-why should 6 people risk a bite from someone who could have some diesease when they can be subdued without injury to the suspect or themselfs? Because it's their JOB. They are Law Enforcement Officers. They VOLUNTEERED to deal with all the "nasty" people in society. Apparently, to a certain extent, they decided that they wanted to do that sort of thing on a daily basis.
-your problem, is that you don't think of cops as people with families etc. They aren't "people with families". Again, they are an extension of the government. It's their job to sacrifice themselves to a certain extent for society. To serve and protect. What good is it to protect people only when there's no risk of being shot, smacked around, or bitten. If they aren't going to protect us when the going gets rough, then screw em. Send them all home, give me my tax money back and I'm going to buy some guns.
-they aren't drones impervious to harm, Very true. Just like our military personnel, we should not "abuse" their protection in trivial ways.
-nor do they deserve to be put in harms way just because someone wants to be a dickbrain Again, yes they do. It's their job.
-being a cop is just a job at the end of the day Actually, no it's not. I'm not obligated to stop some old lady from being mugged. I'm not obligated to try to save someone who's drowning. I'm not even obligated to stop some guy from robbing a bank. In fact, I can usually grab a bag of popcorn and watch the show without getting into "trouble" (US law of course). Police officers ARE obligated to help people in those types of situations. And it's a 24 hour a day duty, so "at the end of the day", they are still obligated to serve and protect. 3AM. Lunch time. Even in the middle of taking a crap. Being a cop isn't a "job". It's playing a vital role in our society.
-and you have no right to expect them to put themselfs at more risk then nessacary, just because you think tasing looks cruel. Again, I think you're wrong about that.
"Thought experiment: What if the Japanese-Americans rounded up for internment during WW2 had instead chosen to defend themselves? Surely, in public opinion, it would have proven the government's point, right?"
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have the proverbial "other side" of the "letting the government do whatever the hell it wants" coin. We call this other side of the coin, the "legislation by public opinion" side of the coin.
Thought experiment: How long has "public opinion" been a good indicator of anything besides how to get elected? Often times, public opinion has absolutely nothing to do with what would be considered right, just, intelligent, or fair.
Men who have been wrongly incarcerated or had all their belongings "frozen" without due process have no civil rights either.
You know what I want? I want to be able to TRUST that the executive branch of the government (law enforcement included) really has what's best for the country in mind, but I'm just not feeling it.
The executive branch of our government has recently, been found guilty of large scale domestic spying "for the greater good", torture, and any number of other egregious offenses. Of course, it's up to some interpretation I guess, but I say they're blatantly illegal offenses at worst and contrary to the spirit of our laws in the very least.
If they're so willing to throw aside our laws to accomplish what they want in extreme cases, exactly where do they draw the line? Torture is OK, but what about murder? Installing spyware is OK to get the data you need, but what about fabricating data? When are we going to reel these guys in, and at what eventual cost?
I don't care if they had a warrant in this particular instance. I don't care if the guy they were going after was just a petty crook, truly a terrorist, or even a pedophile. What I DO care about is the fact that we've already seen that the legislative branch is more than willing to re-write portions of our law to make this sort of "sneaky" behavior perfectly legal, for the sake of "safety" and "security". I'm not so sure that it's a good thing that it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the tactics used by the "good guys" and those employed by the "bad guys". I thought law enforcement was supposed to be taking the high ground and fighting fair. Isn't that part of what being a "good guy" is all about? Morals and integrity and whatnot?
And another thing, even if all this stuff is "legal", I don't like seeing them practice these strong-arm tactics on even the real bad guys. It makes me nervous, because I've learned first hand that, regardless of what's "legal" or "right", when you're mistakenly on the wrong end of one of these actions, knowing that the courts MIGHT eventually straighten it out won't make you feel any better when you're sitting around in jail (or god forbid, in a coffin).
"Oops. Sorry. We weren't supposed to do that..."
Basically, I want the good guys to start acting like good guys and cut out all the god-damned shenanigans. Stooping to the crooks level will, and is, taking us down a path I don't really think we want to be on.
Yes. Because five year olds are the ultimate arbiters of morality...
Circumventing the logic in the game is "cheating". Doing things that the people who run the game don't want you to do is violating the TOS. Having a program (or another person for that matter) level your character for you is not cheating. They're doing the exact same things you would be doing.
