Originally posted by: skyking
I haven't read 10% of this thread, but I noticed the title change................
same here...
very interesting.
Twista
Diamond Member
- Jun 19, 2003
- 9,646
- 1
- 0
wow... guess i should find a new forum
////i guess im just playin ;-)\\\\
So let me see, what do I call it then? The ebonics tone? that's it? Who uses it? Who claims that it's theirs? BLACK PEOPLE DO. Now how am I racist?
Wtf get outta here "Chrono". I dont know where you been but many people of all races talk how they feel. Why the hell do you have "BLACK PEOPLE DO" caps? This thread is turning against you quickly.
////i guess im just playin ;-)\\\\
So let me see, what do I call it then? The ebonics tone? that's it? Who uses it? Who claims that it's theirs? BLACK PEOPLE DO. Now how am I racist?
Wtf get outta here "Chrono". I dont know where you been but many people of all races talk how they feel. Why the hell do you have "BLACK PEOPLE DO" caps? This thread is turning against you quickly.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
All I know is my road connects to the ghetto and the place is pretty well insulated yet at 10pm - 2am all these boomers come through here loud enough to shake the place....
Some old lady here (a racist so I will not repeat exactly what she said) said it is just because they wish they can be like us and lash out like a toddler when they can't be.
Music at an intersection doesn't bother me if it's not residential, but like my speeding I don't do it where people live.
Some old lady here (a racist so I will not repeat exactly what she said) said it is just because they wish they can be like us and lash out like a toddler when they can't be.
Music at an intersection doesn't bother me if it's not residential, but like my speeding I don't do it where people live.
At least luvly was able to puff her chest out and attempt to provide another grand psychoanalysis. Don't you all feel warm inside when she does that?
Nothing wrong with the truth but you have to know your audience. Saying the "usual black tone" to a friend is different than saying it to a large audience.
Hmm, I've never shurg'ed before but I'm sure it's great.
Originally posted by: skyking
It was a mod edit, the best that they are going to do about racist posts....Originally posted by: PatboyX
Originally posted by: skyking
I haven't read 10% of this thread, but I noticed the title change................
same here...
very interesting.
i mean, i dont know if its really that racist. i dont like someone saying something ignorant but im not offended by it. this person pretty much admits they are scared of black people so...ok, he says some stupid things. i think we should still be allowed to have a discussion about it. someone said that its all about the audience and i think thats right. some people here probably agree with him and some people disagree. but there is certainly no shortage of opinions on the subject. i dont think it should be locked and i dont see it as being intentionally hurtful and prejudiced in such a way to warrent being labelled as flat-out racism. maybe it a sort of internal fear manifesting itself in what are considered inappropriate ways. but i dont think someone feeling that way should be negated.
not really. i agree with that. i have plenty of non-asian friends who say the same. I fully agree.
see, now crackers can be a racist term. i've heard people call caucasion people crackers, which is meant in a derogatory way.
Originally posted by: skyking
I haven't read 10% of this thread, but I noticed the title change................
the title change was done in the beginning before people responded. i just didn't have time to edit the "majority" word out of what i wrote in the beginning. but i'm leaving the title and i'm leaving what was stated by me. if you guys can't comprehend that this is a subjective opinion then there's nothing that can be done.
i define a majority as being more than 50%.
what do you define majority as?
if you look at our democratic system, a majority is also more than 50%.
lol, mod edit for my title. but my thread isn't about all people though. it was about some black man telling me that i was afraid/intimidated by him because of his race.
i've never heard any other race use this excuse, at least not in la.
and so, only a few may understand.
i've never heard any other race use this excuse, at least not in la.
and so, only a few may understand.
"Especially something like the NAACP... I mean, I've seen a WIDE spectrum of african-americans in this country. And other than the whole 'I'll take anything I can get in the way of an advantage' (which you can't really blame the individual for... but still), I don't see how it can represent the group as a whole. I understand something like the National Society of Black Engineers--a minority group, with similar interests, wants to meet people in a similar situation... but I really don't understand the wide-sweeping groups--who are really too wide-sweeping to do anything to help the group as a whole."
HokieESM, are you serious? You got to be kidding asking such question about NAACP. I would understand a question such as, Is NAACP still relevant in today's society?
You wouldn't honestly ask the same question about NAACP in the early and mid 1900s, would you? If you belong to a group that is perceived as lower than human or of inferiority to another group, and as a result laws are passed to limit their freedom, you wouldn't see the relevance of a united group and organisation? How much effect is it having many subgroups when battling a war with a common instigator and perpetrator? NAACP without a doubt was relevant in the 1950s and fairly represented all African-Americans and Blacks of USA citizenship. There were other organisations who hoped to accomplish the same thing in a different way, but NAACP took care of batlling and changing the laws through the legal system. They had a common war to fight. I can see the question of NAACP's relevance or representation of the Black community now, but to question its core existence is beyond disbelief to me . . . unless I misunderstood your post.
HokieESM, are you serious? You got to be kidding asking such question about NAACP. I would understand a question such as, Is NAACP still relevant in today's society?
You wouldn't honestly ask the same question about NAACP in the early and mid 1900s, would you? If you belong to a group that is perceived as lower than human or of inferiority to another group, and as a result laws are passed to limit their freedom, you wouldn't see the relevance of a united group and organisation? How much effect is it having many subgroups when battling a war with a common instigator and perpetrator? NAACP without a doubt was relevant in the 1950s and fairly represented all African-Americans and Blacks of USA citizenship. There were other organisations who hoped to accomplish the same thing in a different way, but NAACP took care of batlling and changing the laws through the legal system. They had a common war to fight. I can see the question of NAACP's relevance or representation of the Black community now, but to question its core existence is beyond disbelief to me . . . unless I misunderstood your post.
