Slashdot Mirror
Internet Responds To Racist Article, Gets Author Fired
In the wake of the Trayvon Martin tragedy in February, many publications posted articles about "the talk" — a phrase denoting the conversation many black parents have at some point with their children to explain the realities of racism. Last Thursday, writer John Derbyshire penned an article titled "The Talk: Nonblack Version," which codified a similar set of lessons he had given to his children over the years. Unfortunately, those lessons turned out to be horribly racist themselves. "The remarkably long list of how to teach children to stay safe by avoiding black people goes on for two pages and Derbyshire contends is a true lifesaver. There is no irony or clarification that, perhaps, this is a joke, no matter how much you may want to find a disclaimer after you’re done reading." Reader concealment writes to point out that the internet and the media vocalized their disgust quickly and at length, and now Derbyshire has been fired from his position at the conservative National Review magazine (the offending article appeared in a different publication called Taki's Magazine).
When I was a kid, I had a liberal stepdad and a conservative dad. I always thought my dad was just a racist who didn't know what he was talking about. At one point we had it out and so I left my lilly-white hometown to to live with my mom and stepdad in what happened to be a predominantly black school district (which my liberal stepdad considered a great opportunity for me to learn a valuable cultural lesson). After I got a harsh lesson in anti-white racism by getting my ass kicked for about the 10th time at said school, I realized that dad may not be so stupid after all and moved back with in him. It was one of those hard lessons in life about the difference between how things *should* be and how they actually *are*. It's not that my dad wanted to teach me to be some racist cross-burner or something, he just wanted to teach me that racism cuts BOTH ways--and that walking into the wrong school/neighborhood/bar with white skin can be just as dangerous as the vice versa. And it's a lot easier to learn that lesson the easy way than the hard way, believe me.
I like to think that maybe things have changed since I was a kid. I'm not sure, as I learned to avoid these situations altogether by keeping my dumb ass out of where I wasn't wanted.
Of course, no one is ever going to say any of that publicly. You're more likely in the modern world to encounter the Loch Ness monster than any truly honest dialogue on race.
It happens on both sides. Some black parents tell their kids to segregate themselves and establish identity. One question though: If a black scholar wrote an article on how to keep the white man's hands out of your pockets, would they also get fired?
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Why is one list racist and not the other? Is it because the color of skin each list is warning you about? Isn't that really messed up? I mean, making those kinds of judgments based on skin color is really messed up in the first place. That's a given. But isn't really weird for it to be somehow OK to warn against one skin color but not the other?
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I wasn't aware of "The Talk" before reading about it in the summary.
As a (white) father of two young boys, I can't imagine a harder conversation. "Remember all that talk about how you have unlimited potential? Yeah, it's all bullshit. Fight the power (but dont' get killed)."
I can't imagine how it looks to have the hope in their eyes die in front of you.
--
$tar -xvf
Discovering that John Derbyshire is a racist is somewhat akin to discovering that the sun rises in the east. The man's been quite candid about his views for years.
Kudos to National Review for finally discovering this fact and taking the blindingly obvious course of action, though.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Like a lot of these types of things, it's really a CLASS issue, not a race issue. There's plenty of predominantly white if not totally white neighborhoods that other white people don't go into because either the neighborhood is a lot more poor than "you," and you're in danger, or the neighborhood is too rich for you, and you'll get the cops called on you. You don't have to have a different color skin if you drive the wrong kind of car, or aren't dressed appropriately. Humans are tribal, and trival societies aren't known for their inclusive nature.
How is it "censorship" to not have someone you don't like use your business/property to broadcast their message? He's still free to get his message out using his own stuff.
I dunno, could be you're just an asshole.
I'm white, but went to a predominantly black High School in a major metro. I had a few altercations, but I never had my ass kicked.
As one of my (black) friends so eloquently put it to me: "You know when they're talking about the N*****s up at G******d, they're talking 'bout you, too."
--
$tar -xvf
intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Here's a quote:
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage of my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved".
Who said that? Oh yeah...Jesse Jackson. It's not like white people are the only ones who don't want to walk by a 6'3" black teenager in a hoodie at night. Black people don't want to walk by them as well.
>>>got a harsh lesson in anti-white racism by getting my ass kicked for about the 10th time at said school
More recent example:
A white guy was beat-up by some blacks who said, "This is for Trayvon." In other words it was a revenge attack against white people. (Never mind that the killer was actually hispanic; not part of the white majority. News orgs like NBC have twisted the story.) Of course the blacks were not charged for a hate crime. Or assault. Just disorderly behavior.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Internet Anthropomorphized, Is Mildly Amused
This guy gets fired, Tyler Perry gets a pass for describing how his mother always taught him how to act if he got held up by white cops and then suing for discrimination basically because 2 white cops didn't know he was famous. All in the same week, and with no incredulity about the double standard. I love our media. And by love, i mean despise.
"Unfortunately, those lessons turned out to be horribly racist themselves."
Be that as it may. It would be worthwhile to provide an item-by-item refutation to the article, than simply scream "racism" and leave it at that.
Humans are as tribal as they want to be. In Ireland there has been a HUGE influx of immigrants from places like Eastern Europe and sub Saharan Africa, something like one in six people were born outside the country according to the most recent census. And this is just in the last ten or so years. Backlash? None. Rise of right wing groups? None. Race riots such as have graced the streets of most European countries and the UK? Zero. And if there's one thing guaranteed to bring out any latent xenophobia its a sudden massive influx of foreigners.
Its a very open and inclusive society. So much for the stereotypes.
Fact is that racism is a double edge sword. It takes one person to stereotype and another to take it badly, without either of those, there's no conflict.
Why in the hell is it required that someone "take it badly?"
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
... (and I suppose everyone has these kinds of stories) but when I was a teenager I used to live in this really dumpy run-down apartment block. We had befriended a black family that lived downstairs and I used to play basketball frequently with the two boys. They were quite a bit younger than me - I was 16-17 at the time and they were 10-12. Anyway, one day we're playing basketball at the elementary school playground across the street and I said, just joking around, "blah blah blah, my brother" and the youngest kid said to me, almost angrily, "you AIN'T my brother." That really threw me. Here was just a little black kid hanging around with this older white boy from the neighborhood and it was all fun and games up to a point but when I referred to him as "my brother" it was like everything hateful he'd been indoctrinated in - and, yes, it was clear he'd been carefully indoctrinated - about whites came up. I learned reverse-racism was alive and while and I must say it shocked me. One can think everything is hunky-dory and that one is being all culturally enlightened by regularly hanging out with black people, but there is a whole separate side to the culture that is never revealed to you and certainly nothing about how they really tend to feel about whites (which, admittedly, is often justified by narrow-minded and racist whites which an average white kid doesn't ever experience). The racial divide still has a very, very long way to go.
After I got a harsh lesson in anti-white racism by getting my ass kicked for about the 10th time at said school, I realized that dad may not be so stupid after all and moved back with in him.
Whether he's stupid depends on how he interprets the situation. Are young black men more violent towards young white men because they're inherently violent because of genetics? Or do they simply learn that their roles aren't valued by society and take any chance they can to assert dominance, just like anyone of any race would do in their position?
The former is stupid and racist. The latter is smart and correct. Your experience, while possibly consistent with a racist interpretation can also be completely explained without racism. It's still stupid to be racist.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Exactly. My schools (DC, in the early-mid '70s) were about 50% white, 50% non white, and there was never any particular racial tension that I saw. It was only later when I read about the problems in Boston that I even realized that there had been busing going on. Race in the US is often a proxy for class, but class is a more accurate way of viewing things in my experience.
And white men make up the vast, vast majority of serial killers and pedophiles. I guess we shouldn't let them be teachers, etc, right? It's just 'fact-based statistics', right?
...that PEOPLE (irregardless of whether they're black, white, red, yellow, green or purple) are the problem.
Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as black, and whom I shall refer to as black. The cumbersome (and MLK-noncompliant) term “African-American” seems to be in decline, thank goodness. “Colored” and “Negro” are archaisms. What you must call “the ‘N’ word” is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks.
While it's dangerous to make generalizations across an entire section of the population, especially one that is only defined by a superficial characteristic (I imagine that there are quite a few black people who are seriously offended by the use of the word "nigger" even if it is uttered by another black person), it seems to be largely the social norm that the word is OK to use if you're black, and offensive if you're not. That's a bullshit standard, and it bothers me. Either it's OK for everyone, or it's OK for no one.
Also, he's absolutely right about "African-American" being a stupid term that needs to die. Not only does it fail to recognize that many people feel no particular connection to their ancestry, African or otherwise, but it assumes that every person with dark skin is of African descent. I went to college with a (black) dude who was from Jamaica. Should he have been called "African-American", even though he was neither African, nor American? Stupid.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
I'll just leave this here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2e4_1333470460
Picture the following situation: a black neighborhood watch volunteer kills an unarmed white kid. Two white preachers jump into the fray and make loud declarations about the racial nature of the killing.
They would be roasted by the media and the mainstream public as racist nutbags, true?
So, why don't the reverends Sharpton and Jackson get the same treatment?
Not to defend Derbyshire, but, what he said (albeit, in much greater obnoxious detail) isn't all that different from what The Rev. Jesse has noted:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/960318/archive_010008.htm
geek. lawyer.
He got fired because apparently enough people were upset with his views that it threatened to hit the companies bottom line. There is a subtle difference.
We are animals of extinct. If certain people treat us bad, we try to avoid them, and those who treat us nice, we stay around them. It's fear that motivates our judgement.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
I have to second that. There were a lot of problems with gang violence at my highshool. I treated everyone with dignity and respect, and they did the same to me. Only assholes got jumped.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
In short, the authors crime here was to put into words some facts, experiences and opinion that are too taboo for our delicate sensibilities.
Oh, it's much worse than just getting away with an article - we (the western world) allowed a terrorist organisation to take control of a country because we felt bad for what the previous regime had done to blacks in that country.
Yes, I'm talking about the ANC.
Only if you believe that their representation in prison is proportional to their criminality. And if you do believe that, you have some reading to do about the justice system.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
So would you say...around blacks, never relax?
You probably deserved it. I was white kid #20/34 at a predominately black and hispanic high school and I never heard of anyone catching a beatdown for being white/black/hispanic/whatever. If you caught an asswhupping it was mostly for talking shit, or some retarded beef outside of school. I never got real shit for being white outside of some jokes.
Anecdotes are anecdotes.
NPR is "government funded" like oil companies are "government funded". NPR is no BBC.
--
$tar -xvf
I was right there with him until I sensed the twist in the logic right at the end of paragraph 5. Then paragraph 6 took the left turn at Albuquerque and it all when horribly wrong culminating in paragraph 15 identifying "desirable" black people as trophies for powerful/rich white people. At that point I was left open mouthed, not so much at what he said as at the fact he seemed to genuinely believe this was not a racist viewpoint because it was backed up by "facts" of some sort and qualified by "personal experience." Glenn Beck, you've met your match!
Actually, if you want to make broad judgements, there's a much more significant group that makes up nearly all of the prison population. This group is so ill-adjusted, they are over represented in criminal activity by a factor of nearly 20:1. This group, of course, is men.
If you want to keep it real, you ought be a lot more concerned about why men are such fuck-ups before you worry about what color the men are.
Heh, you know what? I'm sat here now thinking "I shouldn't have posted that because now I'm going to get labeled as a racist..."
Funny eh?
disgust so quickly, why then is racism still so prevalent in society?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
The way I look at it, everyone is a minority. It's just a matter of picking some aspect of your heritage which isn't common amongst the population, and boom, you're special.
Except that everyone is special.
So no one is.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Not in equal parts. Like it or not, blacks are far more protected from on-black racism than is ANY other race. Chat with an Asian some time and they'll enlighten you. Or a Middle-Eastern, Southwest-Asian, etc. A black youth in a predominately white school will be ultra-protected by everyone around. So much as breath wrong around them and you'll be labeled an intolerant racist. It's a fact.
I hardly see what's so entertaining about Great Northern Architectural Antiques and what relevance they pose to this article?
The first few are really common sense.
5-9 have more than enough truth to them to make it easy to not look at them hard for inaccuracies.
It's #10 and below where the ignorance starts to shine.
This guy's problems are
1) He is using skin color as a proxy for "person he thinks is unsafe to be around" when there are much better proxies.
2) He is blinded by skin color (or just plain lazy) and is not willing to take the time to really analyze individuals and groups for REAL indicators of character.
Unfortunately, some of the things he says in 11-15 had some truth to them and to a small degree may still have some truth to them. There was an episode of _Good Times_ (an early-1970s sitcom set in a Chicago poor black high-rise) in which the college-bound daughter was grudgingly "accepted" into a highly-sought-after sorority but near the end of the show she realized she was going to be the "token black." However, this person's obvious bigotry makes him a poor spokesperson to champion to accelerate the time when these issues have naturally disappeared.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Not always true. When I lived in California, I wanted to visit Compton don't ask why. Anyway I went into several different areas, hung out at Crenshaw more than once. Not once did anyone start shit.
Racism is everywhere, but I find if you give respect you get respect no matter what color you are.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Government-funded NPR.... yeah, no. It's member-station funded for the large majority, and the member stations are funded to 60% (depending on the station) by listener contributions. Unless you have an axe to grind or are willing to delve into the details of their funding, NPR is listener-funded. As for why he was fired: I'd say he was fired for being a moronic news analyst. Not sure that him being black had anything to do with it, but Fox News definitely got some marketing and PR miles out of it.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
1. NPR receives very little funding from the government. A high estimate would be about 16% for any individual station. By contrast, Catholic Charities USA claims 67% of its funding is through the government.
2. Juan Williams didn't just say something "NPR did not like," he said something incredibly and unapologetically racist. If he had instead said "the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are helping the world and the US in particular because it's stabilizing oil production for US consumption and the count of US soldiers injured and killed is a totally acceptable cost" he probably wouldn't have been fired despite the fact that NPR doesn't usually have people say stuff like that on the air.
3. Juan Williams wasn't just some one-time-guest on Fox, he was consistently an analyst for Fox for three years prior to joining NPR.
Now, if you were to say his conservative views and appearances on Fox News were a factor in his firing, that may hold some merit, but the implication that NPR disagreeing with him was a raw cause is rather inflammatory and not quite accurate.
There is two levels of warnings that parents can give. One is "Don't go to the poor (=black) neighborhoods alone at night" which might be at times unjust generalization but I wouldn't try to crucify anyone for giving that kind of advice. The other level is what this guy wrote... None of the quotes are taken out of context here:
Those aren't necessarily even the most outrageous instructions but there were just so many to choose from...
I recall the government-funded NPR recently fired a black reporter after he made a guest appearance on FOX and said some things NPR did not like. So to answer your question: Yes.
You're referring to Juan Williams, and the remarks he made on Fox had nothing to do with blacks vs. whites. Williams made remarks to the effect that he feared for his safety when he saw someone who looked (to him) like a Muslim board an airplane, and that anyone who wears "Muslim garb" obviously identifies themselves as a Muslim first and an American second (if they are American at all). He was fired because these espoused beliefs were in conflict with his role as an NPR news analyst, where he was regularly called upon to comment on the Middle East conflict, terrorism, immigration, and other issues that concern Muslims and Muslim Americans.
Breakfast served all day!
What's 'G******d'? You've completely lost me there :)
Where do you live, Namibia?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Except it was one line:
"Just keep in mind that while most whites think people are racist, blacks know people are racist."
He (white guy) grew up in a black neighborhood in Detroit during the 1960s.
If the influx has only been happening for the past 10 years, then it's far too early to make those sorts of claims. Unemployment in Ireland has been steadily rising and they're just now starting to implement the types of austerity measures that have tipped Greece into chaos. When economic times get tough and people start losing their jobs, they start to look for people to blame. Foreign immigrants are an easy target.
You may be right that Ireland will be able to escape the rampant racism and ethnic conflicts that usually occur in situations like that when the economy goes south, but I think it's too early to tell how it will pan out.
I recall the government-funded NPR recently fired a black reporter after he made a guest appearance on FOX and said some things NPR did not like. So to answer your question: Yes.
The ideal would be no censorship but of course that doesn't apply to private organizations. They censor things all the time.
Honestly, SHUT UP about "government-funded" already. Combined federal, state and local gov't contributions make up about 5.8% according to their latest figures. The vast majority of their funding comes from individuals, businesses, and universities (amongst others). Your phrasing seems to suggest you think that gov't funding is holding the purse strings... puh-leeze. Would you also say Dunkin' Donuts gov't funded? Or would that be a deliberate misrepresentation of the complete body of facts?
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
There may be no conflict, but that doesn't mean there's no racism. We shouldn't expect the abused to just accept their abuse without complaint so as to avoid conflict.
That was about muslims though.
I can assure you that that stuff gets lots of news coverage in palestine.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I went to the Trayvon Martin March held in the city closest to us. As a white woman, I walked up to the City Hall thinking I'd be on the outside looking in. When I made my leave, I realized that one day, I would have to give my blond-haired, blue-eyed son The Talk--not because he'd be a target for discrimination, but he will no doubt witness acts of racism and discrimination. He will have friends of all races as our once White Bread Town, USA has become much more diverse. I want him to know that I got 'The Talk' from my racist grandmother, someone too stuck in the 30's to understand where the world was going in present-time, and how that was wrong. We talk about the curse we give our kids with religious indoctrination, and that should apply to any views: political, racial, etc.
And if I may add, if given the choice to walk down a dark street with a group of black guys on the left, white boys on the right, I'm hanging a louie. Especially if the white guys are of the frat-boy variety. I've dealt with this first-hand. Walking around on the dangerous North Side of the city I marched in is seen as an incredible risk, but I've never been harassed in doing so. I go there all the time, just for a Puerto Rican bakery, ffs. Walking by a fraternity on a prestigious college campus? They were yards and yards away, and I walked away feeling dirty. From everything I've dealt with in life, 'The Talk' given to black men seems to include more lessons about respect than what the white 'n rich boys get.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Ron Paul gave a speech last year about his very subject (prisons are mostly filled with blacks). He also argued that the Drug Prohibition is mostly targeted against blacks, and therefore it's a racist policy that needs to be ended.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Is this the same John Derbyshire that wrote Prime Obsession? I really liked that book (it's about the Riemann Hypothesis). It would be a shame if the author turns out to be a moron.
Concentrated poverty produces high crime rates. News at 11.
You're doing your statistics wrong. You need to look at proportions of race in the criminal population verses the general popularion, or at the criminal rate per capita for different racial groups.
It's really more complicated than even that. If you just look at the stats alone, they paint a really unflattering picture of blacks - it's only when you control for socioeconomic factors that things get muddier. Black parents have black children, poor (financially) parents have poor children - even some time after the end of segregation, it continues to have lingering demographic effects.
It ends at him expressing beliefs not directly associated with, or contrary to the business paying him. I thought that was pretty clear? Take for example a pro-athlete, who is paid by a professional sports organization, and who has become rich and famous using the brand of that organization. They acquire millions of devoted followers (think twitter) who are almost obsessed with everything that athlete tweets, hundreds of times per week. Now let's say that athlete tweets something extremely offensive to thousands of people. Is that sports organization not supposed to punish the athlete for his/her comments? Should brands continue endorsing? Otherwise wouldn't it show that by continuing to support this athlete, it somehow aligns with the intentions of the company? Never mind if it wasn't published through an official medium such as a team press release. The association is implied.
None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.
The lower IQ is true. But IQ is mostly based on educational opportunity, so it makes the case for better spending on inner city schools.
The rates of criminality is unclear. It could be true, but the evidence is so poor no one really knows. Whites might actually be worse.
And if all you care about is maximizing your short term safety, you are less likely to be killed if you don't go into a neighborhood dominated by the other skin color.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I found this true also. Many of the schools I went to were in the poor neighborhoods. I found that even if I got into a fight it usually ended up with me getting a new friend. Humans being tribal, school is the same, a clique will test you because you are white to see how far, how much you will take, or if you have backbone just like anywhere else. In those schools if you were weak you were a target, didn't matter if you were white black or orange. If you didn't fight back you were picked on, if you did fight back even if you got your ass handed to you by more than 1 person you were usually shown some respect for "stepping up".
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
by Frederick Douglass, a freed slave and prominent statesmen before, during, and after the War Between the States.
"What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us!
Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!
If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall.
And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
As to the reason for the termination of Williams' contract, NPR’s President and CEO Vivian Schiller offered the following comment: "News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts..."
Williams was terminated for the same reason your post should not be modded Informative; he was acting as a pundit and spouting his opinion (which just so happened to be a prime example of xenophobic hysteria) while misrepresenting himself to be a credible news analyst.
While hyperbole might make for good TV and Slashdot posts, it's not really appropriate for someone whose job is to report factual information.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Only because the Irish are too busy drinking and fighting to notice the influx.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Segregation also perpetuates these myths. A black child not exposed to white children will not know how to act when exposed, vice versa for while children not exposed to black children. When you realize a man is a man regardless the color of his skin and deserves to be treated like a human with respect, you will go a lot further.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
It is probably the beer.
Derb pointed out that a lot of "scientists" think there is such a thing as some inherent (unchangeable through education), one-dimensional quantity intelligence, that intelligence can be well-measured by a written test which shows differences between populations that can only be explained by racial group membership (even though most black people have numerous white ancestors, and many white people have some black ancestors). These "scientists" also think the effects of being completely dispossessed, cut off from your history and forced into uncompensated labor with no legal rights for hundreds of years should be gone by now, since the parents of today's black youth could vote as adults, and their parents and grandparents were not literally slaves (even though they lived under a constant threat of terrorist violence and were denied permission to attempt to join high status jobs to bring themselves out of poverty and couldn't live outside the black neighborhood, where much of the property was nonetheless owned by white people).
Yeah, the truth is racist. Derb wants to perpetuate the status quo; some of us think it's shitty and want to change it.
In the interest of completeness it should be pointed out that one of the kids instructed his buddies to "take him [the victim] down," at which point the victim told them to "Remember Trayvon." It was after that they the beating started and one of the kids reportedly said "this is for Trayvon." The article at the Daily Mail states that the police don't know if the attack was racially motivated or if they interpreted "Remember Trayvon" as a racist remark. So to suggest that this was some kind of reverse lynch mob is a bit of a stretch, which of course does not prevent the Daily Mail from labeling it a 'twisted racial revenge' attack.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126003/Trayvon-Martin-case-6-youths-beat-man-78-twisted-racial-revenge-attack.html
We are animals of extinct.
That may be the most appropriate typo ever.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Honestly, SHUT UP about "government-funded" already.
This.
If NPR were truly "government funded," they wouldn't be be running ads for oil and pharmaceutical companies.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Bingo. When talking heads prattle on about "post-racial America," they unwittingly raise the specter of classism in America, and therefore come perilously close to talking about class struggle. Class struggle is far more taboo than racism. Far, far more. We pretend it doesn't exist because if it does then all sorts of left wing contentions are automatically validated. In America, that is implicitly forbidden. That would be tantamount to validating Marxism.
+1
Pretty much went through the same thing.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
And white men make up the vast, vast majority of serial killers and pedophiles. I guess we shouldn't let them be teachers, etc, right? It's just 'fact-based statistics', right?
Right about the serial killers but wrong about the paedophiles.
My thought on things like this and all the people who love to quote things likes prison statistics and IQ scores is that there are always some pretty huge leaps being made from correlation to causation. The important thing to do whenever you see a correlation is to check for other close, related correlations that might provide additional insight into the statistics you are examining.
With the black population, the big blinking correlation that racists like to ignore is to poverty. Blacks are overwhelmingly poor, and given the power of generational wealth in this country, there is every reason to believe that hundreds of years of slavery and racism have contributed a great deal to their poverty. They, like other poor people, score lower on IQ tests and commit more violent crimes. Practically any other remarkable statistic about the black population can be explained by historical racism leading to current poverty.
I submit that most practical benefit people think they are getting from their racism is purely accidental. They are inadvertently using skin color to screen people by economic status. How sure are you that you wouldn't have also your ass kicked if you had instead transplanted into an impoverished, rural, predominantly white school for being the rich, suburban white kid? Think back on all of your past experiences that you believe vindicate your racism. Do you believe that poor white people wouldn't have been capable of the same?
Oh! I thought you were talking about Obama/Sarkozy's assisting Al-queda take over Libya.
Citation or it didn't happen.
I was certain he was referring to Reagan/Bush selling missiles to Iran, funding the Contras, paying terrorists to hold Marines hostage, setting up the original Al Qaeda training camps, and so on, and so forth.
What's that? You were just looking for an opportunity to blatantly bash 'liberals,' as if neocons aren't guilty of the same (or worse) crimes?
Well, color me "surprised."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
NPR gets about 15% of its funding from Government (directly AND through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is 100% federal funds).
Add to this another 14% from universities (which are mostly disguised federal and state pass-thru money).
The bulk of their funding is from individuals and businesses, and foundations. Foundations and Businesses amount to another 28%, all of
which is a write for the foundation or business, so more money out of the federal pocket.
The individual category is 34% and there is no real way to tell how much of that is a tax write off as well.
So roughly 58% of NPRs budget is from the Government, either directly, or by tax write off which has the same effect on government.
(Totally disregarding the fact that NPR is tax exempt which eliminates corporate taxes which amount to about 34% of income according to Wikipedia).
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
If a black scholar wrote an article on how to keep the white man's hands out of your pockets, would they also get fired?
I don't know if they'd get fired, but I'd be interested in reading the article. Between the bailouts and the wars, white men have quite a few hands in my pockets.
"(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway." Does this mean I should stop for a white/mexican/asian gangbanger, mommy? Common sense = Stay out of neighborhoods of which you're not a part of, or obviously do not fit in for one reason or another. (If common sense need be explained, God be with you) Edit: (10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to *shady characters* in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway. or (10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to anyone in apparent distress, e.g., you're a paranoid skeptic of humanity.
Apparently, "taking it badly" is historically a metaphor for "hanging from a tree, lynched in the middle of the night", or "rounded up into camps and systematically killed".
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Your false situation is total garbage, though because it would NEVER happen. There would never have been the need for public outcry because the black neighborhood watch guy would have undoubtedly been arrested and an actual investigation, arrest would have been made and charges would have been filed.
We are animals of extinct.
Gotta love it when the typo is far more profound than the actual thought a person is attempting to express.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Because everyone already knows they are racist nutbags.
your hypothetical white preachers are unknown, thus will be villified.
really that simple. better analogy:
Picture the following situation: a black neighborhood watch volunteer kills an unarmed white kid. Two white public clansmen jump into the fray and make loud declarations about the racial nature of the killing.
I realize this is on the verge of godwinning a thread, but there you go, it's (IMHO) closer to reality.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
You may be right that Ireland will be able to escape the rampant racism and ethnic conflicts that usually occur in situations like that when the economy goes south
My money says he's about as wrong as one could possibly be.....
If a black scholar wrote an article on how to keep the white man's hands out of your pockets, would they also get fired?
No. We already see it every day. Its socially acceptable. Blacks can be racist until the cows come home. If a white person says or does anything which is perceived to be racist, even when its not (such as the bullshit surrounding this entire story), then someone needs to pay for it.
If you have an example of the otherwise, it is, by far, the minority rather than the rule, and you can damn well sure its its for political reasons (likely completely out of sight) rather than a simple question of morality and/or ethics.
You don't know much about the South if you think Central Florida is part of it.
This is pretty much Citzenship 101 -- you are free to say whatever the hell crazy bullshit you want. The government will not arrest you or hold you hostage for your views.
I, however, as an individual citizen can hate you for what you say. I can exile you from my home, my office and my life. That is my freedom, I can choose not to associate with you, and I can choose not to allow your crazy into the places I control. I cannot, however, call a cop and have you thrown out of the public park where your ranting is bothering me.
See the difference?
-GiH
The white preachers wouldn't need to jump into the fray because the black volunteer would have been arrested.
I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
You know you're attacking the victim, right? And making generalizations about him? And notice how he didn't agree with his father and moved out over it, and yet you're claiming he towed the line? Nice.
Fact: Racism cuts both ways.
>>>NPR is "government funded" like oil companies are "government funded".
Really? The oil companies get billions-of-dollars in U.S. Treasury checks like NPR and PBS do? Hmmmm. I. Did not. Know that. (Probably because your statement is false.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
It may not be by your nightly news. But Sharpton and Jackson are accused of being racist nutbags all the time. Read their Wiki articles, it gets mentioned. Google their names and racism, you'll find a lot of it.
Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
Then again, in America minorities don't launch rockets into gated communities and then hide among innocent civilians, protected by a corrupt terrorist regime wielding the seat of government.
Not saying any given situation is right, just that your correlation is BS.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
You're again missing the problem entirely. Everyone is aware that there a nutjobs out there who will shoot someone if they thing someone is looking at them funny. The real problem is that in the real-world, the police didn't bother to do anything but to take the shooter at his word that it was self-defense. You can bet your sorry ass that if a black watch volunteer would have killed a white kid, he would have been in prison post-haste.
That's the difference, and that's why all your attempts at moral equivocation are absolutely laughable: in the words of Token Black, "You just don't get it."
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Yehp. And the entire concept of modding down is to say "this message isn't worth the space on my screen."
I did room addition jobs in Compton (and other SC areas, from Beverly Hills to Anaheim) back about 1981. I never had any bad incidents there either.
Possibly not. In Bristol, UK, there was a City Councillor (herself of African descent, and oddly, spending most of her time in Florida) who accused another councillor of being a "coconut", which is a racist slur meaning someone who is "black/brown on the outside, and white on the inside". This happened in session (on the official public record). After having several firings of caucasians over implicit racist slurs, this one was practically ignored. It took a big backlash in the public to get the politicians to even begin an investigation. The councillor herself stated "I can't be racist, because I'm black.".
In the end, she got a slap on the wrist.
Yes, racism does cut both ways. However, by and large, you don't get to claim racism unless your skin is non-white.
Studies confirm that there is a general racial bias in everyone (succinctly put in Avenue Q's "Everyone's a little bit Racist"). However, being adults, we should pretty much be trying to accept that we're flawed individuals, and get on with making everyone's life a bit better as long as they live up to society's expectations (if you're arrogant, violent and antisocial, don't expect people to like you whatever the colour of your skin).
In the article, there are some actual truths. Basically, in any given social segment of any size, you'll meet all kinds of people. Nice and nasty and everything in between. Treat people as people, because that's who they are.
NPR claims to get a tiny amount of money from the government. But every time Congress talks about cutting their budget NPR claims it would put them out of business.
Which is it? Well, it depends on how you define "government funded". Basically, NPR plays a shell game to launder most of the money they get (indirectly) from the government.The donations from listeners go back to NPR to make it look like they're funded from that source, then the local stations and producers of NPR content get government funding to replace it, which NPR keeps off their books. It's a Byzantine accounting system that obfuscates where money is really being used.
The fact is that rape is a double edge sword. It takes one person to force sex on someone and another person to resist. Without the resisting, there's no rape.
(standing, applauding)
Picture the following situation: a black neighborhood watch volunteer kills an unarmed white kid. Two white preachers jump into the fray and make loud declarations about the racial nature of the killing.
In your situation, the black man is likely arrested on sight, charged with voluntary manslaughter or worse in a matter of days, and held without bail. Nobody outside of the local media would even notice; It's a tragic death, but nobody is outraged since a black man is in jail for murder and that's not news in this country.
Having grown up in Detroit, I know very well the perils of being the wrong race in the wrong area. I have been the victim, and know many people who were also victims of simply being white in the wrong neighborhood (car broke down, made a wrong turn down the wrong block, etc...). A real problem is, that you can't talk about that problem (racism against whites) without being declared a racist. Minorities that have been the victims of legal racism seem to want retribution much more than equality?
Now with that said, I read through the article. Some statements match the way things are, street wise, for a guy that grew up in a city that is largely anti-white. Other statements seem to be something from a Klan rally. I can see why he was canned and why there was backlash.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Not really. They get quite a lot of subsidies for all sorts of crazy things. This produces some pretty crazy behaviors, but that is a subject for another article.
It's still stupid to be racist.
Absolutely everything is racist. Even people who don't actually hate [INSERT RACE HERE] are racist. Their thoughts are not their own, you see.
I would hypothesize that it takes about 12-16 years for race to become a problem. The first generation immigrants are most likely still regarded as "outsiders". Racism will be limited to talking behind their backs and hoping they go away while not letting them into your clubs. The 1.5 and second generation immigrants, however, grow up in the same schools as your kids and threaten to date your girls and want to be let into your colleges. They have proven they will not just "go away" and thus are a threat to your "good, wholesome" children. I wonder if anyone's done a study on this.
So yeah, I can see how it'd take a few years for anti-immigrant racism to bubble up.
(Note: I do no /agree/ with any of the racist thinking I've hypothesized here -- I just think that racist assholes could think like that.)
The world != the United States.
If we are collecting personal anecdotes, I would like to talk about my experience in Benin, West African country between Nigeria and Togo. Benin used to be one of the most important sources of black slaves, so I guess (I'm not an expert) that many African Americans have roots there.
I was there for a month doing volunteer work and travelling, part of it on my own. Often I would look in every direction and I would be the only white person in sight. And everyone could recognize that I was a foreigner from a mile away. Never had any problem or was harassed by anyone (besides a guy trying to sell me sunglasses), and I received a lot of kindness and honest interest from locals. Well, once a woman started shouting at me because I took a picture in her direction (I did not realize she was there), which I know well it is very offensive in their culture.
So don't talk about how blacks hate whites and viceversa. The racial conflict in the US is the product of US history.
Yeah. You know the old Redd Foxx line, "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing."? The author or his kids are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals after having gotten their asses kicked by some rednecks, trailer trash, or chavs (depending on where you are.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I believe the quote from Juan Williams you're looking for is the following:
Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.
It may be a bit pedantic, but that statement is definitely not racist. You can argue it's bigoted, but I wouldn't say it's racist at all. Muslim is not a race, and if you take his statement at face value, it's not even Muslims that make him nervous. Only Muslims that choose to wear Muslim garb on a plane. Not to mention that saying he gets worried and nervous doesn't seem to me as if it should be very controversial at all. Even the claim about identifying primarily as Muslims is still just presented as what's going through his mind when he sees them.
I'll admit to not having the whole context around the statement, but from what I see he never claimed any of those thoughts were fair to the person in question. It speaks of an instinctive response that could speak as much of the culture of country and the nature of what our mass media exposes us to that it would have become an instinctive reaction. Nor is such a statement without merit in discussion.
If that sort of reaction is normal, perhaps we need to rethink how the topic is presented in the media. Or maybe that information would actually be appreciated by Muslims who might not even have considered how their choice of clothing could influence people's first impression of them. They would still have the right to choose to wear that garb, but perhaps for some of them, it isn't important and they want to avoid it. Regardless, I think discussion of this level should be encouraged rather than squelched.
Except that you are conflating "racial prejudice" with "racism," and they are not at all the same thing.
Or did I miss the part where there is a centuries-old system in place of deploying political oppression, police violence, cultural bias, distorted judicial and criminal codes, etc etc ad nauseum to secure and promote black privilege? Because that's what it would take for "reverse racism" to be anything but the rantings of bitter racists angry about being called out for their racist bullshit. Your boss explicitly discriminates against you in promotion and pay decisions because you're white? Fine, your boss is racially prejudiced. But don't be a moron and think that somehow makes you the victim of a vast structure of racism equivalent to the one - of which you are the beneficiary - that establishes and enforces white privilege. Doing so makes you complicit in racism, and thus a racist yourself.
Sorry, but "I went to a predominantly black school and totally got jumped all the time so my racist dad was definitely right about Teh Blax" is not sufficient cover for you to promote white privilege like it's some kind of clear-eyed meritocratic realism.
8 million dollars from the U.S. and Member State governments sounds like more than nothing.
And yes I know Juan said something racist (though I don't remember what). That's why I used it as an example of how a black reporter can get fired too. Though I don't think he should have been:
"I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." So do I. I also get nervous around big burly rednecks. And motorcyclists with knives hanging off their belts. And police men. And.....
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I have a feeling you may have been victimized because of your choice of dress. Who wears shirt and tie to a soccer game?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Having some sort of talk about the realities of racism is a sad necessity for many parts of the US, but that is a separate thing entirely from this guy's List. This is simply an example of a sheltered man who does not know enough to realize he is projecting his personal frustrations onto an entire race, and instead thinks they are somehow rational or justified. Some gems are:
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”
(13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.
(15) Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous. To be an IWSB in present-day US society is a height of felicity rarely before attained by any group of human beings in history. Try to curb your envy: it will be taken as prejudice (see paragraph 13).
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
I'm just curious, in your world does getting killed because of the color of your skin count as part of "take it badly"? Or is that not racism?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Churches:
Funds from Government? No.
Funds from CPB? No.
Funds from Universities: No.
Tax exempt? Not always, but mostly.
Your Troll? Fail.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I don't know which is sadder, that you're so ashamed of your own heritage or that there is so little memory of actual Irish culture amongst Irish Americans. The national motto is céad míle fáilte, a hundred thousand welcomes, and it holds as true today as ever, despite history, or perhaps because of it. Much has been lost. Northern Ireland is a completely different story mind you, it really is a different culture completely, for reasons I won't go into here.
Whites are not the minority.
Blacks are a minority and there is a long history or racism against them, especially in the south.
Racism is just as bad -- and inexcusable -- when a minority does it.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
That's a good point, and actually the clothes are probably more important than the color of the skin, just think about meeting a black guy dressed with a Hugo Boss suit somewhere in downtown and meeting in a bad part of town a white dude with tattoos and pants that hangs down... yes, don't deny it, you are probably going to pre-judge them, but which one are you going to be afraid of?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
As reported in National Review
"Anyone who has read Derb in our pages knows he’s a deeply literate, funny, and incisive writer. I direct anyone who doubts his talents to his delightful first novel, “Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream,” or any one of his “Straggler” columns in the books section of NR. Derb is also maddening, outrageous, cranky, and provocative. His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295514/parting-ways-rich-lowry
>>>NPR is "government funded" like oil companies are "government funded".
Really? The oil companies get billions-of-dollars in U.S. Treasury checks like NPR and PBS do? Hmmmm. I. Did not. Know that. (Probably because your statement is false.)
Neither receive billions in U.S. Treasury checks. In "total compensation", including tax breaks and indirect funding, NPR receives a greater percentage of its revenue from the Government than the oil industry, but much, much less in total dollars. NPR's total budget last year was about $200M, so it's really an apple-and-oranges comparison, though.
Of course, you're probably thinking NPR includes PBS, PRI, APT, APM, and PRX, or even CPB which it doesn't. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is actually where the Government money goes directly to be redistributed to the other entities, had a budget of around $420M.
So I'm sure they'd very much welcome a Treasury check of billions, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.
E pluribus unum
The economy has been going south for half of those ten years, believe me if it was going to happen it would have happened.
To Be Discreet when you give The Talk. Everyone has some version. I've read the Final Call and am not offended even by the Farrakhan outlook!
It's taboo to note that (some) racist choices can be beneficial to the person making them.
Consider White Flight from Detroit. It was an unequivocally wise choice to bolt for the burbs. Staying would have been irrational. If we are "all interchangeable" then one group bolting for the exits shouldn't make a difference.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
or by tax write off which has the same effect on government.
This is such a specious argument. I get a standardized deduction for being alive and a citizen. Therefore the Federal Government is sponsoring everything I buy. After all, the U.S. Gov't could have elected to take that money from me. Ergo, every purchase I make is gov't spending. Apparently, the U.S. Gov't has a penchant for fine cheese, cigars, and port. I knew it! Those guys spend our money on the most wasteful things.
-GiH
Actually...no.
Those exact types of talks are a large part of the seminars they hold annually down here in New Orleans for the Essence Festival they have here every summer.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
that blacks have lower median IQ than whites (true),
By about 4 points, with 90% of the black and white populations being in the same range.
higher rates of criminality than whites (true),
Or, at least, higher prison sentencing rates in the USA. Whether that correlates to committing more crimes is debatable.
and that you shouldn't go into black neighbourhoods (duh).
You don't go into poor neighbourhoods in a lot of cities. There is quite a significant overlap between poor and black in much of the USA.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
As if the north ever produced any architecture worth remembering, much less building an antiquing organization around.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Er, that was my point. None of those were in Ireland. And they aren't going to be.
Instances of black on white crime are obviously common as is the reverse. But as far as severe racist reactions we do not have a history of black folks taking over the town and lynching whites. those dramatic instances of white racism impose a certain penalty upon whites as well it should. However this latest killing may have nothing to do with race at all. The shooter probably would have shot a white youth just as quickly as he did the black youngster. I will say that while watching riots in California a few years ago I thought that far too little defensive gunfire took place. We all saw the Korean merchants go to the roofs of their businesses letting everyone know that if looting or burning was attempted they would open fire. Often in a riot situation the faster there is a violent response the less violence will take place. Too many uninvolved parties were injured and the police did the worst thing possible. The police should have a legal compulsion to use as much violence on the spot as it takes to put down real riots. Anyone remember the young white truck driver being beaten with bricks and concrete? That never should have happened.
(Never mind that the killer was actually hispanic; not part of the white majority. News orgs like NBC have twisted the story.)
Every questionnaire I have ever filled out classed Hispanics as white. You sayin' they're not? It's not clear that "Hispanic" is the right term for Zimmerman in any case, his mom was Peruvian but nobody has described his dad as "Hispanic". The police report described Zimmerman as "white". So who's twisting the story?
Not that it really matters. Hispanics can be just as bigoted as (other) whites or any other group. If you think that American minorities all get along, you must live somewhere where there aren't any.
At least it does for me. Look, I grew up in a small isolated town of 3000 or so. All white population. Very little overt prejudice against anyone of another race. It just didn't come up. OK, I grow up, go to college, then move to a large (1 million +) city. Since I'm fresh out of college, I live in a poor black neighborhood where I'm threatened at bus stops, had my car torched, had bottles thrown at me and been mugged. 7 incidents of that nature in 7 years there. 6 out of those 7 incidents involved a black person.
So, I wasn't raised to hate anyone. Before I got to the city, I wasn't scared on anyone based on race. After 7 years, however, I had developed a finely tuned paranoia regarding young black men. I avoided them on the subway, bus and especially bus stops. I would cross the street to avoid crowds of them. Each incident (other than the white panhandler who tried to beat me with an umbrella and caused me to start avoiding street people) made that fear a little worse.
Is that fair or rational? No. There were plenty of exceptions, and plenty of decent, friendly black people too, but the little reptile in the back of my brain doesn't work that way. He's all about survival and he frightens easily. He's got nothing else to go on but appearance, and black skin with "African" facial features in a bad neighborhood is a "be scared" signal. And this little reptile in my head, he's got a great memory, but he's not under my conscious control.
As long as there's no fear, I have no problem when I go to lunch with black male co-workers, but then, we're not in a bad neighborhood, my co-workers are all smart, well educated and funny, and while at least one of them could take me apart with one arm, he is as about as threatening as the average teddy bear.
Some people on both sides need "the talk" to be scared. Others of us come by it quite by accident. Sad, but true.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
After all, isn't NPR pretty much government funded? Sounds a little like stifling a political point of view on a govt. funded radio/tv show?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You're using the wrong statistic. You should be giving the odds of someone being arrested given that they're male (1,352 per 100,000) vs. them being arrested given that they're female (126 per 100,000).
Also of note, white male arrest rate (1,775 per 100,000) vs. black male arrest rate (4,347 per 100,000).
Well... looks like the difference is still much greater between men and women, than it is between white and black. As a half-black man, I still wouldn't want to live there, though.
Source
I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
Now let's say that athlete tweets something extremely offensive to thousands of people. Is that sports organization not supposed to punish the athlete for his/her comments? Should brands continue endorsing?
This is exactly what happened to Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall. In the days following Osama bin Laden's death, Mendenhall tweeted some misbegotten thoughts that could be interpreted as sympathetic to bin Laden (personally, not as leader of al Qaeda). He tried to explain himself, but just dug the hole deeper, until Champion dropped him as an endorser. The Steelers tend to keep their discipline for stuff like this out of the papers, but it's worth mentioning that Mendenhall hasn't tweeted since last season's training camp started.
This sig intentionally left blank.
> So to answer your question: Yes.
You do capture the reality correctly. But should it be? An opinion writer fired for expressing an opinion.... at a completely different forum that the one doing the firing? Juan Williams fired from NPR for saying something on FNS or Derb fired from NR for writing something at Taki. I can totally understand when NR fired Ann Coulter for her 9/12 column since it was published on NR. But really, this fire at the first politically incorrect thought has to stop. Of course it only works one way. Lefties get away with saying the most vile things and if the stink is really bad they issue an apology and move on.
Funny thing, every few months some lefty (like the POTUS or AG Holder, etc) issues a call for a 'frank discussion of race' or some such, or calls white people 'cowards' for refusing to have a 'dialog on race' yet the second somebody actually takes them serious and issues a response to some of their race baiting (as Derb was doing btw.) the trap is sprung; they are branded a 'racist' and expunged from polite society. Meanwhile Rev. Sharpton incites riots that actually KILL PEOPLE, launches race baiting hoaxes and is using his perch as an MSNBC host to attempt to incite mass riots and nobody is saying a damned word... and if he succeeds will almost certainly go unprosecuted. It is the imbalance that is objectionable. Were Rev. Al as unwelcome in polite society as David Duke we would be making progress toward a color blind society.
But now lemme add a few notes here. Defending Derb's (or Juan Williams) right to say what he said doesn't imply I agree with it. On the other had I do agree with everything Ann Coulter wrote on 9/12, especially in light of her personally losing a close friend the day before. And on the gripping hand agree NR had to sack her, that wasn't the sort of thing that NR does. Such is life. Especially didn't like Derb's bits about IQ since that is underdetermined at best.
Intelligence testing was at about the level of phrenelogy when all serious inquiry was halted by political correctness from the 'rational, scientific progressives' as CrimeThink of the first order. So we can't say anything of value on the subject because it is forbidden to even ask those sort of questions. I believe it is obvious that progressives believe blacks are inferior, both when they were mostly overt racists themselves (look it up people, it IS) and now when they design policies based on an assumption black people are incapable of making it without the constant assistance of white limousine liberals. But that is more likely a defect on the progressives part than anythng connected to reality. At any rate the whole American experiment depends upon "All men are created equal..." so any system that requires treating people differently based on things like race, color, gender, etc. should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. (Can't be entirely because some corner cases simply can't be handwaved away, especially gender. But for most practical purposes it can be abstracted away and should.)
Democrat delenda est
Because women aren't held responsible for their actions most of the time.
You don't know much about the South if you think Central Florida is part of it.
You don't know much about Florida if you think it isn't a deeply racist region.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Maybe, maybe not. I've never been to LA, and wouldn't volunteer for this without getting a feel for the place, but a lot of dangerous places aren't as dangerous if you're passing through and not involved in any of the local disputes. If I didn't go, it would be because it wasn't safe for me. Not because the people had a different colour skin. I'd react the same way to any place that wasn't safe.
No silly he meant the "Greater Nashville Apartment Association" http://www.nashvilleaptasn.org/
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I'd venture to guess, that MANY people that are non-muslims feel that same tinge of fear or apprehension when they see someone get on a plane with "muslim garb".
I know I do....just natural these days, especially when this statement was made by Juan not that long after 9/11. I think it was just a few years after 2011 wasn't it?
But on a larger scale...call it racist or what...but there are stereotypes for reasons. They weren't just made out out of the clear blue sky.
Me? Sure, if I'm walking a street alone (especially in New Orleans) and I see some black teen males walking behind me or coming near me...I keep a very wary eye out on them, and often will cross to the other side of the road and keep an eye out for my options to get to safety in case of a mugging.
Why?
Well,young black teens commit an overwhelming amount of muggings down here. They are often caught on the cameras wearing gang-banger clothes. If I see that, I naturally am apprehensive.
If said young black men, were wearing suits, or dressed in a more normal, non-threatening middle class manner, no...I'd not likely be worried for my safety.
Racist? I dunno....I think it is more like knowing the dangers that can occur around you and being aware of the situation.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Tax exemption IS government funding.
I have no idea what kind of justification can be given to this, other than "we are Christian country!!!".
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Try wikipedia on npr funding. Seems that "pretty much government funded" is 11.3%. So no.
You're a fuckface, but you remind me of something interesting I read in National Geographic a couple years ago. The basic idea was that sub-Saharan Africa is oriented North-South, while Eurasia is largely East-West. Since a crop from one area can generally be adapted to grow in another area, the possible range of a given plant is a latitudinal strip. Without agriculture, it's difficult to have a city. This reality made it more difficult to urbanize in Africa, and urbanization leads to specialization and real economic development, so, yeah, LAND MASSES can actually have a very big impact on overall levels of economic development.
Of course, centuries of slavery and legal inequality can also have a small effect on a population.
I have lived all over the US and in parts of Asia, in varying class-dominated areas. In some areas, regardless of what race is the majority, yes there is a danger. But in some areas you are in danger of being robbed, arrested, or even beat up... in the poor black areas, you are in danger of being shot. Yes I know that isn't PC, that it's stereotypical, and it's based on my anecdotal experiences (of having several people I know shot, most fatally, and seeing several strangers shot) etc. but, oh well. I'm going to teach my children whatever I think they need to know to stay safe.
Tax write-offs are not revenue. The oil industry does not receive "revenue" from the government. They receive tax breaks, incentives, deductions, and such based on them spending, or investing, earned revenue on research, development, and expansion. They're basically reducing tax payments on revenue today to ensure a continued flow of revenues (and taxes on revenues) 10 or 20 years down the road.
I'll take that bet.
Actually, I think that depends on the park and the ranting. There are laws about "disturbing the peace", so you're not allowed to take a PA system and go blast your rhetoric wherever you want, whenever you want. Going into a residential area at 2AM and yelling about anything on a street corner is going to get you arrested for disturbing the peace, for instance (or at least, told to leave or else get arrested).
Around here (Phoenix, AZ), I never see anyone ranting in public parks, so I really wonder if they don't have laws against it. I do see them ranting, with PA systems, in places like on Mill Ave. during the evenings or weekends (usually about fundie Christian stuff).
Personally, I'd prefer more laws against this kind of thing. If they want to talk publicly or hand out pamphlets, that's OK, but the amplified PA systems should be banned. The revolutionaries who started our country, like Patrick Henry, certainly didn't have PA systems to deafen passersby with, and were quite effective in getting their message out.
You're not examining his argument closely, as it is perfectly valid. For GGP's analysis to be correct, we have to count every dollar donated to an organization that results in a tax exemption as money coming directly from the taxpayer. Since Church donations are usually all written off, every church (and nonprofit for that matter) would then be 100% government funded.
The obvious hole is that tax exemptions for donations are almost always smaller than the donation itself (NPR included) so neither churches nor NPR are government funded, but that's exactly the point.
I grew up in neighborhoods and went to schools where whites were in the minority. I'd venture to say they numbered no more than 15% and this is including European immigrants. Otherwise racial makeup was predominantly Latino and Black, with Latinos being in the majority. I was in high school before I had my first white friend, meaning her parents were not immigrants.
From recollection I'd say maybe twice I ran into problems because I was white. Kids throwing around racial slurs was relatively common, especially during fights. I don't think white kids would venture to do so, however. From a very early age we were all taught about multiculturalism. Of course, the emphasis was always on not offending minorities. So it led to a situation where minorities, especially black kids were more comfortable with poking fun at someone's race. The most common target was Asians; the way they spoke, the fact that they were so studious, etc.
But generally, I think I had a very good experience throughout my childhood and through my teenage years. Everyone got a long reasonably well and there was generally enough of a mix that people barely noticed race. This is not to say that ethnic groups didn't stick together but in that environment everyone was forced to mingle.
Having experienced that and seen how it is in big cities like New York, I tend to think that racial instability in America tends to be overblown. I'm routinely shocked to hear how European family members speak of immigrants. Or to hear how migrant workers are treated in Asia. But then it's easy to get away with it in a country with a single dominant ethnic group.
This is not say there aren't problems. I've seen more problems in adulthood. Run through the wrong neighborhood and chances are some idiot will heckle because you're a white guy out for a jog. It's crazy the way some people lash out at anything they perceive as different.
I have little sympathy for kids who get into trouble. Having lived in this environment I was exposed to the problems of lower income neighborhoods. The problems have nothing to do with race and everything to do with upbringing, or lack thereof. There were kids who lived in these bad neighborhoods who were able to thrive even with parents who worked long hours. The consistent positive reinforcements were strong familial relationships and parents who disciplined and expected good performance in school.
The ones who weren't raised properly all too often end up ruining things for everyone. It's sad Trayvon Martin. But where's the outrage over all the murders happening every day. What about other crime? Or just plain vandalism. You can't leave out anything nice because it will get trashed by some asshole. There's too much of a lack of respect in this country. Of course it's hard to understand how much of a problem there is out there when you live in a safe little upscale neighborhood and only frequent trendy hotspots.
When I was a kid, I did get my ass kicked once for not being black; not at my school, but in my neighborhood. I wasn't an asshole then, I'd had no previous interaction with the people that beat me up, I was just a kid going to the playground.
Whilst I don't approve of the attitude, I have to wonder if the PC mindset has taken this too far. I like to believe that I'm anti-racist but some of his comments made some sense and the reaction to the article seems overly PC. My basic rules are understand why generalisations exist however don't subscribe to them and it seems to me that Derbyshire has made roughly the same point without clarifying his ideas correctly. In essence, don't be racist, but be prepared to be 'personist'.
You guys, he had STATISTICS. You'll be sorry you got him fired.
I doubt he'll have trouble finding a new job. He's a conservative, so he can always find work at one of the other money-losing conservative magazines. (We liberals call it wingnut welfare.)
> NPR is "government funded" like oil companies are "government funded". NPR is no BBC.
Ok, then lets remove their government funding. If they don't really need it and the govenment is broke, here is a budget cut we should all be able to agree on. Removing the stigma of government funding would free them from accusations of being the government's mouthpiece. Seriously, is the fraction of NPR's funding that comes from the government SO important that we should be borrowing it from China? That is the question we should be asking on every single line item of the Federal Budget until it lower the deficit to a point where can at least finance it by mostly internal borrowing.
Democrat delenda est
Everyone is friends when lots of drinking is involved....
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Geez...too bad we don't have the white equivalent of Al Sharpton to get to out on TV and stir up people against this instance of a hate crime....
Heck, why haven't members of the New Black Panthers been arrested yet, for putting a bounty on the head of the man who was involved with the Trayvon killing? Do we allow lynch mobs now, if they lynchers are black?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
> Juan Williams didn't just say something "NPR did not like," he said something incredibly and unapologetically racist.
Except of course he did nothing of the sort, which is why when the smoke cleared the person who fired Juan was also looking for work.
Democrat delenda est
Like a lot of these types of things, it's really a CLASS issue, not a race issue.
Actually, I disagree. The problem isn't class OR race, but rather culture. "Tribal" can be cultural as well as racial or geographic, and sometimes more so.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
It required a World War complete with several tens of millions of dead people for Europe and Asia to outgrow that "we must not let our sacred pure blood be diluted by lesser races" horseshit.
You got your causes and effects backwards. What did WW2 "cure" us of, exactly? Humans are the same as we've always been. If anything world wars are a naturally occurring event that happens when racial and cultural hatreds across the globe built up to the breaking point. 70-80 years (3 generations) is about the right length of time.
So yeah, pretty much WW3 in 3 ... 2 ...
Have you thought of getting an Atlas? Maybe just browsing google maps?
Here's a helpful starting point: http://maps.google.com/?q=Ireland
Now find Tottenham and Paris and be surprised that they aren't in the bit of the map we know as Ireland.
Only assholes got jumped.
That's like living in Detroit and saying "Hey, my house was never burglarized, so this town's bad rap is undeserved". Just because you were lucky doesn't change the stats.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I agree: the "racism" label is thrown around all too often. Take anyone wearing Muslim garb, and put them in American-style street clothes. Do you think anyone will be able to tell them apart from any other random American? Probably not. They'll either look like a regular black person (if they're one of the black or African muslims), or they'll look like a typical white person, albeit with a more olive complexion (if they're a middle eastern muslim). The latter will look no different from someone with Italian or Greek ancestry. And the Iranian muslims look mostly like lily-white people. Don't forget the muslims from Pakistan; they look no different from the Hindus from India. And the muslims from Indonesia look rather different from most of the above.
Islam is a religion, not a race. Not everyone from the middle east is a muslim, and most muslims aren't from the middle east.
As for the muslim garb, I'm not sure they think they have a choice in wearing it. But most muslims, worldwide, don't, it's only the ones from certain places. Basically, it's very similar to the Amish: they're Christian, and they have a certain way they're required to dress, according to their religion. But 99.99% of Christians are not Amish, and don't dress anything like that, or have any dress requirements. Of course, unlike the Amish, the muslims who apparently follow whatever more fundamentalist sect that requires specific garb seem to be a much larger percentage of the whole of Islam, plus they appear to be (for some odd reason) far, far more numerous here in the USA than the others, who mostly seem to stick to their home countries (Pakistan, India, Indonesia, etc.). I've been seeing a lot more of these muslims here in the last 10 years, though I really don't understand why: they're so rigid in their beliefs, believe that society should be under Sharia Law, hate it when their children become "too westernized", etc., but then they move here in droves. Why don't they just stay where they are, in countries where the government is Islamic? Logically, they should be much happier there.
However, almost any attack by a white person upon a non-white is happily referred to as a racist attack, even when there's no evidence of that.
What you seem to be epousing is "If a person decides that something someone else says means a particular thing, then that must be the intent".
This is very wrong. When you attempt to infer intent from what someone says, you need to be pretty careful to try and get the real meaning (everyday language is notoriously bad for passing very precise meaning). It's not acceptable to beat on someone because you decide that what they've said is derogatory towards yourself when it's not (and the intent never was). If they interpreted "remember Trayvon" as a racist remark, that's because it's their first instinct, or they expect a white person to intend it as a racist remark regardless.. Both of which are incredibly racist behaviours.
What about the old bully tactic of authority turnaround?
1. Nonviolently/deniably taunt your target - eg, 'accidentially' kick their bag, obstruct their path, call them names.
2. Wait for them to react and punch you.
3. Run screaming to the teacher. Chances are the victim, as a violent offender, will be harshly punished - while, as you didn't actually assault anyone, you'll get away with a slap on the wrist.
Saw that one a lot when I was at school, with myself on the recieving end. Fortunatly I had very understanding teachers on my side, or I'd have been expelled on a few occasions.
I don't know about America, but here in Hungary it goes both ways. For example many gipsies were convicted of racist violence.
None. Really???
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/scotland-yard-suspends-8-officers-20-being-investigated-over-new-allegations-of-racism/2012/04/06/gIQAB3HGzS_story.html
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/president-pleads-for-a-tolerant-society-189495.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0404/breaking34.html
That's from a quick google search. I also have some personal experience...
A couple years ago, I lived in a neighborhood that had an apartment building that a large university (UCSD) would rent out for hundreds of Irish students to stay at during a summer exchange program. They (Irish students) would sometimes crash our local pub in large numbers (20+ people) completely wasted out of their minds. Usually they'd start speaking about us in gaelic (I guess they teach it in the schools over there nowadays, and the Irish students delighted in using it to talk crap about us), start smashing things, and on multiple occasions young Irish guys called my black friend a n**ger within ear shot. Every time they crashed the bar in numbers, the bartender(s) would eventually have to call the cops. The Irish kids would smash glasses and anything else they could get their hands on, then run off like a bunch of hooligans before the police showed up. And it wasn't like this only happened once with one group of students, it was a running joke at the bar because every summer the same thing would happen 4 or 5 times from a different group of Irish punks, I mean students.
My favorite part is that supposedly, this was the cream of the crop of Irish youth, students at prestigious universities that were well on their way to being productive members of Irish society... After my experience, I don't have a lot of respect for Irish "culture" anymore, nor do I have any interest in visiting the town in Ireland my family is supposed to be from originally.
> Citation or it didn't happen.
Do you get CNN on your planet?
Any person who was actually following events in the Middle East could have easilly predicted that Egypt and Libya would be in the hands of terrorists a year after their respective 'regime change.' It follows that even if the Idiot Child in the White House isn't up on things foreign, and even if (unbeliveable) Sec Clinton was also clueless, that somebody in a position to speak up loud enough to be heard warned of the probable result of throwing Mubarak and Kadaffy under the bus. Thus we are justified to assume that this result was desired or at least considered better than the alternatives.
Democrat delenda est
A) This article is about a conservative "news" zine/website, not NPR.
B) No. Government contributions don't convert a private enterprise into a publicly organized entity.
C) Even if he worked for the federal government, the government could fire him -- if his public speech interfered with his public employment. You cannot take employment with the U.S. government without submitting to greater control by the Federal government. You can, however, quit.
-GiH
You're right. The Irish have no history of violence against "other" people at all. Nothing bad has ever happened in Ireland. They never even had terrorists!
oh wait... I left out decades of 20th century Irish history in order to make a point. My bad.
Which is precisely why I didn't say that.
Would you please stop putting words in my mouth?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Around here (Phoenix, AZ), I never see anyone ranting in public parks, so I really wonder if they don't have laws against it. I do see them ranting, with PA systems, in places like on Mill Ave. during the evenings or weekends (usually about fundie Christian stuff).
We haven't had much of a "go rant about politics in the park" culture for a hundred years or so.
-GiH
While I'm glad he got his comeuppance,
You're glad he got fired for writing an article you disagree with?
Let's talk more about the decline of our human civilization and its overwhelming hatred of our fellow man.
I went to a 100% minority school (I'm white. Even while there, it was 100% minority, as a desegregation plan had me attending classes there while not enrolled there, since so many incorrectly point out the contradiction/inconsistency of a white person talking about their experiences at a 100% minority school). I walked home with a friend one day. Children (up to about age 14) in the neighborhood ran back into their homes and shouted loud enough for everyone to hear "there's a white person walking down the street." If anyone had wanted to do anything bad to me, I'm sure nobody would have seen a thing, despite the fact that almost everyone there at that time walked out of their homes or peeked out the window at me. For most, their school teachers, welfare workers, and the police are the only white people they see. There was no animosity. I'm sure most were just making sure I wasn't a government employee wanting to do them harm.
You are right that there is a difference between "should be" and "is" but that doesn't mean "is" should be taught as if it's somehow "right." The rules are the same everywhere. Blend in or stand out, and standing out can get you in trouble. Doesn't matter if you are in Israel, Texas, Iraq, California, or either of the two unnamed areas you reference in your story.
. I'm not sure, as I learned to avoid these situations altogether by keeping my dumb ass out of where I wasn't wanted.
You found the racism. It isn't "stay away from blacks". It's "stay aware of your surroundings." Racializing it by your dad was wrong. It's incorrect (though generally good enough), even if easier to express. I felt safer as the one unusual white person in a black neighborhood than in many of the hick white areas I've been.
Learn to love Alaska
The term reverse racism is itself a racist term. I know that white people don't mean it that way, but the term implies that racism is only supposed to go in one direction.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself
Yes it is. It's the exact same thing.
This was the very message that Jesus brought to this Earth.....which has been long lost, I suppose.
And comments we disagree with are flamebait, apparently.
I'm no expert, but I think you're using numbers for the member stations instead of NPR itself. NPR doesn't seem to get much directly from the government. It does get programming fees from the member stations, so a portion of their direct funding does end up at NPR.
http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html
My university had a radio station and there were certainly educational reasons for it. Though it wasn't buying programming from NPR, I don't see anything wrong with that. How many financial transactions must occur before that dollar is not seen as funding something?
Writing off donations is not special to NPR. I'd be glad to get rid of those tax loopholes, but that's not usually what people mean when they say funding.
Being tax exempt, again, is not special to NPR. And since they don't generally run a profit, 34% of zero would be zero anyway. Or if they do have a small profit, that seems to get invested (I see 1% of NPR's income is from investments) until it's needed, not paid out to the owners.
