NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm watching today and they are covering a couple good make fun of people issues.


1) An old black city councilman introduces a bill that says people shouldn't have their underwear showing, especially with "low-riding" pants. ACLU accuses him of introducing racial profiling.

Claiming "people shouldn't have their underwear showing" is automatically tantamount to "racial profiling," as the ACLU does, is ridiculous. But it does insinuate that only black guys wear their pants around a foot too low. That seems like a problem with black culture, not the law. Not that the law isn't absurd, but saying it leads to a slippery slope of racial profiling is asinine. If black males are the only people who have "low-riding" pants, it seems like a problem that should be addressed. And this just shows the double standard. Tell people to not show off their underwear, they are being racist. Would this even come up if they were saying people shouldn't wear socks under their sandals or should wear shirts under their overalls? No, because those would target white people, and no one cares about jumping hoops to protect them.


2) A Texas university is introducing a new course - home making. And guess who can sign up? If you guessed anyone, you are wrong. Only women can sign up for the home making course.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1443091920070820?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Does anyone else not find a Texas uni introducing a home making course only for women not surprising at all? How long until some smart people call in the ACLU in or until this starts spreading across religious universities radially like some sort of assbackwards epidemic with the epicenter in Texas.

Any attempt to understand the universe will make your head explode. It's just that screwed up.

Any attempt to understand the universe will make your head explode. It's just that screwed up.
Like this? (http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/b/b5/Exploding-head.gif)

Would this even come up if they were saying people shouldn't wear socks under their sandals

People shouldn't wear socks under their sandals, though. It looks fucking ridiculous.

Like this? (http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/b/b5/Exploding-head.gif)

I was gonna look for that pic, but I decided it was too much trouble.

Who cares if a school makes a class on homemaking. To many women out there don't know how to cook worth a damn. Let alone do the laundry and hem some pants. Cleaning house also is an art form. I say prepare them for the real world!

Claiming "people shouldn't have their underwear showing" is automatically tantamount to "racial profiling," as the ACLU does, is ridiculous. But it does insinuate that only black guys wear their pants around a foot too low. That seems like a problem with black culture, not the law. Not that the law isn't absurd, but saying it leads to a slippery slope of racial profiling is asinine. If black males are the only people who have "low-riding" pants, it seems like a problem that should be addressed. And this just shows the double standard. Tell people to not show off their underwear, they are being racist. Would this even come up if they were saying people shouldn't wear socks under their sandals or should wear shirts under their overalls? No, because those would target white people, and no one cares about jumping hoops to protect them.


There are plenty of idiotic white people wearing nine-day shitters hanging just above their knees around here (super baggy pants that can hold nine days of shit with the waistband just above the knees).

I don't think it's just a black thing. My hypothesis is that baggy pants began because people couldn't afford to buy properly fitting clothes as children (so they wore a "one-size fits all").

Now, it's a fashion statement for a lot of young men. And hanging the thong out in back is a fashion statement for a lot of young women. Goes with the tattoo just above the butt crack (don't tell me that's a black thing).

There are plenty of idiotic white people wearing nine-day shitters hanging just above their knees around here (super baggy pants that can hold nine days of shit with the waistband just above the knees).

I don't think it's just a black thing. My hypothesis is that baggy pants began because people couldn't afford to buy properly fitting clothes as children (so they wore a "one-size fits all").

Now, it's a fashion statement for a lot of young men. And hanging the thong out in back is a fashion statement for a lot of young women. Goes with the tattoo just above the butt crack (don't tell me that's a black thing).

Bah it's all a fashion thing and we won't have it in 5 years time. Shit we may well be back to tight tight drainpipes!:eek:

There are plenty of idiotic white people wearing nine-day shitters hanging just above their knees around here (super baggy pants that can hold nine days of shit with the waistband just above the knees).

I don't think it's just a black thing. My hypothesis is that baggy pants began because people couldn't afford to buy properly fitting clothes as children (so they wore a "one-size fits all").

Now, it's a fashion statement for a lot of young men. And hanging the thong out in back is a fashion statement for a lot of young women. Goes with the tattoo just above the butt crack (don't tell me that's a black thing).

The way I heard it, the whole baggy pants thing is from prison.

Some story about Inmates not being able to wear belts, and thus sagging their pants. They kind of liked the look, and began to do it when they got out of prison as well. Then it became a fashion trend.

But your explanation sounds better.:)

There are plenty of idiotic white people wearing nine-day shitters hanging just above their knees around here (super baggy pants that can hold nine days of shit with the waistband just above the knees).

I think it's more of a youth thing than a race thing, actually. Especially since it's an elderly person proposing the law.


