NationStates Jolt Archive

So, while randomly browsing the Internet, I come upon this gem of a proud conservative seeing the silver lining.

Look at my fellow conservatives! There they go, glumly shuffling along, depressed by the election aftermath. Not me. I'm virtually euphoric. Don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with America 's flirtation with neo socialism. But there's a massive silver lining in those magical clouds that lofted Barak Obama to the Presidency. For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America : The Era of White Guilt is over.We have a black president, it's okay to be racist now, guys and gals!

And intellectually dishonest!

This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color, and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man. Not just any black man. A very liberal black man who spent his early career race-hustling banks, praying in a racist church for 20 years, and actively worked with America-hating domestic terrorists. Wow! Some resume! Yet they made Barak Obama their leader. Therefore, as of Nov 4th, 2008, white guilt is dead.Lulz alert in full effect. :D

To those Eurosnots who forged entire careers hating America ? I'm still waiting for the first black French President. Somebody can't take criticism very well.

Link (http://www.rense.com/general84/white.htm)to rest of the ridiculous...thing.

Do the members of NSG agree with the article, or do they disagree?

Or do they really not give a damn about my random threads? :)

This is like watching comedy that seems stupid enough to be funny, but then becomes so stupid it is no longer humorous.

This is like watching comedy that seems stupid enough to be funny, but then becomes so stupid it is no longer humorous.Summed up my feelings in one sentence. The rants just get repetitive after the fifth or sixth time.

Was there ever a 'white guilt'?

I sure as hell felt any guilt for things done before I was born.

Yeah, at least he's found a positive. Gotta love them conservatives - a silver lining in every cloud.

I've never had any 'white guilt' to begin with. If I was inclined to feel guilty about something, there are plenty of things I've actually done myself that I could choose from. I don't particularly feel the need to cry about things that happened before I was even born.

Was there ever a 'white guilt'?

I sure as hell felt any guilt for things done before I was born.

For some people, probably. Not for me either though.

I've got to admit, though, the guy has a point about the French. From what I've heard they are a very racist country.

Was there ever a 'white guilt'?

I sure as hell felt any guilt for things done before I was born.

I am depressed because the United States screws the blacks, but I never feel guilty--I vote (I am not talking about the Presidential election).

For some people, probably. Not for me either though.

I've got to admit, though, the guy has a point about the French. From what I've heard they are a very racist country.

I will not make any generalizations, but Nixon said they treated the Vietnamese like dirt.

Wow, you happened on someone's terribly idiotic opinion online.

Congratulations, you have found - The Internet!

Wow, you happened on someone's terribly idiotic opinion online.

Congratulations, you have found - The Internet!

http://familyreformation.org/articles/render/the-great-masquerade-an-impure-facade/

I will not make any generalizations, but Nixon said they treated the Vietnamese like dirt.

Wow, coming from Nixon, that's a pretty damning criticism.

Wow, coming from Nixon, that's a pretty damning criticism.

It sure as Hell is (though we must remember his administration did support affirmative action and an increase in welfare). He even went so far as claim that the reason the Vietnamese could not fight their own war was because they had lost all sense of national identity due to colonialism. The French would not even eat in the same tent with them, and they referred to them as "creatures". Of course the Vietnamese were not enthusiastic about fighting to preserve such a shitty government.

It sure as Hell is (though we must remember his administration did support affirmative action and an increase in welfare). He even went so far as claim that the reason the Vietnamese could not fight their own war was because they had lost all sense of national identity due to colonialism. The French would not even eat in the same tent with them, and they referred to them as "creatures". Of course the Vietnamese were not enthusiastic about fighting to preserve such a shitty government.

That's nothing compared to how they treated Haitians...

I hear this kind of shit all the time from members of my family, I have become jaded to it... at least until I finally snap and then kill them all for their stupidity.

Yeah , cos segregation is the French's fault.:rolleyes:

I love America.

Yeah , cos segregation is the French's fault.:rolleyes:

I love America.

Could you elaborate as to exactly what the hell that is supposed to mean?

I will not make any generalizations, but Nixon said they treated the Vietnamese like dirt.
They must have loved the Americans then. They only killed them.

White guilt as a feeling is useless, it's just a stupid liberal, bourgeois sentiment used to air anxieties so that one subset of the privileged can suddenly feel more justified, more humane in their oppression than the rest of the privileged.

Real white guilt isn't a feeling at all. It's the objective guiltiness of white people everywhere against people of color, against women, against people who don't speak the same languages or look the same. White guilt is what the whites are guilty of. It's patriarchy, it's capitalism, it's oppression.

And if white people start to feel bad about it, it means nothing. Objective guilt must be countered with objective good. The only solution for oppression is freedom. White people everywhere have to get together, join arms with the black man, the brown man, the red man, and tear down the institutions that disadvantage them. White guilt must be expiated like any kind of criminal guilt---with authority, enforced with the barrel of a gun.

White guilt as a feeling is useless, it's just a stupid liberal, bourgeois sentiment used to air anxieties so that one subset of the privileged can suddenly feel more justified, more humane in their oppression than the rest of the privileged.

Real white guilt isn't a feeling at all. It's the objective guiltiness of white people everywhere against people of color, against women, against people who don't speak the same languages or look the same. White guilt is what the whites are guilty of. It's patriarchy, it's capitalism, it's oppression.

And if white people start to feel bad about it, it means nothing. Objective guilt must be countered with objective good. The only solution for oppression is freedom. White people everywhere have to get together, join arms with the black man, the brown man, the red man, and tear down the institutions that disadvantage them. White guilt must be expiated like any kind of criminal guilt---with authority, enforced with the barrel of a gun.

You were going fine right up until the whole enforced at the barrel of a gun thing -_-

Barack Obama could be the most dangerous thing that has ever happened to black people in this country. He is white authority with a black face. He's nobody's brother, he's nobody's liberator. Any hope invested in him is false and is anti-revolutionary.

In his own words, he rises above race, he transcends it. Yeah, because on the one hand the whites can't say he isn't real without being called racist, and on the other hand, blacks can't say he doesn't represent them without being shouted down by those who are deceived by his big brown eyes, his kinky hair, his wife, his two little girls, his appearance on Oprah.

He didn't sell black people nothing that they can't damned get for by themselves. He's just another slick-talking false revolutionary messiah, a decoy put in place by White Authority to fool people of color everywhere and perpetuate oppression.

Barack Obama could be the most dangerous thing that has ever happened to black people in this country. He is white authority with a black face. He's nobody's brother, he's nobody's liberator. Any hope invested in him is false and is anti-revolutionary.

In his own words, he rises above race, he transcends it. Yeah, because on the one hand the whites can't say he isn't real without being called racist, and on the other hand, blacks can't say he doesn't represent them without being shouted down by those who are deceived by his big brown eyes, his kinky hair, his wife, his two little girls, his appearance on Oprah.