From what I've heard, it's because you were a detraction to the site. You weren't censored. You can (and obviously do) still post AC, and you weren't fired for it. But you lost your account privileges from ToS abuses.
Learn to love Alaska
No, the particular bunch of kids he was around were violent because of class; they were lower-class people, not taught to avoid violence. A well-dressed middle-class black kid going to school with a bunch of trailer trash white kids with parents on the Jerry Springer show would have the exact same experience.
The unfortunate reality is that in this country, black kids are much more likely to grow up in poverty and live in lower-class neighborhoods, not have fathers around, etc.
Like how quickly OJ got thrown in jail for his dealings.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Why, is it more important to censor controversial comments if they come from a more prominent publication?
Sooo, what we have here is a link from another country entirely, Northern Ireland, and two links to the same comment by Michael D, who is as daft as a broom. Topping all this off we have a vitriolic anecdote which I'd wager has no evidence at all to back it up. I especially like the "talking in Gaelic" touch, given the extremely low levels of people in Ireland who actually speak "Gaelic".
Yes indeed, your comment makes it clear that racism is alive and well. But not in Ireland. More towards Ireland.
"You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with [intelligent, well-socialized blacks]. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice."
Am I the only one that finds great irony in that statement? Maybe the "amulet" only works if you don't talk about it.
You mean the "race riots" where black and white people came together to loot and steal from local shops, regardless of the ethnicities of the owners of those shops? Where the race of the offenders to a large degree matched the local communities (e.g. in Manchester 94% of the rioters were white).
If you really want to generalise: 90% of the rioters were Men. Being male was a much more important factor than being black or white.
> If you want to keep it real, you ought be a lot more concerned about why men are such fuck-ups before you worry about what color the men are.
Ask a hard question next time. That one is pretty simple. We have built a society where men are unneeded, and left unattended and without a purpose most men will quickly go feral, especially when raised without a positive male role model as a stabilizing influence. But fear not, the same feminism that created that problem is still at work... women are fast becoming as violent as men so in a few more generations we will at last have equality even in depravity. Why isn't that a happy thought? Probably because of the realization that if the current trend lines continue our civilization will implode long before that 'equality of depravity' comes to pass.
Democrat delenda est
I wouldn't be so sure. What if it happened in a city where all the cops are black, the mayor and city council people are black, etc.? And in a state where the majority of the population is black, the state's politicians all black, etc.?
I don't know of any places like that in real life; the closest I can think of are Atlanta and Detroit. But if a place like that did exist, things probably wouldn't be much different, except the white people would be getting the short end of the stick.
You say "learn". Actually, learning this isn't really at the heart of the matter.
Often, a group is told from within that they're viewed a particular way (whether this is true or not is irrelevant). And they behave based on faulty information.
Also, it can be based on a misconception (i.e. concluding "people don't value my contribution" if the reward you're given isn't what you think it should be, irrespective of whether society in general gives that general reward for that general contribution). This again leads many to feel slighted, and become hostile.
There are a whole slew of other misconceptions, misinformation and general conditioning that can, and does, lead to exactly the conclusions you're stating are "smart and correct". I'd actually say that the 'learning' and the behaviour you state are actually a terrible way to proceed. All it does is reinforce a negative image.
If the role isn't valued, find one that will, and work at it. There are successful people of all skin colours. The thing they all share is that they work hard for what they get, and they respect the contributions of others, and they don't try to play victim. If life throws bad things, they field it, fix it, and move on.
The majority of NPR funding is not actually from government sources, but private underwriting and donations.
I got here through a series of tubes
The oil companies get free oil, free land leases, and other non-cash concessions of direct discernible value.
Learn to love Alaska
Buddy, in school in the 70's, in a small rural town, I got my ass kicked because I was smaller and skinnier than other students. People get their asses kicked all the time for no good reason at all.
So this totally explains why I, as a white person, feel much safer walking through a dirt poor white neighborhood than a black one.
Class struggle has in recent years gained a new moniker for use by the talking heads: The Economic Divide. However, class struggle does not need to be validated by an intelligentsia. Capitalism, having reached it's final source of plunder by embracing globalism, finally has nowhere to go but down. The interesting, and to an extent frightening, question is what form the resulting new society will take.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Depends on where you are, I think. Around here, there aren't many places where you can stand on a street corner and have your voice heard by many people; there just aren't very many pedestrians anywhere (everyone's in their cars). Mill Ave is an exception to that, so that's why the street preachers congregate there. However, the other exception is public parks: these have tons of people walking around, so they'd also be good places to set up your PA system and blast your voice and annoy everyone around. But I never see this, which leads me to believe there's laws against such things in the parks.
I disagree, I have an issue with the government having something small, say 1%-15% and thinking it can tell you what you are going to do. In so many parts of life, you need some form of government interaction or "funding", therefore, unless the government is the majority funder, I do not believe it should have anymore say. Prime example, the gov just told GM that it cannot pay its CEOs as much money next year as they did this year, 2 of them have already quit.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Serious question for anyone who is white and purports to be outraged or disgusted by John Derbyshires article.
Would you volunteer to walk around the streets of Compton on a Friday night. If not why not?
Hell no, I wouldn't.
I also wouldn't walk around South Boston in the middle of the night, a low income, predominantly (85%) white neighborhood.
http://www.cityofboston.gov/dnd/U_Neighborhood_Profiles.asp
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Looking at the discussion here, I can't help but notice something missing. The reason the article was racist is because it implies that blacks by nature have given traits.
The body of genomics provides no support for this. The genetic differences between races are so small that it many biologists and anthropologists claim that the term race has no scientific meaning when applied to humans as there is no statistically significant genetic variation between race populations, esp. compared to individual differences.
What can't get lost here is whatever is happening to groups in terms of violence, crime, etc, it is a cause of the environment. It is not innate and it is not inevitable. It has nothing to do with genetic makeup, but with the circumstances in which people live and are raised in.
This notion that "whites", faced with the same level of discrimination, lack of opportunity, and similar social factors would innately respond better to those challenges is so ridiculous that it beggars belief that people still place any credence in such arguments.
(Totally disregarding the fact that NPR is tax exempt which eliminates corporate taxes which amount to about 34% of income according to Wikipedia).
True, but lets extend that accuracy a bit... U.S. Corporations are "world leaders in tax avoidance". A Government Accountability Office study released in 2008 found that 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html
People get most defensive and angry when an unpalatable statement is close to the truth.
If you do not hold an Irish passport you aren't Irish. End of story.
I can see why the Irish get so upset about Plastic Paddies now, just as the Greeks sigh at yet another American with the surname 'Papas'.
You're right, both of those groups are absolute evil.
Perhaps it's time to vote third party?
And being a minority is supposed to be an excuse for that how? Does being a minority mean you've got special dispensation to be aggressive, unpleasant, or engage in criminal activity at will?
No, it means you're in a small group. Under set theory, you can divide a population in many ways, and colour of skin is only one. In those sets, people are always parts of various minorities. Almost everyone is part of a minority group in something.
The real problem is that in the real-world, the police didn't bother to do anything but to take the shooter at his word that it was self-defense.
Except that the police did not just "take the shooter at his word", they spent seven hours at the scene talking to the various witnesses. Then they took the shooter down to the station. However, at the end of all of that, there was no evidence which contradicted the shooter's story and quite a bit of evidence which supported his story. I see no reason to think that a black neighborhood watch volunteer in the same situation would have been treated any different by the police.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
There were race riots in Tottenham last year alongside the other riots that happened? The media did not report this! We must have been hoodwinked.
no, it is not, Me getting to keep my own money that i earned is not being funded by the government. I really do not understand how people do not understand this.
example, if said company that is tax exempt doesnt make any money, the government is not going to give them money are they? no! so can we please stop saying that tax exemption are government funding, because it is simply being able to keep your own money and not give your money to the government. It is only funding if we are under the belief that we never own our own money, and we are only at the will of the government.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Interesting postulation.
However, you could equally say that "the talk" given to many black youths sows the seeds of prejudice in them, and follow your argument through from that point.
Thus, any beating a black person gets, by your own argument, is thus their own fault due to their own prejudices.
There's as much evidence for that as there is for your postulation.
In other words, it's not acceptable. Either way round.
And if you do believe that, you have some reading to do about the justice system.
Let's call it a legal system. The phrase justice system may be guilty of misleading advertising.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Are you kidding me?
The New Black Panther Party is recognized hate group by the southern poverty law center - the same folks who monitor all of the white hate groups. Even members of the original black Panthers despise and have publicly called the group as a "black racist hate group".
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Sorry, it's my auto correct. I didn't notice till now.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Gives Monty Python a whole new meaning. Also makes the politics a bit funnier, as they are both empty halves of coconuts, and they are banging themselves together!
The problem I see with Williams' comments is that it's advocating irrational prejudice. If you watch the whole segment, he essentially said, "When I see Muslims in Muslim (sic) garb on my plane, I get nervous just like everyone else, and there's nothing wrong with that." He is defending his prejudiced reaction. It's irrational because, you know, none of the Muslim terrorists who have attacked planes (or attacked other things with planes) have been dressed like that (and he's not talking about Muslim clothing as much as Arab Muslim).
If that sort of reaction is normal, perhaps we need to rethink how the topic is presented in the media.
We do. That's why NPR fired Williams. They were doing something about it.
Right...you're aware the victim was the one that suffered from potential racism here?
I think this has to do with majorities vs. minorities. In Benin, you weren't a minority, you didn't even rank on the social class scale, you were a complete foreigner. In the USA (and other places where there's different ethnic groups attempting to live together), there's inevitable frictions, esp. if one class has been historically mistreated, is usually also at a lower class, etc. If you go into the "wrong neighborhood", the people there associate you with other people like yourself (e.g. "those people who have mistreated us for many decades/centuries"), and then treat you poorly in return. In a foreign country, there is no such association: you're a unique person, a foreigner. They have no real reason to hate you, because they don't associate you with some other ethnic group nearby that they don't like. Instead, they might even be extra-friendly to you, because you're so different from their day-to-day routine and associations.
but if they dont make money, there is no subsidy, because a subsidy is not the government (or the taxpayer as obama would have us believe) giving money to the oil companies, It is simply allowing the oil companies to keep more of the money they made. Not in any way shape or form are the taxpayers and the government paying the oil companies.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You mean besides the "no-one believes for an instant that the black kid would be allowed to walk free for several months"?
Yes, there's a lot of people upset because a black kid got shot dead for carrying concealed candy. A lot of us are far more upset because a neighborhood watch volunteer with delusions of grandeur managed to scare himself into killing a kid.
Exactly. Men might even become obsolete pretty soon:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/
Williams' controversial statement was made in October 2010, only 9 entire years after 9/11, which was a terrorist act committed by a bunch of guys not wearing "Muslim garb."
The grandparent correctly points out that the media are racist: they'll roast a white person for a possibly-racist act when they wouldn't roast a black person. You correctly point out that the police are also racist: they'll arrest a black person for a possibly-criminal act, when they wouldn't arrest a white person.
Lefties get away with saying the most vile things and if the stink is really bad they issue an apology and move on.
Ah yes, the lies to show how you are the only persecuted side, and all others are protected. Wasn't there some hubbub about a newscaster with a forged draft-dodge document getting fired, and no apology stopped that? Proves you 100% wrong on all counts. But stick to the "woe is me" whines, it makes it easier to effectively ignore the insane.
Learn to love Alaska
Exactly. He must have been dressed provocatively. And therefore he deserved it. I'm sure all the females in the world would appreciate the use of that excuse more often.
the gov doesnt "give" money to the church, they simply dont collect a tax from them, Its quite a stretch to claim that not collecting a tax is somehow the gov giving them money
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
What does your assailant's race have to do with him accosting you? Surely there must be more to his description that could lead you to form at least a more narrow prejudice.
Don't worry. People like you are slowly making that a reality.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Well, except for the whole 28% from Foundations and Businesses which you claim "is a write for the foundation or business". Oh, did you think that NPR has some magical status that makes it treated differently from other non-profits when people donate to it? That when I donate to NPR, I get a dollar for dollar discount on my taxes due each year?
Honestly, I can't even figure out where you are getting 58% from even with your own numbers, but however you are coming up with it, if you apply the same calculations to churches and the 100% of their income that people get to write off in the exact same way, I am confident that you'll find that your church is a government organization.
I think it's absolutely hilarious that you're arguing about NPR's funding sources in the context of defending a racist coward who believes a white person should never help a black person "because po widdle white boy might get hurt" (rule 10h).
I guess I just have a sick sense of humor.
Exactly. I love how it's considered OK for a black parent to teach their kids that white people are bad and not to trust them, but if a white parent teaches their kid the same thing about blacks, it's "racist" and they should lose your job.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
It takes one person to stereotype and another to take it badly, without either of those, there's no conflict.
Why in the hell is it required that someone "take it badly?"
Hypothetical situation:
Coach has been coaching college hoops for 30+ years. In that time, he has kept a log of the statistics of all his players, including their race. After 30+ years, the data indicates that black athletes perform 60x better than athletes of other races. Coach off-handedly remarks one day, "If my teams were made up of nothing but black students, we'd never lose!"
There's your stereotype: black people are good at basketball. And, at least in our hypothetical situation, the empirical data backs the stereotype.
So long as Al Sharpton and all the other people who make their living out of promoting racial disharmony don't find out, there will be no conflict.
This concept is easier to understand as the axiom, "it takes 2 to tango."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You do realise that exactly the same problems occur in poor areas with ethnically homogenous populations? Teenage males are prone to commit violence, moreso if they grow up badly educated in overpopulated poor slums. Look at any city in the world which has a large population and poor underclass - do you think that children in the schools of these cities are free from violence because they all share an ethnicity? Do you think that gang violence anywhere in the world is stopped for this reason? Of course it isn't. The gangs of Mexico kill fellow hispanics. For decades, the gangs of Northern Ireland killed fellow whites - thousands and thousands dead, many more crippled. The Russian mafia had no qualms about killing other whites. The Italian mafia frequently went to war against other Italians.
As a white person, you should try walking around the rough area of an ethnically white poor city some day... you will quickly learn that these teenage gangs don't care that you share the same race, they will beat you and take all of your stuff just the same.
Oh, yeah, stereotypes are definitely there for a reason. That's why I get nervous anytime I see someone wearing a crucifix: Catholics have a violent reputation. Just look at the IRA -- all Catholics. And Protestants are just as bad -- bombing abortion clinics, and don't even get me started on the KKK.
If you think that sounds ridiculous, maybe you should reexamine your own stereotypes.
Obama isn't white...
The racial divide in America is perpetuated on both sides. Blacks self-segregate through language, residence, attire, and a culture that is (justifiably or not) distrustful of, and often openly flaunting, the law, and non-blacks use this as a baseline for stereotyping, which creates a vicious cycle. I get that blacks are more likely to be viewed as criminals, but the way to get past that isn't say "well as long as I'm being treated like a criminal..." A victim mentality is the opposite of empowering -- you cannot be empowered when you view your condition as the product of someone else's decisions. And it's way easier to affect one's own behavior and attitudes than others, especially those outside of your social group. Speaking out about injustice can and should continue, but it can't be used as an excuse, or as a way to define oneself or one's social group. Telling your kids to "watch out because they're valued less than another group/class of people," may well be true, but teaching anyone to view themselves as inferior is only perpetuating the problem. While things are far from ideal, and it is undoubtedly a harder road than for some other social and ethnic groups, black Americans as a whole have never had better opportunities to improve their condition than they do today. I don't think any less of black people than any other people, but two things are clear: 1) Playing the victim isn't working, and 2) no one has ever bettered themselves by waiting for someone else to do it for them. Something has to change. I think the black community would be better served by promoting and focusing on more Martin Luther King figures and fewer Al Sharpton figures. Al Sharpton reminds people where they are. MLK reminds people where they can go.
I agree with all those statements....so, am I a racist?
If you think that white parents should instruct their children to avoid events that might attract a lot of black people and, when choosing a point of time to visit amusement parks, avoid days when there are a lot of blacks visiting... Yes, I think that pretty much makes you a racist and/or very xenophobic. Even if there is statistical correlation with blacks and crime rates, I don't think that you can make a reasonable argument that "Avoid blacks whenever possible" is a proper and rational response.
Also, I can't help but notice this
I am fiercely independent ... I'm not going to apologize however for wanting to be comfortably surrounded by people who think and act like me ...
Perhaps one of the idiot Left wingers on this forum can tell me - why do you think white people don't have the right to have their own countries ANY MORE?
You have every right to go start your own country. I'd be proud to be the first to sign your petition.
Bye now.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
It's not "racism" to be cautious in "bad neighborhoods." It's just not. It's good sense. How you define a "bad neighborhood" is a matter for judgement, but the averages seem to favor neighborhoods that are predominantly black and hispanic for being "bad." But here's what doesn't make be feel uncomfortable:
Black people who dress nice. Black people who are polite, acknowledging friendly gestures, openly friendly and display a generally positive view on the world. Black people who speak well. (To me, this is VERY important because the way one speaks reflects the way one things... language is the encoding of the mind.) Black adults who spend time with their children, teaching them, playing, working, eating meals... family things. Black kids who do well in school.
All of these things are faily easy to spot. All of these things I find to be a social standard I believe all people should demonstrate.
I have found in my experience when I am in "white trash" neighborhoods, I feel a similar discomfort. So it's hard to simply say "racist" to the way I feel and observe the world. Lots of black people where I work... none of them are niggers. None of them. And they have all earned and deserve the positions and pay they have at the office.
Want to see an end to "racism?" Raise the kids right. There's nothing wrong with teaching kids to "stay away from the bad elements." But I think it goes without saying that it's wrong to simply say "black people" because my experience just doesn't bear it out.
The councillor herself stated "I can't be racist, because I'm black.".
That's a valid argument that whites don't get. How can you be racist against yourself? You can be proud to be a green person (it's not easy being green) and yet not like some other green creature because that damned Hulk gives us Frogs a bad name. That's not racism, that's individual dislike with a stated race element. What's racist is that it implies that a pure-green would get a preference over pink skins, but that this particular green should be discounted despite, not because of, race.
I've talked myself into it being proof of racism. She should have had sanctions because it was a statement racist to all the whites there, not to the coconut, as she implies she is otherwise predisposed to preferring blacks to pink-skins.
Learn to love Alaska
As one of my (black) friends so eloquently put it to me: "You know when they're talking about the N*****s up at G******d, they're talking 'bout you, too."
Yeah, it was so eloquant you had to star out 2 words and I can't figure out what the hell it's supposed to mean. If you're frightened of saying nigger, why didn't you post the uncensored version as an AC?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
The statistics indicate that race is irrelevant to the chance of a non-offender committing a crime. The difference is that blacks are, for the same crime, treated much more harshly than whites, and that leads to more prison time for the same things, and an increase in recidivism. Race causes the increased prison time and increased recidivism due to the racism in the system, not because of any inherent propensity of blacks to commit crimes.
Learn to love Alaska
I recall the government-funded NPR
I like how, even though NPR only gets a fraction of it's money from the government, and in all likelihood other broadcast outlets get similar benefits, you have to single out NPR as being the "government-funded" one.
The ideal would be no censorship but of course that doesn't apply to private organizations.
The problem is, the airwaves are finite, and they are using them at OUR pleasure. That makes them significantly less than private organizations.
So, if that guy in your anecdote was white, would you hate white people and stereotype them as violent thugs?
One with anecdotes such as yours shouldn't talk shit about cowardly pussies in their sig. Pot, meet kettle. It's so sad that you think your anecdote actually justifies negative stereotypes of blacks - way to rationalize racism.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
When you consider that pretty much all the additional funding comes from tax exempt contributions, though, it becomes pretty obvious that the government indirectly 'owns' NPR.
If NPR wanted to be independent of Govt all they would have to do is stop being a tax exempt operation.
Ah, the attempt to put a new meaning to the word racist, and derail the conversation into a discussion on semantics. Cute. You're behind the times though, and even the Stormfront people have settled on just coining a new term, after their attempts to redefine the word failed pretty miserably.
The question is: am I right in my assertion? Based on conviction rates alone of specific sets of crimes that ought to be colorblind (crack convictions, for example), I am. I am interested to hear your counter argument. What you've presented so far is not one.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The same could be said for white folks. Or at least that blacks and hispanics are more likely to be railroaded or treated more harshly by the "justice" system.
It ends at him expressing beliefs not directly associated with, or contrary to the business paying him.
Unless you are a significant public figure for your business (and even then I'm not so sure), what you believe and what you say should have fuck all to do with your employer. You are paid to do a job, not paid to do whatever the fuck they say, both on and off the clock. The sooner employers realize they have no fucking right whatsoever to have anything to do with employees off the clock, the better everyone will be.
I am sure a black scholar could get away with it these days easy. There is a serious double standard in this country these days and it's growing old fast.
Take the Red Pill.
1). Pull your fucking head out of your ass regarding NPR and their funding. A SMALL portion of their funding comes from the government. The vast majority of it is from listener support. They get no more in support than I imagine most other broadcast stations get.
2). I am not sure about how private these organizations can be, considering they're using the PUBLIC airwaves.
You can bet your sorry ass that if a black watch volunteer would have killed a white kid, he would have been in prison post-haste.
Can I? How many times has this happened? What's our sample size? I'd bet my sorry ass that people believe that's what would have happened, but I haven't seen anything to actually back that up.
the police didn't bother to do anything but to take the shooter at his word that it was self-defense.
Without evidence to the contrary, the police were legally prohibited from doing anything but taking the shooter at his word. How many times have they done differently in similar circumstances? Is there anything other than speculation to even suggest that the law is being applied differently for blacks than for other races? Not prove mind you, I'm not asking for proof, just some sort of data that even hints at it? How often have blacks claimed self defense under the same statute and been prosecuted in the absence of conflicting evidence?
I'm not trying to be insensitive, and I'm not saying this case wasn't racially motivated, but my sorry ass weighs facts more heavily than opinion.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
No. 10% is NOT "pretty much government funded". Perhaps maybe you should try arguing with FACTS sometime.
There is no difference between these two situations:
1) Company A and Company B are taxed at the same rate. Company A receives government funding to the tune of $X/year.
2) Neither Company A or B receive government funding, but Company A receives a tax break that equals $X/year.
No difference.
Men are over-represented in everything. Productive laborers, artists, and of course forces of law and order are almost exclusively male. Women seek an easier role in life, and aren't likely to really pursue any endeavor, let alone challenging criminal projects, but they do their part: most criminals were raised by single mothers.
If I didn't have a standing, lifetime boycott of the Communist Republic of California, I might take that bet; although, I can do one better:
By all appearances, I'm a white dude. I have driven down the streets of East St. Louis (which makes Compton look like Beverly Hills, for those who don't know), at night, in a pimpin' old-school Buick, lost as hell. This has happened to me several times (on the 270 loop, if you forget which exit to take you end up crossing the river before you know it). Not once have I been accosted, raped, robbed, or even so much as threatened as I traversed this poor, lower-class, majority black neighborhood. Never. In fact, if not for the kindness of the locals, I might have never found my way back to STL proper.
Here's the thing: If you go around any group of people acting like some sort of prey animal, then you're damn right a predator is going to pick up on that and take advantage. Race has nothing to do with it - you being a total chickenshit and making it obvious to the world does.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I am from a predominantly Mexican area. I am not using the generic brown skin people = Mexican term, but true Mexican. I lived in a border area and a significant part of my community was illegal immigrants or the anchor babies of illegals.
I became a racist.
I didn't become a racist because it was my natural or cultural teaching, I became one out of self defense. I was constantly told how I was white and there were less of me than there were of them (as though this wasn't obvious). I was in constant fist fights. See, being such a small school there weren't many social groups, you had your shit kickers, which were the white guys that didn't have problems with the Mexicans, but they were a gang of assholes just as bad as the ones who gave me problems so I wanted nothing to do with them either. Not being one of them made me a target. See, in the Mexican gangster community few things say "I'm a man" more than beating up a white boy, and who better to get in a fight with than the one who wasn't surrounded by a bunch or rednecks with lasso's and knives? I actually started to win many of these jumpings, I'll call them fights even though I consider a true fight to be a conflict between two people with a problem with one another, not a jumping due to opportunity. There's something about winning a fight against gangster Mexicans, winning against one means you fight two, winning against two means you fight three, winning against three means weapons come out and possibly fighting four.
In the same community school administrators discriminated against me, see many of the teachers and principals were also Mexican, with the national pride I don't comprehend, obviously they left to move here, that doesn't say national pride to me. If I got jumped and was in a fight usually I was the summary guilty party without trial, or equally guilty on the better outcomes. I actually had a teacher at one of my schools forbid me to use certain playground equipment because the Mexicans who dominated it didn't want me on it and he didn't want to tell them to leave me alone.
I was seriously contemplating joining the Klan or some sort of Neo Nazi group after leaving that shit hole, but I am more intelligent than the average redneck, that's why I wasn't one of them, and I decided to try an experiment. I really wanted to believe the problems I experienced were more or less isolated to where I was and not an across the board thing. It was.
Turns out immigrants from Mexico city or better parts of Mexico are great people. The ones for the rural desert who just hop across for food stamps, other welfare and to pop out anchor babies are trash, no better than the white trash that lives off of lawsuits and litigation for every little thing.
There is trash in every racial group and I was living in the middle of the worst of their kind.
Since then I've had several Mexican girlfriends, done a lot of work for Mexican companies, I have friends of every racial category and can't stand the Neo Nazi and white pride groups I seriously considered joining. I never really liked the idea of it, but if what I saw was true across the board and not just my little shit hole corner of the world it would have been my duty to join such an organization, not something to do because I was a hater.
This talk had some accurate points, I really like the fact the author linked to a Beat Whitey Night story, something that is glaringly ignored by the news media that is starting to become an annual event, however I would say the link did cross the line into racism in a few places. There were some true uncomfortable facts in there, but there were several that crossed the line. 10g was one of them. Politicians are crooked and race doesn't seem to matter, scrutinize them all very closely, do it so closely race doesn't matter, assume they're a crook and work from there. 10h, use some judgement, yes it could be a trap, but trash from any race group will do something crooked to take advantage of peoples better natures (I've
No apology needed; I rather like it with the typo, sounds about right.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
no, it is not, Me getting to keep my own money that i earned is not being funded by the government.
Yes, it is. You can go on any kind of retarded, "Taxes are theft" irrelevant rant you want, but that doesn't change the situation. In just about every civilized country, you are expected to pay a certain amount in taxes in order to maintain that country and continue the society to allow the privileges and benefits you enjoy by being part of that society. Being exempt from those taxes is government subsidizing you, because they are saying you can use those benefits, like roads, fire and police protection, without paying for them.
the government is not going to give them money are they?
As was explained, the government is giving them the services they would normally pay for without that payment. That is a subsidy.
It is only funding if we are under the belief that we never own our own money, and we are only at the will of the government.
No, it's not, and this position is completely unfounded.
No the point about NPR is that they get a significant amount of funding from people and organisations who would otherwise have to give that money to the government in the form of taxes. What you rattle on about the standard deduction is just blurring. Your standard deduction is not at all optional in the way a gift to NPR is.
I'm just saying man, the Irish youth I've met here and abroad were a racist, drunken (and I'm a drunk!), mess. If they weren't stealing things (first time they crashed the bar we invited a couple of them over for a drink and they stole my sunglasses and my roommates change bin, we never invited any exchange students over after that); they were breaking them. You can believe whatever you want but I know what I saw and heard: For the record, this all happened in the summers of 2009 and 2010 at a dumpy sports bar called "Sky Box" in San Diego.
Maybe you can make a trip out this summer and see it for yourself. I kinda doubt you are in Ireland, probably just another white dude that took some Irish history classes, now trolling the internet touting Irish superiority...
The Libertarians seem to be gathering a good amount of steam...
If not for their overly simplistic view of economics, I would say they have a real shot at becoming the party to beat.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
More like "mankind". You think women have the upper-body strength to wrestle with killer roombas after the Singularity?
Except that NPR IS government funded, as I pointed out above.
Only about 10%. Several of your sources of "government funds" are just plain lies and are not accurate.
There's a name for that...
"...history."
Feel free to address the point here. So far, I see nothing but rhetorical devices that are designed to elicit an emotional response, rather than a rational discussion.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
So you ignore a huge part of it, just so it makes your argument look better?
Visiting when things are calm is a nice thing. I very much enjoy Downtown Detroit when it's mellow.
Do you think your visit may have been different if something like Rodney King happened somewhere in the US the day before your visit?
It's kind of like in Detroit, when things are not mellow.. you learn to stay away from certain areas, crowds. When either of the 2 Revs mentioned visit it becomes best to stay away. When there is talk of political corruption, even if the Mayor is found guilty (Go ahead and Google Detroit and Corruption, I dare you). When racist events make national media.
It is very easy, and common to say "oh, it must be you", but do you really believe that it's only white people that can be racist? I don't mean the common reference to it, I mean the definition.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Nice try, troll.
Shouldn't feed, but... if you knew anything about IQ tests, you would know that they tend to skew to cultural/educational biases. An IQ test is not the same thing as a clock test on a video card-- low test scores don't always indicate low intelligence.
1). NPR doesn't get "billions of dollars" from the government.
2). The oil companies enjoy special tax breaks which definitely amount to being "government funded". You cannot argue that these tax breaks don't make them government funded.
And the Iranian muslims look mostly like lily-white people.
My favorite example is SNL comedian Fred Armisen, not exactly a man who has people shrieking in fear of the scary middle-easterner, and his utterly uncanny resemblance to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
Iran So Far Away
. (You'll have to search for that on nbc.com if NBC issues a takedown for Youtube... which sucks because NBC's video site is horrible.
Aside from all of the services that those tax payments go to support, like roads (without which there would be a much lower demand for oil and gasoline), fire protection, the Coast Guard (came quite in handy with that whole Deep Horizon thingy), etc. They essentially get those services for free, or at substantial discount, than if they had to pay taxes like a normal person.
The councillor herself stated "I can't be racist, because I'm black."
In the media frenzy following the Luis Suarez/Evra incident I was absolutely amazed by the number of people that expressed that viewpoint.
Fortunately many other people educated them, but the level of ignorance was distressing.
Do you get CNN on your planet?
Yup, and not a single report I saw stated "Obama/Sarkozy's assisting Al-queda take over Libya," as purported by OP.
You can blah blah blah all you want, but reality appears to be in opposition, and unless you can provide a citation to prove otherwise, then all your words are merely heresay.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
here is a budget cut we should all be able to agree on
No, it's not. For one, it's quite minuscule in the Federal budget, especially when one compares it to the subsidies of the oil companies.
Seriously, is the fraction of NPR's funding that comes from the government SO important that we should be borrowing it from China?
Seriously, are you honestly wanting to waste your time cutting shit that is less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the US Budget?
Also, the vast majority of US Debt is privately held within the country. And with regards to the foreign debt, Japan owns about as much as China.
OJ Simpson surrendered to police and was arrested and taken to jail roughly an hour after the gigantic super-famous televised low-speed car chase you've apparently never heard of. He negotiated the extra time with the police as a condition of his peaceable surrender.
Fame is a powerful thing -- it made the police treat him like any other rich celebrity wanted for murder, despite the color of his skin.
You can argue it's bigoted, but I wouldn't say it's racist at all.
While technically correct, I can't see how that's any better at all.
When someone starts a statement with:
"I'm not a bigot." it means you are
It's just like "I don't want to offend, but.." to which the person goes to say something offensive, or when someone says "It's not about the money" when it's actually all about the money. People do this all the time and once you spot it, it's pretty difficult to ignore.
--
BMO
8 million dollars from the U.S. and Member State governments sounds like more than nothing.
Compared to the whole of the US budget? Yes, it is absolutely nothing.
So do I. I also get nervous around big burly rednecks. And motorcyclists with knives hanging off their belts. And police men. And.....
So you'd be advocating the exact same uneducated prejudice that he was, which is the same uneducated prejudice that drives racism, sexism, and many other isms.
Yes, he did. His statement was extremely bigoted.