No, I wouldn't question the existence of the NAACP up through the 1960s and 1970s. The progression for "equality" takes generations--and really didn't start until the 1960s. Two generations later, I wouldn't even question their existence NOW, if it weren't for some of their rather outspoken, rather bigoted and short-sighted leaders/supporters. The jump for FULL equality takes quite a long time.... and I support anyone who is taking steps towards that--by being TRULY blind to race, but also helping out those who are less fortunate. Like I said in the post--I think we need to focus on helping those in poor socio-economic status, completely blind to their race (i've worked in a university too long and seen too many "minority scholarships" given to black students from elite private schools whose parents had a combined income of $200K a year..... because they really "need" affirmative action because of their disadvantaged upbringing).
My post was to point out that the NAACP currently makes wide-sweeping, blanket statements about the "black community"... which, at this point in time, is about as diverse as the "white community", in that there really ISN'T a black "community". Its much too diverse to put a "community" label on it. If it was just an organization to help blatant discrimination or set up scholarships (PRIVATE scholarships) to benefit blacks, great. More power to them. But their leaders, sadly, have to turn EVERYTHING into a "the white man keeps the black man down"... when there are actually plenty of us who would be happy to let anyone succeed. Because, in all honesty, I don't care what color your skin is--if you work with me, and you're competent and good to your word, I'm happy with you.
The NAACP and their reaction AGAINST the "Separate but Equal" doctrine did more to hurt civil rights than any amount of help they may have provided over the years.
NOT only did it hurt the movement of the minorities, it also hurt the Womens movement as well, unfortunately Gloria Steinman(or however you spell it) and her crowd tried to convince ALL people that Women were THE SAME and EQUAL of men. Unfortunately IT'S JUST NOT TRUE. men and women are different. Boys and Girls are different.
I attended college in the early 80's and i like most people ACTUALLY agreed with the sentiment that Women and Men were the SAME and EQUAL. It wasn't untill i had kids that i finally realized MEN and WOMEN are DIFFERENT. are they equal?? YES, are they the SAME NO. hence the opportunities MAY NOT BE THE same. it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with EQUALITY. to i afford women ALL the same opportunites as men in my own life?? YES, but are they the same?? NO.
Black and white people are not the same any more than any two individuals are the same. DIFFERENCE is what makes this country great.
Claiming SAMENESS is NOT the same as claiming equality.
Black people NEEDED good education and instead they got DESEGREGATION. Desegregation set the black people back 15 to 20 years AT LEAST.
Desegregation also ingrained within black people the mistaken assumption that EVERYTHING black was inferior to EVERYTHING white. Desegregation BUYS the argument that white man is superior.
Originally posted by: HokieESM
No, I wouldn't question the existence of the NAACP up through the 1960s and 1970s. The progression for "equality" takes generations--and really didn't start until the 1960s. Two generations later, I wouldn't even question their existence NOW, if it weren't for some of their rather outspoken, rather bigoted and short-sighted leaders/supporters. The jump for FULL equality takes quite a long time.... and I support anyone who is taking steps towards that--by being TRULY blind to race, but also helping out those who are less fortunate. Like I said in the post--I think we need to focus on helping those in poor socio-economic status, completely blind to their race (i've worked in a university too long and seen too many "minority scholarships" given to black students from elite private schools whose parents had a combined income of $200K a year..... because they really "need" affirmative action because of their disadvantaged upbringing).
My post was to point out that the NAACP currently makes wide-sweeping, blanket statements about the "black community"... which, at this point in time, is about as diverse as the "white community", in that there really ISN'T a black "community". Its much too diverse to put a "community" label on it. If it was just an organization to help blatant discrimination or set up scholarships (PRIVATE scholarships) to benefit blacks, great. More power to them. But their leaders, sadly, have to turn EVERYTHING into a "the white man keeps the black man down"... when there are actually plenty of us who would be happy to let anyone succeed. Because, in all honesty, I don't care what color your skin is--if you work with me, and you're competent and good to your word, I'm happy with you.
ya. it's like Cochran and other NAACP leaders arguing that black NFL Assistant coaches should be head coaches. these guys are ALREADY successful. helping them attain the HEAD coaches position does VERY little for the poor black communities.
and as Jim Brown has noted, Black people are NOTORIUS for not giving back to their communities.
Who in the women's movement was arguing women are the same ? I never heard that from anyone who supported the Women's movement, only from it's detractors who used it as a false charge and promoted rediculous horror stories.
And segregation was an abomination, eliminating it is necessary to reach one of our fundamental goals. And it didn't set anybody back, if anything did it was racist reaction to desegregation, not desegregation itself. But I don't think it set anyone back even given that.
And segregation was an abomination, eliminating it is necessary to reach one of our fundamental goals. And it didn't set anybody back, if anything did it was racist reaction to desegregation, not desegregation itself. But I don't think it set anyone back even given that.
asians buy up small retail stores (grocery stores, vegetables stores, liquor stores) in black areas, earn money and move out. many blacks (not all but many in these neighborhoods) resent that fact. they feel like these asians are leaching off them.
asians buy up small retail stores (grocery stores, vegetables stores, liquor stores) in black areas, earn money and move out. many blacks (not all but many in these neighborhoods) resent that fact. they feel like these asians are leaching off them.
from the beginning there were 2 primary schools of thought in the womens movement. it's been years since i took womens study philosophy course so i can't quote sources for you.
however, it was laid out as, 1. women are the same and equal. 2. women are different but equal. initially the first group had MUCH more influence and voice. lately the 2nd has become the predominant thought.
again, my primary reference was gloria steinman.
it doesn't excuse it. and there are segments of black people, believe it or not, that are quite predjudiced against asians (just as their are asians predjudiced against black people)
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter