse off than we are, but what is wrong with hating your boss, your bosses Yuppie neighbors, or that class in general?

Holy crap, this nation got banned! Don't delete me because of my old nation title, it was deleted a few weeks ago anyway! This is in reality, Stop Banning Me Mods.

Crap, what is wrong with Jolt?

yah you are, you ignorant m*******r. you just made a sweeping generalization that all minorities this, and all black people that. well, hey man- take a flying fuck at a rolling donut. i am a minority, a devotee of an extreme right wing party, and myself, my family, and many other minorities that i grew up around completely denounce affirmative action, jesse jackson, indian and slavery reparitions, among other things. you should research the world a bit more before you go lumping everyone in together. as a side note, there are many white and jewish majorities that push affirmative action and other liberal agendas FOR the minorities. you post was uninformed, not to mention creepy. if you are a closet white nat'lst, or a NS whatever, just say it.

Damn well said.

We may have a completely different take on what is the best approach to these issues, but we agree that SB is very, very wrong.

I agree with the original poster 100%.

yah you are, you ignorant m*******r. you just made a sweeping generalization that all minorities this, and all black people that. well, hey man- take a flying fuck at a rolling donut. i am a minority, a devotee of an extreme right wing party, and myself, my family, and many other minorities that i grew up around completely denounce affirmative action, jesse jackson, indian and slavery reparitions, among other things. you should research the world a bit more before you go lumping everyone in together. as a side note, there are many white and jewish majorities that push affirmative action and other liberal agendas FOR the minorities. you post was uninformed, not to mention creepy. if you are a closet white nat'lst, or a NS whatever, just say it.


Where to start... where to start? the NAACP is definitiley not a very equality seeking organisation, "for the ADVANCEMENT of colored people", not the equality of colored people or the equality of all people, but the advancement of colored people, hell, you wanna get real technical black people aren't colored, whites are, white is defined as the presence of all color, black is the ABSCENCE of all color, seems pretty clear to me the NAACP's been representing the wrong group for quite a while now, then again whites who discriminated against "people of color" were bigotted against the wrong people too, so it all evens out.

Being white in a closet was not a crime the last time I checked, but I could be wrong... As for being a nationalist, it's a loaded word, like "******", "kike", "honkey", or "chink", a nationalist is someone who has pride in their nation, not a person who is a member of the Nationalist Socialist party, I'm a nationalist for America, I'm also "aryan" even though the aryans were, contrary to popular belief, not blonde haired, blue eyed, white, heterosexuals, they were in fact a group from the Hindu-Kush region and would later found the aryan empire, better known as persia, "nationalist aryans" are not all racists, hate to burst your widely generalized, hate filled bubble, hows that for lumping everyone into catagories, bigot?

Last but certainly not least, who cares, they're liberal?

I agree with the original poster 100%.
then this is for you as well.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8723776&postcount=435

get a mind of your own, by the way.

Minorities should be catered to by the majority because presumably we're not all living by 'mob rules'.

You see, as a Marxist, the more often I observe and aggravate the injustices in society, the more people start to think communism is a good idea. So it really is beneficial or me, and to many other people, to despise the rich and dehumanize them. Classism will help me to help the working-class, and will help the rest of us in general.

If it benefits your group, and your group is being taken advantage of by some other group, is it not fair to demonize that other group? It works great for expanding racial tolerance (except against white people). Why not simply hate the elite in this country? True, we shouldn't hate those people who are worse off than we are, but what is wrong with hating your boss, your bosses Yuppie neighbors, or that class in general?


^ Wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole wielded by a robotic automaton, I'd just get banned for another three days if I did.

then this is for you as well.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8723776&postcount=435

get a mind of your own, by the way.

Can't respond to an intelligent retort, have to insult those who agree with your opposition, cause that makes you look really good right there :rolleyes: .

Minorities should be catered to by the majority because presumably we're not all living by 'mob rules'.

That makes about as much sense as this: [Moderator Edit - Cogitation: Links to that site are strictly forbidden on NationStates.] that is to say, absolutely none.

Damn well said.

We may have a completely different take on what is the best approach to these issues, but we agree that SB is very, very wrong.

Not even gonna bother, too easy, too, too easy... :sniper:

In the pathetically politically correct world we live in, something has come up gradually though time that's particularly disturbing: the idea that as a minority, you are more deserving that those of the majority.

The most horrifying aspect of my argument, however, is in regards to race. I am a true believer in racial equality, and I wish I could prove that if all social stigmas (blacks being more athletic, Asians being better at math, etc.) are thrown aside, and each person is raised similar, all people could be the same. (barring intellect naturally…but that’s just natural selection.) It seems, however, that many minorities do not wish for this same goal. For my example, I shall use the African American minority group.

Black people broadcast the fact that they are indeed black, separating themselves from society, and only fueling the baseless, but very real, racial rage against them. Most of this, as I’ve pointed out, is due to double standards. A “Miss Black America” is standard, but a “Miss White America” would be racist. “Jet Magazine” promotes black culture, but something like “Eggshell Magazine” would simply be a way of discriminating. BET, or Black Entertainment Television, celebrates African’s achievements in film, but if someone dared to make WET, they would be labeled a racist right off the bat.

Why is it that the black minority, and many others, decides to push the fact that they are in fact different, “better” in their views, “worse” in the minds of racists, instead of pushing the fact that they are equal to those around them? Is it all a big misunderstanding? No. Am I just a stupid racist with an uncommon intelligence? Hardly. It is because no ground truly wants equality. Each minority group is put in place to “one-up” the majority it is outnumbered by.