He didn't sell black people nothing that they can't damned get for by themselves. He's just another slick-talking false revolutionary messiah, a decoy put in place by White Authority to fool people of color everywhere and perpetuate oppression.

Oh for crying out loud now we got both way extremes, run while you still can.

Barack Obama could be the most dangerous thing that has ever happened to black people in this country. He is white authority with a black face. He's nobody's brother, he's nobody's liberator. Any hope invested in him is false and is anti-revolutionary.

In his own words, he rises above race, he transcends it. Yeah, because on the one hand the whites can't say he isn't real without being called racist, and on the other hand, blacks can't say he doesn't represent them without being shouted down by those who are deceived by his big brown eyes, his kinky hair, his wife, his two little girls, his appearance on Oprah.

He didn't sell black people nothing that they can't damned get for by themselves. He's just another slick-talking false revolutionary messiah, a decoy put in place by White Authority to fool people of color everywhere and perpetuate oppression.


This sounds oddly familiar. Though I can't remember the poster's name. Andaras! Is that you?

Hmm...I've never felt any "White Guilt". I really could care less about the whole "black history of oppression" nonsense. Its over, done with, and has been for 50 years now since American apartheid (segregation) was dismantled. Any percieved "oppression" by the minorities is of their own doing for their own failings.

This sounds oddly familiar. Though I can't remember the poster's name. Andaras! Is that you?

That's what I originally thought, but he also claims to be Jewish, and hasn't mentioned the Proletariat at all.

They must have loved the Americans then. They only killed them.

Good one. :tongue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XNb3Q9Ek

Though murders by United States soldiers pales in comparison to the number of murders committed by the Vietcong the moment the U.S. left.

Barack Obama could be the most dangerous thing that has ever happened to black people in this country. He is white authority with a black face. He's nobody's brother, he's nobody's liberator. Any hope invested in him is false and is anti-revolutionary.

In his own words, he rises above race, he transcends it. Yeah, because on the one hand the whites can't say he isn't real without being called racist, and on the other hand, blacks can't say he doesn't represent them without being shouted down by those who are deceived by his big brown eyes, his kinky hair, his wife, his two little girls, his appearance on Oprah.

He didn't sell black people nothing that they can't damned get for by themselves. He's just another slick-talking false revolutionary messiah, a decoy put in place by White Authority to fool people of color everywhere and perpetuate oppression.


...and the point of this post is....?

Hmm...I've never felt any "White Guilt". I really could care less about the whole "black history of oppression" nonsense. Its over, done with, and has been for 50 years now since American apartheid (segregation) was dismantled. Any percieved "oppression" by the minorities is of their own doing for their own failings.

Black oppression is far from over, mon ami. Hardly history either. The civil rights movement helped, but the segregation that takes place today is far more insidious - since it is systematic, but in a way which leads to people being able to claim that its over and that its black people's own faults.

Its called an ideology, and its a conflict theorists' wet dream.

Yeah , cos segregation is the French's fault.:rolleyes:

I love America.

Are you just exaggerating for effect or do you believe someone actually said this?

Barack Obama could be the most dangerous thing that has ever happened to black people in this country. He is white authority with a black face. He's nobody's brother, he's nobody's liberator. Any hope invested in him is false and is anti-revolutionary.

In his own words, he rises above race, he transcends it. Yeah, because on the one hand the whites can't say he isn't real without being called racist, and on the other hand, blacks can't say he doesn't represent them without being shouted down by those who are deceived by his big brown eyes, his kinky hair, his wife, his two little girls, his appearance on Oprah.

He didn't sell black people nothing that they can't damned get for by themselves. He's just another slick-talking false revolutionary messiah, a decoy put in place by White Authority to fool people of color everywhere and perpetuate oppression.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1079/830897176_dad55f068d_o.jpg

Black oppression is far from over, mon ami. Hardly history either. The civil rights movement helped, but the segregation that takes place today is far more insidious - since it is systematic, but in a way which leads to people being able to claim that its over and that its black people's own faults.


I disagree mate, I don't believe that there is anything holding those people back but themselves. A perfect example: this little boy grew up in a ghetto somewhere, I think it was Compton. He LOVED cars though, thought they were the best. While other boys as he was growing up were idolizing athletes and drug dealers, he worked. He eventually became the head engineer for I believe it was General Motors. A friend of mine grew up in similar conditions, and eventually became one of the top engineers for General Electric (he's an older gentleman, great guy though).

Moral of the story: these were both black men from poor backgrounds who managed to rise above their conditions and into great, well paying jobs. If they can do it, others can too. Bear in mind that they had to struggle through a lot of adversity, considering that in the case of my older engineer friend, going into the Army in '66 and becoming an engineer in the 70s was no easy feat, and the other throughout the 80s and 90s. If the black community will stop worshipping thug life and being different, and simply cease their trying to form a separate sub-culture, they'll find success just as easily as anyone else. I'm not one who believes in this Affirmative Action bullshit.

Yeah , cos segregation is the French's fault.:rolleyes:

I love America.


And France is so much more ethnically tolerant. :rolleyes:

Was there ever a 'white guilt'?

I sure as hell felt any guilt for things done before I was born.

I think the whole concept is meant to guide people into being more tolerant, but like most such concepts it has been rather twisted.

I have to admit I feel no White Guilt either. I am responsible for my own actions, and to assign guilt to me based on my skin color is no less racist than any of the instances of racism practiced in the past.

Rather than focusing on the past, we should move ahead to the future.

I have to say I feel far more middle class guilt than I feel any sort of racial guilt. Arguably the problem a lot of ethnic minorities have at the moment is more due to socio-economic imbalances (in turn having their roots in a history of discrimination).

Yes, there is still a level of racism that does need to be dealt with, but in some ways that's going to be easier than dealing with the inherent economic imbalances that fuel a lot of the problems.

But in relation to the quote in the OP - just because you have a black president does not give you an excuse to be a racist twat!

Moral of the story: these were both black men from poor backgrounds who managed to rise above their conditions and into great, well paying jobs. If they can do it, others can too. Bear in mind that they had to struggle through a lot of adversity, considering that in the case of my older engineer friend, going into the Army in '66 and becoming an engineer in the 70s was no easy feat, and the other throughout the 80s and 90s. If the black community will stop worshipping thug life and being different, and simply cease their trying to form a separate sub-culture, they'll find success just as easily as anyone else. I'm not one who believes in this Affirmative Action bullshit.

So your point is, black people have to struggle through adversity, which is just as easy as not struggling through adversity.

How....unique.

I disagree mate, I don't believe that there is anything holding those people back but themselves. A perfect example: this little boy grew up in a ghetto somewhere, I think it was Compton. He LOVED cars though, thought they were the best. While other boys as he was growing up were idolizing athletes and drug dealers, he worked. He eventually became the head engineer for I believe it was General Motors. A friend of mine grew up in similar conditions, and eventually became one of the top engineers for General Electric (he's an older gentleman, great guy though).