These people are being taken to court for supposedly violating the WoW TOS. They'd be laughed out of the building for taking someone to court for "cheating" in a video game.
Not to correct anyone, but be prepared to get hit in the face by an angry native spanish speaker if you were to, perhaps, call them a "cabron". At least in parts of the US, don't know about elsewhere.
Just like in English, just because a word has a different literal meaning, doesn't mean it's commonly used that way.
Microsoft took the time and made the conscious effort to create software to allow people to create games in an easy manner. All Sony did was compile a kernel for linux on their black box and shove it out the door. Most of the other stuff you talked about is software written by other people (DVRs, Quake, etc). That doesn't even take into account the supposedly crippled acess to the video subsystem (I don't have a PS3, so I wouldn't know firsthand)
Although your argument about the bad comparison is valid, don't forget that Sony hasn't really DONE much of anything. It's like the difference between a friend lending you his tools versus him helping you change the clutch in your car. There's a substantial amount of "intention to actively help you do cool stuff" on the part of Microsoft in this regard. I think they deserve credit for that. Quite a bit of credit actually.
I still don't see how making sure that people without a hard drive can still download and use arcade games is a bad thing. After all, once you pay for it, you can download it as many times as you want, so you only ever really need that one memory card. Complaining about the fact thet the HDD is optional in the first place is an unrelated (but valid) issue.
There ARE people who think that way. I'm one of them. I've already passed up two busines trips for this very reason and when I take my family to Disney this summer, we're traveling by highway. I refuse to consciously put myself in a situation where I'm almost ASKING to be treated like a criminal. I'll take that airline ticket money and give it to someone else.
You're confusing wealthy people with people who make lots of money. Basketball players make lots of money. So do lawyers and doctors. Wealthy people are like Bill Gates and Oprah. They have large quantities of land, cash, cars, homes, businesses, etc. Those things often times increase their value without really any intervention. That's wealth. Just because you have a big screen TV and a cellphone, doesn't mean you're wealthy. If anything, it means that the prices of those goods are insanely cheap because of places like China.
Don't get me wrong, but where do you draw the line between xenophobia and Japan just being...well..Fing WEIRD. Like I said, don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against Japan, but hell. Their tastes are so "excentric" (from our perspective) that without inside information from someone who understands Japanese culture, I don't know if it would be reasonable to expect anyone to be able to tell when a Japanese consumer won't buy something because it's not Japanese, or if they won't buy something because they just don't like it. Doesn't that essentially equate to them not liking stuff because it's not Japanese???
I'm not big on rewatching movies. Even less so with replaying games, but this is probably one of the few games I want to replay with my buddies. Single player isn't quite as much fun in my opinion, but co-op is a BLAST.
The cool thing about vinyl is that, if I needed to, I could create a paper funnel, tape a sewing needle to the end of it and hold it onto a record that I'm spinning with a pencil. I can PHYSICALLY get to the music without electricity. To me, that makes ir more "real" than CDs, EEPROMS, and harddrives.
Maybe I'm just going through a bit of a digital backlash right now???
"no one except straight WASPs (SWASPs?) can be portrayed in a negative light"
Is everyone picking on the white man again? It's a hard-knock life isn't it? White-man's burden and all that? You seem to be implying the existence of a history book that is being used in the public shcool system today that TOTALLY demonizes "the white man". Please, direct me to this mythological book. I'd pay a pretty penny for that tome. I was under the impression that the WASP hasn't done anything bad. That's what MY history books told me in school. Slavery just happened on it's own. All that Jim Crow nonsense afterwards just happened. The same thing with the tragedy of the Native Americans and the raping of our environment.
It's a cold and dangerous world out there. Fortunately, the WASP has been fortunate enough to make it thus far unharmed. By the very grace of God I'm sure. I'm certain that someday, they'll have the place of prominence in that world that they deserve. The meek inheriting the earth and all that.
Or maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
So apparently you think 40 years is a long time? Ignoring slavery and it's legacy has worked so well these last 143 years, hasn't it? Here, I think you should read this: http://games.slashdot.org/~toiletsalmon/journal/13 9277 It probably doesn't apply exactly to you, but the main idea remains the same.
