Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch
- Thread starter joeboosauce
- Start date
[quote name='GBAstar']Well if today is about posting stories that aren't relevant I'll throw this into the ring:
http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=99812
50 year-old White man on life support after hammer attack by two black teens (18 and 19) near Sanford, FL
^ I wonder if Obama had a son if he'd look like either of these two?
Please note they are from Sanford, FL as well.[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant, really? Sigh, I wonder if there is a limit to how many people one can put on ignore.
http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=99812
50 year-old White man on life support after hammer attack by two black teens (18 and 19) near Sanford, FL
^ I wonder if Obama had a son if he'd look like either of these two?
Please note they are from Sanford, FL as well.[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant, really? Sigh, I wonder if there is a limit to how many people one can put on ignore.
[quote name='Knoell']I thought the conclusion was earlier that other similar stories don't count? Oh....wait they count if the victim is of a certain color?...I really shouldn't be surprised.[/QUOTE]
It's alright. Stormfront has been used as a scareword to try and discredit any article posted that isn't anti zimmerman yet not a single article posted in this thread has been pulled from stormfront.
Two black men from Sanford, FL beating a 50 year old white man senseless with a hammer is no more or less relevant then two white men beating a black teenager in Maryland.
You can't discredit something because you don't like the message it sends.
And putting someone on ignore that has never personally insulted you is about as childish as it gets. We're trying to have a discussion about topics of race and we've got sensitive susan's putting everyone on ignore.
It's alright. Stormfront has been used as a scareword to try and discredit any article posted that isn't anti zimmerman yet not a single article posted in this thread has been pulled from stormfront.
Two black men from Sanford, FL beating a 50 year old white man senseless with a hammer is no more or less relevant then two white men beating a black teenager in Maryland.
You can't discredit something because you don't like the message it sends.
And putting someone on ignore that has never personally insulted you is about as childish as it gets. We're trying to have a discussion about topics of race and we've got sensitive susan's putting everyone on ignore.
[quote name='GBAstar']Well if today is about posting stories that aren't relevant I'll throw this into the ring:
http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=99812
50 year-old White man on life support after hammer attack by two black teens (18 and 19) near Sanford, FL
^ I wonder if Obama had a son if he'd look like either of these two?
Please note they are from Sanford, FL as well.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='GBAstar']It's alright. Stormfront has been used as a scareword to try and discredit any article posted that isn't anti zimmerman yet not a single article posted in this thread has been pulled from stormfront.
Two black men from Sanford, FL beating a 50 year old white man senseless with a hammer is no more or less relevant then two white men beating a black teenager in Maryland.
You can't discredit something because you don't like the message it sends.
And putting someone on ignore that has never personally insulted you is about as childish as it gets. We're trying to have a discussion about topics of race and we've got sensitive susan's putting everyone on ignore.[/QUOTE]
Sources matter and when you're going to proudly post articles with information primarily sourced from white supremacist websites or directly from white supremacist websites, its not a reach for people to assume that you're not only sympathetic to it, but support that type of racist rhetoric.
Btw, you don't respect my opinions one bit and it's a rhetorical tool to say that you do. You make a legitmate point about patriarchy, whether you're cognizant of it or not, and then you compare it to creationism as if the plight of women and people of color are somehow exaggerated and irrelevant.
http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=99812
50 year-old White man on life support after hammer attack by two black teens (18 and 19) near Sanford, FL
^ I wonder if Obama had a son if he'd look like either of these two?
Please note they are from Sanford, FL as well.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='GBAstar']It's alright. Stormfront has been used as a scareword to try and discredit any article posted that isn't anti zimmerman yet not a single article posted in this thread has been pulled from stormfront.
Two black men from Sanford, FL beating a 50 year old white man senseless with a hammer is no more or less relevant then two white men beating a black teenager in Maryland.
You can't discredit something because you don't like the message it sends.
And putting someone on ignore that has never personally insulted you is about as childish as it gets. We're trying to have a discussion about topics of race and we've got sensitive susan's putting everyone on ignore.[/QUOTE]
Sources matter and when you're going to proudly post articles with information primarily sourced from white supremacist websites or directly from white supremacist websites, its not a reach for people to assume that you're not only sympathetic to it, but support that type of racist rhetoric.
Btw, you don't respect my opinions one bit and it's a rhetorical tool to say that you do. You make a legitmate point about patriarchy, whether you're cognizant of it or not, and then you compare it to creationism as if the plight of women and people of color are somehow exaggerated and irrelevant.
[quote name='YendelTrex']In no way do I respect or appreciate his posts. It is obvious that there are some issues at play. But giving him a pass on that and his behaviour on this entire thread alone is not helping him.
He is not intelligent and has taken some books he read and became obsessed with race or aided his obsession that may have already been in place and a know it all attitude without any intelligence behind it.
Reading a few books doesn't make one an expert or even intelligent. Without being able to apply the things he reads in a positive manner, understand when to apply it, see the whole picture and other aspects in each individual scenario instead of painting it all with that brush, understand what he has read, use reasoning skills, self-awareness, critical thinking. etc etc etc it is useless and a negative. With the lack of all of that and common sense it is just gibberish coming from him. He is not well-rounded.
He offers no respect or very rarely and deserves none or just as little. His transference in this thread alone is hugely apparent. He makes prejudgment, assumptions, accusations, assertions, has faulty reasoning, bias, anger, is narcissistic, arrogance, distorts truth and reality and opinions, is condescending, demeaning, twists and spins, is disrespectful and on and on and on.
I have sympathy for him but feeding his already huge ego and whatever his issues are by giving him a pass or placating him is doing nobody any good.
If it is issues I hope that he can and will get help. I really think that this thread should be deleted as it started out wrong and has only gotten worse. Almost everyone in here is to blame too and I am not above that.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ
In other words:
"Blah blah blah....dumbdough is wrong because I say so."
You're a posterchild for circular reasoning. It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
He is not intelligent and has taken some books he read and became obsessed with race or aided his obsession that may have already been in place and a know it all attitude without any intelligence behind it.
Reading a few books doesn't make one an expert or even intelligent. Without being able to apply the things he reads in a positive manner, understand when to apply it, see the whole picture and other aspects in each individual scenario instead of painting it all with that brush, understand what he has read, use reasoning skills, self-awareness, critical thinking. etc etc etc it is useless and a negative. With the lack of all of that and common sense it is just gibberish coming from him. He is not well-rounded.
He offers no respect or very rarely and deserves none or just as little. His transference in this thread alone is hugely apparent. He makes prejudgment, assumptions, accusations, assertions, has faulty reasoning, bias, anger, is narcissistic, arrogance, distorts truth and reality and opinions, is condescending, demeaning, twists and spins, is disrespectful and on and on and on.
I have sympathy for him but feeding his already huge ego and whatever his issues are by giving him a pass or placating him is doing nobody any good.
If it is issues I hope that he can and will get help. I really think that this thread should be deleted as it started out wrong and has only gotten worse. Almost everyone in here is to blame too and I am not above that.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ
In other words:
"Blah blah blah....dumbdough is wrong because I say so."
You're a posterchild for circular reasoning. It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
[quote name='dohdough']Sources matter and when you're going to proudly post articles with information primarily sourced from white supremacist websites or directly from white supremacist websites, its not a reach for people to assume that you're not only sympathetic to it, but support that type of racist rhetoric.
Btw, you don't respect my opinions one bit and it's a rhetorical tool to say that you do. You make a legitmate point about patriarchy, whether you're cognizant of it or not, and then you compare it to creationism as if the plight of women and people of color are somehow exaggerated and irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
That's where you are wrong. I do respect what you say. I primarily disagree with many of your projections on when and where racism occurs because I think you're fanatical. Not in the "batshit crazy" type of way but in such a way where you can't remove yourself from a situation and think objectively.
I don't deny racism exists. I don't deny that certain groups of people have more hardships due to racism.
But you trying to tie every single act against a minority to racism or sexism or a predjudice of some sort is no dfiferent then someone saying that the devil put dinsoaur bones on the earth. You can't have "...due to racism" be the end all of every discussion just like "because it is part of God's plan" shouldn't be used that way either.
At what point does an individual need to take accountability and start wondering if they create many of their own problems? I'm not talking about Trayvon here...
...I'm talking about my college football buddies who think that the dress codes at nightclubs were put into effect to keep them out. These are the same nightclubs that cater to blacks (run by Hot 93.7 Hartford nonetheless) but just ask that you aren't wearing a dress sized t-shirt or patent leather Jordan's or Timberlands.
How many times did I have to hear a rant about something as simple as that being racist. It's a goddamn Hip Hop night club where the HUGE majority of the attendees are non-white but because they don't want you wearing fitteds or chains it's racist? Or the bar must be racist because they don't service E&J or Alize or Hennessy.... or they didn't let a patron in who tried to use a CT Prison ID card as their sole means of Identification.
Or what about the guy that looked at me funny? Or the professor that failed me? Or the NCAA that deemed me ineligible bcause I never went to class... somehow they are all racist as well?
It all falls back to taking accountability for your actions. I remember reading a book called "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" and how the author talked about when poor single mothers were asked about their kids in jail it was always "they put them in jail" meaning the police, state, etc. and it was never the sons fault. It was always someone elses fault.
Btw, you don't respect my opinions one bit and it's a rhetorical tool to say that you do. You make a legitmate point about patriarchy, whether you're cognizant of it or not, and then you compare it to creationism as if the plight of women and people of color are somehow exaggerated and irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
That's where you are wrong. I do respect what you say. I primarily disagree with many of your projections on when and where racism occurs because I think you're fanatical. Not in the "batshit crazy" type of way but in such a way where you can't remove yourself from a situation and think objectively.
I don't deny racism exists. I don't deny that certain groups of people have more hardships due to racism.
But you trying to tie every single act against a minority to racism or sexism or a predjudice of some sort is no dfiferent then someone saying that the devil put dinsoaur bones on the earth. You can't have "...due to racism" be the end all of every discussion just like "because it is part of God's plan" shouldn't be used that way either.
At what point does an individual need to take accountability and start wondering if they create many of their own problems? I'm not talking about Trayvon here...
...I'm talking about my college football buddies who think that the dress codes at nightclubs were put into effect to keep them out. These are the same nightclubs that cater to blacks (run by Hot 93.7 Hartford nonetheless) but just ask that you aren't wearing a dress sized t-shirt or patent leather Jordan's or Timberlands.
