NationStates Jolt Archive

That is one expression I just cannot stand, it comes in a close tie with "I'm not racist, I know Rotovia". One line from the Pennsylvania debate forced me to question their place, however. The line was "It would be pretty hard for me to be condescending towards people of faith, since I am a person of faith", and it made me mad.

I was mad because Obama was falling back on this abhorrent tactic of "I'm not against x, because I am an x". I was madder because he was telling a generation of angry, disillusioned, and lost young black men (turning to him for guidance on how to grow as men and overcome their issues) that it was ok to fall back on that argument.

As a young, black, man I think its about time we seriously look at ending this mentality. (Acknowledging, of course, that it is an issue not extensively confined to the black community.)

And because you know you want it, LINK (http://www.youtube.com/v/_COt4LrKkbc&hl=en) -around 6:58 onwards.

I'm not racist. I just read a post from a black dude.

I agree.

I was taught in school (which makes it true, of course) that only whites can be racist in our society because only white prejudice is backed by cultural authority (power). Minorities can be prejudiced in one way or another, and indeed all people are prejudiced in one way or another, but only whites can be racist. That would make "I'm not a racist; I'm black" a perfectly reasonable statement.

It's like the anti-dentite episode from Sienfeld.

I was taught in school (which makes it true, of course) that only whites can be racist in our society because only white prejudice is backed by cultural authority (power). Minorities can be prejudiced in one way or another, and indeed all people are prejudiced in one way or another, but only whites can be racist. That would make "I'm not a racist; I'm black" a perfectly reasonable statement.


:eek:Were you really taught that?

What Obama said is not akin to saying "I'm not racist, I'm black", it's akin to saying "I'm not anti-semitic, I'm Jewish". Most rational people are not that contradictory, self-haters aside.

How can Obama be anti-religion if he is a religious person? How can he look down on people of faith when he is one, unless he is horrendous hypocrite or utterly insane?

Maybe he looks down on people who express their faith in a certain way, but come on. Who doesn't think one group or another expresses their faith in a crazy or stupid way?

I think you're just nit-picking here, why people are seizing on such minor things (which are common mistakes and imperfections everyone has) is beyond me.

:eek:Were you really taught that?

It's pretty standard. You didn't have to take a class on race at college? It was mandatory for us.

:eek:Were you really taught that?
It's what I heard too.

I hate the thing the OP is talking about too. I have a lot of relatives who do that whole "I'm not racist I have a black friend" thing.....yeah, having one friend doesn't mean all the BS you spout is suddenly okay, I don't see you saying it around your "friend" and being fine with it.

:eek:Were you really taught that?

I think what he is trying to say is that racism is when a person in power restricts the freedoms of a person from one race or ethic group and since most government officials are white... Do you get the picture now?

What Obama said is not akin to saying "I'm not racist, I'm black", it's akin to saying "I'm not anti-semitic, I'm Jewish". Most rational people are not that contradictory, self-haters aside.


Except being racist doesn't mean you have to hate black people, while being anti-semitic means you hate newish people. If being racist was contradictory, every racist would be, because everyones a race.
EDIT: That last sentence doesn't really make sense. But you know what I mean.

What Obama said is not akin to saying "I'm not racist, I'm black", it's akin to saying "I'm not anti-semitic, I'm Jewish". Most rational people are not that contradictory, self-haters aside.

How can Obama be anti-religion if he is a religious person? How can he look down on people of faith when he is one, unless he is horrendous hypocrite or utterly insane?

Maybe he looks down on people who express their faith in a certain way, but come on. Who doesn't think one group or another expresses their faith in a crazy or stupid way?

I think you're just nit-picking here, why people are seizing on such minor things (which are common mistakes and imperfections everyone has) is beyond me.

It's cop-out. It's the real-life equivalent of answering a question with: :rolleyes:

Edit: incidentally, I'm not finding that bit in the YouTube clip.

I think what he is trying to say is that racism is when a person in power restricts the freedoms of a person from one race or ethic group and since most government officials are white... Do you get the picture now?

There is a good example in Kenya with black on black racism. Instead of skin color it is tribal affiliation. Still racism in my book. Japanese vs Chinese(WWII) is another example which still persists on a national level even. I would say whites do not have a monopoly on racism. It is fairly tame in the US as an example vs some of the nations in the world.

There is a good example in Kenya with black on black racism. Instead of skin color it is tribal affiliation. Still racism in my book. Japanese vs Chinese is another example which still persists on a national level even. I would say whites do not have a monopoly on racism. It is fairly tame in the US as an example vs some of the nations in the world.

Eh. That's Kenya. Naturally, the racists in a non-white country won't be white. If white people in Kenya don't have the power (though they may) then they won't be the racist point of reference. Ditto for Japan.

Eh. That's Kenya. Naturally, the racists in a non-white country won't be white. If white people in Kenya don't have the power (though they may) then they won't be the racist point of reference. Ditto for Japan.

What I was referring to is the two major tribes fighting it out in Kenya. Both of them are black. The Japanese reference was towards their involvement in Manchuria, Korea and finally China proper.

There is a good example in Kenya with black on black racism. Instead of skin color it is tribal affiliation. Still racism in my book. Japanese vs Chinese(WWII) is another example which still persists on a national level even. I would say whites do not have a monopoly on racism. It is fairly tame in the US as an example vs some of the nations in the world.

I wasn't saying I believed white people can only be racist. Just what I thought Thumbless Pete Crabbe was trying to say, but you do bring a very good point about racism in the world. Kudus to you.

I have been called racist, which is odd since some of my best friends aren't even white. It's true though, some people can be racist against their own people, or discriminate against their own group somehow, and be unwilling to actually admit it.

"Only whites can be racist in our society because only white prejudice is backed by cultural authority." My God, that's standard in schools now? Does any one really think that telling this to students is going to help eliminate racism? It seems to me that the more likely outcome is a generation of white students who are either self-hating with inferiority complexes and afraid to get involve in the world or speak their minds for fear of being labled racist, or else so angered at being cast as the only racist race that they lash out in a backlash of renewed bigotry. This of course will seem to confirm that whites are the racist ones, thus further feeding the cycle.:headbang::headbang::headbang:

Of course like all the strongest pieces of propaganda, this one has a kernel of truth, but the definition is imprecise enough to breed great confusion. Last time I checked, I thought racism was about attitudes as much as, or even more than actions. Of course even if it was just actions, that doesn't limit racism to whites. A black man, for example, could just as easily try to commit a hate crime, regardless of weather they had the power to get away with it. This definition is like saying that murder is only a crime if you get caught. Absurd, offensive, and morally reprehensible.

In truth it is this definition of racism that is racist, because it generalizes about people based on... race. It states that only whites can be racist, and from there it is not such a great leap to "All whites must be racist, simply by being born white." It also has no more truth than "All blacks are criminals", "all Muslims are terrorists", or "All Asians are good students." I'm white, and I oppose racism with all my heart. I don't feel pride in being white, nor do I feel shame, it's just how I was born. But I cannot tolerate this kind of hipocritical PC double speak.

Sorry for the length, Its just something I've been wanting to say for a long time.

I have been called racist, which is odd since some of my best friends aren't even white. It's true though, some people can be racist against their own people, or discriminate against their own group somehow, and be unwilling to actually admit it.

I was called "racist" by Douglas Adams in a room full of people. Of all the bloody things.
n/k

I was called "racist" by Douglas Adams in a room full of people. Of all the bloody things.
n/k

Did you do something to earn this...?

What I was referring to is the two major tribes fighting it out in Kenya. Both of them are black. The Japanese reference was towards their involvement in Manchuria, Korea and finally China proper.

Yeah, they're both "black" from our perspective in the West, but they may have their own concept of race, and it may be very different from ours. Otherwise it would be simple cultural or political racism rather than racism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TzD0CYt7po&feature=user

I'm not racist because I'm not human. I'm xenophobic. :D

Did you do something to earn this...?I asked him a question about a series of stills that were done, specifically if he intended to move on with the same actors he'd used in the stills for the movie people'd been bandying about for a while. That led to it, yes.

"Only whites can be racist in our society because only white prejudice is backed by cultural authority." My God, that's standard in schools now? Does any one really think that telling this to students is going to help eliminate racism? It seems to me that the more likely outcome is a generation of white students who are either self-hating with inferiority complexes and afraid to get involve in the world or speak their minds for fear of being labled racist, or else so angered at being cast as the only racist race that they lash out in a backlash of renewed bigotry. This of course will seem to confirm that whites are the racist ones, thus further feeding the cycle.:headbang::headbang::headbang:.

Are you serious? I'm pretty sure white people are capable of confronting white privilege without developing a series of neuroses. At least the adults. :p

Of course like all the strongest pieces of propaganda, this one has a kernel of truth, but the definition is imprecise enough to breed great confusion. Last time I checked, I thought racism was about attitudes as much as, or even more than actions. Of course even if it was just actions, that doesn't limit racism to whites. A black man, for example, could just as easily try to commit a hate crime, regardless of weather they had the power to get away with it. This definition is like saying that murder is only a crime if you get caught. Absurd, offensive, and morally reprehensible.

It's simply a more complete definition. It doesn't excuse inter-minority intolerance or murder, or anything else. The key is remembering that inter-minority intolerance exists in the context of a white supremacist society. Ignorance of that fact makes any understanding impossible, within the theory.

"In truth it is this definition of racism that is racist, because it generalizes about people based on... race. It states that only whites can be racist, and from there it is not such a great leap to "All whites must be racist, simply by being born white." It also has no more truth than "All blacks are criminals", "all Muslims are terrorists", or "All Asians are good students." I'm white, and I oppose racism with all my heart. I don't feel pride in being white, nor do I feel shame, it's just how I was born. But I cannot tolerate this kind of hipocritical PC double speak.

No, it generalizes based on power. And you're a racist. We all are, no matter how tolerant you think you are.

If you ever visit L.A., check out the Museum of Tolerance. There are two entrances: one for racists, and one for non-racists. The one for non-racists doesn't open.

It's pretty standard. You didn't have to take a class on race at college? It was mandatory for us.

To back up your point, THIS (http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/730a8163b35b360f8edd2b889c832ce9.pdf) should prove useful.

I'm not racist because I'm not human. I'm xenophobic. :D

I knew you were an advanced scout for those damn Killer Klowns.

I knew you were an advanced scout for those damn Killer Klowns.I was musing a bit the other day about successfully hybridizing Killer Klowns/Tomatoes/Critters/Triffids, oddly enough .... some breeding attempts not unlike what's used in dog pedigree pursuits.

I'm not racist, I just hate blacks.

Wait...

If you ever visit L.A., check out the Museum of Tolerance. There are two entrances: one for racists, and one for non-racists. The one for non-racists doesn't open.

Correction it didn't open. A blow torch the night before and sure enough it opened for me the next day.

I am not racist, I hate everyone. Equally and without favor.;)

This one´s kinda confusing, you know.

*words the title*
I´m not racist because I´m black...

BS. Blacks are racists too. That´s not a term solely for them.

Except being racist doesn't mean you have to hate black people, while being anti-semitic means you hate newish people.

Would that be toddlers?

I am not racist, I hate everyone. Equally and without favor.;)

I forgot the name of the person who said it, but thank you for making my day by paraphrasing one of my favorite quotes. Here, have some popcorn. http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/lurk.gif

I am not racist, I hate everyone. Equally and without favor.;)

You've used that one before!
Reminds me again of Grand Theft Auto ...
I hate everybody equally, regardless of other issues.

You've used that one before!
Reminds me again of Grand Theft Auto ...

Yah, I know. Still applies though, and I just woke up and couldn't think of anything else.

I asked him a question about a series of stills that were done, specifically if he intended to move on with the same actors he'd used in the stills for the movie people'd been bandying about for a while. That led to it, yes.

So . . . if I'm reading between the lines correctly you objected to the actor playing Ford Prefect in the "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" movie being black, when in the books Ford Prefect was described as having ginger hair (thus bringing to mind a white man).

While I disagree that wanting the actor playing an established character to resemble said character (including being of the same race) is inherently racist I do wish you had actually said that's what brought about the comment.

"I'm pretty sure white people are capable of confronting white privilege without developing a series of neuroses. At least the adults."

But theory is being taught to kids, or very young adults. That's disregarding of course the... questionable nature of the theory being presented to them. If what they were being taught was just as opposed to condeming a single group for something just about everyone is to some extent guilty of, there might be less reason for concern.

"The key is remembering that inter-minority intolerance exists in the context of a white supremacist society."

I wouldn't say that we live in a white supremacist society. Of course there are white supremacists, and in positions of influence and power, unfortunately. However, they are a far less dominant force than they once were, and to describe our entire society as "white supremacist" is rather simplistic to be called an analysis.

I only hope you're not suggesting that without white supremacism, there would be no "inter-minority intolerance." I'd like to believe that you're not that simplistically ignorant.

"No, it generalizes based on power. And you're a racist. We all are, no matter how tolerant you think you are."

