"N-word".com Owned by NAACP

Re:BS...should be illegal by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-21 21:30 · Score: 1

Dear Sir and/or Madam:

On behalf of the LETL (Lawyers for the Ethical Treatment of Lawyers), I must inform you that we find offense in the statement you made to kill all the laywers. We are currently in talks with the Justice Department regarding the filing civil rights charges. Recent decisions made by the federal judiciary have made thoughts such as yours a federal offense in cercumstances and we may be involved in a precedet setting case against you to expand those bounds.

In the meantime, we respectfully request that you refrane from making such remarks. Our current policy requires us to list your name on our register of know anti-esquires, which all member lawyers have access. Should your name appear on our register you may find it difficult to obtain anything other than court-appointed representation should the need arise.

Chalmer P. Skewyew, Esq.
Lawyer at Law
Diddwe, Skewyem, and Howe LLP.

damn spooks by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-21 21:31 · Score: 1

I am so friggin tired of the NAACP and all these pro-black groups. All throught college I saw more blacks getting free rides and perks handed to them only to have 95% of them piss it all down their legs. I am a third generation American and my grandparents sacrificed for my parents and my parents made scarifices for me. We never owned slaves, we never even profitted from the "mans" exploitation of the negro. Its total bullshit.
Blacks have had 30+ years of benefits bestowed on them and granted a few of them have gotten smart and taken advantage of them. But the rest - BAH!

Stupidest thing the U.S. ever did was to import slaves from Africa. You know the most ironic part? It was their fellow africans who sold them into slavery. Yeah go read the textbooks, not the revisionist history ones they have been passing around for the past 5 years. Did you know that shortly before LIncolns assination he was pushing to re-settle all the slaves back to Africa?

Ever wonder what would have happened if the US had not imported slaves. I'll bet anything you want that Africa would still be in the same state it is today. Plus the US would be bereft of many of the race and social problems it has today.

You wanna know why Latinos are beginning to prosper so fast and outpacing blacks in the economy despite even more disadvantages? They work, work hard, and make sacrifices for their familys. Same thing with Asians (who get none of the benefits that either Hispanics or blacks do when it comes to financial aid, trust me I know this first hand). Then you have their main role models: drugged out and violent sports stars; obnoxious, self-serving, ethically lacking rap musicians; and thats about it.

80% of the black race is going down the tubes guarenteed in the next 20 years and it will be all their own doing.

Re:damn spooks by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-22 00:41 · Score: 1

I probably shouldn't even waste my time with a response but my anger has gotten the better part of me.

1. This is really a discussion about domain name squatting race only plays a part if you are somehow racially biased.

2. The NAACP is just an entity like the KKK, just like the KKK doesn't reflect the opinions of the entire whithe race, the NAACP doesn't reflect the opinions of the entire black race.

3. Black people have only asked for equality, the U.S. government has chosen to give back people econonic incentives in lieu of giving black people what it cannot grant.

4. Even though black people only get a few token gestures to make up for racist attitudes, the moment it inconveniences one white person everyone bitches. Yeah, I can walk down the street and no one will call me a nigger (in most locations) and I go to the same bathroom or eat at the same restaurant but that doesn't mean racism has ended. True, things are a lot better, but racism is around and just more subtle. How many of the people who bitch about what black people get would honestly trade places to get that stuff? Also if you don't think there is racism now, how many times have you seen a posting on /. concerning race even in the slightest that didn't result in some type of "damn spooks" posting. All they did was buy some domain names, stuff like this has been posted before but, it had the slightest thing to do with race and another idiot is posting some rhetoric about blacks.

5. Where did you go to school, community college? I was frequently the only black guy in my classes, when I did meet other blacks most of them were paying their own way too. I've heard about all these magical freebies for blacks but I haven't seen them. Yeah, I tried for a free ride but I didn't qualify and neither did anyone I grew up with. All the only blacks I met with free rides were either on a sports team, they were on the GI bill or a regular academic scholarship, no just because you're black thing. Everyone assumed we all had some type of financial aid or played sports but no one ever asked. I paid my own way and scored well enough to make it into school regardless of any quotas.

6. 30+ years of (token) benefits vs. 400+ years of slavery. Nuff said.