Moral of the story: these were both black men from poor backgrounds who managed to rise above their conditions and into great, well paying jobs. If they can do it, others can too. Bear in mind that they had to struggle through a lot of adversity, considering that in the case of my older engineer friend, going into the Army in '66 and becoming an engineer in the 70s was no easy feat, and the other throughout the 80s and 90s. If the black community will stop worshipping thug life and being different, and simply cease their trying to form a separate sub-culture, they'll find success just as easily as anyone else. I'm not one who believes in this Affirmative Action bullshit.
Alright. So, I grew up in an impoverished aboriginal community wracked by alcoholism, drug abuse, crime and domestic abuse. I managed to graduate from highschool, get a Bachelor's Degree, and then continue on to grad school to study law. I was one of the few people in my extended family to get that high school diploma...the first to get a university degree, and the ONLY one to have gone beyond that.

Am I now going to turn around and say, well look, I did it, anyone from my background can?

Le fuck no.

What was my advantage? I'm not really sure. I suppose it was my parents, who never made it an option not to finish school. Yet I ran away at 15 and was using a lot of drugs...I constantly got into very violent fights, I participated in break-ins and acts of vandalism, I had friends who were in and out of juvie pretty much their whole lives..

Had I been just a little less lucky, I would have been charged. Maybe the first time I would have gotten off....but there would likely be a second and third time. It's pure, dumb luck that I didn't end up in juvie with my friends and cousins. And what if I had? I would have been learning a whole different skill set, and fuck school. Because that's what happens.

I'm not extraordinarily smarter than other people in my community. I am just extraordinarily lucky. I had a stable home, my parents didn't beat me or neglect me, and I wasn't being sexually preyed upon by adults...and that might have been my only advantage.

So yes, I got out, I did well, and I continue to thrive. Most people I grew up with didn't. Am I some sort of example of how everyone can get over all the shit they have to deal with and make it, and thus there is no reason to do anything to help people overcome those obstacles? No. Once again, I'm just an example of being very, very lucky.

Hmm...I've never felt any "White Guilt". I really could care less about the whole "black history of oppression" nonsense. Its over, done with, and has been for 50 years now since American apartheid (segregation) was dismantled. Any percieved "oppression" by the minorities is of their own doing for their own failings.

Yeah, the civil rights era is OVER. We all have equality now!

Except in education, whites attend college at far greater rates. White children also on average have more public funds spent on their education.

And hiring. Resumes with "white" names are given interviews for job applications at a far greater frequency than applications with "black" names.

And employment. Whites receive on average better pay for the same jobs than blacks do. Likewise, in less professional settings, a white convicted felon is also just as likely to be hired for a position as an equally skilled black person, without a criminal background.

And in the justice system. Whites receive lesser sentences for the same crimes than blacks, on average. They are also sentenced to the death penalty disproportionately less often for the same crimes. They are also acquitted more often by juries. They are also subject to disproportionate acts of police violence and illegal intimidation.

So yeah, blacks are treated just the same as whites, and any perceived racism is just imaginary. Except in all the ways that it's been demonstrably proven.

The fact is, while nobody should be ashamed or "guilty" for the color of their skin, at the same time, I think white people in this country should be always mindful of the tremendous benefit they realize in society, just by the color of their skin.

And, given all those disadvantages blacks have, to proclaim "racism is over" implies that they have those disadvantages not because of racism, but because they are black. Which makes "racism is over" one of the most racist statements one can make.

So your point is, black people have to struggle through adversity, which is just as easy as not struggling through adversity.

How....unique.

Excellent summation of the argument!

The fact is, while nobody should be ashamed or "guilty" for the color of their skin, at the same time, I think white people in this country should be always mindful of the tremendous benefit they realize in society, just by the color of their skin.

Boy am I glad I don't live in your country. "You have a good life! Feel bad! How dare you be randomly born into a white family in a first world country!? Go move to Sudan, now!"

Boy am I glad I don't live in your country. "You have a good life! Feel bad! How dare you be randomly born into a white family in a first world country!? Go move to Sudan, now!"

Thank you for answering the question, "What sound does the point being completely and perhaps deliberately missed make?"

Boy am I glad I don't live in your country. "You have a good life! Feel bad! How dare you be randomly born into a white family in a first world country!? Go move to Sudan, now!"

The funny part is that he rejected exactly that interpretation of what he said in the very piece you quoted.

Yeah, the civil rights era is OVER. We all have equality now!

Except in education, whites attend college at far greater rates. White children also on average have more public funds spent on their education.

And hiring. Resumes with "white" names are given interviews for job applications at a far greater frequency than applications with "black" names.

And employment. Whites receive on average better pay for the same jobs than blacks do. Likewise, in less professional settings, a white convicted felon is also just as likely to be hired for a position as an equally skilled black person, without a criminal background.

And in the justice system. Whites receive lesser sentences for the same crimes than blacks, on average. They are also sentenced to the death penalty disproportionately less often for the same crimes. They are also acquitted more often by juries. They are also subject to disproportionate acts of police violence and illegal intimidation.

So yeah, blacks are treated just the same as whites, and any perceived racism is just imaginary. Except in all the ways that it's been demonstrably proven.

The fact is, while nobody should be ashamed or "guilty" for the color of their skin, at the same time, I think white people in this country should be always mindful of the tremendous benefit they realize in society, just by the color of their skin.

And, given all those disadvantages blacks have, to proclaim "racism is over" implies that they have those disadvantages not because of racism, but because they are black. Which makes "racism is over" one of the most racist statements one can make.

Exactly.

I think it's often easy for people who aren't on the receiving end of prejudice to imagine that it's all exaggerated. I remember a few years ago a large group of my friends was sitting around talking, and one of the guys casually mentioned "guys who grope women on the subway" as an example of an "urban myth." Every woman in the room turned and said, "....um." It ended up leading to a discussion where it was revealed that every woman present had had guys grope or try to grope her multiple times on public transit - and every guy present was astounded, because each and every one of them thought that such things happened sometime between "never" and "almost never." Being male, it hadn't ever been something they had to worry about, and so they cheerfully assumed it wasn't really a problem. I see the same attitude from white people who are convinced that racism is over - it's not so much malice as just genuine obliviousness to what life is like outside of their own personal bubble.

Thank you for answering the question, "What sound does the point being completely and perhaps deliberately missed make?"

Don't be silly. Obviously "you should feel guilty" is precisely the point of "nobody should feel guilty." Next you'll be suggesting that "I hate chocolate" isn't what I mean when I say "I love chocolate"! :tongue:

Don't be silly. Obviously "you should feel guilty" is precisely the point of "nobody should feel guilty." Next you'll be suggesting that "I hate chocolate" isn't what I mean when I say "I love chocolate"! :tongue:

You all clearly disagree, but I interpret

The fact is, while nobody should be ashamed or "guilty" for the color of their skin, at the same time, I think white people in this country should be always mindful of the tremendous benefit they realize in society, just by the color of their skin.

as

Feel guilty about having a half decent life, but for god's sake don't talk about it.