Or, at least, get our electorates to vote 3rd party...
Because it's largely in the public interest.
There are tons of radio stations out there.
And most of them are extremely shitty Clear Channel clone stations that play lowest common denominator drivel.
Honestly, I think this retarded idea that something HAS to turn profit in order to be worth something needs to die a painful, painful death.
As the media has started defining things (the whole 'white hispanic' deal) Obama sholu be described as a white black.
In the old days he would be considered a mullato, though he actually has zero 'freed slave' American-black ancestery.
Whether it's 5.8% or 16% as other have said doesn't matter.
Yes, it matters very much.
Every penny of government funding is wrong.
No, it's not.
it does matter since the government has no business funding any private business or entity.
That's your opinion, but most people would consider that to be completely and utterly wrong. I fail to see the value in the idea that something has to turn a profit in order to be worth having. Quite frankly, I find that idea, and those that espouse it, to be quite retarded.
Agreed. I was only using the example others provided. Special favors (or favoritism) by govt is always a bad thing.
Sadly, since stand your ground laws are fairly new, there isn't much data on this. Here are some interesting statistical comparisons though on racial disparities when it comes to crack and powder cocaine. Notice that there are a lot of factors at work here, some of which are related to the specifics of the laws, and some to which drugs are more targeted by laws. But at some point, the question has to be answered: why do so many factors conspire to create much longer sentences for black people convicted of cocaine crimes?
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_stateratesofincbyraceandethnicity.pdf
See also the additional reading at the end.
Finally, "without evidence to the contrary, the police were legally prohibited from doing anything but taking the shooter at his word". Fair enough. But what do you consider evidence to the contrary? Assume for a second that the shooter's word is unreliable (motive in case shooting was unwarranted). What would constitute evidence that the shooter was not acting in self-defense? Wounds to the shooter's head? Could as well have been self-defense on the part of the dead guy. The point is that we really don't know what the police deemed lack of evidence, because the only thing that was in the police report was some bruises on the shooter. For me, identifying lack of evidence requires that there is at least evidence for searching - not just taking a look at a scene and going "yep, self-defense."
Stand your ground laws are doubly dangerous: they allow for confrontations to escalate quickly, and for the shooter to go away free as long as there are no witnesses to the shooting.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Its quite a stretch to claim that not collecting a tax is somehow the gov giving them money
No, it's not. They're getting quite a bit in services and benefits from society without paying them. Further, because donations to these organizations are tax deductible, the government is giving people an incentive to donate to them, thus helping them get revenue.
and that anyone who wears "Muslim garb" obviously identifies themselves as a Muslim first and an American second (if they are American at all).
This statement makes no sense. So does that mean anyone wearing a cross identifies themselves as a Christian first and an American second? How do you identify yourself as an American anyways (whether first or not) I thought America was supposed to be the great melting pot, and were proud of its diversity.
That is just a stupid, bigotted statement.
There are lots of things that contribute to racism that are still correlated with race that 50 or 100 years from now probably won't be, or at least not nearly so much.
Economic differences, parental ideals, family stability, participation in civil government, trust in civil authority, and a few other things are just the short list.
Remember, it was only 2 or 3 generations ago that non-Whites had to ride at the back of the bus, that white kids went to different, usually better-funded schools, that race-based "red-lining, job discrimination, and vote-impediments were not only legal but routine in large parts of the United States. It's only been 1-2 generations since the counter-push of highly-visible, then-highly-necessary, and highly-politicized affirmative-action techniques like forced school busing to integrate classrooms, "large" "extra points" in college admissions or job placements that meant more than a few White people lost opportunities they felt they had earned, and the like diminished to the point that relatively few people are given "a leg up" or "asked to step aside in the name of affirmative action."
By the turn of the next century, nobody who has lived his whole life in America will know what it's like to be told "you are Black, you aren't allowed in this school" or "you are black, we can't give you a mortgage." Hopefully, only the oldest will remember what it's like to be pulled over on a legitimate pretense when the real reason is that they were "driving while black."
Being human, there will sadly always be "us and them," but within a century, skin color will not be commonly used to make that distinction. It may be something else, but it won't be skin color.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
No, I'm sorry, but this is absolutely full of shit. You can actually go and see the numbers for yourself. If you want to be a retard conspiracy theorist about it, that's not my fault.
The issue I have with that statement is that it really has nothing to with Juan Williams' personal view on the matter. As a professional pundit, the only possible reason for him to come out and say something like this is to excuse this type of behavior as normal. Agreed, we're missing context here, but nobody really cares what behavior Juan exhibits on a plane, but all of his fans care which behavior Juan thinks is appropriate to exhibit on a plane. Yet another way to say "it's ok to feel that way, most people (like me!) do too."
Fuck that, it's NOT ok, and dressing it up by saying "I'm not a bigot" and "I get nervous [when Muslims identify themselves as Muslim]" really shouldn't be fooling anybody. If you're nervous about Muslims, or black guys, or the Irish, or the Canadians, then it's your job to talk to the ones you meet so you realize that people are people and assholes are assholes. You'll find some of the second in some of the first no matter what demographic you're dealing with.. What sort of ego do we all have to think we're important enough to be the target of every single person that happens to be in one of a great many demographics?
I think that while your take on Juan's comment IS a bit pedantic, it's also very important to show the distinction between bigoted and racist, just as it's important to distinguish between the various different types of cancer.
If anything, those scary Muslims probably have a LOT to talk about regarding cultural differences. I'm sure many Muslims would appreciate the hell out of being approached all friendly-like without getting the "zomg beard-bomber!" look, and if they don't, well, not wanting to be your friend isn't unique to the Muslim culture, last I checked. I sincerely doubt that your attempt at conversation will be what tips the scale toward "That's it, I'm bombing this bitch with my standard-issue Muslim explosive device.", so learn to treat people like people.
I don't care what color you are, keep your hands away from my junk!
Oh, you meant my pocketbook. Keep your hands away from that too! If I want you to have my money (in exchange for a good or service, or maybe because I'm being altruistic) I'll give it to you.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As interim Palm Beach County State Attorney Peter Antonacci told The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board on Tuesday, the law has taken an "executive function" - the decision to bring charges - from prosecutors and given it to judges. "That should be revisited," said Mr. Antonacci, a former deputy state attorney general and statewide prosecutor. He does not advocate repeal, but says the law cannot turn public space "into a free-fire zone." He also believes that the law has "inhibited murder prosecutions" in Palm Beach County. In one, a judge dismissed charges against a man who shot and killed two men during a dispute over tickets for boating violations. In another, a jury acquitted a man who shot another man prosecutors said was swimming away after a fistfight between the two.
...
Rep. Baxley and former Sen. Durell Peadon, R-Crestview, the other sponsor of "stand your ground," insist that the Trayvon Martin case has no bearing on their legislation because George Zimmerman armed himself unnecessarily for someone in such a role and pursued the teenager even after a police dispatcher told him not to do so. In fact, sheriffs, police chiefs and prosecutors opposed this law out of fears that it could cause crimes, not prevent them. Whatever happens in Sanford, Gov. Scott's review should lead at least to changes in the law and, with luck, repeal.
The basic problem seems to be that the law, as it stands, allows for both parties in a dispute to completely legally escalate the level of violence. Both parties in a dispute have the right to "stand their ground" and use lethal force to protect themselves from each other; either could kill the other and then claim a legitimate legal defense under the law if they felt that the other person was a threat to their safety. In this particular case, Treyvon could have claimed a right to stand his ground (as he may have felt he was being stalked by an armed mentally unstable man and his life was at risk) and Zimmerman also could claim the same right (as he may have felt his life was at risk from a tough young criminal in his neighbourhood). Either one could kill the other and then argue that they had the legal right to do so, and the only other witness is dead.
It is easy to imagine some contrived situations where this law would enable more targeted killing. Consider a situation where you have armed neo-Nazis in a black city block, acting in a legal way, but being extremely provocative, say handing out racist literature, or perhaps handing out anti-Semitic Holocaust literature in a Jewish neighborhood. This would be completely legal activity covered by the First Amendment. But it would also be extremely provocative. The moment that this activity turns in to a fight, the armed neo-Nazis can now legally kill the unarmed men and claim they "stood their ground". Or consider the situation if someone decides to "stand their ground" against Zimmerman...
Since its passage in 2005, the "stand your ground'' law has protected people who have pursued another, initiated a confrontation and then used deadly force to defend themselves. Citing the law, judges have granted immunity to killers who put themselves in danger, so long as their pursuit was not criminal, so long as the person using force had a right to be there, and so long as he could convince the judge he was in fear of great danger or death.
..."If you're doing something legal, no matter what the act is, and you're attacked, it's in that moment that you have a right to stand your ground." - 'Stand your ground' law protects those who go far beyond that point
Isn't that the same CEO who was caught on tape promising to give negative NPR coverage for Republicans and good coverage for liberals?
NOPE. It is, however, the CEO who was FRAMED for doing so by a conservative hack pile of shit (I don't believe he's a pile of shit because he's conservative, I believe he's a pile of shit because his methods have shown him to be a pile of shit). The tape was found to be edited. By the time the unedited version surfaced, the damage had been done. If you'll see, absolutely NOTHING in your comment is true whatsoever. Further, the person on the tape was a FUNDRAISING person. That person had absolutely no tied nor influence over the EDITORIAL department. http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/03/11/npr-scandal-the-real-story-please/
Pull your head out of your ass for once.
Good call. I'd be interested to know what the crime rate and conviction rate of all demographics at various levels of income are. That's a far more interesting statistic, and one we can actually do something about.
When I was a kid, I had a liberal stepdad and a conservative dad. I always thought my dad was just a racist who didn't know what he was talking about. At one point we had it out and so I left my lilly-white hometown to to live with my mom and stepdad in what happened to be a predominantly black school district (which my liberal stepdad considered a great opportunity for me to learn a valuable cultural lesson). After I got a harsh lesson in anti-white racism by getting my ass kicked for about the 10th time at said school, I realized that dad may not be so stupid after all and moved back with in him. It was one of those hard lessons in life about the difference between how things *should* be and how they actually *are*. It's not that my dad wanted to teach me to be some racist cross-burner or something, he just wanted to teach me that racism cuts BOTH ways--and that walking into the wrong school/neighborhood/bar with white skin can be just as dangerous as the vice versa. And it's a lot easier to learn that lesson the easy way than the hard way, believe me.
I like to think that maybe things have changed since I was a kid. I'm not sure, as I learned to avoid these situations altogether by keeping my dumb ass out of where I wasn't wanted.
Of course, no one is ever going to say any of that publicly. You're more likely in the modern world to encounter the Loch Ness monster than any truly honest dialogue on race.
Um, I went to a dominately big ass school that was mostly catering to African Americans in the 80's. And I was white, and I was a new waver, so I wasn't looking like a normal person, and I never got my ass kicked. In fact, in my life, I've found most black people to be not much different then white people. Ya, you got your bullies, but then, bullies are of all colors. You have your undereducated, but shit, we got "rednecks", so what's the difference?
Now later in life, when I got stupid and did jail time, I found the black men who hated white people, but I realized it wasn't so much they hated white people, they just hated themselves. They'd talk shit, but you just ignored them.
But then, I grew up in Seattle, and at least before the end of the 80's when everyone decided to move here, people didn't give a fuck about that shit it seemed.
What am I saying? I don't know. Other then being racist is a good show of how stupid you are, as much as being religious.
I've never seen skin as a problem, only attitudes.
Be seeing you...
I'd venture to guess, that MANY people that are non-muslims feel that same tinge of fear or apprehension when they see someone get on a plane with "muslim garb".
I know I do....just natural these days,
But Why?
There are roughly the same number of Muslims in the world as Christians, although it is a bit less in the US. On American soil there are about as many (if not more) terrorist attacks from Christians as there are from Muslims. Yet you don't fear when you see a Christian board the plane, only from someone in "muslim garb?" That isn't natural, it is an irrational fear. Partially propagated by the stupid media. But also perpetuated by bigoted statements.
Wow, you are not only a huge bigot, but you lie like a rug, too. Nothing you've said has basis in fact, nothing is even remotely believable, and yet, you're trying to paint yourself as "persecuted" for saying it. Like somehow you have the truth, and others are preventing you from getting it out, rather than just ignoring your worthless ass.
I think the problem is that if you are in a "bad" neighborhood - and make no mistake, there are neighborhoods that you shouldn't be in unless you either know the neighborhood well or have business there - some people can blend in and some people can't.
If you "walk the walk," "talk the talk," act like people expect you to act, and LOOK AND (if you speak) SOUND like you aren't from "somewhere else" then people are likely to leave you alone.
If you give any hint of "not belonging" - whether it's having a skin color that nobody in that neighborhood has, having a car that's obviously not local, having an accent or diction that marks you as an outsider, or if you just act like you don't belong, you will be treated as an outsider.
Most neighborhoods treat outsiders with respect.
Sadly, a few do not.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Wow, such ignorance. Got anything credible to actually back that shit up? No, of course not. You're going to claim that it's "suppressed", like every other conspiracy nut.
Are young black men more violent towards young white men because they're inherently violent because of genetics?
Out of curiosity, if this were a scientifically proven fact (not saying that it is, mind you, just hypothisising [is that a word?]), would reacting to said individuals on sight as if they were dangerous constitute racism or stereotyping?
The last two lines should read:
Most neighborhoods treat PERCEIVED outsiders with respect.
Sadly, a few do not.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The fact is: I don't see any difference between Bush/Obama/Romney.
Yet, you seem to hold Obama responsible for all of it, and only bash Obama. Doesn't really fit with your claim of "not seeing any difference".
(Never mind that the killer was actually hispanic; not part of the white majority.
He has a white dad with a white name. That's good enough for most. I know black people beat up for that by other blacks.
Learn to love Alaska
Racism is just as bad -- and inexcusable -- when a minority does it.
It is just as "bad" as in ignorant and contemptible. It is certainly not as "bad" as in constraining the opportunity of the majority. Many people fail to understand this distinction.
So that's a NO on having any citation?
Yes, there have been stories about the Muslim Brotherhood gaining seats in the Egyptian Parliament. But remember, the US didn't get involved in their revolution. And what's the alternative? The US telling them who they can and cannot elect? Seriously, your analysis is incredibly shitty.
Studies confirm that there is a general racial bias in everyone
It isn't about being racist. It is about being different. Birds of a feather flock together. And people don't like other people that are different. Skin color is one huge big obvious difference. But there are other things as well, thats why there is the whole jocks vs nerds thing.
A better choice, at least if you're more left leaning, would be to do something like what the Tea Party did with the GOP. Rather than run as a 3rd party, which in reality does not have much, if any chance, of winning, you create a movement in the party, and start getting more progressive candidates nominated through the primary process. That's how the Tea Party was able to wield so much control over the GOP. If they had gone 3rd party, no one would give a shit, because they wouldn't have any kind of chance to get anyone elected.
And both the bailouts and the wars were started before he was elected.
When I was 6, my father got a job in Nigeria. I remember being the only person in school (pupils or staff) who was not a Nigerian. After a couple of days, I learned that there was a racial divide there and I was asked which group I wanted to include myself in. I had the choice of Hausa or Yoruba. As I had already made friends with a couple of Hausa kids, I stuck with them. Can you guess what kind of a conflict I had entered? I was picking which team I would be in in playground football games!
Whenever someone talks to me about being in a minority, I tell them "been there, done that". Those kids were no different from me although they did use me as a pronunciation guide in their English classes. There will be people my age there with black skins and Scottish accents!
The main possibly racist points in the article seem to be
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites.
I cannot think of any valid explanation for 10g but I would want to see statistics for 11 and I am sure that there will be people who could explain them away anyway. He did not give any references I saw so he wasn't even trying. Your kids don't need references but an article does.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
This is good information, as is the information in some of the replies.
But the most useful information is what we do NOT know:
* How many people are doing arrest-worthy things and NOT being arrested, and why are they escaping arrest?
* How many people are NOT doing arrest-worthy things but being arrested anyways, and why are they being arrested?
Ditto conviction-worthy things.
If people are escaping arrest due to police or policymakers deliberately playing favorites or even due to one group of people unfairly "benefiting" because of a policy decision that diverts police towards a different neighborhood or a different class of crime, then we have a problem.
If people who should never be arrested in the first place are being arrested, that's a problem in and of itself, but it's highly compounded if the risk of becoming a "police victim" falls more on some groups than others due to a police officer or policymaker doing things with the intent of making this happen. It's mildly compounded if the risk is unevenly spread due to official action where the "uneven risk" is an unintended side-effect of the official action.
The same goes for convictions:
If guilty people escape convictions because of a "good old boy system" or because the local defense bar is more willing to "give it all" when defending a person of a certain group is charged than when a non-group-member is charged, then we have a problem.
Ditto when innocent people are railroaded into pleading guilty or are unjustly convicted. If this happens in a way that everyone shares the risk of becoming an innocent prison inmate evenly, that's bad but it's not nearly as bad as if some groups bear an unfair burden that other groups do not bear.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I don't know which is sadder, that you're so ashamed of your own heritage or that there is so little memory of actual Irish culture amongst Irish Americans.
I am American. 100%. That is my heritage, that is my culture. My fathers parents immigrated from Ireland. I am pretty sure I can point the country out on a map, and that is about it. I was never taught anything about the Irish culture. But I grew up American. I learned the American culture. Is that sad? I'm not "ashamed" of my "heritage." Because my heritage is American. If you know something of your past, you should hold on to some of your traditions. At the same time you should embrace traditions of the new place. But don't insult people because they only learned and embraced the new traditions.
My grand parents immigrated from Ireland. But I am not Irish, I am not an Irish American. I am American.
I had presumed the content of the article and made some comment above. But now I have read the article in more detail. It starts off well enough, but then the guy just goes over-the-top with some ideas. "Give more scrutiny to black politicians than to white"?? Seriously? They are ALL fucking crooks and they ALL deserve scrutiny. Why should a white politician get away with shit a black politician can't? And of course, the stupidity doesn't begin or end there.
But you know? Some things aren't wrong. Certain social behaviors bear out. It simply doesn't make sense to be in a bad neighborhood and expect to be and feel safe. I went to Mardi-Gras once... I don't need to go back. I witnessed no white criminals and lots of black criminals. Don't read into that more than I just said. Only read what I said. I saw what I saw. It's not what anyone should consider to be a fair statistical sample.
Still. This cracker just goes a bit too far.
Well, I had only intended my response as a funny, but your reply is cleverer by half, and I'm afraid you'll make people take my post seriously!
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Since we're making broad judgments, it's because women are a more valuable resource than men. Men can and do procreate prolifically while women are physically limited to a set rate of reproduction. Women's burden is, in large part, to wade through a score of potential mates to find one worthy of their extremely taxing reproductive role, while men's burden is to stand out from the competition and try to mate with anyone they can find, if they can find anyone. You will seldom hear a woman complain that she can't find a date; only that she can't find a man (mate). And like most other mammalian species, men who are unsuccessful are ostracized and shunned from the social group and relegated to fighting for resources amongst themselves, including, perhaps especially, females. Men are compelled by evolution to secure a mate by any means necessary, because if they don't, another man will. Prison's main function is arguably to try to put an upper limit on the behavior men are willing to engage in to secure that mate, for the good of both the men who already have mates, but more importantly to preserve the valuable resource of women.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
If by "criminal population" you mean people who actually HAVE committed crimes, that's not knowable.
If by "criminal population" you mean people who have been convicted of crimes, well, that's fine as long as those statistics don't UNFAIRLY paint one group as "more criminal" compared to other groups vs. the ideal world in which every criminal was convicted and no innocent person was ever convicted.
In other words, if x% of the REAL criminal population is White and y% of the REAL criminal population is Black, then it's unfair if the arrest- and conviction- stats portray x-z% of the criminal population as White and x+z% as Black.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
No, I think it has to do with system prejudice and ignorance in America.
I live in a village that has 9000 white residents and around 40 black, asian or Chinese ones. I've never seen any abuse to those 40, they're working in a variety of professions (from pizza delivery to dispensing chemist) and there's no friction. The Turkish looking lady that bought the chipshop seems to be popular amongst the locals too, and her son's on the local dance team.
20 miles away there's a major British city where a quarter of the population are of Indian background alone, let alone the people from Pakistan, Bangladesh and other countries. Whole suburbs there are 90+% Asian. I've been out there at night: They're all friendly. I get invited into peoples homes, I can go into the restaurants and be treated as 'just another customer' even when I'm the only white person out of 300 in the building, I can walk down the street and go shopping.
Couple of weeks ago in Manchester I went shopping late at night. Found myself in a major supermarket in a very poor part of the town, queuing amongst people wearing gang colours, 80% of them black, none of the white people had good teeth, the store staff were entirely non-white. Several people smiled in greeting at me, and one gay guy flirted with me, and then I paid for my shopping and went home.
Is there racism? Sure. Just because I'm not seeing it, not suffering from it, doesn't mean that it isn't there. But it's not systemic, it's not a generalised thing, and frankly the existence of a minority isn't the issue, it's other factors at play in the US.
Juan Williams was a news analyst, not an opinion writer.He was on Fox News as an official representative of NPR, not as a private citizen.
The rest of your argument is about as wrong as your statements on Juan Williams.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I guess the closest real-life equivalent I can think of are public figures like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly, who do often get called on their shit, but say it anyway. I think that the Rev's, also, get called out on their shit, but they have more public momentum right now. I don't think it's a matter of who's side is right (they're both pretty damn nutjob to me) but one of where the public opinion will land the hardest.
It takes one person to stereotype and another to be a victim of that stereotyping, whether by being fired or having feelings hurt doesn't matter.
Learn to love Alaska
Ireland as a paradigm of understanding and tolerance? Of non-tribal behavior?
Need I point to the sectarian Irish Civil War?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Obama himself has said the bailouts were necessary and has continued down those paths. Obama has continued both wars and has spent our $$ attacking other countries (ever heard of Libya?). However you want to play out the technicalities, he has his hands just as deep into our pockets as past presidents.
"a penchant for fine cheese, cigars, and port"
Please provide details as to how I might subscribe to your newsletter.
Does that mean that the government "owns" churches, since their contributions are tax exempt?
No, actually most of the time it's about fear of the other. Plenty of poor people without power are racist and I doubt that they're working for white power. It's just one aspect of a poor group and what they dislike and fear. Dislike of rich bankers is very similar to dislike of people with different skin, just with a different target trait.
Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
Paid for by you and me, the taxpayers.
"If you're not passionate about your operating system, you're married to the wrong one."
Where to start.. You have nailed it sir.. This whole topic is important to me and you have , so far, summed it up best with the fewest words. At the moment we're at 400+ posts, but I would sincerely not expect it to end berfore 1000. It really relates to the way racisim is percieved/defined by people: Too many folks think its what whites have done over centuries/millenia and not enough think of it as what one individual/group does to another today. I personally am guilty of stereotyping as well as a victim of racism- shaped by my personal experience. I neither wish to be a victim nor a perpetrator, just hoping to overcome the gap of perception.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
It seemed to me that you were saying it's ok to silence this man because he is intolerant. Someone else's bad behavior, whatever it is, does not justify bad behavior on your part. None of us should be totally ok with a man losing his job over an opinion he holds. So no, intolerance of intolerance is not, in itself, ok. Just the same way you claim this man is wrong for speaking his (intolerant) mind, you are wrong to say he should be silenced.
You should also consider Black people getting arrested for things white people don't get arrested for, and profiling (checking Black people for criminal activity more often or closely than white people).
I accept that cocaine/crack laws disproportionately affect blacks, but that's not what people are protesting in the streets (though I would argue that maybe it should be).
It doesn't matter what I consider evidence to the contrary; it only matters (for the purpose of determining whether the police acted appropriately) what the law says. And for the record, I believe the police actually did arrest him (hence the booking videos), but the prosecutor declined to press charges.
Again, I'm not saying this law is great or not -- that's a separate argument -- just that there's no evidence that this case is either an isolated example of institutional racism OR part of a larger trend. Yes, those things surely exist in some contexts, such as you described, but that doesn't automatically mean that this event is related to racism, and the speculation of the GP does nothing to further that argument.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Race relations (re: 2011 England riots)
"Research conducted by the University of Nottingham suggested that race relations in Britain have deteriorated since the riots and that prejudice towards ethnic minorities is on the rise.[210] Groups such as the EDL and the BNP were said to be exploiting the situation.[211] After the hit-and-run incident in Birmingham, in which three Asian men were killed by a black driver, racial tensions between blacks and Asians in Birmingham increased; hostilities were diffused by the public appeals for an end to violence by Tariq Jahan, father of one of the victims.[181][212]
The effects of black culture were discussed by historian David Starkey in the 12 August edition of the BBC's Newsnight TV programme. Starkey singled out the influence of black gangster and rap culture on youths of all races, contrasting contemporary youth patois with the speech patterns of black Tottenham MP David Lammy, who, Starkey asserted, "sounded white". The author Dreda Say Mitchell countered his argument by saying that there is no one single "black culture".[213]
Some commentators remarked on the apparently high proportion of black people involved in the riots and took the view that there was a disproportionately high number of rioters who were black, compared to the overall demographics of the United Kingdom.[214] In October 2011 a report was published by the Ministry of Justice providing demographic statistics of the people charged over participation the riots. Overall, 46% of people brought before a courtroom were black, disproportionate to the average UK population;[215][216] however the figures revealed varying demographics in different areas when compared to local populations. For example in Haringey, the figures revealed that 55% of defendants in court over riot-related charges were black, compared to a 17% black population; in Salford, 94% of rioters in court were white, compared to an 88% white population, and 6% of rioters were black, compared to a 2% black population.[217] Additionally, looters from 44 foreign countries were jailed, with Jamaicans representing the largest group.[218]
The Ministry of Justice report also noted that rioters brought before the courts were disproportionately male (90%) and young (26% were aged 10–17, 27% were aged 18–20 and only 5% were aged over 40)."
A lot of people who get their ass kicked repeatedly by random people at school are in denial about how much of an asshole they actually were. So they blame other factors instead.
Er, he wore the shirt and tie to school, not the soccer game. In many schools, it's required that you "dress the part" of an athlete representing the school. For football players, they wear their jerseys on the day of the game, or Friday, if it's a Saturday game. Basketball players typically wear shirts and ties on days they have a game. For this guy, it sounds like soccer players also had to wear shirts and ties during school on game days. I don't recall being required to wear anything special on days we had wrestling matches, but wrestling wasn't considered a "showcase" sport in our school.
While I don't agree with many things the author said, and I think that the bullshit about different intelligence only shows his own ignorance, his basic argument is right. You have a moral obligation to respect the rights of every human the same way, but how you treat them beyond that should be up to you. Expecting someone to walk carelessly into a dangerous neighbourhood because of some abstract ideology is simply foolish. Aknowledging and evading danger is the first and most important line of defence humans have. It's the same deal as it is with sexism: while the two sexes have obvious differences they should be treated the same. Claiming simply that man and women are different does not make someone a sexist. But for some reason many can't accept that it's possible to treat people of different races the same while at the same time keeping the statistical differences between races in mind. Thinking alone is not a crime, actions are.
Sadly, the problem is more complicated than that. As a theoretical example, if there is a minority that's statistically worse at, for example, doing a given job than employers of that field will start not to employ them, because of their own rational interests. Thus, even assuming no superstition or prejudice, racism can be a result of the basic market forces. The problem is that because members of said minority will now have less chances in that job, they will orientate themselves in other directions, making the statistics even worse. Thus, the system has a positive feedback, and racism generates even more racism and worse conditions. In real life, this happens in not just one but a huge ratio of the jobs, and in most contact with the majority in general.
So racism itself contributes to the problem it causes, but it's naivity to assume it is the only reason. And battling racism alone will not change anything unless other problems like lack of education and lack of order, and the mindset of the other side (the ghetto mentality) are dealt with. Changing conditions is relatively easy compared to changing the thinking of people, especially when those mindsets are individually rational.
I'm still in the process of making up my mind, but labeling people into clear 'racist' and 'tolerant' groups is an oversimplification of a complex problem.
The Irish civil war had to do with disagreements over the northern 6 counties fostered by the British and political maneuvering. Sectarianism had nothing to do with it. So yes, Ireland as a paradigm of understanding and tolerance.
Oh! I thought you were talking about Obama/Sarkozy's assisting Al-queda take over Libya.
Citation or it didn't happen.
I was certain he was referring to Reagan/Bush selling missiles to Iran, funding the Contras, paying terrorists to hold Marines hostage, setting up the original Al Qaeda training camps, and so on, and so forth.
What's that? You were just looking for an opportunity to blatantly bash 'liberals,' as if neocons aren't guilty of the same (or worse) crimes?
Well, color me "surprised."
And these people control the most powerful military force on Earth. $deity help us all. I was going to write "God", but He obviously did a poor job advising the U.S. in the past. Do your worst, I have karma to burn.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
It isn't a matter of fairness, but of effectiveness. If you want to make a word harmless, you have two choices:
1) Stop using it, and pressure everyone to stop using it. Eliminate it from people's vocabularies. Over a few generations, the word will stop being spoken, and it'll start to sound old fashion. It'll be the kind of thing less and less people even know, and those that do will see it as an anachronism, the kind of thing you only hear in old movies. You will have then succeeded. An example would be the term "Nip" to derogatorily refer to Japanese people. It comes form the shortening of Nipponese which comes from Nippon, the romanticized version of the native name of Japan. In WWII, it was a popular slur, particularly with troops. Now most people don't know what it means (hence my need to explain it) and those that do find it sounds antiquated, and don't use it in normal speech. It is a dead word and thus not used to hurt people.
2) Make the word a term of endearment and your own. Make it something that everyone says as a compliment for a certain set of characteristics/action/whatever. Make it the kind of thing that is ok for everyone to say, everyone to be called, and then the venom has been drained out. It is very ineffective at an insult because it is used so often as the opposite. Geek (and nerd) would be an example. It used to mean a fool or freak, later particularly circus freaks. Then it was used as an insult to overly intellectual/bookish individuals... Who decided to own it. We are now proudly geeks, we are happy about it, it is a good thing to be. People want to be geeks, they like geeks and so on. It doesn't work as an insult because it has become praise. Everyone is free to use it.
Those are the only two effective options. If you have a word and say "Only certain people can use it, it's ok for them and is a good thing, if others use it it is racist/mean/harmful/whatever," then you are being ineffective. You insure it doesn't die out, yet retains its negative connotations and can be used as a slur. So if you want it dealt with you have to pick one, doesn't matter which they'll both work equally well (so the choice should be based on other merits) and go with it.
Racism is not an Irish tradition.
If you think that sounds ridiculous, maybe you should reexamine your own stereotypes.
It does sound ridiculous, because you're standing up a straw man- Why not take a minute and respond directly to his argument instead:
Me? Sure, if I'm walking a street alone (especially in New Orleans) and I see some black teen males walking behind me or coming near me...I keep a very wary eye out on them, and often will cross to the other side of the road and keep an eye out for my options to get to safety in case of a mugging. Why? Well,young black teens commit an overwhelming amount of muggings down here. They are often caught on the cameras wearing gang-banger clothes. If I see that, I naturally am apprehensive. If said young black men were wearing suits, or dressed in a more normal, non-threatening middle class manner, no...I'd not likely be worried for my safety.
While stereotyping is more often misused than not, it is not ridiculous to be apprehensive if approached while walking alone down Rampart in New Orleans by a group of black teenage teen males dressed in clothing typically worn by gang members.
It is also not ridiculous to be apprehensive if approached by a group of rough-looking rednecks while walking alone in a small East Texas town.
I've been in both situations, and would have been foolish had I not been apprehensive in each. By the same token, had the teenagers been dressed in clothing not similar to that worn by violent gangs, and if the rednecks had been dressed differently and had hidden a couple of (big) tattoos I usually associate with prison life (and had later not idled slowly past me in a pickup truck, sporting a confederate flag decal and plastered with bumper stickers that advocated some pretty rotten stuff for "liberals" and "yankees"), I would have been less concerned about my well-being.
