-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Double Standards....
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You want tip the scales by allowing members of one group to act in a completely unbecoming manner, while condeming members of the other group if they do the same.
You want to erase boundaries, but nothing solidifies them more than ignorant, divisive "rules" like that.
If you want all groups to be treated the same, you should expect all groups to ACT the same, too, and hold them ALL to the same standards. This goes for whites, blacks, gays, etc.
Ryan
Lifer
I never said that I wanted to allow anything, I never condemned nor supported. To simply address these issues as Aidan is, is to face up to the reality of the social situation. Nobody is saying anything is right or wrong in this thread - please try to understand that and not take it as an attack. Address the arguments from a perspective other than your own.
my view would be that it is in bad taste for straight people to call gay people 'fags' but it is OK for gay people to use that term to refer to themselves in certain contexts.
similarly, I can't really think of a situation where it would be appropriate for a white person to call a black person "******", but when black people choose to use that word referring to themselves in certain contexts it seems ok.
as for black people calling white people 'crackers' etc. clearly that is a racist term of abuse (altho I don't think terms like 'cracker' 'whitebread' carry the power and harshness of '******').
as for gay people abusing straight people, there are no particularly nasty words for straight people in general. the most harsh word you might hear gay people use would be "breeders". just more evidence that in general, gay people are much nicer than straight people 🙂 (joke)
um, where does PETA claim they are "against euthanasia", in general? I'm interested to see a link. PETAis broadly interested in animal welfare and moreso animal rights. specifically they are against animal cruelty. in some situations euthanasia is the kindest option. certainly it is more kind than allowing animals to starve to death, or die a lingering death from disease.
Those weren't your exact words, but it's certainly what was implied by your posts. It's not about me misunderstanding you. Someone said that "equal is equal" in response to someone justifying why it's okay for a minority to be more verbally abusive with the majority. Someone else responded in affirmation to the "equal is equal" statement. You ridiculed in reponse.
Between that and the other posts of yours I've read, I've realized you're not nearly as open-minded as you'd like to think you are. You're gay, and ironcally, you seem to use that as some sort of shield, as if nothing you say could possibly be construed as prejudiced or biased.
Just a week or two ago, you were attacking (with much gusto) guys who, by your own personal standards, were "too into sports teams". That was their preference. They were lesser in your eyes because of it. This type of hypocricy, judging by your posts, is a common theme.
If you want to purport to be open-minded and tolerant, at least make some sort of measureable effort.
What we are discussing has nothing to do with social inequality. I know that there isn't social equality, but that doesn't give the minorities a right to bash the majority. That is a ridiculous argument. Read jbourne's post.
But if you want to talk about social inequality, instead of the premise of treating people with respect regardless of race, the social inequality that you speak of isn't just spurred by Caucasian Americans. In a lot of ways, it is African Americans that have caused the imbalance. I agree with a lot of what Bill Cosby said when he talked about the degrading of African-American culture. The fatalistic, "The Man brings me down", won't work anymore, because in a lot of ways African-Americans have more opportunities than many other minorities have (I had to pay for college while my black friend got a scholarship, I had better grades, better extracurricular activities, more social work).
Now I am not begrudging my friend, he worked hard, too, and he made something of himself, but it is the people who use social inequality as an excuse for their laziness that pisses me off. My parents, as well as most of my parents friends, immigrated to America with practically nothing. They worked their asses off, without the benefit of racial quotas at the schools/work places, to get where they are. Don't just blame whites for blacks' problems. Take some responsibility.
What you willfully refuse to acknowledge is that equal isn't in fact equal, and there isn't equality, and one group is much better off than the other group. so when the more powerful group uses a particular term of abuse, it does carry more weight. this is not to say it is "OK" for anyone to use racist terms of abuse. But it is an explanation as to why people view the two situations differently.
well, the major ones have been mentioned already, including the race and women issues. Not sure there's a whole lot I can add to how many blacks are often far more racist than whites and try very hard NOT to integrate...
What annoys me over here in the UK (Europe) are the people who demand they have social security if they're 'under privelaged'. For example, I know a woman at 23 who is on her 5th child, with 4 different fathers. She's NEVER done a day's work in her life, but the government pays for a flat, education, healthcare, etc. for her and her children. 3 children have been taken from her because she's an unfit mother (class A drugs). Apparently it's her RIGHT to have this free support, but she has given NOTHING to the state.
Perhaps not so much a double standard, but it really p!sses me off. I pay in part for all this support through my taxes.
Another thing that annoys me: where I live there is a large portugese community which is fine (great food). However, some families have been here for 25+ years, but have not even tried to learn english. They don't even teach their children english, so these youngsters arrive at school (my old dear used to be a teacher) and they can't speak a word of english. On the olther hand, there is a healthy Polish community here. They integrate very well, work hard, are polite and generally really nice people. The fact that once community can get on so well yet another so badly does show that it's not 'racism of the local community' but poor integration attempts of the minority.
This riles me.
What annoys me over here in the UK (Europe) are the people who demand they have social security if they're 'under privelaged'. For example, I know a woman at 23 who is on her 5th child, with 4 different fathers. She's NEVER done a day's work in her life, but the government pays for a flat, education, healthcare, etc. for her and her children. 3 children have been taken from her because she's an unfit mother (class A drugs). Apparently it's her RIGHT to have this free support, but she has given NOTHING to the state.
Perhaps not so much a double standard, but it really p!sses me off. I pay in part for all this support through my taxes.
Another thing that annoys me: where I live there is a large portugese community which is fine (great food). However, some families have been here for 25+ years, but have not even tried to learn english. They don't even teach their children english, so these youngsters arrive at school (my old dear used to be a teacher) and they can't speak a word of english. On the olther hand, there is a healthy Polish community here. They integrate very well, work hard, are polite and generally really nice people. The fact that once community can get on so well yet another so badly does show that it's not 'racism of the local community' but poor integration attempts of the minority.
This riles me.
Read through the posts again. You responded exactly on that argument there. That somehow it is different when a black guy say n#$%@ and a white guy says it. And then when someone posted as to ask why it is different, you begin to point out the social inequality in the situation. It is freaking ridiculous. Your logic is confounded by your own bias.
I understand that black have made the word mean something different over the years to OWN the word instead of it owning you, but this just adds to the division and racial/social inequality you so expound on. Also, in the posts someone pointed out the flaw in yor logic that somehow it is okay for a black man to call a white man "cracker, "whitebread"... And again you post about racial inequality. Take some G-d Dang responsibility for G-d's sake. Not only does treating the word n@#$@ differently divide races, but using the word "cracker" and "whitebread", and making it socially acceptable to use for blacks because of "racial inequality" is just as divisive.
Case and point: I can't type n$%@# without commenting it out, but I can write "cracker" without it. Talk about social inequality, it is a two way street which both races, if not others as well, have added to. It isn't the white mans fault anymore, it is mostly your own. This is IMO, so I am just going by what Ryan said :roll: (both of you are being hypocrites IMHO)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