Perhaps it generalizes based on power, but not all white people have power. What about poor whites living in a country where they are a minority? If I mistook the type of discrimination going on, I apologize. It still wouldn't change the ease with which such rhetoric could be adapted into a justification for racism against whites. And even if this theory excludes white people living in such circumstance, however, it still condemns one specific group of people for some thing we are probably all guilty of.

You know, I could probably agree that we are all racist, as much as I wish it were otherwise. But that's not what this theory of yours claims. It states specifically that only whites can be racist in our society. You said one thing, and now you're backpedaling and saying another. Are you just being absent-minded, or deliberately dishonest?

As long as philosophies such as the one you propose remain widely believed, I fear that the door will always remain closed.

This one´s kinda confusing, you know.

*words the title*
I´m not racist because I´m black...

BS. Blacks are racists too. That´s not a term solely for them.

Isn't that the OP's point?

Perhaps it generalizes based on power, but not all white people have power. What about poor whites living in a country where they are a minority?

Really? Can you name one country where this is the case?

You know, I could probably agree that we are all racist, as much as I wish it were otherwise. But that's not what this theory of yours claims. It states specifically that only whites can be racist in our society. You said one thing, and now you're backpedaling and saying another. Are you just being absent-minded, or deliberately dishonest?

Though, I think what needs to be clarified to you and some others here is that this is a Post-Modernist concept, and ergo uses Post-Modernist terminology, which is often not what you think. You see, Racism is defined by Post-Modernist not on a personal level, but on a societal level, ergo, no one person is racist unless sanctioned by society. So in this terminology, in "White Supremacist" society (which is not to be mistaken as being the same as a bunch of skin heads, KKK, or Nazi's) a person who is not white cannot be a racist, no matter how much they may harbor racial prejudice, since society does not sanction their prejudice. We are not dealing on the micro level, we are dealing with the Macro level.

Yah, I know. Still applies though, and I just woke up and couldn't think of anything else.

Just up?
Ah yes, dusk.

So . . . if I'm reading between the lines correctly you objected to the actor playing Ford Prefect in the "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" movie being black, when in the books Ford Prefect was described as having ginger hair (thus bringing to mind a white man).No, your reading between the lines has gone incorrectly. I asked if he was going to continue with the same staff. Oddly enough, you're actually going with the angle he had, since he thought he was reading between the lines too. And, being honourable and all, he never allowed me to specify that before going all prick on me.

Not saying you're being a prick, i'm saying he was. Apparently he'd been asked about it before or something. Funny how he didn't know about the spaghetti weevil, though.

But theory is being taught to kids, or very young adults. That's disregarding of course the... questionable nature of the theory being presented to them. If what they were being taught was just as opposed to condeming a single group for something just about everyone is to some extent guilty of, there might be less reason for concern.

So it's "think of the children!" then, eh? :p

No, I think that by the time the 'kids' get to college, they should be able to think critically enough to handle sociology they may possibly disagree with.

I wouldn't say that we live in a white supremacist society. Of course there are white supremacists, and in positions of influence and power, unfortunately. However, they are a far less dominant force than they once were, and to describe our entire society as "white supremacist" is rather simplistic to be called an analysis.

That's a different definition of white supremacy - almost completely different. The racism that exists in our society isn't a matter of a few bad apples making things miserable for others, but a combination of personal racism (your "white supremacist," for example) as well as deeply-ingrained structural racism, just at the fundamental level. White is the standard. "Whiteness" conveys great privilege at every level - those basic facts are part of the basis of a white supremacist society.

Perhaps it generalizes based on power, but not all white people have power. What about poor whites living in a country where they are a minority? If I mistook the type of discrimination going on, I apologize. It still wouldn't change the ease with which such rhetoric could be adapted into a justification for racism against whites. And even if this theory excludes white people living in such circumstance, however, it still condemns one specific group of people for some thing we are probably all guilty of.

We're talking about the West, remember. Poor whites in non-white societies have nothing to do with any of this. Poor whites in our society benefit from white privilege whether they know it or not.

You know, I could probably agree that we are all racist, as much as I wish it were otherwise. But that's not what this theory of yours claims. It states specifically that only whites can be racist in our society. You said one thing, and now you're backpedaling and saying another. Are you just being absent-minded, or deliberately dishonest?

As long as philosophies such as the one you propose remain widely believed, I fear that the door will always remain closed.

"My" theory? :D Unless you're completely new to the topic and have no frame of reference whatsoever, you'd know that the theory is not "mine," but rather the result of 50+ years of sociology.

As The South Islands pointed out, it's quite probably the consensus view in academia. "This theory of mine" indeed. :p

Edit: bedtime - I'll check up on this one tomorrow. :)

Just up?
Ah yes, dusk.

Actually the middle of the night. I slept in.

Actually the middle of the night. I slept in.
In the middle of the night, eh? And on the computer? I suspect you have another window open to .. something or other. :D

In the middle of the night, eh? And on the computer? I suspect you have another window open to .. something or other. :D

Well, I am normally up at this time, and no, no other windows open.

No, your reading between the lines has gone incorrectly. I asked if he was going to continue with the same staff. Oddly enough, you're actually going with the angle he had, since he thought he was reading between the lines too.

It's just that it was the only statement I could remotely think of that might have been thought of as racist.

It's just that it was the only statement I could remotely think of that might have been thought of as racist.
True ... in this context, it does make sense.
In an amphitheatre with about 3 or 400 other people though, it really seemed like an unusually sore spot to slap us ignorant Americans with. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TzD0CYt7po&feature=user

*titters*

in japanese shops the prices for products are much cheaper for japanese people then for white there you have youre country where whites are a minority and we arent leading that country either

That is one expression I just cannot stand, it comes in a close tie with "I'm not racist, I know Rotovia". One line from the Pennsylvania debate forced me to question their place, however. The line was "It would be pretty hard for me to be condescending towards people of faith, since I am a person of faith", and it made me mad.

I was mad because Obama was falling back on this abhorrent tactic of "I'm not against x, because I am an x". I was madder because he was telling a generation of angry, disillusioned, and lost young black men (turning to him for guidance on how to grow as men and overcome their issues) that it was ok to fall back on that argument.

As a young, black, man I think its about time we seriously look at ending this mentality. (Acknowledging, of course, that it is an issue not extensively confined to the black community.)

And because you know you want it, LINK (http://www.youtube.com/v/_COt4LrKkbc&hl=en) -around 6:58 onwards.

Don't give me that crap, the #1 Stormfront racist argument is basically 'zomg anti-white racism, poor oppressed whites!!!111', I don't fall for your pseudo-racist claptrap for one moment. It's the same as the old 'Christians are being oppressed!!!!111'. I don't discount the possibility (although very small) that some black people maybe racist, but I question the motivations of people like you who use it opportunistically to put a veil for their own pseudo-racist 'moral white majority' views.

Get over yourself, I see right through your white whinebaggery.

Really? Can you name one country where this is the case?


How about Zimbabwe, where the white farmers are/were evicted from their farms, leading to an even greater economic downfall, since the new black owners don't know how to manage their farms.

Don't give me that crap, the #1 Stormfront racist argument is basically 'zomg anti-white racism, poor oppressed whites!!!111', I don't fall for your pseudo-racist claptrap for one moment. It's the same as the old 'Christians are being oppressed!!!!111'. I don't discount the possibility (although very small) that some black people maybe racist, but I question the motivations of people like you who use it opportunistically to put a veil for their own pseudo-racist 'moral white majority' views.

Get over yourself, I see right through your white whinebaggery.

First of all, he stated he was black, so why would he be supporting Stormfront?. You don't discount the possibility that some people may be black? I find the odds that you won't find a racist black person infinitely small. That comment was the most stupid one I've ever seen, so I just had to quote it so you don't have a possibility to remove it when you see how stupid it looked.

Don't give me that crap, the #1 Stormfront racist argument is basically 'zomg anti-white racism, poor oppressed whites!!!111', I don't fall for your pseudo-racist claptrap for one moment. It's the same as the old 'Christians are being oppressed!!!!111'. I don't discount the possibility (although very small) that some black people maybe racist, but I question the motivations of people like you who use it opportunistically to put a veil for their own pseudo-racist 'moral white majority' views.

Get over yourself, I see right through your white whinebaggery.And right past this sentence:
As a young, black, man I think its about time we seriously look at ending this mentality. (Acknowledging, of course, that it is an issue not extensively confined to the black community.)

How about Zimbabwe, where the white farmers are/were evicted from their farms, leading to an even greater economic downfall, since the new black owners don't know how to manage their farms.
Similar economic problems affected the USSR following the Revolution, feudalism and slavery always set up economic 'safeguards' so the slave does not have the education or knowhow to be anything other than chattel, that's how Tsarist Russia was and that's how White Rhodesia was. Does that make it wrong for the peasants to own their own fields, for the workers to own their own factories? Does that mean liberation from slavery is unjustified on the economic grounds of the exploitative system itself? As with capitalism special education is only given to a small amount to be the economic ruling class.

Your postulate is incorrect because your blaming the liberated peoples for economic hardships induced by the exploitative system itself.

And right past this sentence:

Don't believe a word of that sentence.

Similar economic problems affected the USSR following the Revolution, feudalism and slavery always set up economic 'safeguards' so the slave does not have the education or knowhow to be anything other than chattel, that's how Tsarist Russia was and that's how White Rhodesia was. Does that make it wrong for the peasants to own their own fields, for the workers to own their own factories? Does that mean liberation from slavery is unjustified on the economic grounds of the exploitative system itself? As with capitalism special education is only given to a small amount to be the economic ruling class.

Your postulate is incorrect because your blaming the liberated peoples for economic hardships induced by the exploitative system itself.

How am I incorrect? Are they not of European descent, and are they not in minority and holds no power? Its not only whites in Zimbabwe who was affected by these evictions. Black people worked there too you know, and it was the white people who built the farms.

By your logic America would have no black people, since they all would be shipped home when slavery was abolished. Also, noone would be able to own any property other than in the country they descended from. Flawed logic.

Don't believe a word of that sentence.
Prove him wrong. It'll be fun watching you make an ass of yourself refuting that he's black, considering there's photographic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13440651&postcount=176) evidence (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13442591&postcount=277).

That is one expression I just cannot stand, it comes in a close tie with "I'm not racist, I know Rotovia". One line from the Pennsylvania debate forced me to question their place, however. The line was "It would be pretty hard for me to be condescending towards people of faith, since I am a person of faith", and it made me mad.

I was mad because Obama was falling back on this abhorrent tactic of "I'm not against x, because I am an x". I was madder because he was telling a generation of angry, disillusioned, and lost young black men (turning to him for guidance on how to grow as men and overcome their issues) that it was ok to fall back on that argument.

As a young, black, man I think its about time we seriously look at ending this mentality. (Acknowledging, of course, that it is an issue not extensively confined to the black community.)

And because you know you want it, LINK (http://www.youtube.com/v/_COt4LrKkbc&hl=en) -around 6:58 onwards.

Why?

Being black is generally an accurate indication, unless you're a complete and utter moron, that you're not against black people.

Why?

Being black is generally an accurate indication, unless you're a complete and utter moron, that you're not against black people.

Since when is being against black people the only form of racism?

Since when is being against black people the only form of racism?

"It would be pretty hard for me to be condescending towards people of faith, since I am a person of faith", and it made me mad.

I was mad because Obama was falling back on this abhorrent tactic of "I'm not against x, because I am an x".

Racism doesn't make sense in this X because X. If you substitute, say, tolerance, "I'm not against tolerance because I am tolerant" is a perfectly reasonable statement to me, assuming you can back that up. Same with faith, though I don't know the context, it would have to be being condescending towards people of faith specifically due to their faith of course.

If the OP is saying that the "Black people can't be racist" mentality is stupid, that's all well and good, but it seems to clash with the examples.

How can Obama be anti-religion if he is a religious person? How can he look down on people of faith when he is one, unless he is horrendous hypocrite or utterly insane?

How can self-labelled Christians hate Jews and Muslims? They're people of faith too.


How can Protestants hate Catholics and vice versa? they're both Christians.

Next question?

being anti-semitic means you hate newish people.

No, being anti-Semitic means you hate Semites -- ethnic Jews, and many of the Arab peoples of the Middle East. In common parlance, it has come to mean "hating Jews".

I'm not racist because I'm not human. I'm xenophobic. :D

AAAAAAH!!!! THE CLOWN INVASION HAS BEGUN!!!! LOCK UP YOUR WOMEN!!!! LOCK UP YOUR CHILDREN!!!! LOCK UP YOUR DOMESTICATED ANIMALS!!! THE CLOWNS ARE COMING!!!!

No, being anti-Semitic means you hate Semites -- ethnic Jews, and many of the Arab peoples of the Middle East.

That's not what the term was coined to mean, and it's not how it's used in almost all circumstances.

Not everyone is racist, everyone has prejudices. However only people who act on prejudices deserve to be labled racist.

Also as I understand the term racism is discrimination based on a persons race, thus anyone can be racist. You don't have to be in the majority. The statememnt black people can't be racist is ridiculous.