How many times did I have to hear a rant about something as simple as that being racist. It's a goddamn Hip Hop night club where the HUGE majority of the attendees are non-white but because they don't want you wearing fitteds or chains it's racist? Or the bar must be racist because they don't service E&J or Alize or Hennessy.... or they didn't let a patron in who tried to use a CT Prison ID card as their sole means of Identification.
Or what about the guy that looked at me funny? Or the professor that failed me? Or the NCAA that deemed me ineligible bcause I never went to class... somehow they are all racist as well?
It all falls back to taking accountability for your actions. I remember reading a book called "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" and how the author talked about when poor single mothers were asked about their kids in jail it was always "they put them in jail" meaning the police, state, etc. and it was never the sons fault. It was always someone elses fault.
[quote name='GBAstar']It's alright. Stormfront has been used as a scareword to try and discredit any article posted that isn't anti zimmerman yet not a single article posted in this thread has been pulled from stormfront.
Two black men from Sanford, FL beating a 50 year old white man senseless with a hammer is no more or less relevant then two white men beating a black teenager in Maryland.
You can't discredit something because you don't like the message it sends.
And putting someone on ignore that has never personally insulted you is about as childish as it gets. We're trying to have a discussion about topics of race and we've got sensitive susan's putting everyone on ignore.[/QUOTE]
Well I don't know if you remember my post on this in the past but it is what they do.
Attack the statistics - when that fails they
Attack the facts - when that fails they
Attack the source - when that fails they
Attack the poster
However it isn't all that simple. Let's say they attack the facts but are completely wrong. If they have enough of their friends on here to call you stupid, then it doesn't matter if they are wrong because it seems like they are right because their buddies are like "yeah you idiot!"
It is a science really.
Two black men from Sanford, FL beating a 50 year old white man senseless with a hammer is no more or less relevant then two white men beating a black teenager in Maryland.
You can't discredit something because you don't like the message it sends.
And putting someone on ignore that has never personally insulted you is about as childish as it gets. We're trying to have a discussion about topics of race and we've got sensitive susan's putting everyone on ignore.[/QUOTE]
Well I don't know if you remember my post on this in the past but it is what they do.
Attack the statistics - when that fails they
Attack the facts - when that fails they
Attack the source - when that fails they
Attack the poster
However it isn't all that simple. Let's say they attack the facts but are completely wrong. If they have enough of their friends on here to call you stupid, then it doesn't matter if they are wrong because it seems like they are right because their buddies are like "yeah you idiot!"
It is a science really.
YendelTrex
Banned
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ
In other words:
"Blah blah blah....dumbdough is wrong because I say so."
You're a poster child for circular reasoning. It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.[/QUOTE]
osterchild: funny you said that. This entire thread has been about YOU making a dead kid YOUR POSTER CHILD for your twisted view of the world. Really? Using a dead kid as your poster child for your sickness is as pathetic as it gets.
edit: deleted screw it.[FONT="]
[/FONT]
In other words:
"Blah blah blah....dumbdough is wrong because I say so."
You're a poster child for circular reasoning. It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.[/QUOTE]
osterchild: funny you said that. This entire thread has been about YOU making a dead kid YOUR POSTER CHILD for your twisted view of the world. Really? Using a dead kid as your poster child for your sickness is as pathetic as it gets.edit: deleted screw it.[FONT="]
[/FONT]
Last edited by a moderator:
YendelTrex
Banned
[quote name='renique46']Nobody gives a shit if you knew about it already since the link wasn't directly just for you to see. Others might not have known about it so for all i care you can stfu and jump off a building thanks.[/QUOTE]
No thanks.
If you just posted the link I might understand but going by your other posts and the fact you said this "Zimmerman must have taken notes" it was clearly meant to throw the match and gasoline in to reignite the fires.
Shoo drive by fly!!
No thanks.
If you just posted the link I might understand but going by your other posts and the fact you said this "Zimmerman must have taken notes" it was clearly meant to throw the match and gasoline in to reignite the fires.
Shoo drive by fly!!
[quote name='GBAstar']That's where you are wrong. I do respect what you say. I primarily disagree with many of your projections on when and where racism occurs because I think you're fanatical. Not in the "batshit crazy" type of way but in such a way where you can't remove yourself from a situation and think objectively.[/QUOTE]
I think you're confusing respecting the ability to say something with respecting the content. The only way you're interpreting "objectivity" is through protecting privilege in which ever form it takes.
Lemme fill you in on a little anecdote from my life. I used to promote at the hottest club in Boston many moons ago. This was when progressive house blew up. Strict dress code of shirt, slacks, shoes, no jeans, no sneakers, no sweats/tees etc. We had rich eurotrash, local guidos, college students from all over, and who could forget the Asians(this part is important). And lemme tell you, there was at least three fights every single night. I'm not going to lie, it was mostly the Asians fighting. These guys were dressed in Gucci, Prada, LV, Armani, etc. After a while, management decided to not let any Asians in the club and they dropped all the promoters that had a connection. After that the club dies and they try to get a more "euro" crowd. Can you guess what happened there? Fights start back up again and Asians are no where to be found. Fast forward a few years and hip hop becomes the new club music. Now we're talking Boston here so it's still a white crowd by a vast majority. Can you guess what happens here too? Same old shit with the fights. The crowd transistions to a predominantly black crowd and you still have more of the same old shit. And what does this mean? It has nothing to do with how rich, poor, white, black, or Asian, you are or how you dress. Drunk people packed into a sardine can will eventually start fights. Now how is this relevant? I'm going to get to that in the next section.
As for the lack of those brands of drinks, it's not because the person that orders for the club hates black people or that those patrons think that the club hates them. It's because the club didn't bother to cater to their specifically targeted customers. Shit, I'm not even going to go into why Alize and Hennesey are relevant or why a proper bar at a club should be stocked with that swill regardless of the clientele.
And if these are your friends you're talking about and I assume they aren't, they're using "racism" in a much deeper context than you realize.
Committing crimes is a symptom of poverty and not the cause. No one really chooses to be in poverty any more than they choose to be a millionaire.
I could go so much deeper, but it'd be like explaining trig to someone that just learned addition.
I think you're confusing respecting the ability to say something with respecting the content. The only way you're interpreting "objectivity" is through protecting privilege in which ever form it takes.
Saying "it's racism" isn't saying "god did it." You're confusing my arguments for YendelTrex's. When I say "it's racism," I say "it's racism because of x, y, and z." Apparently, you're only hearing "it's racism because it's racism." Just because you don't understand the systemic nature of racism, sexism, patriarchy, classism, and a host of other -isms doesn't mean they don't exist.
I'm glad you brought this up and were generous enough to provide examples! Now let's examine them.
The question is "why do they have to dress that way for the club?" Does that mean that they'll drink less? Start less fights? Are there similar rules about wearing too-tight-tees? Dress shirts that are two sizes too big? Spikey hairdos that can blind someone? I guess guidos and rockers should start wearing shirts and slacks too!
Lemme fill you in on a little anecdote from my life. I used to promote at the hottest club in Boston many moons ago. This was when progressive house blew up. Strict dress code of shirt, slacks, shoes, no jeans, no sneakers, no sweats/tees etc. We had rich eurotrash, local guidos, college students from all over, and who could forget the Asians(this part is important). And lemme tell you, there was at least three fights every single night. I'm not going to lie, it was mostly the Asians fighting. These guys were dressed in Gucci, Prada, LV, Armani, etc. After a while, management decided to not let any Asians in the club and they dropped all the promoters that had a connection. After that the club dies and they try to get a more "euro" crowd. Can you guess what happened there? Fights start back up again and Asians are no where to be found. Fast forward a few years and hip hop becomes the new club music. Now we're talking Boston here so it's still a white crowd by a vast majority. Can you guess what happens here too? Same old shit with the fights. The crowd transistions to a predominantly black crowd and you still have more of the same old shit. And what does this mean? It has nothing to do with how rich, poor, white, black, or Asian, you are or how you dress. Drunk people packed into a sardine can will eventually start fights. Now how is this relevant? I'm going to get to that in the next section.
What you're referring to is cultural capital, which is one way that classism manifests itself and in this case, it's steeped in racism. Dressing up in a shirt and slacks is one way of expressing status just as chains, jordans, etc is. There is literally no difference in the reason for wearing such clothing between the two.
As for the lack of those brands of drinks, it's not because the person that orders for the club hates black people or that those patrons think that the club hates them. It's because the club didn't bother to cater to their specifically targeted customers. Shit, I'm not even going to go into why Alize and Hennesey are relevant or why a proper bar at a club should be stocked with that swill regardless of the clientele.
Racism isn't just one-on-one hate. It's an entire system of oppression that expresses itself in countless ways. It's not just about how black people are treated, but also about how white people are treated better even in the same circumstances. We only need to look at the justice system to exemplify that.
And if these are your friends you're talking about and I assume they aren't, they're using "racism" in a much deeper context than you realize.
That book was heavily critiqued for being class-blind while playing on racial stereotypes. It also doesn't address the issue of poverty in a way to lessen it's systemic effects and instead, plays on ways to use cultural capital as a way up. This leads to things like being white as the default state and normal. So if you act white; you'll be all right and if you act black; you better step back.
Committing crimes is a symptom of poverty and not the cause. No one really chooses to be in poverty any more than they choose to be a millionaire.
I could go so much deeper, but it'd be like explaining trig to someone that just learned addition.
[quote name='YendelTrex']osterchild: funny you said that. This entire thread has been about YOU making a dead kid YOUR POSTER CHILD for your twisted view of the world. Really? Using a dead kid as your poster child for your sickness is as pathetic as it gets.
edit: deleted screw it.
[/QUOTE]
Hahaha...like your edit changes anything.
So tell me...what is my view of the world? What is my sickness? Why is it pathetic? Be detailed and give examples.:lol:
osterchild: funny you said that. This entire thread has been about YOU making a dead kid YOUR POSTER CHILD for your twisted view of the world. Really? Using a dead kid as your poster child for your sickness is as pathetic as it gets.edit: deleted screw it.
[/QUOTE]
Hahaha...like your edit changes anything.
So tell me...what is my view of the world? What is my sickness? Why is it pathetic? Be detailed and give examples.:lol:
YendelTrex
Banned
GBA DD is a fanatic and DD's response to you also shows how he lacks the cognitive skills and wisdom necessary to grasp what you pointed out. I will go into more detail of why that post proves that he has issues when I have some more time. Below will be some of the talking points on DD's post to you.
I found this really funny as one could easily insert DD into this analogy .
Cognitive Skills: What are they?
Who hasn't had the frustrating experience of trying to run the latest software on an outdated computer? Or asking a computer with a small processor or insufficient memory to handle several complex tasks at once? In order to handle information and tasks with ease, a computer needs the right hardware and underlying systems (think processor, RAM and hard drive). If these underlying systems aren't up to speed, it doesn't matter what cool programs or impressive data you load into the computer: Everything's going to run slowly. Cognitive skills serve your brain in the very same way.
same for this one..
Fanatic..A person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause.
Here is another line that fits and I can more into later as how it and all the above fits DD..
"We just believe things, and then make our world fit our perceptions"
I found this really funny as one could easily insert DD into this analogy .
Cognitive Skills: What are they?
Who hasn't had the frustrating experience of trying to run the latest software on an outdated computer? Or asking a computer with a small processor or insufficient memory to handle several complex tasks at once? In order to handle information and tasks with ease, a computer needs the right hardware and underlying systems (think processor, RAM and hard drive). If these underlying systems aren't up to speed, it doesn't matter what cool programs or impressive data you load into the computer: Everything's going to run slowly. Cognitive skills serve your brain in the very same way.
same for this one..
Fanatic..A person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause.
Here is another line that fits and I can more into later as how it and all the above fits DD..
"We just believe things, and then make our world fit our perceptions"
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']
The question is "why do they have to dress that way for the club?" Does that mean that they'll drink less? Start less fights? Are there similar rules about wearing too-tight-tees? Dress shirts that are two sizes too big? Spikey hairdos that can blind someone? I guess guidos and rockers should start wearing shirts and slacks too!
Lemme fill you in on a little anecdote from my life. I used to promote at the hottest club in Boston many moons ago. This was when progressive house blew up. Strict dress code of shirt, slacks, shoes, no jeans, no sneakers, no sweats/tees etc. We had rich eurotrash, local guidos, college students from all over, and who could forget the Asians(this part is important). And lemme tell you, there was at least three fights every single night. I'm not going to lie, it was mostly the Asians fighting. These guys were dressed in Gucci, Prada, LV, Armani, etc. After a while, management decided to not let any Asians in the club and they dropped all the promoters that had a connection. After that the club dies and they try to get a more "euro" crowd. Can you guess what happened there? Fights start back up again and Asians are no where to be found. Fast forward a few years and hip hop becomes the new club music. Now we're talking Boston here so it's still a white crowd by a vast majority. Can you guess what happens here too? Same old shit with the fights. The crowd transistions to a predominantly black crowd and you still have more of the same old shit. And what does this mean? It has nothing to do with how rich, poor, white, black, or Asian, you are or how you dress. Drunk people packed into a sardine can will eventually start fights. Now how is this relevant? I'm going to get to that in the next section.
What you're referring to is cultural capital, which is one way that classism manifests itself and in this case, it's steeped in racism. Dressing up in a shirt and slacks is one way of expressing status just as chains, jordans, etc is. There is literally no difference in the reason for wearing such clothing between the two.
[/QUOTE]
A dress code is racist? That's a little far-fetched. People like to dress up to do certain thngs, and they like to see others do the same.
[quote name='dohdough']
That book was heavily critiqued for being class-blind while playing on racial stereotypes. It also doesn't address the issue of poverty in a way to lessen it's systemic effects and instead, plays on ways to use cultural capital as a way up. This leads to things like being white as the default state and normal. So if you act white; you'll be all right and if you act black; you better step back.
[/QUOTE]
Act white/act black - what does that mean?
[quote name='dohdough']
Committing crimes is a symptom of poverty and not the cause. No one really chooses to be in poverty any more than they choose to be a millionaire.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that no one chooses to be in poverty. Some make bad choices that keep them there, but regardless, it's very difficult to get out.
No one chooses to be a millionaire? I know that you've read a lot about poverty, but have you read much about the wealthy?
The question is "why do they have to dress that way for the club?" Does that mean that they'll drink less? Start less fights? Are there similar rules about wearing too-tight-tees? Dress shirts that are two sizes too big? Spikey hairdos that can blind someone? I guess guidos and rockers should start wearing shirts and slacks too!
Lemme fill you in on a little anecdote from my life. I used to promote at the hottest club in Boston many moons ago. This was when progressive house blew up. Strict dress code of shirt, slacks, shoes, no jeans, no sneakers, no sweats/tees etc. We had rich eurotrash, local guidos, college students from all over, and who could forget the Asians(this part is important). And lemme tell you, there was at least three fights every single night. I'm not going to lie, it was mostly the Asians fighting. These guys were dressed in Gucci, Prada, LV, Armani, etc. After a while, management decided to not let any Asians in the club and they dropped all the promoters that had a connection. After that the club dies and they try to get a more "euro" crowd. Can you guess what happened there? Fights start back up again and Asians are no where to be found. Fast forward a few years and hip hop becomes the new club music. Now we're talking Boston here so it's still a white crowd by a vast majority. Can you guess what happens here too? Same old shit with the fights. The crowd transistions to a predominantly black crowd and you still have more of the same old shit. And what does this mean? It has nothing to do with how rich, poor, white, black, or Asian, you are or how you dress. Drunk people packed into a sardine can will eventually start fights. Now how is this relevant? I'm going to get to that in the next section.
What you're referring to is cultural capital, which is one way that classism manifests itself and in this case, it's steeped in racism. Dressing up in a shirt and slacks is one way of expressing status just as chains, jordans, etc is. There is literally no difference in the reason for wearing such clothing between the two.
[/QUOTE]
A dress code is racist? That's a little far-fetched. People like to dress up to do certain thngs, and they like to see others do the same.
[quote name='dohdough']
That book was heavily critiqued for being class-blind while playing on racial stereotypes. It also doesn't address the issue of poverty in a way to lessen it's systemic effects and instead, plays on ways to use cultural capital as a way up. This leads to things like being white as the default state and normal. So if you act white; you'll be all right and if you act black; you better step back.
[/QUOTE]
Act white/act black - what does that mean?
[quote name='dohdough']
Committing crimes is a symptom of poverty and not the cause. No one really chooses to be in poverty any more than they choose to be a millionaire.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that no one chooses to be in poverty. Some make bad choices that keep them there, but regardless, it's very difficult to get out.
No one chooses to be a millionaire? I know that you've read a lot about poverty, but have you read much about the wealthy?
Last edited by a moderator:
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
Lance Storn just tweeted this:
[quote name='chiwii']A dress code is racist? That's a little far-fetched. People like to dress up to do certain thngs, and they like to see others do the same. [/QUOTE]
Allow me to compare the dress of ravers and "thug wear." Both are generally oversized, include various but similar accessories, hats, sneakers, and a couple other things. But only one of those cultures revolves around psychedelic drugs while swinging flouresent checmical sticks around on strings in a dangerous manner. And before anyone makes comparisons between gangta rap and trance in regards to drug use and gang violence, MDMA use aka rolling on E is far more dangerous than smoking weed and black people in clubs aren't simulating drive by shootings.
It's racist in the same way one would say "I don't hate black people, just n****rs" or "it's not black people that are lazy; it's black 'culture.'"
When you can answer these questions(I'm not asking you to here), we can begin to really examine what those two concepts really mean in relation to eachother instead of looking at them as completely isolated social constructs.
Allow me to compare the dress of ravers and "thug wear." Both are generally oversized, include various but similar accessories, hats, sneakers, and a couple other things. But only one of those cultures revolves around psychedelic drugs while swinging flouresent checmical sticks around on strings in a dangerous manner. And before anyone makes comparisons between gangta rap and trance in regards to drug use and gang violence, MDMA use aka rolling on E is far more dangerous than smoking weed and black people in clubs aren't simulating drive by shootings.
It's racist in the same way one would say "I don't hate black people, just n****rs" or "it's not black people that are lazy; it's black 'culture.'"
You used the wrong backslash.
My point exactly! What makes one culture or aspect of culture more acceptable than others? Why is one thing considered "normal" and how does it shift? Why do these social norms exist and how did these expressions come about?
When you can answer these questions(I'm not asking you to here), we can begin to really examine what those two concepts really mean in relation to eachother instead of looking at them as completely isolated social constructs.
I have. Most of the ones that weren't born in that group still come from relatively privileged households compared to a vast majority of the population. Or maybe you should read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell?
[quote name='dohdough']
I have. Most of the ones that weren't born in that group still come from relatively privileged households compared to a vast majority of the population. Or maybe you should read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell?[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's the best example to that point. Outliers was all about how it's one part luck and one part hard work to be successful (be it wealth, being good at sports etc.).
Just being born with a silver spoon in your mouth isn't enough to make you successful--in terms of actually doing something with your life. It can mean you're automatically wealthy of course.
Gladwell argues that it's firstly luck--be it good genes for sports, some natural talent, access to a computer in the early days of computing (Bill Gates) etc. But what differentiated the truly successful was putting in 10,000 hours or more of practice (Gates' time programming, Beatles' time playing 7 day a week shows in Germany etc.).
More simply it takes some luck/opportunity for sure, but takes a lot of bootstrapping to really make it big according to Gladwell. So I think you're focusing too much on the luck/opportunity part of it, as he has lots of examples (including the Beatles) who made it big from poverty just through putting in a ton of work more than getting lucky (not really lucky to play 8+ hours a day everyday for shit pay in a bar--it was more the work ethic to stick with it and get better that got them big according to Gladwell).
So I think to Gladwell the "silver spoon" thing would be something he'd hypothesize to make it less likely for someone to truly make it big as it provides a disincentive to work hard and put in the 10,000+ hours at anything. Why bother if you're set for life from your inheritance?
TLDR; Gladwell's book isn't about who merely becomes wealthy, but who becomes hugely successful and becomes a pro athlete, famous musician, or industry changing entrepreneur. It's about who truly becomes elite at something, not just who can become rich doing something as being born into it explains a ton of that.
I have. Most of the ones that weren't born in that group still come from relatively privileged households compared to a vast majority of the population. Or maybe you should read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell?[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's the best example to that point. Outliers was all about how it's one part luck and one part hard work to be successful (be it wealth, being good at sports etc.).
Just being born with a silver spoon in your mouth isn't enough to make you successful--in terms of actually doing something with your life. It can mean you're automatically wealthy of course.
Gladwell argues that it's firstly luck--be it good genes for sports, some natural talent, access to a computer in the early days of computing (Bill Gates) etc. But what differentiated the truly successful was putting in 10,000 hours or more of practice (Gates' time programming, Beatles' time playing 7 day a week shows in Germany etc.).
