Granted, I know this won't work in every situation, and sometimes you need help with a non-lethal close-encounter take-down, but tasers have had a rather bad track record of doing their job well. And quite frankly, they are far too painful to be considered anything other than torture. And I'm aware no "non-lethal" device will ever be without its faults or the bad cops who will abuse it, but we really need a better alternative. Granted, I don't know of any better at the moment, so I will simply say that I wish to see better accountability and better judgment when using them.
The taser IS the less lethal alternative. Note that I said less lethal, not non-lethal. That's the problem with this entire anti-taser argument - they are not, I repeat NOT "non lethal" weaponry. They are designed to be less lethal than a bullet. They are in the same category as beanbag bullets, rubber bullets, mace / pepper spray, teargas grenades, water canons, etc. These are deterrents to be used to diffuse a situation with a dangerous criminal or rioter.
As for accountability, tasers have ID tags that identify the officer that discharged them and much like the discharge of firearms they must complete reports after every incident and upon injury or death there is a departmental review process that investigates the officers' actions as to how the situation was handled and how it could be better handled in the future. If the officer was found to be negligent or derelect in their duties, disciplinary action will be taken.
However you have to realize that some situations just require force to dissipate. If a person is high on drugs and/or so belligerent they will not succumb to authority and public or officer safety is at stake make no mistake about it - force will be used.
Now, as to the popular strawman arguments about people who did not deserve to be tasered - that's a matter for disciplinary review, not a matter for the weapon itself. It's not the taser's fault if an officer decides to zap a homeless man or an innocent bystander.
People have to understand that when an officer believes his or her life is in danger they will use force to prevent the situation from escalating. Until you've been under threat from an incoherent person waiving a weapon at you and threatening all sorts of nastiness I don't think you're qualified to judge the actions of these officers in these dangerous situations.
Wow. You just proved his point better than he ever could.
Oh, that dressing respectably and being successful... Sucks?!?
I wish I could subscribe to your and his attitudes about "the man", but since leaving my childhood I realized it was just as ridiculous a notion as any other silly non-conformist attitude and I moved on with my life.
You guys remind me of people who prattle on about how they knew about that band "before they became popular!" just so they can seem cool and unique and different. But hey, now that they're successful, they're no good. They've lost their edge!
Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere. The OP owns his own home. He pays property taxes like everyone else. He sold out. He's a giant hypocrite no matter what his wardrobe or CD collection says about him. Metallica cut their hair; get over it and stop prattling like an idiot. Nobody cares.
Congratulations. You totally sold out, and are completely ambivalent about it. If you from 10 years ago met you from today, what are the odds current you would get your ass kicked by former you?
Wow; spoken like a perfect anti-social clone. Yes, Marilyn Manson shirts make a person so individual. Just like the millions of others who buy and wear them. Yeah, I was an individual back then. I was morose, depressed, anti-social, no fun at parties and stuck in a rut.
So am I supposed to be happy living hand to mouth, not enjoying any of the finer things in life and being content in the knowledge that I'm in the lowest possible tax bracket? Is that what it's about? Being broke so I can stick it to the man?
FWIW; the me of 10 years ago would want to watch TV and play XBox on the me of today's 60" HDTV. He'd also rather drive my car than take the bus. He'd also rather live in my condo than share a place with 3 other people. Financial security and independence are fantastic rewards. From the tone of your message, obviously you don't understand any of that.
Still living in your parents' basement are we, or are you living in a craphole apartment you can barely afford? Does that make you a better person than me? Well, if that's the case I'll make a United Way donation in your name so you can have a decent meal tonight, hmmm-kay?
You don't 'become' a yuppie in the same way that you become a parent bringing the kids out to dinner. One can be successful and fairly well off without being a 'yuppie'. Yuppies are the ones that won't let you forget how successful they are and look down upon anyone who isn't living the same lifestyle that they are.
I know lots of well off people that aren't yuppies. I also know some broke people that use credit cards to finance a yuppie lifestyle they can't afford. As with all things ones actions speak louder then ones situation.
I think if you replace "yuppie" with "snob" in the above you'll be correct. A yuppie is, by definition, a young, urban professional. The ones that have to wear designer clothes and strut their model of success as if it's the be-all, end-all are snobs, pricks, assholes; whatever vernacular you prefer.
Like you, I know a lot of yuppies who aren't snobs. I like to think of myself that way. I try to be humble and I respect the people who work at my company for minimum wage or just above because I remember that's exactly where I came from and I know full well that the gears of the company would grind to a halt without them. Rather than expecting them to eat Thai food and drink a soy-based beverage with me I'll be found more often sitting with them eating A&W or the $4.99 Chinese lunch special from around the corner. Hey, sometimes that stuff just hits the spot!:)
Yes, there are assholes in every demographic. For examples of same look no further than our own field! How many times have you submitted a bug report to a FOSS programmer only to be told "Fix it yourself, neophyte!"? How many times have you discussed an issue you weren't 100% versed in and been told off or cursed out for it?
Does that mean geek == asshole, or does that mean there are assholes who are also geeks?
The yuppies ARE the ones that go to Starbucks. Where I live, there are so many small independent coffee shops, no self-respecting person would ever go to Starbucks for coffee.
I go to Starbucks. I guess you could call me a yuppie.
Originally I was a fairly stereotypical geek. Social outcast, dressed "different" (wore black jeans and t-shirts, typically with some anti-social slogan or imagery worn for shock value), black boots (Doc Martins or Terra Military style), had long hair and didn't care for many social graces.
Then I got a better job. I cut my hair off, slacks, shirts and ties started to become my normal attire and shortly thereafter I became much more financially successful.
While my normal drink of choice is a large double-double from Tim Horton's I do also drink Starbucks. Generally a double shot latte.
As for the independent coffee shops; those are a bit of a double edged sword. Some are nice, quaint, and genuine. Others are horrifically pretentious, stuffy places. The thing I like about Starbucks is that it's pretty much generic at this point. I will grant you that the people placing massively complicated drink orders need to remove the stick from their ass, but a lot of the stuff they have to offer just plain tastes good!
Your Starbucks only brews one variety of black regular coffee at a time? They should have at least two.