Does anyone else not find a Texas uni introducing a home making course only for women not surprising at all? How long until some smart people call in the ACLU in or until this starts spreading across religious universities radially like some sort of assbackwards epidemic with the epicenter in Texas.

It's a religious thing; other religious schools might take it (assuming they don't already have it) but it's probably not going to have anything to do with the ACLU since you can't tell private universities what classes they can and cannot offer.

I'm watching today and they are covering a couple good make fun of people issues.


1) An old black city councilman introduces a bill that says people shouldn't have their underwear showing, especially with "low-riding" pants. ACLU accuses him of introducing racial profiling.

The ACLU would say that. :rolleyes: Get a life ACLU! You are to far outside mainstream these days.

do you have a source for this supposed bill, or anything indicating ACLU involvement?

Bah it's all a fashion thing and we won't have it in 5 years time. Shit we may well be back to tight tight drainpipes!:eek:

they say that, but it's been going on since at least 1993.

2) A Texas university is introducing a new course - home making. And guess who can sign up? If you guessed anyone, you are wrong. Only women can sign up for the home making course.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1443091920070820?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Does anyone else not find a Texas uni introducing a home making course only for women not surprising at all? How long until some smart people call in the ACLU in or until this starts spreading across religious universities radially like some sort of assbackwards epidemic with the epicenter in Texas.

ACLU won't get involved in this one, because it's a private, religious university. It's not intruding on the public sphere--though if their students receive federal student aid, they may have a case.

they say that, but it's been going on since at least 1993.

Yeah that don't mean much though really, hoodies have been around since I was a youth, and baseball caps for gawd know how long.

It's only the youth that wear the slacks low though, and someday they'll get bored with that.

Reminds me of a joke.

A man hits a woman with his car. Who's at fault?

The man. Why was he driving his car in the kitchen?

Yeah that don't mean much though really, hoodies have been around since I was a youth, and baseball caps for gawd know how long.

It's only the youth that wear the slacks low though, and someday they'll get bored with that.

I remember them doing it a looooong time ago, it doesn't seem to be going away.

:(

Your only solution is total and utter madness. That's the only option that worked for me.

The ACLU would say that. :rolleyes: Get a life ACLU! You are to far outside mainstream these days.Gee, Corny, I'm not sure you'd know mainstream if it bit you in the ass. You think you're mainstream. At least I realize I'm not.

And this is a Baptist seminary. What the hell do you expect? They're still in the nineteenth century. And a Texas religious school to boot. Nineteenth century would be progressive for them.

I remember them doing it a looooong time ago, it doesn't seem to be going away.

:(
I seem to remember a time when wearing blue jeans to town was considered the height of hooliganism, and remember old people complaining about it. Somehow civilization managed to survive. I imagine we'll get through this as well.

Bah it's all a fashion thing and we won't have it in 5 years time. Shit we may well be back to tight tight drainpipes!:eek:

I doubt it, I remember the concept of "sagging" pants as far back as when I was eleven, aka, a full decade ago.

I seem to remember a time when wearing blue jeans to town was considered the height of hooliganism, and remember old people complaining about it. Somehow civilization managed to survive. I imagine we'll get through this as well.Holy cow! You're ancient. You must be even older than me. Older than Eutrusca!

I seem to remember a time when wearing blue jeans to town was considered the height of hooliganism, and remember old people complaining about it. Somehow civilization managed to survive. I imagine we'll get through this as well.

you know, old ladies at church still comment on my "lack of good morals" because I don't wear nylons with my dresses in the summer? :p they are like "oh, sweetie! we can see your knees! what will the menfolk think?" and I am like "that I have sexy knees?" :D

Holy cow! You're ancient. You must be even older than me. Older than Eutrusca!

Haven't heard that name in a while.

you know, old ladies at church still comment on my "lack of good morals" because I don't wear nylons with my dresses in the summer? :p they are like "oh, sweetie! we can see your knees! what will the menfolk think?" and I am like "that I have sexy knees?" :D

Hey, it used to be sexy ankles with those Victorian prudes. :p

I remember them doing it a looooong time ago, it doesn't seem to be going away.

:(

To tell the truth I have only noticed it for about 3-5 years over here in the UK.

I doubt it, I remember the concept of "sagging" pants as far back as when I was eleven, aka, a full decade ago.

Naaaa look at it this way, what fashion form the 60's have we retained, that is still have now, not, that has come back into fashion, nor the 70's for that matter, or the 80's even?

I'm watching today and they are covering a couple good make fun of people issues.


1) An old black city councilman introduces a bill that says people shouldn't have their underwear showing, especially with "low-riding" pants. ACLU accuses him of introducing racial profiling.