Just my opinion..

AAAAAAH!!!! THE CLOWN INVASION HAS BEGUN!!!! LOCK UP YOUR WOMEN!!!! LOCK UP YOUR CHILDREN!!!! LOCK UP YOUR DOMESTICATED ANIMALS!!! THE CLOWNS ARE COMING!!!!

Too late:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/femaleclown.jpg

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/babyclown.jpg

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/clowndog.jpg

You too will be assimilated. Resistance is Futile. *nod*

I was taught in school (which makes it true, of course) that only whites can be racist in our society because only white prejudice is backed by cultural authority (power). Minorities can be prejudiced in one way or another, and indeed all people are prejudiced in one way or another, but only whites can be racist. That would make "I'm not a racist; I'm black" a perfectly reasonable statement.


So according to this theory if the KKK set up a hedquarters in zimbabwe they would no longer be racists, is that correct?

Don't give me that crap, the #1 Stormfront racist argument is basically 'zomg anti-white racism, poor oppressed whites!!!111', I don't fall for your pseudo-racist claptrap for one moment. It's the same as the old 'Christians are being oppressed!!!!111'. I don't discount the possibility (although very small) that some black people maybe racist, but I question the motivations of people like you who use it opportunistically to put a veil for their own pseudo-racist 'moral white majority' views.

Get over yourself, I see right through your white whinebaggery.

Take your own advice. Get over yourself; in this case you don't know what you're talking about given that Rotovia- has posted his picture here many times before this thread.

How can self-labelled Christians hate Jews and Muslims? They're people of faith too.


How can Protestants hate Catholics and vice versa? they're both Christians.

Next question?

That makes them anti-Jew/Muslim/Catholic/Protestant, not anti-religion.

I have been called racist, which is odd since some of my best friends aren't even white. It's true though, some people can be racist against their own people, or discriminate against their own group somehow, and be unwilling to actually admit it.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

You might well be a non-racist, but "some of my best friends are..." is usually a sign of people thinking "no really, I don't hate them, look, I have some of their kind as my friends!".

Why?

Being black is generally an accurate indication, unless you're a complete and utter moron, that you're not against black people.

Really?
Ask some Africans or West Indians what they think of American blacks.
Ask some American blacks who are poverty stricken what they think of the Obamas, Winfreys, Clarence Thomases, and other rich American blacks.

It's like the Italian-Americans who have been in the US a while looking down on the "guineas" (recently arrived Italians from the countryside), and you can apply that to ANY group looking at newcomers from their group once they have been here a few generations.

Please refrain from making really obvious broad sweeping statements that are easily refuted.

I've noticed that all groups can indeed have racist individuals, but that only whites can be discriminated against without causing an ethical uproar because either:

A. They are a majority in Country X, and minorities have to be given priority for equal opportunity.

B. They are the former colonial opressors of Country X, and they are being discriminated against to return powers to the nonwhite majoirty. [Example: Zimbabwe]

C. Whites have done something in Country X's past that opressed a nonwhite group. Country X, being morally decent, puts a legitimate effort into educating people about the opressive actions, and that they were wrong. Often, especially when interpreted, this tends to leave the generalisation that all whites of the time were evil.

Or any combination of those.

..., being anti-Semitic means you hate Semites...No it does not. It exclusively means you hate Jews.
And it is indeed a misnomer, since most Semites are not Jews and most Jews are not Semites.

Really?
Ask some Africana or West Indians what they think of American blacks.
Ask some American blacks who are poverty stricken what they think of the Obamas, Winfreys, Clarence Thomases, and other rich American blacks.

It's like the Italian-Americans who have been in the US a while looking down on the "guineas" (recently arrived Italians from the countryside), and you can apply that to ANY group looking at newcomers from their group once they have been here a few generations.

Please refrain from making really obvious broad sweeping statements that are easily refuted.

... for racist reasons. Which is more or less the theme of the thread.

Incidentally how many statements are both really obvious and easily refuted?

in this case you don't know what you're talking about given that Rotovia- has posted his picture here many times before this thread.

The irony is acute.

That's not what the term was coined to mean, and it's not how it's used in almost all circumstances.

Well, let's see what you decided NOT to quote here.

My original post:
No, being anti-Semitic means you hate Semites -- ethnic Jews, and many of the Arab peoples of the Middle East. In common parlance, it has come to mean "hating Jews".

Your post:

No, being anti-Semitic means you hate Semites -- ethnic Jews, and many of the Arab peoples of the Middle East.That's not what the term was coined to mean, and it's not how it's used in almost all circumstances.

So, nice of you to leave out the part where I recognize what the "common parlance" of it means. Nothing like twisting my words in the morning to annoy me.


An English lesson appears to be in order here.

Anti = against.

Semitic = people of Semitic orgin

1 a: a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs

b: a descendant of these peoples2: a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language


Anti-semitic meaning both against Semites and prejudiced against Jewish people -- which is what I said originally.

You may take your bow now.

...and you can apply that to ANY group looking at newcomers from their group once they have been here a few generations...

Within the Indian-American community there are the ABCDs (American Born Confused Desi) and the PIGS (Poor Indian Graduate Student). The PIGS are a subset of the FOBs (Fresh Off the Boat).

:p

Well, let's see what you decided NOT to quote here.

Your phrasing suggested that the "common parlance" usage was wrong or corrupt. That's why you responded to the post you were replying to with the word "no".

So, nice of you to leave out the part where I recognize what the "common parlance" of it means.

I always try to make clear what it is exactly that I am replying to.

Some people get the strange idea that I don't read the rest, but they're wrong.

An English lesson appears to be in order here.

A lesson in language seems to be in order here.

"Anti" means something. "Semite" means something. It does not follow that the meaning of "anti-Semitism" can be discovered simply by putting the two terms together.

Does "pedophilia" refer to any kind of affectionate relationship with children?

Anti-semitic meaning both against Semites and prejudiced against Jewish people -- which is what I said originally.

Language is not arithmetic.

:eek:Were you really taught that?

It's pretty common in our culture. Black people cannot be racist. See Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They're not racist, they just hate white people.

... for racist reasons. Which is more or less the theme of the thread.

Incidentally how many statements are both really obvious and easily refuted?

Let's take this slowly since you seem unwilling to understand.

Poster A said blacks cannot be prejudiced against blacks.

I believe this is ridiculous, and posted examples: Black Africans prejudiced against Black Americans, Black West Indians prejudiced against Black Americans, poor Blacks against rich Blacks, and rich Blacks against poor Blacks.

Therefore: Blacks can be prejudiced against other Blacks, just as Whites can be prejudiced against other Whites.

Is it getting through to you yet? Do you need it broken down into smaller words?

Rotovia- is annoyed when people say that they can't be racist against Blacks simply because they are Black. I agree, it's a stupid comment because anyone can be prejudiced against their own.

Within the Indian-American community there are the ABCDs (American Born Confused Desi) and the PIGS (Poor Indian Graduate Student). The PIGS are a subset of the FOBs (Fresh Off the Boat).

:p

Exactly.

See Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They're not racist, they just hate white people.

No, they don't.

In any case, the more limited usage of the term "racist" makes perfect sense in the context of race theory, where a distinction between racial prejudice that just "is" and racial prejudice that is implemented and institutionalized by the powerful can be very important.

Your phrasing suggested that the "common parlance" usage was wrong or corrupt. That's why you responded to the post you were replying to with the word "no".

I don't know what you understood, but whatever you are reading between the lines is NOT THERE. So, anti-Semitism means being prejudiced against newish people? People who are new to the area? I did not know that. I thought it meant prejudiced against the Jews and other Semitics.

Again, since you seem not to understand:


Main Entry:
par·lance Listen to the pronunciation of parlance
Pronunciation:
\ˈpär-lən(t)s\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French, from Old French, from parler
Date:
1577

1: speech; especially : formal debate or parley
2: manner or mode of speech : idiom


Please restrict yourself to answering what I ACTUALLY post and not what you have created as a strawman to knock down.

Given that I have a Masters in English, your lesson on what language means is quite amusing.
Language means something, or are you Humpty Dumpty?

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/looking/ch6.html.gz

I always try to make clear what it is exactly that I am replying to.

Some people get the strange idea that I don't read the rest, but they're wrong.

Yes, well in this case funny enough, NOT quoting the next sentence completely changed the context of the post. Interesting, that.

I don't know what you understood, but whatever you are reading between the lines is NOT THERE.

So why did you contest the claim of someone who said that anti-Semitism referred to hatred of Jewish people?

And why did you proceed to defend your definition?

:rolleyes:

So, anti-Semitism means being prejudiced against newish people? People who are new to the area?

I'm pretty sure that was a typo. Look at "j" and "n."

I did not know that. I thought it meant prejudiced against the Jews and other Semitics.

It doesn't. It means prejudice against Jews exclusively. That's my point. So how have I misunderstood you?

Rotovia- is annoyed when people say that they can't be racist against Blacks simply because they are Black. I agree, it's a stupid comment because anyone can be prejudiced against their own.

That basically takes a complete logical disconnect, most people are more rational than that and it's reasonable to take such a statement at face value.

Let's take this slowly since you seem unwilling to understand.

Poster A said blacks cannot be prejudiced against blacks.

I believe this is ridiculous, and posted examples: Black Africans prejudiced against Black Americans, Black West Indians prejudiced against Black Americans, poor Blacks against rich Blacks, and rich Blacks against poor Blacks.

Therefore: Blacks can be prejudiced against other Blacks, just as Whites can be prejudiced against other Whites.

Is it getting through to you yet? Do you need it broken down into smaller words?

Saying 'I am against X' or 'I am not against X' implies that one is against or not against all of X, because of their status as X. A black person saying 'I am against blacks' would sound just as absurd as it is. Certainly black people can be prejudiced against other black people, but not for that one reason alone.

This is operating under the basic assumption that people do not hate themselves. There are obviously exceptions, but like I said, being black is nonetheless a lot of points in your favour for not hating black people.
Damn that was clumsy.

So why did you contest the claim of someone who said that anti-Semitism referred to hatred of Jewish people?

And why did you proceed to defend your definition?

:rolleyes:
Because, apparently, you cannot read and comprehend. Or are unwilling to, for the sake of winning an argument never posted.



I'm pretty sure that was a typo. Look at "j" and "n."
Silly me, I thought Jewish was a proper name and therefore needed capitalization. Newish is a word as well. Am I to assume (as apparently you did from your ridiculous attempts to argue a strawman) that someone means something completely different from what they typed? If the word typed were Newish, it would be completely logical to assume a typo. Since not, I addressed what they actually wrote. Amazing.



It doesn't. It means prejudice against Jews exclusively. That's my point. So how have I misunderstood you?

And again, language means something. There are multiple meanings to this word -- one of which we both agree on and you seem to keep saying I don't, for what ridiculous reason I can guess at, and shame on you for it. The other of which apparently your ability to parse prefixes, root words, base words and suffixes does not allow you to see.

That basically takes a complete logical disconnect, most people are more rational than that and it's reasonable to take such a statement at face value.

If most people were rational, we would not have prejudice, period.
We wouldn't hear thread after thread about how the damned immigrants are taking over our jobs...

How the damned are screwing our women and making the whole world brown...

How the damned [insert religion of choice here] are murderous baby-eating rapists who want to destroy our way of life...

We wouldn't have morons who want to send everyone except their particular group of "pure" people back to places they have never seen and have not had family in for four hundred years....

We wouldn't have people rioting over [I]fucking sport competitions....

We wouldn't have people thinking that by virtue of having a X chromosome, women are too emotional/weak/should be home raising kids to have 'real' jobs....

In conclusion: we can WISH that most people acted like rational human beings, but they don't.

Silly me, I thought Jewish was a proper name and therefore needed capitalization.

Ah, and you expected perfect punctuation because everyone always abides by such rules on the Internet. How reasonable.

Newish is a word as well.

True, but in context, it's very highly doubtful that the poster meant "newish."

And again, language means something. There are multiple meanings to this word -- one of which we both agree on and you seem to keep saying I don't, for what ridiculous reason I can guess at, and shame on you for it.

I assumed that you were reasonable enough not to argue with what is, by all appearances, a typo--that your objection was more substantive than over a mistyped letter.

The other of which apparently your ability to parse prefixes and suffixes does not allow you to see.

Again, does "pedophilia" refer to any kind of affectionate relationship with children?

If somebody used "pedophilia" in that sense, wouldn't it be poor usage of the term?

The meanings of prefixes and suffixes, and Greek and Latin roots in general (of which "Semite" is one), do not determine the meaning of the term--they just give us a rough idea.

Antisemitic means anti-Arab as much as corndog means maize canine.

Antisemitic means anti-Arab as much as corndog means maize canine.

Right, because "corndog" does not come from "hot dog", which comes from a particular kind of sausage. So it would be completely unreasonable to understand that a corn dog is a hot dog rolled in corn batter and deep fried.

Try again.