It is only when we cast aside our “black pride” or our “girl power” or our “rights of the working man” that we will truly come together as people, as humans, and not as black or white, male or female, rich or poor, or some other petty dividing factor between us. To put it simply, I’m interested in your response. This isn’t meant to be an essay, more of a rant actually, but it’s meant to inspire debate. Go ahead…post your replies and responses.

This is certainly an interesting viewpoint, and is actually well-reasoned. I say this as an African-American, and can appreciate the apparent disparity.

It is, however, only an illusion.

The fact remains that we, as African-Americans, are treated differently in our country (I will use the United States, as that is the only country within which I have lived and, thereby, formed an opinion.) We are still regarded as intellectually inferior by a sector of the majority population, and are used as a rather consistent source of political fodder for those who seek to gain office through intimidation and fear of the voting population (i.e., "Willie Horton" during the presidential campaign of George H.W. Bush; "Pink Slip" commercial during the senatorial campaign of Jesse Helms, etc..) I can give you a hundred examples of day-to-day events which illustrate a general trend of fear and revulsion by the majority community against Blacks; but that would be purely annectodal.

There is a historical basis for Black self-identifical and self-awareness. These dynamics stem from the historical reality that our identity was, for far too long in this country, crafted for us by the majority community. We have been (and in many ways continue to be) made into caricatures of humanity---identified through extremes in athletism, sexual prowess, violent tendencies and subpar intellectual ability. Blacks are seldom if ever viewed and addressed as individuals. Rather, we are analyzed, and therefore approached and reproached, as members of an illusiory collective.

The appearance of Black media outlets is part of a larger system intended to control the image of the "collective." This approach may certainly be Machiavellian in nature, but the fact remains that we are responding to a dynamic that we did not create----the majority's impression of us is the result of their historical treatment of us and the attempts to justify and explain that treatment (i.e., "White Man's Burden.") You can hardly be surprised when an oppressed group attempts to redefine itself and, thereby, rebuild a self-esteem that was systematically attacked by the majority community.

Finally, I agree that the majority community is rightly indignant about the apparent double-standard. In the absence of historical understanding, indignation is always righteous. The problem is not the approach of the minority community.

It is the fact that such an approach proves historically, socially, economically and politically necessary.

Where to start... where to start? the NAACP is definitiley not a very equality seeking organisation, "for the ADVANCEMENT of colored people", not the equality of colored people or the equality of all people, but the advancement of colored people, hell, you wanna get real technical black people aren't colored, whites are, white is defined as the presence of all color, black is the ABSCENCE of all color, seems pretty clear to me the NAACP's been representing the wrong group for quite a while now, then again whites who discriminated against "people of color" were bigotted against the wrong people too, so it all evens out.

Being white in a closet was not a crime the last time I checked, but I could be wrong... As for being a nationalist, it's a loaded word, like "******", "kike", "honkey", or "chink", a nationalist is someone who has pride in their nation, not a person who is a member of the Nationalist Socialist party, I'm a nationalist for America, I'm also "aryan" even though the aryans were, contrary to popular belief, not blonde haired, blue eyed, white, heterosexuals, they were in fact a group from the Hindu-Kush region and would later found the aryan empire, better known as persia, "nationalist aryans" are not all racists, hate to burst your widely generalized, hate filled bubble, hows that for lumping everyone into catagories, bigot?

Last but certainly not least, who cares, they're liberal?
Listen Mr.StormFront guest member,

why are you even talking about the NAACP to me? i care no more for thatorganization than i care to have a stick shoved up my nose. as for your color definitions, congratulations, you passed third grade art class.
being white in a closet in not what i said, i said WHITE NATIONALIST. and i said that because the majority of them are hiding behind david duke, waiting for him to save them all with some well written words that they could never dream of understanding. i didnt use the word "nationalist" alone, i said NS, meaning national socialist, and the last time i checked, if i call myself a minority national socialist because i love america, there isnt an NS group that will open its doors to me ,a nd say come in. they base their beliefs on race 99% of the time, and not just pride in america. loaded words? ******, kike, etc etc etc, are only loaded words for the people that are spineless enough to let a word hurt them. given that, i am sure you cry every time someone calls you a honky. you mention the fact that you are an "aryan" do you mean the hindu aryan you speak of, like Savitri Devi, or do you mean knuckledragging bootstomping bald headed swatstika clad skrewdriver belting seig heiler? if you are-- i laugh at you. i have tossed your kind out of RFP meetings , and you will never be taken seriously for your "politics" in this life.. as for my bubble, yeah its hate filled , for more people than i care to think about. and to call me a bigot...go right ahead. i am .

Can't respond to an intelligent retort, have to insult those who agree with your opposition, cause that makes you look really good right there :rolleyes: .
hey, you are the one getting banned, and with the sniper smilie at that! you *gasp* badass. you white power guys always come out the woodwork when you get one tiny thing to harp on. but godhelp us if someone starts a debate thread on wn, or ns, inviting you to share your beliefs. you cannot do it, unless you have some Peirce text handy. to cut and paste.

That makes about as much sense as this: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/fartingcat.html that is to say, absolutely none.
i hope your ebaums world link- (strictly forbidden) gets you banned again, so you can comeback with a cooler name, like- White is Right, or 14 Words, or maybe you can use my favorite- Tough Talking Idiot.

This is certainly an interesting viewpoint, and is actually well-reasoned. I say this as an African-American, and can appreciate the apparent disparity.

It is, however, only an illusion.

>>>snip<<<<<<<
hey look, miehm, above. another intelligent "mud". what are you going to do with 2 of us in the same thread? burn a cross?

That makes about as much sense as this: *snips patronizing link out* that is to say, absolutely none.

Is that your opinion or that of the majority?

If you're in the minority, under 'mob rules', then you can go fuck yourself.