Every Starbucks I've ever been to has atleast 2 or 3. I can always count on mild and bold flavours. (What their names are is beyond me; I drink Lattes.)
If AT&T techies actually read slashdot then they would be smart enough to setup the system with more than just a browser user agent tag and a phone number.
Waitaminute; are you actually saying that reading Slashdot is a benchmark for intelligence in the IT field?
Isn't attempted suicide a crime anyway? Seems like a convenient clause for the insurance companies.
I don't recall the source, but a quote I heard once went along the lines of "Suicide; the only thing that's illegal to attempt, but legal if you succeed."
Unless 10 PB (petabytes) means something other than what I think (10,000 terabytes), where did they get the $4700 number?
I even read their definition of static cost (You have to go up a few paragraphs) and I still don't know.
Table 3: Comparison of system and operational costs for 10 PB of storage. All costs are in thousands of dollars and reflect common configurations. Operational costs were calculated assuming energy costs of $0.20/kWh (including cooling costs).
You're missing the point. Why is YOUR mode of speech the "accepted" one?
Sorry I missed this point earlier and I feel it's a large part of our discussion as a whole.
"My" mode of speech is the accepted mode of speech because this is Canada and our primary language is English with our secondary language being French. In America the primary language is English (to a slight variant of ours, which is also a slight variant of England's English) and secondary language is Spanish.
This is the language these nations were founded on and run on to this day. There are speech constructs and accepted forms of vernacular that are part of society's accepted norms and that's just how it is. In China the primary language is Mandarin (and other dialects), in France it's French, in Russia it's Russian, in the Phillipines it's Tagalog, etc. ad nauseum.
The notion that some blacks were forcibly born here has been diluted over the decades to the point where I'd surmise only a small fraction of American blacks can actually be tied to former slaves. That point notwithstanding, they're still living in a nation whose official language is English which is taught in all public educational facilities and is the nationally accepted mode of communication. The lowest common denominator, if you will, that allows immigrants from different nations the ability to communicate meaningfully without learning a dozen languages.
If a person, born and raised or immigrated and naturalised, doesn't want to communicate using the local dialect when in a business environment it's their fault they're being left behind. Freedom of speech laws and our nations' recognition of cultural freedom allows people to speak in their own languages in their homes and communities so they're not by any means being held back because of the way they speak.
To your comments about some blacks being able to adapt and talk or act white -- you're still missing the point, there. Yes, some minorities have done it, and will continue to do it. Some people have become and can become pro athletes, but most of us never will. Yes, you had to cut your hair and stop swearing, but I bet your parents basically spoke in a "business acceptable" style -- and you had a good role model or two to emulate. I bet YOU never had to stand in front of a mirror practicing your English, did you?
No, I didn't have to practise to lose a trace of an accent but I did have to learn to adapt my speech patterns to be more acceptable to demonstrate professionalism. While it's not the same thing I'll grant you I'd like to remind you that we're talking about foreign born versus American born members of non-Caucasian descent. The people I'm referring to grew up in another country with no exposure to North American (Canadian, in all three cases) dialect and had to adapt themselves when they got here with all the cultural biases intact. The difference being they didn't pay attention to those biases and chose to adapt to fit into the business world at large.
I know a lot of people both white and non-white who still live in urban areas in varying degrees of poverty or lower class levels and I can tell you there's a distinct difference in attitude of those who want to get out of their lot in life and those who want to stay true to what they are and stick it to the man. I'm not saying it's a cake walk or that they have every opportunity but at the same time I completely disagree with the fallacy that they're being systematically held back. I'm of the firm belief that the majority of what's holding them back is themselves and their own attitudes and pre-conceptions.
I apologize that I have offended you, but I stand by my comment. Your argument is basically this: there are successful minorities, therefore being a minority is not an impediment to success.
That's a rather drastic over simplification of my argument.
But if you're BORN into a society that rejects the very fabric of your culture, and no other society is realistically a better fit, what are you to do? It's not a matter of "refusing to adapt" -- it's a matter of being forced to do that much work that your competitors don't have to.
I'd argue with the notion that North American society "rejects the very fabric" of foreign culture. While some amount of xenophobia and a general level of ignorance of foreign culture is prevalent it's the same way with nearly every country out there with a liberal immigration policy in effect. But to state that an entire country systematically decries black culture is inflammatory at best and nonsense at worst.
There may be greater difficulty in acceptance of other cultures in Canada and America because at the core of it we really don't have a culture of our own. We're really a mish mash of cultural elements from dozens of countries around the world.
What if you were born with one hand, and wanted to be a computer programmer? Eventually, you work out a one-handed typing system, after working on it for countless hours. In the end, you're almost as fast as your peers. But you always know that, if you'd had 2 hands, you would be almost twice as fast as your peers. That's fair?
If you were born with two hands the determination to be twice as good wouldn't exist and you'd be all the weaker for it in the end, am I right?
Then you know some introverted, uncultured white people.
That's funny, but doesn't begin to address my point. Regardless of whether people I know are uncultured, I would say 90+% of white Americans are basically the same. Whether that's RIGHT or not is immaterial -- if it's true, which it is, it has a detrimental effect on the lives of affected minorities.
FWIW, Indian characteristics and black characteristics are as dissimilar as dogs and cats. I agree completely; but GP was basically saying 'black' should only be used for color of the skin; and my point was that doing so would be grossly misrepresenting the ethnic background of the majority of people being so represented.
I think there's a reasonable limit to cultural acceptance we have to follow. If I call a person "black" I'm not being disparaging, I'm not belittling their cultural background or pissing on their heritage, I'm observing an overt physical characteristic; nothing more, nothing less.
When somebody calls me white I don't get my back up and tell them I'm a mix of German and Scottish and they'd better check themselves because it doesn't matter. I know where my roots lie and I'll discuss them with a person but I won't use them as a weapon to gain sympathy in a social situation.
You're missing the point. Why is YOUR mode of speech the "accepted" one? I'm guessing you didn't grow up speaking like that -- rather, you grew up speaking something like how you might speak to your client. You may find the "black" mode of address deplorable, but is it any less effective than: "Well hello Charles, cheerio, and a lovely day to you sir"?