Alexandra, that is not the point. Well, maybe it is actually. The POINT is, when you look at the billboard you see these two people fighting. One black, and one white. Neither one of them is even holding a PSP, so the logical conclusion can be drawn that they are fighting BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT COLORS. If they were holding PSPs, then I think the ad would have a totally different dynamic to it.
Now, in the context of the US. You do realise that black people were considered the property of certain white people solely BECAUSE THEY WERE A DIFFERENT COLOR, don't you? And it was only 143 years ago that it ended. There could still be people alive with "second hand" knowledge of slavery.
So now we have an ad for a portable videogame machine that is based on the exact same rationale as the slave trade. Now can you see why some people are a little turned off by it? Especially when the color of your game system is just as "important" as someone's skin tone. You probably couldn't find a more insignificant trait to base a judgement on.
If slavery was based on anything deeper than skin color, then the parallels wouldn't be so strong. But it wasn't based on anything deeper than that, so the parallels ARE strong.
I'm willing to concede to you the fact that the ad in, and of itself, is not "racist". I'll give you that.
BUT, I disagree with your initial assertion that slavery is NOT a big deal anymore (at least here in the US). I feel that it is still a very big deal. Because slavery, in my opinion, is a very big deal. Because of the fact that the US has almost always been a very important place on the world stage, I feel that a big deal here, will at least be a medium sized deal in other parts of the world.
I think that and ad like this, though not racist itself, comes from a place inspired by racism. And trust me, if they KNEW that running a Dutch ad could possible harm sales in the US, then I'm almost certain that they wouldn't run it.
Of course, we're all entitled to our opinions and I could very well be full of shit, but the thing that troubles me is that, many people, like me, think slavery is STILL a big deal. Many people, similar to you, DON'T think slavery is a big deal. But if the people on "your side" of the issue dismiss it and refuse to discuss it, then there's no way to decide the issue.
Oh, and I do have to say that I agree with your assertion that "Affirmative Action" is not "fair" in the real spirit of the word "equality". But I do think it's a very practical way to get around the fact that "White America" has not come to terms with their feelings in regards to slavery and it's legacy. And until they take full responsibility for their part in actively preventing blacks from integrating peacefully and fully into our society, I'm glad it helped my father get a job to replace the other three he couldn't get because he was a "nigger".
BTW, I understand your argument about racism being a misnomer, since we are all a part of the "human race", but I don't believe that's the way most people think about racism. They go by this definition taken from m-w.com "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock".
Yep. You see, it's already started. This is EXACTLY what they were able to do to kill the Dreamcast. The Sony advert machine seems to have that "thing" where they can somehow get enough people to buy into their marketing hype to allow them to sweep their competitors into a corner. Then they come out with a key title or two, and BAM! Down for the count.
Wow, that almost sounds like a Tekken combo or something. Coincidence??? Hmmm...
OK. I'm willing to bet that YOU are at least a little racist, and it might not completely be your fault. After all, you choose to be an insensetive asshole, so the racist hat might fit too. I don't know.
First of all, following your link up there, I'm going to assume a few things about you: a) you're a "white boy" b) you probably live in the US.
I could be wrong, but I'll go out on a limb with that one. You seem to think that you speak with some level of authority on the subject of slavery, and slavery discussions usually center around the US. Even if you're not from the US, at least SOME of these same principles apply to most european derived cultures anyway.
Second thing, I am a "black man". My ancestors were indeed slaves. I have the "last name as a profession" to prove it. Butler. Granted, that gives the implication that some of my ancesstors probably got to stay inside with "Ole Massa", but they were slaves none the less.
Finally, my great-grandfather was a member of the group that slavery "evolved" into after the Civil War. The Share Cropper. Additionally, my grandmother was spit at as a child for being a "nigger" and my father and mother had to relocate themselves geographically to pursue their relationship because it was frowned upon in the southern state where they were born. Basically, my father didn't want to end up face down in a creek somewhere in the middle of the woods. The point I'm trying to make is that I feel I have at least some "authority" to speak on behalf of the minority side of this whole issue.
