If you can't beat them, call them raciss. by Wulfenstar

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I don't see you being a hypocrite, so much as I see you revelling in either simplifying issues that are tremendously complex to make others look bad and/or turning around and complicating issues that are pretty simple to make people look stupid. Your sovereign goal is ridicule. You particularly enjoy fucking with things that other people care about. You get off on it.

And you're not alone. This is a major pastime on this forum. Insensitivity is cool.

Very well said, Citizen, and I agree.

Quote:
Conversely, I think a lot of racial sensitivity comes out of folks feeling guilty for being the favorite child in society. I think you're acutely aware of that. They feel like they've gotten unfair advantages and so, discount their own needs in favor of the less fortunate. You hate such people most of all.

Actually, unless it’s subconscious, I don’t feel any guilt. I would chalk it up more to being a Libra—the old balance thing. I believe in perspective, in the greys of the world. If one portion of society gets something, I believe every other portion of society should get the same, whatever their race, religion, politics, sex, sexual orientation, etc. I’m not fond of Affirmative Action, but I see it as a route to gaining more equality, more perspective if you will. There are many things wrong with it and I don’t like that it DISCRIMINATES against some in favor of others, but I am not wise enough to know a better way until some form of equality can be achieved.

The “favoritism” concept is an interesting one. I know little of anyone’s background here, but I see a comparison in the idea. If one is resentful, it IS easier to frame it in reference to race, etc., than to see it as something that happened to themselves personally. I like your explanation, especially given what little I HAVE come to understand about Wulf’s upbringing. I also see that if one had to scratch one’s way out of misery, there would be good rationale for resentment, without, I might add, it even being conscious.

Wulf, of COURSE you liked seeing FauxNews’ article. It parallels your own belief...as FauxNews invariably does. That’s exactly why people like you are drawn to it and why it plays on those perspectives to gain an audience. That they “urged the IRS to reconsider whether it can continue to qualify for tax-exempt status” is meaningful as hell. The NAACP is advocating nothing more than calling out racism where they see it. The Tea Party, on the other hand, is attempting to get the law behind them to STOP the attempt to call out racism. RWAs always turn to the law to enforce what they believe is “right” or what they see as the “enemy”; it’s another expression of the dichotomy they show in both exhorting the government to stay out of individual rights while doing whatever they can to GET the government to enforce their own beliefs on individuals.

The PRINCIPLES of the Tea Party have nothing to do with it. It’s how those principles are EXRESSED; there is no effort to deny them their rights or have them deligitimzed legally,, only to call them out when they express racism. The Tea party, on the other hand, goes straight for the jugular and wants to delegitimize the NAACP FOR WHAT THEY SAY. Denunciation v. delegitmization; it’s the perfect corollary to RWA thinking. And right in line with your own thinking; "anyone against us requires actions on our part to take away their rights".

Good point, Byte, and thanx for the new word! You're right, and that's part of my stance, that whatever our background, we can't use that as an excuse to back up our arguments.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:05 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

No, Byte, its ok. Its fun.

I still see noone has answered why its ok for say Affrimative Action, BET, the laws governing buying a home ect...

If you cant answer it, because of your PC ideaology, thats fine.

I'll do it for you.

Its not ok. These things ARE racist. They are also institutionalized racism.

You cannot seriously say that given 2 people applying for a job, with equal resumes and being forced to hire one over the other to fill a quota based only on race is NOT racism.

You cannot really say that a TV station, with a title of Black Entertainment Television is NOT racist.

You cannot tell me that when applying for a home loan, you are given the credit (despite your credit history) based soley on having to fulfill another quota, is NOT racist.

We could argue till the cows came home about the lasting impact of slavery ect. I would argue that minorities coming from conditions the same or worse, were able to thrive here within 2 generations.

Further, they did it by becoming integral citizens and pulling their own weight. And yes, there are cases (like the Japanese during WW2) that suffered similar indignities. Yet they now are fully integrated, functioning, contributing memebers of our society.