Now I'm going to have to ask you to back up here. We were talking about urban ghetto slang, not "black" versus "white". We're talking about people who learn to use the preferred local dialect in order to fit into the business world, not learning to speak like a bad English (from England) stuffed-shirt comedy special.
I personally know all sorts of people who've come from a very wide array of backgrounds and they've all learned to adapt to their goals. I'm sure we all have. I had to cut my hair and start wearing suits and ties to get where I am today. Marilyn Manson t-shirts and Doc Martins aren't exactly business atire. I also used to spit compulsively and chain smoke, much of my own dialog was made up of expletives. I was a social outcast, I was harassed by the police constantly so I developed a chip on my shoulder and hated authority. I changed, adapted, evolved, and now I feel I'm successful for it.
A friend of mine was born in Canada but her father emigrated from India. She distinctly remembers when she was younger how many hours he spent in front of a mirror trying to speak more fluently. Specifically, among other nuances he couldn't pronounce the letter 'v'. After months of practise that stigma is removed.
Another friend is black Jamaican. He speaks perfectly fluent Canadian English and his business continues to thrive to this day. Now, when he gets together with some of his countrymen (be it friends or family) his accent and rural dialect come flying back right out of left field, but when he's speaking with his customers, suppliers and employees you'd think he was born here. His biggest pet peeve? Black people sauntering into the store with their "Yo brother, hook a niggah up!" He informs them he's not their brother, he's a businessman, he'll treat them like a client but the colour of their skin does not entitle them to a bigger discount. If they don't like it they can leave. He's worked hard for everything he has and finds the idea of handouts utterly deplorable. He and his family sleep very comfortably at night.
Another from Trinidad who learned very quickly that in the retail sector his accent was weighing him down. He started to learn to soften it when at work and his success went through the roof. When he's with his friends, on the other hand, he's practically back on the island.
Here's the point: your perspective is that of the modern, enlightened racist.
I take great offence to that. If that was your intention you've succeeded. FWIW though, you're completely wrong.
OK, so some blacks you knew were or are able to adapt to society's rules. The privileged never had to.
The privileged never had to adapt? You mean they spoke and dressed abrasively and never changed? Or could it be that the privileged were already living under the rules of our society and didn't have to change quite so drastically?
Put this another way; if you moved to China or France, you refused to speak the local dialect and insisted on observing your own cultural nuances on great public display without regard for the local culture - how successful do you believe you'd be?
It's just one more hurdle to jump over. Here are some other ones:
The fact that most whites I know seem to be terrified of blacks in person
Then you know some introverted, uncultured white people.
The fact that people are too afraid to confront you directly, lest they seem 'racist'
This is why I want to remove the stigma of race. People are people and are treated equally until they give
Fact: Black activists in the 1960s started calling themselves "African-American" instead of Negro in order to connect their fight for civil rights to the various independence movements in Africa happening at the same time. It caught on more over time. Malcolm X noted the term in his autobiography.
Fact: That still doesn't mean everybody with black skin is African-American or that the term is any less nonsensical or over-used.
I'm sorry, are you fucking kidding? Now the problem is the *attitude* of the harassed citizen? You might have a slightly more bitter attitude towards authority if you were stopped on every corner and questioned about the crime of walking while black...
You don't think I've been stopped and harassed by the police just because I'm white?!? When I was younger I was stopped all the time because of where I was hanging out, what I was wearing, who I was with, where I was going, etc.
Are you actually saying that any given police officer will charge a polite black person merely for walking? Me thinks you've watched too many movies.
Language evolves. The term "African American", like it or not, is applied to people who are black - true geo-ethnic heritage rarely comes into it (and your example is purposefully misleading - the term "African American" is not just confined to people who have been born in Africa, but also used to describe descendants of African immigrants).
False. Ask someone from the West Indies if they're "African American" and see what they say. It's a stupid politically correct catch-phrase invented by whites too afraid to say the word "black" or "negroe" and who thought "coloured" was too passe (and overly generic).
No, but it probably means you're a self-serving, materialistic asshole that has no problem stepping over people to make money.
Actually I've been slowed in my own career advancement because I take the time to impart my gained knowledge and wisdom on new employees rather than furthering myself, but that's really immaterial to your ad hominem approach so we'll move right along.
Nothing personal, just my observation. Those who succeed aren't smarter, nor do they work *harder*.
So success is nothing more than exploitation? Has nothing to do with knowledge or ability to work smart or hard? Interesting.
It's always convenient to blame poverty on behavior. The problem is I hear you saying - "If you just sell out your soul, your ethnicity, your language, your culture, and everything that makes you an individual person, you too can succeed!"
Did I say people had to sell out their soul or their ethnicity or language? Funny, but I don't recall making that claim. However there are certain things that make people "an individual person" that are simply barriers to success in the work force. Lack of personal hygiene can be a pretty big barrier. A person's chosen vernacular and the frequent use of profanity is a distinct barrier to entry in most business and retail sectors. Is that really a problem? Seriously? You mean I should be able to approach a client and ask them "Yo mo'fucker, what's up wit' choo today niggah?" Really? Amazing. I had no idea how deeply I was involved in this systematic persecution.
Generally I would agree with you. However, anyone with any drug related conviction becomes ineligible for those student loans you were speaking about.
My OSAP loan application had no mention of a criminal record check.
I'm can't speak for all places, but I am aware certain counties in the state of Georgia have a law "loitering for drugs". This means one can be arrested and charged without possessing actual drugs, or even drug paraphernalia if the police determine they were in a "known drug area" - and unfortunately for many of the poor (minorities tend to make up large numbers of these, but not always) - this means you can be arrested for walking home.
We have various laws in Ontario that are similar. Essentially they're designed to allow police officers the ability to stop and question people they feel may be involved in suspect behaviour. The way you then speak to those officers will often dictate how you're later treated. Is it right? No, but the best advice I ever received was "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir!" In other words - cooperate, give the officers whatever information they need (to a point, obviously) and get on with your life. When people are stopped by officers and resort to spitting on their boots and calling them pigs is it really surprising when those officers will find a way to charge them with something?