Silly me, I thought Jewish was a proper name and therefore needed capitalization. Newish is a word as well. Am I to assume (as apparently you did from your ridiculous attempts to argue a strawman) that someone means something completely different from what they typed? If the word typed were Newish, it would be completely logical to assume a typo. Since not, I addressed what they actually wrote. Amazing.


Oh come on Kat, it couldn't have been more obvious that Soheran meant Jewish.

Let's take this slowly since you seem unwilling to understand.

Poster A said blacks cannot be prejudiced against blacks.

I believe this is ridiculous, and posted examples: Black Africans prejudiced against Black Americans, Black West Indians prejudiced against Black Americans, poor Blacks against rich Blacks, and rich Blacks against poor Blacks.

Therefore: Blacks can be prejudiced against other Blacks, just as Whites can be prejudiced against other Whites.

Is it getting through to you yet? Do you need it broken down into smaller words?

Rotovia- is annoyed when people say that they can't be racist against Blacks simply because they are Black. I agree, it's a stupid comment because anyone can be prejudiced against their own.

But racism and prejudism aren't the always the same.
Like poor people prejudice against rich people.

So I think Obama can say he is not racist. But some would consider him prejudice.
In fact didn't Obama also say something about poor people in small towns clinging to their guns?

Oh come on Kat, it couldn't have been more obvious that Soheran meant Jewish.

Not me, ascarybear (http://forums4.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13642930&postcount=11).

Note that the post the poster is replying to uses "Jewish", properly spelled and capitalized.

Right, because "corndog" does not come from "hot dog", which comes from a particular kind of sausage. So it would be completely unreasonable to understand that a corn dog is a hot dog rolled in corn batter and deep fried.

Try again.
Connotation is as important as denotation when defining a word. When the word "corndog" is mentioned, 99% of English speakers (an unscientific statistical estimate) will have an image of a sausge in a corn batter. A picture of a canine is never evoked in the mind by the word "corndog". Along the exact same line, when the word "Antisemitism" is mentioned, similarly high percentage of English speakers will immediately think prejudice and discrimination against Jews, while a mental concept of "prejudice against Arabs" would never be evoked by the word.

You may continue to vehemently believe "antisemitism" means prejudice against Jews, Babylonians, Sumerians, etc, but the vast majority of English (and various non-English) speakers would disagree with you. Antisemitism solely refers to prejudice against Jews, has always referred to prejudice against Jews, and originally referred to prejudice against Jews, even when the term was first coined.

But who knows, maybe if you post your view enough on enough online forums, your personal definition of antisemitism will win acceptance from more English speakers, and you'll be able to singlehandedly alter the English language.

Connotation is as important as denotation when defining a word. When the word "corndog" is mentioned, 99% of English speakers (an unscientific statistical estimate) will have an image of a sausge in a corn batter. A picture of a canine is never evoked in the mind by the word "corndog". .

Oh I Sooooo HAVE to do this;

http://vmedia.rivals.com/UserMedia/FanPagesPhoto/Gallery/20/O68007.jpg


hmmm - IMG tags don't seem to work....

Don't believe a word of that sentence.

Facts never stopped you before. Why start now?

[QUOTE=Rotovia-;13642879]That is one expression I just cannot stand, it comes in a close tie with "I'm not racist, I know Rotovia". One line from the Pennsylvania debate forced me to question their place, however. The line was "It would be pretty hard for me to be condescending towards people of faith, since I am a person of faith", and it made me mad.

I was mad because Obama was falling back on this abhorrent tactic of "I'm not against x, because I am an x". I was madder because he was telling a generation of angry, disillusioned, and lost young black men (turning to him for guidance on how to grow as men and overcome their issues) that it was ok to fall back on that argument.

As a young, black, man I think its about time we seriously look at ending this mentality. (Acknowledging, of course, that it is an issue not extensively confined to the black community.)

And because you know you want it, LINK (http://www.youtube.com/v/_COt4LrKkbc&hl=en) -around 6:58 onwards.[/QUOTE








You mix rasism with colour predudice.
I picked a guy up on this point a while back. He effectivly told me he was black so its ok to bad mouth Americans, but if I have a problem with his attitude to take it to HR. I did and he got a good cooling with the company. So I'm not American, and I'm not black (hate that word, it's like saying I'm pinky but on the brown side of pink but not black) but I try to stand up to all injustice

Speaking from experience, ive faced situations where I have not said or done anything that could be called racist, but still get labelled that way
on the occasions I have worked alongside blacks, they just look for excuses to label white people

apparently:

If i dont like R&B or hip hop music, im racist

If i choose to WORK during work hours, instead of sitting on my ass talking random stuff (usually involving cars, sports, sex/porn, drugs/alcohol) with them, im racist

If i dont give up all of my own personality and act like them, im racist

If i dont want to sit at their lunch table in the cafeteria, im racist

and many others

Oh come on Kat, it couldn't have been more obvious that Soheran meant Jewish.

Oh come on Hydesland, it was not Soheran that I was initially responding to.

Connotation is as important as denotation when defining a word. When the word "corndog" is mentioned, 99% of English speakers (an unscientific statistical estimate) will have an image of a sausge in a corn batter. A picture of a canine is never evoked in the mind by the word "corndog". Along the exact same line, when the word "Antisemitism" is mentioned, similarly high percentage of English speakers will immediately think prejudice and discrimination against Jews, while a mental concept of "prejudice against Arabs" would never be evoked by the word.

You may continue to vehemently believe "antisemitism" means prejudice against Jews, Babylonians, Sumerians, etc, but the vast majority of English (and various non-English) speakers would disagree with you. Antisemitism solely refers to prejudice against Jews, has always referred to prejudice against Jews, and originally referred to prejudice against Jews, even when the term was first coined.

But who knows, maybe if you post your view enough on enough online forums, your personal definition of antisemitism will win acceptance from more English speakers, and you'll be able to singlehandedly alter the English language.

And maybe if you and some others weren't so selective in ignoring literally half of the post I wrote and twisting the context until it screamed, you'd have a viable point. But please, continue and enjoy.

Anti-Semitism means that you are against any person of semitic descent, be they Jewish or Arab. I understand that the vast majority of the english speaking world thinks it applies solely to Jews, but that isn't correct and should be corrected. As far as the rest of the posts go, I'm not a racist, I hate everybody. Oh wait, or is it because I love everybody? I get confused and forget. Everyone is prejudiced, some just take it to extremes more. Sometimes, I also think everyone is a bit of a racist. It just seems to be human nature.:confused::headbang::eek:

Blacks can't be racist in America, because if they could be, that would cut into the democrats voting block. Keeping Blacks in a perpetual sense of victimhood and Government support gives the party almost an entire races worth of votes.

Jesus Christ, it sucks living in California, I wake up and I'm already four pages behind. . .

in japanese shops the prices for products are much cheaper for japanese people then for white there you have youre country where whites are a minority and we arent leading that country either

A)Is this a Poor whites living as a minority? And is this a permanent population (i.e. not just students, military, or just doing one assigned, but lengthy job before returning 'home')?

B)Do you have proof of this allegation, since it is not something I have heard of. Note: Anecdotal evidence will not be accepted, it must come in the form of picture or link.

Now, I will give you this one is most likely a good case, and for finding ONE case, you get a cookie.

How about Zimbabwe, where the white farmers are/were evicted from their farms, leading to an even greater economic downfall, since the new black owners don't know how to manage their farms.

Once again, Poor white minority. The white minority in Zimbabwe was anything but poor, and after years of Rhodesia bullshit it was inevitable that the African majority would overthrow the white minority which held power. The land "reforms" Mugabe engaged in were in an effort to redistribute the wealth (these white farmers were anything but poor in most instances) in a populist move. Unfortunately, Mugabe is an idiot and screwed up these "reforms" by giving the land to people who kissed his ass and not to people who where competent. So no cookie for you.

So according to this theory if the KKK set up a hedquarters in zimbabwe they would no longer be racists, is that correct?

And for giggles, this just jumped out at me, since according to Post-Modern definition of racism, which is what Thumbless Pete is referring to, yes, the KKK would no longer be a "racist" organization if they moved to Zimbabwe.
Why? Well, the state would not tolerate their racial prejudiced behavior, and would most likely crack their skulls in for it. These would deny them the power to act on their racial prejudiced, ergo failing to allow them to be "racist".

And maybe if you and some others weren't so selective in ignoring literally half of the post I wrote and twisting the context until it screamed, you'd have a viable point. But please, continue and enjoy.

Earlier you say certain words have multiple meanings. Antisemitism is not one of these words. Antisemitism is a highly specialized, simple, and straightforward word meaning prejudice against Jews. Not against Arabs, not against Babylonians. In the case of the word antisemitism, no meaningful additional layers of meaning can be divined by "parsing prefixes". The inherently specialized definition of the word antisemitism as specifically and exclusively meaning "prejudice against Jews" has been completely established by a consensus of the speakers, writers, literature, and journalism of not only the English language but most other European languages dating back many years from exactly the time the word was first coined. All other definitions of antisemitism besides "prejudice against Jews" are precluded by the linguistic, social, and cultural history and context of the English language, and methods such as "parsing prefixes" defied and rendered as mostly futile intellectual exercises with little relevance to the actual purpose of language- promoting understanding and comprehension. But as I said, there may be nothing wrong with your attempt to alter the English language, since change and evolution in language is a natural and not inherently undesirable thing.

Earlier you say certain words have multiple meanings. Antisemitism is not one of these words. Antisemitism is a highly specialized, simple, and straightforward word meaning prejudice against Jews. Not against Arabs, not against Babylonians. In the case of the word antisemitism, no meaningful additional layers of meaning can be divined by "parsing prefixes". The inherently specialized definition of the word antisemitism as specifically and exclusively meaning "prejudice against Jews" has been completely established by a consensus of the speakers, writers, literature, and journalism of not only the English language but most other European languages dating back many years from exactly the time the word was first coined. All other definitions of antisemitism besides "prejudice against Jews" are precluded by the linguistic, social, and cultural history and context of the English language, and methods such as "parsing prefixes" defied and rendered as mostly futile intellectual exercises with little relevance to the actual purpose of language- promoting understanding and comprehension. But as I said, there may be nothing wrong with your attempt to alter the English language, since change and evolution in language is a natural and not inherently undesirable thing.

In the words of my students, "Whatever."
Is that comprehensible to you?

http://www.emints.org/ethemes/resources/S00001821.shtml
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED069981&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED069981
http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=253
http://www.edconpublishing.com/products.php?cat=24
http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/AS/506.HTM
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HwYBxOW2s98J:www.ksbe.state.ks.us/LinkClick.aspx%3Ffileticket%3DWcmqjFxhz7E%3D%26tabid%3D159+context+clues,+roots,+suffixes,+prefixes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us


Oops, what's this? Lessons on language including parsing word meaning?
And to think it's a conspiracy by poor little old moi to change the language!

Similar economic problems affected the USSR following the Revolution, feudalism and slavery always set up economic 'safeguards' so the slave does not have the education or knowhow to be anything other than chattel, that's how Tsarist Russia was and that's how White Rhodesia was. Does that make it wrong for the peasants to own their own fields, for the workers to own their own factories? Does that mean liberation from slavery is unjustified on the economic grounds of the exploitative system itself? As with capitalism special education is only given to a small amount to be the economic ruling class.

Your postulate is incorrect because your blaming the liberated peoples for economic hardships induced by the exploitative system itself.

The problem, especially in the case of the USSR in the nineteen-twenties and nineteen-thirties was that they did have the invested knowledge and expertise. Dedicated Socialist engineers, like Palchinsky, offered their skills and knowledge to the Soviet government. The problem being, that when their solutions differed from the grandiose projects that Stalin preferred, whose purpose were more image than practical, they were declared wreckers and were shot in the alley behind Checka stations.

The problem being in Zimbabwe, the expertise existed, just like in the USSR, but Mugabe has driven the experts out, without bringing in any new expertise, so they're all just guessing willy-nilly how to deal with this stuff.

So, yes, revolutionary changes do tend to have a derogatory effect on the invested skills of a society, but for it to be truly awful, the leadership needs to gut the remaining elements of expertise out of the society.

In the words of my students, "Whatever."
Is that comprehensible to you?

http://www.emints.org/ethemes/resources/S00001821.shtml
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED069981&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED069981
http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=253
http://www.edconpublishing.com/products.php?cat=24
http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/AS/506.HTM
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HwYBxOW2s98J:www.ksbe.state.ks.us/LinkClick.aspx%3Ffileticket%3DWcmqjFxhz7E%3D%26tabid%3D159+context+clues,+roots,+suffixes,+prefixes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us


Oops, what's this? Lessons on language including parsing word meaning?
And to think it's a conspiracy by poor little old moi to change the language!


I think you've run out of ideas, Kat.