Im not trying to white wash the past. In fact I know it very well.

What Im saying is that if we are ever to become the so-called "post-racial" society that we wish to be...

We have to have the same expectations, demands, and criteria for everyone.

But this is not the case now. And it won't change until people start talking about it, instead of treating it like the 2 ton rhinocerous in the room, and ignoring it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:14 AM

Wait, what? Niki, no. You misunderstood the link. Your conclusion is fallacious.

You can't approach a logical quandry by making your conclusion first, i.e. "Wulf is wrong" and then make an argument for why Wulf is wrong by inference from his background. It's not addressing his argument, it's making a personal attack on Wulf and his background. The argument you are making is "this is why Wulf is the way he is," not "this is why Wulf is wrong about what he's saying about reverse racism."

As such, you didn't engage Wulf's specific points of contention. It's a form of non-sequitor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:14 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"The NAACP is advocating nothing more than calling out racism where they see it."

This is totally not the case.

However, lets see how willing you are to stand by your beliefs.

I want the same. I will call out racism where I see it.

Granted, it will do nothing, as most are not ready, able or willing to actually face things, and will denigrate into nothing more than a clusterfrak of name calling (You are racist, no you are.... ad infinitum)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:17 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Eh, Hk, I don't think we should presume anything about Wulf's family life when he was young. That's kind of ad hominem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

What made you think I was unaware of what I was doing?

I said as much, at the top of the post:

"I have an answer for your question, but it's kind of a rude answer. I presume a lot about your intentions and feelings, which isn't really pc, is it? Please, consider my words as feedback, just another person's honest perspective on what you're doing."

It's everyone's family life I'm presuming on, not just Wulf's. I simply noticed that Wulf's attack on what he perceives as black privilege, the emotional intensity of it, is consistent with typical sibling psychology. Do you forbid me to mention it?

Byte, it's possible to perceive things about people that they haven't told you, isn't it? You're gonna call it a logical fallacy to notice such things? It's even possible to perceive things about a person that they themselves are not aware of, isn't it? Is that a logical fallacy as well? What are we to do with such information? Keep it to ourselves? How does that benefit anyone?

Of course, I may be dead wrong! Again, I covered that in the whole "just another person's honest perspective" bit.

I think Wulf's a big boy, if the shoe doesn't fit, he can leave it alone.

I don't understand your beef with me, Byte. You seem to have a beef with me. If you do, I would appreciate you coming out and saying it, rather than handing me unasked for advice about what I should or shouldn't do.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:20 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'm not a fan of Affirmative Action, as I said; I think it's outlived its usefulness at this point.

But BET? That's someone buying the right to own and operate a television station. Nobody's forcing you to watch it, it has nothing to do with racism. If there were such a thing as White Entertainment Television, that wouldn't be any more wrong. As far as I know, BET programming isn't racist, it merely exhibits Black entertainment. Given that almost all other stations exhibit little black entertainment, I think it's great to expose viewers to something else. How do you get that as racist? If you do, the you must equally abhor Spanish, French, German, Mexican, and all religious stations.

As far as loans, I'm not aware of any LAWS that say Blacks should be given special availability to loans. What actually HAPPENED was the banks giving out loans to people they KNEW couldn't afford the payments in order to reposses the homes and make a profit. That actually IS racism, is profiling, in that they specifically went after poor people, the majority of which were Black, to entice them with the thought of owning their own homes, but did it for the BANK's profit.

The fact that you believe that Black people are now equal in society's eyes after two generations perfectly expresses your ignorance on the issue.

I had a supervisor at one time, a really sharp gal from New York who moved out here to take the job (and no, it wasn't because she was Black, the previous one was White and the headhunters found Christine because of her qualifications). When she went to find a house, over the phone she and a landlord talked at great length, found they had much in common, and the landlord went on and on about how excited she was to have Christine as a tenant, they were going to get along great.