If you're in the minority, under a constitution that's worth a damn, then you can tell everyone else to go fuck themselves if they don't like your opinion. Though being a minority, you might think carefully before saying as much - there are limits to the protections offered by any piece of paper, after all.

Evidently, you're not part of a minority, hence your sense of entitlement.

*ahem*

Go fuck yourself, sir. And feel free to skip the preliminaries, like lubricant.

Where to start... where to start? the NAACP is definitiley not a very equality seeking organisation, "for the ADVANCEMENT of colored people", not the equality of colored people or the equality of all people, but the advancement of colored people, hell, you wanna get real technical black people aren't colored, whites are, white is defined as the presence of all color, black is the ABSCENCE of all color, seems pretty clear to me the NAACP's been representing the wrong group for quite a while now, then again whites who discriminated against "people of color" were bigotted against the wrong people too, so it all evens out.

Being white in a closet was not a crime the last time I checked, but I could be wrong... As for being a nationalist, it's a loaded word, like "******", "kike", "honkey", or "chink", a nationalist is someone who has pride in their nation, not a person who is a member of the Nationalist Socialist party, I'm a nationalist for America, I'm also "aryan" even though the aryans were, contrary to popular belief, not blonde haired, blue eyed, white, heterosexuals, they were in fact a group from the Hindu-Kush region and would later found the aryan empire, better known as persia, "nationalist aryans" are not all racists, hate to burst your widely generalized, hate filled bubble, hows that for lumping everyone into catagories, bigot?

Last but certainly not least, who cares, they're liberal?

How clever.

The entire history of the NAACP may be dismissed because of the name of their organization -- which was founded in 1909. :rolleyes:

Of course, as you have explained, slavery was honorable and the South was "right," so you aren't likely to agree with a group that led the fight against segregation.

If you want to argue against a specific action or policy of the NAACP, fine. But so far the only one you are making look bigotted is yourself.

And you might wish to explain why you have a problem with this:

Mission Statement
The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.

Vision Statement
The vision of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights and there is no racial hatred or racial discrimination.

Objectives
The following statement of objectives is found on the first page of the NAACP Constitution:


The principal objectives of the Association shall be:

*To ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of all citizens

*To achieve equality of rights and eliminate race prejudice among the citizens of the United States

*To remove all barriers of racial discrimination through democratic processes

*To seek enactment and enforcement of federal, state and local laws securing civil rights

*To inform the public of the adverse effects of racial discrimination and to seek its elimination

*To educate persons as to their constitutional rights and to take all lawful action to secure the exercise thereof, and to take any other lawful action in furtherance of these objectives, consistent with the NAACP’s Articles of Incorporation and this Constitution.

Or with the following achievements of the NAACP (which are mere highlights of its long record as the oldest civil rights organization in the US):

1917
In Buchanan vs. Warley, the Supreme Court has to concede that states can not restrict and officially segregate African Americans into residential districts. Also, the NAACP fights and wins the battle to enable African Americans to be commissioned as officers in World War I. Six hundred officers are commissioned, and 700,000 register for the draft.

1918
After persistent pressure by the NAACP, President Woodrow Wilson finally makes a public statement against lynching.

1922
In an unprecedented move, the NAACP places large ads in major newspapers to present the facts about lynching.

1935
NAACP lawyers Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall win the legal battle to admit a black student to the University of Maryland.

1941
During World War II, the NAACP leads the effort to ensure that President Franklin Roosevelt orders a non-discrimination policy in war-related industries and federal employment.

1946
The NAACP wins the Morgan vs. Virginia case, where the Supreme Court bans states from having laws that sanction segregated facilities in interstate travel by train and bus.

1948
The NAACP was able to pressure President Harry Truman to sign an Executive Order banning discrimination by the Federal government.

1954
After years of fighting segregation in public schools, under the leadership of Special Counsel Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP wins one of its greatest legal victories in Brown vs. the Board of Education.

1960
In Greensboro, North Carolina, members of the NAACP Youth Council launch a series of non-violent sit-ins at segregated lunch counters. These protests eventually lead to more than 60 stores officially desegregating their counters.

1963
NAACP pushes for the passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

1964
U.S. Supreme Court ends the eight year effort of Alabama officials to ban NAACP activities. And 55 years after the NAACP's founding, Congress finally passes the Civil Rights Act.

1965
The Voting Rights Act is passed. Amidst threats of violence and efforts of state and local governments, the NAACP still manages to register more than 80,000 voters in the Old South.

1979
The NAACP initiates the first bill ever signed by a governor that allows voter registration in high schools. Soon after, 24 states follow suit.

1981
The NAACP leads the effort to extend The Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. To cultivate economic empowerment, the NAACP establishes the Fair Share Program with major corporations across the country.

1982
NAACP registers more than 850,000 voters, and through its protests and the support of the Supreme Court, prevents President Reagan from giving a tax-break to the racially segregated Bob Jones University.

1985
The NAACP leads a massive anti-apartheid rally in New York.

1991
When avowed racist and former Klan leader David Duke runs for US Senate in Louisiana, the NAACP launches a voter registration campaign that yields a 76 percent turn-out of Black voters to defeat Duke.

The NAACP is not without flaws. As OM has made clear, many disagree with the NAACP. Free to do so. I don't agree with everything the NAACP has done. But your asinine rant is just that -- an asinine rant.

As for your semantic games about colors, nationalist, and aryan -- don't be an ass. "Nationalist" and "Aryan" are different than nationalism and the original meaning of aryan. And you know it.