The real issue, as a earlier poster pointed out, is probably more socio-economic. What do you need to practice programming? An expensive computer and expensive software... something that black children are far less likely to have available, due to the disproportionate number of blacks who live in poverty in the US.
Nonsense. I moved out on my own early in life and worked my way through school. I always had a computer growing up because I prioritized it. Many of my friends had cell phones, drank beer and alcohol more often or had various other things (gaming consoles, nicer sneakers/boots/clothes, etc.) because they prioritized them.
I also know a lot of people who lived in abject poverty because all their available income after basic expenses went to drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and baser forms of entertainment.
I missed out on a lot of opportunities growing up because I had to decide where every one of my hard earned dollars went and more often than not I decided to put it towards my own self improvement for the future rather than instant gratification.
A computer now, much like years and years ago when I was growing up, can be had for very cheap. Alternately you can have a weekends worth of partying with your friends. People make choices; stop patronizing them by saying their lives are pre-determined and out of their control and maybe people can start to learn to better themselves rather than learn to complain about their lot in life.
As far as I'm concerned, it's just a physical description, like you might say someone is a blonde, brunette, redhead, pale, short, tall, skinny, overweight, whatever. Did you ever look at an Indian (from India...), or Egyptian? They have the same skin color that many blacks have, yet you would not call him or her black, you'd say Indian or Egyptian. This doesn't jibe with your opinion above...
Those weren't my words, but in answer to your question - yes, quite often. Know what I say when describing them to another person? "He looked Indian" or "The Sri Lanken gentleman" or "The Persian couple".
FWIW, Indian characteristics and black characteristics are as dissimilar as dogs and cats.
As far as I know, "black" is acceptable most of the time, but a little on the blunt side. I use it, and despite being a scrawny white guy I've never gotten my ass kicked for saying it or even gotten a dirty look.
I've told my Ethiopian (and decidedly black) boss that the clients I'm expecting are black, or reminded him that it was the black couple I'm refering to, not the Filipino or Chinese or White couples he saw me with earlier.
What other distinction am I supposed to make? "The tall people with dark hair and brown eyes"? From his office 40' from the front door he can observe their skin colour and estimate their height but their eyes are a tad more tricky.
If life isn't unfair you shouldn't complain about it?
Complaining is intended to achieve what, exactly? Is it going to make people realize the err of their ways and usher black people into the gaming industry and anywhere else they feel slighted? Or is it intended to them give extra incentives to blacks and other minorities so that when they do enter the work force they're resented by their co-workers? "Oh, (s)he's an affirmative action hire."
Or life isn't unfair for black people in the USA right now?
Strawman. Life is unfair for everybody starting the moment you're born. Get over it. You have two choices; sit and moan or get up and do something to make your life more fulfilling, for whatever definition of fulfilment you may have.
What, centuries of racism just vanished in the last 40 years when lynching became embarrassing?
Oh boo hoo. There are still ignorant people out there. I'll ask again; does affirmative action help, or hurt the cause of minority acceptance in the work place?
Have you ever heard an otherwise racially neutral person utter a phrase like "Yeah, it's easy to get a job if you're a ${racial_slur}!"?!? Is it more fair to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction and discriminate against the Anglo Saxon Caucasian Males because we've had it so good up 'till now?
The very notion that you need a term to describe a black person that isn't just 'black' is ridiculous. The only reason the word carries a racist connotation is because people to this day continue to (perhaps subconsciously) think it *should*. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a physical description, like you might say someone is a blonde, brunette, redhead, pale, short, tall, skinny, overweight, whatever. The solution to systemic racism is to never bring race into it in the first place. The ancestry of a person shouldn't matter at all, ever. You judge a person by their own merits alone.
Oh, but you can't do that; their merits may have been compromised due to their race, religion, sex or upbringing. We should therefore encourage the incompetent because they had no choice in becoming what they are today.
The way I see it, the only reason there is still racism of any kind in the world, beyond a few deranged individuals, is that people are told that race is significant in some way. For example, every time you do a study of racial discrimination of any kind, you inadvertently perpetuate the notion that race does or might actually matter in some way. It doesn't. The challenge now is to get people to stop even *thinking* about what race a person is.
Yeah, right. I was told in school that when I see a person I should see their inner person before any external characteristics. Something that never left me was the quote "When I see a person in a wheelchair, I notice the person first and the chair second." Sorry but I'm afraid this is outright malarky of the worst kind. The first thing I notice when I see a person in a wheelchair is the fact that their head is several feet below mine. Then I notice that they're sitting down. The wheels are an obvious extension to same. Sometimes I even notice that they're black or Indian or female next! Imagine that! The first thing I use to form a mental image of a person is my eyes! Next is my ears to hear what noises emanate from them and my nose to smell any odours they may carry with them (pleasant or otherwise).
You're never going to get people to stop thinking about what race a person is when they are staring them in the face, but what you can do is stop putting a decided emphasis on characteristics that are meaningless. Who cares what race a person is if they're able to do a job well? What does it matter?
What really happens when a group is "found" to be under-represented in a particular field? Other groups get together and concoct rules and legislation to force said group to become further represented in that field. Other qualified members of that field then come to resent these formerly under-represented individuals because now they'll never be certain whether they entered due to their skills, merits and hard work or because the HR department hadn't filled their quota. Whether these factors are true or not is irrelevant - you're always going to have that disdain amongst others in the company no matter what anybody says about it. Does it benefeit the person to be labelled "an affirmative action hire"? Does it benefeit the company to hire somebody because of legislation versus skill level? How does it better society at large to pigeon hole people into positions they're not qualified for other than to encourage sub-standard quality products to be produced?
Sure, you are outraged by this, but yet you don't speak out on such things as alumni preference (at many schools it is officially part of the weighting that if your parents went to school there, you get a better chance). This has been directly shown to cause a sort of affirmative action for white people; but of course you wouldn't care about that; it isn't convenient for your argument.
I didn't speak out on such things as book costs, transit routes or the mascots chosen by the institutions because it wasn't relevant to what I was discussing either. So for your strawman I present a book of matches.