Christine didn't "speak" like a Black person; she was highly educated and sounded just like anyone else. So she drove to meet the landlord and see the apartment. As she walked up the driveway, the landlord was standing in the doorway, big huge excited smile on her face. When she saw Christine up closer, the smile evaporated, and when Christine got to the door, she told her the apartment was already taken, was very short with her and slammed the door in her face.

No, that's not racism, racism is gone from our society, right? I was aghast when I heard it (actually from a WHITE fellow employee, Christine never mentioned it herself), because I thought racism was LESS pervasive in the Bay Area than some other places.

Christine and I were good friends, we went to movies together and went to an Alvin Ayle (SP?) show. It never occurred to me that she was any "less than" me, and it infuriates me that some others DO just because of her skin color. SHE had worked her way up, and perfectly represents two generations away from the era of slaves...in fact three generations, as it happens.

So how valid does your point hold up to THAT reality?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:25 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

You know whats racism?

.... forget it. I can tell you all the little horror stories I lived, saw and experienced... but whats the point?

Someone slamming a door in your face is the worst racist experience you have ever heard of.

Carry on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wulf, what is the NAACP suggesting doing aside from calling out racism? Give specifics, please, so I can look them up.

Quote:
I can tell you all the little horror stories I lived, saw and experienced

You just validated exactly what Byte is complaining about; that YOUR experiences have colored your judgment.

I never said having a door slammed in your face AND A HOME DENIED just because of your race was the "worst" of anything...I used it as an example to refute your statement that Blacks had been integrated as equal members of society after two generations. You chose to use it another way, that's on YOU, not on my simple point.

No, Byte, I did understand the concept. I was saying that might explain his feelings; at no time was I avoiding the issues themselves. I've addressed every issue he's come up with, haven't I? I just found that interesting--NOT as a way to refute his points, but as a way to perhaps better understand "where he comes from". Please review my previous posts to see that I have addressed every point he has made with which I hae disagreed.

I think Cav's point is well taken; we are ALL affected by our origins, and they DO affect our beliefs and positions in many ways. He also did, as he said, caveat it with both the concept that it was a supposition and that it was his opinion. I think that validates it as just that--his extrapolation from what he's read of what Wulf's posted as perhaps indicating something more behind his stand. That was a guess as to what it might be, nothing more.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:30 AM

MALACHITE

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Wait, what? Niki, no. You misunderstood the link. Your conclusion is fallacious.

You can't approach a logical quandry by making your conclusion first, i.e. "Wulf is wrong" and then make an argument for why Wulf is wrong by inference from his background. It's not addressing his argument, it's making a personal attack on Wulf and his background. The argument you are making is "this is why Wulf is the way he is," not "this is why Wulf is wrong about racism."

Byte, I agree with this. I did not find HK's pseudo-analysis of Wulf compelling...

On another point related to the argument. What is everyone's response to this part of the article?

Quote:

Rand Paul , who came under fire in May for criticizing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul said he supports the act and opposes discrimination, but added that the government doesn't have a right to tell private restaurant owners who they can and cannot serve.

This seems like an odd statement to me. Paul opposes discrimination (in his personal life, I presume), but doesn't want the government interfering with what private citizens decide to do, even if what they do is discriminate. Is that a core belief of people who want to minimize government interference? That they may have personal beliefs, but they don't want the government to make their beliefs law? I can sort of see that point. At the same time, I can also see that not having anti-discrimination laws would be a step backwards, because it would only increase the opportunities to be racist or lead to more obvious examples of segregation (like restaurant owners posting "no blacks" in the window or something). Anyone else want to comment on Paul's quote?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes, Paul made a point over and over and over that he's AGAINST discrimination, and minimized the part about government interference at the same time. I remember it well.

The "I'm against it" is pure PC politispeak, simple as that. Initially his argument had nothing to do with his being against discrimination, it was purely that he thought individual businesses shouldn't be "forced" to dscriminate. He added that talking point, and kept prefacing his every statement with it, in order to modify his position and make it seem more mainstream.