7. Black people are doing better and will continue to do so, there are other races which have outpaced the black race but, I don't think their situations are comparable.

8. All american role models consist of drugged out and violent sports stars and ethically lacking rock musicians. Sure there are other people whites have as role models but the same goes for blacks. Although if you are black you have to look harder because if you are black and successful and not a rap star or not a sports figure you are not publicized:

Dr. Charles Drew discoverer of blood plasma.
Lewis Latimer inventor of the carbon filament, part of Thomas Edison's team of engineers.
Garret A. Morgan inventor of the gas mask.
Dr. Daniel Williams performed the first successful open heart surgery.
Dr. Percy Julian developed a treatment for glaucoma.
Louis Alexander inventor of the photo electric cell.
Re:damn spooks by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-21 21:59 · Score: 2

I will admit that this title is a bit
inflamatory. But here is my 0.02 worth.
My boss is African-American, he busted
butt to get into a good school, and paid
for most of it himself. Worked the entire
time. Today he makes (I am guessing) at
least in the upper 80k's and supports his
family well.

Today he is somewhat bitter. He has said
that his kids have little respect for him
because he is not like their "role models"
that their friends hold up as examples.
He also said that he was relatively an
outcast when he was growing up because he
did not fit in with any other African-American
groups or attitudes (i.e. player, pimp, etc..).
He is extradordinarily hard on those African-
Americans he hires (he has been through 8
admins) because he will not tolerate them not
standing up to his standard.

He realises that this economy is slowly
becoming a service economy where there are
little opportunities for those not willing
to take the hard path and fears that other
members of his people will be left behind.

Its a fact, he says, and he will do anything
in his power to make sure those that will
earn it get it.
Re:damn spooks by Stradivarius · 1999-09-22 09:30 · Score: 1

I really don't see how you believe that affirmative action is a logical and fair practice.

For one thing, it is hypocritical. We are supposed to be an enlightened society that does not believe in racial discrimination. Hence the laws to that effect. And I totally agree that we should not discriminate on the basis of race (or gender/creed/all the other conditions those laws cover). How then do we justify affirmative action, which is a policy of racial discrimination by its very nature? Changing who becomes the victim of the discrimination does not make it any less of an evil. We're preaching one thing, but practicing the opposite.

For another, affirmative action doesn't help with the problem of racial/sexual inequalities in the workplace. Studies have shown that by far the primary beneficiaries of such programs are middle class blacks. Who aren't the ones who need the help! The ones who need help are the people in the lower economic class. Middle class people can afford college. Poor people can't.

Just because whites don't openly harass blacks on the street everyday, and just because we've got some legislation, doesn't mean the problems gone away.

No, it doesn't mean the problems have gone away (though I think there is certainly far less racism today than in the past). There are plenty of ignorant racist jerks out there, of all races. And, not to be overly cynical, there quite likely will always be some. You get any large group of people, and you're bound to find a few assholes in the group. None of this changes the fact that affirmative action does not decrease the racism in this country! If anything, it promotes an attitude that minorities are inherently incapable of succeeding without special help. We should be trying to tear down such stereotypes, not create them.

Furthermore, affirmative action does not address the underlying problems of why many minority groups are under-represented in many areas. Affirmative action is trying to treat the symptoms, rather than find the cure.

Blacks (just one of many possible examples) are not under-represented among Fortune 500 CEOs because they're black; it is because of the economic and social situation that the majority of blacks find themselves in:

Socially:
To get a good-paying job, one usually needs a college education. To get a good college education, you usually need to have good grades in high school. To get good grades in high school, you generally need a desire to get good grades. This is hindered by an attitude that doing well in school is "acting white". Equating whiteness with scholarship is ridiculous, of course, but try telling this to a lot of black teenagers whose friends keep ragging on them about being "white". Add to this the lack of blacks in certain areas (ie Fortune 500 CEOs), which means few black role models in these positions. There is a strong social affect on young black people away from doing well in academic pursuits; this needs to be addressed before we'll see any *real* progress.

There are similar situations with other minority groups in this country. For example, many of the minorities in this country have immigrated from non-English speaking countries, and as such are at a disadvantage economically if they can't communicate in English. Sadly, even many native born Americans whose parents are American, etc, can't speak decent English.