Now, to address what you've said; so? People in higher educational facilities prefer to have people in them who form some sort of heritage, or people who help fund the school and donate "wings" and libraries and the like. So?
Do you think it's unfair that retail businesses also offer preferential treatment to their existing client base?
A small hint for you; if you go looking for it, you can find various forms of discrimination everywhere you go. Keep looking; I'm sure you're only helping the cause.
Rather than championing small changes, why not champion a total overhaul of your country's education system? Force the government to redirect a portion of their military budget toward education. How many people could the war in Iraq have sent through post-secondary over the same time frame? Would the country be better or worse for it? Forget any other factors; allow people to continue through the system based solely on academic proficiency.
Believe it or not, race DOES play a different factor in a society with a huge black minority that's been systematically oppressed for most of the past 3 centuries.
So you believe placing further stigma on a person's race relative to their career is going to help, or hurt this cause?
I'm guessing the black people you grew up with, poor and otherwise, didn't grow up in an entirely-black-and-Latino ghetto, weren't marked by heavy urban accents, and probably didn't even have to grow up in an area with utterly failed justice and education systems.
I'm not going to get into a pissing match over who has the worst schools because that could go on all day. Justice systems? Ditto. As for urban accents? Yes, I've seen people cling to ghetto slang to the point where they steadfastly refuse to speak anything approaching proper English. I've seen these people fail miserably. I've also seen many people from "urban ghettos" emerge with a fair to excellent command of the English language succeed in life.
So how is it exactly that oppression is holding these people back? Are there really droves of white men going around forcing these people to call every one of their peers "bro" or "niggah" or "homie" and thereby preventing them from entering the workforce in a meaningful way?
If you honestly think that your initial economic situation doesn't have any impact on educational level and success in life, you're a moron.
The implied ad hominem aside; didn't you read the part where I said I completed high school in a lower class area? Socio-economic progress to these people was installing a CD player in their $200 car, if they could afford a $200 car in some cases.
Yes, I watched groups of people who preferred to smoke drugs, skip classes or become sports obsessed jocks and also groups of people who worked hard and avoided all that nonsense. Guess which group broke free from their poor socio-economic upbringing and guess which ones now serve hamburgers (or reside in jail)? Hint: Many of the aforementioned have served me various foods and beverages since commencement. I'm sure that means I'm oppressing them, right?
Slashdot Mirror
The taser IS the less lethal alternative. Note that I said less lethal, not non-lethal. That's the problem with this entire anti-taser argument - they are not, I repeat NOT "non lethal" weaponry. They are designed to be less lethal than a bullet. They are in the same category as beanbag bullets, rubber bullets, mace / pepper spray, teargas grenades, water canons, etc. These are deterrents to be used to diffuse a situation with a dangerous criminal or rioter.
As for accountability, tasers have ID tags that identify the officer that discharged them and much like the discharge of firearms they must complete reports after every incident and upon injury or death there is a departmental review process that investigates the officers' actions as to how the situation was handled and how it could be better handled in the future. If the officer was found to be negligent or derelect in their duties, disciplinary action will be taken.
However you have to realize that some situations just require force to dissipate. If a person is high on drugs and/or so belligerent they will not succumb to authority and public or officer safety is at stake make no mistake about it - force will be used.
Now, as to the popular strawman arguments about people who did not deserve to be tasered - that's a matter for disciplinary review, not a matter for the weapon itself. It's not the taser's fault if an officer decides to zap a homeless man or an innocent bystander.
People have to understand that when an officer believes his or her life is in danger they will use force to prevent the situation from escalating. Until you've been under threat from an incoherent person waiving a weapon at you and threatening all sorts of nastiness I don't think you're qualified to judge the actions of these officers in these dangerous situations.
Oh, that dressing respectably and being successful... Sucks?!?
I wish I could subscribe to your and his attitudes about "the man", but since leaving my childhood I realized it was just as ridiculous a notion as any other silly non-conformist attitude and I moved on with my life.
You guys remind me of people who prattle on about how they knew about that band "before they became popular!" just so they can seem cool and unique and different. But hey, now that they're successful, they're no good. They've lost their edge!
Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere. The OP owns his own home. He pays property taxes like everyone else. He sold out. He's a giant hypocrite no matter what his wardrobe or CD collection says about him. Metallica cut their hair; get over it and stop prattling like an idiot. Nobody cares.
Wow; spoken like a perfect anti-social clone. Yes, Marilyn Manson shirts make a person so individual. Just like the millions of others who buy and wear them. Yeah, I was an individual back then. I was morose, depressed, anti-social, no fun at parties and stuck in a rut.
So am I supposed to be happy living hand to mouth, not enjoying any of the finer things in life and being content in the knowledge that I'm in the lowest possible tax bracket? Is that what it's about? Being broke so I can stick it to the man?
FWIW; the me of 10 years ago would want to watch TV and play XBox on the me of today's 60" HDTV. He'd also rather drive my car than take the bus. He'd also rather live in my condo than share a place with 3 other people. Financial security and independence are fantastic rewards. From the tone of your message, obviously you don't understand any of that.
Still living in your parents' basement are we, or are you living in a craphole apartment you can barely afford? Does that make you a better person than me? Well, if that's the case I'll make a United Way donation in your name so you can have a decent meal tonight, hmmm-kay?
I know lots of well off people that aren't yuppies. I also know some broke people that use credit cards to finance a yuppie lifestyle they can't afford. As with all things ones actions speak louder then ones situation.
I think if you replace "yuppie" with "snob" in the above you'll be correct. A yuppie is, by definition, a young, urban professional. The ones that have to wear designer clothes and strut their model of success as if it's the be-all, end-all are snobs, pricks, assholes; whatever vernacular you prefer.
Like you, I know a lot of yuppies who aren't snobs. I like to think of myself that way. I try to be humble and I respect the people who work at my company for minimum wage or just above because I remember that's exactly where I came from and I know full well that the gears of the company would grind to a halt without them. Rather than expecting them to eat Thai food and drink a soy-based beverage with me I'll be found more often sitting with them eating A&W or the $4.99 Chinese lunch special from around the corner. Hey, sometimes that stuff just hits the spot! :)
Yes, there are assholes in every demographic. For examples of same look no further than our own field! How many times have you submitted a bug report to a FOSS programmer only to be told "Fix it yourself, neophyte!"? How many times have you discussed an issue you weren't 100% versed in and been told off or cursed out for it?