Claiming "people shouldn't have their underwear showing" is automatically tantamount to "racial profiling," as the ACLU does, is ridiculous. But it does insinuate that only black guys wear their pants around a foot too low. That seems like a problem with black culture, not the law. Not that the law isn't absurd, but saying it leads to a slippery slope of racial profiling is asinine. If black males are the only people who have "low-riding" pants, it seems like a problem that should be addressed. And this just shows the double standard. Tell people to not show off their underwear, they are being racist. Would this even come up if they were saying people shouldn't wear socks under their sandals or should wear shirts under their overalls? No, because those would target white people, and no one cares about jumping hoops to protect them.


2) A Texas university is introducing a new course - home making. And guess who can sign up? If you guessed anyone, you are wrong. Only women can sign up for the home making course.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1443091920070820?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Does anyone else not find a Texas uni introducing a home making course only for women not surprising at all? How long until some smart people call in the ACLU in or until this starts spreading across religious universities radially like some sort of assbackwards epidemic with the epicenter in Texas.

God bless the United States of America.

I'll skip straight to number two because there was an article on it. I have no objection to a home making class.Even the fact that it's just for women.It's the last answer that was so stupid.Last I checked 1+1=2 not 1+1=1.She's assuming all marriges end in divorce.The only women thing would be a better thing for the ACLU to sue over.The racial profiling over baggy pants is racial profiling.Still the law violates the first amendment.It's a dimb law and I doubt it will pass.

Here's one in Atlanta, GA:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294269,00.html

I remember reading about the Texas law, so I'll see if I can find it again.

Edit:

Here's something about Dallas:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15403683/

The racial profiling over baggy pants is racial profiling.
No, it's not.
The law goes after any revealed underwear - either from sagging pants, thongs, or bra strap. To insist that it is automatically racial profiling just shows a problem with the ghetto culture and black victim complex. "Many black kids where their pants sagging around their knees, obviously this law is meant to attack black people. Racism!" It's fucking absurd. The law has nothing to do with race, if you think it has something to do with race, there is a problem with how you come to conclusion. The law isn't racial profiling; you are. You here "sagging pants" and you automatically think "black youths."

you know, old ladies at church still comment on my "lack of good morals" because I don't wear nylons with my dresses in the summer? :p they are like "oh, sweetie! we can see your knees! what will the menfolk think?" and I am like "that I have sexy knees?" :D

Excellent answer.

And they wonder why nobody likes Texas...

And they wonder why nobody likes Texas...

Nah, they know why nobody likes Texas. They know.

Reminds me of a joke.

A man hits a woman with his car. Who's at fault?

The man. Why was he driving his car in the kitchen?

what should you do when your wife is nagging you in the living room?

shorten her chain

what should you do when your wife is nagging you in the living room?

shorten her chain

are we telling jokes now?

A Man ordered his wife to quit her job and be a proper housewife.

the next day, he didn't see her.

the day after that, he didn't see her.

the thrid day, the swelling went down enough that he could see her out of the corner of his eye.

are we telling jokes now?

A Man ordered his wife to quit her job and be a proper housewife.

the next day, he didn't see her.

the day after that, he didn't see her.

the thrid day, the swelling went down enough that he could see her out of the corner of his eye.

I don't think we are.......but I know like 40 of them. Sadly some of them are so funny......I feel bad for laughing........kinda like DB jokes.

I'm watching today and they are covering a couple good make fun of people issues.


1) An old black city councilman introduces a bill that says people shouldn't have their underwear showing, especially with "low-riding" pants. ACLU accuses him of introducing racial profiling.

Claiming "people shouldn't have their underwear showing" is automatically tantamount to "racial profiling," as the ACLU does, is ridiculous. But it does insinuate that only black guys wear their pants around a foot too low. That seems like a problem with black culture, not the law.
I think you are being overly simplistic.

What is the pith and substance of this law? Is it to prevent widespread ginch exhibitionism? Is there really a huge problem with everyone showing off their underwear? Hmmm, I suspect the answer is no. In fact, I suspect that, precisely as you have divined, the people wearing their ginch outside of their pants are mostly black, or 'gangsta culture' adherents. It's a particular style that is specific to a specific group of people.

Since the issue really isn't (most probably) about an entire population that is wild about showing off their tighty whiteys, then instead, you have a bill aimed at dealing with a specific group of 'trouble makers'. If in fact, it is true, both in perception and reality that this group is primarily made up of blacks, then how on earth can you actually claim it is NOT racial profiling? Or cultural profiling, if you prefer. You can not simply say, 'this law applies to everyone, so therefore it is fair...it simply happens that only these group of people will be affected'.