Listen Mr.StormFront guest member,

why are you even talking about the NAACP to me? i care no more for thatorganization than i care to have a stick shoved up my nose. as for your color definitions, congratulations, you passed third grade art class.
being white in a closet in not what i said, i said WHITE NATIONALIST. and i said that because the majority of them are hiding behind david duke, waiting for him to save them all with some well written words that they could never dream of understanding. i didnt use the word "nationalist" alone, i said NS, meaning national socialist, and the last time i checked, if i call myself a minority national socialist because i love america, there isnt an NS group that will open its doors to me ,a nd say come in. they base their beliefs on race 99% of the time, and not just pride in america. loaded words? ******, kike, etc etc etc, are only loaded words for the people that are spineless enough to let a word hurt them. given that, i am sure you cry every time someone calls you a honky. you mention the fact that you are an "aryan" do you mean the hindu aryan you speak of, like Savitri Devi, or do you mean knuckledragging bootstomping bald headed swatstika clad skrewdriver belting seig heiler? if you are-- i laugh at you. i have tossed your kind out of RFP meetings , and you will never be taken seriously for your "politics" in this life.. as for my bubble, yeah its hate filled , for more people than i care to think about. and to call me a bigot...go right ahead. i am .

The point on the NAACP is that it purports to be an orginisation for equality for all, but is really black racism. Oh my bad, cause being a White Nationalist is a crime, guess what... I'm white, I'm a nationalist, ergo, White Nationalist, I'm aryan in that I am of germanic descent (ironically, I'm also jewish, but whenever I tell people that they never believe me) and most uninformed people associate germany with aryans, so to the uninformed I'm aryan.

You said closet white nationalist, if you can't take a joke, go hate on whitey some more, maybe afterwards you'll be in a better mood. I'm a southerner, I've been called worse things than honky, I have southern pride, I've been called alot worse things than honky, usually just before a cranky black guy attacks me, and is promptly inserted head first into the nearest wall, I treat everyone the same, if you attack me you're toast, if you're polite, I'll be polite right back. If I said I was a white guy for "Black Power" I'd probably be shot, so your point about joining an NS group is moot, I couldn't join one either.

My point concerning the words "White" and "Nationalist" when used in conjunction with each other has just been proven, you treated white nationalist as a loaded phrase, becoming agressive and derogatory, whatever you say you are clearly offended and one of those people who are "spineless enough to let a word hurt them", so I see no further reason to debate the point with you.

hey look, miehm, above. another intelligent "mud". what are you going to do with 2 of us in the same thread? burn a cross?

Want me too? If you do I'm sorry to disappoint you, but burning crosses is kinda sacreligious and all, so I try to avoid it. If you ask really politely though you might be able to get Cat-Tribe to burn an american flag for you.

Want me too? If you do I'm sorry to disappoint you, but burning crosses is kinda sacreligious and all, so I try to avoid it. If you ask really politely though you might be able to get Cat-Tribe to burn an american flag for you.

Such eloquence.

Sorry to disappoint you but I have never burned any flag and I would not burn the Stars and Stripes.

I would gladly wipe my ass with your Confederate battle flag, however.

The point on the NAACP is that it purports to be an orginisation for equality for all, but is really black racism. Oh my bad, cause being a White Nationalist is a crime, guess what... I'm white, I'm a nationalist, ergo, White Nationalist, I'm aryan in that I am of germanic descent (ironically, I'm also jewish, but whenever I tell people that they never believe me) and most uninformed people associate germany with aryans, so to the uninformed I'm aryan.

You said closet white nationalist, if you can't take a joke, go hate on whitey some more, maybe afterwards you'll be in a better mood. I'm a southerner, I've been called worse things than honky, I have southern pride, I've been called alot worse things than honky, usually just before a cranky black guy attacks me, and is promptly inserted head first into the nearest wall, I treat everyone the same, if you attack me you're toast, if you're polite, I'll be polite right back. If I said I was a white guy for "Black Power" I'd probably be shot, so your point about joining an NS group is moot, I couldn't join one either.

My point concerning the words "White" and "Nationalist" when used in conjunction with each other has just been proven, you treated white nationalist as a loaded phrase, becoming agressive and derogatory, whatever you say you are clearly offended and one of those people who are "spineless enough to let a word hurt them", so I see no further reason to debate the point with you. pointing out what race you are to the uninformed is pretty random. if i was to point out every race that i have been mistaken for , by uninformed people, we would be here all day.oh. you are jewish? then you are def. NOt white. what contradiction you are.for the record, i am not black, so if you are a jew, i am , even in mixed blood, more white than you. telling me about throwing black guys into a wall, you are really frightening me, you know, because that is so scary.oooh, like s-c-a-r-y. and, because you are southern, you should stop right here. . if you think the word "white nationalist hurt me, and that i am spineless, read my post again. the only thing about wn's that hurt are the ignorant ones who dont grasp the full social, idealgical and political concepts behind it. as for aggresive and derogatory, i always am.

*To ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of all citizens

*To achieve equality of rights and eliminate race prejudice among the citizens of the United States

*To remove all barriers of racial discrimination through democratic processes

*To seek enactment and enforcement of federal, state and local laws securing civil rights

*To inform the public of the adverse effects of racial discrimination and to seek its elimination

*To educate persons as to their constitutional rights and to take all lawful action to secure the exercise thereof, and to take any other lawful action in furtherance of these objectives, consistent with the NAACP’s Articles of Incorporation and this Constitution.

Hmm... maybe the whole equality part. Equity, not equality my furry friend, is the way to go.

Adverse effects? Like hurt feelings, "oh waah boo hoo mommy that mean old man called me a ****** and now I'm sad" grow up, I've been called much worse than racial slurs(including kike and honky, as well as a few others that I didn't understand, but they were european so I didn't understand most of what they said anyway, but they got the idea across, that "my kind" wasn't welcome there) and I'm still alive, if a word hurts you then you must make it our own and turn it against those who would use it to harm you, so I'm a honky kike, and if you don't like it you can stick it where the monkey put the peanut.