Does that mean geek == asshole, or does that mean there are assholes who are also geeks?
I go to Starbucks. I guess you could call me a yuppie.
Originally I was a fairly stereotypical geek. Social outcast, dressed "different" (wore black jeans and t-shirts, typically with some anti-social slogan or imagery worn for shock value), black boots (Doc Martins or Terra Military style), had long hair and didn't care for many social graces.
Then I got a better job. I cut my hair off, slacks, shirts and ties started to become my normal attire and shortly thereafter I became much more financially successful.
While my normal drink of choice is a large double-double from Tim Horton's I do also drink Starbucks. Generally a double shot latte.
As for the independent coffee shops; those are a bit of a double edged sword. Some are nice, quaint, and genuine. Others are horrifically pretentious, stuffy places. The thing I like about Starbucks is that it's pretty much generic at this point. I will grant you that the people placing massively complicated drink orders need to remove the stick from their ass, but a lot of the stuff they have to offer just plain tastes good!
Every Starbucks I've ever been to has atleast 2 or 3. I can always count on mild and bold flavours. (What their names are is beyond me; I drink Lattes.)
Waitaminute; are you actually saying that reading Slashdot is a benchmark for intelligence in the IT field?
I don't recall the source, but a quote I heard once went along the lines of "Suicide; the only thing that's illegal to attempt, but legal if you succeed."
Does $4.7 million sound a bit more realistic?
Sorry I missed this point earlier and I feel it's a large part of our discussion as a whole.
"My" mode of speech is the accepted mode of speech because this is Canada and our primary language is English with our secondary language being French. In America the primary language is English (to a slight variant of ours, which is also a slight variant of England's English) and secondary language is Spanish.
This is the language these nations were founded on and run on to this day. There are speech constructs and accepted forms of vernacular that are part of society's accepted norms and that's just how it is. In China the primary language is Mandarin (and other dialects), in France it's French, in Russia it's Russian, in the Phillipines it's Tagalog, etc. ad nauseum.
The notion that some blacks were forcibly born here has been diluted over the decades to the point where I'd surmise only a small fraction of American blacks can actually be tied to former slaves. That point notwithstanding, they're still living in a nation whose official language is English which is taught in all public educational facilities and is the nationally accepted mode of communication. The lowest common denominator, if you will, that allows immigrants from different nations the ability to communicate meaningfully without learning a dozen languages.
If a person, born and raised or immigrated and naturalised, doesn't want to communicate using the local dialect when in a business environment it's their fault they're being left behind. Freedom of speech laws and our nations' recognition of cultural freedom allows people to speak in their own languages in their homes and communities so they're not by any means being held back because of the way they speak.
To your comments about some blacks being able to adapt and talk or act white -- you're still missing the point, there. Yes, some minorities have done it, and will continue to do it. Some people have become and can become pro athletes, but most of us never will. Yes, you had to cut your hair and stop swearing, but I bet your parents basically spoke in a "business acceptable" style -- and you had a good role model or two to emulate. I bet YOU never had to stand in front of a mirror practicing your English, did you?
No, I didn't have to practise to lose a trace of an accent but I did have to learn to adapt my speech patterns to be more acceptable to demonstrate professionalism. While it's not the same thing I'll grant you I'd like to remind you that we're talking about foreign born versus American born members of non-Caucasian descent. The people I'm referring to grew up in another country with no exposure to North American (Canadian, in all three cases) dialect and had to adapt themselves when they got here with all the cultural biases intact. The difference being they didn't pay attention to those biases and chose to adapt to fit into the business world at large.
I know a lot of people both white and non-white who still live in urban areas in varying degrees of poverty or lower class levels and I can tell you there's a distinct difference in attitude of those who want to get out of their lot in life and those who want to stay true to what they are and stick it to the man. I'm not saying it's a cake walk or that they have every opportunity but at the same time I completely disagree with the fallacy that they're being systematically held back. I'm of the firm belief that the majority of what's holding them back is themselves and their own attitudes and pre-conceptions.
I apologize that I have offended you, but I stand by my comment. Your argument is basically this: there are successful minorities, therefore being a minority is not an impediment to success.
That's a rather drastic over simplification of my argument.
But if you're BORN into a society that rejects the very fabric of your culture, and no other society is realistically a better fit, what are you to do? It's not a matter of "refusing to adapt" -- it's a matter of being forced to do that much work that your competitors don't have to.
I'd argue with the notion that North American society "rejects the very fabric" of foreign culture. While some amount of xenophobia and a general level of ignorance of foreign culture is prevalent it's the same way with nearly every country out there with a liberal immigration policy in effect. But to state that an entire country systematically decries black culture is inflammatory at best and nonsense at worst.
There may be greater difficulty in acceptance of other cultures in Canada and America because at the core of it we really don't have a culture of our own. We're really a mish mash of cultural elements from dozens of countries around the world.
What if you were born with one hand, and wanted to be a computer programmer? Eventually, you work out a one-handed typing system, after working on it for countless hours. In the end, you're almost as fast as your peers. But you always know that, if you'd had 2 hands, you would be almost twice as fast as your peers. That's fair?
If you were born with two hands the determination to be twice as good wouldn't exist and you'd be all the weaker for it in the end, am I right?
Then you know some introverted, uncultured white people.
That's funny, but doesn't begin to address my point. Regardless of whether people I know are uncultured, I would say 90+% of white Americans are basically the same. Whether that's RIGHT or not is immaterial -- if it's true, which it is, it has a detrimental effect on the lives of affected minorities.
That's a pretty bold statement an
I think there's a reasonable limit to cultural acceptance we have to follow. If I call a person "black" I'm not being disparaging, I'm not belittling their cultural background or pissing on their heritage, I'm observing an overt physical characteristic; nothing more, nothing less.
When somebody calls me white I don't get my back up and tell them I'm a mix of German and Scottish and they'd better check themselves because it doesn't matter. I know where my roots lie and I'll discuss them with a person but I won't use them as a weapon to gain sympathy in a social situation.