Let me give you another example. You pass a law that says no one can hunt in a certain area. The only people who hunt there just 'happen' to be Indian. Sure, the law applies to everyone, but is really only going to affect the Indians who hunt there. So. Is this law, in pith in substance about hunting? No, because it only affects hunting in one area, where the bulk of the population never hunts. This law, in pith and subtance is about Indians hunting. It would be struck down (here in Canada) as unconstitutional under the Charter.

Now without more research at my beck and call, I can't actually say whether or not a large group of white or asian or whatever kids also like to wear their underwear all puffed out above their pants...but that sort of inquiry would help determine the actual scope of this law.


2) A Texas university is introducing a new course - home making. And guess who can sign up? If you guessed anyone, you are wrong. Only women can sign up for the home making course.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1443091920070820?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Does anyone else not find a Texas uni introducing a home making course only for women not surprising at all? How long until some smart people call in the ACLU in or until this starts spreading across religious universities radially like some sort of assbackwards epidemic with the epicenter in Texas.

Oh boy. This is really sad. Granted, it's a private (I'm assuming) Baptist university, whose specific goal is to "arrest the collapse of the American family and society"...and you'd sort of ruin that goal by allowing men...it's really rather sick that this sort of bullshit still goes on...strongly.

Then again...hmmm, does religious freedom trump sexual equality? (checks Canadian cases)...it appears that sometimes, yes, yes it does.

Naaaa look at it this way, what fashion form the 60's have we retained, that is still have now, not, that has come back into fashion, nor the 70's for that matter, or the 80's even?

The Afro. That's still around. And still awesome.

I think you are being overly simplistic.

What is the pith and substance of this law? Is it to prevent widespread ginch exhibitionism? Is there really a huge problem with everyone showing off their underwear? Hmmm, I suspect the answer is no. In fact, I suspect that, precisely as you have divined, the people wearing their ginch outside of their pants are mostly black, or 'gangsta culture' adherents. It's a particular style that is specific to a specific group of people.
The law applies to any under garments exposed - thongs, bra straps, and boxers.

Since the issue really isn't (most probably) about an entire population that is wild about showing off their tighty whiteys, then instead, you have a bill aimed at dealing with a specific group of 'trouble makers'. If in fact, it is true, both in perception and reality that this group is primarily made up of blacks, then how on earth can you actually claim it is NOT racial profiling? Or cultural profiling, if you prefer. You can not simply say, 'this law applies to everyone, so therefore it is fair...it simply happens that only these group of people will be affected'.
Then you are racially profiling. You hear "sagging pants" and you go straight to "black youths." The law does not specifically target that type of underwear exposure, even if that did spur it. And it was written by some old black guy. If only black youths wear their pants like that, it's a coincidence.
And wtf, "cultural profiling"? Too fucking bad, that strike me as smart. "People involved in the gangster culture wear certain clothes and symbols and commit crimes. All crimes aimed at stopping drive bys are cultural profiling! Call the ACLU!"

Let me give you another example. You pass a law that says no one can hunt in a certain area. The only people who hunt there just 'happen' to be Indian.
I've seen white youths wear their pants the same.
"Only indians hunt their, except for those white guys that do it too."

I don't think we are.......but I know like 40 of them. Sadly some of them are so funny......I feel bad for laughing........kinda like DB jokes.

It's okay to laugh at them, as long as you understand they're jokes, IMHO.

I like politically incorrect jokes.

I don't think we are.......but I know like 40 of them. Sadly some of them are so funny......I feel bad for laughing........kinda like DB jokes.

as long as you're laughing at a joke.

me, I never understood the concept of forcing anyone to cook for you.

would you feel safe eating something prepared by someone who either 1) hates you and/or 2) resents you?

as long as you're laughing at a joke.

me, I never understood the concept of forcing anyone to cook for you.

would you feel safe eating something prepared by someone who either 1) hates you and/or 2) resents you?

yeah......

once at church I had an opinion that was unpopular and this man says to my husband "you better get your wife under control" and my husband looks at me as serious as he can and says "who the hell bought you shoes?" I laughed so hard, the man didn't understand why though, so then we both laughed at him. He doesn't talk to us anymore.

yeah......

once at church I had an opinion that was unpopular and this man says to my husband "you better get your wife under control" and my husband looks at me as serious as he can and says "who the hell bought you shoes?" I laughed so hard, the man didn't understand why though, so then we both laughed at him. He doesn't talk to us anymore.

LOL!!! Oh the responses to that idiot...