Educate persons to their constitutional rights huh? Like the right of the equally qualified black man to take my place at a college so they can fill a quota, is that the one they're "educating" people about, or maybe the right to come up with bull shit excuses to get out of crimes, I.E. "black rage syndrome" and "racial denial", or was it the right of the crackhead mother to have nine kids that the tax-payers have to pay for, just so she can get her fix, is that the one. Yeah in the past the NAACP was on the right track, but somewhere they got lost in their search for "equality" and became a pro-black at all costs organization, and anti-white, just as a matter of principle.

I have to agree with this in its entirety. I can't really express how angered this makes things, but i'm a white caucasian male in financial need, and I can garuntee that any so-called 'need based' scholarships will probably be passed onto a student of a 'minority' race, rather than given to me. I know this sounds biased, but look at it. There's hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars (tens of thousands, if you're counting glups) are dedicated specifically to minority scholarships, when in fact they are the majority in many areas. I can safely say in places like Miami, its very hard to say that the majority of people that actually live there are white. Its the same in St. Louis (my hometown) where my high school is one of the few public schools left that isn't primarily white. Our deseg programs are stopping as well, so we'll soon be only one percent black (Not a good thing), but definately less than 50% white.

So, let's ask ourselves, if the majorities are (supposedly) so few, why do we the majority have to serve them? I understand that whites are really morally stupid because of that whole slavery bit, but we've had the same coin turned on us (the moors before the crusades took a lot of white slaves, as did the greeks and romans, and a few more recent groups have done similar acts, but to avoid offense [yeah right] i'm not going to name them) before. Its not like minorities don't count, its that we're just screwing ourselves.

I say caucasians get their rights too. There's no reason i shouldn't be able to say a few choice words just becuase they're racial slurs. Its gotten very sick at points, as a classmate had been arrested for an assignment in Creative Writing -- mind you, CREATIVE WRITING -- for creating a character that was excessively racist. That's just wrong, isn't it?

I say get rid of affirmitive action, get rid of racial slurs, but keep the NAACP, because there is supposed to be some support for everyone. Otherwise, add a few things. A white NAACP -- if we want to be equal, we might as well just get a few more white rappers out there, and let's throw in some mexican ones as well. We've gotta be fair! REALLY fair! None of this halfway stuff we have now.

So true, Christian holidays are all banned from my school but all the others are okay.
Still, people are stupid and need pointless rules to keep them in line. I'm thinking the majority gets shafted because they can crush the minority if the get the power, but the minority can never crush them. To eliminate these stupid rules all people would have to be knowledgable and understanding, so these rules will never go away.

pointing out what race you are to the uninformed is pretty random. if i was to point out every race that i have been mistaken for , by uninformed people, we would be here all day.oh. you are jewish? then you are def. NOt white. what contradiction you are.for the record, i am not black, so if you are a jew, i am , even in mixed blood, more white than you. telling me about throwing black guys into a wall, you are really frightening me, you know, because that is so scary.oooh, like s-c-a-r-y. and, because you are southern, you should stop right here. . if you think the word "white nationalist hurt me, and that i am spineless, read my post again. the only thing about wn's that hurt are the ignorant ones who dont grasp the full social, idealgical and political concepts behind it. as for aggresive and derogatory, i always am.

I said jewish, not israeli, jewish, jews are white, israelis are not nessecarily white, that is why Hitler had to hunt them down, instead of just being able to walk around and easliy find the funny colored people. When the uninformed say I'm "racist aryan bastard" I point out that I'm what they call "aryan", in that I'm germanic, but that I'm neither racist nor an illegitimate child. Well if you get that defensive about "the evil white nationalists" you must be hurt by it. If you have a problem with the south, just remember, I'm still not gonna apologize for the civil war, remember the south was misguided in some of their reasons, but right overall, as proved by some of the draconian laws that are being enacted by the national government.

If you don't like the south, maybe you should find another nation to live in, like russia, it doesn't get much more north than that. And NS partymembers, I have about as much use for them as teats on a boar hog.

Actually there is White Entertainment Television. It's the channel known as Country Music Television. Yee-Haw!

Actually there is White Entertainment Television. It's the channel known as Country Music Television. Yee-Haw!

Why all the hate man? WHY!?

Such eloquence.

Sorry to disappoint you but I have never burned any flag and I would not burn the Stars and Stripes.

I would gladly wipe my ass with your Confederate battle flag, however.

I'm sure you would, then I'd have you arrested for vandalism and destruction of private property. As for you not burning the flag, isn't that what all good peace loving, anti-white, anti-history, anti-reality types are supposed to do?

Why all the hate man? WHY!?

Why not?

I'm sure you would, then I'd have you arrested for vandalism and destruction of private property. As for you not burning the flag, isn't that what all good peace loving, anti-white, anti-history, anti-reality types are supposed to do?

No, that's what all good non-Americans are supposed to do. You obviously didn't get the memo.

Anyway, if you so much as put a confederate flag on your car in MY neighbourhood, I'd have you charged with hatecrimes, and get your slimy racist ass deported back to Pobucker-land. Of course, that'd first require you to move here, so I doubt I'll see you in court anytime soon.

Unfortunately.

No, that's what all good non-Americans are supposed to do. You obviously didn't get the memo.

Anyway, if you so much as put a confederate flag on your car in MY neighbourhood, I'd have you charged with hatecrimes, and get your slimy racist ass deported back to Pobucker-land. Of course, that'd first require you to move here, so I doubt I'll see you in court anytime soon.

