Is the entire city of Buffalo, New York guilty of black on white racism?

[quote name='Quillion']You don't get it; you think that you do, but you don't. You can't begin to get it until you understand that you don't.[/QUOTE]

.

Also, for gargus and everyone else who thinks that racism will disappear when we stop talking about it:
http://www.amazon.com/Racism-withou...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280770148&sr=8-1

Buy it, read it, think about it.

Let me put it to you this way: your neighbors have weird sexual fetishes. All of them do. Possibly you, too. How often do you talk about it in the public realm?

(i mean, as long as the vs forum has turned into the "false equivalency forum," let's just go fuckin' hogwild.)
 
[quote name='Knoell']I was letting Sporadics assumptions of the reasons for the ladys actions pass to move the discussion along. I still don't think a lady with a daughter buying a gun when 1800 young men come to town is more racism than just protecting her family.

LOL DORINO STILL DOESN'T GET THE POINT OF THE THREAD.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Sporadic']I DON'T SEE RACE WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP SO WHAT THE NEW MEN IN TOWN ARE MOSTLY MINORITIES I TOLD YOU I DON'T SEE RACE THEY ARE JUST MEN TO ME SO WHAT THE LOCALS PUT UP SIGNS LIKE NO PANTS ON FLOOR ALLOWED AND PLAY COUNTRY MUSIC AT THE LOCAL TAVERN TO DRIVE AWAY THE NEW PEOPLE THAT ISN'T RACIST I DON'T SEE RACE WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP THEY ARE CLEARLY UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE IT WAS A LARGE INFLUX OF MEN STOP LOOKING FOR RACIAL ISSUES I DON'T SEE RACE AND YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER[/QUOTE]

:drool:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

Let me put it to you this way: your neighbors have weird sexual fetishes. All of them do. Possibly you, too. How often do you talk about it in the public realm?

[/QUOTE]

i have this one fantasy where i
:error:
 
[quote name='mykevermin'].

Also, for gargus and everyone else who thinks that racism will disappear when we stop talking about it:
http://www.amazon.com/Racism-withou...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280770148&sr=8-1

Buy it, read it, think about it.

Let me put it to you this way: your neighbors have weird sexual fetishes. All of them do. Possibly you, too. How often do you talk about it in the public realm?

(i mean, as long as the vs forum has turned into the "false equivalency forum," let's just go fuckin' hogwild.)[/QUOTE]

Should we start highlighting everyones sexual fetishes on the national news? If my neighbor next door to me loves tentacle porn does that mean the whole block does? What about 3 out of 50 neighbors?

It isn't about not talking about it, its about not freaking out whenever you hear a wisp of racism. Talking about it the way the news is doing it is only increasing tensions. White people are getting angry that everything they do is examined for racism, and black people are getting angry that the news is saying white people do all these things because of race. The whole thing is just ridiculous, if someone is being outwardly racist sure, shun the hell out of them, but I am sick of the search for racial undertones in everything.
 
[quote name='Knoell']It isn't about not talking about it, its about not freaking out whenever you hear a wisp of racism. Talking about it the way the news is doing it is only increasing tensions. White people are getting angry that everything they do is examined for racism, and black people are getting angry that the news is saying white people do all these things because of race. The whole thing is just ridiculous, if someone is being outwardly racist sure, shun the hell out of them, but I am sick of the search for racial undertones in everything.[/QUOTE]

Prove it and show your work. This is a bold claim.
 
[quote name='Clak']You think he even knows what you posted above? I'd bet good money he thinks it refers to saltines. You on the other hand know the history behind the word n!gger and the feelings it causes. Stop trying to find a double standard here.[/QUOTE]

Actually that's exactly what you're describing, a double standard (thrown in with some ends-justify-the-means). Knoell may be trolling but that doesn't excuse what the BK guy did.

It's fine if you're laughing at the BK guy because he is acting ignorant. It isn't fine if you're laughing because you think it's OK.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Should we start highlighting everyones sexual fetishes on the national news? If my neighbor next door to me loves tentacle porn does that mean the whole block does? What about 3 out of 50 neighbors?

It isn't about not talking about it, its about not freaking out whenever you hear a wisp of racism. Talking about it the way the news is doing it is only increasing tensions. White people are getting angry that everything they do is examined for racism, and black people are getting angry that the news is saying white people do all these things because of race. The whole thing is just ridiculous, if someone is being outwardly racist sure, shun the hell out of them, but I am sick of the search for racial undertones in everything.[/QUOTE]
If you're getting your feelings hurt about "racial undertones," I guess it's a good thing that you're not a person of color that actually has to deal with racism and discrimination on a daily basis or else you'd have to commit suicide or something.

Here's a helpful hint: Go learn about real racism and institutionalized racism instead of sperging about "reverse racism," double standards, and your inability to call people n*****. The book that someone referred you to is a good starting point. If you don't want to spend the money, then spend an hour learning about white privilege and racism lite and watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj5vFl-YxaI
 
Despite making that other thread, I don't necessarily think everyone in that town is racist, although with such a low population the percentage may be fairly high. The people interviewed for that story sure seemed to be though, if they represent most people of the town then it may be fairly high. I know people like to keep their small little towns the same and hate anything they see as foreign or different, but fighting it and acting like jerks isn't going to help anything. If any of them had half a brain they would do the capitalistic thing and try to capitalize on having all of those new people there. Instead they act like all the new people have the plague or something.
 
[quote name='camoor']Actually that's exactly what you're describing, a double standard (thrown in with some ends-justify-the-means). Knoell may be trolling but that doesn't excuse what the BK guy did.

It's fine if you're laughing at the BK guy because he is acting ignorant. It isn't fine if you're laughing because you think it's OK.[/QUOTE]
Knowing that the BK kid is black, we can safely assume that he's dealt with both overt and institutional racism that has a pretty marked impact on his ability to achieve academic, economic, and social advancement due to a white person, where as the OP was called a cracker in which there is no actual harm done beyond some self-deluded sense of the social pecking order being slightly disrupted for a moment.

Your point of it being "ok" is irrelevant because there is literally no harm done and there is literally no system of oppression for white people on a racial basis by black people.
 
[quote name='camoor']Actually that's exactly what you're describing, a double standard (thrown in with some ends-justify-the-means). Knoell may be trolling but that doesn't excuse what the BK guy did.

It's fine if you're laughing at the BK guy because he is acting ignorant. It isn't fine if you're laughing because you think it's OK.[/QUOTE]
It would be a double standard if all things were equal, but they aren't in that situation. If I called someone a n!gger without having any idea of the meaning or history of the word, would I still be racist? Now I know Knoell will say yes, but without knowing the meaning or history of a word it loses it's power, now the person you say that to may not know you're ignorant of it's meaning, but I'm sure they'd be more than happy to educate you about it.

Some guy calling Knoell a cracker can't be compared, because as I said, the guy probably thinks it refers to a snack food. Knoell on the other hand, I hope, knows the impact of using a word like n!gger. As a matter of fact, if it really bothered Knoell (of course it didn't) he might take the time to explain to the man why it's such an insulting word.

That explanation that Knoell posted is only one of the many possible sources of the term "cracker", many refer to a person's job. Even then it basically meant someone who was poor, so the guy basically called Knoell poor, how horrible.
 
I'd like to again remind everyone that racism deals with race only, hating someone for any other reason is not racism. No matter what that other reason is, it isn't racism.
 
In theory, I'd agree with you Clak. That's the way it should be.

But in practice, today, if you are white and dislike anyone, for any reason other than race, that happens to also be a minority race, you are considered by most, a racist.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']In theory, I'd agree with you Clak. That's the way it should be.

But in practice, today, if you are white and dislike anyone, for any reason other than race, that happens to also be a minority race, you are considered by most, a racist.[/QUOTE]
Right, it's not like white race baiting conservative politicians have been using coded language or anything while having others parrot it for the last 45 years, would give people that idea.

Riddle me this: If a person isn't trained or socialized, much less experienced it, to recognize racism, how is it that they should even be taken as an authority to say what is or isn't racist?
 
There is no new America. Obama got elected for the sole purpose of being White America's whipping boy. From now on, they'll just say, "Oh no. We can't have another black president. You remember what that Hussein boy did?" And that'll be it. We'll just have more GWs and Al Gores until the revolution comes.

There. I said it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']In theory, I'd agree with you Clak. That's the way it should be.

But in practice, today, if you are white and dislike anyone, for any reason other than race, that happens to also be a minority race, you are considered by most, a racist.[/QUOTE]
And that is of course not true is race isn't involved as it would have to be in order to be racism. However, that is also what I usually use to explain why so called "reverse racism" is at least much harder to prove, if not impossible. There are any number of reasons other than race for a black person to hate white people.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So a story about a FEW people from a small town saying they are nervous about so many new people around can condemn that town to racism, but I cannot condemn my city to racism because someone was racist towards me?

Simply put, I don't want to condemn my city to racists because of one fool, and I don't want to see other cities or towns or groups condemned to that same fate because of almost could be racism situations.[/QUOTE]

Right, I'm sure you were up in arms over the ACORN 'scandal'.

edit: I think this superb comic sums up this thread & Knoell & his situation VERY well:

1275870970429.png

Apparently at CAG you can say cracker but you can't say n!gger. QED CAG and CheapyD are guilty of a double standard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']Some guy calling Knoell a cracker can't be compared, because as I said, the guy probably thinks it refers to a snack food. Knoell on the other hand, I hope, knows the impact of using a word like n!gger.[/QUOTE]

So your arguement is:

Person of race A calls person of race B a racial epithet.
If person of race B understands the historical context of the epithet it's hurtful and wrong.
If person of race B doesn't understand the historical context of the eptithet then it is so trivial as to be uncompararble to the first case.

That's 'ends justifies the means' dude.
 
[quote name='camoor']So your arguement is:

Person of race A calls person of race B a racial epithet.
If person of race B understands the historical context of the epithet it's hurtful and wrong.
If person of race B doesn't understand the historical context of the eptithet then it is so trivial as to be uncompararble to the first case.

That's 'ends justifies the means' dude.[/QUOTE]
The ends justify the means? This doesn't mean what you think it means and isn't applicable to this scenario. But you know what does fit? False analogy.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'd like to again remind everyone that racism deals with race only, hating someone for any other reason is not racism. No matter what that other reason is, it isn't racism.[/QUOTE]

One of the few times I agree with you. Unfortunately this is never the case because whenever a situation arises that a white person debating or having a conflict with a black person or vice versa for any reason, the media and anyone who is listening holds their breath because GASP! its a white person having a conflict with a black person, or vice versa.

If I sincerely told a white co-worker that she needs to learn how to speak better because she is getting her words mixed up, would other peoples reactions be different if it were a black co-worker? Remember, I'm not making fun, but sincerely telling her the truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']So your arguement is:

Person of race A calls person of race B a racial epithet.
If person of race B understands the historical context of the epithet it's hurtful and wrong.
If person of race B doesn't understand the historical context of the eptithet then it is so trivial as to be uncompararble to the first case.

That's 'ends justifies the means' dude.[/QUOTE]

Got it backwards. This is what he meant:

Person of race A calls person of race B a racial epithet.
If person of race A understands the historical context of the epithet it's hurtful and wrong.
If person of race A doesn't understand the historical context of the eptithet then it is so trivial as to be uncompararble to the first case.

In scenario 1 (N Word), the name-caller is using a word who knows will bring back racial tensions from America's darker past.

In scenario 2 (Cracker), the name-caller just uses the word, which he may know is offensive. However, he does not know the degree of its offense.

Honestly, I wouldn't even know the historical background of cracker if it hadn't been mentioned in this thread. I really thought it was only because crackers are white. It would be like calling a black a chocolate bar. While it may be offensive to some overly sensitive people, it is hardly not newsworthy.
 
[quote name='vince220']Got it backwards. This is what he meant:

Person of race A calls person of race B a racial epithet.
If person of race A understands the historical context of the epithet it's hurtful and wrong.
If person of race A doesn't understand the historical context of the eptithet then it is so trivial as to be uncompararble to the first case.

In scenario 1 (N Word), the name-caller is using a word who knows will bring back racial tensions from America's darker past.

In scenario 2 (Cracker), the name-caller just uses the word, which he may know is offensive. However, he does not know the degree of its offense.

Honestly, I wouldn't even know the historical background of cracker if it hadn't been mentioned in this thread. I really thought it was only because crackers are white. It would be like calling a black a chocolate bar. While it may be offensive to some overly sensitive people, it is hardly not newsworthy.[/QUOTE]

Give me a break. I have never heard anyone called 'vanilla' or 'salt' as an insult.

This is some guy Knoell never met and doesn't know. The guy called Knoell a cracker and laughed at him. Loud enough for Knoell to hear. The guy knew it was a racial epithet, he knew it was offensive, and he was trying to get a rise out of Knoell. The guy was a bully and he used race to do his bullying. Like any bully I bet he felt like a big man. Regardless of what Knoell says now I bet he didn't feel too good at the time.

Every case is different. But saying that this type of case is so special that it cannot even be compared to other incidents involving racial epithets is lunacy.
 
It's special because it's probably the only time Knoell has ever been called a cracker. I can't count the number of times I've heard country folk call me $$$$er under their breath or to my face.

Then again, I'm sure Knoell's feelings were hurt much more than mine so what do we do? Maybe he should file a complaint with the business and the ACLU.
 
[quote name='depascal22']It's special because it's probably the only time Knoell has ever been called a cracker. I can't count the number of times I've heard country folk call me $$$$er under their breath or to my face.

Then again, I'm sure Knoell's feelings were hurt much more than mine so what do we do? Maybe he should file a complaint with the business and the ACLU.[/QUOTE]

How do you know this? Lol making stuff up now. now number of times someone has been a victim of racism factors in to the sensitivty of it.
 
Yes, it does. You were butthurt enough to run here and tell. Maybe he'll get detention or something.

Have you ever been called a cracker before? Everything points to no but please tell me I'm wrong.
 
Here's my $.02. I'm a white guy from an area that is a bit heavier on the non white side.

I'm gonna break it down for everyone so simple, you'll smack your own forehead for not getting it in the first place.

If a black person calls a white person a cracker, the white person cries
If a white person calls a black person a n----- , the white person cries

if someone calls you a chair and it hurts your feelings, then it does. It doesn't matter what the word is they used, all that matters is that it bugs ya. It all depends on how you handle it. If you get violent about it and want to shoot someone, then you need to evolve as a human a bit more. If you can shrug it off and consider the other just ignorant, then you've proven how much of an adult you are.
 
slide posts on Goozex now and it's like stepping into a time machine. You have some people that try to decode his language and others that laugh nervously like he's not completely off his rocker.
 
[quote name='camoor']So your arguement is:

Person of race A calls person of race B a racial epithet.
If person of race B understands the historical context of the epithet it's hurtful and wrong.
If person of race B doesn't understand the historical context of the eptithet then it is so trivial as to be uncompararble to the first case.

That's 'ends justifies the means' dude.[/QUOTE]
If I called you a fucking idiot and you didn't know what an idiot was, would it be hurtful to you? I'm not calling you that, I'm just using it as an example. Besides, I meant the person saying it, not the person it's being said to. If you called me a fucking idiot and I found out you didn't know what that meant it would lessen the impact. Thats' why I say this isn't the same thing, because I can almost guarantee the guy calling Knoell a cracker again, thinks it's a salty snack.

Conscious understanding of what you're saying counts for a lot, at least to me.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Yes, it does. You were butthurt enough to run here and tell. Maybe he'll get detention or something.

Have you ever been called a cracker before? Everything points to no but please tell me I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]


You still aren't getting it. The point isn't at all that I was called a cracker, it was the fact that I sarcastically called the entire city racist because of one fools actions. You all vehemently posted against that declaration which in fact proved my point that it is ridiculous to do something like that. So let's refrain from posting news stories that paint entire groups of people with such generalizations (ie the town of 1500 is rotten with racism). I am done in this thread now, but you can continue to devolve into this type of response:

[quote name='depascal22']Knoell didn't do either. He posted about it on a gaming site. [/QUOTE]

Don't bother responding to any more threads about politics since this is only a gaming site, why bother discussing anything important?
 
This is when everybody gives up, Knoell stops posting, and then he goes on believing he actually made some kind of point.

We really should have some kind of sticky for logical fallacies.
 
So you never really made a point, Knoell. Like I said, this is a gaming site with a vs. forum. You brought neither gaming or vs. to this particular spot.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You still aren't getting it. The point isn't at all that I was called a cracker, it was the fact that I sarcastically called the entire city racist because of one fools actions. You all vehemently posted against that declaration which in fact proved my point that it is ridiculous to do something like that. So let's refrain from posting news stories that paint entire groups of people with such generalizations (ie the town of 1500 is rotten with racism). I am done in this thread now, but you can continue to devolve into this type of response:[/QUOTE]

I don't know if you're really done responding or done reading or what, but I think I know what has happened in this thread. Nearly everyone in this thread has been ridiculing you because of your silly racial analogies. However, your "point" had nothing to do with race. The point you were trying to make is that we should not make generalizations based on a small group of people. All racial points aside, this cannot be validly compared for one reason. You noted one example in a city of 300,000. The news article noted numerous examples, in a town of 1,500. This is just a question of sample size. With your one example, there is potential for such a high amount of sampling error that any conclusion based on your data is not credible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='vince220']I don't know if you're really done responding or done reading or what, but I think I know what has happened in this thread. Nearly everyone in this thread has been ridiculing you because of your silly racial analogies. However, your "point" had nothing to do with race. The point you were trying to make is that we should not make generalizations based on a small group of people. All racial points aside, this cannot be validly compared for one reason. You noted one example in a city of 300,000. The news article noted numerous examples, in a town of 1,500. This is just a question of sample size. With your one example, there is potential for such a high amount of sampling error that any conclusion based on your data is not credible.[/QUOTE]


Really? There was ONE person in that article who made a case for themselves being racist. EVERYONE else in that article said they were uncomfortable with so many strangers in the town, which isn't very racist sounding to me. This is exactly what I have been complaining about, some dumbass reporter goes in to the town, interviews 20 or 30 people, picks out the 5 most controversial statements, and says is this entire town racist?

It doesn't matter if it is 1/1500 or 1/300,000 you cannot simply paint the rest of the people with that brush because of the one person. Thats like saying if one Mexican in a town of 1500 is illegal then they must all be, and if 1 Mexican in a town of 300,000 they couldn't possibly all be.
 
If you want to talk about that article you can do it in that thread. There's not really any point in making an idiotic thread to refute a position that nobody holds with a situation that isn't equivalent.

(In short, you made a strawman argument based on a false equivalency)
 
[quote name='SpazX']If you want to talk about that article you can do it in that thread. There's not really any point in making an idiotic thread to refute a position that nobody holds with a situation that isn't equivalent.

(In short, you made a strawman argument based on a false equivalency)[/QUOTE]

It seems someone has held that position.

[quote name='depascal22']I love how you still believe that your little cracker story has the same exact weight of the story of obvious racism in that town. I guess it will take a lynching to prove to Knoell that the town is rotten to the core. Even then, he'd claim that any white man would get lynched for whistling at a poor white woman or some other garbage excuse.[/QUOTE]
 
Knoell: It seems like you're trying to hit two birds with one stone.

Are you saying that it's bad to make generalizations, or are you saying that whites face reverse racism?

Your argument has no focus at all and it's hard to understand what your point is.

---

If your point is the former: When people call the town racist, it does not mean every single person in the town is racist to the point that they would buy a gun for protection. When people say America is overweight, they do not mean every single person in America is overweight. Just enough to make it a significant issue.

Playing country music in a public place to intentionally drive away people who are cleaning up your town is an issue. Buying a gun for the first time to protect yourself from strangers in a town that sees vacationers and sport fishermen every summer is an issue. If you still think that this news story does not involve race, argue that in the original thread.

---

If your point is the latter: It has been said enough times that your experience was not anything worth mentioning. You said yourself that you laughed at it. Unless you are able to find a noteworthy article condemning a random white person for calling a random black person a chocolate bar, this analogy is silly, and it mocks African-American history.

Cracker =/= The N Word
 
[quote name='Knoell']It seems someone has held that position.[/QUOTE]

Read what I said again. I said it's sad that you believe that your story has the same weight. Why? Because it's a false analogy.

I then extended your false analogy by saying that you would never believe the town was racist now that your stance is that it isn't
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='vince220']Knoell: It seems like you're trying to hit two birds with one stone.

Are you saying that it's bad to make generalizations, or are you saying that whites face reverse racism?

Your argument has no focus at all and it's hard to understand what your point is.

---

If your point is the former: When people call the town racist, it does not mean every single person in the town is racist to the point that they would buy a gun for protection. When people say America is overweight, they do not mean every single person in America is overweight. Just enough to make it a significant issue.

Playing country music in a public place to intentionally drive away people who are cleaning up your town is an issue. Buying a gun for the first time to protect yourself from strangers in a town that sees vacationers and sport fishermen every summer is an issue. If you still think that this news story does not involve race, argue that in the original thread.

---

If your point is the latter: It has been said enough times that your experience was not anything worth mentioning. You said yourself that you laughed at it. Unless you are able to find a noteworthy article condemning a random white person for calling a random black person a chocolate bar, this analogy is silly, and it mocks African-American history.

Cracker =/= The N Word[/QUOTE]

Racism was never the issue. The generalizations and search for racial undertones in that people made on that town based on ONE lady being dumb were excessive. That was my point, I made an excessive statement to prove how dumb it is to condemn entire groups of people like that. You all argued against my point, but then say "ohhhh but it is different in this other town, because there was a "higher ratio of racism""? WHAT RACISM?? Those racial undertones you people searched for? Great evidence. You are all assuming these people mean what you interpreted them to say, based on second hand interpretation of the interview. I saw one sentance quotes from those townspeople, how you get their racist bias from that is beyond me.

Go read the other thread and see the retarded things people posted and come back and tell me they weren't slandering every one of those townpeople regardless of who said what.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Racism was never the issue. The generalizations and search for racial undertones in that people made on that town based on ONE lady being dumb were excessive. That was my point, I made an excessive statement to prove how dumb it is to condemn entire groups of people like that. You all argued against my point, but then say "ohhhh but it is different in this other town, because there was a "higher ratio of racism""? WHAT RACISM?? Those racial undertones you people searched for? Great evidence. You are all assuming these people mean what you interpreted them to say, based on second hand interpretation of the interview. I saw one sentance quotes from those townspeople, how you get their racist bias from that is beyond me.

Go read the other thread and see the retarded things people posted and come back and tell me they weren't slandering every one of those townpeople regardless of who said what.[/QUOTE]

If this thread is about people looking for racial undertones where there is no racism involved, then your example is totally irrelevant.

What does being called a "cracker" have anything to do with racial undertones? No one here denies the fact that the word refers to a white person.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top