Speaking from experience, ive faced situations where I have not said or done anything that could be called racist, but still get labelled that way
on the occasions I have worked alongside blacks, they just look for excuses to label white people

apparently:

If i dont like R&B or hip hop music, im racist

If i choose to WORK during work hours, instead of sitting on my ass talking random stuff (usually involving cars, sports, sex/porn, drugs/alcohol) with them, im racist

If i dont give up all of my own personality and act like them, im racist

If i dont want to sit at their lunch table in the cafeteria, im racist

and many others

Gee, I wonder why anyone would have that perception... :rolleyes:

Really?
Ask some Africans or West Indians what they think of American blacks.
Ask some American blacks who are poverty stricken what they think of the Obamas, Winfreys, Clarence Thomases, and other rich American blacks.

It's like the Italian-Americans who have been in the US a while looking down on the "guineas" (recently arrived Italians from the countryside), and you can apply that to ANY group looking at newcomers from their group once they have been here a few generations.

Please refrain from making really obvious broad sweeping statements that are easily refuted.

You're totally missing the point. Africans aren't against American blacks because they're black, a group they are part of, but because they're American blacks, a group they are not part of.

American blacks are black, but they aren't all blacks. The comments themselves are generalized. That's the point.

For example, I don't despise white people, I am white. I do despise Jerry Falwell. He's white. Does that mean I've disproven my first sentence or that I despise some subset of white people for reasoning that may be related to their skin color, but not simply because of it? (hint: it's the latter)

Gee, I wonder why anyone would have that perception... :rolleyes:


Hes not racist, he just thinks all blacks are lazy, criminal, and hate white people.

Let's take this slowly since you seem unwilling to understand.

Poster A said blacks cannot be prejudiced against blacks.

I believe this is ridiculous, and posted examples: Black Africans prejudiced against Black Americans, Black West Indians prejudiced against Black Americans, poor Blacks against rich Blacks, and rich Blacks against poor Blacks.

Therefore: Blacks can be prejudiced against other Blacks, just as Whites can be prejudiced against other Whites.

Is it getting through to you yet? Do you need it broken down into smaller words?

Rotovia- is annoyed when people say that they can't be racist against Blacks simply because they are Black. I agree, it's a stupid comment because anyone can be prejudiced against their own.

The point is that you cannot generally be against black people if you're black. Well, you can, but I think we'd all agree that we're not talking about people who are entirely into self-hatred. You can be against, let's say, black youths, if you're older. Or you can be against poor blacks if you're rich and black. Or any number of subsets of black people, and it can be racist, but your focus isn't black people, but that subset, which is the point.

Here, Obama was accused of being generally against people of faith, and he pointed out that he's quite faithful and, rather obviously because of this, doesn't think faith in and of itself is a bad thing.

Don't believe a word of that sentence.

Sorry AP, but Roto is black, try checking out the sexiest NSer contest thread...

I'm not racist; I just impregnated a black girl!

Won't her husband be surprised?

GP

Because, apparently, you cannot read and comprehend. Or are unwilling to, for the sake of winning an argument never posted.

That's been his modus operandi lately...

Hes not racist, he just thinks all blacks are lazy, criminal, and hate white people.

Thats not what he said. He said that his work-colleagues were that way, and from my point of view he has a better knowledge about their work ethics than you do. How do you derive "all blacks" out of a statement which cant have concerned more than 5-10 of them?

I think you've run out of ideas, Kat.

No, just patience to deal with idiotic statements like "they don't teach parsing to find word meanings".

Hes not racist, he just thinks all blacks are lazy, criminal, and hate white people.So, that isn't true for US blacks? Because that's what Hollywood has been telling the rest of the world.

So, that isn't true for US blacks? Because that's what Hollywood has been telling the rest of the world.

Hollywood has also been telling the rest of the world that Americans are physically fit. :)

I grew up around black folks and Hispanic folks. From my experience, they ain't any lazier than anybody else.

I wonder what Uncle Ruckus would say....

I wonder what Uncle Ruckus would say....

He'd expect Obama to be halfway intelligent, being a mu-latto and all. :p

He'd expect Obama to be halfway intelligent, being a mu-latto and all. :p

"Why, one would only expect that mu-latto to be more successful than us fullblooded darkies...now if only he would quit eye-balling that white woman!"

Hes not racist, he just thinks all blacks are lazy, criminal, and hate white people.

That's why I'm glad that I'm Asian.

My sloth, theft, and disdain for insurance people makes me special.

Once a black guy told me, in all seriousness, that another black guy was angry just because he was black. He said "I know because I'm black." It was pretty funny.

I think sexism comes from people of the same sex just as often as it comes from people of the opposite sex. Some men have weird ideas about what manliness is supposed to be, and they get mad at other men who don't meet this standard. Some women have ideas about what a woman is supposed to act like, and they think they are free to try to enforce their rules on other women.

"Why, one would only expect that mu-latto to be more successful than us fullblooded darkies...now if only he would quit eye-balling that white woman!"

Haha. That sounds about right. Although of course, Ruckus is mostly Cherokee, with a touch of Irish. :p

The problem, especially in the case of the USSR in the nineteen-twenties and nineteen-thirties was that they did have the invested knowledge and expertise. Dedicated Socialist engineers, like Palchinsky, offered their skills and knowledge to the Soviet government. The problem being, that when their solutions differed from the grandiose projects that Stalin preferred, whose purpose were more image than practical, they were declared wreckers and were shot in the alley behind Checka stations.

The problem being in Zimbabwe, the expertise existed, just like in the USSR, but Mugabe has driven the experts out, without bringing in any new expertise, so they're all just guessing willy-nilly how to deal with this stuff.

So, yes, revolutionary changes do tend to have a derogatory effect on the invested skills of a society, but for it to be truly awful, the leadership needs to gut the remaining elements of expertise out of the society.
Of course the counter-revolutionary class enemies were driven out, that is only natural, why should a socialist state allow openly bourgeois economimistic ideas to survive?

Of course the counter-revolutionary class enemies were driven out, that is only natural, why should a socialist state allow openly bourgeois economimistic ideas to survive?

Nostalgia.

Nostalgia.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/EMOPOzYouRockHL3.gif

Isn't that the OP's point?

Seriously, I don´t know what the OP´s point is. Everyone, absolutely everyone os racist in one way or another.

Seriously, I don´t know what the OP´s point is. Everyone, absolutely everyone os racist in one way or another.

Everyone can be racist. Hell, there are black people who don't like other black people. A lot of sh#t doesn't make sense, but everyone has the capacity to be racist. Moving on...

What Jocabia said. Thank you.

Seriously, I don´t know what the OP´s point is. Everyone, absolutely everyone os racist in one way or another.

Bull. Shit.

Bull. Shit.

Your answer definitely is.:rolleyes:

AAAAAAH!!!! THE CLOWN INVASION HAS BEGUN!!!! LOCK UP YOUR WOMEN!!!! LOCK UP YOUR CHILDREN!!!! LOCK UP YOUR DOMESTICATED ANIMALS!!! THE CLOWNS ARE COMING!!!!

Remember... their noses are their weak spots. Damn Killer Klowns.

Too late:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/femaleclown.jpg

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/babyclown.jpg

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/clowndog.jpg

You too will be assimilated. Resistance is Futile. *nod*

Upgrade THIS!!

Oh wait... Killer Klowns here. Oops, sorry.

Cotton Candy THIS!!

Hes not racist, he just thinks all blacks are lazy, criminal, and hate white people.

He should meet my grandmother, they'd have so much to talk about.

That's why I'm glad that I'm Asian.

My sloth, theft, and disdain for insurance people makes me special.

You'd be such an outcast in my neighborhood. :eek: I was practically the failure of my schoolgroup because I didn't take AP Calculus and Physics my senior year, although they went slightly easier on me because I'm only white, after all.

Thats not what he said. He said that his work-colleagues were that way, and from my point of view he has a better knowledge about their work ethics than you do. How do you derive "all blacks" out of a statement which cant have concerned more than 5-10 of them?

If you'd read any of the other stupid stuff the poster had written, you'd know he was using anecdotal evidence to generalize to the rest of the world. This is a guy who thinks gay men should be killed, or something.

Seriously, I don´t know what the OP´s point is. Everyone, absolutely everyone os racist in one way or another.

I agree in the sense that it is impossible to be raised in a colorless world and form no prejudices, but I think it is possible to recognize, examine and overcome those prejudices.

I agree in the sense that it is impossible to be raised in a colorless world and form no prejudices, but I think it is possible to recognize, examine and overcome those prejudices.

You´re right off the bat. I can´t argue with it. It´s in us to change our prejudices.

Your answer definitely is.:rolleyes:

I challenge you to prove my racism. after all, you did make the accusation so be prepared to back it with evidence.

I challenge you to prove my racism. after all, you did make the accusation so be prepared to back it with evidence.

Everyone is a racist, one way or the other. It´s a human condition. Prove me wrong.

I challenge you to prove my racism. after all, you did make the accusation so be prepared to back it with evidence.

There was that time you and I had just walked out of that pothead's house because he wouldn't stop trying to convince us that Ford Fairlane is a great film, and on the way out we ran into that girl who talked like a valley girl but looked like a Huxtable with better tits and as we were getting into a 72 Monte Carlo I asked if you'd do her, and you said "No...what's the difference between a black chick and a bowling ball?" and I said "Three fingers?" and you said "No, you can conceivably eat a bowling ball."

Everyone is a racist, one way or the other. It´s a human condition. Prove me wrong.

Sorry, you're the one who claimed that everyone is racist. It's your job to back up that statement. All I can provide is the example I am not racist, therefore not everyone is. SO either prove that I AM racist (i.e. that I make judgments about people based on their race) or admit that not everyone is racist.

There was that time you and I had just walked out of that pothead's house because he wouldn't stop trying to convince us that Ford Fairlane is a great film, and on the way out we ran into that girl who talked like a valley girl but looked like a Huxtable with better tits and as we were getting into a 72 Monte Carlo I asked if you'd do her, and you said "No...what's the difference between a black chick and a bowling ball?" and I said "Three fingers?" and you said "No, you can conceivably eat a bowling ball."

LOL, I can always count on you for crazy and funny shit.

Everyone is a racist, one way or the other. It´s a human condition. Prove me wrong.

I once had dinner with an French ex-race car driver who claimed that all the races carry important genes implanted in us by the extra-terrestrial scientists who created us through genetic engineering, and that through interracial sex we will eventually come to resemble them.

Sorry, you're the one who claimed that everyone is racist. It's your job to back up that statement. All I can provide is the example I am not racist, therefore not everyone is. SO either prove that I AM racist (i.e. that I make judgments about people based on their race) or admit that not everyone is racist.

Who said I was directing my post at you? And yes, you are a racist too, as I can be and as anyone else can. What, is this who´s holier than thou? Please. Can you seriously tell me that you´ve never, ever had a racist thought in your life? Because if that´s the case, the Catholic Church should sanctify thee.:rolleyes:

LOL, I can always count on you for crazy and funny shit.

That's exactly the cavlier attitude that lost us 2 hours of our lives smelling patchouli oil and watching Andrew "Dice" Clay try to act.

Bigot.

Who said I was directing my post at you? And yes, you are a racist too, as I can be and as anyone else can. What, is this who´s holier than thou? Please. Can you seriously tell me that you´ve never, ever had a racist thought in your life? Because if that´s the case, the Catholic Church should sanctify thee.:rolleyes:

Is it that you find the cultural and social presence of racism so pervasive that everyone is to some extent imbued with it, or that our primate neurology and its associated differentiation algorithms leave us somehow hardwired with the proclivity towards racism?

Or is that I won't go bareback doing anal with girls in Mexico? Because I wouldn't do that with a Belgian girl if I found her on the streets of Tijuana.

Who said I was directing my post at you? And yes, you are a racist too, as I can be and as anyone else can. What, is this who´s holier than thou? Please. Can you seriously tell me that you´ve never, ever had a racist thought in your life? Because if that´s the case, the Catholic Church should sanctify thee.:rolleyes:

I have yet to see any proof out of you that I'm racist. Start proving or admit you're wrong. Little tip, saying yes you are is not proof.

As for have I EVER had racist thoughts? Your statement was not "everyone CAN be racist" it was that "everyone IS racist". When I was a child and was raised poorly I didn't know better, I grew out of it and do not currently judge based on race. Hell, even then it was use of words that I really didn't understand the meaning of (at the time I had no idea what the word ****** meant for example, only that my cousin referred to Brazil nuts as ****** toes) so there was no judgment of a person involved. Until you prove that I currently make judgments based on race you will have to admit that not everyone is racist.

Is it that you find the cultural and social presence of racism so pervasive that everyone is to some extent imbued with it, or that our primate neurology and its associated differentiation algorithms leave us somehow hardwired with the proclivity towards racism?

Or is that I won't go bareback doing anal with girls in Mexico? Because I wouldn't do that with a Belgian girl if I found her on the streets of Tijuana.

Dude, yes, we can always count on you for a good laugh.

I have yet to see any proof out of you that I'm racist. Start proving or admit you're wrong. Little tip, saying yes you are is not proof.