Yeah, the civil rights era is OVER. We all have equality now!

Pretty much.

Except in education, whites attend college at far greater rates. White children also on average have more public funds spent on their education.


Yes, because many black schools are in poorer districts anyway. They're called title 1. It isn't for some racist conspiracy, its purely because more tax revenue can be raised in wealthier districts. My Grandmother comes from a completely white area in Eastern Kentucky, the poorest part of the nation where most kids cannot even afford shoes and the schools are horridly underequipped. Don't talk to me about funding being great for white children and terrible for blacks.

And hiring. Resumes with "white" names are given interviews for job applications at a far greater frequency than applications with "black" names.

What, you think that I'm going to hire someone with a name like "Lacreesha" or "Shaniqua"? You bet your ass I'm not. Thats unprofessional and frankly stupid. Those wierd names imply an aspect of Black sub-culture which is not looked favourably upon by the professional community. Its their own damn fault, if they conform then they'll be accepted.

And employment. Whites receive on average better pay for the same jobs than blacks do. Likewise, in less professional settings, a white convicted felon is also just as likely to be hired for a position as an equally skilled black person, without a criminal background.

Okay, show me some statistics. Prove it. I'm calling bullshit on that. Unless you mean that blacks take shittier jobs, which is true. The majority of them CHOOSE to screw themselves over by dicking around in school smoking weed and doing drugs and hangin out with their thug friends. The ones who want to improve their lives can, those who don't care, and many don't, do not.

And in the justice system. Whites receive lesser sentences for the same crimes than blacks, on average. They are also sentenced to the death penalty disproportionately less often for the same crimes. They are also acquitted more often by juries. They are also subject to disproportionate acts of police violence and illegal intimidation.

Maybe its because the Blacks cause more crime than whites do on average? I'm sorry, but the blacks do cause a higher percentage of the crimes, and in most cases of "Police brutality" its because some dumb black was heckling the cop or did something stupid and brought it on himself. Though I do admit there is a small minority of incidences which are due to racist cops. It happens.

You all clearly disagree

Or, maybe, for those of us without an axe to grind, it can be interpreted as not acting like Wanderjar and pretending like racism doesn't exist and black people have all the same advantages as white people.

The reaction outlined in the OP is what makes Obama dangerous: there is a very real risk, especially in the eyes of white people, of his presidency being symbolic of a false era of racial equality, the last barrier being knocked down and so forth. There is already a massive opinion gap between racial groups as to the pervasiveness and severity of racism, and he is likely only to worsen it.

This is especially problematic because in a society as integrated as ours white people are by necessity essential to the struggle against white supremacy: you can't have a pure "revolution of the oppressed" because whites are not only economically, politically, and culturally dominant, but also make up a majority of the population, and the possibility of a black national state belongs in the realm of the horribly impractical (even if it were politically possible, it would not be economically or socially viable.)

The best that can be hoped for is that Obama, despite his consciously race-blind political agenda, manages through the power of his own symbolism to heal some of the psychological damage inflicted by white supremacy: that would be a worthy, concrete achievement.

As for "white guilt", shame in being white is not the point, and exists rarely enough as it is--how many whites have a deep-felt desire to be black, as members of oppressed racial minorities have so often felt to be white? "Guilt" in the limited sense of consciousness of privilege, and the associated commitment to working toward a society free of racial privilege and oppression, is a different matter, and a good thing.

I interpret

You interpret very poorly.

Or, maybe, for those of us without an axe to grind, it can be interpreted as not acting like Wanderjar and pretending like racism doesn't exist and black people have all the same advantages as white people.


Racism exists sure, but you can either deal with it and move on or sit around and cry about it and perpetuate the ideal of self entitlement which many blacks have. Hence welfare.

What, you think that I'm going to hire someone with a name like "Lacreesha" or "Shaniqua"? You bet your ass I'm not. Thats unprofessional and frankly stupid. Those wierd names imply an aspect of Black sub-culture which is not looked favourably upon by the professional community. Its their own damn fault, if they conform then they'll be accepted.
So you admit you would refuse to hire someone with a 'black' name. Annnnd...you claim not be a racist piece of shit?

A name tells you nothing about whether or not a person is actually qualified for the job, yet you have attempted here to provide support for the supposition that you can, in fact, judge a person's merit based on their name.

This is what has always amazed me about racists...most of them honestly don't believe they are doing anything wrong, and better yet, they turn the blame around on the victim of their bigotry.

Nonetheless, thank you for providing an excellent example of how racism continues to pervade your society.



Okay, show me some statistics. Prove it. I'm calling bullshit on that. Unless you mean that blacks take shittier jobs, which is true. The majority of them CHOOSE to screw themselves over by dicking around in school smoking weed and doing drugs and hangin out with their thug friends...
Or, apparently, having too black of a name.

Or, maybe, for those of us without an axe to grind, it can be interpreted as not acting like Wanderjar and pretending like racism doesn't exist and black people have all the same advantages as white people.

And white people never had to fight and struggle for all those advantages? It just all appeared out of nowhere? Sure, for some blacks, life sucks. We get it. But it's not like whites just got a free ride throughout history. Blacks will have to work hard to improve their conditions, wait for it: JUST LIKE EVERYBODY GODDAMN ELSE IN HISTORY.

What, you think that I'm going to hire someone with a name like "Lacreesha" or "Shaniqua"? You bet your ass I'm not. Thats unprofessional and frankly stupid. Those wierd names imply an aspect of Black sub-culture which is not looked favourably upon by the professional community. Its their own damn fault, if they conform then they'll be accepted.

Why not? If you're truly in a hiring position (and I doubt you are), it's not your job to pass judgement on someone's name; it's your job to find the person that will make your company the most money. I hire people with names like Ramamurthy and Abhishek weekly, and I've never NOT hired someone because I thought their name was "unprofessional." If Prasad Nallapeddi has a doctorate from Berkeley and 10 years of experience, and Joe Smith is fresh out of school with his bachelor's, I'm not going to hire Joe because his name is more normal. If you ever demonstrated such bigotry in a recruiting position, you'd find yourself fired very quickly, not because of your clear racism, but because you'd look like garbage next to your fellow recruiters who were getting all the qualified candidates you were passing up for having weird names.

So you admit you would refuse to hire someone with a 'black' name. Annnnd...you claim not be a racist piece of shit?

A name tells you nothing about whether or not a person is actually qualified for the job, yet you have attempted here to provide support for the supposition that you can, in fact, judge a person's merit based on their name.

This is what has always amazed me about racists...most of them honestly don't believe they are doing anything wrong, and better yet, they turn the blame around on the victim of their bigotry.

Nonetheless, thank you for providing an excellent example of how racism continues to pervade your society.



Or, apparently, having too black of a name.

I'm not racist, I'm elitist. And I am elitist as all hell, and I'll admit to that.

And white people never had to fight and struggle for all those advantages?

In a society ruled by whites and racist in their favor, did whites ever have to struggle against racist oppression?

Um, no. :rolleyes:

Barack Obama could be the most dangerous thing that has ever happened to black people in this country. He is white authority with a black face. He's nobody's brother, he's nobody's liberator. Any hope invested in him is false and is anti-revolutionary.

In his own words, he rises above race, he transcends it. Yeah, because on the one hand the whites can't say he isn't real without being called racist, and on the other hand, blacks can't say he doesn't represent them without being shouted down by those who are deceived by his big brown eyes, his kinky hair, his wife, his two little girls, his appearance on Oprah.

He didn't sell black people nothing that they can't damned get for by themselves. He's just another slick-talking false revolutionary messiah, a decoy put in place by White Authority to fool people of color everywhere and perpetuate oppression.

I have never heard anything so ridiculous :mad:

So you admit you would refuse to hire someone with a 'black' name. Annnnd...you claim not be a racist piece of shit?

A name tells you nothing about whether or not a person is actually qualified for the job, yet you have attempted here to provide support for the supposition that you can, in fact, judge a person's merit based on their name.

That doesn't surprise me, and it has nothing to do with race. If a black man named Steve applied for the same job as a black man name LaJuJu or something ridiculous like that, who's going to be taken seriously? And it would work the same if LaJuJu was white and Steve was still black.

That doesn't surprise me, and it has nothing to do with race. If a black man named Steve applied for the same job as a black man name LaJuJu or something ridiculous like that, who's going to be taken seriously? And it would work the same if LaJuJu was white and Steve was still black.

Thats the point I was trying to make. It isn't racist, its just being honest.

In a society ruled by whites and racist in their favor, did whites ever have to struggle against racist oppression?

Um, no. :rolleyes:

Racist? No. But clearly, only RACIST discrimination is an issue to you.

Clearly you've completely forgotten about a little skirmish known as the American War of Independence.

Racism exists sure, but you can either deal with it and move on or sit around and cry about it and perpetuate the ideal of self entitlement which many blacks have. Hence welfare.

See, you seem to believe that your own racism, as something that merely 'exists' should be 'dealt with' by the victims of your racism 'moving on'. But that's not how you actually 'deal' with racism. The victims do not simply need to accept that it exists, and learn to work around it. Rather, the perpetrators of racism need to be put into check, so that they cannot continue to artificially stack the system in favour of themselves. This is why we make it illegal to discriminate against people...this is why we fine racists and bigots who act on their racism and bigotry...this is why we implement programs intended to offset the damage done by racists and bigots. And more than anything, this is why we, as a society, have been evolving to the point where it is becoming less and less 'okay' to be someone like you.

That is how we 'deal' with it.

In a society ruled by whites and racist in their favor, did whites ever have to struggle against racist oppression?

Um, no. :rolleyes:
What about white immigrants to the US in the 19th century? The premise of How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev is that Irish immigrants did have to struggle against racial oppression, even in a pro-white society - hence the New York "Draft Riots".

I'm not racist, I'm elitist. And I am elitist as all hell, and I'll admit to that.

You can be both. Your statements make it clear that you are in fact a racist. Is that just too ugly a word for you or something? Is that why you think 'elitist' is better? Less perjorative? A better word might be 'bigot', because I doubt you confine yourself to racially based discrimination.

But clearly, only RACIST discrimination is an issue to you.

No. But clearly, only racist discrimination is actually relevant to this thread.

Clearly you've completely forgotten about a little skirmish knows as the American War of Independence.

Out of curiosity, then, would you support an armed black uprising in the United States against white rule? Is that the sort of "fight and struggle" you envision?

What about white immigrants to the US in the 19th century?

Certain whites belonging to other disadvantaged racial groups? Yes.

Whites as a class? No.

You can be both. Your statements make it clear that you are in fact a racist. Is that just too ugly a word for you or something? Is that why you think 'elitist' is better? Less perjorative? A better word might be 'bigot', because I doubt you confine yourself to racially based discrimination.

I do not discriminate people based on race. Some of my best friends are black for example. I, however, do not pretend to believe that the ghetto blacks are professional or their style of existence is an appropriate thing to emulate or accept. The subculture of "white man keepin' me down!" is immature and a pure example of people choosing to shift the blame to someone else rather than come to terms with their own responsibilities. However! The same principle applies to whites, hispanics, asians, or anyone for that matter.

So I am intensely elitist, a racist I am not. However if you choose to think of me as a racist so be it, I do not find it so ugly a word.

That doesn't surprise me, and it has nothing to do with race. If a black man named Steve applied for the same job as a black man name LaJuJu or something ridiculous like that, who's going to be taken seriously? And it would work the same if LaJuJu was white and Steve was still black.

I don't care if an applicant's name is Princess Frou Frou le Popsicle de Bikini. If you actually want a merit-based system, you put controls into place to ensure that you hire qualified people. You do not judge extraneous and unimportant things like names. If Princess Frou Frou le Popsicle de Bikini is the most qualified applicant, she should get the job. Don't give her a name tag, if you like.

If you, as a person who is hiring, are unable to hire based on merit, then you need to find a way to avoid your biases. A good way to do that might be to have resumes submitted by number, rather than name, etc. A great many employers are now doing this to avoid unconscious biases against women (or men), ethnic or racial minorities etc.

If you are a person who cannot separate yourself from your biases, the least you can do is undertake to implement a system whereby your biases will not be the deciding factor.

Out of curiosity, then, would you support an armed black uprising in the United States against white rule? Is that the sort of "fight and struggle" you envision?

Well, it never worked for my ancestors. It's not the only option. In fact, most of the time it's pretty much the worst one.

Certain whites belonging to other disadvantaged racial groups? Yes.

Whites as a class? No.

Racism: Ok when it's against "Irish", or "German", or "Italian".

I don't care if an applicant's name is Princess Frou Frou le Popsicle de Bikini. If you actually want a merit-based system, you put controls into place to ensure that you hire qualified people. You do not judge extraneous and unimportant things like names. If Princess Frou Frou le Popsicle de Bikini is the most qualified applicant, she should get the job. Don't give her a name tag, if you like.

If you, as a person who is hiring, are unable to hire based on merit, then you need to find a way to avoid your biases. A good way to do that might be to have resumes submitted by number, rather than name, etc. A great many employers are now doing this to avoid unconscious biases against women (or men), ethnic or racial minorities etc.

If you are a person who cannot separate yourself from your biases, the least you can do is undertake to implement a system whereby your biases will not be the deciding factor.

See, you're not exactly arguing AGAINST my point.

Some of my best friends are black for example.

This argument ought to be the Godwin of arguments about racism: if you use it, you automatically concede that you are a racist.

I don't care if an applicant's name is Princess Frou Frou le Popsicle de Bikini. If you actually want a merit-based system, you put controls into place to ensure that you hire qualified people. You do not judge extraneous and unimportant things like names. If Princess Frou Frou le Popsicle de Bikini is the most qualified applicant, she should get the job. Don't give her a name tag, if you like.