You're missing the point. Why is YOUR mode of speech the "accepted" one? I'm guessing you didn't grow up speaking like that -- rather, you grew up speaking something like how you might speak to your client. You may find the "black" mode of address deplorable, but is it any less effective than: "Well hello Charles, cheerio, and a lovely day to you sir"?
Now I'm going to have to ask you to back up here. We were talking about urban ghetto slang, not "black" versus "white". We're talking about people who learn to use the preferred local dialect in order to fit into the business world, not learning to speak like a bad English (from England) stuffed-shirt comedy special.
I personally know all sorts of people who've come from a very wide array of backgrounds and they've all learned to adapt to their goals. I'm sure we all have. I had to cut my hair and start wearing suits and ties to get where I am today. Marilyn Manson t-shirts and Doc Martins aren't exactly business atire. I also used to spit compulsively and chain smoke, much of my own dialog was made up of expletives. I was a social outcast, I was harassed by the police constantly so I developed a chip on my shoulder and hated authority. I changed, adapted, evolved, and now I feel I'm successful for it.
A friend of mine was born in Canada but her father emigrated from India. She distinctly remembers when she was younger how many hours he spent in front of a mirror trying to speak more fluently. Specifically, among other nuances he couldn't pronounce the letter 'v'. After months of practise that stigma is removed.
Another friend is black Jamaican. He speaks perfectly fluent Canadian English and his business continues to thrive to this day. Now, when he gets together with some of his countrymen (be it friends or family) his accent and rural dialect come flying back right out of left field, but when he's speaking with his customers, suppliers and employees you'd think he was born here. His biggest pet peeve? Black people sauntering into the store with their "Yo brother, hook a niggah up!" He informs them he's not their brother, he's a businessman, he'll treat them like a client but the colour of their skin does not entitle them to a bigger discount. If they don't like it they can leave. He's worked hard for everything he has and finds the idea of handouts utterly deplorable. He and his family sleep very comfortably at night.
Another from Trinidad who learned very quickly that in the retail sector his accent was weighing him down. He started to learn to soften it when at work and his success went through the roof. When he's with his friends, on the other hand, he's practically back on the island.
Here's the point: your perspective is that of the modern, enlightened racist.
I take great offence to that. If that was your intention you've succeeded. FWIW though, you're completely wrong.
OK, so some blacks you knew were or are able to adapt to society's rules. The privileged never had to.
The privileged never had to adapt? You mean they spoke and dressed abrasively and never changed? Or could it be that the privileged were already living under the rules of our society and didn't have to change quite so drastically?
Put this another way; if you moved to China or France, you refused to speak the local dialect and insisted on observing your own cultural nuances on great public display without regard for the local culture - how successful do you believe you'd be?
It's just one more hurdle to jump over. Here are some other ones:
Then you know some introverted, uncultured white people.
The fact that people are too afraid to confront you directly, lest they seem 'racist'
This is why I want to remove the stigma of race. People are people and are treated equally until they give
Fact: That still doesn't mean everybody with black skin is African-American or that the term is any less nonsensical or over-used.
You don't think I've been stopped and harassed by the police just because I'm white?!? When I was younger I was stopped all the time because of where I was hanging out, what I was wearing, who I was with, where I was going, etc.
Are you actually saying that any given police officer will charge a polite black person merely for walking? Me thinks you've watched too many movies.
False. Ask someone from the West Indies if they're "African American" and see what they say. It's a stupid politically correct catch-phrase invented by whites too afraid to say the word "black" or "negroe" and who thought "coloured" was too passe (and overly generic).
Actually I've been slowed in my own career advancement because I take the time to impart my gained knowledge and wisdom on new employees rather than furthering myself, but that's really immaterial to your ad hominem approach so we'll move right along.
Nothing personal, just my observation. Those who succeed aren't smarter, nor do they work *harder*.So success is nothing more than exploitation? Has nothing to do with knowledge or ability to work smart or hard? Interesting.
It's always convenient to blame poverty on behavior. The problem is I hear you saying - "If you just sell out your soul, your ethnicity, your language, your culture, and everything that makes you an individual person, you too can succeed!"Did I say people had to sell out their soul or their ethnicity or language? Funny, but I don't recall making that claim. However there are certain things that make people "an individual person" that are simply barriers to success in the work force. Lack of personal hygiene can be a pretty big barrier. A person's chosen vernacular and the frequent use of profanity is a distinct barrier to entry in most business and retail sectors. Is that really a problem? Seriously? You mean I should be able to approach a client and ask them "Yo mo'fucker, what's up wit' choo today niggah?" Really? Amazing. I had no idea how deeply I was involved in this systematic persecution.
My OSAP loan application had no mention of a criminal record check.
I'm can't speak for all places, but I am aware certain counties in the state of Georgia have a law "loitering for drugs". This means one can be arrested and charged without possessing actual drugs, or even drug paraphernalia if the police determine they were in a "known drug area" - and unfortunately for many of the poor (minorities tend to make up large numbers of these, but not always) - this means you can be arrested for walking home.We have various laws in Ontario that are similar. Essentially they're designed to allow police officers the ability to stop and question people they feel may be involved in suspect behaviour. The way you then speak to those officers will often dictate how you're later treated. Is it right? No, but the best advice I ever received was "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir!" In other words - cooperate, give the officers whatever information they need (to a point, obviously) and get on with your life. When people are stopped by officers and resort to spitting on their boots and calling them pigs is it really surprising when those officers will find a way to charge them with something?
Nonsense. I moved out on my own early in life and worked my way through school. I always had a computer growing up because I prioritized it. Many of my friends had cell phones, drank beer and alcohol more often or had various other things (gaming consoles, nicer sneakers/boots/clothes, etc.) because they prioritized them.
I also know a lot of people who lived in abject poverty because all their available income after basic expenses went to drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and baser forms of entertainment.
I missed out on a lot of opportunities growing up because I had to decide where every one of my hard earned dollars went and more often than not I decided to put it towards my own self improvement for the future rather than instant gratification.