Granted, not all black teenagers on Rampart that walk in groups and wear gang-affiliated clothing are a threat to lone individuals walking nearby, and the same may be said for groups of scruffy-looking rednecks in east Texas that drive beat-up pickup trucks with offensive bumper stickers, but based upon the crime rates in specific areas and in specific situations, there is an elevated risk. In some situations, it is not unreasonable or bigoted to be apprehensive based upon a stereotype.
No, I'm Irish like all of my kind, quick to anger and quicker to forgive, a man who will give you his last scrap of food and tell you a joke while doing so, a bad enemy but a stout and loyal friend, who takes every man as he comes regardless of colour or creed. Thats my culture.
And I still call bullshit on your comment.
The lower IQ is true. But IQ is mostly based on educational opportunity,
No, the IQ measured by tests is mostly determined by factors before formal schooling starts.
Education does not change IQ test scores much, especially if looking at group statistics.
IQ is sort of defined as that part of "smartness" that does not change.
Either way your life is ruined. So no, there is no real difference.
Of course we can't (because it's both morally wrong and impractical) require people to not hate people who say nasty things. But in the past, such people could learn their lesson, move elsewhere and begin anew - indeed, America itself was a popular target for that. Nowadays that's no longer possible, since we're trying to make establishing a new identity as hard as possible, so your first mistake is also your last. That is a problem, and it needs to be solved; imperfect human beings simply can't live with everything they've ever done or said following them for the rest of their lives.
There's a reason why "papers, please" has such a strong association with oppression.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I have no idea what kind of justification can be given to this, other than "we are Christian country!!!".
I don't know about in the US, but here in Australia, churches are in the exact same tax exempt category as stuff like your local football club or knitting circle. That is, a group of tax-payers pooling their funds for a non-commercial common interest don't get taxed twice (once on earning it, once on contributing to the pool).
Churches that engage in commercial activity (the Anglican church owns a lot of land, and has a lot of rental income) pay taxes on that commercial activity - but not on donations from its members.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
>>>Yet, you seem to hold Obama responsible for all of it, and only bash Obama.
Strawman argument. I did not blame Obama for "all of it". If you look at my original post I blamed Obama for al-Queda's takeover of Libya. The end. I did not blame him for everything.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I like how you put "stereotyping" and "taking it badly" together as if they were equally offensive acts.
. It would be worthwhile to provide an item-by-item refutation to the article, than simply scream "racism" and leave it at that.
I started something similar after the article was posted to /. Then less than halfway through, I saw that /. had over 300 comments and anything I posted would probably be ignored, so I discarded it.
Actually, I was going to re-write as much as I could in a non-racist way.
But here's a section-by-section mini-criticism and partial rewrite:
Lines 1-4 - not worth rebutting on the first go-around. I would repeat everything said in the context of every major racial and ethnic group.
Line 5 - should repeat for every major racial and ethnic group in your country and locality
Lines 6-9 - This tells half the story. Without exploring the WHY behind the statistics (e.g. vestiges of centuries of racial discrimination, and some continuing overt and subtle discrimination that still exists) it's worse of an educational tool than not mentioning it at all. These also need to be broken out for all major races and other groups, including groups like "My High School" vs. "Archrival High School."
10 as a whole)
* This needs to be done for all large population groups.
* There needs to be an explanation of why "us vs. them" mentalities exist.
* Explain why "you are the outsider, be courteous on the outside but vigilant on the inside" MAY be necessary for personal safety.
* Explain why "someone from 'the outside' is in 'our neighborhood,' it is better to be welcoming than to be hostile" is a good policy.
10a) Substitute "people" for "blacks" and "most/many" for "all."
10b) Substitute "neighborhoods with a recently-earned reputation for being hostile to outsiders" for "heavily black" and add "unless you have a good reason to be there."
10c) Substitute "a group of people with a recently-earned reputation for being hostile to outsiders and/or unsafe behavior" for "blacks."
10d) Substitute "people who engage in behavior that puts your safety at risk" for "blacks"
10e) Substitute "people suddenly and unexpectedly swells" for "blacks suddenly swells."
10f) Substitute "run by politicians who are corrupt or who only listen to a part of their constituency rather than all of it" for "black politicians" (the implication I get from the article is that if you are not black, the black politician will not treat you like the constituent you are, and/or that black politicians are more likely to be corrupt)
10g) Substitute "Before voting, scrutinize the character of the person you are voting for" for the entire sentence.
10h) Substitute "be aware of your own safety situation before being a 'Good Samaritan'" for the entire sentence.
10i) Delete "by a strange black" and for that matter delete "in the street." "If accosted, smile and say something polite but keep moving" is good advice.
11) (see 6 through 9)
12) (see also 6 through 9) Explain that the "magnifying effect" has diminished over time as affirmative action and tokenism have been reduced. Explain how other groups, including sub-groups of White people, also benefit from unfair hiring practices. Explain what the "good old boy system," "nepotism," "church-, fraternity-, or golf-club-membership, or what-college-you-went-to status gets you the interview or opportunity," and "it's not what you know, but who you know" environments create the same anti-meritocracy effect in businesses and institutions where non-merit-based decision-making in hiring and giving people opportunities is practiced.
13 - 15) Delete outright. While it is good advice to become friends with people who are intelligent and well-socialized, #13 and by extension 14 and 15 advocate soliciting intelligent, well-socialized Black people for selfish AND fraudulent reasons. This has no place in a list of things to teach your children. The "social benefit" to the fraud advocated may have been noticeable in the 1970s but even if you are teac
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
> No, it's not. For one, it's quite minuscule in the Federal budget
True enough. But cut it, the whole of CPB and the NEA and a few thousand other useless and/or programs that are nice to have in fat times and it is real money, even on the Federal Budget scale. Reality says things that can't continue don't. And our current Federal Budget can't continue. Longterm you can't extract more than about 20% of the U.S. economy in taxes and we are spending far more than that. If you refuse to even cut NPR after you state they don't really need the money, where will you cut?
> especially when one compares it to the subsidies of the oil companies.
What subsidies? Do you mean the tax incentives/etc that any manufacturer ca get? Or the extraction credits anyone in the extracive fields like mining/drilling/etc. get? You have fallen for another one of the false narratives of the left. Big oil pays a lot of taxes. They pay to lease the land the drill on from private individuals or the government, then they pay extraction taxes. Then they pay corporate taxes at state, federal and sometimes local levels. They pay a lot of money to hire Americans to do hard, skilled jobs that pay very well, and both the oil companies and those employees pay a shedload of taxes for that. Then when they sell a gallon of gas a big chunk of the selling prices are highway taxes. Far more of a gallon of gas is paying various taxes than ever makes to the profits or dividends of the oil companies.
And you know that on some level. If you really thought oil companies were awash in insanely great profits you wouldn't be bitchin' you would be owning shares in em. But while they are performing fairly well they ain't dominating the stock pages. Unlike a certain company known for insanely great profit margins and almost no American employees.
Democrat delenda est
Quite literally, yes. The oil companies got over $4 billion in tax breaks last year, and unlike NPR and PBS, these are for-profit companies already make quite a handsome profit.
Because obviously someone trying to smuggle an explosive device onboard will dress so as to stick out and draw suspicion.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Probably true. But I get tired of the "if you do it, it's racism. If we do it, it's just us standing up for our rights" double standard. Both "talks" are identical: avoid the other group of people and if you can't then try not to stick out.
And yes it is class based in some ways. We're not nearly as class based as some countries though. But it's the attitude of someone that gets me worried; if they look like they don't belong in my condo complex and they're under 30 and they look like they're hiding, then I'm a bit worried. That may mean having the hood up on a hoodie on a hot day, hanging around the side of the building smoking, loitering on a school day, etc. White, black, hispanic, asian, it doesn't matter. And this isn't really class based either, unless one of the classes are "trying to look like a gangsta".
Bunch of college kids in a group coming down the sidewalk in my direction, all holding some sort of macchiato blend in one hand an an iPhone in the other, then hell yes I'd nervous!
Ethnically, compared to the US, you're still homogenous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom
vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
vs Canada (because its a bragging point for Canadians) http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97-562/pages/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&Code=01&Table=1&Data=Count&StartRec=1&Sort=2&Display=Page
In the US, this is difficult to measure, because many "hispanics" consider themselves white, and answer censuses accordingly. Additionally, many mixed race folks will tick off multiple boxes, so totals don't come out to a nice neat 100%. So, skin color is really not the best answer, and ethnicity starts getting smeared in only one generation, so even though Mr Gomez may be proud of being Latino, he may not speak Spanish, cook/eat traditional Hispanic foods, and is married to Mrs Koloski, who's father was Polish and mother was half German-half English. It gets complicated. By Eurpean standards, the US is a vast mixing pot, the number 1 "ethnicity" is German, at 17%. Everything else trails down from there. And pretty much everything in the world is represented.
Basically:
US is about 70-75% "white", 25-30% "non-white"
UK is about 92% white, 8% non-white
Canada is about 83-84% white, 16-17% non-white
US has a broader mix of European heritage as well, and the white/non-white has a very grey edge to it. As far as immigration, the US has an estimated 10 million undocumented workers from Mexico alone. By definition, they are all immigrants (born in the US == automatic citizenship). Per captia, that would be like the UK having 1.5-2 million Polish plumbers, rather than the 500K that actually were in country at one time (if the Polish plumbers were in the country illegally - if you count legal immigrants, it would be more like 6 million, and you'd drop to 85% white or so).
Black seems to work in every situation except American politics. Black is used colloquially here, "African-American" tends to denote a formal situation that is possibly racially charged (so someone being careful or playing a race card).
Depends on if I have enough money to pay for the ho he's pimping.
Occupy anyone?
Seriously, Horton plaza in San Diego has been exactly that sort of place since the 50's, according to my M-I-L and was certainly that way when I was a navy recruit in the 80's and still is today.
On any given day you can get the world is ending, floride in the Water, and during the 80's a guy giving shadow boxing lessons.
The old UN park in SF is the same way. Great place to sit and listen to the loonies.
So much for the Federation of Planets....
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
> Ah yes, the lies to show how you are the only persecuted side, and all others are protected. Wasn't there some hubbub about
> a newscaster with a forged draft-dodge document getting fired, and no apology stopped that?
You mean Dan Rather's 100% faked report dropped days before a Presidential election and clearly intended to swing the election? The one that was debunked in epic fashion (the infamous throbing GIF) by the Internet so fast it actually boomeranged and likely helped reelect Bush? And still it took CBS months and a special Blue Ribbon Commission of all stars to decide that yes, this was so obvious (and equally likely that it FAILED and helped reelect Bush) that the honor of the network required his producer be sacked... then when that didn't go over Rather went under the bus.
How about a more recent case that more closely bears on this one, of a CNN host tweeting something homophobic and getting to keep his job. Google can supply examples until you get sick of reading them. Bigoted and liberal, ok. Bigoted and conservative, not ok. Hell, I'm conceding the point that Derb went over the line in responding to the race hustlers who wrote the original pieces in the NYT, WaPo, etc. And if we were having a spasm of disgust and cleaning house, firing everybody on all sides who has been crossing the line lately, well ok; sucks for everybody who lost jobs in this crappy economy but life ain't fair. Kinda ex post facto and all, but at some point we might want to draw some lines and raise the level of discourse in our leading publications.
Democrat delenda est
It's called a "straw-man" argument: build an effigy of the real target (a scarecrow), shoot it down, and claim that you have made a real difference. Just as such straw-men have historically (sometimes) fooled people in war, they still do in arguments.
Sadly, today, straw-man arguments often seem to fool the one making the argument as much as others who are taken in by it. I suspect this is such a case.
After all, isn't NPR pretty much government funded?
Only as far as morons who listen to FOX news are concerned. To the world based in reality, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[18][23] While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPRâ(TM)s overall revenues.
Oh yes there is.
If company A does not have earnings, it does not get tax benefits. the government neither risks or loses anything. It does reward success.
If it is getting government funding, it gets the money either way.
See, you have be at least marginally successful to get the tax benefit, but a total loser of a company, like Solyndra, gets taxpayer money gratis.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Does the government 'own' all churchs?
Unlike some cultures, America values merit-based upward and downward mobility.
There are classes in America. Those classes, fairly or not, tend to "take care of their own," frequently at the expense of others.
Unlike, say, European Aristocracy, you can move up or down in class. You have to work hard or get lucky to move up, and you have to work very hard and/or get very lucky to move up a lot. Even 150 years ago, America was a country where an average-class farmer could grow up to be President. Today it's a country where a reasonably talented, reasonably hard-working 6 year old going to an average or somewhat-below-average-quality elementary school can graduate from high school and get a scholarship to a good university and even if he doesn't get super-lucky, he can be in upper management or higher by the time he's 50.
If his family is poor and his grades are good enough to get in, most Ivy League schools will cover most or all of his tuition. This will give him opportunities to meet and interact with people who grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth, which benefits the whole group.
On the other hand, in America, this same work ethic means we allow our adult children to be lazy and miss out on opportunities and even "slide down" on the social ladder if they choose to.
So, yes, there is some classism in America, but it's not rigid. it just means if your parents were working-class, you have to work significantly harder and/or have significantly more luck to wind up having a 6-figure (in today's dollars) salary by age 40 than someone who grew up in a home that was in the top-25% in wealth and income. But unlike some cultures, society as a whole* won't be trying to "keep you down at the level your parents were at."
*yes, there are some jerks - both individuals and institutions can be jerks in this context - who will try to "keep you down" but as a whole, America wants to lift up those who show a promise of being able to make a greater contribution to society than the average person.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I kind of agree with you, but kind of not, in the sense that you may be exaggerating and being extra divisive.
It probably would be good to face class a little more directly and rationally, and yes, that would kind of throw a bone to the left, which the right can't seem to abide.
On the other hand, admitting that, maybe, growing income inequality is not entirely the fault of the losers does not require validating Marxism. Maybe it validates some of Marx's ideas, but wherever you fall w.r.t. Marxism and its modern descendants, you must admit there's a gap between the existence of a class problem, and the revolutionary aspects associated with Marxism?
In many liberal democracies, like the US, we seem to swing back and forth over time, and we're over to the right now. Maybe it really is the end, and we don't swing back without revolution, but I'm not convinced yet. (Maybe I'm a little closer to convinced than I like to think about, but not quite yet.)
There are, after all, a lot of right-wing voters on the wrong side of the tracks, and there are even conservative reasons to fix growing income inequality. It's not necessary to convince everyone in the US to come over even as far left as myself to convince them that maybe there's a problem.
Sure, it usually feels like hitting your head against a brick wall, but such is political discourse in the US, as it has ever been...
And if you put any American in Muslim garb, they would look Muslim.
Except texans, the hat under the burqua would be a dead giveaway.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Nonsense. This merely shows that you are not a very discerning person.
Don't misunderstand: I agree with you completely that very often, when someone says "I'm not a bigot, but..." or "I don't want to offend, but..." or "It's not about the money..." they really mean the opposite. It happens frequently.
BUT... you err fatally in claiming that anyone who says such a thing is a hypocrite. Some are, many are not.
There exist the legitimate people who want to tell you that "I'm not a bigot, but that particular minority member you have been listening to is..."
There exist the people who genuinely say (discreetly) "I don't want to offend, but maybe you should use some mouthwash before going into that meeting." These are actually your friends. And some of them who lack tact still actually mean well.
And there are many people who say "It isn't about the money" and really mean it. Often, however, you will find that most of those who are sincere are not rich people. But not always. In any event, they do exist and they are sincere.
Your remark was cynicism, and that's all. Yes, some people do act as you say. But if you think ALL people who say such things are hypocrites, I feel sorry for you. You are missing so very much.
Yeah, many people probably do feel some fear when they see people in foreign dress. And most of them know better than to say so on fucking television.
Especially if their job is to present an ostensibly neutral and unbiased analysis of the news and foreign affairs.
From that point on, every time Juan Williams opened his mouth and was critical of any person who might have been Muslim or even dressed in what might be regarded as Muslim garb he was opening NPR to a charge that they were biased against Muslims. How do you report the news under that kind of cloud? You can't.
The best thing they could do was fire him and cut their losses. Juan Williams can be replaced. Their reputation for neutrality and fair reporting would have been much harder to replace.
I'll admit to not having the whole context around the statement, but from what I see he never claimed any of those thoughts were fair to the person in question.
Here's the quote in context:
"I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts."
Emphasis on the part where he says that those thoughts are fair.
BTW, no one who has ever bombed an american airplane was wearing "muslim garb" which is itself a non-sequitur as there isn't one piece of clothing that a muslim might wear that isn't also worn by non-muslims. Even burqas.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Oh! I thought you were talking about Obama/Sarkozy's assisting Al-queda take over Libya.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
That's how it's defined, but every major IQ test can be shifted by 2+ SD with education. IQ testing just doesn't test what it aims to. That's a flaw of the test, not necessarily of the concept.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Proddys vs Papists? Unionists vs Republicans? Don't get me wrong I love Ireland, it is beautiful and friendly and it may have been calm there recently but to claim that Ireland is somehow better because it is less tribal is a bit unrealistic. Ireland from 1921 to the end of the 20th century was one of the most unfortunate examples of intolerance and bigoted violence in the West. Also there may not have been a recent rise in xenophobic right wing extremism, but since DeValera's 1937 constitution recognized the "special position" of the Catholic church and banned divorce, Ireland has been a terribly conservative nation.
-- QED
You mean Dan Rather's 100% faked report dropped days before a Presidential election and clearly intended to swing the election? The one that was debunked in epic fashion (the infamous throbing GIF) by the Internet so fast it actually boomeranged and likely helped reelect Bush? And still it took CBS months and a special Blue Ribbon Commission of all stars to decide that yes, this was so obvious (and equally likely that it FAILED and helped reelect Bush) that the honor of the network required his producer be sacked... then when that didn't go over Rather went under the bus.
Yes, that one. The one that proves your lies false. That's the one. And it only takes one to disprove an insane rant of generalizations.
Learn to love Alaska
Agreed, we're missing context here, but nobody really cares what behavior Juan exhibits on a plane, but all of his fans care which behavior Juan thinks is appropriate to exhibit on a plane.
Now you are trying to paint a large group of people with an opinion that they don't necessarily share. Hmm... He didn't talk about what behaviour he thinks is appropriate, he talked about what he felt. He admitted to being an imperfect human. "This is what I feel..." And I see nothing in the quoted text that says "it's good to feel that way and then act upon those feelings...".
Fuck that, it's NOT ok,
Yes, it is ok to have emotions and thoughts. It's being human. It's what you DO with them that counts. I bet that his response to his feelings is to be more concerned about his actions than most. He knows and admits that he has them.
Compare that to the liberal media pundits who absolutely have biases and prejudices but adamantly refuse to admit that they do. The only way they cannot have biases is to not be human. The first step to dealing with a prejudice is to recognize it. Until you do that, you cannot get over it. And the wrong thing to do is punish people who have the courage to admit an emotional bias, because you will only force others to remain silent and harbor grudges against those who punish human thought. (Do you notice the basis for the first amendment here? Better a nutcase who can freely speak and be identified and counteracted than a silent festering underground you can't ever get rid of just by lecturing at them. Even if you hate what they say.)
If you're nervous about Muslims, or black guys, or the Irish, or the Canadians, then it's your job to talk to the ones you meet so you realize that people are people and assholes are assholes.
I would bet that in his job at NPR, Juan Williams talked to a lot of Muslims (and blacks, and Irish, and Canadians) and I bet he has a firm intellectual grasp on the concept that "people are people and assholes are assholes". And I bet he has a firm grasp on the difference between emotions and intellectual knowledge.
Why do people scream when they go over the top of a roller coaster ride? Intellectually they must know that the chance of injury is vanishingly small, and yet, they scream their heads off in fear. Why do people scream when they bungi jump? Same thing. They don't scream when they cross the street, even though they know, intellectually, that their chance of being hit by a car is greater than dying on a roller coaster or bungi jump. Why do children getting their first haircut scream and cry? Their emotion is to be afraid, they don't have the intellectual experience to know it doesn't hurt -- much. Emotions and intellect are two vastly different things.
Overall, I would rather have someone who has and admits to having emotions reporting the news than someone who thinks his intellect puts him above it all. The former will understand where he may have biases and work to counter them; the latter will utter biased "news" without any concern or recognition of that at all.
Also of note, white male arrest rate (1,775 per 100,000) vs. black male arrest rate (4,347 per 100,000).
You've misread your source. Actual rates:
White, non-hispanic male arrest rate (678 per 100,000); hispanic male arrest rate (1,775 per 100,000); black, non-hispanic male arrest rate (4,347 per 100,000).
It still supports your point, though.
Are you serious? This actually occurs?
I mean... I guess some parents might think that's wise or I guess in some places that might be necessary but I just find that completely surprising. I'd never heard of such a thing, is this common internationally or just in the US?
I've just never heard of it.
(Yes, I'm a cracker from Australia)
It's a shame Goldberg couldn't have written it with nearly as much understanding (and a tenth as much hard evidence) as you have (which by the way is 1/10 of 0).
But if you read those bullet points, and think about them for a minute in light of the past 30 years of politics in the US, you'll see that with guys like Goldberg, it's always projection. It's part of the intellectual legacy of Newt Gingrich, that whatever your greatest disgrace, the answer is always to accuse the other side of it and then run away. Recently, this approach has been seen in Paul Ryan's accusation that President Obama is trying to destroy Medicare. It requires a level of shamelessness that is seldom found in the wild, but it seems that brass is something never in short supply in the world of the Right. Remember, "Obama is a racist" and "Obama wants to kill your grandma". Those were the greatest hits of 2010, and delivered with absolutely serious faces, which is itself something of an achievement.
Further,
That's nothing like the current calls for Republicans to ignore the fact that a big government moderate is running as their party's nominee, and vote for Romney is absolutely critical if you're "on the team". In other words, ignore you own personal beliefs, because it's more important that "we" win.
And this doozy,
And of course, not like trivial things like the right-wing corporatization of politics and privatization of the military and law enforcement, as well as militarization of the police. When I see the American Left (as named in Goldberg's subtitle), the first thing that comes to mind is "Eugenics". In fact, hasn't Eugenics been a platform of the Democratic Party for the past 60 years? Sadly, No.
But this one is the winner and champeen:
You are welcome on my lawn.
but every major IQ test can be shifted by 2+ SD with education.
Ridiculous. I think you mean 2 points.
Such comparisons are both fair and not fair. The best comparison I can make explaining why it might have an element of fairness is to consider standards that apply to men and women, and why it is that creeps who go into women's bathrooms are not in the same league as girls who go into mensrooms in order to take an emergency leak. The basic issue is the asymmetry between the sexes. Upper body strength of the average man is 2-4X that of the average woman. So standards end up being asymmetrical, because men don't have to spend their lives worrying about being physically brutalized and raped by /women/.
Something similar applies to disadvantaged communities. But only to a degree. The situation has to do with power.
Ultimately, however, if you have power (such as if you are on the city counsel), then perhaps you should consider your obligations to behave in a fair manner...
Don't you think?
Seriously, are you honestly wanting to waste your time cutting shit that is less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the US Budget?
Seriously, people should ask themselves that question more. If you're not talking about Social Security, Medicare, Military Expenditures, or Debt Service, you're not serious about the budget. Of course maybe it's not about that for them. Maybe they just have a bone to pick.
Nope, I meant what I said. That's why IQ tests are now widely understood to test something other than IQ as you defined it. It just isn't native intelligence, it's a highly trainable attribute that the existing tests test. Whether or not IQ exists is even up for debate, since no one has been able to contrive a test of it.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
It's more of an issue of hearing about the latest situational events in funda-lsamo-fascist states (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others), and thence concluding that this is representative of "Muslims." It's not. It's a sour, specific brand of funda-islamo-fascism.
Those places are terrible, however, and what amounts to regionally endorsed practices there are evidence of a society still in its infancy. The Western world backed out of the sort of stuff after the Hundred Years War.
You appear to be claiming that "liberals" always get away with murder and "conversavtives" don't. The problem here is the "always" part. Rather is a counter-example as is Limbaugh and his slut-tirade. So what if Roland Martin got a slap on the wrist? NPR fired their head of fund-raising for privately saying he thought the tea party were a bunch of kooks, and then they went on to fire their CEO in the fall-out. Meanwhile Ann Coulter non-ironically says things like "camel jockey" and "raghead" and doesn't even get a slap on the wrist.
What you've got is a case of confirmation bias. Some people get fired, some don't on all sides.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The problem with refuting stuff like this is that it feels much like arguing against Hitler's rants... and, no matter how much time you spend, you will never convince the supporters that they are wrong to judge people through the prism of race.
1) "What you must call “the ‘N’ word” is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks."
An absolute claim requires only a single instance to disprove. Do you really believe that Barack Obama, Neil deGrasse Tysone etc. "freely use the N word". Do you really believe that the N word is taboo to Eminem? If not, claim 1 is disproven.
2) Here the author claims that American blacks are mostly decended from West African populations; the linked paper states 22% of the ancestry of their sample is European, and ~10% have >50% European ancestors. The paper goes on to say that, although interbreeding did happen (Malcolm X’s grandfather was white), most of it was recent. These offspring would be referred to as mixed race elsewhere but are classed as "black" in U.S. due to the white Southern paradigm of hypodescent".
I have no idea why the author included this point. It actually invalidates his entire thesis. Since the rest of his points are arguing that black people are somehow "different", this point - that the "black" population is to a large extent of white / mixed race / European descent goes against his main hypothesis. And it's not exactly a surprise that some "black" people are mixed race - Barack Obama's mixed race parentage is common knowledge.
3) "Your own ancestry is mixed north-European and northeast-Asian, but blacks will take you to be white."
If someone looks white, then yes, people will take you to be white. But why single out blacks as being guilty of not recognising visual genetic diversity? He is already guilty of exactly the same "crime" - in point 2 he notes the wide genetic diversity of the black population, but then lumps them all together as "blacks" in the very following paragraph.
4) "any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen... In some unusual circumstances, however—e.g., paragraph (10h) below—this default principle should be overridden by considerations of personal safety."
Why bother dividing this by race? Why not just say "be couteous to everyone"? And, regarding personal safety, it is ridiculous to suggest that you should be afraid of black people but not white. There are white muggers and rapists - why isn't he mentioning the dangers of associating with white people? In fact, the vast majority (>90%) of violent offenders, rapists etc. are men - obviously, being male is a much better indicator of a potential criminal, if he is going to speak in such generalisations, then why isn't he lecturing his children to beware of men?
5) "There are black geniuses... Only at the far, far extremes of certain traits are there absences. There are, for example, no black Fields Medal winners."
WTF? The author states that there are black geniuses, but then goes on to imply that blacks can't be exceptional at maths. And let's not forget point 2 - where he has already pointed out that many "blacks" are of equal European descent! So people that are 80% European can't be good at maths? How European do you have to be, exactly, to qualify? For over 200 years, there was no black President of the U.S. - clearly, by this logic, black people are not clever enough to be President. Oh, wait... could there possibly be any other relevant factors?
6) "You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences."
"methodical inquiries in the human sciences" - you might think that the author is going to link to an exhaustive analysis of peer-reviewed literature. But no - instead, he links to the personal web site o
I was certain he was referring to Reagan/Bush selling missiles to Iran, funding the Contras, paying terrorists to hold Marines hostage, setting up the original Al Qaeda training camps, and so on, and so forth.
Selling missiles to Iran. Hindsight is 20/20. Could you imagine if Iraq had won the wars they fought with Iran?
Paying terrorists to hold Marines hostage? I call bullshit.
Setting up the original Al Qaeda training camps. Serious bullshit here. There is a difference between the "Western Alliance" and Al Qaeda/Taliban. Know the difference. Not everyone in Afghanistan is Al Qaeda. Or do you not think you can be brown and not a racist?
Well, color me "surprised."
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
If a black scholar wrote an article on how to keep the white man's hands out of your pockets, would they also get fired?
I don't know if they'd get fired, but I'd be interested in reading the article. Between the bailouts and the wars, white men have quite a few hands in my pockets.
Barack Obama is only half white.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Try wikipedia on npr funding. Seems that "pretty much government funded" is 11.3%. So no.
Well, they sure do scream bloody murder when we try to cut that 11.3% out. "Republicans hate Big Bird" was the rally cry last time it was attempted.
So, yeah, they are pretty much government funded. Until they can tell the federal government, "No thanks", they are government funded.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Tax exemption IS government funding.
I have no idea what kind of justification can be given to this, other than "we are Christian country!!!".
Then why are synagogues tax exempt?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You DO NOT solve problems by SUPPRESSING FREEDOM OF SPEECH - you address speech you don't like with more speech.
If you can't or wont do that (and no excuses are good enough) then you are part of the problem.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Anybody can make wild claims. I can train people to be taller.
Height measurements are so inconsistent, I doubt that height really exists. It is just a social construct.
Citation please.
Unless you are a significant public figure for your business (and even then I'm not so sure), what you believe and what you say should have fuck all to do with your employer.
Except that in this case he's paid to express opinions which taken in aggregate with other authors represent the magazine. An author for a magazine reflects the spectrum of perspectives the magazine wants to express.
Despite what the summary states this article was also published on the magazine's website, not just some blog. So they made the decision that they don't like the perspective of one of their authors and that they don't want their magazine to be a venue for future racist pieces.
I agree that a company shouldn't fire someone just because they post a racist blog. But when your job is to write blog posts about what you believe--and it turns out you believe a lot of really racist stuff then you should expect that what they write for you will also be racist.
You're more likely in the modern world to encounter the Loch Ness monster than any truly honest dialogue on race.
The situation here in Australia is quite different although there certainly are and have been serious racial problems. One of the biggest sports in this country is something called "Rugby League" which is a different sport (with it's own world cup) to what most of the world calls "Rugby".
Anyway, the season opener is called the All Stars Game which is the Indigenous All Stars Vs the NRL All Stars, basically, Blacks Vs The World. The Indigenous side are incredibly proud to play for their people. Nobody says its racist and you hear a lot of "it's such a great concept". I think this game does a hell of a lot to support "honest dialogue" and perhaps shows shows that a nation can move on from its genocidal past in a relatively short period of time.
Is this type of thing possible in todays USA?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
>>>NPR is "government funded" like oil companies are "government funded".
Really? The oil companies get billions-of-dollars in U.S. Treasury checks like NPR and PBS do? Hmmmm. I. Did not. Know that. (Probably because your statement is false.)
And oil companies give my car what is needed to get me to work, my child to the hospital, if necessary, and the whole family to grandma's house every Thanksgiving. They also heat homes to keep people from freezing to death and create the plastics that the keys on the keyboard you used to type your tripe. NPR gives us Big Bird, which could make plenty of profit to ensure the company's survival and liberal propaganda, which has been tried in the private sector and failed every single time. Tell me, which one do you think they NEED government funding for?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
True enough. But cut it, the whole of CPB and the NEA and a few thousand other useless and/or programs that are nice to have in fat times and it is real money, even on the Federal Budget scale.
Not really. As much as our politicians would love for us to all believe that it's a fight about all the little bit like this, there's no amount of discretionary budget you are going to cut to make a real difference. The longer you let our politicians turn thumb wrestling matches over things tiny programs into huge government-shutting-down cat fights, the longer it is going to be before any meaningful discussion about the budget.
It is a specific brand of "funda-islamo-fascism", however, it's not some tiny sect. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others practicing that form of Islam are fairly large and populous countries, and as a whole, that sect (actually there's a couple sects there; the ones in Saudi Arabia are Sunnis IIRC, and the Iranians Shi'ites, and they hate each other) comprises a significant percentage of the worldwide population of Muslims.
"At least five large studies in recent years have found that vertical inter-generational mobility is lower in America than in comparable nations, belief in America as a land of opportunity not withstanding." - Socio-economic mobility in the United States
People think that America is the land of opportunity. That doesn't make it so.
Tax exempt status isn't limited to Christian churches. Maybe you should learn more about this.
Write failed: Broken pipe
I know I do....just natural these days, especially when this statement was made by Juan not that long after 9/11. I
If by "A couple years" you mean almost a decade yes, it was right after 9/11.