If you, as a person who is hiring, are unable to hire based on merit, then you need to find a way to avoid your biases. A good way to do that might be to have resumes submitted by number, rather than name, etc. A great many employers are now doing this to avoid unconscious biases against women (or men), ethnic or racial minorities etc.

If you are a person who cannot separate yourself from your biases, the least you can do is undertake to implement a system whereby your biases will not be the deciding factor.

Heres a better way to look at something:


Two people have identicle resumes. Both are African American males, harvard graduates with 4.0 GPAs. Ones name is Dimitrus Jamal, the other is Robert Smith II. Dimitrius Jamal has no blemishes on his record, but comes to interview wearing thug like clothing and speaks with a ghetto accent, despite his obvious intelligence. Robert Smith II comes to work wearing an Armani suit and tie, and speaks impeccable english with mid-western dialect. I'm going to take Robert Smith II. He is more professional.

I do not discriminate people based on race. Some of my best friends are black for example. The classic line of a racist. I'm just waiting for someone to say, 'I'm not a racist, we have a black president!'

Oh wait. Isn't that sort of what the dude in the OP said? lol

I, however, do not pretend to believe that the ghetto blacks are professional or their style of existence is an appropriate thing to emulate or accept.
And you will judge a person as professional based on their name. That would be racial profiling. You are still discriminating against people. You don't want it to be racism, because you have 'black friends'. As I said, you can always wear the term 'bigot', as it suits you well.



The subculture of "white man keepin' me down!" is immature and a pure example of people choosing to shift the blame to someone else rather than come to terms with their own responsibilities.
Yet you admit to supporting practices which would ignore the merit of an applicant and focus only on their name. Sounds like someone keeping someone down, which regardless of the ethnicity of the parties, is discrimination.


So I am intensely elitist, a racist I am not. However if you choose to think of me as a racist so be it, I do not find it so ugly a word.

Ah, well it's a good step, slowly accepting your racism. Maybe one day you'll understand it better, and actually work towards ridding yourself of such ugliness.

In fact, most of the time it's pretty much the worse one.

I agree. That's why it seemed a strange example to bring up.

Racism: Ok when it's against "Irish", or "German", or "Italian".

What's with you and making stuff up about what other people say?

This argument ought to be the Godwin of arguments about racism: if you use it, you automatically concede that you are a racist.

Fine, then I'm a racist, so what? This does not in the least bit bother me.

This argument ought to be the Godwin of arguments about racism: if you use it, you automatically concede that you are a racist.

Lul wut? It's cliched, but it's true. For example, I have Croatian friends, but I'm not going to pretend that they don't have huge race/ethnicity conflict issues; that shit is fucked up.

See, you're not exactly arguing AGAINST my point.
That would only be true if you completely failed to comprehend anything I wrote. Which, based on your previous posts, is a distinct possibility. However, this isn't bizarro world, and your poor understanding does not pass for reality, sorry.

You might try reading it again, taking a bit of time to digest each sentence.

Ah, well it's a good step, slowly accepting your racism. Maybe one day you'll understand it better, and actually work towards ridding yourself of such ugliness.

I wouldn't count on it. I do not stoop down to that level. If the black community wants my acceptance, then they conform to acceptable behavior instead of this thug culture which they so idolize.

This argument ought to be the Godwin of arguments about racism: if you use it, you automatically concede that you are a racist.

That's essentially how I see it already. It's like 'no offense but'. Immediately prepare yourself to hear something offensive.

Heres a better way to look at something:


Two people have identicle resumes. Both are African American males, harvard graduates with 4.0 GPAs. Ones name is Dimitrus Jamal, the other is Robert Smith II. Dimitrius Jamal has no blemishes on his record, but comes to interview wearing thug like clothing and speaks with a ghetto accent, despite his obvious intelligence. Robert Smith II comes to work wearing an Armani suit and tie, and speaks impeccable english with mid-western dialect. I'm going to take Robert Smith II. He is more professional.

That is an absolutely shitty example. Here is a better example:

Two people have identicle resumes. Both are African American males, harvard graduates with 4.0 GPAs. Ones name is Dimitrus Jamal, the other is Robert Smith II. Neither have any blemishes on their records, and both show up in an Armani suit and tie, speaking impeccable English with a Midwestern accent. Who do YOU hire?

That is an absolutely shitty example. Here is a better example:

Two people have identicle resumes. Both are African American males, harvard graduates with 4.0 GPAs. Ones name is Dimitrus Jamal, the other is Robert Smith II. Neither have any blemishes on their records, and both show up in an Armani suit and tie, speaking impeccable English with a Midwestern accent. Who do YOU hire?

Robert Smith II. He's still more professional. And you are correct, that was an infinitely better example.


EDIT: I'm going to take that back. I'd do background checks on them. If Dimitrius Jamal came from, say, Compton, I might give him the job because he probably worked harder for it than say Robert Smith II from some super wealthy family. I'd then reference Robert Smith II to another firm, Corporation of similar standing to mine and suggest he be hired. Thats most likely what I would do. I always like success stories like that, of people overcoming adversity of that nature to accomplish something, like the GM Automotive Designer I mentioned earlier.

That would only be true if you completely failed to comprehend anything I wrote. Which, based on your previous posts, is a distinct possibility. However, this isn't bizarro world, and your poor understanding does not pass for reality, sorry.

You might try reading it again, taking a bit of time to digest each sentence.

I'm AGREEING with you. There should be safeguards in place to prevent interviewer bias. But if you walk in with a ridiculous name, and there's no safeguards, you're going to lose marks right off the bat.

Robert Smith II. He's still more professional.

That makes you racist, but alright.

Say you have two candidates, Dimitrius Jamal and Robert Smith II. Dimitrius has a MBA from Harvard in Economics, while Robert Smith II has an BS in Communications from your local juco. Both are black, both are wearing the same suit and tie, and both speak English perfectly. Who do you hire?

Heres a better way to look at something:


Two people have identicle resumes. Both are African American males, harvard graduates with 4.0 GPAs. Ones name is Dimitrus Jamal, the other is Robert Smith II. Dimitrius Jamal has no blemishes on his record, but comes to interview wearing thug like clothing and speaks with a ghetto accent, despite his obvious intelligence. Robert Smith II comes to work wearing an Armani suit and tie, and speaks impeccable english with mid-western dialect. I'm going to take Robert Smith II. He is more professional.

Except you weren't talking about an actual interview. You were talking about judging someone, sight unseen, based solely on their name.

You have now seen how ridiculous and unsupportable that is. Now you are concocting a scenario where you meet the applicants, and are able to judge them based on clothing and demeanour. Of course you have carefully crafted this scenario so that the person with the 'professional' name also has a professional demeanour. That way you can go back and say, look! You really can just look at the name and know ahead of time who is going to be professional and who is not!