Now, to address your (proxied) assertions about slavery. First of all, like most "white" people, you too closely relate slavery and racism. Because of this, you like to draw the conclusion that because slavery ended after the Civil War, that "peculiar institution" also took it's cousin racism with it. NOT TRUE at all. Slavery is an action. A way of doing things. Racism is an idea. A state of mind. They are two totally different things, but they were used together here in the US. This is illustrated by the fact that not just anyone was allowed to be enslaved. There were very few "white" slaves in the early days of the colonies, and by the time of the Civil War, it was pretty much unheard of. Wouldn't it have been just as easy to enslave a poor white man who owes you large sums of money? Of course it would have, but because of RACISM, they soon decided that the proper people to be enslaved were Native Americans and Blacks.
Now that we've got that out of the way, the next thing I'd like to highlight is the fact that many white people GREATLY underestimate the extent to which slavery had a very real and everyday impact on the everyday life of an American. Do you realize that, at this point in time, my ancestors were officially denied basic human rights by the government of the United States of America for almost 40% of the lifespan of this nation. 87 years from 1776 till 1863. That's 143 years without slavery. HARDLY an impressive number. Slavery was on EVERYONE's mind. Two of the most popular books from the last two centuries dealt DIRECTLY with slavery. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and "Gone with the Wind". The first epic motion picture was "Birth of a Nation". It was about the KKK for Gods sake. Abolishing slavery was one of the most effective ways to kill the economy of the Confederates in the Civil War. No money means no bullets and food. If it's important enough to inspire or be a part of all these "big things" here in the US, I'm pretty sure that we can safely say that a) it WAS a big deal and b) it has probably left a pretty large blemish on our culture.
Which brings me to my point (finally) which is that: Because of all these things stewing away in the background, it has a profound effect on what little white boys like yourself are taught by parents, school teachers, HISTORY BOOKS, friends and neighbors. And that subtle lesson is this:
We (in the US) had slaves, but it was a "bad thing". The slaves we had, were black, so there must be something "wr
Slashdot Mirror
I know you're joking, but there really IS a "Global Darkening" phenomenon, at least according to THIS episode of NOVA.
-why should 6 people risk a bite from someone who could have some diesease when they can be subdued without injury to the suspect or themselfs?
Because it's their JOB. They are Law Enforcement Officers. They VOLUNTEERED to deal with all the "nasty" people in society. Apparently, to a certain extent, they decided that they wanted to do that sort of thing on a daily basis.
-your problem, is that you don't think of cops as people with families etc.
They aren't "people with families". Again, they are an extension of the government. It's their job to sacrifice themselves to a certain extent for society. To serve and protect. What good is it to protect people only when there's no risk of being shot, smacked around, or bitten. If they aren't going to protect us when the going gets rough, then screw em. Send them all home, give me my tax money back and I'm going to buy some guns.
-they aren't drones impervious to harm,
Very true. Just like our military personnel, we should not "abuse" their protection in trivial ways.
-nor do they deserve to be put in harms way just because someone wants to be a dickbrain
Again, yes they do. It's their job.
-being a cop is just a job at the end of the day
Actually, no it's not. I'm not obligated to stop some old lady from being mugged. I'm not obligated to try to save someone who's drowning. I'm not even obligated to stop some guy from robbing a bank. In fact, I can usually grab a bag of popcorn and watch the show without getting into "trouble" (US law of course). Police officers ARE obligated to help people in those types of situations. And it's a 24 hour a day duty, so "at the end of the day", they are still obligated to serve and protect. 3AM. Lunch time. Even in the middle of taking a crap. Being a cop isn't a "job". It's playing a vital role in our society.
-and you have no right to expect them to put themselfs at more risk then nessacary, just because you think tasing looks cruel.
Again, I think you're wrong about that.
"Thought experiment: What if the Japanese-Americans rounded up for internment during WW2 had instead chosen to defend themselves? Surely, in public opinion, it would have proven the government's point, right?"
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have the proverbial "other side" of the "letting the government do whatever the hell it wants" coin. We call this other side of the coin, the "legislation by public opinion" side of the coin.
Thought experiment: How long has "public opinion" been a good indicator of anything besides how to get elected? Often times, public opinion has absolutely nothing to do with what would be considered right, just, intelligent, or fair.
Men who have been wrongly incarcerated or had all their belongings "frozen" without due process have no civil rights either.
"What exactly do you want?"
You know what I want? I want to be able to TRUST that the executive branch of the government (law enforcement included) really has what's best for the country in mind, but I'm just not feeling it.
The executive branch of our government has recently, been found guilty of large scale domestic spying "for the greater good", torture, and any number of other egregious offenses. Of course, it's up to some interpretation I guess, but I say they're blatantly illegal offenses at worst and contrary to the spirit of our laws in the very least.
If they're so willing to throw aside our laws to accomplish what they want in extreme cases, exactly where do they draw the line? Torture is OK, but what about murder? Installing spyware is OK to get the data you need, but what about fabricating data? When are we going to reel these guys in, and at what eventual cost?
I don't care if they had a warrant in this particular instance. I don't care if the guy they were going after was just a petty crook, truly a terrorist, or even a pedophile. What I DO care about is the fact that we've already seen that the legislative branch is more than willing to re-write portions of our law to make this sort of "sneaky" behavior perfectly legal, for the sake of "safety" and "security". I'm not so sure that it's a good thing that it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the tactics used by the "good guys" and those employed by the "bad guys". I thought law enforcement was supposed to be taking the high ground and fighting fair. Isn't that part of what being a "good guy" is all about? Morals and integrity and whatnot?
And another thing, even if all this stuff is "legal", I don't like seeing them practice these strong-arm tactics on even the real bad guys. It makes me nervous, because I've learned first hand that, regardless of what's "legal" or "right", when you're mistakenly on the wrong end of one of these actions, knowing that the courts MIGHT eventually straighten it out won't make you feel any better when you're sitting around in jail (or god forbid, in a coffin).
"Oops. Sorry. We weren't supposed to do that..."
Basically, I want the good guys to start acting like good guys and cut out all the god-damned shenanigans. Stooping to the crooks level will, and is, taking us down a path I don't really think we want to be on.
That was funny as hell. Thank you...or lay off of the coffee :)
Yes. Because five year olds are the ultimate arbiters of morality... Circumventing the logic in the game is "cheating". Doing things that the people who run the game don't want you to do is violating the TOS. Having a program (or another person for that matter) level your character for you is not cheating. They're doing the exact same things you would be doing. These people are being taken to court for supposedly violating the WoW TOS. They'd be laughed out of the building for taking someone to court for "cheating" in a video game.
That second one sounds so familiar, it makes want to cry...
Not to correct anyone, but be prepared to get hit in the face by an angry native spanish speaker if you were to, perhaps, call them a "cabron". At least in parts of the US, don't know about elsewhere.
Just like in English, just because a word has a different literal meaning, doesn't mean it's commonly used that way.
Microsoft took the time and made the conscious effort to create software to allow people to create games in an easy manner. All Sony did was compile a kernel for linux on their black box and shove it out the door. Most of the other stuff you talked about is software written by other people (DVRs, Quake, etc). That doesn't even take into account the supposedly crippled acess to the video subsystem (I don't have a PS3, so I wouldn't know firsthand)
Although your argument about the bad comparison is valid, don't forget that Sony hasn't really DONE much of anything. It's like the difference between a friend lending you his tools versus him helping you change the clutch in your car. There's a substantial amount of "intention to actively help you do cool stuff" on the part of Microsoft in this regard. I think they deserve credit for that. Quite a bit of credit actually.
I still don't see how making sure that people without a hard drive can still download and use arcade games is a bad thing. After all, once you pay for it, you can download it as many times as you want, so you only ever really need that one memory card. Complaining about the fact thet the HDD is optional in the first place is an unrelated (but valid) issue.
There ARE people who think that way. I'm one of them. I've already passed up two busines trips for this very reason and when I take my family to Disney this summer, we're traveling by highway. I refuse to consciously put myself in a situation where I'm almost ASKING to be treated like a criminal. I'll take that airline ticket money and give it to someone else.
You're confusing wealthy people with people who make lots of money. Basketball players make lots of money. So do lawyers and doctors. Wealthy people are like Bill Gates and Oprah. They have large quantities of land, cash, cars, homes, businesses, etc. Those things often times increase their value without really any intervention. That's wealth. Just because you have a big screen TV and a cellphone, doesn't mean you're wealthy. If anything, it means that the prices of those goods are insanely cheap because of places like China.
No actually. But it's all about perspective, no?