The real problem with the Juan Williams comment was also that he instead of apologizing doubled down. He might have saved his job if he had said:
"Now that's of course irrational, but it just goes to show how even educated, otherwise open minded Americans such as myself have to challenge our own biases in order to move forward as a country."
Instead he doubled down on his bigotry and decided to defend it as a rational prejudice based on a real danger. In other words he went on to suggest that you *should* be afraid of Muslims because Muslims actually are dangerous.
But if every business pushes an agenda that is a lie, when does it officially become newspeak? Lets be honest folks...how many here think that the average white person, just minding their own business, would walk through say Harlem or Watts or any other major big city all black neighborhood unscathed? Now what if it were the other way? in most places the worst that would happen to the black man would be a cop asking him what he was doing which is a far cry from ending up beaten or dead. Can't blame it on poverty either because WV is the poorest state in the nation and also has one of the lowest crimes rates as well.
AG Holder has the balls to call us cowards for not talking about race, even after crap like this? Then lets talk about race and the real problems we are seeing in America. there is a good reason why places like Harlem were once considered jewels and are now hellholes, its because 50 years of welfare rewarding destructive behavior like having multiple children by multiple partners combined with a black culture that glorifies violence, drugs, weapons, and the treatment of women as nothing more than sperm receptacles and punching bags has destroyed the black community!
How sad that nobody can speak anything but PC Newspeak anymore, no matter how many facts and figures you can provide to back it up. How many know that the AP refuses to publish the race if the attacker is black and the victim white? How many here even heard about the white kid that was doused in gas and set on fire by black kids shouting "Kill whitey for Trayvon"? How sad is it that Klan has nothing on "thug life!" culture when it comes to killing black people?
Until more are willing to point out that the combination of "thug life!" culture and welfare teaching a complete lack of values is creating the very situations that the racists used to use as propaganda I expect we will see nothing more than PC newspeak while those same elites that publish their PC mags quietly go back to their all white gated communities with armed guards, ignoring the mass slaughters, rapes, and robberies happening thanks to the rise of the violent urban ghettos.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Citations needed.
Thomas Sowell writes for National Review and has many interesting things to say.
Magic Numbers in Politics
Politics vs. Economics
Politics vs. Reality
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" Matthew 22:21. I still haven't figured how anyone twists that into "make my donations tax deductible!", probably the same way they twisted the eye of a needle to be some side door to make rich folks feel better about themselves.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
But in Juan Williams' full sentence, at the very least least he was excusing bigotry. How can you excuse it if you are not one yourself?
>read the rest of your post
>get to end
>read this
I feel sorry for you. You are missing so very much.
I don't need your insults.
Also, this stormfront shit in /. scares the fuck out of me, and it's not just here. It's in other places where it never used to show up, or if it did, it was greeted with derision.
--
BMO
Emphasis on the part where he says that those thoughts are fair.
No, the emphasis was on the part where he said there was no way to get away from "these facts". He said nothing about his thoughts or emotions there. YOU put the entire quote into one paragraph as if it belonged that way logically. I see a quite logical break at "Now, I remember...". That puts his feelings in a different part of his statement. It is a fact that english speakers will often use the interjection "now..." to indicate a break in the chain of thought. "Here's how I feel ... Now, here's something someone said..."
In writing, breaking paragraphs is easy. Hit CR twice. In speaking, which he was, the breaks have to be inferred. It's easy to jump to the least complimentary assumption as to where the breaks occur, which may be proof of the point I was making about humans having biases. Si?
You quoted the facts he referred to: "Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood." Is it not a fact that the Times Square bomber was in court? Is it not a fact that he said what Juan claimed he did?
how many here think that the average white person, just minding their own business, would walk through say Harlem or Watts or any other major big city all black neighborhood unscathed?
When I worked for political campaigns in LA I did this all the time. I was never harassed (except by the occassional guard dog behind a fence). There were a few skeevy looking guys that made me nervous (net tattoos and obvious drugs/money exchange), but they never actually bothered or threatened me.
In Beverly Hills on the other hand? I had people track my plates and leave harrassing messages on my home phone number (a number they could only have gotten by looking up the car's registration). I was chased down the street by one crazy asshole with a broom. I had things thrown at me. Lost track of the number of times I talked to the cops.
I'll let you figure out where I felt more safe. (Just to clarify, I'm as white as the driven snow). Maybe you just face up to the fact that you're a raving racist if you really think a white person can't walk safely through the neighborhoods south of the 10.
As usual, let's throw the entire responsibility for the situation back onto the shoulders of the black community. 350 years of institutionalized, vicious racist policies had nothing to do with the place they find themselves today. Yep, it's just welfare and "thug life!"
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Yeah, I (adult white male) live in Taiwan. Very few whites or blacks here. I've had children very interested in me because I'm white. Just wanting to touch me-it also helps that I'm hairy. I've also had a child cry when I smiled at her. This is segregation, but only of the kind that exists because people don't move across the planet often.
> Maybe they just have a bone to pick.
Of course I have a bone to pick. I object to most of the Federal Government.
> If you're not talking about Social Security, Medicare, Military Expenditures, or Debt Service, you're not serious about the budget.
Well debt service is off the table for reasons that should be so obvious they don't require comment. So that leaves the big ones. And you are partly right that those are the problem. But you are also wrong that the small stuff should therefore be left untouched. Your side is engaged in a circular argument in bad faith bacause you guys don't want to see ANY government touched. You see, as soon as we propose cutting the small but useless crap you point to the bit ticket items and proclaim that until we cut or reform them we must not touch sacred cows such as NPR. Propose reforming 'entitlements' and the argument instantly flips and some wasteful program is held up and we are told that we can't touch granny's medicid while we are wasting billions on other stuff.
And no, we won't be able to mount an argument to cut 'entitlements' while stupid crap is being funded, no way we can make the argument that this is a crisis while surrendering the fight to cut NPR. So how about this answer: cut everything until we balance the budget. Start with a budget that spends what we are taking in, cutting everything in proportion, then let the battle royal begin to restore funding to really important programs at the expense of less important ones.
And before you even say it, no. Won't work. Raising taxes in the current reality would almost certainly reduce revenue, not increase it. If you want to reform the tax system I'm all for it so long as it is revenue neutral (static score) and depends on growing the economy to raise revenue.
Democrat delenda est
If racism was about color, then Africa would be united.
And Europe...
And Asia...
And the Middle East...
South America...
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Oh, the kid crying-I don't think it was due to the parents. They seemed to react about the same to me as the fascinated kids. Well, one of those parents were saying "don't bother him". The kids were just interested(negatively or positively) in the different person.
Here are a handful, there are lots:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750946710000498
http://bmo.sagepub.com/content/31/3/264.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1985.tb01641.x/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1310767/
And so on. The list goes on and on really, there are literally hundreds of studies on IQ and how to improve it. IQ scores as a metric of pure cognitive ability divorced from education is just fundamentally debunked, and actually has been for some time.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Simple, of all the money I make, about 30% of it is not mine, but rather the bill I owe the collective society in which my money making is possible. When I do not give up all 30%, it is the government refunding my money. Why is that difficult to grasp?
You are right, it does have nothing at all to do with the place they find themselves today.
Japanese-Americans were exploited for cheap labor in the 19th and early 20th centuries, so badly discriminated against in the 20th century that their property was effectively confiscated and they were imprisoned for years, yet within a few decades of WWII ending they had exceeded whites in household income even though they continued to be widely discriminated against.
Blacks like Bill Cosby, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell are right when they point out that it is the black community and black culture that is holding back blacks today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKgHc6bWqZ4 How Much Can Discrimination Explain? | Walter Williams
When blacks from former Apartheid South Africa immigrate to the US and kick the crud out of US blacks economically, that should tell you that the problem is not racism from whites, as racists don't really differentiate between an African black and an American black.
I've met plenty of successful blacks, the one distinguishing feature among them is that all of them reject affirmative action and what passes for mainstream black culture. Getting called "Uncle Tom" doesn't bother them, they're laughing all the way to the bank as they are the ones with well paying full-time jobs, aren't living in the ghetto or jail, and the only shooting they do is at the range.
500 years from now, given the results is has produced, historians will believe that Affirmative Action was devised by the Klan.
But more important is there isn't anyone to 'fire' him. He owns the company. So all his opponents could do was attack his advertisers and the network of stations which carry his program.
And 2 out hundreds of stations, dropped him He got a slap on the wrist.
And yes, I'll go there: If the crazy girl is really going through a thousand dollars a year in contraceptives she has to be f*cking like a porn star.
5-1 against that you listened to what SHE said.
And female contraceptives don't even work that way. Why so oblivious and so proud of it?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Is that how they sell crony handouts these days? Too bad some people see it as anything other than a government handout.
No, the emphasis was on the part where he said there was no way to get away from "these facts". He said nothing about his thoughts or emotions there.
Lol. Off you go on some grammar parsing mission completely ignoring the point of the words themselves - that those "facts" are even worth mentioning in a serious conversation. Sure, lets put that paragraph break right in there. It still doesn't change his point - that it is legitimate to fear people simply because you think they are muslim.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The deduction for donations had nothing to do with religion. When the government first passed the income tax, and later estate tax, charities, the arts, research scientists, and universities were screaming bloody murder because money that rich businessmen had previously been donating to them was going to government. Yes, at the time the rates were low, but with no government funding to those groups, those rates still put a huge dent in their finances.
In typical fashion the government tried to fix one wrong with another wrong and created the donation deduction and, over time, started taking over funding charities and universities. Funding that was previously given directly by the rich, like Rockefeller and Carnegie, was instead laundered through Washington DC first so the politicians could get their cut.
Muslim garb? That's exactly why it's racist... the term "Muslim garb". What the hell does that mean? There is no Muslim dress code, including burkhas and other veils/scarves (which are not all burkhas). Some Muslim sects have specific garb while many cultures that are predominantly Muslim also have traditional dressings (which wildly vary). But the fact that he called it Muslim garb is what makes it racist. I'm assuming he meant Bedouin garb, but there's too many other options to truly presume such. To take this further, the only bit of garb that distinguishes Muslims from non-Muslims in the Western hemisphere seems to be headscarves, which are considered lavish accessories for women, not mandatory hiding elements. Juan Williams was attempting to disguise his racism by calling out clothing associated with his hated group.
But do you understand why the former is racist, while your other examples have little to nothing to do with race? Replace redneck with dude, and your other examples completely lack race.
Yes he is censored. That is a textbook definition of censored. It's also the kind of censored most people agree is a good thing. Just because 5 9's of usage is negative doesn't mean that last .001% isn't an extreme positive.
Wait, how the hell did this get modded up? At no point did the GP state or even imply that he (or she, but relevant gender-neutral pronouns are awkward to nonexistent in English) wanted to say "nigger", nor did he state that there's any situation which calls for it. You came closest with "does it just bother you that it's taboo" except you're still wrong, because your statement is factually incorrect.
It's taboo for a certain segment of the population, and not for another.
That's called, quite simply, a double standard. It's a common concept in racism (of all kinds; if you think being racist is a white thing exclusively, you need to see a lot more of the world, especially places where whites are the minority). It's wrong; it is a large part of the problem of racism in general. It is a societally-accepted method of creating significance to what should be an insignificant distinction.
Somehow, you managed to completely miss that point. I'm not entirely sure how...
OK, all that said, you do actually raise some good points. I am personally against the *concept* of a taboo word, even one that is applied equally. If black people calling eachother "nigger" is a way to ease the term into common usage, that's fine by me. I have no intention of ever using it except in a discussion about the word itself, but I take objection to the idea that I should be univerally prohibited from uttering it for *any* reason. It is perfectly acceptable to state that its use as an insult or derogatory epithet is prohibited, provided that the prohibition is against the concept of insulting people, not the concept of speking a specific sequence of phonemes.
Here's the catch, though: if black people were generally OK with being called "nigger" then the work would honestly be losing its negative connotations, as you suggest it should. However, when a black person is only OK with being called "nigger" by another black person regardless of the context or intent of usage, that becomes racism itself, by definition. That is what you should be calling for, if you want to solve the problem: black people being OK with being called "nigger" by anybody, not black people using "nigger" to refer to other black people.
For a parallel, consider the word "gay" which is still (and in my opinion, just as inexcusably) used derogatively. The distinction is that gay people (not some nebulous "I have lots of gay friends" but people like my roommate last year, some of his boyfriends, my 7th-grade teacher, a local politician who I met with in person, and so on) don't have a problem with being described as, or even directly called, "gay". They object if it's used as an insult, of course. They do not, however, give a damn about the orientation of the speaker. This has, I believe, directly helped keep "gay" from ever becoming nearly so loaded a word as "nigger"; we discuss "gay marriage" whereas discussion of blacks and white marrying used terms like "mixed marriage" instead, for example.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Huh? The Irish are welcoming and wish everyone else a good day? Isn't that exactly the Irish stereotype?
Me thinks you are the racist.
Wow, you really are a racial supremacist. How sad, as I thought my genetic heritage had suffered enough at the hands of supremacists. I guess not everyone can learn the lessons of history, even when Northern Ireland is so close at hand.
It wasn't PC? Say it isn't so!!!
Sometimes? Perhaps all the time. I find cultural explanations win out much more often than not when supposedly racist motivates are attributed. But that's splitting hairs for most people, so I lay off the subject when not in mindful company.
Seconded. Nothing screams asshole like wearing a tie around the poor.
Those links go nowhere near supporting even a fraction of your claim. Worthless.
Two are studies on autism, not normal people.
One shows that you can modify IQ scores by modifying the testing process (duh!)
One says environment affects IQ (duh!) . Any more detail than that is behind a paywall.
It would be interesting if the siblings were separated after the start of formal education.
What have you got that supports a 2 SD difference from education?
Here are a handful, there are lots:
No the point about NPR is that they get a significant amount of funding from people and organisations who would otherwise have to give that money to the government in the form of taxes
Sure, and the guy who gives 10% of his income to a church/mosque/temple is also getting a tax write off for it.
So I guess the government is now funding the establishment of a religion, because the church is busy sending missionaries door to door... /sarcasm
Your standard deduction is not at all optional in the way a gift to NPR is.
But a donation to a church is. And it makes the same point.
Because your hyperbole isn't reality.
Genetically Hispanics fall into many categories. Many are white, but other options exist, specifically black Hispanics.
Don't interpret an internet story so you can prove a point. It makes you sound stupid.
You do realize that your advice is only understood by those who don't need it, right?
OJ could afford the best lawyers money could buy.
It's called a "straw-man" argument: build an effigy of the real target (a scarecrow), shoot it down, and claim that you have made a real difference. Just as such straw-men have historically (sometimes) fooled people in war, they still do in arguments.
Really, the fact that his argument involved the standard deduction instead of an optional one isn't all that relevant. It still pointed out the absurdity in attributing in the discretionary funds an individual donates to charity-X as "government funding".
Meanwhile, the guy giving 10% of his income to a mosque gets a write off too. So because that's an optional deduction, the rational conclusion is that the state is now establishing Islam as state funded religion...
Yeah. Whatever.
No, actually it's not just as bad. Depending on the circumstances, it can be an act of liberation.
You plan to understand the human condition using set theory? I love the attempt at applying a scientific mind, but I'm thinking you're just using a tool that quietly leads to your predestination.
I sparked up once with the craziest Ebonics speaking cats out of Indianapolis. I could barely understand them, but we were drunk and high and laughing all the way. Every ounce of me said it was bad juju, but frankly it was all my prejudices coming out. And to think if I wasn't a pot-head I never would have dealt with that bit of negativity.
Let your hair hang down. When white society looks at you queer, so do most anyone else. /me has never been beaten up in his life by anyone but his older brother
Ultimately, however, if you have power (such as if you are on the city counsel), then perhaps you should consider your obligations to behave in a fair manner...
Should you? Yes. but given the people the Americans vote into power, I think we are getting what we deserve.
Learn to love Alaska
Growing up as a white kid in a 90+% white school, I'd say most racist comments were by whites against whites. Not at me though, as my nerdiness was a much bigger target.
Lol. Because any other response borders on depressing.
No, because women are not as extreme as men. Let's not get misogynistic when the thread is already crawling with racism.
Considering your post comes after many posts about the legal system's bias against minorities, I'll give you the benefit of doubt and suggest you not present those figures ever again. This advice can only help your credibility.
That is a textbook definition of censored.
How is erecting a small barrier to communication censoring? He can still post. He's proven his IP is not banned (as mine has been), because he can post anonymously. He's just lost some membership privileges for ToS violations. That's like claiming that prison for murder is censorship and petitioning for release on those grounds.
Learn to love Alaska
Yes idealist niceties are a good starting point, but as a white man who still doesn't know what to say to black, urban, poor men (3 things I was not raised to be or around), nothing beats actual real world experiences. Keeping a blunt on hand at all times did seem to help, as it does in many situations.
Fact: Rainbows come in all the colors.
Huh? You were so close to the truth and then what? Of course both postulations are correct. We are tribal, overt teaching or no. That white kids taught to beware blacks fight black kids taught to beware whites is exactly as is expected.
AC comments on this thread is ridiculous!
http://www.gibby.net.au
The white preachers wouldn't need to jump into the fray because the black volunteer would have been arrested.
Are you sure?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
"
Me? Sure, if I'm walking a street alone (especially in New Orleans) and I see some black teen males walking behind me or coming near me...I keep a very wary eye out on them, and often will cross to the other side of the road and keep an eye out for my options to get to safety in case of a mugging.
"
This is where you _really_ lost me. As the current end of page +5 comment suggests, the real deciding factor for my near-instinctual threat-level meters is based fairly colorblindedly on subtler things than race, mostly towards wealth. Though if the others appear wealthy and young, say 20-25ish, I'll admit that if black, and if otherwise ambiguous (behavior/bodylanguage-wise), I may think of the perhaps valid stereotype of blacks likelier to be in the mid-low level drug dealing enterprise, than whites, whom I would chalk up more probability of just having rich parents. (and the drug association, unfortunately with prohibition, being often a gateway to broader disprespect for the more victimful laws as well as the victimless ones). Unfortunately this legitimate stereotype is a race-class hybrid issue. But my core point was- walking down a sketch neighborhood street, if you see 3 20 year olds, I think you may be paying more attention than you realize to how wealthy they appear, and how they behave/bodylanguage, and making possibly racially(racist?) based socioeconomic real-time threat guesstimates. Or maybe you just are that racist. Or just need to think it more through. I.e. 'gang-banger clothes'? Is that equivalent to 'rags', or you thinking more blatant synchronized bandanas. Ok, I guess I must concede minor point to you on the overt latter, in that, one can hedge their actions on the belief that an obvious race-homogenous clearly branded gang, will be on average over incidences, more of a threat if you are not of the same race as them. But even if I see a saw a group of blue eyed whites like myself in an overtly branded race-homogonous gang of 3+ members on the street... you know what... I'm not sure I can see feeling any less threatened there, but that might be an outlyer for obvious reasons...
The real problem is that in the real-world, the police didn't bother to do anything but to take the shooter at his word that it was self-defense. You can bet your sorry ass that if a black watch volunteer would have killed a white kid, he would have been in prison post-haste.
You might want to be a bit more careful with the sweeping generalizations, or you could end up losing your ass.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The math is wrong here. If I donate $1,000 to a church or to any other charity and deduct it on my taxes, I reduce my taxable income by $1,000 but income tax is only a portion of my taxable income, not 100%. Otherwise I'd be flat broke. Permanently. Think about it. So if I itemize deductions, I will reduce my tax bill by somewhere between $100 and $400, depending on how much I earn and where I live (in Manhattan, there's even a local income tax; some states have no income tax). So that still means that I gave between 60% and 90% of that $1,000 to that organization. It is not majority government funded.
Just to get this clear: we're talking about whether NPR is a national public radio system?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Genocidal past ?...What sort of shit is that?...there was no Aboriginal "genocide" ever, period...Aboriginals are treated a hell of a lot better than anyone else in Australia....You sir, are a fucking disgrace...now get the fuck out !
Here's the most notable example: Aboriginal Tasmanians
Other historians regard the Black War as one of the earliest recorded modern genocides.[8] Benjamin Madley wrote: "Despite over 170 years of debate over who or what was responsible for this near-extinction, no consensus exists on its origins, process, or whether or not it was genocide" however, using the "U.N. definition, sufficient evidence exists to designate the Tasmanian catastrophe genocide."[1]
And of cuorse: List of Australian Massacres
But you know, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions!
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
Except, just like this case, there's not one goddamn bit of evidence that a crime was committed. Using deadly force when your life is in danger is legal in every state - and yes, having a teen pin you to the ground and bash your head into the pavement qualifies as your life being in danger.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Well far be it for me to criticize a "Death Metal Underground" fan, but you're coming up with half-assed reasons to support a conclusion you've already decided upon. The great societies of Finland or Japan? Is that some sort of joke? I mean, they're OK I guess. Kind of small and unimportant...you forgot to mention North Korea (100% Korean) though.
What about the great empires of Rome, Islam, India, many of China, classic Turkey. They were mutli-racial, often multi-religious, certainly mutl-caste, and wide disparities in intelligence are just a natural part of semi-agrarian societies. They all thrived. And if they didn't last forever, or at least they didn't thrive forever, that's because that's the nature of the world. Anyway that's all beside the point, because your outrage about non-Europeans coming to the US isn't really comparable..."minority/majority" is certainly a different thing than "mono-racial."
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Genetically Hispanics fall into many categories. Many are white, but other options exist, specifically black Hispanics.
Genetically, the whole racial classification thing is bullshit, anyhow. It's tribalism, it's not genes. And depends on your point of view, somebody I see as "Hispanic" may not see much in common between Puerto Rico and Spain. Where I am, we have "African Americans" and "Somali Americans", never mind that Somalia is in Africa, the two groups have completely different histories and almost nothing in common except (sometimes) skin color.
On American soil there are about as many (if not more) terrorist attacks from Christians as there are from Muslims. Yet you don't fear when you see a Christian board the plane, only from someone in "muslim garb?" That isn't natural, it is an irrational fear. Partially propagated by the stupid media. But also perpetuated by bigoted statements.
While I'm not using the figures below to support bigotry, I think I understand why some people fear attacks from Islamic Extremists more than from other groups.
Referring to a compilation that uses data gathered by the FBI regarding terrorist attacks on US soil 1980-2005 (scroll to the bottom of the FBI page for the data):
Percentage of terrorist attacks by ideology / culture:
When comparing this data to the casualties caused by those terrorist acts committed by the groups listed above, it's easier to understand why some people might focus on Islamic Extremists. Compiled from the FBI data:
Racism cuts only one way, from the dominant group to the other groups. Racial hate cut both ways.
Wait, when you say the bailouts and wars.... Obama is white now?
Zimmerman isnt exactly white, you know; hes what you would call a "minority".
That man (Ron Paul) is stupid beyond words... If you stopped the war on drugs, it would escalate and many more would be hooked. Now, if you assume that there's no racial reason for the distribution of users, it would still be a significant black thing, and legal or not the drugs still have all the drawbacks (loss of job, health issues etc.) so legalizing drugs would in effect harm the blacks pretty significantly. They won't go to jail for it but they'll still end up in the gutter, destroyed by drugs, and much more so than whites.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
OJ was arrested, you idiot. Zimmerman wasn't. That's what the uproar is about.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I live in South Africa, it's not that bad people.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
That's a racist comment. It is based on two figures that seems racisitically slated but isn't.
First figure is the likelihood of being arrested, based on your race. That number is not independent of everything else, but based on many factors, including experience of the police officers (they get read good a reading body language and similar to spot probable criminals) and the crime situation in the area (lots of crime means that it is more likely still that anyone with a suspect body language actually did something wrong), and blacks and hispanics tend to live in high crime areas.
The second number reflects the first - if twice as many gets arrested and charged, twice as many will get convicted, given equal treatment at the courts.
Now, if you claim that you are more likely to get convicted if you're black or hispanic, I say that this is mostly a statistical construct. The bare numbers might say this, but if you clean them for other anomalies they are much more equal. Differences in types of crime, as well as the quality of lawyers, prosecutors etc.will yield differing conviction rates. Also, the likelihood of a crime being gang related is much higher for blacks and hispanics, and the police will play the members against each other, getting one to testify against the others thus making conviction much more likely.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
You need to learn the difference between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Nobody in the Republic cares or cared what religion you are. British puritan settlers/planters in the north however geleefully embarked on a 400-year long campaign of persecution and genocide, leading to its current unfortunate status as the most racist place on earth, entirely due to the English and Ulster Scots.
The rest of the country meanwhile has several times won the Economist Intelligence Unit's "best place in the world to live", so yeah you can point the finger squarely at typical British mismanagement there. The rest, including the catholic church is a far more complex situation that I'm willing to discuss here, but suffice it to say, once again nobody cares.
I missed the other articles, but the raw data comes from http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm
Contrary to popular belief, serial killers span all racial groups. There are white, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian serial killers. The racial diversification of serial killers generally mirrors that of the overall U.S. population.
And from Wikipedia:
While it is true that most serial killers are white males, white (Anglo) males are actually slightly underrepresented in the serial killer ranks in terms of their proportion of the general male population
It falls into racism because you're using an example of a black community being problematic, stating this gives you cause for concern around blacks. I'm amazed at how idiotic the arguments are that have been modded up in response to this article so far. I guess Slashdot really has reached the point where mainstream populism wins out over rational understanding and discussion of the topics at hand.
Here's the problem with your argument - if you go to a deprived white neighbourhood in the UK, you will feel equally threatened, and be equally at risk as if you were in a black neighbourhood, the problem is to do with poor areas with high crime. Like you I keep a very weary eye out when I'm in such a white neighbourhood.
You state that if the people in question were wearing ties that you wouldn't feel threatened, and this precisely proves the point - it's nothing to do with their race, their religion, their belief, it's to do with the fact you can recognise a deprived area, and recognise that it's dangerous. Back to my example of rough white neighbourhoods I can tell you now if they're wearing tracksuits, baseball caps on backwards, often skinheads, looking a bit dirty, rubbish on the street, housing/flats looking worn down, then similarly it's not a place you really want to be if you care for your safety.
It's certainly valid to argue that some groups shouldn't segregate themselves, and I agree, but even there one has to look at reasons for segregation - is it because the host nation isn't offering a nice environment for racial minorities to blend into? It's even then not a black, or muslim only thing - ask the Spaniards in Spain how they feel about British ex-pat communities which have strong criminal and gangland ties turning up on their doorsteps and not respecting the Spanish culture, bringing their own brand of British rowdiness with them.
"But on a larger scale...call it racist or what...but there are stereotypes for reasons. They weren't just made out out of the clear blue sky."
So back to your original statement, you're absolutely right, there are stereotypes for reasons, but you do not understand those reasons. The reasons are more to do with the fact that the general population is too dumb to be able to cope with issues such as this, coupled with the fact politicians and agenda based press like Fox News and The Daily Mail in the UK find this gross oversimplifications (i.e. stereotypes) are useful tool for using populism to appease and control the ignorant. When Joe Lazyfucker loses his job because he was well, a lazy fucker, it's convenient for him to be able to say "It's those damn Polish, taking our jobs". That simply isn't true- if you're brought up in a country like the UK with it's high end education system, the fact you'll have native knowledge of the language and culture then you have every opportunity to be a better candidate to a job than a migrant from a poorer nation- if you lose out to them you only have yourself to blame for not taking advantage of the inherent advantage they have, and if they "took your job" it's because they were a better candidate than you and you should be ashamed of the fact you threw away opportunities available to you to be the better candidate.
Stereotypes are a convenient way for people to absolve themselves of blame, to remove guilt from themselves for certain problems. It's easier to say "Let's kick out those immigrants" as if that'll magically solve the problem of Joe Lazyfucker than it is to examine and deal with the fact there are an awful lot of Joe Lazyfuckers in the country scrounging off the state. Similarly, in your case, it's easier to just pretend there's an inherent problem with the minority you're referring to and that it somehow just can't be fixed and it's just the way it is, than it is to examine the problem of failure to make sure such communities are as successful as others and there are succesful black and other minority communities in the US and the rest of the world, so it's pretty clear race isn't the fundamental pro
That was just a dynastic squabble over France. The Thirty Years War was the religious one.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Right. That must be why, when they're told that it's inappropriate in a modern secular democracy to wear ninja suits & tents, they just accept it and wear something else rather than claiming their right to religion is being threatened & blowing shit up.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Holy persecution complex, Batman! Saying that lefties get away with saying vile things and get to issue an apology and move on, while often true, certainly can be said about those on the right as well. Rush Limbaugh, for example, says incredibly vile and hateful things on a regular basis and only gets mild rebuke from the mainstream media. You can point out a million other examples of right-wingers saying uniformed, hateful things and having no repercussions (as it should be for the most part, IMHO).
Beyond that, your ideas that everyone on the left refuses to have frank and honest discussion about race or that everyone who supports what is usually called "affirmative action" believes that black people are inferior are not only specious, they're completely condescending. Not that "your side" of the argument doesn't have constructive arguments to make, but can you please lay off the vitriol? You're acting entirely hypocritical by expecting a respectful, rational response for people that say controversial things that you agree with while at the same time using such patronizing language about those that don't. Respect gets respect. Or do you really believe that liberals have no logical, rational arguments for their beliefs?
The entire tone of your response reeks of partisanship. How about we stop painting in such broad strokes and deal with discrete cases in a respectful and rational way? There's enough strength in your arguments alone if you would lay off the condescension. You don't have to strap a cross on your back to make a point. It makes you sound like an imbecile.
Thanks. And NOW do you see why I said AG Holder was full of shit? what we have is a classic case of Newspeak where holder says "We should talk about race' but what he meant was 'You should just agree with everything i say and if you don't why you are a Nazi!" because it was less than 2 posts before i got called a racist, which is this year's pedo apparently, just for pointing out that 50 years of welfare have frankly been worse than an atomic bomb on the black community.
As you pointed out those straight off the boat from Africa, in fact many in my oldest boy's med classes are from Ethiopia and they aren't having a problem at all getting excellent grades. Why isn't "whitey keeping them down" because as you so rightly pointed out REAL racists don't care where they are from, just the color of their skin. Can't say its poverty, look up the stats for WV which is the poorest state in the nation and also has one of the lowest crime rates.
How sad that liberal used to be a good word, it meant "doing something new when the old things didn't work' yet now it means "turn a blind eye to failure as long as they vote democrat" which has enough irony you could choke since it was the dems in the 50s that were ANTI equal rights, going so far as to have a split in their own party.
In the end i could post the numbers, but what is the point? I'd just be accused of somehow manipulating the data (even though the FBI and DoJ already manipulate it by listing Hispanics as white and even with TWO races VS the American black culture the blacks still come out worse across the board for incarceration, rape, murder, and more than 30% against whites compared to less than 6% the other way around) or that it was poverty or they would just play the race card as we saw right here.
But in the end Newspeak can't erase the truth, only twist it. And the truth is 50 years of welfare combined with the combination of a culture that glorifies criminal behavior while condemning those that try to learn and rise above as "Uncle Toms" is frankly doing a better job of destroying blacks than the Klan ever could. And as long as "community leaders" like Sharpton and Jackson can profit from white guilt and pushing that it is "all whitey's fault" then this destruction by their own race will sadly continue.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Possibly not. In Bristol, UK, there was a City Councillor (herself of African descent, and oddly, spending most of her time in Florida) who accused another councillor of being a "coconut", which is a racist slur meaning someone who is "black/brown on the outside, and white on the inside". This happened in session (on the official public record). After having several firings of caucasians over implicit racist slurs, this one was practically ignored. It took a big backlash in the public to get the politicians to even begin an investigation. The councillor herself stated "I can't be racist, because I'm black.".
In the end, she got a slap on the wrist.
Actually she was convicted and now has a criminal record, and basically forced not to stand for re-election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10443860
I can't find a single reliable source for the quote you have, so I'm calling bullshit. If there is one thing we are actually pretty good at it, it is punishing people for racism. Arguably too good if you support free speech.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Isn't it though? If parents stereotype drug dealers, heroine whores, and crackheads as black, how is that any different?
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
As someone on the right, I am forced to admit that often Fox/WND/TheBlaze carry important stories that the rest of our media seem to ignore or bury on the digital equivalent of the last pages of a newspaper.
However, I can't stand their dramatic, self-victimizing, emotional style.
Yet over the past few years I've realized this isn't unique to these news sources. MSNBC, USA Today, CNN and even NPR use these same tactics; they're just better at covering it up.
And when NBC got caught editing the Trayvon Martin 911 call to make Zimmerman seem like a Klansman, instead of some guy answering a direct question from the 911 operator, I think I finally got it: Fox isn't the exception. It's the rule. There are no exceptions.
Futurist Traditionalism
Just a difference in labeling. A white man killing multiple people for power/control reasons wouuld be a serial killer. A minority would be a gang shooter. Same crime/motive, different labeling = different bias.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." Jesse Jackson
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19931201&id=rZgsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cfwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5089,44540
The most dangerous thing to a young black male, is another black male. Until that changes, maybe shut the fuck up about what white people do to them. They made this pile of shit themselves. African Americans, can, and do, regularly climb out of the cycle and become productive citizens. For some reason, many have _chosen_ not to. A man bent on destroying himself will often succeed.
No, you narrow-minded racist, diversity does not destroy trust and create paranoid communities.
Insular communities lacking exposure to different ideas and cultures do, however.
Eat the rich.
He's not wrong. He said a pedo is more likely to be white, not that a white is more likely to be a pedo. They are 2 different statements, he only made one of them, and you attacked the one he didn't make.
Really, you *don't* think Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut and a whore for using contraceptives *isn't* extreme? What planet do you live on?
So what's the rational argument against what she said? What exactly did she say that was stupid? I would like to hear that instead of some mudslinging and name-calling, because what you're saying doesn't make any sense. $1000/year comes out to $80/month. Not ridiculous at all depending on what sort of contraceptives you're using. I'm guessing you've never paid for birth control. Or is it that every woman that uses birth control is a slut? That's a lovely attitude to have towards women. Good luck with that.
99% of women in this country use contraceptives. It says nothing about how many people you are having sex with. Married women used contraceptives. It doesn't even mean that you're having sex. Women that are not sexually active sometimes use contraceptives to treat medical conditions.
You're not old-fashioned, you're just an asshole. Hopefully the women in your life don't know about your opinions on this subject. Actually, I hope they do, that way you can assure yourself of never getting laid again. And then you can get even more pissed off at all the people that do and post more nonsensical rants on slashdot.
It just means they know they are talking to a knee-jerk retard that likes to make a fuss without thinking about what was said first.
If you hear it a lot, it's you that's the problem.
No sir. The leader of our military (assuming you're an American) is a civilian. The military leaders who became president from Washington to Eisenhower took off the uniform when they became president and never put it back on. If you're going to try to argue that there were no fascist overtones in a sitting president donning an unearned uniform, being flown in a fighter jet to the deck of an aircraft carrier and then sashaying down the runway like a cross between Top Gun and a Victoria's Secret model, you're not being very honest.
I don't know if FDR cooked up the Blue Eagle himself, or if he had one of the Kansas Goering's do it for him, but nobody but George W. Bush did the Benito stroll between the airplanes. You can't pin it on some bureaucrat, some advisor, some underling. That was the leader of the American Bundt, I mean Right who was doing the Travolta for the flyboys.
Now, don't take it from me. I'm not a professional at this political tater-tate like you, there are guys who slice Goldberg's baloney much more effectively. You know who they are (and they're not at The Nation as you know very well).
The Doughboy has been pushing how "Liberals are the real Hitlers" for years before he finally decided to show those fancy-pants intellectuals how to write a REAL book. You know that. He continues in this vein even today, It's one of his favorite themes, besides his all-time favorite, how "blacks are stoopid". You don't believe me? See his March 28 NRO whine entitled (I swear to God this is true) "Me and Black America".
Now I'm sorry, I just can't compose myself enough to type any more. I lose what little self-control I have every time I think about Jonah Goldberg having so little self-awareness that he could title a post, "Me and Black America".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Rule #1 when identifying bigoted assholes: Massive generalisations about swathes of people, usually containing derogatory mischaracterisations.
You, sir, are a bigoted asshole.
You seem to miss the fact this guy's making ridiculously inaccurate generalisations of over a billion people, and portraying it as absolute fact. That's just stupid. Anyone who can't see what is clearly not operating with a full deck.
I flew to LA on 9/14/2001, and I was sat next to three guys dressed in what I can only assume was the same "Muslim garb" this asshole was crying about, and I wasn't scared for shit. Fuck it. It just doesn't make any sense. I can't get my head round the ability of some assholes to simply ignore logic and reason whenever they feel the slight desire to do so, then get all uppity when people call them on their illogical bullshit.
Isn't it obvious? They can make a lot more money here and live more comfortably than in many of their home countries. With the exception of Turkey, most of these countries are pretty tough to live in unless you are rich or royalty.
Because you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand the value of education.
Yup. And many peoples' initial response to a statement like that is to discount that argument or attribute the higher percentage of African-Americans in prison to other factors. Surely it can't be that bad, right? But it's actually demonstrably true that drug prohibition targets African-Americans disproportionately.
If you look at the arrest rate, prosecution rate, and conviction rate they are all higher for blacks. That is, a higher percentage of black drug users and dealers are arrested, a higher percentage of those that are arrested are prosecuted, and a higher percentage of those that are prosecuted are convicted. On top of that, blacks that are convicted of drug possession or distribution get significantly longer sentences on average. Pretty messed up.
You are making massive generalisations which can't possibly be true, illuminating the apparent fact that you are speaking out of your asshole, and either don't care that you are doing so, or completely unaware of said fact. Either way you are bringing nothing to this discussion.
You cited a Daily Mail article, and expect to be taken seriously :) You appear to be doing your opponent's work for you.
> Citation or it didn't happen.
Do you get CNN on your planet?
Any person who was actually following events in the Middle East could have easilly predicted that Egypt and Libya would be in the hands of terrorists a year after their respective 'regime change.
Well, since Egypt is clearly in the hands of the Egyptian army, I wonder who you think the "terrorists" are.
PS - Don't you get Al-Jazeera on your planet? I haven't seen anything credible on CNN since GW1.
I think ANY amount of govt., funding...is govt. funding.
In which case...it should be judged that way. Take away make it 100% un-govt. funded, and I'll be cool with them acting more like a private news agency.
So pretty much any bank, auto maker and airline? Not to mention those companies that receive, and even rely, on government contracts.
The same take-over of Libya which still hasn't happened. Great logic, sparky. Let it go. You just don't like a brother in the white house.
We all know why ... because there is one culture that opposes racism and there are many cultures that push racism.
Now what would happen if the government had some other means to enforce compliance and cares more about organizations where it has a stake in ?
Hmmmm ...
I live in South Africa, it's not that bad people.
But, but, that nice Mr Derbyshire said to leave any place run by those nasty blacks.
Probably not. The whole "racism is wrong" thing only really applies in one direction nowadays. If a black kid utters "cracker" or "honky" to a white student he'll probably not get in any trouble. Now do it the other way around and see how long the white kid who was stupid enough to use a racist slur will last in that school.
I think the article was fine up until Point 10. That's where I was starting to feel a bit uneasy. However, I think it's largely accurate. As ignorant as some of his statements may be, well, I live in a predominantly black city myself. I see a lot of this behavior that he talks about. I treat people as people and I don't really have much consideration for race beyond "Man, you must save a lot on sun tan lotion every year", but you're a moron if you don't notice certain recurring patterns.
Then again, if I went into a trailer park in the deep south I imagine my perceptions of the white people who live there wouldn't be too good either, now would they?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
You're using the wrong statistic. You should be giving the odds of someone being arrested given that they're male (1,352 per 100,000) vs. them being arrested given that they're female (126 per 100,000).
Also of note, white male arrest rate (1,775 per 100,000) vs. black male arrest rate (4,347 per 100,000).
You've also got to deal with the fact that the actual rate of offending is not necessarily the same either. Race isn't the only relevant factor; for example, the under-employed are more likely to commit a crime against the person, and those sorts of crimes are more likely to attract police attention leading to an arrest. What can we conclude from this? Well, mostly just that getting good statistics is hard, especially when people are involved. Having politicians meddling in the data collection for their own ends just makes it all worse.
Looking at the actual matter down in Florida, the main problem would appear to be that the police decided to not investigate properly; while defending your home or community might be a legal defense against murder, it ought to be one that is examined in court only and not just accepted by police officers. Otherwise it's too easy to let people get away with murder, just because they happen to friendly with the cops (which would be wrong in general, without saying that it necessarily happened in this case though there remains the suspicion). Police officers are given great powers by society, which means that they need to be very carefully kept doing their jobs properly; with power comes responsibility and scrutiny.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
My daughter lives with her mom and for the first 6 years after our divorce, she was the only caucasian student in an all-black school, and an all-mexican/american Catholic school. the only place where she was bullied was the Hispanic school. While I'm glad she had the opportunity to hang out with non-white children, I'm more pleased that she's now attending a public school with a wider diversity of students who hail from many national and socio-economic backgrounds. She's no longer the only white kid, and is no longer being bullied.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Yeah, I (adult white male) live in Taiwan. Very few whites or blacks here. I've had children very interested in me because I'm white. Just wanting to touch me-it also helps that I'm hairy. I've also had a child cry when I smiled at her.
Haha. One of my nieces screamed and hid behind the sofa the first time she saw me.
She's black and lives in the Ivory Coast - the only other white people she'd ever seen had been on the TV, usualy killing someone.(*)
((*) strange effects of TV - Africans mostly see white people in Columbo and Inspector Derrick, involved in sordid murders. Gives them a strange idea what most white people are like).
I don't know of any places like that in real life; the closest I can think of are Atlanta and Detroit. But if a place like that did exist, things probably wouldn't be much different, except the white people would be getting the short end of the stick.
Sez who? Based on what evidence?
> And female contraceptives don't even work that way.
Female contraceptives are $/mo at Walmart.. or more to the point the Target that is less than 2 miles from Georgetown she attends. That price is with a doctor's prescription (because the pill is a controlled substance) but without any insurance. So the only way you get from there to $1000 is lots of condoms. And since she lives in the east coast blue hive, condoms are free is so many places you have to try hard to avoid them. Not to mention that the pill itself is available from multiple free clinics within a couple of miles of her location. In other words, as I said, she isn't a slut; she is a lying liar who lies.
Democrat delenda est
> Well, since Egypt is clearly in the hands of the Egyptian army,
For now. Thankfully. But once the elections are over it i going to be increasingly hard for the military to maintain control. We have managed to remove almost all of thier legitimatcy and if you haven't figured out yet that Obama will pull their aid if they don't hand the coiuntry over to the Brotherhood you aren't paying attention.
> I wonder who you think the "terrorists" are.
The Muslim Brotherhood. They are the parent organization of pretty much every terrorist organization. If AQ if "The Base" then the MB is the "Mothership."
Democrat delenda est
Technically the money from the government goes to pay for broadcasting in rural areas that aren't profitable. Some of this money certainly flows from the broadcast towers to pay for programming. The urban areas don't need this funding assistance and they pay for programming as well. Then combined with charitable donations is how NPR survives.
Must be different in the UK vs the US, specifically the southern part of the US.
I've been in poorer white sections of town...no problem. But, I'd never set foot within blocks of the black projects around the city. Most murders and crime happen there....and you're an idiot if you go there unless you are wanting to buy crack or something. Hell, people get injured or killed there just from stray bullets, and the young black kids that live there, have NO value for human life, they'll shoot you for looking at them wrong.
It happens.....just an integral part of that community, and you just don't see that type of thing as typically in poor white areas as you do in the black poor areas.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Your side is engaged in a circular argument in bad faith bacause you guys don't want to see ANY government touched.
You're blowing over straw men. Which is to say, you're fabricating the position of the person you are speaking with in order to win points against some imaginary contest that doesn't exist. You should cut that out. It's disgraceful. Which is to say, hint, hint, that I don't at all think I want any of the above untouched. I want all of it touched, because I am serious about the budget.
As for your comment about taxes, 'raising taxes would almost certainly reduce revenue,' that's an argument about the Laffer curve. I don't think your argument is true. Not that I would agree with raising taxes. I just don't think we're on the side of the Laffer curve you think we're on.
C//
True enough.
And so the racist posts begin from Frosty Piss.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Heh, you know what? I'm sat here now thinking "I shouldn't have posted that because now I'm going to get labeled as a racist..."
Funny eh?
Your commen shows a profound level of stupidity and lack of knowledge of African politics.
And if you do not feel bad about a country where the majority are discriminated and brutalised against because of their skin colour, why yes, you are a racist.
The ANC were democratically elected, the fact that they had previously had to use terrorism to further their aims of bringing freedom to South Africa is irrelevant. Or do you think that all memmbers of the French Resistance during WW2 should have been arrested as criminals too?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You are an idiot. Of course in a largely Muslim country the majority of people and the majority party will be Muslim. The equation of Muslim with terrorist is childish and ignorant, although not technically racist since you can say "Muslim" instead of "brown skinned person" and Islam is a religion rather than a race.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
While hyperbole might make for good TV and Slashdot posts, it's not really appropriate for someone whose job is to report factual information.
Again, for good measure:
While hyperbole might make for good TV and Slashdot posts, it's not really appropriate for someone whose job is to report factual information.
One more time, to make sure you've got it:
While hyperbole might make for good TV and Slashdot posts, it's not really appropriate for someone whose job is to report factual information.
Also, this should help you avoid future misunderstandings: http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I have no idea what kind of justification can be given to this, other than "we are Christian country!!!".
Not taxing religious institution is a way to stay as far as possible away from accusations of suppressing religion.
I want my Cowboyneal
That may be so but all it means is that you're admitting to speaking from a position of ignorance, and it's that ignorance that leaves you prime pickings for populist rhetoric of the type that Fox News pedals.
It's not even just the UK, there are any number of places across the world where people of every race have managed to allow their neighbourhoods to descend into pits of violence.
You realise that it's not coincidence that many parts of the US where black crime is a problem also happen to be parts where racism against blacks has historically been at it's worst too right? Those communities you fear are as they are in large part because your white countrymen have spent the last few hundred years beating them into a position where violence is really all they have known. It was ironically white racist violence that created many of these problem communities as the people in question were forced to stick together and use violence to protect themselves from the likes of the KKK, whilst simultaneously being denied equal access to job opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty.
But now it's turned full circle and you're scared of them? Well if nothing else take this lesson from it - at least now when you go into those areas you know exactly how they have been forced to historically feel in much of the US.
As I said I don't disagree there are problem areas, and problem groups but the fundamental problem is when this is generalised to be "Oh well, they must all be like this". That's when it's pretty blatantly racism, and that's when it becomes an argument based on ignorance. It fundamentally doesn't matter if it's different in the UK to the US, the point is simply that the common factor in the issue clearly is not race. The common factor is that these areas are all isolated communities who have been left with with no support, no jobs, and no hope - and often having themselves suffered as victims of violence in the past.
In the areas of theft, robbery, and violent crime the demographic break down of convictions is very close to the demographic break down reported to the police by the victims. There is not an inherent racism in the justice system along that line. It would be just as ridiculous to say that there is inherent sexism in the justice system because the vast majority of convicts are male. Even when a crime victim identifies their attacker as a male, the police should look at women as well when searching for the assailant, just to make sure they aren't being sexist.
While it has nothing to do with racial genetics, there is an American sub-culture, largely among urban blacks, that is accepting or even encouraging of criminal activity. Thug Life ideals are just as much a generator of crime and violence as Aryan Nation ideas, yet the they have very different levels of acceptability in general society. The first step towards fixing a problem is admitting that there is a problem.
We are all just people.
Funny, back when the IRA were bombing mainland Britain, most people didn't get all panicky at hearing an Irish accent. But then again, they were white terrorists, so I suppose they were basically OK.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I have never had a white person come up to me and threat me for doing nothing. But, I have had multiple black, ghetto rat thugs do it.
It is not just my "anecdote". Maybe you should check out the crime statistics and the prison populations and the gangs. Oh, wait, reality doesn't for a basis for your world view does it? Let me guess, all those violent, drug dealing, gang members who are black are just misunderstood and held down by the man, right? Let me guess, all those black men in prison are there unjustly, right? They never committed a crime, they were framed by whitey, right? And, the simple fact that one of the leading causes of death among black males is other black males is just a coincidence.
Here is the truth: Most black people in America are violent, arrogant, ignorant, racist assholes who are barely civilized and it is their own fault. Their culture glorifies anti-intellectualism, racism, violence, hatred, drugs, and murder. Most black children are born to single mothers who often have multiple children from different fathers who do not support their children. All the while claiming they are christians. They complain they can't get a good job while ignoring the fact that they are ignorant because they didn't want to pay attention in school. Of course, they preferred to disrupt classes in school because they weren't going to need it because they are all going to be professional athletes or rappers making millions a year. They come to interviews dressed like trash, speak like trash, give the interview attitude then claim racism when the aren't hired. Rather than work to improve themselves, they abuse drugs. Rather than work at the low paying jobs they qualify for, thanks to their anti-intellectualism, they commit crimes and deal drugs. They demand respect while giving none. They demand to be treated as social equals while dressing and acting like savages. And, the times the black culture has been challenged by black people, those people, including Bill Cosby, have been derided as race traitors by the race-baiting "black leaders".
And, the absolute worst part is how kids of all races see that misbegotten excuse for a culture as cool and want to emulate it because it is different from their authority figures' cultures.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
It's not racist to be aware of the possibility of being mugged and to avoid suspicious characters, whether black, white or any other colour.. But it is racist to then extend this to the assertion that, because most muggings are done by young black men not wearing suits, therefore most yong black men not in suits are muggers.
It is precisely the same logical fallacy as:
Almost all rapists are men. Therefore almost all men are rapists.
Put another way, say you lived in a largely white area where most of the muggings were done by white youths, it would be equally absurd to say that therefore all white youths were muggers.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I have never had a white person come up to me and threat me for doing nothing. But, I have had multiple black, ghetto rat thugs do it. The article's author was fired for pointing out how he feels most white people have to think and deal with most black people because "the internet" took offense to it. It didn't matter that his article was in response to an article written by a black man about how black parent feel they must teach their children to deal with white people, especial authority figures.
So, why don't you answer as to why black people think it is appropriate to shout insults at a stranger who has done nothing to them then track that person down and threaten him with violence and death in a grocery store?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Hmmm... yes you are.
Therein cementing their devaluation by society. The only way that anti-black racism will go away in America is for the vast majority of black people to identify productivity, competence and civility as their cultural hallmarks, and actively separate themselves from the black people who don't uphold those ideals. (in much the same way as average white people actively separate themselves from white trash) As proof of concept, look to the Asian-Americans. Asians are just as visually distinctive, yet very little discrimination comparatively, there is even some preferential treatment in the job market.
We are all just people.
Except of course for the Tottenham Race Riots last year. And those in Paris the year before that.
But we won't let facts get in the way of a good narrative.
Neither London nor Paris are in Ireland.
Or did you just not read the post you were replying to at all?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
There's a reason why "papers, please" has such a strong association with oppression.
Yes, because it refers to periods in history where individuals were not free to travel without a permission slip, like black's in the jim crow south, jews in Nazi Germany, Russian peasants . . . pretty much up to today. It's not a reference to "I know where you've been" its a reference to "You are not free to go where you want, and at any time I can review your right to be hear and jail / kill you if you are in the wrong place."
This has only the most tangential relationship to the current discussion.
Er... sort of. Not the Koch brothers, but the owners of Zuchati park certainly did. And, as you may have observed, the Courts reluctantly agreed it was their right.
Yes, because you should always base your opinions of a country and its culture on its students' drinking habits.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The problem is, blacks are in fact disproportionately criminal offenders. For homicides they committed more of them by actual counts than whites did, up until age 34, after which it remains disproportionate. IIRC, this is true even going solely by victim reports, but the site I was trying to look it up on, the USDOJ.gov, was down at the time i wrote this. Victim reports would point to an actual incidence rate issue not a criminal justice issue.
Disclaimer: I'm not claiming Blacks are inherently (key word there) more violent, just that for whatever reason in the US they commit more than their fair share of crime. Stating that fact is not, in and of itself, racist. Exploring why that is beyond the scope of this argument so do not assume I am taking any particular position in response. If, as derbyshire indicated in his article, I used that fact in situations when I have no other information other than the race of the people involved, that would simply be rational. It's when people hold onto a guess in the face of contrary evidence that it becomes despicable racism. People aught to be judged based on their own choices and actions, not a factor over which they have neither control nor responsibility.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Sorry but white males are never ever allowed to be the victim. It would cause a huge crash in the value of the race card, and that might require people to take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences.
We are all just people.
Except, of course, it wasn't.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
I dunno, could be you're just an asshole.
I'm white, but went to a predominantly black High School in a major metro. I had a few altercations, but I never had my ass kicked.
As one of my (black) friends so eloquently put it to me: "You know when they're talking about the N*****s up at G******d, they're talking 'bout you, too."
Your friend censors his own speech while he's talking?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
That is simply not true. They held him for questioning for 5 hours, investigated and found physical evidence and witness testimony the was compatible with it and no evidence to contradict it, and found that they had no probable cause to arrest him. Not exactly pro cop here, but they did more than just take him at his word.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
All you pointed out was that you failed at simple logic. We got it. Thank you.
Lets be honest folks...how many here think that the average white person, just minding their own business, would walk through say Harlem or Watts or any other major big city all black neighborhood unscathed?
The bar I go to most often is a redneck bar smack in the middle of the blackest ghetto in town, I stagger home from there often. The worst that happens walking home is some black guy trying to sell me dope, or a bum begging for spare hope and change. Almost every shooting in the last year has been within six blocks of the place, but it's always either black on black or white on white.
Now what if it were the other way? in most places the worst that would happen to the black man would be a cop asking him what he was doing
Tell that to Travon Martin's mother. And had it been Martin who was a neighborhood watch guy and shot Zimmerman while Zimmerman was unarmed, you can bet your ass he'd have been in jail that very night, probably held without bail.
And it isn't just blacks who fear the police. All poor people fear the police.
Free Martian Whores!
Years ago I went to the Bahamas for spring break with 2 friends. Our first day there we decided to go to McDonalds for lunch (OK we were young poor college students). Rather than actually find a location, we just assumed they were everywhere and just started walking in a direction down the road. Anyway eventually we got out of the tourist areas, and into obviously poorer and poorer areas. We started passing what looked to be like burned out hulks of cars on front lawns (which were probably just striped and rusting). In any case 3 young white dudes without much world experience started to get a bit nervous. As we are walking we come across one of these destroyed cars, on a front yard, with 4 or 5 locals (blacks) sitting on it, drinking 40's of beer. As they see us they start calling to us (likely as they can tell we are out of the tourist element) "Hey Mon, hows it going? Watcha doin' around here?" Anyway we simply respond that we were looking for Mcdonalds. They laugh, give us directions, and away we went, off to Mcdonalds.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that there are a lot of cultural and media stereotypes, many of which may be overstated for one reason or another. In our case it was just a few guys enjoying a beer, who helped out a couple of clueless tourists.
I live in a village that has 9000 white residents and around 40 black, asian or Chinese ones.
Somewhere with 9000 residents isn't a village, it's a small town, surely?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I think you missed the point. You generally want to protect weaker members of society from wrongdoing of strong ones. That is also the basis for condemning racism. In your situation, racism would be a very much proper card to play, because white would be at severe disadvantage.
But since it's hypothetical because whites are generally in control, the situation is different.
I'm so envious of the people like you. The life is much easier in b/w.
The autism studies specifically show you can get a 2 sd difference. The point of those is that the further down the scale you are, the more dramatic the effect of intervention. It applies also to kids with retardation, which is defined by the results of the iq test itself!
Coming further up the scale, we see that 'normal' kids can have their scores changed by more than the black/white IQ difference by truly trivial intervention (the candy experiment). The point being that white kids, who tend to get even larger educational intervention than that early in life, aren't even scoring as much more as they should!
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I saw your other message referencing jesse jackson, and I have to point out that you yourself are a racist prick.
Bye.
--
BMO
>>>You just don't like a brother in the white house.
Fail.
I would like a black man in office if his name was Walter E. Williams or Colin Powell or similar constitutionalist/pro-bill of rights. But our current president is none of those, and even if he was a white guy (like Clinton or Gore), I'd still dislike him because of his policies, not his color.
Pro-war, pro-deficit-spending, pro-corporate welfare, anti-bill of rights (TSA, NDAA, VIPR, SOPA, ACTA, etc). Bad, bad, bad.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
> I wonder who you think the "terrorists" are.
The Muslim Brotherhood. They are the parent organization of pretty much every terrorist organization. If AQ if "The Base" then the MB is the "Mothership."
Uh, in the real world the MB hate AQ, who were explicitly formed in opposition to the MB.
And do you seriously believe that the MB were behind the LTTE, the IRA, ETA, the RAF, the Red Brigades, Asian Dawn...
Finally, "without evidence to the contrary, the police were legally prohibited from doing anything but taking the shooter at his word". Fair enough. But what do you consider evidence to the contrary? Assume for a second that the shooter's word is unreliable (motive in case shooting was unwarranted). What would constitute evidence that the shooter was not acting in self-defense? Wounds to the shooter's head? Could as well have been self-defense on the part of the dead guy. The point is that we really don't know what the police deemed lack of evidence, because the only thing that was in the police report was some bruises on the shooter. For me, identifying lack of evidence requires that there is at least evidence for searching - not just taking a look at a scene and going "yep, self-defense."
The scene of the shooting was forensically examined, and GZ was questioned for several hours. There was also at least one eye-witness who corroborated GZ's story. So the decision of the police to not hold him was a lot less cavalier than you're making it out to be.
I'm also not sure if you're aware that at least one DA wanted to go forward with a prosecution, but it was also decided at that level that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
Stand your ground laws are doubly dangerous: they allow for confrontations to escalate quickly, and for the shooter to go away free as long as there are no witnesses to the shooting.
"Stand your ground" is completely irrelevant to the situation. With no witnesses, the shooter could just as well claim to have retreated first before firing. "Stand your ground" does nothing but eliminate the requirement to attempt retreat before acting in self defense. Further, if the shooter was on the ground being beaten, he would likely claim an attempt was made to get away before shooting but it was impossible.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
How the hell is this flamebait?
Here's a little test for you.
Was that b/c he was:
a) black?
b) a rich and famous athlete?
c) an incarnation of Vishnu?
Just to clarify I've always understood "pure as the driven snow" to mean "dirty" so in the context you're using it, are you saying you're black? I'm not from the US so I don't know whether you mean Beverly Hills is predominantly black or white.
A hundred and twenty characters ought to be enough for anyone...
If you refuse to even cut NPR after you state they don't really need the money, where will you cut?
With cuts that actually make a fucking difference in the budget. Not your worthless, "I don't like this, so I'm going to suggest that it's cut, despite the fact that it is a rounding error in the budget," bullshit.
The rest of your comment is worthless drivel that I shouldn't bother to respond to. But against my better judgement, I will. I know they don't have the greatest of profit margins. Tough titties. They still get HUGE subsidies and tax breaks, which are far, far bigger than what you want to cut. That is where it should start. Your refusal to acknowledge this is you playing favorites and ignoring that "reality says things like that can't continue."
Seriously, how the fuck can you defend these subsidies (and you trying to cover up the fact that they exist doesn't change the fact that they do) while saying that other shit should be cut?
Parents and Teachers preach racism to kids from 6th class in India
http://www.greatandhra.com/viewnews.php?id=30817&cat=10&scat=25
Casteism
Well of course, but the fact that they're so adamant about not blending in and displaying their religion and keeping their kids from becoming "too westernized" shows me that they think their religious beliefs are much more important than money. If that's the case, they should stay where they are, among others who believe the same as they do about not being westernized, that women shouldn't have any rights, etc. For the ones who don't believe in that crap, I'm all for them leaving those countries and moving someplace else if they want to join the society of their new country, but moving to another country and then refusing to integrate into its society is just dumb. If you like the society of the country you came from better, then stay there.
But you are also wrong that the small stuff should therefore be left untouched.
No, he's not. The small stuff should be ignored because IT DOESN'T MAKE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE. Cut the big stuff until the small stuff might make a difference, and then we'll talk.
Raising taxes in the current reality would almost certainly reduce revenue
You have absolutely no source for this, stop your fucking lying.
No, we're not broke. That's a baldfaced lie and you know it.
And if you're looking for shit to cut in the budget, start with shit that actually would make an impact. Not shit that is little more than a rounding error in the budget.
It's a bad argument. For one, I think it's pretty clear that most people do not intend that the drug laws oppress the blacks, so it really cannot be attacked for its purpose. It also can't really be attacked in implementation, because although the statistics support an over-representation in blacks being prosecuted in this, this is a problem with racist law enforcement in general. I'm fairly sure that other laws, e.g. theft, are levied more heavily against blacks than whites, but it's not actually a racist law, and it should not be appealed on those grounds.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
It's also the opinion of the founding fathers of the U.S. who authored the U.S. Constitution.
Yeah, no. It's not. It might be shared by some of them, but definitely not all of them.
And even so, that doesn't change things. They were not some infallible deity; they were just men. And times have changed since their times.
I can agree with you here. I don't believe I ever espoused this idea at all.
Yes, you have. That's all you've said. If something is receiving government money, then it must not be worth having. And that is completely and utterly false.
If you kill somebody, you're a murderer, you should be hanged.
If you kill somebody, you did it in self-defense, if you belong to my caste
Casteism
I did not blame Obama for "all of it"
Yes, you have. Both here and in other comments. You claim to not like any of them, yet Obama is the only one that gets the blame.
If you look at my original post I blamed Obama for al-Queda's takeover of Libya.
Something that hasn't actually happened.
Yes, you're going to be pissed off at Libya, when in fact, Obama kept the US OUT of most of the Libyan conflict, and spent very little money supporting France and the other nations that took the head.
I'm sorry, you've just got nothing to stand on.
Borderline. Three supermarkets, two chip shops, a post office, a butchers, a bakers, a couple of cafes but only three pubs. So really only a village - and described as such by the residents, the parish council and the name of the Village Hall.
I wonder how Juan would feel about someone in Muslim garb with American flag print.
You have the meaning of the expression wrong. It doesn't mean snow that has been driven over but snow driven by the wind. It means clean/pure/uncorrupted/moral etc.
Is a right wing hate talk magazine with pretensions to being "serious". Read their coverage of the Vince Foster suicide or anything to do with Clinton really to get an idea of just unhinged this sorry, sloppy bucket of stupid :http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/07/conservative-politics-low-effort-thinking_n_1410448.html?ref=mostpopular
conservatard shit really is.
They didn't fire him because they disagreed with what he said; they fired him because they had to.
Lol. Off you go on some grammar parsing mission completely ignoring the point of the words themselves - that those "facts" are even worth mentioning in a serious conversation.
I'm sorry, but the fact that someone went to court and said something inflammatory isn't worth mentioning? We aren't supposed to pay attention to what the people who are doing the attacks say?
It still doesn't change his point - that it is legitimate to fear people simply because you think they are muslim.
He didn't say that. He didn't make that point. You can twist the words all you want, but the claim that his thoughts were "fair" or "legitimate" never appears. He admitted he had them. Period. People can admit they have ringworm, but that doesn't make having ringworm good or fair.
An untold number of people die every year from AIDS and cancers. Is that a fact we can't get away from? Absolutely. Is it fair? Which planet do you come from where it would be? Saying something is a fact doesn't mean it's fair or good or right. Just that it is a fact. Since the facts he referred to actually have nothing to do with his fears or emotions, what you are saying shouldn't be appearing in a serious conversation.
It's also the opinion of the founding fathers of the U.S. who authored the U.S. Constitution.
Yeah, no. It's not. It might be shared by some of them, but definitely not all of them.