Except in real life, giving a good interview is a skill. It's something you learn how to do. You learn how to dress, how to talk, how to answer and ask questions. Generally if you are taking some sort of post-secondary level program, you will have access to workshops (sometimes mandatory) about how to prepare for interviews, how to present your resume, and so forth.

So your little hypothetical is based on the idea that stubborn Dimitrus Jamal is deliberately acting 'unprofessionally' as part of some sort of cultural rebellion. Therefore, he is to blame for not getting hired, and you could have saved yourself the effort of even having to interview him if I'd just accept that his name alone told you he'd be like that.

Sorry. Rejected.

That makes you racist, but alright.

Say you have two candidates, Dimitrius Jamal and Robert Smith II. Dimitrius has a MBA from Harvard in Economics, while Robert Smith II has an BS in Communications from your local juco. Both are black, both are wearing the same suit and tie, and both speak English perfectly. Who do you hire?

Dimitrius Jamal. Having a ridiculous name doesn't lose you that many marks.

That makes you racist, but alright.

Say you have two candidates, Dimitrius Jamal and Robert Smith II. Dimitrius has a MBA from Harvard in Economics, while Robert Smith II has an BS in Communications from your local juco. Both are black, both are wearing the same suit and tie, and both speak English perfectly. Who do you hire?

Dimitrius, no question. Its not a deal breaker, I don't care THAT much.

Certain whites belonging to other disadvantaged racial groups? Yes.

Whites as a class? No.
With respect, that's moving the goalposts from your original statement, which was
In a society ruled by whites and racist in their favor, did whites ever have to struggle against racist oppression?

Um, no
I also take issue with the essentialism you seem to use to characterise race. Race isn't some biological fact imprinted on our bones at the baby-making factory in the sky; it's a social construct, an artifice, and the idea of a distinct white race is silly.
Two people have identicle [sic] resumes. Both are African American males, harvard graduates with 4.0 GPAs. Ones name is Dimitrus Jamal, the other is Robert Smith II. Dimitrius Jamal has no blemishes on his record, but comes to interview wearing thug like clothing and speaks with a ghetto accent, despite his obvious intelligence. Robert Smith II comes to work wearing an Armani suit and tie, and speaks impeccable english with mid-western dialect. I'm going to take Robert Smith II. He is more professional.
You keep privileging this idea of "professional", but you're making a circular argument: professional people are x, and you'll only hire people who are x, so only people who are x are professional!

I also think it's telling that you take exception to the name "Jamal", which is one of the names of the Prophet. If he is a Muslim, then he has to have such a name. If he is not a Muslim...well, how would you know this? Asking such a question would, I'm pretty sure, be illegal under most nations' employment law stats.

It's unclear to me why parents shouldn't be able to call their children whatever they like.

Robert Smith II. He's still more professional. And you are correct, that was an infinitely better example. His name makes him more professional. That's your assertion?

A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. Bigot.

With no evidence beyond a name, you have made an assumption and you are sticking to it. Bigot.


EDIT: I'm going to take that back. I'd do background checks on them. If Dimitrius Jamal came from, say, Compton, I might give him the job because he probably worked harder for it than say Robert Smith II from some super wealthy family. I'd then reference Robert Smith II to another firm, Corporation of similar standing to mine and suggest he be hired. Thats most likely what I would do. I always like success stories like that, of people overcoming adversity of that nature to accomplish something, like the GM Automotive Designer I mentioned earlier.

That's an adorable attempt to mitigate your bigotry with some sort of Calvanist work ethic appeal. Rings pretty hollow though. Perhaps when you said 'racist' isn't such an ugly word, you misspoke? Perhaps now you're starting to see how you appear to others, and how socially undersireable that trait is? I mean, not even mentioning how unsupported your various claims continue to be.

Dimitrius Jamal. Having a ridiculous name doesn't lose you that many marks.

Dimitrius, no question. Its not a deal breaker, I don't care THAT much.

Whoa...why are you hiring Dimitrius Jamal?

Sorry, but I am really confused here. First you recognise (this is to Wanderjar) that maybe hiring someone based on name is a little silly, since it really doesn't tell you much about the person. (I mean, like it or not, most people have the name their mama gave them...good just barely escaped being names MoonUnit!) You then go on to......hire someone based on his name?

Maybe that's how you THINK 'affirmative action' works, but just turning the same prejudicial lens around doesn't fix the problem...which is not the man's name, but rather the assumptions being made by the person taking that name into consideration.

Dimitrius, no question. Its not a deal breaker, I don't care THAT much.

Just how much do you care, then? What if their degrees were closer together? What if they both went to good schools? What if they both had the same degree, but in different majors? Just how many deltas does "ethnic-sounding name" get someone on your scorecard?

Robert Smith II. He's still more professional. And you are correct, that was an infinitely better example.


How? By having a WASP sounding name? Doesn't sound like a good reason to me.

Edit: Dimitrius Jamal is not that unusual name - all it indicates is that the person probably comes from an ethnic minority background. Ergo to distinguish based on a name = racist. Next question.

Just how much do you care, then? What if their degrees were closer together? What if they both went to good schools? What if they both had the same degree, but in different majors? Just how many deltas does "ethnic-sounding name" get someone on your scorecard?

The only way it'd be a deal breaker is if two people who were equal were lined up. The ethnic sounding name would lose out over the non, unless the ethnic named person were infact superior in resume to the other person, in which case I really don't care about them, only their abilities.

I'm AGREEING with you. There should be safeguards in place to prevent interviewer bias. But if you walk in with a ridiculous name, and there's no safeguards, you're going to lose marks right off the bat.

Ah, so we agree that safeguards need to be put into place, because conscious or unconscious bias is a problem.

Welcome to the definition of systemic discrimination. It is the raison d’être of the various programs put into place to mitigate said bias. And quite clearly, that raison d’être continues to exist.

With respect, that's moving the goalposts from your original statement, which was

No, you're actually equivocating on "whites."

But I'm not interested in having a pointless semantic dispute. The issue is whether the privileges whites have as a class stem from their collective struggles. The answer is no, they do not: they stem from the fact that white people live in a society racist in their favor, that whites do not belong to the minority groups currently suffering severely from past and present discrimination.

Nothing in that statement obviates the fact that certain white groups have experienced racism in the past. Bringing up this issue strikes me as amounting to political pedantry: quibbling with details to avoid addressing the essential point.

Race isn't some biological fact imprinted on our bones at the baby-making factory in the sky; it's a social construct, an artifice, and the idea of a distinct white race is silly.

You are falsely conflating "artificial" with "unreal."

The only way it'd be a deal breaker is if two people who were equal were lined up. The ethnic sounding name would lose out over the non, unless the ethnic named person were infact superior in resume to the other person, in which case I really don't care about them, only their abilities.

Equal in all respects? If Robert Smith II walked in and flashed gang signs, and Dimitrius Jamal gave you a proper handshake, you'd give Robert the job over Dimitrius because of the name? Or do you fear black culture more than black-sounding names?

I'll tell you what us professionals use to differentiate between two identical candidates. Expected salary. Generally, if you can't decide between two candidates, you hire the one willing to work for less.