More simply it takes some luck/opportunity for sure, but takes a lot of bootstrapping to really make it big according to Gladwell. So I think you're focusing too much on the luck/opportunity part of it, as he has lots of examples (including the Beatles) who made it big from poverty just through putting in a ton of work more than getting lucky (not really lucky to play 8+ hours a day everyday for shit pay in a bar--it was more the work ethic to stick with it and get better that got them big according to Gladwell).
So I think to Gladwell the "silver spoon" thing would be something he'd hypothesize to make it less likely for someone to truly make it big as it provides a disincentive to work hard and put in the 10,000+ hours at anything. Why bother if you're set for life from your inheritance?
TLDR; Gladwell's book isn't about who merely becomes wealthy, but who becomes hugely successful and becomes a pro athlete, famous musician, or industry changing entrepreneur. It's about who truly becomes elite at something, not just who can become rich doing something as being born into it explains a ton of that.
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't think that's the best example to that point. Outliers was all about how it's one part luck and one part hard work to be successful (be it wealth, being good at sports etc.).
Just being born with a silver spoon in your mouth isn't enough to make you successful--in terms of actually doing something with your life. It can mean you're automatically wealthy of course.
Gladwell argues that it's firstly luck--be it good genes for sports, some natural talent, access to a computer in the early days of computing (Bill Gates) etc. But what differentiated the truly successful was putting in 10,000 hours or more of practice (Gates' time programming, Beatles' time playing 7 day a week shows in Germany etc.).
More simply it takes some luck/opportunity for sure, but takes a lot of bootstrapping to really make it big according to Gladwell. So I think you're focusing too much on the luck/opportunity part of it, as he has lots of examples (including the Beatles) who made it big from poverty just through putting in a ton of work more than getting lucky (not really lucky to play 8+ hours a day everyday for shit pay in a bar--it was more the work ethic to stick with it and get better that got them big according to Gladwell).
So I think to Gladwell the "silver spoon" thing would be something he'd hypothesize to make it less likely for someone to truly make it big as it provides a disincentive to work hard and put in the 10,000+ hours at anything. Why bother if you're set for life from your inheritance?
TLDR; Gladwell's book isn't about who merely becomes wealthy, but who becomes hugely successful and becomes a pro athlete, famous musician, or industry changing entrepreneur. It's about who truly becomes elite at something, not just who can become rich doing something as being born into it explains a ton of that.[/QUOTE]
You're right, it wasn't the best example I could've used and that his thesis was also based on the ability to master a subject...the whole 10000 hours thing. But you know me, it's all about luck and that was what I was kinda focusing on.
I was also working on the assumption that chiwii was only talking about the bootstrapping part.
edit: And since I'm editting this post anyways and there hasn't really been any big news on this case, the Sanford Police Chief is officially resigning today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ef-to-resign-permanently-today/1#.T5WjwatYvi4
Just being born with a silver spoon in your mouth isn't enough to make you successful--in terms of actually doing something with your life. It can mean you're automatically wealthy of course.
Gladwell argues that it's firstly luck--be it good genes for sports, some natural talent, access to a computer in the early days of computing (Bill Gates) etc. But what differentiated the truly successful was putting in 10,000 hours or more of practice (Gates' time programming, Beatles' time playing 7 day a week shows in Germany etc.).
More simply it takes some luck/opportunity for sure, but takes a lot of bootstrapping to really make it big according to Gladwell. So I think you're focusing too much on the luck/opportunity part of it, as he has lots of examples (including the Beatles) who made it big from poverty just through putting in a ton of work more than getting lucky (not really lucky to play 8+ hours a day everyday for shit pay in a bar--it was more the work ethic to stick with it and get better that got them big according to Gladwell).
So I think to Gladwell the "silver spoon" thing would be something he'd hypothesize to make it less likely for someone to truly make it big as it provides a disincentive to work hard and put in the 10,000+ hours at anything. Why bother if you're set for life from your inheritance?
TLDR; Gladwell's book isn't about who merely becomes wealthy, but who becomes hugely successful and becomes a pro athlete, famous musician, or industry changing entrepreneur. It's about who truly becomes elite at something, not just who can become rich doing something as being born into it explains a ton of that.[/QUOTE]
You're right, it wasn't the best example I could've used and that his thesis was also based on the ability to master a subject...the whole 10000 hours thing. But you know me, it's all about luck and that was what I was kinda focusing on.
I was also working on the assumption that chiwii was only talking about the bootstrapping part.
edit: And since I'm editting this post anyways and there hasn't really been any big news on this case, the Sanford Police Chief is officially resigning today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ef-to-resign-permanently-today/1#.T5WjwatYvi4
Yep. I was more getting at that to you luck=born into privilege.
And that's not Gladwell's thesis. It's just having some unique opportunity. So his theory could explain the few who get out of the ghetto and become very successful--they were willing to put in the hard work, and got a lucky break in either having the opportunity to do so, or in having their talent discovered etc.
So his thesis really starts with the bootstrapping. If you're going to be truly successful (again, not just monetarily) the hard work is the key element, just being lucky isn't enough even if born into wealth. It may keep you wealthy, but you aren't going to be an elite talent or have any big impact on the world etc.
And that's not Gladwell's thesis. It's just having some unique opportunity. So his theory could explain the few who get out of the ghetto and become very successful--they were willing to put in the hard work, and got a lucky break in either having the opportunity to do so, or in having their talent discovered etc.
So his thesis really starts with the bootstrapping. If you're going to be truly successful (again, not just monetarily) the hard work is the key element, just being lucky isn't enough even if born into wealth. It may keep you wealthy, but you aren't going to be an elite talent or have any big impact on the world etc.
[quote name='dohdough']Allow me to compare the dress of ravers and "thug wear." Both are generally oversized, include various but similar accessories, hats, sneakers, and a couple other things. But only one of those cultures revolves around psychedelic drugs while swinging flouresent checmical sticks around on strings in a dangerous manner. And before anyone makes comparisons between gangta rap and trance in regards to drug use and gang violence, MDMA use aka rolling on E is far more dangerous than smoking weed and black people in clubs aren't simulating drive by shootings.
It's racist in the same way one would say "I don't hate black people, just n****rs" or "it's not black people that are lazy; it's black 'culture.'"
You used the wrong backslash.
My point exactly! What makes one culture or aspect of culture more acceptable than others? Why is one thing considered "normal" and how does it shift? Why do these social norms exist and how did these expressions come about?
When you can answer these questions(I'm not asking you to here), we can begin to really examine what those two concepts really mean in relation to eachother instead of looking at them as completely isolated social constructs.
I have. Most of the ones that weren't born in that group still come from relatively privileged households compared to a vast majority of the population. Or maybe you should read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell?[/QUOTE]
You made a very well thought out post earlier and I wish I had more time to respond to it so I'll try tonight.
You are spot on; I've worked at many night clubs in some rough areas (Hartford, New Britain, Waterbury, New Haven) and I'd say that the "hip hop" clubs posed the fewest problems as far as fights and nonsense go. It was typically the college bars where that type of shit happened.
I will say that the most unsafe parts of the cities are the dinners and pizza shops at about 3AM after the clubs let out. That's where the stabbings and shootings occur.
But if a club wants to have some barometer of class and try to limit people in thug attire, even if it is catering towards the black hip hop crowd how can that be considered racist?
It's racist in the same way one would say "I don't hate black people, just n****rs" or "it's not black people that are lazy; it's black 'culture.'"
You used the wrong backslash.
My point exactly! What makes one culture or aspect of culture more acceptable than others? Why is one thing considered "normal" and how does it shift? Why do these social norms exist and how did these expressions come about?
When you can answer these questions(I'm not asking you to here), we can begin to really examine what those two concepts really mean in relation to eachother instead of looking at them as completely isolated social constructs.
I have. Most of the ones that weren't born in that group still come from relatively privileged households compared to a vast majority of the population. Or maybe you should read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell?[/QUOTE]
You made a very well thought out post earlier and I wish I had more time to respond to it so I'll try tonight.
You are spot on; I've worked at many night clubs in some rough areas (Hartford, New Britain, Waterbury, New Haven) and I'd say that the "hip hop" clubs posed the fewest problems as far as fights and nonsense go. It was typically the college bars where that type of shit happened.
I will say that the most unsafe parts of the cities are the dinners and pizza shops at about 3AM after the clubs let out. That's where the stabbings and shootings occur.
But if a club wants to have some barometer of class and try to limit people in thug attire, even if it is catering towards the black hip hop crowd how can that be considered racist?
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. I was more getting at that to you luck=born into privilege.
And that's not Gladwell's thesis. It's just having some unique opportunity. So his theory could explain the few who get out of the ghetto and become very successful--they were willing to put in the hard work, and got a lucky break in either having the opportunity to do so, or in having their talent discovered etc.
So his thesis really starts with the bootstrapping. If you're going to be truly successful (again, not just monetarily) the hard work is the key element, just being lucky isn't enough even if born into wealth. It may keep you wealthy, but you aren't going to be an elite talent or have any big impact on the world etc.[/QUOTE]
Right, and I don't disagree at all that to hit that level and be at the top of your game, you have to work your ass off. I don't necessarily agree with his thesis 100%(obviously), but the most important part I get out of it is that he does in fact bring up luck WITH the hardwork when a big part of the cultural narrative is that it's all hard work and nothing else.
And that's not Gladwell's thesis. It's just having some unique opportunity. So his theory could explain the few who get out of the ghetto and become very successful--they were willing to put in the hard work, and got a lucky break in either having the opportunity to do so, or in having their talent discovered etc.
So his thesis really starts with the bootstrapping. If you're going to be truly successful (again, not just monetarily) the hard work is the key element, just being lucky isn't enough even if born into wealth. It may keep you wealthy, but you aren't going to be an elite talent or have any big impact on the world etc.[/QUOTE]
Right, and I don't disagree at all that to hit that level and be at the top of your game, you have to work your ass off. I don't necessarily agree with his thesis 100%(obviously), but the most important part I get out of it is that he does in fact bring up luck WITH the hardwork when a big part of the cultural narrative is that it's all hard work and nothing else.
YendelTrex
Banned
[FONT="][quote name='GBAstar']
I don't deny racism exists. I don't deny that certain groups of people have more hardships due to racism.
But you trying to tie every single act against a minority to racism or sexism or a predjudice of some sort is no dfiferent then someone saying that the devil put dinsoaur bones on the earth. You can't have "...due to racism" be the end all of every discussion just like "because it is part of God's plan" shouldn't be used that way either.