Not all the "founding fathers", but the founding fathers who authored the Constitution. Chiefly, that's James Madison, with huge influences by Jefferson, Adams and Paine. Yes there were those like Hamilton who despised the ideas that ended up passing. But again it was Madison's ideals that ended up in the Constitution, not Hamilton's.
And even so, that doesn't change things. They were not some infallible deity; they were just men. And times have changed since their times.
They were just men, yes. But the law hasn't. It sounds like you don't care much for the law. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Yes, you have. That's all you've said. If something is receiving government money, then it must not be worth having. And that is completely and utterly false.
Wrong again. There are a great many things that don't "turn a profit" that are worth having.
I'm simply saying that if something receives government money, that's wrong. Because it's illegal. And unethical, because the government doesn't have any money that it hasn't already stolen from its citizens (in most cases against their will).
-Mike
Soooo...if I had a gun and a knife...and I stabbed you in the foot, would you thank me for not shooting you in the head or would you still be upset about me stabbing you in the foot? Obama directly ordered any and all involvement we had in Libya. Yes, he could have done much, much more but him choosing not to do more doesn't mean he isn't responsible for what he did do. Again, despite any technicalities and political hackery you may bring up, he still has his hands deep in our pockets. He hasn't balanced the budget, he hasn't even proposed anything close to a balanced budget (the budget he proposed that got zero votes wasn't even balanced), and he has increased the deficit. Therefore, he has his hands deep in our pockets. Yes, yes, the Republicans and evil white people also have their hands deep in our pockets.
I've lived in both predominantly black and white neighborhoods growing up in Virginia and Maryland and the assumptions that people make about other races is funny as hell. You can walk into any neighborhood you want to but if you act stupid or weird towards anyone in that neighborhood then of course they will act on it. Common sense is all that is needed but even that in some people isn't enough. I've been the only black man in an all white bar and it wasn't the greatest time there. Ignorance knows no color or sexual preference so if you want to know more about another race just ask. The only dumb question is one that isn't asked. This country will never be united because no one has the balls to actually sit down and learn from each other by talking about their differences. Only then will we actually be united.
"Really, the fact that his argument involved the standard deduction instead of an optional one isn't all that relevant."
Yes, of course. That is what made it a "straw-man" argument.
"But in Juan Williams' full sentence..."
Your comment was not about Juan Williams. If it had been, I might not have replied. Your comment was instead generalized to "someone". You were making a general statement about ANYBODY who says such things... and it was false.
"I don't need your insults."
And maybe I don't need your BS generalizations.
That's odd. I thought Easter was about Jesus' resurrection, not Goebbels'...
Sorry...but slavery, and the influence of groups like the KKK are ancient history.
Realistically, in the US, "the man" isn't out there keeping blacks down....it is the black community itself that is largely to blame for their plight today.
Most white people don't have the time to bother trying to keep a brother down...they're too busy trying to make their own ends meet. And they don't have advantages minorities have like 'affirmative action' or other quotas.
So, no....that's just not a viable argument anymore.
Is there racism still? Sure...it happens with all racial groups to other racial groups.
But, it is no longer institutional in the US....so, get over it and move on.....that can't be a viable excuse any longer.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
. . . and has anything changed?
April 26th, 1992,
there was a riot on the streets,
tell me where were you?
You were sittin' home watchin' your TV,
while I was paticipatin' in some anarchy.
First spot we hit it was my liqour store.
I finally got all that alcohol I can't afford.
With red lights flashin' time to retire,
And then we turned that liquor store into a structure fire.
Next stop we hit it was the music shop,
It only took one brick to make that window drop.
Finally we got our own p.a.
Where do you think I got this guitar that you're hearing today?
Hey!
When we returned to the pad to unload everything,
It dawned on me that I need new home furnishings.
So once again we filled the van until it was full,
since that day my livin' room's been more comfortable.
Cause everybody in the hood has had it up to here,
It's getting harder and harder and harder each and every year.
Some kids went in a store with thier mother,
I saw her when she came out she was gettin some pampers.
They said it was for the black man,
they said it was for the mexican,
and not for the white man.
But if you look at the streets it wasn't about Rodney King,
It's bout this fucked up situation and these fucked up police.
It's about coming up and staying on top
and screamin' 187 on a mother fuckin' cop.
It's not written on the paper it's on the wall.
National guard??!
Smoke from all around,
(as long as I'm alive, I'mma live illegal)
Let it burn, wanna let it burn,
wanna let it burn, wanna wanna let it burn
(I'm feelin' Sad and Blue)
Riots on the streets of Miami,
oh, Riots on the streets of Chicago,
oh, on the streets of Long Beach,
mmm, and San Francisco (Boise Idaho),
Riots on the streets of Kansas City
(Salt Lake, Hunnington Beach, CA),
Tuscaloosa Alabama (Arcada Clarkston Michigan),
Cleveland Ohio,
Fountain Valley (Texas, Barstow - Let's do this every year),
Bear Mountain, Vista View (Twice a Year),
Eugene OR, Eureka CA (Let it burn, let it burn),
Hesperia (Oh, ya let it burn, wont'cha wont'cha let it burn),
Santa Barbara,Cuyamca, Nevada, (let it burn)
Phoenix Arizona,
San Diego, Lakewood Florida, (let it burn)
fuckin...Dreadnaught punks!(wontcha let it burn)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
A few weeks back I was listening to "Tell Me More" on NPR. They have a "barbershop" discussion with "people of color". They were discussing the primary and one of the commentators said it didn't matter who got picked because he likes his president like he likes his coffee, black. If someone on a national radio program said, "I like my president like I like my milk, white," they would be fired in an instant.
Cheap storage VM.
I thought you were calling the post above the post that attacked the standard deduction vs optional deduction the straw man... my bad.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/20/145518102/shop-talk-gingrichs-moral-fiber-mens-obesity
5:08 mark
Cheap storage VM.
I can't answer your question. I really don't think black people are born thinking it's appropriate to shout insults and threaten people. I know enough black people to know that they can be exactly the same as me. Maybe you haven't met enough of them?
I really don't think there's anything wrong with forming a stereotype that ghetto rat thugs are dangerous though. That's a lot more specific than black person, and it implies an individual who has made decisions to look and act a certain way. I know I harbor the same prejudice. I have people around my house that i don't trust as well. I eye them suspiciously and have had run ins with them.
I don't think it's BECAUSE they are black though. I theorize it's because of economic situation, familial situation, who they chose as role models, some peer feedback loop, etc. Whatever reason, they are bad individuals, or a bad group, but not a bad race. I've also seen white people in similar situations make the same choices to produce similar white ghetto rat thugs. I harbor the same prejudices against them.
If you write anything that is brutally honest that has to do with race that doesn't appease people by denying reason, observable reality, and your own experience, you'll probably be fired.
I grew up in a rural area where there were literally almost no black people; in a high school of 2,000 we had ONE black kid. In my home town of 15k I do not recall ever seeing more than 1 or 2 black people right up through to my mid 20's.
The word "Coon" in my home state has NO racial connotations; it's the name of a sea captain and the state cat. While driving through another town, my mother once backhanded me in the car when I was 12 while we passed a Burger Boy restaurant, because she mistakenly thought my "Booger Boy" remark had something to do with a black pedestrian on the other side of the street, whom I could not see. My younger sisters corrected her, pointing out I could not have seen him, but the message was sent, loud and clear.
Both times in my life that I've been robbed and my life has been threatened, it was by black people.
Some of the nicest people I have ever met in my life happened to be black people. One of my best, and kindest, employers was black. One of the worst was also, black.
I have never encountered hostility from groups of people, based purely on race, like I have from blacks. Ever.
To deny the reality in the article that got Derbyshire fired is to lie about reality.
And to call the article "racist" is to be an idiot.
Let's call it the "criminal" system. The legal system includes civil courts and that is a whole 'nother kettle of [smelly, but not quite yet rotten] fish.
Social Credit would solve everything...
You mean the way the police reacted in this story. I know that wasn't a neighborhood watch story. It was much worse, it was a group known for illegal behavior.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The Tea party doesn't wield any power over the GOP. The GOP infiltrated it and turned what was a conservative-libertarian fusion to just another neoconservative money machine.
Stop falling for the Kodos fallacy. Your third party vote DOES count.
They sometimes pay, but not always. On the books, BP "pays" $0 for the oil extacted from Alaska (according to BP). Sure, start an oil company. That's what Bush did. All he needed was a father as a president, and the free oil started flowing (sold for a profit at the expense of the taxpayers).
Learn to love Alaska
Mod this guy up. I was about to correct myself.
I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sources on the ground claim these were race riots. Of course, this is the sort of thing that would happen in Tottenham. In an area around an honest club, like Millwall, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. We are Millwall, Super Millwall, we are Millwall, from the Den!
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Your sources on the ground are different to everyone else's sources on the ground then. Or what TV cameras saw. Or what rioters themselves said.
You grew up too far in the south of the USA, where it will take another 2 generations for the kind of experience yoy experienced, will disappear. Racism is not cultural, it is a parent to child training of intolerance.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
He really does need citations on some of the statistics. Having lived in many cities across the U.S., I can understand his concern for the well-being of his son. For all purposes of his explanation, albeit built from patchwork conversations, seem directed at buffering them from the " gangsta" culture found now even in small cities and large town , home town U.S. ,in whatever location , in whatever circumstance.
I stand by the fact that hate comes from fear.
Alleviate his fear, his hate will dissapear. Punish his fear and he will hate stronger. Worse he will become a martyr.
The world was and is built, owned and operated by those not in possession of a full deck. Moot Point.
It is cultures. You can't choose your race, but you can choose a culture to espouse.
If your choice is to join a violent subculture or to identify yourself with it, you get to be identified as a bad guy and consequently be treated as one. People will warn their kids to stay away.
I have seen it convenient, politically to equate the subculture with the race ( in more than just a black scenario),in order to whip the masses to an enthusiasm. Seems to work well for votes and detracts from the real issues which are lousy for votes. Inner city crime and violence dominated by more than one or two ethnicities, more than three or four in some places. I can't think of a race not represented, Most places I've seen , they are overwhelmingly black.
Here many are hispanic. Phoenix is overwhelmingly hispanic. I would not cite bullshit statistics to a kid about i.q. unless I could back it up, But I'm pretty sure I would warn them about subcultures, not race.
I think if more parents spoke up about whatever subculture led to hazardous consequences we would have fewer organized criminals soiling whatever races reputation
I don't miss the fact that the guy is the product of his environment nor the fact that most people are stupid enough to continue making stupid choices that contribute to the problem by misdiagnosing and therefore mistreating the problem.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Has anyone actually gone down his list, point by point, and explained why his advice to his kids is bad without going all ad hominem on his lily-white ass?
Seastead this.
Nothing would do the world more good than to divert all military spending to, instead, relocate people to the locations where their ideals are being put to the test.
Seastead this.
Parents should spend time actually listening to their kids and disciplining them properly instead of filling their heads with racist tirades.
Yeah, but he is a non-American white person....AKA an expert on race relations since cotton won't grow where he lives.
Actually, read about how marihuana prohibition started. It was often claimed that it was the drug that caused the negro to rape white women.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
It's examples like this that paint a broad picture of a Black community as violent against Whites. There is no reference as to how long ago this was, what the writes interactions with others was like or if it was just him being singled out. Somehow he thinks that just because he was White, he was a target. I got news for you, being White was just the surface image that was the easiest to distinguish. Kids will single out any difference to use as a target and that goes for any school. Not to say there isn't racism in the Black community, it exist where every there are poor, uneducated people who need a external reason for the life they find themselves in, but lets be fair, the OP didn't find something new in the Black community, he just found the same thing he would have found in any community, just with a darker complexion.
No, I'm Irish like all of my kind, quick to anger and quicker to forgive, a man who will give you his last scrap of food and tell you a joke while doing so, a bad enemy but a stout and loyal friend, who takes every man as he comes regardless of colour or creed.
So if you can say that about your culture, why can't someone say that Africans are criminals, Hispanics are lazy, Indians smell, Chinese are shiftless, etc?
Stereotypes are ok if they are positive? Only white Americans can be offensive?
You do the same thing Derbyshire did. You do the same thing African Americans do when they call each other 'nigger' (or 'nigga').
All are offensive, or all are not. But stop trying to play it both ways.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Wow, you really are a racial supremacist. How sad, as I thought my genetic heritage had suffered enough at the hands of supremacists. I guess not everyone can learn the lessons of history, even when Northern Ireland is so close at hand.
It seems he thought it was "no true Irishman", not "no true Scotsman".
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Any type of hegemony will have awkward repercussions and collateral damage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nye
Casteism
The white preachers wouldn't need to jump into the fray because the black volunteer would have been arrested.
Maybe that happens because "snitches are bitches" is not a value most white people instill in their children.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
No sir. The leader of our military (assuming you're an American) is a civilian. The military leaders who became president from Washington to Eisenhower took off the uniform when they became president and never put it back on. If you're going to try to argue that there were no fascist overtones in a sitting president donning an unearned uniform, being flown in a fighter jet to the deck of an aircraft carrier
Except that that's not a uniform, that's a flight suit. It's there for functional reasons (safety, primarily -- it's fire-resistant), and when you fly on a military aircraft, you wear one, whether you're a civilian or a member of the military, as you can see here. (Actually, the flight suit in the linked photo is closer to a uniform than the one Bush wore, because it has squadron and service patches on it, and Bush's did not). You put one on because of where you are, not who you are, the same way you'd be required to wear scrubs when visiting an operating room, and nobody would think you were trying to pass yourself off as a surgeon.
Now, you could take issue with the expense of the landing, as opposed to going out there by helicopter, but I doubt the cost difference was a noticeable fraction of, say, getting all the Secret Service people in place for the President (whichever one) to throw out the first baseball pitch of the season.
The rest of your comments here are just question-begging on your part. A commander mingling with his troops to congratulate them isn't "fascist", no matter how much florid prose you pile on.
I'm not a professional at this political tater-tate like you, there are guys who slice Goldberg's baloney much more effectively. You know who they are (and they're not at The Nation as you know very well).
The Doughboy has been pushing how "Liberals are the real Hitlers" for years before he finally decided to show those fancy-pants intellectuals how to write a REAL book. You know that. He continues in this vein even today, It's one of his favorite themes, besides his all-time favorite, how "blacks are stoopid". You don't believe me? See his March 28 NRO whine entitled (I swear to God this is true) "Me and Black America"
I hadn't read until you pointed it out to me. After reading it, I'll be extremely charitable and just say that your accuracy is lacking. It's a response to the response to a previous article of his, in which he talks about perceived vs. actual risks to young black men like Trayvon Martin, i.e. that when one of them is killed, it's most likely to have been at the hands of another young black man. Liberals responded by saying that Goldberg doesn't know anything about black America. Goldberg's response to that, in the article you mention, is that "First, I never claimed to have intimate knowledge of black America. If anything, I’m dubious of the idea (or desirability) of a monolithic 'black America.' Second, nothing in my column requires an intimate personal knowledge of black America. All I did was make the case, based on the sort of empirical data the self-proclaimed 'reality-based community' relies upon, that violent, never mind homicidal, white racism is hardly the chief threat to African-Americans." Nowhere in either article does he say anything even vaguely denigrating blacks, either in matters of intelligence or otherwise. In fact, his recognition that black people are individuals like everyone else (not "monolithic"), each with brains and opinions of their own that don't necessarily mirror those of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, is the exact opposite of calling them stupid.
So, to sum up, you claimed Goldberg's book about progressives and fascists consists merely of trivial coincidences like vegetarianism, when actually he discusses the philosophical foundations of both movements, the policies they had in common during their heyday when their icons were establishing themselves, the mutual admiration between their major figures, and how modern liberal ideas trace back to that era. You claimed that an article he wrote called blacks unintelligent, when actually it does nothing of the kind, and arguably does the opposite. Anything else?
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Apparently I messed up the link in the parent article. Here it is.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Stereotypes are ok if they are positive?
Now you're getting it. What, did you think there was some sort of cosmic stereotype balance that had to be satisfied?
"Sorry...but slavery, and the influence of groups like the KKK are ancient history."
The events are, the repercussions aren't.
"Realistically, in the US, "the man" isn't out there keeping blacks down....it is the black community itself that is largely to blame for their plight today."
There you go going on about the "blacks" again. The colour is irrelevant, and not all "blacks" are in the position you cite. As I say there's any number of communities of people of every other race out there in a similar position. The fact you need to generalise something that isn't general is what makes you racist.
"Most white people don't have the time to bother trying to keep a brother down...they're too busy trying to make their own ends meet. And they don't have advantages minorities have like 'affirmative action' or other quotas."
It's not about keeping them down, it's about giving them the same opportunity to rise. The point is that their communities are as they are for historic reasons, and whilst you're indeed right those historic reasons have largely dissapeared it doesn't mean the damage done to their communities has and that's the fundamental problem. Just as with white gangs in the UK and so forth the problem is that these people are being brought up in areas with poor schools, that are untidy, and generally just don't support decent social mobility. I guarantee you right now that if you took one of those black kids you're so scared of and brought them up in the exact circumstances you were brought up in with the exact same attitudes towards him you received he'd grow up to the same standards you were brought up with - the point is his race has absolutely nothing to do with how he has turned out, and this a point you seem to be dodging. If you get this then perhaps you're not racist, if you don't get this then you absolutely are racist, and you're talking from a point of complete ignorance - ignoring the facts.
In the UK we have plenty of mixed deprived areas too, and unsuprisingly the gangs are made up of people of mixed race, no less or no more violent than the others.
So once again the point is this - it's not the race, it's the environment. Just because in your example case the race is all the same does not make it the problem, the problem is the environment surrounding that community. So here's one final thought exercise for you, imagine that community you're so concerned about was all white, what would be your feelings on it? Would you be more inclined to believe it needs help?
Look, I believe in personal responsibility quite a lot, it's done me well, I've always worked hard, I studied for a second degree full time whilst simultaneously working full time and I've gone far as a result. But the reality is I had a great starting point - I was a privileged white kid and I recognise that there are people out there who aren't like this, who aren't like me, that don't/won't/can't help themselves, and whilst this annoys me I prefer to be pragamtic about it - I realise that if I ignore them the problem wont magically go away, it'll still be there, and I may even become a victim of it if one of the people in question robs me, steals my car, or shoots me, so I think that maybe it is better to help them. When you make that initial investment and pull them out of that hole, perhaps then when they realise there is actually hope for a better life for themselves, perhaps then they'll find they too can actually work harder and better themselves. There are any number of examples of programmes that aim to do precisely this working wonders and it's far and away the best solution we have - certainly much better than ignoring it and blaming it on their race which only serves to exacerbate the problem.
NPR is not education. Even if you believed that it was it is not the only place to get that "education".
There are many places you can go to other than NPR for the news.The defenders here and NPR all state that NPR
can go on without government assistance.So again. Can you explain to this "fucking idiot" why exactly the
government should be subsidizing something we can and do get somewhere else and something that will not go away if we stop subsidizing it?
When we are broke!
I understand that where you are coming from.
Free shit for everyone. Government info beamed to your head. Infinite cash for teachers that we are not allowed measure performance on.
I bet you like public employee unions as well. You think that is a great idea don't you.
If I was as crass and had no better way of attacking I might stoop to your level and call you names. But I think you were defeated in the first question.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I would start with all kinds of shit.
Dept of Education.
Dept of Energy.
Farm subsidies.
Foreign aid.
All gone till we can pay our own bills.
I would also start prosecuting crony capitalism with a minimum of 10 years in a real prison. That would reduce the cost of the things we do need by a large amount.
I would wipe out selective service. We do not use them why pay for it? There is a shit load of things we can reduce or totally wipe out.
What do you mean we are not broke? Are you one of those people who spends 50% more than you make but think you are doing well because you keep getting new credit cards? Or are you just lying?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I was certain he was referring to Reagan/Bush selling missiles to Iran, funding the Contras, paying terrorists to hold Marines hostage, setting up the original Al Qaeda training camps, and so on, and so forth.
Selling missiles to Iran. Hindsight is 20/20.
Never seen someone blow off high treason so casually... well, aside from the people committing it.
you do know what treason is, right?
Paying terrorists to hold Marines hostage? I call bullshit.
October Surprise. Google it.
Setting up the original Al Qaeda training camps. Serious bullshit here.
Not a student of recent history, are we?
There is a difference between the "Western Alliance" and Al Qaeda/Taliban. Know the difference.
I do; the question is, considering your previous ignorance of historical events, do you?
Not everyone in Afghanistan is Al Qaeda. Or do you not think you can be brown and not a racist?
I've seen some pretty blatant race-baiting in my life, and this one ranks up there. Where do you get the idea that everyone in Afghanistan is "brown?" Since when is "brown" a race? They're Arabs, and Persians, and Kurds, and about a dozen other races, you bigot.
"Know the difference."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The fact that you honestly believe women are not as extreme as men says a lot.
No, I mean we are not broke. Take a look around you. This is not a broke nation.
And I like how the stuff you would start with is stuff that actually HELPS PEOPLE in this country, and yet, you wouldn't touch any of the oil subsidies, nor would you touch the military. I see where your priorities lay.
Sooo, if you have a completely retarded analogy, should I bother to respond to your worthless comment?
I think you missed the part about 'class'. The US has one of the highest income inequalities in the world. Skin color doesn't matter in terms of crime statistics, it is always about the money. If you feel you have no hope of rising up, many don't try and turn to crime. Google "inner city poverty cycle". Of course, income isn't the only factor, but it certainly is the main one.
I'm going to make an assumption that Ireland has much lower income inequality and likely more government assistance for the poor, national healthcare, and stuff like other European nations tend to have that makes the poor less hopeless.
Nope. Seeing as you responded, that must mean you just aren't good at understanding analogies. Saying he kept the US out implies that the US would have gone in if he hadn't acted. Obama is the only one causing us to go in at all so you want me to congratulate him for keeping himself from doing something. That is kind of like thanking someone for choosing not to shoot you in the head while they chose to stab you in the foot. Yeah, it isn't a great analogy, I'll try to use cars next time.
How do you explain that crime rates are always higher, universally, in poor areas found in societies with high income inequality?
Also, culture is a very broad term (One of the broadest terms that Anthropologists use) that can include class when defining a group relative to the society that surrounds them. "Poor inner city Latino immigrants" paints a partial picture of a type of a culture.
I'm pretty sure the root cause of 'tribal' behavior, gangs, crime, etc.., has always been low income in a society that has high income inequality. Of course, that isn't the only factor, but it certainly is a major one.
Some people like to play chicken vs egg with the notions of poverty, crime, social mobility, and a people's attitude and culture, but I've never found any serious research that suggests that the best way to get people out of a life of crime/poverty is to first change their culture, or attitudes, or whatever. That works well with some individuals, and it is a worthwhile message to promote. But having lots of well paying jobs available, top notch schooling, and having other means of social mobility actually available is much more beneficial to changing a society than first trying to change their culture.
Google 'inner city poverty cycle'. There is a lot of interesting articles on the subject.
Hell, even without the race card. I remember walking down the street and having older citizens edge over (I seem to remember one even crossing the street). White. No tattoos. No funky piercing. No colour hair.
Just 6'0", young, and wearing a somewhat faded jean-jacket.
Unsubstantiated fear isn't really a rational thing. If for some reason you've got it drilled into you that X people (where X can be a race, age, gender, or whatever) are an object of fear, then you're screwing yourself.
Shouldn't it be up to the supposed 'abused' to decide if they are really being 'abused' or not? People say tons of hurtful things, you can either blow it out of proportion and react very badly or brush it off and be the more mature person. There are always going to be assholes in this world... Who was it that said:"Turn the other cheek."?
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
How exactly do they get free oil?
BP reports that they pay $0 for the oil they extract from the ground in Alaska. Ask them.
it does cost money to actually get/process/etc the oil.
I never said they have no expenses. I said they get the oil itself for free from the owners of the oil, as in the State of Alaska owns the oil in Alaska, and gives it away for free to BP. Sure, BP has all the annoying costs of paying workers and such, but that's unrelated to my statement.
Learn to love Alaska
Nonsense.
They were standing in a public place saying and doing nothing illegal; they were exercising their first amendment rights.
Here is the video of what you're talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
The fact that you think that was voter intimidation says more about your irrational fear of black men than anything else.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Because government wants to conceal its support of dominant religion by spreading it to insignificant ones.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
See my reply one comment above. If Christianity was not dominant, Christians in government would be all over the idea of taxing religious organizations.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I agree wholeheartedly about the prison culture in the U.S. being completely out of whack. There is an interesting talk by Bryan Stevenson where he describes the need to discuss things like this and not just ignore it. There are a lot of personal anecdotes in his TED talk, but the overall point is very similar to yours. Bryan Stevenson at TED
because when you believe that, you are no longer free, you are a slave to the state
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
do you donate to charity? if you do than you get to write that off on your taxes, that is a subsidy as well by your logic.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It's because they are considered community groups which is something that governments want to encourage. I don't know US law in particular but the same is generally true for political and other activist groups.
The key is the 'non-profit' nature. Yes, in one sense even the local knitting group having a bake sale or a pro-gay marriage group canvassing donations to buy a newspaper ad is making a profit, but it is considered differently from commercial or business profit.
The larger these groups become the more they start to look like actual businesses but the distinction is in the purpose of the 'profit'.
I read both articles and essentially they weren't that different. He may have chosen some words poorly, but both fathers were pretty much spot on. As humans (or even animals) we are all suspicious of any one different be it race, religion, power, monetary worth, political beliefs, or even geographic origin. In the animal kingdom those born different are immediately abandoned. Those from another pride or group are fought and often killed. Even our sweet little cats and dogs. One thing we have to remember that the one group who are not protected are the middle class white males. Virtually every other group is under some form of protection plus the Left has an extreme double standard that will demonize and persecute any belief different than theirs (I am neither conservative or liberal) with the mainstream media unquestioningly backing them up while ignoring the other side completely. Class struggle certainly does exist and is even fostered by political groups. The take advantage of an innate human predisposition to foster unrest to further their own goals. Just look at Holder with "Fast and Furious" and the reason behind it. It used to be we all had the opportunity to rise above our status in life, but socialism and spreading the wealth around is or has already killed that. Herman Cain was a prime example of that. Too bad the left did a character assassination on him.
Since when does a conservative news outlet FIRE it's racists? The recent trend is to give them lots of money and publicity.
My surname is Cline....there's a little graveyard in Aurora, AL FULL of my fathers' graves, where they settled after they came from Ireland. I'm as much genetically Irish as any other Irelander.
Well, no, because there isn't a "Racist" mod. You garnered both "troll" and "flamebait", however.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Straw man. Do you see anything in his post that says he didn't care?
No, it's not. Torture is OK because their enemies were evildoers? Summary executions are OK? Killing innocent civilians in bars and restaurants is OK? How about incompetence and recklessness, such as killing more black people than white?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Citation or it didn't happen.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Not all of them.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Gee, I kinda thought in your example it was in motive... because if you claim that a guy who had to use the ladies' room to take an "emergency leak" is automatically a "creep", then you are sexist.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Well, it's self-evident that Harlem is now an irretrievable hellhole, and back in the golden era of jazz and big band WHITE artists had to "Take the A Train" to be considered legitimate.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Your little social experiment seems to be ignoring the fact that Beverly Hills is filthy rich. I know that society has been dumbed-down such that we associate poverty exclusively with black neighborhoods, but I assure you that white "trailer trash" areas are alive and not well.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
What the heck is this if a white guy walks in the ghetto crap?
If you walk down anywhere, regardless of race, full of drug dealers, it doesn't matter if they're white, black, spanish, asian, or what country, mexican, american, canadian and so on.
If it's full of SHADY people doing BAD things. You might become a target. You can blame any reason you want for why they targetted you, fact is, bad people in bad places do bad things.
This is the crap that is keeping racism alive.
People don't simply go 'I was mugged in a shady part of town'
People say' I was mugged in the ghetto where the black people are because I'm white"
Same thing with the guy who posted about getting beat up in school.
People get beat up in school. I was by white people, and I'm white. So...yeah.
Back in the day when there was white neighborhoods left in Detroit, like SW Detroit, a broke down car could make a easy target regardless of the color of occupants. Ghettos are dangerous places for someone that looks like an easy target, regardless of the color of the locals.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
That's the thing about Obama though, you see--he claimed he would be different, the other two are expected to be more of the same. Romney is even campaigning on it, much like McCain did almost four years ago...
It's easy to play partisan, but a lot of people stood back and waited to see if Obama would actually be the difference in politics he claimed to be. Whether or not they voted for him, they had hope he would change things. Instead he was more of the same, with a side of blame whitey whenever things conform to his worldview...
Is it any wonder people are disappointed? If you set yourself up as ascribing to a higher standard you'd better deliver!
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
No. Censorship is, when you can't publish anything without governmental approval. This is a far cry from a private entity ending its contract with you because of something it didn't like.
No. That is not what censorship is. Go look it up in the dictionary. You are incorrect, and beyond pointing that out, I'm not sure how to convince you. Let's just say: You're giving the Fox News interpretation of things.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
You only fund your public broadcasts by 11%? pathetic. We in .au have an excellent public broadcaster that is pretty much unbiased. (Of course right wingers say its biased because they tell the truth about them not the lies the Murdoch press pumps out)
No ,matter how you try to spin it (I guess they reveal the right wing lies you like to believe going by your post) 11% is only a very small part of its funding. You lost ages ago but you just havent seen it yet. No surprise going by your posting history.
In all fairness you really deserved it asshole.
Selling missiles / funding Contras - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
Colluding with terrorists to win the 1980 election - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise#1980_Carter_vs._Reagan
Colluding with terrorists (Al Queda/Mujahadeen) - http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/ghost_wars_how_reagan_armed_the
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Unless you are a significant public figure for your business (and even then I'm not so sure), what you believe and what you say should have fuck all to do with your employer.
This ignores the idea that many people get paid for image. When Hanes pays money to Michael Jordan, they're doing it for the right to associate his face with their name, so people who like him will be more inclined to buy their stuff. They're paying for his image, and if he then does something that makes his image run counter to their corporate image, they have the right to tell him (in exchange for the money they pay him) to tell him what he can and can't do, both "on" and "off" the clock. If Mr. Jordan doesn't like that, nobody put a gun to his head to sign an endorsement contract.
The same is true of John Derbyshire. National Review pays him money to present his opinions as part of their staff, and when he starts saying stuff they don't like, they have every right to tell him to stop or to stop paying him even if he's only presenting those non-aligned opinions in other places. There's no censorship going on here, because he wasn't incarcerated or fined or "disappeared", he was fired. He's still quite free to go get a job writing for a publication that lines up better with his stated opinions, but the money that NR paid him had strings attached, and he decided that writing his article was worth more than that paycheck.
Virg
Ok. This means that the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court) of Germany is wrong too, because the Zensurverbot in section 5 of the German Grundgesetz means exactly that: Censorship is the control of any media before publishing it.
So you have not only to convince me, but also the german Constitutional Court.
Basically, you are a fucktard making a fucktarded argument. You are not worth the effort of responding to, but I will solely for the benefit of anyone else reading this tread, so they see how fucking stupid and wrong you are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Types http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor http://www.thefreedictionary.com/censorship http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship
Now, please go eat the bag of dicks you came in on, asshole.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
When someone starts a statement with:
"I'm not a bigot." it means you are
It's just like "I don't want to offend, but.."
"I don't want to say you're being a knucklehead here, but..."
Part Time Philosopher, Oft Times Romantic, Full Time Unix Geek
I can't excuse the AC for being racist, but I can excuse him for a typo, context clearly meant 'minority'
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
and they also give out a lot of services, free of cost to the community, its a one hand washes the other situation. not all of them mind you, we have abusers as we always will, but the majority of them do way more for my community than my government does and im not a religious person
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Wait, you don't think oil companies could be profitable without government tax breaks?
Dude it's not racism. This is the internet. The person posting the comment claiming to be a white guy in a black neighborhod could just as easily be an albino lesbian cockerspaniel. Treating them like a dick because they're acting like it isn't "reverse racism", it's treating someone like a dick cause they're acting like one. That's not even hypocrisy, it's just fair.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.