Don't get me wrong, but where do you draw the line between xenophobia and Japan just being...well..Fing WEIRD. Like I said, don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against Japan, but hell. Their tastes are so "excentric" (from our perspective) that without inside information from someone who understands Japanese culture, I don't know if it would be reasonable to expect anyone to be able to tell when a Japanese consumer won't buy something because it's not Japanese, or if they won't buy something because they just don't like it. Doesn't that essentially equate to them not liking stuff because it's not Japanese???
I'm not big on rewatching movies. Even less so with replaying games, but this is probably one of the few games I want to replay with my buddies. Single player isn't quite as much fun in my opinion, but co-op is a BLAST.
The cool thing about vinyl is that, if I needed to, I could create a paper funnel, tape a sewing needle to the end of it and hold it onto a record that I'm spinning with a pencil. I can PHYSICALLY get to the music without electricity. To me, that makes ir more "real" than CDs, EEPROMS, and harddrives. Maybe I'm just going through a bit of a digital backlash right now???
"no one except straight WASPs (SWASPs?) can be portrayed in a negative light"
Is everyone picking on the white man again? It's a hard-knock life isn't it? White-man's burden and all that? You seem to be implying the existence of a history book that is being used in the public shcool system today that TOTALLY demonizes "the white man". Please, direct me to this mythological book. I'd pay a pretty penny for that tome. I was under the impression that the WASP hasn't done anything bad. That's what MY history books told me in school. Slavery just happened on it's own. All that Jim Crow nonsense afterwards just happened. The same thing with the tragedy of the Native Americans and the raping of our environment.
It's a cold and dangerous world out there. Fortunately, the WASP has been fortunate enough to make it thus far unharmed. By the very grace of God I'm sure. I'm certain that someday, they'll have the place of prominence in that world that they deserve. The meek inheriting the earth and all that.
Or maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
"I'm not a grammar nazi or anything..."
;)
No. Apparently, you're a grammar mormon
So apparently you think 40 years is a long time? Ignoring slavery and it's legacy has worked so well these last 143 years, hasn't it?3 9277 It probably doesn't apply exactly to you, but the main idea remains the same.
Here, I think you should read this: http://games.slashdot.org/~toiletsalmon/journal/1
Now if we can just get rid of "K-Fed", we can put this puppy to bed FOR GOOD! Then we can concentrate on the WWII shooter. ;)
sigh!
Alexandra, that is not the point. Well, maybe it is actually. The POINT is, when you look at the billboard you see these two people fighting. One black, and one white. Neither one of them is even holding a PSP, so the logical conclusion can be drawn that they are fighting BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT COLORS. If they were holding PSPs, then I think the ad would have a totally different dynamic to it.
Now, in the context of the US. You do realise that black people were considered the property of certain white people solely BECAUSE THEY WERE A DIFFERENT COLOR, don't you? And it was only 143 years ago that it ended. There could still be people alive with "second hand" knowledge of slavery.
So now we have an ad for a portable videogame machine that is based on the exact same rationale as the slave trade. Now can you see why some people are a little turned off by it? Especially when the color of your game system is just as "important" as someone's skin tone. You probably couldn't find a more insignificant trait to base a judgement on.
If slavery was based on anything deeper than skin color, then the parallels wouldn't be so strong. But it wasn't based on anything deeper than that, so the parallels ARE strong.
I'm willing to concede to you the fact that the ad in, and of itself, is not "racist". I'll give you that.
BUT, I disagree with your initial assertion that slavery is NOT a big deal anymore (at least here in the US). I feel that it is still a very big deal. Because slavery, in my opinion, is a very big deal. Because of the fact that the US has almost always been a very important place on the world stage, I feel that a big deal here, will at least be a medium sized deal in other parts of the world.
I think that and ad like this, though not racist itself, comes from a place inspired by racism. And trust me, if they KNEW that running a Dutch ad could possible harm sales in the US, then I'm almost certain that they wouldn't run it.
Of course, we're all entitled to our opinions and I could very well be full of shit, but the thing that troubles me is that, many people, like me, think slavery is STILL a big deal. Many people, similar to you, DON'T think slavery is a big deal. But if the people on "your side" of the issue dismiss it and refuse to discuss it, then there's no way to decide the issue.