At what point does an individual need to take accountability and start wondering if they create many of their own problems? I'm not talking about Trayvon here...
[/QUOTE]
The response
[quote name='dohdough']
Saying "it's racism" isn't saying "god did it." You're confusing my arguments for YendelTrex's. When I say "it's racism," I say "it's racism because of x, y, and z." Apparently, you're only hearing "it's racism because it's racism." Just because you don't understand the systemic nature of racism, sexism, patriarchy, classism, and a host of other -isms doesn't mean they don't exist.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s look at this closer. A religious fanatic will seek out information that confirms their beliefs dismissing information that contradicts that belief. Many will say, to use dohdough’s words, “because “x, y, and z”. They are not just screaming as dd put it “god did it”. They started out with a perception based from their belief and then they will find and use only the information that fits that... which can be in booksand a host of other things that can be molded to fit and argue that belief/perception. Even if they are wrong they do not see it or refuse to.. That belief dictates what they are seeing. [/FONT]
Then DD, in the rest of his above post, makes the same type of argument a religious fanatic might make… the devil put them there so it is YOU that does not understand dinosaurs. Only he has the proper knowledge and reasoning skills because you can’t see it the way he does. Only his x, y, and z fit because he wants them to and dismisses the rest and anyone or anything that may say otherwise.
So it is not surprising the point was not received by DD. As well as the bulk of your post going by his response.
I’ll stop for now.
I don't deny racism exists. I don't deny that certain groups of people have more hardships due to racism.
But you trying to tie every single act against a minority to racism or sexism or a predjudice of some sort is no dfiferent then someone saying that the devil put dinsoaur bones on the earth. You can't have "...due to racism" be the end all of every discussion just like "because it is part of God's plan" shouldn't be used that way either.
At what point does an individual need to take accountability and start wondering if they create many of their own problems? I'm not talking about Trayvon here...
[/QUOTE]
The response
[quote name='dohdough']
Saying "it's racism" isn't saying "god did it." You're confusing my arguments for YendelTrex's. When I say "it's racism," I say "it's racism because of x, y, and z." Apparently, you're only hearing "it's racism because it's racism." Just because you don't understand the systemic nature of racism, sexism, patriarchy, classism, and a host of other -isms doesn't mean they don't exist.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s look at this closer. A religious fanatic will seek out information that confirms their beliefs dismissing information that contradicts that belief. Many will say, to use dohdough’s words, “because “x, y, and z”. They are not just screaming as dd put it “god did it”. They started out with a perception based from their belief and then they will find and use only the information that fits that... which can be in booksand a host of other things that can be molded to fit and argue that belief/perception. Even if they are wrong they do not see it or refuse to.. That belief dictates what they are seeing. [/FONT]
Then DD, in the rest of his above post, makes the same type of argument a religious fanatic might make… the devil put them there so it is YOU that does not understand dinosaurs. Only he has the proper knowledge and reasoning skills because you can’t see it the way he does. Only his x, y, and z fit because he wants them to and dismisses the rest and anyone or anything that may say otherwise.
So it is not surprising the point was not received by DD. As well as the bulk of your post going by his response.
I’ll stop for now.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='GBAstar']You made a very well thought out post earlier and I wish I had more time to respond to it so I'll try tonight.
You are spot on; I've worked at many night clubs in some rough areas (Hartford, New Britain, Waterbury, New Haven) and I'd say that the "hip hop" clubs posed the fewest problems as far as fights and nonsense go. It was typically the college bars where that type of shit happened.
I will say that the most unsafe parts of the cities are the dinners and pizza shops at about 3AM after the clubs let out. That's where the stabbings and shootings occur.
But if a club wants to have some barometer of class and try to limit people in thug attire, even if it is catering towards the black hip hop crowd how can that be considered racist?[/QUOTE]
Well, why is one considered classy and one not?
I forgot to address the whole thing with the prison id in your other post. This issue also brings up another issue in regards to voter id's. The question is where or how are these people supposed to get id's? For someone that just got out, what are the chances that they have official mail? A few bank statements? A birth certifate? SS card or a whole slew of other things that one would require in order to get that official state id? And it's not like they're free either. Even beyond that, where are they supposed to get the knowledge? Saying that we can just google that shit is coming from a position of hindsight and privilege.
You are spot on; I've worked at many night clubs in some rough areas (Hartford, New Britain, Waterbury, New Haven) and I'd say that the "hip hop" clubs posed the fewest problems as far as fights and nonsense go. It was typically the college bars where that type of shit happened.
I will say that the most unsafe parts of the cities are the dinners and pizza shops at about 3AM after the clubs let out. That's where the stabbings and shootings occur.
But if a club wants to have some barometer of class and try to limit people in thug attire, even if it is catering towards the black hip hop crowd how can that be considered racist?[/QUOTE]
Well, why is one considered classy and one not?
I forgot to address the whole thing with the prison id in your other post. This issue also brings up another issue in regards to voter id's. The question is where or how are these people supposed to get id's? For someone that just got out, what are the chances that they have official mail? A few bank statements? A birth certifate? SS card or a whole slew of other things that one would require in order to get that official state id? And it's not like they're free either. Even beyond that, where are they supposed to get the knowledge? Saying that we can just google that shit is coming from a position of hindsight and privilege.
[quote name='dohdough']Right, and I don't disagree at all that to hit that level and be at the top of your game, you have to work your ass off. I don't necessarily agree with his thesis 100%(obviously), but the most important part I get out of it is that he does in fact bring up luck WITH the hardwork when a big part of the cultural narrative is that it's all hard work and nothing else.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. That's why I liked the book as well. It keeps the emphasis on hardwork which I think is important given where the average work ethic is these days--especially in younger generations.
But at the same time you can't go pure American dream BS that hardwork can get anyone ahead. Hardwork is no guarantee of getting by, much less getting ahead, as luck in getting the right opportunities (and lack of obstacles) is always a huge factor as well.
Agreed. That's why I liked the book as well. It keeps the emphasis on hardwork which I think is important given where the average work ethic is these days--especially in younger generations.
But at the same time you can't go pure American dream BS that hardwork can get anyone ahead. Hardwork is no guarantee of getting by, much less getting ahead, as luck in getting the right opportunities (and lack of obstacles) is always a huge factor as well.
[quote name='dohdough']Allow me to compare the dress of ravers and "thug wear." Both are generally oversized, include various but similar accessories, hats, sneakers, and a couple other things. But only one of those cultures revolves around psychedelic drugs while swinging flouresent checmical sticks around on strings in a dangerous manner. And before anyone makes comparisons between gangta rap and trance in regards to drug use and gang violence, MDMA use aka rolling on E is far more dangerous than smoking weed and black people in clubs aren't simulating drive by shootings.
It's racist in the same way one would say "I don't hate black people, just n****rs" or "it's not black people that are lazy; it's black 'culture.'"
[/QUOTE]
I guess I just disagree that "thug wear" is the only way black people dress, and that not allowing them to wear that clothing in the club is discriminating against them. People of any race who aren't dressed appropriately are turned away.
[quote name='dohdough']
You used the wrong backslash.
[/QUOTE]
thanks
[quote name='dohdough']
My point exactly! What makes one culture or aspect of culture more acceptable than others? Why is one thing considered "normal" and how does it shift? Why do these social norms exist and how did these expressions come about?
When you can answer these questions(I'm not asking you to here), we can begin to really examine what those two concepts really mean in relation to eachother instead of looking at them as completely isolated social constructs.
[/QUOTE]
It seems like humans have always done this. As soon as they figured out a few different ways to clothe themselves, the earliest humans probably decided that certain clothes were better than others. I'm not aware of any culture today that doesn't have expectations on how people dress. Those are good questions, but I doubt that it's something that will ever change.
[quote name='dohdough']
I have. Most of the ones that weren't born in that group still come from relatively privileged households compared to a vast majority of the population. Or maybe you should read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell?[/QUOTE]
I've read Outliers. I think dmaul covered this subject well, so I just want to clarify that I do not believe that people can bootstrap themselves to financial success with hard work alone, or that everyone would be rich if they just worked harder. For people that are moving up from lower or middle class, it's probably usually a lot of hard-work and a little luck. For people born into wealth, obviously it's mostly luck and possibly a little hard work if they are trying to maintain their wealth.
It's racist in the same way one would say "I don't hate black people, just n****rs" or "it's not black people that are lazy; it's black 'culture.'"
[/QUOTE]
I guess I just disagree that "thug wear" is the only way black people dress, and that not allowing them to wear that clothing in the club is discriminating against them. People of any race who aren't dressed appropriately are turned away.
[quote name='dohdough']
You used the wrong backslash.
[/QUOTE]
thanks
[quote name='dohdough']
My point exactly! What makes one culture or aspect of culture more acceptable than others? Why is one thing considered "normal" and how does it shift? Why do these social norms exist and how did these expressions come about?
When you can answer these questions(I'm not asking you to here), we can begin to really examine what those two concepts really mean in relation to eachother instead of looking at them as completely isolated social constructs.
[/QUOTE]
It seems like humans have always done this. As soon as they figured out a few different ways to clothe themselves, the earliest humans probably decided that certain clothes were better than others. I'm not aware of any culture today that doesn't have expectations on how people dress. Those are good questions, but I doubt that it's something that will ever change.
[quote name='dohdough']
I have. Most of the ones that weren't born in that group still come from relatively privileged households compared to a vast majority of the population. Or maybe you should read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell?[/QUOTE]
I've read Outliers. I think dmaul covered this subject well, so I just want to clarify that I do not believe that people can bootstrap themselves to financial success with hard work alone, or that everyone would be rich if they just worked harder. For people that are moving up from lower or middle class, it's probably usually a lot of hard-work and a little luck. For people born into wealth, obviously it's mostly luck and possibly a little hard work if they are trying to maintain their wealth.
YendelTrex
Banned
Sanford board rejects chief's resignation over Trayvon probe
Update at 5:06 p.m. ET: In a reversal, the commissioners vote, 3-2, to reject the resolution to accept Chief Bill Lee's resignation.
Update at 4:59 p.m. ET: Commissioner Velma Williams said that she supported the "no confidence" motion in March "because the way the investigation was handled brought national shame to this city," and that her vote wasn't based on violations of state laws orcity policies.
Update at 4:52 p.m. ET: Mayor Jeff Triplett asks whether an outside evaluator could come in over "three or four months" to decide whether Lee could continue to serve or has become too polarizing a figure.