As for have I EVER had racist thoughts? Your statement was not "everyone CAN be racist" it was that "everyone IS racist". When I was a child and was raised poorly I didn't know better, I grew out of it and do not currently judge based on race. Hell, even then it was use of words that I really didn't understand the meaning of (at the time I had no idea what the word ****** meant for example, only that my cousin referred to Brazil nuts as ****** toes) so there was no judgment of a person involved. Until you prove that I currently make judgments based on race you will have to admit that not everyone is racist.

If you've done something once, it can define you the rest of your life.

No matter how much time passes, every time I look in the mirror, I will always see a guy who once masturbated to to a Red Sonja comic book.

I have yet to see any proof out of you that I'm racist. Start proving or admit you're wrong. Little tip, saying yes you are is not proof.

As for have I EVER had racist thoughts? Your statement was not "everyone CAN be racist" it was that "everyone IS racist". When I was a child and was raised poorly I didn't know better, I grew out of it and do not currently judge based on race. Hell, even then it was use of words that I really didn't understand the meaning of (at the time I had no idea what the word ****** meant for example, only that my cousin referred to Brazil nuts as ****** toes) so there was no judgment of a person involved. Until you prove that I currently make judgments based on race you will have to admit that not everyone is racist.

I´m too tired to argue a pointless debate. You say you´ve never had a racist moment in your life, I say everyone does. What´s to prove? And besides, do I know you so well as to be able to prove to you, for the sake of your ego, wether you´re a racist or not? I don´t think so.

I can honestly say everyone, at one point or another has had a racist thought. I know I have. Accepting such, makes me bad person? No. It doesn´t. It makes me human. You should take that into consideration before putting your boxing gloves and attack me when I wasn´t attacking you.

I´m too tired to argue a pointless debate. You say you´ve never had a racist moment in your life, I say everyone does. What´s to prove? And besides, do I know you so well as to be able to prove to you, for the sake of your ego, wether you´re a racist or not? I don´t think so.

I can honestly say everyone, at one point or another has had a racist thought. I know I have. Accepting such, makes me bad person? No. It doesn´t. It makes me human. You should take that into consideration before putting your boxing gloves and attack me when I wasn´t attacking you.

You're being needlessly defensive and missing a key point in this dispute:

Morgan Freeman once refused to narrate a low budget man on man porn film, and I honestly believe it was because it featured an interracial scene between a Filipino landscaper and his Puerto Rican day labor assistant.

Fuck that guy.

You're being needlessly defensive and missing a key point in this dispute:

Morgan Freeman once refused to narrate a low budget man on man porn film, and I honestly believe it was because it featured an interracial scene between a Filipino landscaper and his Puerto Rican day labor assistant.

Fuck that guy.

Not at all, Jhah. It´s not defensive as much as not getting from where does his/her attack comes from.

Morgan Freeman´s a dick.:D

Not at all, Jhah. It´s not defensive as much as not getting from where does his/her attack comes from.

Morgan Freeman´s a dick.:D

I can't speak for him; I'd speculate he feels he's overcome a previous developmental environment that had indoctrinated him with a propensity for racism, and he feels that shedding that mentality has been an important element in his growth.

The suggestion that he (or in a broader sense, humanity) can never fully escape the prejudices internalized in our childhoods may be offensive to him.

But I maintain he still totally would've fucked that sweet chocolate at bong boy's house.

I can honestly say everyone, at one point or another has had a racist thought.

I am part of everyone. When you say everyone is racist you accuse me of racism. As you just admitted you can not prove me to currently harbor racist thoughts or attitudes, nor can you prove that I ever have, you are not entitled to claim that everyone is racist. I do not disagree that everyone is capable of harboring racist thoughts, but the accusation that everyone does strikes me as absurd, and as I've just shown here is unprovable. Yet for some reason even hard nosed skeptics who ridicule the religious for believing things without proof seem to buy this idea hook line and sinker. Why?

Also, "at one point or another" is irrelevant. If someone harbored racist thoughts at one point in the past that does not make them still racist today. Again, your argument was that everyone IS (as in currently, right this second) racist.

I am part of everyone. When you say everyone is racist you accuse me of racism. As you just admitted you can not prove me to currently harbor racist thoughts or attitudes, nor can you prove that I ever have, you are not entitled to claim that everyone is racist. I do not disagree that everyone is capable of harboring racist thoughts, but the accusation that everyone does strikes me as absurd, and as I've just shown here is unprovable. Yet for some reason even hard nosed skeptics who ridicule the religious for believing things without proof seem to buy this idea hook line and sinker. Why?

Also, "at one point or another" is irrelevant. If someone harbored racist thoughts at one point in the past that does not make them still racist today. Again, your argument was that everyone IS (as in currently, right this second) racist.

Once again, I´m not debating something that seems, in your mind, to be settled. If my post offended you, I apologize but that´s the way I feel. And I´m not backing out of it just because your sensibilities seem to have been hurt.

I am part of everyone. When you say everyone is racist you accuse me of racism. As you just admitted you can not prove me to currently harbor racist thoughts or attitudes, nor can you prove that I ever have, you are not entitled to claim that everyone is racist. I do not disagree that everyone is capable of harboring racist thoughts, but the accusation that everyone does strikes me as absurd, and as I've just shown here is unprovable. Yet for some reason even hard nosed skeptics who ridicule the religious for believing things without proof seem to buy this idea hook line and sinker. Why?

Also, "at one point or another" is irrelevant. If someone harbored racist thoughts at one point in the past that does not make them still racist today. Again, your argument was that everyone IS (as in currently, right this second) racist.

Such rigid and precise a standard of language will never change one thing, Redwulf:

You were the one who made me wait with you for 4 hours for the one Eastern European piece of tail in all of fucking Fukushima because the local girls were all "size A cups and chicken legs".

Not at all, Jhah. It´s not defensive as much as not getting from where does his/her attack comes from.

Morgan Freeman´s a dick.:D

I can't speak for him; I'd speculate he feels he's overcome a previous developmental environment that had indoctrinated him with a propensity for racism, and he feels that shedding that mentality has been an important element in his growth.

The suggestion that he (or in a broader sense, humanity) can never fully escape the prejudices internalized in our childhoods may be offensive to him.


Pretty much. Also there's the fact that it was a blanket statement that masqueraded as fact with absolutely no effort to provide proof. Personally I viewed my posts more as a defense against an insult than an attack. The human race as whole being as insulted by the statement as me. Perhaps if I had chosen a hypothetical person rather than using myself as the example it would have come off less attack like? But then, with a hypothetical person one can concoct whatever evidence one wishes.

Pretty much. Also there's the fact that it was a blanket statement that masqueraded as fact with absolutely no effort to provide proof. Personally I viewed my posts more as a defense against an insult than an attack. The human race as whole being as insulted by the statement as me. Perhaps if I had chosen a hypothetical person rather than using myself as the example it would have come off less attack like? But then, with a hypothetical person one can concoct whatever evidence one wishes.

Wait, you lost me...

Is this about that time that blonde chick overdosed on mescaline while giving you reverse cowgirl at that "Laughing Jackalope" shithole hotel on the south Strip in Vegas and in a panic you woke me up and we had to prop her up in front of a slot machine and then we lit a cigarette and put in her mouth so it would look like she died there?

Or is that I won't go bareback doing anal with girls in Mexico? Because I wouldn't do that with a Belgian girl if I found her on the streets of Tijuana.Spitzer would. How's the view from your ivory tower, anyway? :(

Spitzer would. How's the view from your ivory tower, anyway? :(

Spitzer's life of public service so refined his humane sensibilities that he had no problem schtupping sans condom.

But fine, its your equipment I'm working with, so if you wake up from one of your blackouts with monkey bites and/or syphilis, don't leave a nasty sticky note for me, pal.

Pretty much. Also there's the fact that it was a blanket statement that masqueraded as fact with absolutely no effort to provide proof. Personally I viewed my posts more as a defense against an insult than an attack. The human race as whole being as insulted by the statement as me. Perhaps if I had chosen a hypothetical person rather than using myself as the example it would have come off less attack like? But then, with a hypothetical person one can concoct whatever evidence one wishes.

Nope. You´re sorely mistaken in thinking that what I posted is fact. Do you know what facts are? Even a child can recognize that what I posted is not the absolute truth. And since when my critique of a conduct I know exists is a chance for you to become Captain Planet?

As I told you, I don´t need to prove you wrong or right because that was my honest opinion and I don´t know you nor care to. Once again, is your ego so big that it needs to be fed? Neither of us is right.

Back my statement, back yours with concise proof, give me links and examples and then talk. Until then, your defensiveness is unfounded. Because, obviously, you´re bsing yourself by saying that you´ve never have had a racist thought. I´m pretty sure you have, and since you probably have had them, to use a prior statement here, your conduct is moot and not reformed at all. If you, personally, got offended, my apologies. But don´t come on to me arguing about humanity and defense and whatever else you delude yourself in believing.

Spare me with the ¨Uhhh, the human race was insulted and I must stand up¨ because, truthfully, you do not fill in the shoes.

race isn't the only form of prejudice. economics, idiology, and belief, and quite possibly a considerable number of other things can form the basis for it as well.

all of which are completely illogical.

=^^=
.../\...

I can honestly say everyone, at one point or another has had a racist thought.

What exactly do you call a racist thought ?
I can honestly say I have never thought that people with different skincolours are a different race.

Nope. You´re sorely mistaken in thinking that what I posted is fact. Do you know what facts are? Even a child can recognize that what I posted is not the absolute truth. And since when my critique of a conduct I know exists is a chance for you to become Captain Planet?

As I told you, I don´t need to prove you wrong or right because that was my honest opinion and I don´t know you nor care to. Once again, is your ego so big that it needs to be fed? Neither of us is right.

Back my statement, back yours with concise proof, give me links and examples and then talk. Until then, your defensiveness is unfounded. Because, obviously, you´re bsing yourself by saying that you´ve never have had a racist thought. I´m pretty sure you have, and since you probably have had them, to use a prior statement here, your conduct is moot and not reformed at all. If you, personally, got offended, my apologies. But don´t come on to me arguing about humanity and defense and whatever else you delude yourself in believing.

Spare me with the ¨Uhhh, the human race was insulted and I must stand up¨ because, truthfully, you do not fill in the shoes.

But by making an accusation and refusing to back it up with any evidence, you really have no ground other than your opinion to call his response "bullshit" without leaving room for the door to swing the other way.

What exactly do you call a racist thought ?
I can honestly say I have never thought that people with different skincolours are a different race.

A racist thought, to give you an example is, here in Asturias, people look others suspiciously if they remotely resemble someone from Moorish decent. Many think this person is around for no good and, I´ve seen store owners call the police on them, only to discover, embarrassingly, that the person is a Spaniard too. This person just happens to be from Southern Spain.

The history on both mine and the Moorish culture, the clash of the two, has created racism in several levels for us. If you have darker skin, dark and curly hair and pronounced features, chances are that you´ll be classified as as either a Roma (gypsy) or a Moor. Both equally bad, in some people´s eyes.

In between the Roma and the Moors, someone from Northern Spain, like I am, is considered a ¨payo¨ (non gypsy) and we´re also discriminated against. If you come from Asturias, many people, specially in Madrid, think that you´re a hood-loom or a miner. Thus, preventing many Asturians from getting better paying jobs in the capital.

A racist thought, to give you an example is, here in Asturias, people look others suspiciously if they remotely resemble someone from Moorish decent. Many think this person is around for no good and, I´ve seen store owners call the police on them, only to discover, embarrassingly, that the person is a Spaniard too. This person just happens to be from Southern Spain.

The history on both mine and the Moorish culture, the clash of the two, has created racism in several levels for us. If you have darker skin, dark and curly hair and pronounced features, chances are that you´ll be classified as as either a Roma (gypsy) or a Moor. Both equally bad, in some people´s eyes.

In between the Roma and the Moors, someone from Northern Spain, like I am, is considered a ¨payo¨ (non gypsy) and we´re also discriminated against. If you come from Asturias, many people, specially in Madrid, think that you´re a hood-loom or a miner. Thus, preventing many Asturians from getting better paying jobs in the capital.

I've read this entire thing. You simply have a poor excuse for an argument.

You don't get to say "Well, I don't know shit about this, but I'm going to assume you've had racist thoughts." You have to demonstrate, i.e. offer some evidence for this, or your claim, your "opinion", is dismissed. And rightfully so.

Having ever had a racist thought does not make one a racist. No more than having a homosexual thought makes you homosexual or having a socialist thought makes you a socialist.

If you've done something once, it can define you the rest of your life.

No matter how much time passes, every time I look in the mirror, I will always see a guy who once masturbated to to a Red Sonja comic book.


:p*laughs till it hurts*:p

Gee, I wonder why anyone would have that perception... :rolleyes:

Just because i choose to actually WORK during work hours, and decide to talk about intelligent issues, you see that as a bad thing too?

****ing democrats, no work ethics and no original thoughts

I've read this entire thing. You simply have a poor excuse for an argument.

You don't get to say "Well, I don't know shit about this, but I'm going to assume you've had racist thoughts." You have to demonstrate, i.e. offer some evidence for this, or your claim, your "opinion", is dismissed. And rightfully so.