Unfortunately.


Right, hate crimes... so where am I moving to now? Specifically what city do you live in so I can move there and flaunt my heritage as you threaten me with a hate crime? See a hate crime is a crime, free speech is not a crime, even neo-nazis can spout their idiotic rhetoric without being arrested unless someone is hurt by it.

Hmm... maybe the whole equality part. Equity, not equality my furry friend, is the way to go.

I doubt you understand either term.

As you oppose "equality of rights", I say that the "honorable" practice of slavery be reinstituted and you can be the first subject.


Adverse effects? Like hurt feelings, "oh waah boo hoo mommy that mean old man called me a ****** and now I'm sad" grow up, I've been called much worse than racial slurs(including kike and honky, as well as a few others that I didn't understand, but they were european so I didn't understand most of what they said anyway, but they got the idea across, that "my kind" wasn't welcome there) and I'm still alive, if a word hurts you then you must make it our own and turn it against those who would use it to harm you, so I'm a honky kike, and if you don't like it you can stick it where the monkey put the peanut.

Curious that you whine about discrimination against whites, but then criticize the concept that there is anything wrong with it.

Again, as you find slavery and segregation "honorable," it wasn't likely you would oppose discrimination -- except against whites. Who has the double standard again?

Educate persons to their constitutional rights huh? Like the right of the equally qualified black man to take my place at a college so they can fill a quota, is that the one they're "educating" people about, or maybe the right to come up with bull shit excuses to get out of crimes, I.E. "black rage syndrome" and "racial denial", or was it the right of the crackhead mother to have nine kids that the tax-payers have to pay for, just so she can get her fix, is that the one. Yeah in the past the NAACP was on the right track, but somewhere they got lost in their search for "equality" and became a pro-black at all costs organization, and anti-white, just as a matter of principle.

Hmm. Slavery and segregation are "honorable," but equal opportunity is unfair. Go figure. Quotas are generally illegal and the other crap you spout has nothing to do with constitutional rights nor the NAACP.

Nice job of spouting racist hate without answering the question. You pointed to no specific policy or action of the NAACP. You are simply a racist.

Right, hate crimes... so where am I moving to now? Specifically what city do you live in so I can move there and flaunt my heritage as you threaten me with a hate crime? See a hate crime is a crime, free speech is not a crime, even neo-nazis can spout their idiotic rhetoric without being arrested unless someone is hurt by it.

It's not an American city. And where I live, a confederate flag could be very successfully legally demonstrated to be a symbol of race-hatred, specifically against negroid individuals or groups. Throw in a few choice bits of conversation, get your photo published in the local news at some neo-nazi get-together (we don't much like that sort of event here), shake, bake, serve. See, in our country, we decided there was a reasonable limit to freedom of speech - communicating for the purpose of spreading hate is a federal offense here.

And hate harms everyone. It certainly doesn't help anyone.

So the truth of this thread reveals itself over time, apparently. What began as an earnest observation devolves into mindless rants about feelings of certain members of the majority population feeling put upon and otherwise unfairly treated.

I must have missed the point of this thread entirely.

For simplicity's sake, as simple observation:

1. Discrimination against Blacks was legalized in the United States for more than two centuries.

2. Laws designed to segregate were passed by state legislatures, upheld by state courts as constitutional and enforced by the executve branch of these states vis a vis local law enforcement agencies. This resulted in crimes against Blacks (including outright murder) which went unprosecuted, as well as a denial of basis civil rights (i.e., poll taxes and literacy tests as voting stations.)

3. Affirmative action laws were designed to level the playing field by PREVENTING the type of discrimination which had previously been legal, and which still continues to this day (check Sen. Joseph Biden's website regarding the employment application experiment conducted by two noted American universaties in 2004.) Employers and schools continue to discriminate against Blacks based on race. It is a fact, so why ignore the truth?

4. White males continue to enjoy privileges in every sector of our society, and cannot sincerely claim to be subject to political, economic or social oppression. Criticism of what had been called "White Entitlement Ideology" is not the same as oppression. If you believe they are the same, simply try being Black in the United States for a week or two. Depending upon where you live and your background, you will find that your new skin color does have an impact on how you are treated.

---Doubt this? Read the book "Black Like Me."

5. "Equality" and "equity" are not socially-interchangeable terms. Equity presupposes a return on an investment. Equality addresses status. In the United States, our constitutional and civil rights are not earned; they are inherent in our citizenship. I say this as one who has served in the military, and fully believes that military services should be mandatory for U.S. citizens (thereby "earning" the privileges of citizenship.) That my opinion is not the law suggests the truth of my conclusion that rights are INHERENT; not the subject of distribution by the government as it sees fit.

My point, of course, is that each individual should be treated and judged on this or her own merit. Once institutions (schools, employers, etc.) actually begin applying this principle---and stop what we all know to be very real discrimination---conversations like the one in this thread will become quite unnecessary.

So the truth of this thread reveals itself over time, apparently. What began as an earnest observation devolves into mindless rants about feelings of certain members of the majority population feeling put upon and otherwise unfairly treated.

I must have missed the point of this thread entirely.

For simplicity's sake, as simple observation:

1. Discrimination against Blacks was legalized in the United States for more than two centuries.

2. Laws designed to segregate were passed by state legislatures, upheld by state courts as constitutional and enforced by the executve branch of these states vis a vis local law enforcement agencies. This resulted in crimes against Blacks (including outright murder) which went unprosecuted, as well as a denial of basis civil rights (i.e., poll taxes and literacy tests as voting stations.)