Hubby: Dear, can I bring you under control?
You:... ok, but only for a moment.
Hubby: sure, when can I do this?
You:... I got a couple minutes free next week wednesday.
Hubby: ok, next week for a couple of minutes it is then.

or

You: He does, just because we leave the whips and chains at home...

I like where this is going. Women back in the kitchen, naked, cooking me a steak, and then coming in the living room and waiting on me hand and foot. Home making sure does sound lovely to me :D

it used to be only old men walking around with their boxer waistbands higher than their pants.

Its a stupid look like the hat with the new tags still on it and the brim cokced to the side.

Some day, they'll grow their own identity and they wont try to pull the stupid look anymore.

maybe-someday-it will be in style to look clean and smart and speak clearly.

I like where this is going. Women back in the kitchen, naked, cooking me a steak, and then coming in the living room and waiting on me hand and foot. Home making sure does sound lovely to me :D


"Dont burn my steak- it defeats its own purpose"

There are plenty of idiotic white people wearing nine-day shitters hanging just above their knees around here (super baggy pants that can hold nine days of shit with the waistband just above the knees).

I don't think it's just a black thing. My hypothesis is that baggy pants began because people couldn't afford to buy properly fitting clothes as children (so they wore a "one-size fits all").

Now, it's a fashion statement for a lot of young men. And hanging the thong out in back is a fashion statement for a lot of young women. Goes with the tattoo just above the butt crack (don't tell me that's a black thing).
My thought is that belts are taken away in jail and the trousers sag. The "thug" look is in.

I like where this is going. Women back in the kitchen, naked, cooking me a steak, and then coming in the living room and waiting on me hand and foot. Home making sure does sound lovely to me :D

yes but its sad that she has to spend 4 years getting a degree before she knows enough to bring you a damned beer!


i wonder how many women enroll is such a stupid degree program.

No, it's not.
The law goes after any revealed underwear - either from sagging pants, thongs, or bra strap. To insist that it is automatically racial profiling just shows a problem with the ghetto culture and black victim complex. "Many black kids where their pants sagging around their knees, obviously this law is meant to attack black people. Racism!" It's fucking absurd. The law has nothing to do with race, if you think it has something to do with race, there is a problem with how you come to conclusion. The law isn't racial profiling; you are. You here "sagging pants" and you automatically think "black youths."

So when, in a year, cops have harassed 90%+ black youths and nary a white girl showing a thong, can we assume it's profiling?

i wonder how many women enroll is such a stupid degree program.

More than you would imagine, I'll bet, and perhaps enough to frighten you.

So when, in a year, cops have harassed 90%+ black youths and nary a white girl showing a thong, can we assume it's profiling?
Maybe black youth should learn to wear pants?

So when, in a year, cops have harassed 90%+ black youths and nary a white girl showing a thong, can we assume it's profiling?

Man, I can't wait until the first time I get fined because I'm wearing a sleeveless shirt and my bra strap peeks out. I figure the best strategy would be to look at the officer and say, "That's illegal? Silly me," and then take the bra off right in front of him and hand it to him (without taking my shirt off, obviously).

Maybe black youth should learn to wear pants?

So we're making laws about fashion now? How about a law that requires every shirt to have buttons and requires all who wear them to button every button on the shirt? There's no real difference--except that you wouldn't be able to make snarky comments about black youth.

Man, I can't wait until the first time I get fined because I'm wearing a sleeveless shirt and my bra strap peeks out. I figure the best strategy would be to look at the officer and say, "That's illegal? Silly me," and then take the bra off right in front of him and hand it to him (without taking my shirt off, obviously).

I suppose I could, as a protest, go without underwear and belt my pants midway around my ass, providing the world with a beautiful example of pale, hairy plumbers crack. At least my underwear isn't showing, right?

And wtf, "cultural profiling"? Too fucking bad, that strike me as smart. "People involved in the gangster culture wear certain clothes and symbols and commit crimes. All crimes aimed at stopping drive bys are cultural profiling! Call the ACLU!"

So all people who wear baggy pants are gangsters? And forcing them to pull up their pants will stop them from committing crimes.

Fascinating. Truly.

"Oh a black guy wrote it, therefore it can't possibly be racial profiling".

Essentially your insinuation, and also quite nice.

I think it's really wonderful that in the Land of the Free, you can be harrassed for dressing a certain way, and not only do people support it, but they claim that it's actually not discrimination at all. Those people should be thanking the ACLU for protecting them from themselves, as willing as they are to do away with basic freedoms.

So all people who wear baggy pants are gangsters? And forcing them to pull up their pants will stop them from committing crimes.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I can only assume it was pulled out of your ass. That statement had nothing to do with the sagging pants thing.