Having ever had a racist thought does not make one a racist. No more than having a homosexual thought makes you homosexual or having a socialist thought makes you a socialist.

Devine (1989) posits that stereotypes are automatically activated in everyone, but that low-prejudice subjects are motivated consciously to inhibit their use and subsequent impact on social judgments. When no longer given the opportunity for this conscious inhibition, as was often the case in studies attempting to prevent socially desirable responding, high- and low-prejudice subjects make similar prejudicial judgments.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_/ai_n8837027

We term this focused violence ethnoviolence,which is
defined as “an act or attempted act which is motivated by group prejudice
and intended to cause physical or psychological injury” (The Prejudice
Institute, n.d.). Group-level violence rages in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel,
Northern Ireland, Spain, and parts of Africa, and individual acts of ethno-
violence are a daily occurrence in every part of the world.
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/11556_Chapter_1.pdf

Tim Dunlop, meet the remarkable Michael Darragh:
If racism was an Olympic event, we'd win it hands down! We are so good at racism we have even turned racist slang into common vernacular. We can feel confident in calling our neighbours 'wogs' (Western Oriental Gentleman or people with a mediterranean ethnicity) and 'refos' (short for Refugees) without guilt or retaliation from anyone within earshot — wogs and refos included.

Racism is, then, a critical element--perhaps a dominant concept--relative to these concepts. If European Muslims or New York City Jews are inherently subversive, undermining legitimate decisionmaking processes in political and social life, how can anyone who belongs to either category be allowed to participate at all? Eurabia and Jew York City are, at their roots, concepts which demand the ghettoization of the groups from which they take their names, their exclusion from any non-subordinate role. These terms' use is a good marker for some sort of highly exclusionary racism.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003463.html

And along those lines:
http://www.woodcraft.org.uk/resources/pioneer/cul/cul-intro.htm
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2172,The-real-danger-in-Darwin-is-not-evolution-but-racism,Tony-Campolo-Bill-Clintons-pastoral-counsellor,page4
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Race_and_Ethnicity
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2200186/Race-class-and-gender-a.html
http://www.fredonia.edu/department/english/simon/race.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_/ai_n8837027

Evidence of prejudice, not racism. And it's only evidence of an inherent tendency. For example, humans have an inherent tendency toward violence, but that doesn't mean all human are violent and if you claimed they were people would giggle and give you a funny hat.

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/11556_Chapter_1.pdf

See, this is what people do when they don't actually know how to make an argument. They selectively choose evidence they THINK agrees with them. Here you again have something that demonstrates that racism is rampant, not complete. It doesn't matter if 90% of people are racist, your premise would still be wrong. What part of that don't you understand?

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003463.html

It's amusing that you talk about people tend toward gross generalizations, while creating your arguments out of gross generalizations. Gross generalizations are a fallacy and don't hold up in debate. By using them you're conceding the argument before you begin.


And along those lines:
http://www.woodcraft.org.uk/resources/pioneer/cul/cul-intro.htm
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2172,The-real-danger-in-Darwin-is-not-evolution-but-racism,Tony-Campolo-Bill-Clintons-pastoral-counsellor,page4
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Race_and_Ethnicity
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2200186/Race-class-and-gender-a.html
http://www.fredonia.edu/department/english/simon/race.htm

You realize that some of the articles you list there argue the opposite of your claim. Did you just link to a bunch of stuff you THOUGHT might help your argument.

Example:

Identifying cultural features like this can be useful in enumerating those characteristics that define a particular cultural group. However, there is always a danger of this process creating stereotypes that are not necessarily true for many members of the community. Worse still, such stereotypes can have both negatives and positive traits added to them in order to glorify or discredit the culture as required.

A few examples would include:

Football supporter are hooligans;
Arabs hijac planes;
Islam is oppressive to women; and
Americans love democracy.
If the latter were true then why don’t they elect their president!

This is your source and it utterly defeats your claim. I said provide evidence. I should have been more clear. Provide evidence for YOUR claim, not mine.

And none of those things fit your definition of racism. You've demonstrated that we have a tendency toward believing in stereotypes. First, that's not racism. Second, since that belief is based on ignorance, according to your own sources, it can necessarily go away. Third, you've only shown that these things are rampant. You've not demonstrated, as you would need to, that EVERYONE is racist. You've not even demonstrated that ALMOST everyone is racist. You've only shown it's common.

Wanna try again?

If you've done something once, it can define you the rest of your life.

No matter how much time passes, every time I look in the mirror, I will always see a guy who once masturbated to to a Red Sonja comic book.

Well, of course. And if most people do something, all people do it. Thus, racists are actually the only ones who are right.

Nana has demonstrated that she has to believe everyone is racist, because otherwise she can't justify that she translates many into all in her arguments. Apparently, we're all equally illogical.

Well, of course. And if most people do something, all people do it. Thus, racists are actually the only ones who are right.

Nana has demonstrated that she has to believe everyone is racist, because otherwise she can't justify that she translates many into all in her arguments. Apparently, we're all equally illogical.

I wonder if by this statement you´re calling me a racist. Hm? And to answer your last post, no, I did not link random stuff that could back my claim. Those links had information on my claim. That some did disprove it, I was well aware of. What´s a concise debate without pros and cons? I already gave you my views as to why everyone has had a racist thought in his/her life. And having racists thought doesn´t make you a racist, true, but it makes you part of the problem. (and by you, I don´t mean you, before you feel like the champion of humanity)

If you´re asking for empirical data, I assure you, there´s none at the moment. Only psychological and sociological studies and comparisons. If you still think this is a weak argument, suit yourself. And if you need to point something out to me, by all means do it directly.

Nana has demonstrated that she has to believe everyone is racist, because otherwise she can't justify that she translates many into all in her arguments. Apparently, we're all equally illogical.


In this day and age:

There is no logic, only varying forms of illogic

There is no sanity, only varying forms of insanity

There is no spoon, Lunatic Goofballs accidentally ate it when he had ice cream for dessert:D

Well, of course. And if most people do something, all people do it. Thus, racists are actually the only ones who are right.

Nana has demonstrated that she has to believe everyone is racist, because otherwise she can't justify that she translates many into all in her arguments. Apparently, we're all equally illogical.

I was actually just trying to work an intro to my Red Sonja joke.

You bigot.

I wonder if by this statement you´re calling me a racist. Hm?

Um, you called you a racist, by fact. Or did you forget? I called you what you are, a person who doesn't recognize the illogic of turning many into all.


And to answer your last post, no, I did not link random stuff that could back my claim. Those links had information on my claim. That some did disprove it, I was well aware of. What´s a concise debate without pros and cons? I already gave you my views as to why everyone has had a racist thought in his/her life. And having racists thought doesn´t make you a racist, true, but it makes you part of the problem. (and by you, I don´t mean you, before you feel like the champion of humanity)

If you´re asking for empirical data, I assure you, there´s none at the moment. Only psychological and sociological studies and comparisons. If you still think this is a weak argument, suit yourself. And if you need to point something out to me, by all means do it directly.

I don't think it's a weak argument anymore. You've proven yourself wrong for me. You've admitted that having a racist through doesn't make you a racist. That negates your entire argument. That was fun.

Meanwhile, having a racist thought doesn't make you part of the problem unless you don't identify it as racist and correct your ignorance. People have all sorts of ignorance. The only thing we can do about that is educate ourselves and others, which makes us part of the solution, not part of the problem.

But fine, its your equipment I'm working with, so if you wake up from one of your blackouts with monkey bites and/or syphilis, don't leave a nasty sticky note for me, pal.
Shut up brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip!
Not so much "bites" as "hickeys".

I've read this entire thing. You simply have a poor excuse for an argument.

You don't get to say "Well, I don't know shit about this, but I'm going to assume you've had racist thoughts." You have to demonstrate, i.e. offer some evidence for this, or your claim, your "opinion", is dismissed. And rightfully so.

Having ever had a racist thought does not make one a racist. No more than having a homosexual thought makes you homosexual or having a socialist thought makes you a socialist.

Or having a murderous thought makes you a murderer?

Just because i choose to actually WORK during work hours, and decide to talk about intelligent issues, you see that as a bad thing too?

****ing democrats, no work ethics and no original thoughts
Trolling. Knock it off.

In this day and age:

There is no logic, only varying forms of illogic

There is no sanity, only varying forms of insanity

There is no spoon, Lunatic Goofballs accidentally ate it when he had ice cream for dessert:D

K, I think I may have finally gotten to the bottom of this mystery. LG once had a whirlwind affair with an Eastern European mud-farmer and after searching for years, you came to NSG and found him. Naturally, you being illegitimate and all, he didn't give you the acknowledgment that you sought, so now you fight in an effort to gain your father's affections.

http://img108.exs.cx/img108/1172/a4nvictory.gif

Or having a murderous thought makes you a murderer?

Not exactly since by definition a murderer must act, but that is not required of a racist, socialist or homosexual (note: I'm not suggesting that homosexuals choose to be homosexual. These examples have nothing to do with one another).

That is one expression I just cannot stand, it comes in a close tie with "I'm not racist, I know Rotovia". One line from the Pennsylvania debate forced me to question their place, however. The line was "It would be pretty hard for me to be condescending towards people of faith, since I am a person of faith", and it made me mad.

I was mad because Obama was falling back on this abhorrent tactic of "I'm not against x, because I am an x". I was madder because he was telling a generation of angry, disillusioned, and lost young black men (turning to him for guidance on how to grow as men and overcome their issues) that it was ok to fall back on that argument.

As a young, black, man I think its about time we seriously look at ending this mentality. (Acknowledging, of course, that it is an issue not extensively confined to the black community.)

And because you know you want it, LINK (http://www.youtube.com/v/_COt4LrKkbc&hl=en) -around 6:58 onwards.

I agree, but I would ask that why would anybody turn to a politician for advice on how to grow?

Since this topic has been quite full of an unfortunately mocking, negative atmosphere, I'm going to try to avoid that, but I would like to apologize in advance if I offend anyone with any words, phrasing, ideas, etc. that I may use.

I can completely understand Rotovia's dislike of the concepts he had mentioned (e.g., "I'm not racist, because I'm black," or, "I'm not racist, because I know a black person," and other such nonsense). Comments of the form, "I cannot be [negative quality] because I [am, or associate with, a member of the group affected]," are just specious. They really have no place in a logical, intelligent conversation, and especially would have no place in the kind of debates that we should expect from anyone who is a serious contender for the US Presidency.

My problem is that, at least from the understanding I currently have of the concepts he mentioned, I think that his statements about Obama's opinion on this matter are incorrect. While the two sentences he mentioned--one about being racist, the other about being antireligious--have a similar form, I believe that they describe two different logical relationships and that it is merely an idiosyncracy of the grammar of English that causes them to seem logically equivalent (when they are, in fact, not).

The problem is that the first component, "I cannot be a member of group [x]" IS identical, but the latter components are not.

For the statements about racism, the entire sentence is logically equivalent to saying, "It is not true that members of an ethnic minority can be racist," or, in the more heinous case of the second example, "It is not true that someone who associates with persons of ethnic minority can be racist." While both of these are terrible ideas based in ignorance if not outright stupidity, I find this second example even more abhorrent than the first, simply because it's like an inverted "guilt by association" (innocence by association?): simply by knowing or having contact with *someone* of a different ethnic background, a person can no longer be racist?

Of course, this idea makes no sense, because it is logically invalid. The simplest counter-example would be to consider a person who thinks that all Hispanic-descended people are gangbangers or illegal immigrants that can't speak English, but who works with a number of Asian-descended people and has never said anything racist about them. This person would be racist against specifically Hispanic-descended people, but have no discernible racist tendencies against Asians, and in fact would have professional relationships with many such persons. This person is clearly a racist in spite of their contact with a person who is of a racial minority in their country. (Note: I am speaking from a strictly mathematical definition of "minority.")

However, Obama's alleged statements (which I also did not find, perhaps the approximate timestamp was off?) are of a different caliber. The simple logical equivalent of his alleged statement would be, "It is not true that someone who holds a religious view can be against the idea of holding a religious view." This is a perfectly logical statement: no person can simultaneously possess a religious viewpoint and decry the possession of religious viewpoints without being contradictory and illogical. It is the definition of the terms used. It would be using exactly the same form if, for example, Richard Dawkins were to say, "It would be pretty hard for me to be condescending to a person of science, because I am a person of science." (I only use Richard Dawkins because he is clearly not a religious person, and he is somewhat well-known; you can feel free to insert the name of any famous scientist you like, as the statement would be logically unchanged.)

All Obama is telling us is that it would be contradictory at best, and outrightly stupid at worst, for him to condescend to someone solely because they held a religious viewpoint--and it would be hypocritical of him because he, too, holds a viewpoint of that type. Of course, the implicit claim behind what he said is, "I am not hypocritical," which is a claim as opposed to a logical statement.

I'm not racist because I fuck Rotovia. ;)

No, sorry, it really is an issue, and pretty much everyone on here knows what I think about this.