3. Affirmative action laws were designed to level the playing field by PREVENTING the type of discrimination which had previously been legal, and which still continues to this day (check Sen. Joseph Biden's website regarding the employment application experiment conducted by two noted American universaties in 2004.) Employers and schools continue to discriminate against Blacks based on race. It is a fact, so why ignore the truth?

4. White males continue to enjoy privileges in every sector of our society, and cannot sincerely claim to be subject to political, economic or social oppression. Criticism of what had been called "White Entitlement Ideology" is not the same as oppression. If you believe they are the same, simply try being Black in the United States for a week or two. Depending upon where you live and your background, you will find that your new skin color does have an impact on how you are treated.

---Doubt this? Read the book "Black Like Me."

5. "Equality" and "equity" are not socially-interchangeable terms. Equity presupposes a return on an investment. Equality addresses status. In the United States, our constitutional and civil rights are not earned; they are inherent in our citizenship. I say this as one who has served in the military, and fully believes that military services should be mandatory for U.S. citizens (thereby "earning" the privileges of citizenship.) That my opinion is not the law suggests the truth of my conclusion that rights are INHERENT; not the subject of distribution by the government as it sees fit.

My point, of course, is that each individual should be treated and judged on his or her own merit. Once institutions (schools, employers, etc.) actually begin applying this principle---and stop what we all know to be very real discrimination---conversations like the one in this thread will become quite unnecessary.

It's not an American city. And where I live, a confederate flag could be very successfully legally demonstrated to be a symbol of race-hatred, specifically against negroid individuals or groups. Throw in a few choice bits of conversation, get your photo published in the local news at some neo-nazi get-together (we don't much like that sort of event here), shake, bake, serve. See, in our country, we decided there was a reasonable limit to freedom of speech - communicating for the purpose of spreading hate is a federal offense here.

And hate harms everyone. It certainly doesn't help anyone.

Doesnt it?

Hate helps give people inititive to change things.
Anyway...If I lived where you did. I'd put that flag up and flaunt it, Just to piss off your types.

Fuck you.

Hear Hear! Down with the idiocy that is Political Correctness! Down with the government-sanctioned racism that is Affirmative Action!

Hear, hear! :D

Doesnt it?

Hate helps give people inititive to change things.
Anyway...If I lived where you did. I'd put that flag up and flaunt it, Just to piss off your types.

Fuck you.
Un called for personal insults are not taken kindly to in a debate forum

iLock pending Moderator review.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

This topic has been reviewed. Those who have had action taken against them have been notified by NationStates telegram (in cases where they were not deleted outright).

iUnlock. I want any further debate to remain civil.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

Jeeze. [ points to most of the posts made in this thread ]

Guys, try to have just a bit of compassion and understanding, willya?

I was born "poor white trash" in Tennessee, USA. My grandparents raised me to respect everyone, regardless of their race, financial circumstances, or whatever. Do you have any idea how ironic that is?

My name is Forrest Lee Horn. I was named after two Southern Generals, Nathan Bedford Forrest of Tennessee, and Robert E. Lee of Virginia. I love to remind my African-American friends that Nathan Bedford Forrest, besides being one of the most brilliant generals of the Civil War, was also the founder of the Ku Klux Klan. We just laugh about it. Do you have any idea how ironic that is?

A veteran brother of mine who is no longer with us saved my life in Vietnam. He was black. One of the lives I saved in Vietnam was an African-American. Do you think any of us stopped to think that we were saving "a black man" or "a white man?" Not at all. As a matter of fact, I have to stop and think about it when I refer to them as anything other than a brother or a human being who needed help at the time, and they feel the same way about me.

We're all in this together and life is a universally terminal experience. Let's at least try to be kind to one another while we're here, ok?

@ Steel Butterfly: Excellent post - often enough I wonder about that myself! Minorities tend to create a feeling of either being left out or being better than others. That's when the trouble starts... Instead of leading by good example they usually just start pointing out mistakes and ask for priviliges...

And yes, screw political correctness! That's just renaming a problem and not tackling it!

@ Steel Butterfly: Excellent post - often enough I wonder about that myself! Minorities tend to create a feeling of either being left out or being better than others. That's when the trouble starts... Instead of leading by good example they usually just start pointing out mistakes and ask for priviliges...

And yes, screw political correctness! That's just renaming a problem and not tackling it!
The reason minorities tend to feel left out is because they are in many aspects Some over do it yes but 9 times out of 10 they are not asking for "privilages" they are asking to just be equal

Why they are even called a "minority"? Doesn't that kinda takes them away from rest of majority. Call everyone same and they become same, but not in here.

Why they are even called a "minority"? Doesn't that kinda takes them away from rest of majority. Call everyone same and they become same, but not in here.
Idealy that would be a great Idea but by and large humans dont act that way ... they like to group up in a them against us sort of way

Jeeze. [ points to most of the posts made in this thread ]

Guys, try to have just a bit of compassion and understanding, willya?

I was born "poor white trash" in Tennessee, USA. My grandparents raised me to respect everyone, regardless of their race, financial circumstances, or whatever. Do you have any idea how ironic that is?

My name is Forrest Lee Horn. I was named after two Southern Generals, Nathan Bedford Forrest of Tennessee, and Robert E. Lee of Virginia. I love to remind my African-American friends that Nathan Bedford Forrest, besides being one of the most brilliant generals of the Civil War, was also the founder of the Ku Klux Klan. We just laugh about it. Do you have any idea how ironic that is?

A veteran brother of mine who is no longer with us saved my life in Vietnam. He was black. One of the lives I saved in Vietnam was an African-American. Do you think any of us stopped to think that we were saving "a black man" or "a white man?" Not at all. As a matter of fact, I have to stop and think about it when I refer to them as anything other than a brother or a human being who needed help at the time, and they feel the same way about me.