Economically:

Getting a good job these days usually requires a college degree. However, the economic situation of many minorities makes them unable to afford higher education. And the lack of higher education prevents the funds...in a nasty cycle.

If we really want to promote equality, we should do away with racially-based preferences, and instead do the following:
1. Increase forms of financial aid to the financially diadvantaged so that those who wish to attend college can afford it. There are a lot of people out there this could benefit, of all races; though it would help minorities more (due to the economic situation of most minorities being worse than the average white situation)
2. Increase programs that tackle the social aspect of things. Make sure that minorities feel that they can go into any field of work, that it's not "being white". Increase English literacy programs. Having a mastery of English is a huge help in acquiring and keeping a good job.
3. Improve elementary through high school education. I can't stress the need for this enough. A good grade school education is the foundation upon which all future learning is going to be built. Hold all students to high standards. We're graduating students who can barely read. If they can't do that there's no way in hell they're gonna get a good job and bring themselves to a higher standard of living.

Oh, and in regards to your comment:
1/4 of all black males in the US are felons and no longer have the right to vote

I really don't see how that has anything to do with affirmative action. The solution to this is for black males to stop committing felonies. This is a case of a significant subset of the black population shooting themselves in the foot, so to speak. It's their choice, not something forced upon them.
Re:damn spooks by Peyna · 1999-09-21 23:36 · Score: 1

I do find it interesting that there a lot of scholarships for out their that you can only get if you are a certain non-white race, but there aren't any scholarships restricted to white people.

--
What?
Re:damn spooks by GOD_ALMIGHTY · 1999-09-22 03:49 · Score: 1

For a group of people who pride themselves on being knowledgeable about many things, and fair about most, this sort of reasoning defies logic. Appearently you do not pay attention to the world outside your immediate surroundings.

If there was racial equality or sexual equality in America then roughly 13% of Fortune 500 CEO's would be black, over 50% would be women, and over 12% would be Hispanic. This assumes that you believe race and sex do not equal natural ability. The Fortune 500 got it's first black CEO last year. You could probably count the number of women on your fingers.

Poverty rates among blacks and hispanics are still disproportionate to whites, 1/4 of all black males in the US are felons and no longer have the right to vote.

Unless you are a racist or blinded by your insulated lifestyle, you cannot ignore that affermative action, government programs to help the poor, and special education programs for minorities and women are not needed today.

I personally think that we geeks are not racist or sexist at heart and are often idealistic and tend to not believe something non-scientific until we see or experience it firsthand. Just because whites don't openly harass blacks on the street everyday, and just because we've got some legislation, doesn't mean the problems gone away.

It's sad that we're still fighting this inequality in America almost 40 years after the Civil Rights Movement won it's major victories. I personally think America has gone from hating minorities to hating the poor. If you think these problems are to complex or to expensive to fix, there are more people willing to sacrifice their lives to promote peace and unity than there are geeks to write open source. If you want to know where the resources are to help these people, read this

--
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Re:damn spooks by Ronin75 · 1999-09-22 22:53 · Score: 1

It's tough to believe that a /. reader wouldn't support breaking up the monopoly.
Re:damn spooks by Jon+Chatow · 1999-09-29 19:55 · Score: 1

I must say that, although I agree that in the USA, the United Kingdom, and indeed throughout the world, there is by no means an accurate representation of the various levels of the socio-ethnic groupings present, I do not agree with your interpretation of the comment you are replying to as semi-inflammatory attacks in certain systems.

I do not believe that the correct way of redressing this problem is to give people jobs by quota - that is merely discrimination by other means. I have discussed this with friends who, given a selection of candidates, have evaluated one as far better than the others but then have had to select another for the job because the new selection is female, or from an ethnic background, or whatever. This is obviously a form, albeit a less discussed and less recognised form, of discrimination.

The only real way to build equality is to make sure that the levels of education are, for all, both equal and excellent. This must mean that we must make sure that each child has the same, perfect family with the same income, the same surroundings, the same upbringing, the same number and character of siblings, and so on (as a recent article in The Spectator commentated). Even if we accept such totalitarianism and, in some respects, socialism, we would sacrifice the diversity of Society for the purpose of perceived equality, which may well be not what we really want to end up with as our society.