I think it's really wonderful that in the Land of the Free, you can be harrassed for dressing a certain way, and not only do people support it, but they claim that it's actually not discrimination at all.
So dressing a certain way is indicative of race?
It can be the new FOX game show - people behind a screen describe what clothes they are wearing and the contestant has to guess what race they are. Genius!

You are the ones racially profiling. Not anyone else.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I can only assume it was pulled out of your ass. That statement had nothing to do with the sagging pants thing.

So dressing a certain way is indicative of race?
It can be the new FOX game show - people behind a screen describe what clothes they are wearing and the contestant has to guess what race they are. Genius!

You are the ones racially profiling. Not anyone else.



And wtf, "cultural profiling"? Too fucking bad, that strike me as smart. "People involved in the gangster culture wear certain clothes and symbols and commit crimes. All crimes aimed at stopping drive bys are cultural profiling! Call the ACLU!" Clearly, you believe that it is "smart" to "culturally profile", and that looking at people who dress a certain way will tell you who the criminals are. So you in fact support labelling, profiling, what have you, based on how people dress.

Tell me again how I'm the one racially/culturally/or otherwise profiling here.

Clearly, you believe that it is "smart" to "culturally profile", and that looking at people who dress a certain way will tell you who the criminals are.
Definitely pulled out of your ass. You completely ignore the actual object of the statement. When you learn to read, you can come back and chastise me because then I assume you will at least chastise me on the point I made.


And this completely ignores the facts that gangs do identify themselves with certain clothes, colors, and symbols.


EDIT: I have said why you are culturally profiling twice, and straight forwardly. Should I translate it into Spanish so you can get it?

EDIT: I have said why you are culturally profiling twice, and straight forwardly. Should I translate it into Spanish so you can get it?

While I agree with what most you said, I do think this takes it a bit far.

If you hear "saggy pants" and automatically think "black youths" you are racially profiling. [/Carlos Mencia]

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4966/deedeedee6tz.th.jpg (http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=deedeedee6tz.jpg)

Definitely pulled out of your ass. You completely ignore the actual object of the statement. When you learn to read, you can come back and chastise me because then I assume you will at least chastise me on the point I made.


And this completely ignores the facts that gangs do identify themselves with certain clothes, colors, and symbols.


EDIT: I have said why you are culturally profiling twice, and straight forwardly. Should I translate it into Spanish so you can get it?
You have yet to give a compelling reason why the freedom of expression that is inherent in a person's manner of dress, should be curtailed. You claim that this is not discriminatory, because the manner of dress that is most often referred to (baggy pants, not exposed bras, not exposed thongs) is worn by more than one ethnic group. You do, however, admit, that this manner of dress is somewhat specific to a certain 'cultural type', or style. You say that in pith and substance, this is about how people dress, not about how a specific group of people dress.

That still does not make it a legitimate infringement on freedom of expression. Even absent the quite obvious racial/cultural 'profiling' as the ACLU called it, you are still running into the issue of curtailing a Constitutional right. Now, in schools, they have gotten around the freedom of expression issues in terms of how students dress...in some rather questionable ways I might add. However, when dealing with adults, in the general population, outside of a workplace...the support for that sort of infringement is much weaker. The infringement would have to be particularly compelling.

So tell me, my frothing-at-the-mouth friend...what is so compelling as to justify making a certain manner of dress illegal?

You have yet to give a compelling reason why the freedom of expression that is inherent in a person's manner of dress, should be curtailed. You claim that this is not discriminatory, because the manner of dress that is most often referred to (baggy pants, not exposed bras, not exposed thongs) is worn by more than one ethnic group. You do, however, admit, that this manner of dress is somewhat specific to a certain 'cultural type', or style. You say that in pith and substance, this is about how people dress, not about how a specific group of people dress.

That still does not make it a legitimate infringement on freedom of expression. Even absent the quite obvious racial/cultural 'profiling' as the ACLU called it, you are still running into the issue of curtailing a Constitutional right. Now, in schools, they have gotten around the freedom of expression issues in terms of how students dress...in some rather questionable ways I might add. However, when dealing with adults, in the general population, outside of a workplace...the support for that sort of infringement is much weaker. The infringement would have to be particularly compelling.

So tell me, my frothing-at-the-mouth friend...what is so compelling as to justify making a certain manner of dress illegal?


Well, for example, you have a white man wearing a Hell's Angel jacket or something, then you have to assume he is a biker, right? Or what about 5 or 6 black men wearing all red standing on the corner, at night. Wouldn't you assume they were either drug dealers, or in a gang? Its not being racist or stereotyping people. We know not all black men that wear red are Bloods, but we do know that when you have a group of young men like that, in the ghetto, on a street corner, something is usually up. Its not about race, its about experience and knowing what has happened time and time again. Of course, doesn't mean we should just question a fellow with sagging pants, but like I said, there are some situations, when certain dress can help determine who is a trouble maker or not.