We're all in this together and life is a universally terminal experience. Let's at least try to be kind to one another while we're here, ok?


A truly wise statement. Hopefully others will heed it. Thank you, sir.

@ Steel Butterfly: Excellent post - often enough I wonder about that myself!

I've already responded to SB's rant. Several times -- with little or no response. I won't repeat those arguments again.

Minorities tend to create a feeling of either being left out or being better than others. That's when the trouble starts...

Ridiculous.

Minorities have historically been "left out" and are currently facing discrimination.

The "trouble" has been around for centuries. In the US, it could be said to "start[]" when the Europeans landed here and started taking land from the "savages" who didn't deserve to own it. Or when they started importing Africans as slaves. Or when the Constitution reserved voting to males with property. Or when the Constitution counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person.

It has continued through the Civil War and the end of slavery. The battle for suffrage that finally gave women the right to vote. The Civil Rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s. It continues to this day.

Undoubtedly there are some minority members that feel they are superior because of their race, color, creed, etc. But because minorities have faced a history of discrimination in the US, they are generally more sensitive to this than others. There are no more -- and probably far, far less -- minority members that feel superior than there are white supremicists and their ilk.

Blaming minorities for discrimination is simply backwards.

White males are not the only ones that discriminate. In Western culture, however, they have generally been the primary beneficiaries of discrimination. That is true today. We all bear a legacy of past discrimination. We all live in a society where discrimination is significant. It is best for us all -- regardless of color, gender, creed, race, ethnicity, etc -- to fight discrimination and seek equality.


Instead of leading by good example they usually just start pointing out mistakes and ask for priviliges...

Millions and millions of minority individuals do "lead[] by good example." They work hard. They do not commit crimes. They are good citizens. Yet they -- because of the color of their skin, their ancestory, their ethnicity, their religion, etc -- face discrimination every day. And, on average, they do not have the same opportunities as white males. Is it wrong for them to seek to end discrimination and inequality?

Have you ever read Plessy v. Ferguson (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/163/537.html), 163 US 537 (1896), the Supreme Court case that created the concept of seperate but equal?

This is the same type of reasoning that was used as an excuse for segregration immediately after the end of the Civil War. It was said that blacks should not ask for the "privileges" of integration or complain further about slavery or segregation, but rather seek to better themselves and show they deserved to be treated as whites.

NOTE: I AM NOT CALLING YOU RACIST OR IMPLYING YOU SUPPORT DISCRIMINATION OR SEGREGATION. In part, your statement merely reminded me of this. Also, I think a reality check is in order.

In Plessy, the state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-eighths Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested. The Supreme Court upheld the law and the arrest as constitutional saying (in part, emphasis added):

[W]e think the enforced separation of the races, as applied to the internal commerce of the state, neither abridges the privileges or immunities of the colored man, deprives him of his property without due process of law, nor denies him the equal protection of the laws, within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment ...

We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. The argument necessarily assumes that if, as has been more than once the case, and is not unlikely to be so again, the colored race should become the dominant power in the state legislature, and should enact a law in precisely similar terms, it would thereby relegate the white race to an inferior position. We imagine that the white race, at least, would not acquiesce in this assumption. The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other's merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals. As was said by the court of appeals of New York in People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438, 448: 'This end can neither be accomplished nor promoted by laws which conflict with the general sentiment of the community upon whom they are designed to operate. When the government, therefore, has secured to each of its citizens equal rights before the law, and equal opportunities for improvement and progress, it has accomplished the end for which it was organized, and performed all of the functions respecting social advantages with which it is endowed.' Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts, or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.

This was the reasoning that justified legal segregation for about 60 years. Never again.

And yes, screw political correctness! That's just renaming a problem and not tackling it!

You realize that political correctness is not a cause. It is a label that reactionaries have applied to a host of things they don't like -- primarily gender and racial equality.

perhaps you could tell me why you think affirmative action is good in this thread

I tottally agree with this. Everyone wants to be the best. That is why every nation (throughout history) has had it's time. (Aztecs, Chinese, English etc.)

I've been thinking about this topic for a while now and I've concluded that there is really a much more important question to ask--if it already has, my apologies.

The question shouldn't be why do minorities think that the majority should cater to them. In should be why does the majority think that they should be able to deny equality and fairness to the minority. Why is it that straight, Christian, white males (and there are many good ones, but they are the typical majority seen oppressing others, at least in this nation) think it is acceptable to treat other human beings as inferior just because they are not the same skin color, or religion, or sexuality? Especially when those minor cosmetic differences (and when you really think about it skin color really is only a cosmetic difference) don't affect them in the least?

Think about this:

You are a successful Christian white male living in a suburban neighborhood. You have a great job, the perfect car, a beautiful wife, 2.3 kids, a dog, a cat, and a propane grill. In next door moves a homosexual couple--one is black and one is a white Jew. They both have good jobs, they drive a nice car, have 2 adopted chidlren (who by the way are at the top of their clases in school, as opposed to your kids who were just caught smoking weed in the bathroom), a dog, a cat, and a propane grill in their backyard.

Exactly how does this family affect you? Has their happiness taken anything away from you in anyway? What have they done to deserve to be metaphorically sent to the back of the bus and denied fair and equal protections under the law? They haven't killed anyone. They've never molested a child. They are members of the Kiwanis and neighborhood watch. One of them is an attorney, the other is an architect. What have they done you?

The answer . . .

A. Big. Fat. Nothing.

This thread has been a great read.
Wisdom from Eutrusca.
A great rant by Occidio. I love watching her get up to full steam.
Fascinating information and fearsome debating by Cat-Tribe.
A great newbie in Hunt Master.
And several entertaining idiots.