Update at 4:56 p.m. ET: Mayor Jeff Triplett says "the bottom line .. the crux" of "this whole dog-and-pony show" over past two month is "where was ...policy, procedure, state statute violated" by Chief Bill Lee in the investigation of Trayvon Martin's killing.
"If there were missteps," commissioners Mahany and Jones interject.
Update at 4:45 p.m. ET: Mayor Jeff Triplett asks Commissioner Patty Mahany whether she thinks Chief Bill Lee could still lead the department with the public's confidence. She says that the community is not as divided as portrayed in the media and that she has spoken with African-American residents who disagree with Lee's suspension and removal.
Update at 4:40 p.m. ET: Commissioner Randy Jones says, to applause from the audience, that any outside group that comes to Sanford "to get their 15 minutes" of publicity should "be shown the finger and shown the door."
Update at 4:28 p.m. ET: City Manager Norton Bonaparte responds to a question about why he changed his mind about waiting for results of an outside investigation before deciding on Lee's fate. He says it appears that it will be "three-plus more months" for outside agencies to conclude their investigations and that "it's time Sanford moves forward."
Update at 4:23 p.m. ET: Commissioner Patty Mahany says she is "deeply saddened that someone has to stand up for Sanford and say, 'we are not a racist city, we don't have a racist police department' ..
She says Lee has "paid for the sins of past police chiefs, past officers."
Says she is "deeply sick, deeply disgusted" about the attacks on the city, Lee and commissioners, and "deeply disappointed" in City Manager Norton Bonaparte.
Update at 4:17 p.m. ET: To applause from the audience, Commissioner Randy Jones says he thinks Lee should be reinstated immediately.
"The only thing Chief Lee is guilty of is a bad press conference," says Commissioner Patty Mahany.
She says that Sanford is not divided racially but that it "was invaded" by outside forces.
Update at 4:12 p.m. ET: Commissioner Patty Mahany recommends that Lee's resignation not be accepted.
Update at 4:10 p.m. ET: In concluding, the speaker says Sanford police were following the law in investigating the Trayvon Martin shooting and not "the public opinion of a small minority." He says commissioners should resign and get jobs where they can make their own decisions.
Update at 4:06 p.m. ET: A speaker is challenging the commissioners' March no-confidence vote of the chief, saying, "he did nothing unlawful or illegal.
Update at 4:06 p.m. ET: A speaker is challenging the commissioners' March no-confidence vote of the chief, saying, "he did nothing unlawful or illegal."
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ef-to-resign-permanently-today/1#.T5YZPtnSaN9
edit: a few comments from the link...If he was Black and all the noise was being made by white people , he would be filing a discrimination lawsuit. As it is, the black lynch mob led by Reverends without churches is out after anything that does not fit it interpretation of the few facts they have.
##### %%%%% I agree. All this speculation and condemning people based on public opinion serves no one. Let's let the court try the case and not the press.
Update at 5:06 p.m. ET: In a reversal, the commissioners vote, 3-2, to reject the resolution to accept Chief Bill Lee's resignation.
Update at 4:59 p.m. ET: Commissioner Velma Williams said that she supported the "no confidence" motion in March "because the way the investigation was handled brought national shame to this city," and that her vote wasn't based on violations of state laws orcity policies.
Update at 4:52 p.m. ET: Mayor Jeff Triplett asks whether an outside evaluator could come in over "three or four months" to decide whether Lee could continue to serve or has become too polarizing a figure.
Update at 4:56 p.m. ET: Mayor Jeff Triplett says "the bottom line .. the crux" of "this whole dog-and-pony show" over past two month is "where was ...policy, procedure, state statute violated" by Chief Bill Lee in the investigation of Trayvon Martin's killing.
"If there were missteps," commissioners Mahany and Jones interject.
Update at 4:45 p.m. ET: Mayor Jeff Triplett asks Commissioner Patty Mahany whether she thinks Chief Bill Lee could still lead the department with the public's confidence. She says that the community is not as divided as portrayed in the media and that she has spoken with African-American residents who disagree with Lee's suspension and removal.
Update at 4:40 p.m. ET: Commissioner Randy Jones says, to applause from the audience, that any outside group that comes to Sanford "to get their 15 minutes" of publicity should "be shown the finger and shown the door."
Update at 4:28 p.m. ET: City Manager Norton Bonaparte responds to a question about why he changed his mind about waiting for results of an outside investigation before deciding on Lee's fate. He says it appears that it will be "three-plus more months" for outside agencies to conclude their investigations and that "it's time Sanford moves forward."
Update at 4:23 p.m. ET: Commissioner Patty Mahany says she is "deeply saddened that someone has to stand up for Sanford and say, 'we are not a racist city, we don't have a racist police department' ..
She says Lee has "paid for the sins of past police chiefs, past officers."
Says she is "deeply sick, deeply disgusted" about the attacks on the city, Lee and commissioners, and "deeply disappointed" in City Manager Norton Bonaparte.
Update at 4:17 p.m. ET: To applause from the audience, Commissioner Randy Jones says he thinks Lee should be reinstated immediately.
"The only thing Chief Lee is guilty of is a bad press conference," says Commissioner Patty Mahany.
She says that Sanford is not divided racially but that it "was invaded" by outside forces.
Update at 4:12 p.m. ET: Commissioner Patty Mahany recommends that Lee's resignation not be accepted.
Update at 4:10 p.m. ET: In concluding, the speaker says Sanford police were following the law in investigating the Trayvon Martin shooting and not "the public opinion of a small minority." He says commissioners should resign and get jobs where they can make their own decisions.
Update at 4:06 p.m. ET: A speaker is challenging the commissioners' March no-confidence vote of the chief, saying, "he did nothing unlawful or illegal.
Update at 4:06 p.m. ET: A speaker is challenging the commissioners' March no-confidence vote of the chief, saying, "he did nothing unlawful or illegal."
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ef-to-resign-permanently-today/1#.T5YZPtnSaN9
edit: a few comments from the link...If he was Black and all the noise was being made by white people , he would be filing a discrimination lawsuit. As it is, the black lynch mob led by Reverends without churches is out after anything that does not fit it interpretation of the few facts they have.
##### %%%%% I agree. All this speculation and condemning people based on public opinion serves no one. Let's let the court try the case and not the press.
Last edited by a moderator:
YendelTrex
Banned
Waiting for the inevitable posts from DD. You know like some of these past gems in a long list of gems..
"This is a good example of how racism operates systemically in the US. It's not just about oppression, but how special privileges are given to white people."
" What truth? That whites benefit more systemically than non-white people strictly because they're white? That those that don't use their unearned systemic advantages and privilege to create a more equitable system perpetuate an oppressive system biased against non-whites?"
" I already defined some facets of how racism works and how it pertains to this incident [FONT="]"
I am still waiting for the fanatic (sorry expert, LOL [/FONT][FONT="]http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317558&page=45 see post 897)
[/FONT][FONT="]DD to explain how the label for a mixed race person "White Hispanic" fits in the one drop rule and where I used it to label someone.
"[/FONT][FONT="]Because you, and many others are using the One-Drop Rule when it comes to labeling him as white-Hispanic/Hispanic/Latino."
[/FONT][FONT="]edit: for those unfamilar with the one drop rule..here is some light reading.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html
http://blackhistory.com/content/63228/one-drop-rule
[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]
"This is a good example of how racism operates systemically in the US. It's not just about oppression, but how special privileges are given to white people."
" What truth? That whites benefit more systemically than non-white people strictly because they're white? That those that don't use their unearned systemic advantages and privilege to create a more equitable system perpetuate an oppressive system biased against non-whites?"
" I already defined some facets of how racism works and how it pertains to this incident [FONT="]"
I am still waiting for the fanatic (sorry expert, LOL [/FONT][FONT="]http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317558&page=45 see post 897)
[/FONT][FONT="]DD to explain how the label for a mixed race person "White Hispanic" fits in the one drop rule and where I used it to label someone.
"[/FONT][FONT="]Because you, and many others are using the One-Drop Rule when it comes to labeling him as white-Hispanic/Hispanic/Latino."
[/FONT][FONT="]edit: for those unfamilar with the one drop rule..here is some light reading.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html
http://blackhistory.com/content/63228/one-drop-rule
[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='YendelTrex']Sanford board rejects chief's resignation over Trayvon probe
Update at 5:06 p.m. ET: In a reversal, the commissioners vote, 3-2, to reject the resolution to accept Chief Bill Lee's resignation.
Update at 4:59 p.m. ET: Commissioner Velma Williams said that she supported the "no confidence" motion in March "because the way the investigation was handled brought national shame to this city," and that her vote wasn't based on violations of state laws orcity policies.
Update at 4:52 p.m. ET: Mayor Jeff Triplett asks whether an outside evaluator could come in over "three or four months" to decide whether Lee could continue to serve or has become too polarizing a figure.
Update at 4:56 p.m. ET: Mayor Jeff Triplett says "the bottom line .. the crux" of "this whole dog-and-pony show" over past two month is "where was ...policy, procedure, state statute violated" by Chief Bill Lee in the investigation of Trayvon Martin's killing.
"If there were missteps," commissioners Mahany and Jones interject.
Update at 4:45 p.m. ET: Mayor Jeff Triplett asks Commissioner Patty Mahany whether she thinks Chief Bill Lee could still lead the department with the public's confidence. She says that the community is not as divided as portrayed in the media and that she has spoken with African-American residents who disagree with Lee's suspension and removal.
Update at 4:40 p.m. ET: Commissioner Randy Jones says, to applause from the audience, that any outside group that comes to Sanford "to get their 15 minutes" of publicity should "be shown the finger and shown the door."
Update at 4:28 p.m. ET: City Manager Norton Bonaparte responds to a question about why he changed his mind about waiting for results of an outside investigation before deciding on Lee's fate. He says it appears that it will be "three-plus more months" for outside agencies to conclude their investigations and that "it's time Sanford moves forward."
Update at 4:23 p.m. ET: Commissioner Patty Mahany says she is "deeply saddened that someone has to stand up for Sanford and say, 'we are not a racist city, we don't have a racist police department' ..
She says Lee has "paid for the sins of past police chiefs, past officers."
Says she is "deeply sick, deeply disgusted" about the attacks on the city, Lee and commissioners, and "deeply disappointed" in City Manager Norton Bonaparte.
Update at 4:17 p.m. ET: To applause from the audience, Commissioner Randy Jones says he thinks Lee should be reinstated immediately.