The fact is, if there were no Civil Rights Act, Paul himself might well have put up one of those signs, or "No Jews", "No Muslims", or whatever he wanted. He wanted that to be a right. His argument was that it would be bad business to discrimate as one would lose customers, which is totally absurd as places that put up those signs did just fine in bygone years. It was yet another way to try and rationalize his argument.

The basic point is that he feels discrimination should be the RIGHT of private business owners, period. He appears to believe business owners should be allowed to do whatever they want with no interference, as BP just did. Discrimination is just one aspect of it, and no more important apparently in his views that tainted food, because he equally wouldn't want the government to be inspecting the FOOD of individual businesses. It expands to everything; doesn't speak to any particular racism per se, just to the concept that anyone should be able to do anything with their private business.

It's not about "That they may have personal beliefs, but they don't want the government to make their beliefs law?" It's more accurately "That they may have personal beliefs, but they don't want the government to make ACTING ON their beliefs AGAINST THE law". They want to be free to do as they choose, be it wrong or right, without government interference of ANY kind.

That's how I saw it, anyway; to me verified by the fact that his initial statement on the issue never mentioned his own feelings on racism, but every subsequent mention of it, that's the first thing he said, as well as his giving no more interviews thereafter and calling it a "gotcha" question.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:41 AM

Quote:
The term double standard, coined in 1912,[1] refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference.[2] A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain applications (often of a word or phrase) are perceived as acceptable to be used by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when used by another group.

A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or other distinction. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. The proverb "life is not fair" is often invoked in order to mollify concerns over double standards.

The basic issue here is first, that double standards can be justifiable if there is a good REASON. Now, you can argue with us whether or not being a minority in this country creates an inherent bias within the system, clearly there are differing opinions on whether Affirmative Action is in fact justified.

People who like Affirmative Action think that it levels the playing field for the inherent bias against the minority. People who don't like it believe it comprises an unjustifiable double standard.

Lemee ask you this. This isn't racism, but this is feminism, which is something you also don't particularly like.

Would this picture, in your estimation, be marred by a skimpily clad male? Are these girls, and their all-woman business, practicing reverse discrimination? Or is this a good business model?

Similarly, is it possible that a business might chose to have a racial quota because it might allow them to better serve a specific racial client base?

Lastly, the Japanese didn't ask for help, probably because of cultural reasons. I'm not convinced there wasn't lasting damage done (people died in those camps), they lost their businesses, had to start over. You might think it's a triumph they came so far. I find it tragic they had to go through that in the first place, and that they weren't ever offered compensation for how they were wronged. Even just buying the businesses they were forced out of would have been something.

Compensation is impractical, yes, and not a good idea for over-all economic stability. I wouldn't argue for it. But injustices have not been redressed, and I do feel that.

And African Americans were held captive for far longer than the Japanese internment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:50 AM

Quote:
Do you forbid me to mention it?

No, but I think it would have been more respectful to Wulf to discuss it with him in private, if your intention was to help Wulf, and not shame him.

Quote:
I don't understand your beef with me, Byte. You seem to have a beef with me. If you do, I would appreciate you coming out and saying it, rather than handing me unasked for advice about what I should or shouldn't do.

I don't know what would make you think I do. I normally agree with you on things, and I even agree with you that Wulf's stance on reverse discrimination, while having some valid points, is not really an accurate representation of race relations in America.

But I did feel your comments about Wulf's upbringing were unfair.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:51 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

There was compensation, of a sort to those Japanese interned here:

Quote:
Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which had been sponsored by Representative Norman Mineta and Senator Alan K. Simpson — the two had met while Mineta was interned at a camp in Wyoming — which provided redress of $20,000 for each surviving detainee, totaling $1.2 billion dollars. The question of to whom reparations should be given, how much, and even whether monetary reparations were appropriate were subjects of sometimes contentious debate

Civil Liberties Act Amendments of 1992, appropriating an additional $400 million to ensure all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments. Some Japanese and Japanese Americans who were relocated during World War II received compensation for property losses, according to a 1948 law. Congress appropriated $38 million to meet $131 million of claims from among 23,000 claimants. These payments were dispersed very slowly, the final dispersal occurring in 1965.[ In 1988, following lobbying efforts by Japanese Americans, $20,000 per internee was paid out to individuals who had been interned or relocated, including those who chose to return to Japan. These payments were awarded to 82,210 Japanese Americans or their heirs at a cost of $1.6 billion; the program's final disbursement occurred in 1999.

If you read about what they went through in the same article in Wikipedia, you can see how NO compensation redressed what had happened, but I’m glad that in the end they did so. By the way, here in California—at least n the schools I attended, including jr. college---no mention was EVER made of the Japanese internment.

I like your point about the photograph, too...men obviously needn’t have applied, which is sexims, must as “blacks need not apply” was the unspoken racism in early TV and other things.

On the other hand, if you felt Cav's extrapolation as to what Wulf's background might have influenced in his positions was rude, I'd love to hear you or anyone pipe up about the obvious and very ugly assumptions about me and my circumstances made by others, which go so far beyond "rude" as to be ridiculous. Just sayin'.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:58 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Byte,

I appreciate it. Im used to it at this point tho.

You do have to have a tough skin (oooo see what I did there? hehehe) to swim here with the paper people and all the sharks.

I mean, you can try and bring up a point, which some would rather you didn't because it invalidates their belief system... and they freak.

Seen it before, will see it again.

But, thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:00 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Y'all just pushing too hard.
Pushing too hard.
Pushing too hard on me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:

Quote:

Rand Paul , who came under fire in May for criticizing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul said he supports the act and opposes discrimination, but added that the government doesn't have a right to tell private restaurant owners who they can and cannot serve.

This seems like an odd statement to me. Paul opposes discrimination (in his personal life, I presume), but doesn't want the government interfering with what private citizens decide to do, even if what they do is discriminate. Is that a core belief of people who want to minimize government interference? That they may have personal beliefs, but they don't want the government to make their beliefs law? I can sort of see that point. At the same time, I can also see that not having anti-discrimination laws would be a step backwards, because it would only increase the opportunities to be racist or lead to more obvious examples of segregation (like restaurant owners posting "no blacks" in the window or something). Anyone else want to comment on Paul's quote?

I think that anyone who practices such a behaviour is a fool who loses potential customers, and as such it's a bad business practice. I don't think it's the government's responsibility to keep morons from losing money.

It might be the responsibility of a community/government to call a business owner on such unfair practices, especially if it results in harm to someone. In Utah, if a restaurant refuses to serve water to someone on a hot day, they could die. I would consider that a crime of neglect. In general, a community should have some interest in the prevention of a crime, balanced equally with respecting the choices of the citizens.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need to to have anti-discrimination laws. I think we need them for now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:08 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or, you can answer my question.

Actually, the question Nix, was NOT whether or not racism is bad, I think we can all agree that it is... but rather, why is one tolerated, while the other is not?

I think you'd have to answer that, since you're the one who tolerates AND practices racism on a regular basis. Why DO you tolerate it against brown and black people, but you won't tolerate it against whites?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:09 AM

Hmm, I didn't know about that. Interesting.

Quote:
On the other hand, if you felt Cav's extrapolation as to what Wulf's background might have influenced in his positions was rude, I'd love to hear you or anyone pipe up about the obvious and very ugly assumptions about me and my circumstances made by others, which go so far beyond "rude" as to be ridiculous. Just sayin'.

You're right, of course. Sometimes I don't get the opportunity to defend you, not as much as I'd like to. Everyone gets their share of this, and I don't think any of it is right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:12 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I don't. Never have, and have actually DONE real, tangible, physical things to stop it.

Not just wrote a check.

Try again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:37 AM

MALACHITE

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

It's not about "That they may have personal beliefs, but they don't want the government to make their beliefs law?" It's more accurately "That they may have personal beliefs, but they don't want the government to make ACTING ON their beliefs AGAINST THE law". They want to be free to do as they choose, be it wrong or right, without government interference of ANY kind.

That's how I saw it, anyway; to me verified by the fact that his initial statement on the issue never mentioned his own feelings on racism, but every subsequent mention of it, that's the first thing he said, as well as his giving no more interviews thereafter and calling it a "gotcha" question.

Ah... thank you for clarifying... Later in the article, he justifies restaurants discriminating against race by saying it is equivalent to restaurants forbiding bringing in firearms (that is, a private owner gets to choose what rules they will establish), which also doesn't seem particularly compelling because discriminating on the basis of race seems to be a different animal than not allowing firearms.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:55 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

As to Rand Paul...

His position is clear.

If you own a business, its YOUR business.

You want to be an idiot and ban a certain customer base, thats on YOUR dumbass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:58 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Do you forbid me to mention it?

No, but I think it would have been more respectful to Wulf to discuss it with him in private, if your intention was to help Wulf, and not shame him.

But my intent wasn't to shame him, Byte (you seem to take that as a given). Perhaps it is my own insensitivity that you're perceiving here, because I personally do not feel any shame about family shit. It is what it is, and it's more important to take note of patterns than it is to protect illusions. A lot of people, I know, disagree with me on that point.

And at the same time, I do think this is a community issue, I think we all have a stake in what's going on here. So, pming him would have seemed kinda weird, like I didn't want others to know what I was thinking. I have a prejudice against secrets. I dunno, I'm never happy after pming someone on this board. As I said before, I wasn't referring to anything specific to his life and his life alone, it was all conjecture and therefore, to my mind, utterly free game, and, most importantly, relevant to the larger discussion.

I did not have high hopes that I would shift Wulf's perspective, but I thought, perhaps, if not Wulf, then someone else? I did intend for the argument to come out of left field, to talk about something completely different from the same old/same old. These arguments seem to take on a binary on/off switch kind of feel that I find very constricting and eventually hopeless. I hoped maybe introducing the family thing, the sibling "fairness" issue--that I think informs A LOT of political ideation--would stimulate some different synapses in the brain than the same old tapes we've been listening to from everyone around here for years, y'know? Perhaps shift the discussion, however negligibly, in another direction, along some other axis.

I see from various responses that my efforts have, thus far, all but failed, except for your introduction of this idea of shame. Thank you. I think shame has everything to do with hate of all kinds, not just racism, but folk typically don't want to discuss that part of the equation.

I do see Wulf using his racial insensitivity as a tool to upset people, hurt people if he can. I do see much of it as show, intended to shock and appall people for whom he has no respect anyway.

I do think there is a difference between racism (believing that one race is inherently better than another) and racial insensitivity (a willingness to rub salt in a wound caused by racism). Surely racist people will of force be racially insensitive, but I don't think all racial insensitivity is racist. Children can be very racially insensitive, they love to exaggerate differences and lampoon people that are different from them, but I don't look down at such behavior as "incipient racism."

Quote:
I normally agree with you on things, and I even agree with you that Wulf's stance on reverse discrimination, while having some valid points, is not really an accurate representation of race relations in America.

But I did feel your comments about Wulf's upbringing were unfair.

Again with "Wulf's upbringing." I wasn't talking about Wulf's specific upbringing. Sibling issues are a psychological phenomenon even amongst nonsiblings. All ya need to get 'em going is a hierarchy of any kind--you know, like a "government" overseeing some "citizens." The citizens will tend to project unresolved issues with their flesh & blood parents onto the state, no? I think Wulf's argument boils down to demanding "fairness" in an inherently unfair environment. That's all I was saying.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:01 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So HK... all of this to gloss over the originial question and to dilute the argument?

Thats exactly what you are doing.

You are following the title of this threat to a T.

"If you can't beat them, call them raciss."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:30 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ok, as folks are having trouble.. I'll help.

No, its not right.

Ok, AND, let talk insitutional racism for a sec, shall we?

Ive got an easy one.

Affirmative Action.

Also known as "shifting the goal post" or "changing the rules when you realize you're losing".

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:35 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Kwick,

Thats the best you got? Wtf?

Really? You try and divert, with this?

"Also known as "shifting the goal post" or "changing the rules when you realize you're losing". "

Thats it? Thats all?

Wow....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:46 AM

Wulf, this thread is a triumph. I have read every word, delighted by the hand-wringing and tooth-gnashing of the pious and sensitive racists. Well done!

People tend to couple racism with a power differential. Hence, the underdog's racism isn't really racism, but rather a cry of pain and oppression, while the top dog's racism is a crime against nature. I recommend you wait til whitey is a minority, then you can truly enjoy whining "dat raciss."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:50 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ah yes, and here we have it.

""Wulf, this thread is a triumph. I have read every word, delighted by the hand-wringing and tooth-gnashing of the pious and sensitive racists. Well done!

People tend to couple racism with a power differential. Hence, the underdog's racism isn't really racism, but rather a cry of pain and oppression, while the top dog's racism is a crime against nature. I recommend you wait til whitey is a minority, then you can truly enjoy whining "dat raciss.""

Where as I would argue against the racism demonstrated by all peoples, and work to end it and unite folks...

You cannot WAIT till "whites" are the minority.

Guess youll get your hits in then, huh?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:57 AM

Yeah! Better yet, maybe we can breed whites out of of existence through state-mandated miscegnation....as a remedy for past injustices!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:02 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

And, for the folks paying attention... here we have an example of throwing out conspiracy theories in order to further dilute and add another layer of smokescreen to the argument.

"Yeah! Better yet, maybe we can breed whites out of of existence through state-mandated miscegnation....as a remedy for past injustices!"

What a way of diverting attention from the topic at hand.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:08 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Where as I would argue against the racism demonstrated by all peoples, and work to end it and unite folks...

You were laughing when you typed that right? Come on, be honest!

Big thing against you imho is how you present your ideas. It's clear you don't really care about, or respect the people you're talking to, so they pretty much ignore a lot of what you say and look for how they can just through it back at you. Talk their language and they might at least listen and consider what you're saying.

Btw, did you see what Jesse J. said about the owner of the Cleveland Cavs? Pretty strong words, I understand that's a sentiment a lot of black athletes agree with.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:12 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"You were laughing when you typed that right? Come on, be honest!"

Actually, I wasn't laughing. I was being honest.

I believe that if we all stopped trying to segregate ourselves according to race, and instead, focused on our common heritage of being Americans... things would be a lot better.

But its a long road to that. One of the first steps being... stop giving special consideration to "protected" groups.

But thats me, and just my silly little opinion. I do live in Wulfie-world (tm) where miracles can happen, and people can actually live together without being boxed off in corners.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:15 AM

But Wulf, I am perhaps the only person on this miserable website who is as "racially insensitive" as you. We are natural allies. Together, we could get hella attention, and have hella laughs, by opposing the 14th and 13th amendment. Yet you mock me.

What was the topic, again? Seems to be that people who cry "dat raciss" bother you. They bother me, too. Its like the little boy who cried wulf.

Maybe you could help Kwick and I get back on your topic with a focused, narrow thesis statement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:19 AM

HK: Okay. Just still seems kinda weird to me, because I imagine that's what Wulf would claim that people of colour are demanding "fairness in an unfair world." Whereas he, and the Japanese, managed to pull themselves up the bootstraps.

Then I imagine Wulf would go into a bit of speculation about the upbringing of people of colour, particularly blaming an absence of father figures and a strong multigeneration matriarchy at home.