Oh, and I do have to say that I agree with your assertion that "Affirmative Action" is not "fair" in the real spirit of the word "equality". But I do think it's a very practical way to get around the fact that "White America" has not come to terms with their feelings in regards to slavery and it's legacy. And until they take full responsibility for their part in actively preventing blacks from integrating peacefully and fully into our society, I'm glad it helped my father get a job to replace the other three he couldn't get because he was a "nigger".
BTW, I understand your argument about racism being a misnomer, since we are all a part of the "human race", but I don't believe that's the way most people think about racism. They go by this definition taken from m-w.com "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock".
Thank you for sharing your opinion with me.
Yep. You see, it's already started. This is EXACTLY what they were able to do to kill the Dreamcast. The Sony advert machine seems to have that "thing" where they can somehow get enough people to buy into their marketing hype to allow them to sweep their competitors into a corner. Then they come out with a key title or two, and BAM! Down for the count.
Wow, that almost sounds like a Tekken combo or something. Coincidence??? Hmmm...
Yeah. I know what you mean. I paid for "potential" with the Atari Jaguar. And what did that get me?
OK. I'm willing to bet that YOU are at least a little racist, and it might not completely be your fault. After all, you choose to be an insensetive asshole, so the racist hat might fit too. I don't know.
First of all, following your link up there, I'm going to assume a few things about you:
a) you're a "white boy"
b) you probably live in the US.
I could be wrong, but I'll go out on a limb with that one. You seem to think that you speak with some level of authority on the subject of slavery, and slavery discussions usually center around the US. Even if you're not from the US, at least SOME of these same principles apply to most european derived cultures anyway.
Second thing, I am a "black man". My ancestors were indeed slaves. I have the "last name as a profession" to prove it. Butler. Granted, that gives the implication that some of my ancesstors probably got to stay inside with "Ole Massa", but they were slaves none the less.
Finally, my great-grandfather was a member of the group that slavery "evolved" into after the Civil War. The Share Cropper. Additionally, my grandmother was spit at as a child for being a "nigger" and my father and mother had to relocate themselves geographically to pursue their relationship because it was frowned upon in the southern state where they were born. Basically, my father didn't want to end up face down in a creek somewhere in the middle of the woods. The point I'm trying to make is that I feel I have at least some "authority" to speak on behalf of the minority side of this whole issue.
Now, to address your (proxied) assertions about slavery. First of all, like most "white" people, you too closely relate slavery and racism. Because of this, you like to draw the conclusion that because slavery ended after the Civil War, that "peculiar institution" also took it's cousin racism with it. NOT TRUE at all. Slavery is an action. A way of doing things. Racism is an idea. A state of mind. They are two totally different things, but they were used together here in the US. This is illustrated by the fact that not just anyone was allowed to be enslaved. There were very few "white" slaves in the early days of the colonies, and by the time of the Civil War, it was pretty much unheard of. Wouldn't it have been just as easy to enslave a poor white man who owes you large sums of money? Of course it would have, but because of RACISM, they soon decided that the proper people to be enslaved were Native Americans and Blacks.
Now that we've got that out of the way, the next thing I'd like to highlight is the fact that many white people GREATLY underestimate the extent to which slavery had a very real and everyday impact on the everyday life of an American. Do you realize that, at this point in time, my ancestors were officially denied basic human rights by the government of the United States of America for almost 40% of the lifespan of this nation. 87 years from 1776 till 1863. That's 143 years without slavery. HARDLY an impressive number. Slavery was on EVERYONE's mind. Two of the most popular books from the last two centuries dealt DIRECTLY with slavery. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and "Gone with the Wind". The first epic motion picture was "Birth of a Nation". It was about the KKK for Gods sake. Abolishing slavery was one of the most effective ways to kill the economy of the Confederates in the Civil War. No money means no bullets and food. If it's important enough to inspire or be a part of all these "big things" here in the US, I'm pretty sure that we can safely say that a) it WAS a big deal and b) it has probably left a pretty large blemish on our culture.
Which brings me to my point (finally) which is that: Because of all these things stewing away in the background, it has a profound effect on what little white boys like yourself are taught by parents, school teachers, HISTORY BOOKS, friends and neighbors. And that subtle lesson is this:
We (in the US) had slaves, but it was a "bad thing". The slaves we had, were black, so there must be something "wr