Fine, then I'm a racist, so what? This does not in the least bit bother me.

Hence the reason to ensure that people like you are unable to use your bigotry to shape the way in which other people are able to access opportunity. The fact that your racism doesn't bother you suggests very strongly that you are unwilling, yourself, to do anything to correct it. You have stated before that it is not your duty to correct it, but rather the onus is on the victims of your bigotry to 'get over it'. I have pointed out why this simply does not make sense. The problem is not 'them', the problem is you. Therefore we focus our efforts on neutralising your ability to exercise your bigotry.

Dimitrius, no question. Its not a deal breaker, I don't care THAT much.

The only way it'd be a deal breaker is if two people who were equal were lined up. The ethnic sounding name would lose out over the non, unless the ethnic named person were infact superior in resume to the other person, in which case I really don't care about them, only their abilities.

Sort of contradicting yourself here. First, according to Sdaeriji's scenario it's 'Dimitrius' you'd hire, no question. Then you state that Dimitrius would 'lose out' because of his name.

You're twisting in the wind.

Blacks: Baaaaawwww Racism
Whites: Im okay with Blacks as long as they dont live next door!


If Blacks/Whites/Anybody wants to sit around and complain about racism, thats fine. If you want to complain about racism, do it somewhere else, not to me on the street, not on my television, not outside my house with your signs, I dont want to hear it. Your complaining doesnt help, and if anything, makes me look down on you.

Blacks: Baaaaawwww Racism
Whites: Im okay with Blacks as long as they dont live next door!


If Blacks/Whites/Anybody wants to sit around and complain about racism, thats fine. If you want to complain about racism, do it somewhere else, not to me on the street, not on my television, not outside my house with your signs, I dont want to hear it. Your complaining doesnt help, and if anything, makes me look down on you.

I wonder if you define academic studies, analyses, political lobbying, human rights legislation and grassroots action as 'complaining'. Or do we just ignore it and pretend it's not there?

I wonder if you define academic studies, analyses, political lobbying, human rights legislation and grassroots action as 'complaining'. Or do we just ignore it and pretend it's not there?

Wouldn't you be happier if you ignored problems? :p

Blacks: Baaaaawwww Racism
Whites: Im okay with Blacks as long as they dont live next door!


If Blacks/Whites/Anybody wants to sit around and complain about racism, thats fine. If you want to complain about racism, do it somewhere else, not to me on the street, not on my television, not outside my house with your signs, I dont want to hear it. Your complaining doesnt help, and if anything, makes me look down on you.

And I don't want to hear you complain about people complaining about racism. And I'm sure that you probably don't want to hear me complaining about you complaining about people complaining about racism. But HA! Because I don't want to hear YOU complain about me complaining about you complaining about people complaining about racism!

Blacks: Baaaaawwww Racism
Whites: Im okay with Blacks as long as they dont live next door!


If Blacks/Whites/Anybody wants to sit around and complain about racism, thats fine. If you want to complain about racism, do it somewhere else, not to me on the street, not on my television, not outside my house with your signs, I dont want to hear it. Your complaining doesnt help, and if anything, makes me look down on you.

Lol, complaining about complaining.

CLASSIC

And I don't want to hear you complain about people complaining about racism. And I'm sure that you probably don't want to hear me complaining about you complaining about people complaining about racism. But HA! Because I don't want to hear YOU complain about me complaining about you complaining about people complaining about racism!

If Blacks want equality, then they will have to strive for it.

Id never let Eazy-E (General Thug) over there near my daughter.

If Blacks want equality, then they will have to strive for it.

Id never let Eazy-E (General Thug) over there near my daughter.

I'd never want a general thug near my daughter either black or white they are just as bad as each other.

Id never let Eazy-E (General Thug) over there near my daughter.

How dare you! He prefers the term 'Eazy-motherfucking-E'. Also, the term 'Thug 4 life' is generally more acceptable, you need to be sensitive to these issues.

I'd never want a general thug near my daughter either black or white they are just as bad as each other.

Same here.

Yes my complaining about complaining is ridiculous.

I just dont like seeing people blame me for stuff I didnt do.

Yes, I did have grandparents that Lynched Blacks in the Klan.

That doesnt mean I did though..

Same here.

Yes my complaining about complaining is ridiculous.

I just dont like seeing people blame me for stuff I didnt do.

Yes, I did have grandparents that Lynched Blacks in the Klan.

That doesnt mean I did though..

*_*

Blacks: Baaaaawwww Racism
Whites: Im okay with Blacks as long as they dont live next door!


If Blacks/Whites/Anybody wants to sit around and complain about racism, thats fine. If you want to complain about racism, do it somewhere else, not to me on the street, not on my television, not outside my house with your signs, I dont want to hear it. Your complaining doesnt help, and if anything, makes me look down on you.
I care. I really, really care.

[/lying]

I wonder if you define academic studies, analyses, political lobbying, human rights legislation and grassroots action as 'complaining'. Or do we just ignore it and pretend it's not there?
Don't you just love how there are people who can look back at, say, the Civil Rights Era, and decide that the moral is that minorities should shut up and wait to have equality given to them?

Don't you just love how there are people who can look back at, say, the Civil Rights Era, and decide that the moral is that minorities should shut up and wait to have equality given to them?

It's the old, 'if you'd stop asking for it we'd fucking give it to you' line. It's like how trying to become a mod on NSG will actually hurt your chances of becoming one. See? See? Shut up and wait your turn, damnit, or you'll never have equality! No point in getting all agitated and uppity and demanding rights! All being uppity gets you is 'the Man' holding you down and doing terrible things to you in response. (which can be fun when we're talking about sex, but not so much when it comes to civil rights)

Or you know, not.
"You don't have to live next to me, just give me my equality..."

It's the old, 'if you'd stop asking for it we'd fucking give it to you' line. It's like how trying to become a mod on NSG will actually hurt your chances of becoming one. See? See? Shut up and wait your turn, damnit, or you'll never have equality! No point in getting all agitated and uppity and demanding rights! All being uppity gets you is 'the Man' holding you down and doing terrible things to you in response. (which can be fun when we're talking about sex, but not so much when it comes to civil rights)

Or you know, not.
"You don't have to live next to me, just give me my equality..."
Yeah, I get a chuckle from the suggestion that there has ever been a minority group or oppressed people in the history of the world who were "given" equality.

You know, as opposed to having to fucking well fight tooth and nail for a very long time before the ruling powers finally conceded that maybe they should take a tiny baby step in the general direction of not being such oppressive assholes. :P

What makes me giggle in my gumboots is how "This is fucking bullshit, you refused to hire me because my NAME is too black!?" gets translated into "waaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

What makes me giggle in my gumboots is how "This is fucking bullshit, you refused to hire me because my NAME is too black!?" gets translated into "waaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

Quit your whining. If someone called Fastagum McRuddleyboots can get hired, than all other people with foreign sounding names can too.