In equality, homogeneity.

--
James F.
Re:damn spooks by crbill · 1999-09-21 23:57 · Score: 1

Erm, it could have something to do with the subject. I'll probably get shit just for pointing it out. :(
Re:damn spooks by Joshuah · 1999-09-21 22:40 · Score: 3

i see it this way. When the whites had an all baseball league, it was racist and wrong. but what then is the negro league? If they kept blacks or women out of college, then what are black colleges, and all women colleges? Am i wrong here? I am a white american male. Where is my all white male college at? What month do we dedicate to all white inventions and leaders? Here in atlanta, there is something called affirmative action, which means a company MUST have so many blacks, and women in their companies and in colleges. Until a while female was rejected from University of Georgia, and sued (and won) to get the right to goto school there, but correct me if im wrong, but isnt this racism? Im not anti-black or anti-woman by any means...but where is the justice???
Re:damn spooks by Hiro_Protaganist · 1999-09-21 21:46 · Score: 1

As a friends father used to say "The only Man keeping the black man down is the man in the mirror." (yes he was black, grew up in South Sacramento.)

And he lives it to, he owns a successful business. Everyone needs to stop their bitching and get to work.

--

_________
Sometimes, when I'm feelin' bored, I like to take a necrotic equine and assault it physically.
Re:damn spooks by bootboy88 · 1999-09-22 03:52 · Score: 1

I'll admit I'm biased, as I'm a skinhead. But I agree with this.. I live in New Zealand, we don't have 'african-americans'. But we do have the indigenous maori, and very large groups of polynesian/melanesian (sp?) pacific islanders. There are _heaps_ of maori/pacific island creches, preschools, schools, high schools, and teritary facilities. Both bilingual and 'total immersion' units where only the releveant non english language and culture is spoken/studied. This is normal and acceptable according to most people.. yet If I wanted to start a white/european only school, where students were only allowed in if they had xxx percentage european blood, and taught only celtic, germanic, viking or what have you languages and curriculum, then there would be an outcry of amazing magnitude.. just my 2 cents worth.. thou i'm sure i'll be moderated into oblivion for being honest *grin*

Why is internic allowing registration at all? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-21 22:01 · Score: 1

I mean, if internic refuses to allow FUCK.COM to be registered (and derivates thereof), why are they allowing NIGGER.COM to be registered? The latter is far more offensive, IMO. Internic should either become a Censor God Control Freak or just say "anything goes" and be done with it. This case-by-case-what's-our-mood-today-on-this-domain- name policy is unacceptable since I cannot even find out difinitavely what the "policy" is. It's unwritten! WTF?

Re:Why is internic allowing registration at all? by Peyna · 1999-09-21 23:25 · Score: 1

fsck.com would more likely be a website devoted to cleaning up hard drives, nothing wrong with that now is there?

fsck -p [-f] [-m mode] [filesystem] ...

--
What?
Re:Why is internic allowing registration at all? by flesh99 · 1999-09-21 23:54 · Score: 1

Being of African descent (as well as some Polish and German) and having been called a "nigger" myself, and the loss of one more possible mouthpiece for that kind of bigotry is a Good Thing.

No it is not a Good Thing. By your own statement you make yourself a cenorship advocate. In the USA we all have the right to believe what we want, and to speak about what we believe. Domain squatting is wrong, and I disagree with this action by the NAACP. I disagree with a lot of their actions but most of the time they are a good group. This is bullshit, they now own an offensive domain name and we now know they practice the same tactics that we all bitched about GW Bush using not so long ago on /. I am beginning to see how this works, if people like someone or something it is OK for them to do things that others do and get slammed for. It's called equality folks, the NAACP is as right as GW Bush no matter which one you like more or which one you like less.