"The only thing Chief Lee is guilty of is a bad press conference," says Commissioner Patty Mahany.
She says that Sanford is not divided racially but that it "was invaded" by outside forces.
Update at 4:12 p.m. ET: Commissioner Patty Mahany recommends that Lee's resignation not be accepted.
Update at 4:10 p.m. ET: In concluding, the speaker says Sanford police were following the law in investigating the Trayvon Martin shooting and not "the public opinion of a small minority." He says commissioners should resign and get jobs where they can make their own decisions.
Update at 4:06 p.m. ET: A speaker is challenging the commissioners' March no-confidence vote of the chief, saying, "he did nothing unlawful or illegal.
Update at 4:06 p.m. ET: A speaker is challenging the commissioners' March no-confidence vote of the chief, saying, "he did nothing unlawful or illegal."
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ef-to-resign-permanently-today/1#.T5YZPtnSaN9
edit: a few comments from the link...If he was Black and all the noise was being made by white people , he would be filing a discrimination lawsuit. As it is, the black lynch mob led by Reverends without churches is out after anything that does not fit it interpretation of the few facts they have.
##### %%%%% I agree. All this speculation and condemning people based on public opinion serves no one. Let's let the court try the case and not the press.[/QUOTE]
love how all the people on twitter is posting they are going to kill him Yet there is nothing reported . Why dont the cops arrest them
Update at 5:06 p.m. ET: In a reversal, the commissioners vote, 3-2, to reject the resolution to accept Chief Bill Lee's resignation.
Update at 4:59 p.m. ET: Commissioner Velma Williams said that she supported the "no confidence" motion in March "because the way the investigation was handled brought national shame to this city," and that her vote wasn't based on violations of state laws orcity policies.
Update at 4:52 p.m. ET: Mayor Jeff Triplett asks whether an outside evaluator could come in over "three or four months" to decide whether Lee could continue to serve or has become too polarizing a figure.
Update at 4:56 p.m. ET: Mayor Jeff Triplett says "the bottom line .. the crux" of "this whole dog-and-pony show" over past two month is "where was ...policy, procedure, state statute violated" by Chief Bill Lee in the investigation of Trayvon Martin's killing.
"If there were missteps," commissioners Mahany and Jones interject.
Update at 4:45 p.m. ET: Mayor Jeff Triplett asks Commissioner Patty Mahany whether she thinks Chief Bill Lee could still lead the department with the public's confidence. She says that the community is not as divided as portrayed in the media and that she has spoken with African-American residents who disagree with Lee's suspension and removal.
Update at 4:40 p.m. ET: Commissioner Randy Jones says, to applause from the audience, that any outside group that comes to Sanford "to get their 15 minutes" of publicity should "be shown the finger and shown the door."
Update at 4:28 p.m. ET: City Manager Norton Bonaparte responds to a question about why he changed his mind about waiting for results of an outside investigation before deciding on Lee's fate. He says it appears that it will be "three-plus more months" for outside agencies to conclude their investigations and that "it's time Sanford moves forward."
Update at 4:23 p.m. ET: Commissioner Patty Mahany says she is "deeply saddened that someone has to stand up for Sanford and say, 'we are not a racist city, we don't have a racist police department' ..
She says Lee has "paid for the sins of past police chiefs, past officers."
Says she is "deeply sick, deeply disgusted" about the attacks on the city, Lee and commissioners, and "deeply disappointed" in City Manager Norton Bonaparte.
Update at 4:17 p.m. ET: To applause from the audience, Commissioner Randy Jones says he thinks Lee should be reinstated immediately.
"The only thing Chief Lee is guilty of is a bad press conference," says Commissioner Patty Mahany.
She says that Sanford is not divided racially but that it "was invaded" by outside forces.
Update at 4:12 p.m. ET: Commissioner Patty Mahany recommends that Lee's resignation not be accepted.
Update at 4:10 p.m. ET: In concluding, the speaker says Sanford police were following the law in investigating the Trayvon Martin shooting and not "the public opinion of a small minority." He says commissioners should resign and get jobs where they can make their own decisions.
Update at 4:06 p.m. ET: A speaker is challenging the commissioners' March no-confidence vote of the chief, saying, "he did nothing unlawful or illegal.
Update at 4:06 p.m. ET: A speaker is challenging the commissioners' March no-confidence vote of the chief, saying, "he did nothing unlawful or illegal."
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ef-to-resign-permanently-today/1#.T5YZPtnSaN9
edit: a few comments from the link...If he was Black and all the noise was being made by white people , he would be filing a discrimination lawsuit. As it is, the black lynch mob led by Reverends without churches is out after anything that does not fit it interpretation of the few facts they have.
##### %%%%% I agree. All this speculation and condemning people based on public opinion serves no one. Let's let the court try the case and not the press.[/QUOTE]
love how all the people on twitter is posting they are going to kill him Yet there is nothing reported . Why dont the cops arrest them
DurbanBrown
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 61 (100%)
Finally a honest sounding article on zimmerman and his past. from yahoo no less. thought this was worth sharing...
http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-prelude-shooting-194235114.html
http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-prelude-shooting-194235114.html
[quote name='DurbanBrown']Finally a honest sounding article on zimmerman and his past. from yahoo no less. thought this was worth sharing...
http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-prelude-shooting-194235114.html[/QUOTE]
Yup. It's as honest as how some people describe Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings relationship as a "romance."
It's a fluff piece to meant evoke sympathy for Zimmerman.
http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-prelude-shooting-194235114.html[/QUOTE]
Yup. It's as honest as how some people describe Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings relationship as a "romance."
It's a fluff piece to meant evoke sympathy for Zimmerman.
YendelTrex
Banned
[quote name='dohdough']Yup. It's as honest as how some people describe Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings relationship as a "romance."
It's a fluff piece to meant evoke sympathy for Zimmerman.[/QUOTE]
Damn you are out there by equating this Zimmerman story with a fabricated story, hoax, and a fraud.
If you are saying the Thomas Jefferson hoax about having children with Henning and saying that it was journalistic fraud (which it was) and racial intimidation then even that does not fit with the Zimmerman story the poster posted. Fluff piece for zimmerman maybe, but out-and-out a hoax and a fraud I would say that is quite a stretch....even for you.
edit: how you coming along with finding something to fit your fanaticism and how YOU have been using the one drop rule incorrectly?
(posts 897 and 903)
It's a fluff piece to meant evoke sympathy for Zimmerman.[/QUOTE]
Damn you are out there by equating this Zimmerman story with a fabricated story, hoax, and a fraud.
If you are saying the Thomas Jefferson hoax about having children with Henning and saying that it was journalistic fraud (which it was) and racial intimidation then even that does not fit with the Zimmerman story the poster posted. Fluff piece for zimmerman maybe, but out-and-out a hoax and a fraud I would say that is quite a stretch....even for you.
edit: how you coming along with finding something to fit your fanaticism and how YOU have been using the one drop rule incorrectly?
(posts 897 and 903)
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']Yup. It's as honest as how some people describe Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings relationship as a "romance."
It's a fluff piece to meant evoke sympathy for Zimmerman.[/QUOTE]
Rather than just calling it a fluff piece, which is easy to do and accomplishes nothing....why don't you point out something that is innacurate about the story.
The article is probably uncomfortable to those who just want to paint Zimmerman as a one dimensional monster, but what specifically about it is unfair or innacurate.
It's a fluff piece to meant evoke sympathy for Zimmerman.[/QUOTE]
Rather than just calling it a fluff piece, which is easy to do and accomplishes nothing....why don't you point out something that is innacurate about the story.
The article is probably uncomfortable to those who just want to paint Zimmerman as a one dimensional monster, but what specifically about it is unfair or innacurate.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
Slightly OT, but slightly not.
Dohdough, what do you think of Bruins fans hating on my boy Joel Ward with racial tweets?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/joel-ward-goal-sparks-racist-tweets_n_1455975.html
EDIT:
He's not my boy, he just got my team to the next round of the playoffs.
Dohdough, what do you think of Bruins fans hating on my boy Joel Ward with racial tweets?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/joel-ward-goal-sparks-racist-tweets_n_1455975.html
EDIT:
He's not my boy, he just got my team to the next round of the playoffs.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='YendelTrex']Damn you are out there by equating this Zimmerman story with a fabricated story, hoax, and a fraud.[/quote]
*Sigh* Here's another history lesson for you. Slaves that worked in the master's house were usually young women that were regularly raped by the master. Calling it a "romance" is putting a revisionistic romantic spin on rape and sexual abuse. The fact that this is lost on you is not surprising from your ignorance about our country's racial history especially when considering how a vast majority of black people are descended from slaves with a good percentage of them being multiracial with white genealogy due to the all to common occurrence of the Jefferson/Hemings type.
Or you can go
yourself. Either way is fine by me.
*Sigh* Here's another history lesson for you. Slaves that worked in the master's house were usually young women that were regularly raped by the master. Calling it a "romance" is putting a revisionistic romantic spin on rape and sexual abuse. The fact that this is lost on you is not surprising from your ignorance about our country's racial history especially when considering how a vast majority of black people are descended from slaves with a good percentage of them being multiracial with white genealogy due to the all to common occurrence of the Jefferson/Hemings type.
First off, it's Hemings not "Henning" and the Hemings line was confirmed by DNA analysis as being a descendant of Jefferson's, while another alleged line, the Carrs, was tested not to be. How you go from interpreting that to outright journalistic fraud is beyond me especially when you acknowledge that the yahoo article is a fluff piece.
How about you go into detail about my "fanaticism" as well as comparing and contrasting casta with the one drop rule.
Or you can go
yourself. Either way is fine by me.[quote name='KingBroly']Slightly OT, but slightly not.
Dohdough, what do you think of Bruins fans hating on my boy Joel Ward with racial tweets?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/joel-ward-goal-sparks-racist-tweets_n_1455975.html
EDIT:
He's not my boy, he just got my team to the next round of the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
That's sad.
Dohdough, what do you think of Bruins fans hating on my boy Joel Ward with racial tweets?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/joel-ward-goal-sparks-racist-tweets_n_1455975.html
EDIT:
He's not my boy, he just got my team to the next round of the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
That's sad.
YendelTrex
Banned
[quote name='dohdough']*Sigh* Here's another history lesson for you. Slaves that worked in the master's house were usually young women that were regularly raped by the master. Calling it a "romance" is putting a revisionistic romantic spin on rape and sexual abuse. The fact that this is lost on you is not surprising from your ignorance about our country's racial history especially when considering how a vast majority of black people are descended from slaves with a good percentage of them being multiracial with white genealogy due to the all to common occurrence of the Jefferson/Hemings type.
First off, it's Hemings not "Henning" and the Hemings line was confirmed by DNA analysis as being a descendant of Jefferson's, while another alleged line, the Carrs, was tested not to be. How you go from interpreting that to outright journalistic fraud is beyond me especially when you acknowledge that the yahoo article is a fluff piece.
How about you go into detail about my "fanaticism" as well as comparing and contrasting casta with the one drop rule.
Or you can go yourself. Either way is fine by me.[/QUOTE]
I have went into your fanaticism and the fact that you would even bring a thomas jefferson hoax and fraud into a poster posting a link to an article on zimmerman shows it even more. It makes no sense for you to bring that up here and now as a response to an article about ZIMMERMAN. I will not argue with you here over Thomas Jefferson having kids with that slave being a hoax and fraud as it is not the appropriate place. Nor will I get into some crap about slaves either it is not appropriate here either. Start another thread then I will be glad to have it out with you. With TJ the one drop rule or anything else you have brought up in this thread that has been incorrect or inappropriate on your part and or not the place for it. I will take you to task so bring it on.
Damn you really have some ISSUES.... seriously. Thomas Jefferson in response to a zimmerman story? Damn!!
http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-prelude-shooting-194235114.html
Here I can do it too. Remember that Barney episode well it is the same thing as this piece about zimmerman. Or you know that Hitler romance story same thing as here.
Give me a break doddough. Spin your BS elsewhere you know like maybe your equivalant to stormfront.
................................................................................................
edit...
[quote name='caltab']Rather than just calling it a fluff piece, which is easy to do and accomplishes nothing....why don't you point out something that is innacurate about the story.
The article is probably uncomfortable to those who just want to paint Zimmerman as a one dimensional monster, but what specifically about it is unfair or innacurate.[/QUOTE]
Well said...
First off, it's Hemings not "Henning" and the Hemings line was confirmed by DNA analysis as being a descendant of Jefferson's, while another alleged line, the Carrs, was tested not to be. How you go from interpreting that to outright journalistic fraud is beyond me especially when you acknowledge that the yahoo article is a fluff piece.
How about you go into detail about my "fanaticism" as well as comparing and contrasting casta with the one drop rule.
Or you can go
yourself. Either way is fine by me.[/QUOTE]I have went into your fanaticism and the fact that you would even bring a thomas jefferson hoax and fraud into a poster posting a link to an article on zimmerman shows it even more. It makes no sense for you to bring that up here and now as a response to an article about ZIMMERMAN. I will not argue with you here over Thomas Jefferson having kids with that slave being a hoax and fraud as it is not the appropriate place. Nor will I get into some crap about slaves either it is not appropriate here either. Start another thread then I will be glad to have it out with you. With TJ the one drop rule or anything else you have brought up in this thread that has been incorrect or inappropriate on your part and or not the place for it. I will take you to task so bring it on.
Damn you really have some ISSUES.... seriously. Thomas Jefferson in response to a zimmerman story? Damn!!
http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-prelude-shooting-194235114.html
Here I can do it too. Remember that Barney episode well it is the same thing as this piece about zimmerman. Or you know that Hitler romance story same thing as here.
Give me a break doddough. Spin your BS elsewhere you know like maybe your equivalant to stormfront.
................................................................................................
edit...
[quote name='caltab']Rather than just calling it a fluff piece, which is easy to do and accomplishes nothing....why don't you point out something that is innacurate about the story.
The article is probably uncomfortable to those who just want to paint Zimmerman as a one dimensional monster, but what specifically about it is unfair or innacurate.[/QUOTE]
Well said...
Last edited by a moderator:
fluff piece though it may be, I still hold to GZ not having a hard-on for killing a black kid. It's just a series of bad decisions leading to a terrible tragedy. Even if he gets off on Murder II, he'll get crucified in a wrongful death civil trial which would be more advantageous to the family anyways.
[quote name='caltab']Rather than just calling it a fluff piece, which is easy to do and accomplishes nothing....why don't you point out something that is innacurate about the story.
The article is probably uncomfortable to those who just want to paint Zimmerman as a one dimensional monster, but what specifically about it is unfair or innacurate.[/QUOTE]
Are you implying that the piece is accurate, fair, and ISN'T attempting to elicit sympathy for Zimmerman? Even Hitler loved his dogs and had a girlfriend. Hell, I bet Zimmerman even mowed his lawn and gave out candy to black kids on Halloween. He probably also gave his parents Christmas gifts too. Why not include those things too humanize him some more? Or how about an account of his marriage proposal, wedding, honeymoon, and anniversary surprises?
The whole piece oozes with trying to portray Zimmerman as a good Catholic boy that always tried to do the right thing, getting into a little trouble, but most of all NOT RACIST as if the primary manifestations of racism these days are a bunch of white people shouting "n****r" at black people while trying to lynch them. The passive voice of the author saying "Moments later, Martin lay dead with a bullet in his chest." acts as if Zimmerman is divorced from his actions of being the one that pulled the trigger and killed Martin. It's the same passive voice bullshit that Zimmerman pulled on his website about "a life changing event that happened to him" as if he wasn't responsible for it.
[quote name='KingBroly']Slightly OT, but slightly not.
Dohdough, what do you think of Bruins fans hating on my boy Joel Ward with racial tweets?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/joel-ward-goal-sparks-racist-tweets_n_1455975.html[/QUOTE]
I live in Boston. A lot of people in Boston are racist. People that made those tweets are racist. Lots of people in general are racist and supported by institutional racism. So I'm not surprised? Should I be? Why don't you tell us what you think about it? I'm sure everyone already knows what I think.
The article is probably uncomfortable to those who just want to paint Zimmerman as a one dimensional monster, but what specifically about it is unfair or innacurate.[/QUOTE]
Are you implying that the piece is accurate, fair, and ISN'T attempting to elicit sympathy for Zimmerman? Even Hitler loved his dogs and had a girlfriend. Hell, I bet Zimmerman even mowed his lawn and gave out candy to black kids on Halloween. He probably also gave his parents Christmas gifts too. Why not include those things too humanize him some more? Or how about an account of his marriage proposal, wedding, honeymoon, and anniversary surprises?
The whole piece oozes with trying to portray Zimmerman as a good Catholic boy that always tried to do the right thing, getting into a little trouble, but most of all NOT RACIST as if the primary manifestations of racism these days are a bunch of white people shouting "n****r" at black people while trying to lynch them. The passive voice of the author saying "Moments later, Martin lay dead with a bullet in his chest." acts as if Zimmerman is divorced from his actions of being the one that pulled the trigger and killed Martin. It's the same passive voice bullshit that Zimmerman pulled on his website about "a life changing event that happened to him" as if he wasn't responsible for it.
[quote name='KingBroly']Slightly OT, but slightly not.
Dohdough, what do you think of Bruins fans hating on my boy Joel Ward with racial tweets?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/joel-ward-goal-sparks-racist-tweets_n_1455975.html[/QUOTE]
I live in Boston. A lot of people in Boston are racist. People that made those tweets are racist. Lots of people in general are racist and supported by institutional racism. So I'm not surprised? Should I be? Why don't you tell us what you think about it? I'm sure everyone already knows what I think.
[quote name='dohdough']Are you implying that the piece is accurate, fair, and ISN'T attempting to elicit sympathy for Zimmerman? Even Hitler loved his dogs and had a girlfriend. Hell, I bet Zimmerman even mowed his lawn and gave out candy to black kids on Halloween. He probably also gave his parents Christmas gifts too. Why not include those things too humanize him some more? Or how about an account of his marriage proposal, wedding, honeymoon, and anniversary surprises?
The whole piece oozes with trying to portray Zimmerman as a good Catholic boy that always tried to do the right thing, getting into a little trouble, but most of all NOT RACIST as if the primary manifestations of racism these days are a bunch of white people shouting "n****r" at black people while trying to lynch them. The passive voice of the author saying "Moments later, Martin lay dead with a bullet in his chest." acts as if Zimmerman is divorced from his actions of being the one that pulled the trigger and killed Martin. It's the same passive voice bullshit that Zimmerman pulled on his website about "a life changing event that happened to him" as if he wasn't responsible for it.
I live in Boston. A lot of people in Boston are racist. People that made those tweets are racist. Lots of people in general are racist and supported by institutional racism. So I'm not surprised? Should I be? Why don't you tell us what you think about it? I'm sure everyone already knows what I think.[/QUOTE]
I am interested in what you think; I always wondered how you can be a true sports fan AND blatantly racist. I think diversity is great for hockey and will only bring in a larger fanbase.
I'm an all New England fan and I always wondered how you could tweet shit like that and then celebrate when an all black Celtic starting five wins the NBA championship.
It has been a great decade or so of sports in the greater Boston Area... sometimes I don't understand what is wrong with people.
The whole piece oozes with trying to portray Zimmerman as a good Catholic boy that always tried to do the right thing, getting into a little trouble, but most of all NOT RACIST as if the primary manifestations of racism these days are a bunch of white people shouting "n****r" at black people while trying to lynch them. The passive voice of the author saying "Moments later, Martin lay dead with a bullet in his chest." acts as if Zimmerman is divorced from his actions of being the one that pulled the trigger and killed Martin. It's the same passive voice bullshit that Zimmerman pulled on his website about "a life changing event that happened to him" as if he wasn't responsible for it.
I live in Boston. A lot of people in Boston are racist. People that made those tweets are racist. Lots of people in general are racist and supported by institutional racism. So I'm not surprised? Should I be? Why don't you tell us what you think about it? I'm sure everyone already knows what I think.[/QUOTE]
I am interested in what you think; I always wondered how you can be a true sports fan AND blatantly racist. I think diversity is great for hockey and will only bring in a larger fanbase.
I'm an all New England fan and I always wondered how you could tweet shit like that and then celebrate when an all black Celtic starting five wins the NBA championship.
It has been a great decade or so of sports in the greater Boston Area... sometimes I don't understand what is wrong with people.
YendelTrex
Banned
Oh snap "hitler" how did I see that coming? Also unless it paints zimmerman AS RACIST then DD will have nothing to do with it.
HITLER??!! Thomas Jefferson and a hoax!! dd is just to effing predictable!!!
(897,910, 915, 903)
HITLER??!! Thomas Jefferson and a hoax!! dd is just to effing predictable!!!
(897,910, 915, 903)
bread's done