A computer now, much like years and years ago when I was growing up, can be had for very cheap. Alternately you can have a weekends worth of partying with your friends. People make choices; stop patronizing them by saying their lives are pre-determined and out of their control and maybe people can start to learn to better themselves rather than learn to complain about their lot in life.
Those weren't my words, but in answer to your question - yes, quite often. Know what I say when describing them to another person? "He looked Indian" or "The Sri Lanken gentleman" or "The Persian couple".
FWIW, Indian characteristics and black characteristics are as dissimilar as dogs and cats.
I've told my Ethiopian (and decidedly black) boss that the clients I'm expecting are black, or reminded him that it was the black couple I'm refering to, not the Filipino or Chinese or White couples he saw me with earlier.
What other distinction am I supposed to make? "The tall people with dark hair and brown eyes"? From his office 40' from the front door he can observe their skin colour and estimate their height but their eyes are a tad more tricky.
Complaining is intended to achieve what, exactly? Is it going to make people realize the err of their ways and usher black people into the gaming industry and anywhere else they feel slighted? Or is it intended to them give extra incentives to blacks and other minorities so that when they do enter the work force they're resented by their co-workers? "Oh, (s)he's an affirmative action hire."
Or life isn't unfair for black people in the USA right now?Strawman. Life is unfair for everybody starting the moment you're born. Get over it. You have two choices; sit and moan or get up and do something to make your life more fulfilling, for whatever definition of fulfilment you may have.
What, centuries of racism just vanished in the last 40 years when lynching became embarrassing?Oh boo hoo. There are still ignorant people out there. I'll ask again; does affirmative action help, or hurt the cause of minority acceptance in the work place?
Have you ever heard an otherwise racially neutral person utter a phrase like "Yeah, it's easy to get a job if you're a ${racial_slur}!"?!? Is it more fair to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction and discriminate against the Anglo Saxon Caucasian Males because we've had it so good up 'till now?
Oh, but you can't do that; their merits may have been compromised due to their race, religion, sex or upbringing. We should therefore encourage the incompetent because they had no choice in becoming what they are today.
The way I see it, the only reason there is still racism of any kind in the world, beyond a few deranged individuals, is that people are told that race is significant in some way. For example, every time you do a study of racial discrimination of any kind, you inadvertently perpetuate the notion that race does or might actually matter in some way. It doesn't. The challenge now is to get people to stop even *thinking* about what race a person is.Yeah, right. I was told in school that when I see a person I should see their inner person before any external characteristics. Something that never left me was the quote "When I see a person in a wheelchair, I notice the person first and the chair second." Sorry but I'm afraid this is outright malarky of the worst kind. The first thing I notice when I see a person in a wheelchair is the fact that their head is several feet below mine. Then I notice that they're sitting down. The wheels are an obvious extension to same. Sometimes I even notice that they're black or Indian or female next! Imagine that! The first thing I use to form a mental image of a person is my eyes! Next is my ears to hear what noises emanate from them and my nose to smell any odours they may carry with them (pleasant or otherwise).
You're never going to get people to stop thinking about what race a person is when they are staring them in the face, but what you can do is stop putting a decided emphasis on characteristics that are meaningless. Who cares what race a person is if they're able to do a job well? What does it matter?
What really happens when a group is "found" to be under-represented in a particular field? Other groups get together and concoct rules and legislation to force said group to become further represented in that field. Other qualified members of that field then come to resent these formerly under-represented individuals because now they'll never be certain whether they entered due to their skills, merits and hard work or because the HR department hadn't filled their quota. Whether these factors are true or not is irrelevant - you're always going to have that disdain amongst others in the company no matter what anybody says about it. Does it benefeit the person to be labelled "an affirmative action hire"? Does it benefeit the company to hire somebody because of legislation versus skill level? How does it better society at large to pigeon hole people into positions they're not qualified for other than to encourage sub-standard quality products to be produced?
I didn't speak out on such things as book costs, transit routes or the mascots chosen by the institutions because it wasn't relevant to what I was discussing either. So for your strawman I present a book of matches.
Now, to address what you've said; so? People in higher educational facilities prefer to have people in them who form some sort of heritage, or people who help fund the school and donate "wings" and libraries and the like. So?
Do you think it's unfair that retail businesses also offer preferential treatment to their existing client base?
A small hint for you; if you go looking for it, you can find various forms of discrimination everywhere you go. Keep looking; I'm sure you're only helping the cause.
Rather than championing small changes, why not champion a total overhaul of your country's education system? Force the government to redirect a portion of their military budget toward education. How many people could the war in Iraq have sent through post-secondary over the same time frame? Would the country be better or worse for it? Forget any other factors; allow people to continue through the system based solely on academic proficiency.
So you believe placing further stigma on a person's race relative to their career is going to help, or hurt this cause?
I'm guessing the black people you grew up with, poor and otherwise, didn't grow up in an entirely-black-and-Latino ghetto, weren't marked by heavy urban accents, and probably didn't even have to grow up in an area with utterly failed justice and education systems.I'm not going to get into a pissing match over who has the worst schools because that could go on all day. Justice systems? Ditto. As for urban accents? Yes, I've seen people cling to ghetto slang to the point where they steadfastly refuse to speak anything approaching proper English. I've seen these people fail miserably. I've also seen many people from "urban ghettos" emerge with a fair to excellent command of the English language succeed in life.
So how is it exactly that oppression is holding these people back? Are there really droves of white men going around forcing these people to call every one of their peers "bro" or "niggah" or "homie" and thereby preventing them from entering the workforce in a meaningful way?
If you honestly think that your initial economic situation doesn't have any impact on educational level and success in life, you're a moron.The implied ad hominem aside; didn't you read the part where I said I completed high school in a lower class area? Socio-economic progress to these people was installing a CD player in their $200 car, if they could afford a $200 car in some cases.
Yes, I watched groups of people who preferred to smoke drugs, skip classes or become sports obsessed jocks and also groups of people who worked hard and avoided all that nonsense. Guess which group broke free from their poor socio-economic upbringing and guess which ones now serve hamburgers (or reside in jail)? Hint: Many of the aforementioned have served me various foods and beverages since commencement. I'm sure that means I'm oppressing them, right?