--
Re:Why is internic allowing registration at all? by flesh99 · 1999-10-06 10:08 · Score: 1

This form of domain squatting is exactly censorship. It is forcing the belief that a certain word is not acceptable down all of our throats. NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER, it is just a word and the context in whixh it may be used can be offensive to some but may not be to others. The domain squatting in this case is entirely wrong
1) For the simple reason that have not re-directed the domain name
2) Because they own a domain strcitly to keep someone else from using it because they MIGHT disagree with the connotations of it's use
3) by logical extension of reason 2 IT IS CENSORSHIP

I will say it again because it is just a word, NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER. There have I offended you ? I hope not because I wasn't referinmg to you when I typed it. Blacks use the word to refer to each other, why can't I use it ? I am white so it is offensive, thats bullshit.

--
Re:Why is internic allowing registration at all? by LocalYokel · 1999-09-21 23:03 · Score: 1

You can use the word "fsck" (deliberately misspelled, guess I'm a prude) in a domain name.
The whole story of how NSI was pressed into it with repeatedly queries against WHOIS for references to the word used to be at www.fscking.com, but it's no longer there. That address now leads to a porn site, but just about everything on the web is only one or two clicks away from porn anyway...

Being of African descent (as well as some Polish and German) and having been called a "nigger" myself, and the loss of one more possible mouthpiece for that kind of bigotry is a Good Thing.
I don't see any problem or inconsistency with the way Network Solutions approves domain names. On top of rules and regulations, some businesses actually make judgement calls using common sense. "Negros" is a word that would probably be denied to someone in the U.S., but accepted from Mexico, where the word means "black". Rules don't fit every occasion.
Lastly, if you don't like the way NSI makes policy on domain registration, why not go somewhere else? Network Solutions isn't the only choice anymore...
--

--
--
E2 IN2 IE?
Re:Why is internic allowing registration at all? by Annamite · 1999-09-21 23:41 · Score: 2

Ain't many black guys already called each other "nigga" or any variation thereof? Same thing apply for gays who call each other "fags"? Acceptable terms in this situation is relative while FUCK is already one of those 7(9?) "forbidden" words. It is easier just to grab the radio/TV list and keep it as a bible, make believe to the world that they are highly moral. I wonder if interNIC ever censor those other cuss words in other languages besdies English? What *OTHER* languages? Duh .... it is called the WORLD WIDE ....blahz... Annamite, Love to eat the forbidden fruits ;-)

Why is it ok for the NAACP to use the nigger? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-21 22:02 · Score: 1

If I use the word, then I'm labeled a racist. If someone uses the word in the presense of my friends or family, then they are labeled a racist. The NAACP uses the word globally, in the press release and in the domain name, and they are praised? About three years ago, I introduced Jesse Jackson, before he spoke at my local Chamber of Commerce. I've never meet a more racist group of people than his entourage. I've never understood why some forms of racism and hate are not despised as much as others. In fact, some forms of racism seem accepted and encouraged by society. Whether it's the fact that I did half the work in college that my classmates did, but I still passed, or the fact that I got a full scholarship because I had the highest GPA of a minority student at my high school. One of the 125 student's with a higher GPA at my high school complained, and he was suspended from school. Why is that racism not only tolerated, but encouraged by the school for punishing those who complain about it? The NAACP's use of this word should not be tolerated, just as I've never tolerated someone using the word to describe me.

"affirmative action" programs are broken. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-21 22:52 · Score: 1

At my school (UCLA) the affirmative action program offers various ethnic groups extra tutoring (fine by me), assistance with finding affordable housing (fine by me) and lets them stay enrolled with a lower GPA that would get those not in the program kicked out (woah! I have aproblem with that). I knew someone who scraped by for three years with a sub 2.0 GPA that would have gotten non-ethnic groups (i.e. white) kicked out after their 1 term probationary period (during which they must get the GPA back up). He finally was kicked out just before his forth year. Sad. This guy sucked up a space at the university for three whole years and didn't even graduate. This space could've went to someone else who was academically talented enough to make it through and graduate but who was denied because some enrollment quota meant there wasn't room for him. The AA people say it not about quotas and that it's about giving "historically disadvantged groups" a chance, but when it comes to implementation, we're back to these fscking quotas again.

Re:"affirmative action" programs are broken. by scumdamn · 1999-09-21 23:55 · Score: 2

"This space could've went to someone else who was academically talented enough to make it through and graduate but who was denied because some enrollment quota meant there wasn't room for him."