Would this even come up if they were saying people shouldn't wear socks under their sandals or should wear shirts under their overalls? No, because those would target white people, and no one cares about jumping hoops to protect them.

Look who is racially profiling now. I think every white person here should be offended at your description of their fashion sense.

Socks and sandals SHOULD be a crime. *shudders*

Goddamned white people.

Goddamned white people.

This comment reminds me of an event I went to in Denver. It was summer, and sunny at altitude, and I'm... well, I'm very, very white. A bunch of us who were all in the same boat, melanin-wise, were all clustered under a tree, moving our camp chairs to follow the shade. A friend of a friend (who happened to be full-blood Native... not remembering the tribe. Southwest US, IIRC, but that covers a lot of tribes nowadays) walked up, put her hands on her hips, heaved a sigh, and said "Imports!" in an mock-aggravated voice, and walked off. Got a good laugh out of that.

A friend of a friend (who happened to be full-blood Native... not remembering the tribe. Southwest US, IIRC, but that covers a lot of tribes nowadays) walked up, put her hands on her hips, heaved a sigh, and said "Imports!" in an mock-aggravated voice, and walked off. Got a good laugh out of that.

Kehehehhe, nice one:)

Kehehehhe, nice one:)

I thought so, too. Being so white I glow in the dark (Dutch, English, Irish and Norwegian), I tend to appreciate jokes about my lack of melanin - makes things easier sometimes.

Well, for example, you have a white man wearing a Hell's Angel jacket or something, then you have to assume he is a biker, right? Or what about 5 or 6 black men wearing all red standing on the corner, at night. Wouldn't you assume they were either drug dealers, or in a gang? Its not being racist or stereotyping people. We know not all black men that wear red are Bloods, but we do know that when you have a group of young men like that, in the ghetto, on a street corner, something is usually up. Its not about race, its about experience and knowing what has happened time and time again. Of course, doesn't mean we should just question a fellow with sagging pants, but like I said, there are some situations, when certain dress can help determine who is a trouble maker or not.
I'm sorry, was there an answer to my question in all that?

I'll ask again.

"What is so compelling as to justify making a certain manner of dress illegal?"

Unless you are going to claim, as I already mocked before, that making a certain form of dress illegal is going to cut down on crime then...?

I'm sorry, was there an answer to my question in all that?

I'll ask again.

"What is so compelling as to justify making a certain manner of dress illegal?"

Unless you are going to claim, as I already mocked before, that making a certain form of dress illegal is going to cut down on crime then...?


Oh, I just felt like typing shit out to be honest. However, I could theorize that making all clothes illegal, there'd be less a chance for someone to conceal a gun to commit a crime. Seems reasonable enough to me.

Mandatory nudity. Might be tough in the winters.

Oh good point. But thats what body hair is for. I'm sure the bush can be the 'in' thing for winter time. Hell, might even be able to hang ornaments from it around christmas time. I know where I'd put the star at ;)

Oh, I just felt like typing shit out to be honest. However, I could theorize that making all clothes illegal, there'd be less a chance for someone to conceal a gun to commit a crime. Seems reasonable enough to me.

Mandatory nudity. Might be tough in the winters.

Oh, I just felt like typing shit out to be honest. However, I could theorize that making all clothes illegal, there'd be less a chance for someone to conceal a gun to commit a crime. Seems reasonable enough to me.

*thinks*

Well, makes it easier on identifying anyone concealing a weapon... after all, they'll walk funny. :p

*thinks*

Well, makes it easier on identifying anyone concealing a weapon... after all, they'll walk funny. :p

Well, Im sure there is a possibility for a gun to get um...stuff...clogged in it, causing it to jam and not fire...But eww, that'd be smelly.

Well, Im sure there is a possibility for a gun to get um...stuff...clogged in it, causing it to jam and not fire...But eww, that'd be smelly.

Or a Knife...

Mugger: *whips out knife* Gimmie your money!
Victim: you had a naked blade up THERE?!
Mugger: *Squirms while looking at unsheathed blade.*... err... can I ask you for a favor...

Or a Knife...

Mugger: *whips out knife* Gimmie your money!
Victim: you had a naked blade up THERE?!
Mugger: *Squirms while looking at unsheathed blade.*... err... can I ask you for a favor...

:D

Who cares if a school makes a class on homemaking. To many women out there don't know how to cook worth a damn. Let alone do the laundry and hem some pants. Cleaning house also is an art form. I say prepare them for the real world!

The point of contention was not that it was being taught, but that it was not being offered to men.

I dare say that a good many more men could benefit from learning to cook a meal whose main ingredient is not grease.

With people marrying later every generation, guys need to learn how to cook for themselves.

Look who is racially profiling now. I think every white person here should be offended at your description of their fashion sense.

So your defense is an after the fact pot-kettle hypocrisy? You're going to have to do better than that.

Claiming "people shouldn't have their underwear showing" is automatically tantamount to "racial profiling," as the ACLU does, is ridiculous. But it does insinuate that only black guys wear their pants around a foot too low.

Not true. There are plenty of hispanic males, white males, and asian males who do it in my school, not to mention the ladies of all kinds who think a whaletail is attractive.

2) A Texas university is introducing a new course - home making. And guess who can sign up? If you guessed anyone, you are wrong. Only women can sign up for the home making course.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1443091920070820?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Does anyone else not find a Texas uni introducing a home making course only for women not surprising at all? How long until some smart people call in the ACLU in or until this starts spreading across religious universities radially like some sort of assbackwards epidemic with the epicenter in Texas.
It's Texas. Can't wait for Dubya to fade back to obscurity in Crawford.

Who cares if a school makes a class on homemaking. To many women out there don't know how to cook worth a damn. Let alone do the laundry and hem some pants. Cleaning house also is an art form. I say prepare them for the real world!

Get used to hearing these words:

"Whaddareyalegs, broken?" :D

The way I heard it, the whole baggy pants thing is from prison.

Some story about Inmates not being able to wear belts, and thus sagging their pants. They kind of liked the look, and began to do it when they got out of prison as well. Then it became a fashion trend.

But your explanation sounds better.:)

Big baggy pants also hide weapons and cans of spray paint pretty spiffingly.

The ACLU would say that. :rolleyes: Get a life ACLU! You are to far outside mainstream these days.

Yeah. They were especially useless when keeping them Negroes down was mainstream.

So your defense is an after the fact pot-kettle hypocrisy? You're going to have to do better than that.

I already have (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12995929&postcount=61). You have simply failed to respond to it. Unsurprisingly.

Big baggy pants also hide weapons and cans of spray paint pretty spiffingly.


Yeah all they(they meaning humans) need to do is go as a group and they could assemble a howitzer.

I already have (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12995929&postcount=61). You have simply failed to respond to it. Unsurprisingly.
I didn't say the law wasn't stupid. I said it was stupid to go after it because it was "racial profiling."

I didn't say the law wasn't stupid. I said it was stupid to go after it because it was "racial profiling."
Do you seriously think that this law--assuming it is passed and not thrown out of court--won't be used to harass young men of color? Are you seriously arguing that women with their thongs showing are going to be harassed at the same rates as black and hispanic males? Set the law aside--what are the cops going to do with it?

I didn't say the law wasn't stupid. I said it was stupid to go after it because it was "racial profiling."
Oh, that's fantastic. Completely ignore the point you can't possibly handle, and say, 'well I don't support it but na na, they shouldn't say that'. So you agree it's a shit law, but you want the ACLU to deal with it in another manner. Why don't you type up your concerns and send it to your local chapter?

They are not saying the law is itself racial profiling. They are saying it will be impossible to ensure it is applied fairly, and is in all likelihood going to be used in a discriminatory manner.

Pretty reasonable concerns ON TOP of the fact that there is no compelling reason to create a law that infringes on freedom of expression in this manner...although hey, let's just call all sorts of things indecent. Like thongs. And burkas. And tube socks. And berets.

Mandatory nudity. Might be tough in the winters.

I live in Michigan. The lake down the street from my parents house freezes solid in the winter. Much as I might wish to go nekkid in the summer, the thought of doing so in the winter is... brrrrrr.

Oh the hate! :(

I wear socks with sandals sometimes. When it's cold, but not freezing. I hate my feet being cooped up in shoes unless my toes might die if unprotected. Leave me be, I'm not hurting anyone.

About the underwear law issue, yeah, it's stupid, and I'm inclined to think it is motivated by the desire to harass a "certain element." Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to legislate such a thing. Why are we such Puritans that we cannot handle the sight of someone's underwear? What if someone wore a regular pair of shorts under baggy pants? Outerwear is often as revealing as underwear. And, yes, just following the logic, if we can prohibit visible underwear, there's no reason we can't prohibit socks with sandals or anything else a lot of people find offensive/unsightly/annoying/gross/stupid/ugly/etc.

I will never understand why some people try so hard to control the minutiae of other people's lives when they're doing no harm.