Anyone who says "I'm not racist because I'm black" or "I'm not racist because I'm friends with a black person" is seriously delluding themselves. If you're actually not racist, why would you ever need to come up with a "because" at all? Can't you just show you're not racist by not being racist?

I was taught in school (which makes it true, of course) that only whites can be racist in our society because only white prejudice is backed by cultural authority (power). Minorities can be prejudiced in one way or another, and indeed all people are prejudiced in one way or another, but only whites can be racist. That would make "I'm not a racist; I'm black" a perfectly reasonable statement.

I think what he is trying to say is that racism is when a person in power restricts the freedoms of a person from one race or ethic group and since most government officials are white... Do you get the picture now?

Ugh, I don't want to get into this argument, but basically I think this is the most ridiculous idea.

I had an argument with a girl online about this before. She pulled the old "the oppressed can't oppress" line, and insisted that only white people can be racist to black people and only men can be sexist to women and it can never the the other way around.

In my eyes, that's racist and sexist in itself.

If you're actually not racist, why would you ever need to come up with a "because" at all? Can't you just show you're not racist by not being racist?

Nah, that would be way to simple and straight forward...

I'm reminded of an episode in the third season of the medical drama House. Dr. Foreman, played by Omar Epps, is black and grew up on the streets. In one episode, the team treats a young married couple in which the man is white and the woman is black...

It turns out they have the same father, so she's actually biracial, but that's neither here nor there...

But the husband has a major persecution complex about their marriage and what people think of it simply because his father disapproved of the marriage (read the spoiler above for the real reason why he did...) so naturally, he thinks most white people are racist. Foreman, however, when confronted with the issue, says:

"I always thought blacks were the racist ones."

I don't recall if those are the exact words, but anyone who thinks that whites, or even the majority in a country, are the only ones who can be racist...well, minorities can be just as good at it, often better.

Granted, it's a TV show, but I know the attitude exists. My wife and I are both white, but the woman I was interested in before her was black, so she's always scared to death that I would rather be with a black woman (yes, I am attracted to black women, but I married her, didn't I?)

I was taught in school (which makes it true, of course) that only whites can be racist in our society because only white prejudice is backed by cultural authority (power). Minorities can be prejudiced in one way or another, and indeed all people are prejudiced in one way or another, but only whites can be racist. That would make "I'm not a racist; I'm black" a perfectly reasonable statement.


Ummm, that is some school you went to. Are you sure it wasnt a radical PC liberal indoctrination reeducation camp? I am being silly but still I cannot believe any teacher would say that to their students.

By this stage of my life I should simply stop being shocked by things. There is so much goofiness out there.

Ummm, that is some school you went to. Are you sure it wasnt a radical PC liberal indoctrination reeducation camp? I am being silly but still I cannot believe any teacher would say that to their students.

By this stage of my life I should simply stop being shocked by things. There is so much goofiness out there.
According to TPC (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13643295&postcount=43), it's not a kind of extremist minority view.

According to TPC (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13643295&postcount=43), it's not a kind of extremist minority view.

I looked at your link to TPC but I have not read the rest of the discusion. It seems that a lot of professors seem to think this way but this does not necessarily mean that much. After all, even a majority of professors could hold an extremist and minority belief if they formed a majority of the believers. There are a lot of really goofy professors. Also, I recall from my political science classes that there is a correlation between higher education and what most people would term "liberal political views." This seems like a liberal viewpoint in the sense that if it excuses anything that is bad but directed at whites that would be inexcusable if the reverse occurred.

Ummm, that is some school you went to. Are you sure it wasnt a radical PC liberal indoctrination reeducation camp? I am being silly but still I cannot believe any teacher would say that to their students.

By this stage of my life I should simply stop being shocked by things. There is so much goofiness out there.

I've heard that one, too. I've been told that only whites can be racist, only men can be sexist, and only wealthy and well-off people can be classist. This was in a class that was supposed to teach college students how to be RAs. I didn't eat up the bullshit, and therefore, I didn't get the job. (Actually, I think I was doomed the minute I told them I didn't like the movie Office Space, but that's neither here nor there.)

According to them, various -isms could only exist if one had power. I don't know what they would call it if a black person hated whites, or a woman hated men, or a poor person hated rich people.

I grew up in large liberal cities as well as small conservative towns (I moved around a lot) and have never heard that only whites can be racist (in school or elsewhere) except by angry white people later in life who sound like they are making shit up.

That is one expression I just cannot stand, it comes in a close tie with "I'm not racist, I know Rotovia". One line from the Pennsylvania debate forced me to question their place, however. The line was "It would be pretty hard for me to be condescending towards people of faith, since I am a person of faith", and it made me mad.

I was mad because Obama was falling back on this abhorrent tactic of "I'm not against x, because I am an x". I was madder because he was telling a generation of angry, disillusioned, and lost young black men (turning to him for guidance on how to grow as men and overcome their issues) that it was ok to fall back on that argument.

As a young, black, man I think its about time we seriously look at ending this mentality. (Acknowledging, of course, that it is an issue not extensively confined to the black community.)

And because you know you want it, LINK (http://www.youtube.com/v/_COt4LrKkbc&hl=en) -around 6:58 onwards.

I'm not racist because I am NOT black. Nor do I know Rotovia.

LOL

Can a Jew be anti-semitic?

Can a Jew be anti-semitic?

Sure, why not ?

Well all Jews are self-deprecating right?

You know, Rotovia, you've made an excellent point.

In fact, I know of another man from history who was jewish but who then proceeded to implement wide spread racist policies against the Jews.
His name???? Adolf Hitler.

It got so far that he literally tried to erase the entire jewish race from the planet.

Let not forget that there a lot of white people who hate the white race.
There are mexicans who hate the mexican race.

So I'm pretty sure that there are blacks somewhere who hate the black race.

The case of Mr. Hitler should teach us that the most vile racial policies come not from other race groups, but rather, they are more likely to come from our own kind.

Can a Jew be anti-semitic?

You mean like Adolph Hitler???

I'm not racist because I fuck Rotovia. ;)

No, sorry, it really is an issue, and pretty much everyone on here knows what I think about this.

Anyone who says "I'm not racist because I'm black" or "I'm not racist because I'm friends with a black person" is seriously delluding themselves. If you're actually not racist, why would you ever need to come up with a "because" at all? Can't you just show you're not racist by not being racist?

I can, but there are people who insist that I MUST be racist by virtue of the fact that I'm human. It is to them that I feel compelled to make arguments.

In fact, I know of another man from history who was jewish but who then proceeded to implement wide spread racist policies against the Jews.
His name???? Adolf Hitler.

Aka the Messiah. Without him the Jews would after all never have obtained the promised land of Israel.

You know, Rotovia, you've made an excellent point.

In fact, I know of another man from history who was jewish but who then proceeded to implement wide spread racist policies against the Jews.
His name???? Adolf Hitler.

It got so far that he literally tried to erase the entire jewish race from the planet.

Let not forget that there a lot of white people who hate the white race.
There are mexicans who hate the mexican race.

So I'm pretty sure that there are blacks somewhere who hate the black race.

The case of Mr. Hitler should teach us that the most vile racial policies come not from other race groups, but rather, they are more likely to come from our own kind.


but Hitler didn't claim to not hate the Jews did he?

Edit: nor did he identify as Jewish.

Just sayin'...

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

There were rumours that Hitler was one-quarter Jewish and that his grandmother, Maria Schicklgruber, became pregnant while working as a servant in a Jewish household. The implications of these rumours were politically explosive for the proponent of a racist and anti-Semitic ideology.

for Hitler they were reason enough to conceal his origins

but Hitler didn't claim to not hate the Jews did he?

Edit: nor did he identify as Jewish.

Just sayin'...

No he didn't deny he hated them. I bring him up to illustrate that just because you are black does not mean you can't hate black people or just because you are asian doesn't mean you can't hate asian people.

There is term in sociology for people who hate their own race. I forgot what it was. But Hitler was the worse of those kind of people.

Then again, Hitler was probably the worst racist in the entire 20th century.

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

There were rumours that Hitler was one-quarter Jewish and that his grandmother, Maria Schicklgruber, became pregnant while working as a servant in a Jewish household. The implications of these rumours were politically explosive for the proponent of a racist and anti-Semitic ideology.

for Hitler they were reason enough to conceal his origins


It sounds like he was like that black blind guy on the Chappelle show that thought he was white and joined the KKK.

It sounds like he was like that black blind guy on the Chappelle show that thought he was white and joined the KKK.

what's sad is there are blacks who are not blind who have actually joined the KKK.

I've heard that one, too. I've been told that only whites can be racist, only men can be sexist, and only wealthy and well-off people can be classist. This was in a class that was supposed to teach college students how to be RAs. I didn't eat up the bullshit, and therefore, I didn't get the job. (Actually, I think I was doomed the minute I told them I didn't like the movie Office Space, but that's neither here nor there.)

According to them, various -isms could only exist if one had power. I don't know what they would call it if a black person hated whites, or a woman hated men, or a poor person hated rich people.

There are some really dumb people in higher education. Sometimes I think tha tthe most valuable part of higher education is realizing how stupid people can be who are supposedly so intelligent. I have a doctorate and I will tell you what, there are a few wacky nutty professors at all levels. There are also ones that are so smart you imagine that they could bend spoons with their minds.

I'm not racist. I just read a post from a black dude.

yep. its like saying some1 isint racist against blacks cuz they read a book a black man wrote or somthing then they go put on a kkk uniform and go burns a cross at a KKK gathering

You mean like Adolph Hitler???

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

There were rumours that Hitler was one-quarter Jewish and that his grandmother, Maria Schicklgruber, became pregnant while working as a servant in a Jewish household. The implications of these rumours were politically explosive for the proponent of a racist and anti-Semitic ideology.

for Hitler they were reason enough to conceal his origins

Rumours. K, say it with me: Rumours. The fact is that's been going around as long as World War II's been taught in schools. The other thing is that there's never been any conclusive proof that he had Jewish blood in him. Is it possible? Certainly. Is it certain enough to be passed off as historical fact?

Hell no.

what's sad is there are blacks who are not blind who have actually joined the KKK.

WTF I'm black and I didn't know that!:eek:That's just wrong......damn wiggers!LOL!:p

But seriously,I've seen many racist black here in the USA,some don't even like their own race!Isn't that sad?



P.S for anyone who knows me I was formerly Nosorepazzau

in japanese shops the prices for products are much cheaper for japanese people then for white there you have youre country where whites are a minority and we arent leading that country either

Well, while I don't deny that there is some prejudice towards whites among some of the older generations of Japan, I have to disagree for the most part. Having lived in Japan for three years, I was never charged more for a product that I bought than a Japanese person. You might be mixing this up with China, where foreigners in general (white, black, other asians) are often charged more at markets, but more because they are automatically thought to be rich than because of substantial racism.

what's sad is there are blacks who are not blind who have actually joined the KKK.

Are you serious?!:eek:
That's f*cked up.:(
But that also reminds me of Uncle Ruckus, from The Boondocks. He's racists against blacks and he's black, which, for some reason, strikes me as both hilarious and very sad.:p

There was an older black woman, Mary Frances Berry, who was talking about Obama and Wright. She kept referring to them "'dissing each other' in the language of the streets" and "playing the disrespect game of the streets". Here are two very educated and very intelligent black men who, because they are black, are being compared to young black thugs, which was clearly her intention, by a black woman. I hate that kind of subtle racism. And, frankly, I think she only got away with saying that because she was black. She's a champion of civil rights. It's so counter-productive and I don't for a moment think it was accidental. If Clinton would have been saying that "of the streets" and referred to "dissing", she'd be strung up.

I wouldn't say that I was not racist because I'm black. The truth is I'm not black because I'm racist.

:)

...unless someone made this joke already...

I laughed.

Anyone can be racist, the only requirement to be racist is to hate someone who is of a different race than you are.Therefore Black people can be racist, just like White people can be racist.

racists are people who are against a complete group of people, like black, white.... gypsies. black people can be racists to!, everone knows that! so if you're a white man who hates a black man because the black man stole your wallet, but does'nt hate other black men, then you are not a racist, but if you hate EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, then you're a racist.

but sometimes (very often where i come from) black dudes comes to you and call you a racist just because you dont agree with them

Don't give me that crap, the #1 Stormfront racist argument is basically 'zomg anti-white racism, poor oppressed whites!!!111', I don't fall for your pseudo-racist claptrap for one moment. It's the same as the old 'Christians are being oppressed!!!!111'. I don't discount the possibility (although very small) that some black people maybe racist, but I question the motivations of people like you who use it opportunistically to put a veil for their own pseudo-racist 'moral white majority' views.

Get over yourself, I see right through your white whinebaggery.

There is one thing I have never been called in my life, and that is a white racist... I have been called a black nationalist, black optimist, and Afrocentric pseudo-intellectual, but this takes the cake.

"White whinebaggery" was just too inane to point out.

I agree, but I would ask that why would anybody turn to a politician for advice on how to grow?

Because that politician has build his entire image as specifically the epitome of the black role model.