After he did all that, he'd dodge reading the links I posted about the feminization of poverty, I would pretty much not bother to read his articles about reverse racism, and now we have come full circle. With me still not very convinced psychology or upbringing has much place in this debate.

But, you think you have a valid point, and Niki thinks you have a valid point, so I concede the floor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:01 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Around and around we go, while no one is brave enough to answer a simple question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:17 PM

In my defense, this has not been a good day for me gastronomically. :x

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:22 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Byte,

Youve got to get a better stomach. Some of the things people say here make me physically ill.

No, Im serious.

Ill read some inane post, missing the whole point or trying to cover up their inequities... and I feel ill. Like vomitous.

But, then I realized that in order to reach them , you must soldier on.

You can't fight the truth for long.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 1:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Some of the things people say here make me physically ill.

No, Im serious.

Ill read some inane post, missing the whole point or trying to cover up their inequities... and I feel ill. Like vomitous.

Dude, why in the devil's name would you make such an admission? Ty Cobb once said "Never let them hear you holler," because once folks now where you're soft, they'll attacK you there. Cobb was a great man. And wise, too.

Anyway, I think you're neat, but in light of your admission, wonder if I will be able to resist trying to make you puke and/or befoul your briefs through forum posts. I have always wished my posts had the power to make people physically ill.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:14 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mincing, you are at the top of your game...thanx for the giggles!

Cav:

Quote:
I do see Wulf using his racial insensitivity as a tool to upset people, hurt people if he can. I do see much of it as show, intended to shock and appall people.

yeah, I finally figured that one out too...now he's just amusing, and pathetic. That's okay, tho', he is what he is and never will change. Shame, isn't it?

Keep saying nobody's answered your question, Wulf; I'm positive nobody will remember that it's been answered at least twice, and that you were told it's not a question in the first place, it's an assumption. But that's okay, keep on typin'.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

You cannot WAIT till "whites" are the minority.

And, are you yourself not helping to make that happen, even as I did, marrying a non-white chick & having a baby with said Latina hottie?

Whites ARE the minority on Earth, and soon in our country too.
Deal happily with it, dude!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:41 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Whites ARE the minority on Earth, and soon in our country too

Sigh...not fast enough, man, not fast enough...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
Whites ARE the minority on Earth, and soon in our country too
Sigh...not fast enough, man, not fast enough...

Mutts have the best dispositions...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:48 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Absofrigginlootely--and they're healthier most times, too. Too much inbreeding.

Let's widen the gene pool! Of course, we'd have to leave few here out, as they're already in the shallow end...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:02 PM

Haha, quick, get a load of the self-loathing goy crackers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:05 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

A load of what?

I'm a mutt, by the way, tho' not the way Wulf thinks of them. Mom was a French immigrant, dad a New Yorker. Most of us are, I imagine, in one form or another. If we made more mutts, nobody would know WHAT anyone was anymore.

More mutts!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:44 PM

More "mutts", or "poorly bred monster babies" as I prefer to think of them, will not make the world a better, more tolerant place. Best case scenario, people deal with the minor inconvenience of finding new reasons to hate each other. For example, the Dominican Republic is full of mutts who nonetheless enjoy a vicious racial hierarchy...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
More "mutts", or "poorly bred monster babies" as I prefer to think of them, will not mae the world a netter, more tolerant place. Best case scenario, people deal with the minor inconvenience of finding new reasons to hate each other. For example, the Dominican Republic is full of mutts who nonetheless enjoy a vicious racial hierarchy...

Okay, trying to sound like a moron?
EPIC SUCCEED!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Mom was a French immigrant

We will not hold that against you, Niki.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
For example, the Dominican Republic is full of mutts who nonetheless enjoy a vicious racial hierarchy...

In thinking about it, yes, you're right. And not just there.

Is an Alpha-Omega Atomic Bomb in order?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:17 PM