If you're going to complain about someone sucking up space at a University, you shouldn't use bad grammer while doing so. The space you are/were taking up could also have gone to someone more academically talented.
You aren't an english major, are you?

Re:Score = 4?? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-22 00:55 · Score: 1

You obviously have no clue as to how moderators are supposed to use their power.

If you agree with the post, you moderate up.

If you don't agree with the post, you moderate it down.

Since this guy is just complaining, hu must be just a wannabe moderator who agrees with the philosophy of moderation I have stated hede. Therefore he is unworthy of moderator status. Get it?

Getting away from the point... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-09-21 23:09 · Score: 2

I think the NAACP is missing the point of exactly what domain names are supposed to accomplish, which is to function as a simple reminder of your server addresses. (People remember names easier than numbers.) - When you tell someone your "internet address" (whether email, web, ftp, or whathaveyou) the point is that using a word is easier to remember than four numbers. Therefore you picked something that's similar to your name (like "IBM.COM", for example.)

DNS isn't supposed to be a substitute for a search engine - so registering "every permutation of every offensive word" isn't going to solve anything (even if it was possible.)

If someone were to go looking for hate groups, are they going to type "www.n-word.com" into their browser location bar? No. They're going to go to Altavista or Yahoo (or some other search engine) and type in a search phrase.

If some white-supremacist is going to register a domain name, would they pick "n-word.com"? Probably not. Can you imagine them exchanging URL's with other idiots, and getting the reaction "Whudya pick that for? You a n*****-lover?" - As a matter of fact, white-supremacists (the ones I've ever met, or seen) are against using that word in public (watch some interviews and documentaries about it if you're interested in the mindset - it's fascinating to see such a deluded mind at work.)

By taking this action, the NAACP is doing exactly what they're trying to prevent, which is to give racists publicity and credibility.

NAACP = ?? by davie · 1999-09-22 00:08 · Score: 2

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Last time I checked, "colored" was considered offensive, and the last few times I heard it used it was sure hard to take it any other way.

Perhaps the NAACP should change their name before they waste money squatting on domains. Granted, a name change would be a lot more expensive than sitting on a few domains, but anyone who really wants to read racist trash is going to find it no matter what. The name, OTOH, is kind of hard to ignore.

--
slashdot broke my sig

Re:NAACP = ?? by vkire · 1999-09-22 03:26 · Score: 1

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Last time I checked, "colored" was considered offensive, and the last few times I heard it used it was sure hard to take it any other way.
What I find particularly funny is that the word "black," although mostly used to denote "a dark color," in the physical sense means "absence of color." How can an organization for "Colored People" represent "Abesence of Color" type of people? :)
KV

Re:Switcheroo by Cardinal · 1999-09-21 20:52 · Score: 1

Then you spelled it wrong :)

Re:Privacy? by chuck · 1999-09-22 06:20 · Score: 1

...even if it was a typo( I meant to go to bigger.com )

At first, I didn't even want to guess what was at bigger.com, but as it turns out it's yet another free mail service!

--
My Freakin Blog

Silly people... by pb · 1999-09-21 23:30 · Score: 1

People don't like to be categorized. Therefore, for every word for someone with dark skin who has parents from Africa that has been used in the US, there is someone objecting to it. Let's look at a few:

Negroid. Yeah, just about as fun as calling me a 'Caucasian'. No one likes the 'scientific' term for their people.

Nigger. Contraction of the former, originally *not* offensive. If you don't believe me, read Huckleberry Finn, his best friend was a 'nigger'. (Provided it isn't banned yet, for schools that can't teach history. :[ ) Back then, it was about as bad as calling someone 'black' is today.

Black. Some people find this offensive now. Too bad, since I'm 'White'...

African American. Pretty stupid, unless you're from there, and applied for citizenship here. They're as much from Africa as I'm from Europe, which is to say not at all. We're all Native Americans, since we were born on American soil. (Not Indians. Wait... they aren't from India! Aaaahhhhhh!)

Therefore, there are *no* good terms for our races. If you believe the word of one slashdot-reading honkey, that is. Otherwise, ignore me, and use your free software. (or is it Open Source? Shareware? Freeware? Aaaaahhhhh!)

Personally, with the domain names, use it or lose it. Don't refer a bunch of domain names to your page, either. You'll just confuse people, and restrict free speech and easy searching of the internet, which is what America is all about. If you don't like going to 'yahhoo.com' and getting a porn site, you shouldn't like this either, it's more domain abuse, pure and simple.

--
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

Well it pisses me off... by crayz · 1999-09-22 00:34 · Score: 1

... and I'm a member of the white middle-class and really have nothing in my ethnicity that would make me the topic of insults.

It just pisses me off.

It's like last year I had a class and the teacher was asking what everyone was(e.g. German, Irish, Italian, etc.). I guess I have some French, German, etc. I haven't ever really cared.

I doubt in France they ask you if you're English or German if your ancestors have lived in the country for 200 years.

Do Americans have a problem just being Americans? I can understand people who grew up in another country, or whose parents did saying they're Swedish American or whatever. But if you have ancestors that have fought in the civil war, I think you've been here long enough. You are American, like it or not.

And I agree with the other poster that not all blacks come from Africa, and if you come from Jamaica you probably wouldn't like being called African American. And if you are a white from South Africa, you wouldn't be called African American.

So basically it's just YA way of describing someone who's skin is a dark brown to black color. So why not just say black? And I really wish whoever the hell chooses these things(probably our friends at the NAACP) would settle on one.

I mean, what was so bad with "Negro"? Now it sounds like some dirty word, but AFAIK it just means black in some other language(I know it does in Spanish). MLK called blacks Negros in his speeches. But no, now it's demeaning.

But now no one will ever be able to use that word again. So why don't they just find one they like and say this is the pc term now, and keep it.

Thank you NAACP by crayz · 1999-09-22 00:40 · Score: 1

Fighting for our rights to get Affirmative Action on TV. You know, all those poor minorities watch TV and they get so depressed(at least according to Jesse Jackson) because there are no people of their race in starring roles.

So what do we do? Threaten to sue. Threaten a boycott. Good work guys, TV companies really don't have the right to put out the shows they want.

You know there was this article a few days back about the show "The West Wing" and the producer or whatever was so happy that they got blacks and other minorities in some parts(at the last minute because of NAACP pressure).

It was hysterical, the guy was like "You don't see any blacks yet, but guess what? You haven't met the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and you haven't met the National Security Adviser, and you haven't met etc. etc. Guess what? They're almost all minorities!"

I was like, too bad for those white men who had the jobs for those roles before the NAACP came in. It's too bad that they had to be fired, but I guess they deserved it since they're white and male.

EXACTLY! by crayz · 1999-09-22 06:04 · Score: 1

If you made White Entertainment TV, or a White Student Union(like in school), or tried to get a White History Month, people would be calling you the most racist piece of shit ever.

But when blacks do it it's about pride. What bullshit.

Re:They can't think of them all.... by jafac · 1999-09-22 00:07 · Score: 1

how 'bout www.chinkspicnigger.com ?

Be an equal opportunity bigot!

"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:the power of words by jafac · 1999-09-22 00:22 · Score: 1

I said it before, and I'll say it again, all this clumsiness is a direct result of peoples' thinking of domain names as something other than names for a computer sitting in an air conditioned room somewhere.

For corporations, organizations, there needs to be a separate directory service of some kind which can be trademarkable, censorable, and enforceable, the namespace will need to allow for space-characters, and other necessities of corporate identity. Treat it the same as you treat the Yellow Pages today.
When folks want to find Apple Computer's site, they look it up in their directory, and the browser zips them to the proper place. A URL is NOT a good solution for this problem. You get this top-level duplication crap, (.net, .org, .com) squatting, other abuses, and it doesn't support a full character-set. It just ain't the right solution.

"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:Squating? by Thomas+Charron · 1999-09-21 21:19 · Score: 1

They are sitting on sites they NEVER intend on using. If I'm against these being used commerially, could I have squat on these?

www.linux.com
www.freebsd.com
www.eef.com
www.gnu.com

and best of all, can I now go buy and sit on

www.naacp.com?

No, I shouldn't.. Neither should they.

One's persons idea of offensive ISN'T anothers, and they have no legal or ethical reason for sitting on slang terms names.