Racism

Good for you. Nothing ever gets past you, does it? The commenter didn't mention race overtly, so it certainly can't be racist. Nevermind racial coding hidden in the use of the word "thug," nevermind the "less-than-human" stereotypes that exist in the use of the term "animal," and nevermind one isolated incident (no matter how unforgivable) becoming a label of perpetual action for the professor (he didn't do it once to the commenter, he "gets drunk and sucker punches women" - in the deliberate plural).

No racism there at all. No sir.

Here's more non-racist commentary:

"Typical behavior of a black liberal male. More BS from barry the usurper and his tale of racial harmony."

"Why is he allowed to teach at Columbia? Why is he allowed to teach at all? Why isn't he up on a "Hate Crime" charge? Why didn't he hit the man instead of hitting the woman (article says he was arguing with both)? Why do I get the feeling this n1gger (if you're a racist you shouldn't get offended when someone calls you a racist name) is nothing but a wife-beating coward?"

"At least where he's going, he won't be a minority."

"No matter what opportunities are afforded these (black) people they always come up with something the re-enforces the old saying, 'you can take them out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of them'. Wake up white people. Soon enough, if it hasn't happened to you (being a victim of a hate or black-on-white crime), it will eventually...."

"Haven't the white people suffered enough????? Where will the line be drawn. Is it ok for a black person to hurt a white person, but not the other way around????"

"Typical animal behavior."

"Just another example that civil rights haven't had anything to do with equal rights, and everything to do with domination! White people..... we've been
suckered. I'm Silent no more!"

"Look on the bright side, if the man has not been educated he would have shot, stabbed or strangled the women.

See, a liberal education made the difference. LOL"

"Just a typical Ni**er with an attitude. I was recently fired for calling a spade a spade. Ever since the clown prince has been in office there is a sense of importance in these boons that makes me want to barf. White people need to wake up. If you look at all the countries in Africa who were run by white people and were profitable until the blacks were put into power. Those countries are now in a shambles and on the brink of anarchy. Do you see a mild similarity here. Maybe that clown needs to come down here and try and punch out a woman, white or black, in a bar and see if he makes it out the door in one piece. What a piece of human garbage."
 
lol. mykevermin, I WAS going to accuse you of nutpicking, but now I see that racist comment was not an isolated incident haha. Oh its from the NYPost? No surprise there.
 
"The punch was so loud, the kitchen workers in the back heard it over all the noise," bar back Richie Velez, 28, told The Post.

guile-sonicboom-udon.jpg


This picture was my first thought of that quote.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']"The punch was so loud, the kitchen workers in the back heard it over all the noise," bar back Richie Velez, 28, told The Post.

guile-sonicboom-udon.jpg


This picture was my first thought of that quote.[/QUOTE]

Odd. When I saw that quote my first thought went to this:

455px-Falconlinkpunch.jpg
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Cool myke, there are stupid kids that post racist comments on the internet. Plus 5 e-cred for you figuring that out.[/QUOTE]

NY Post, not 4Chan.

Your continued minimizing of racist statements is fascinating. You don't believe racism exists when it's hidden, you don't believe racism exists when code language is used to hide from intent, and you don't believe racism exists when it's so flagrant.

I think it's safe to say you simply don't believe racism exists, given that each and every time it's pointed out, you explain away why it is not racism.

Unless it suits your needs: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6493473&postcount=44

Racism, to you, cannot be committed by whites.
 
Yet Myke seems to portray that racism cannot be committed by anyone but whites. Interesting.

White cop arrests a black man who's yelling and acting crazy, it's racism.

Black man punches white woman in the face after a discussion of race and it's the random comments on the internet made about the black guy that's racist.
 
Isn't it basically implied that a disadvantaged race would resent those more advantaged? Racism means hating a group of people solely based on their race, but if your people have been repressed for hundreds of years, you have another reason besides race to hate the more advantaged.

Think of it this way, if a group of people had been keeping your people down for hundreds of years, wouldn't you resent or even hate them too?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Isn't it basically implied that a disadvantaged race would resent those more advantaged? Racism means hating a group of people solely based on their race, but if your people have been repressed for hundreds of years, you have another reason besides race to hate the more advantaged.

Think of it this way, if a group of people had been keeping your people down for hundreds of years, wouldn't you resent or even hate them too?[/QUOTE]

Blaming white men for slavery/oppression is about as awesome as blaming black men for crime or middle eastern men for terrorism.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Blaming white men for slavery/oppression is about as awesome as blaming black men for crime or middle eastern men for terrorism.[/QUOTE]

Who the hell else was responsible for Jim Crow? The British?
 
Comparing the acts of a group of men to the acts of an entire nation isn't a good argument and you're digging yourself a hole. The 19 men and the dozens of other men that had first had first hand knowledge didn't systematically deny civil rights to an entire group of people based on the color of skin.

If you want to compare Muslim views on women and then compare that to slavery, that's a much better analogy but you're not even remotely trying to get at that.

You also said that blaming white men for crime is akin to blaming black men for crime. The vast majority of slave holders/oppressors were white. I'll be honest and say that it wasn't 100% even though we know it was damn close to it.
 
It's odd. The "entire nation" is responsible for slavery - yet I've never owned a slave or met a slave owner... But us damn white devils...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's odd. The "entire nation" is responsible for slavery - yet I've never owned a slave or met a slave owner... But us damn white devils...[/QUOTE]

You are an unsuccessful white devil.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's odd. The "entire nation" is responsible for slavery - yet I've never owned a slave or met a slave owner... But us damn white devils...[/QUOTE]

Let me get your line of reasoning then. You said blaming white men for slavery/oppression is as awesome as blaming black men for crime and Middle Eastern men for terrorism. That's exactly what you said.

So who do you think is responsible for slavery? Black men?

Also, you're officially retarded for saying that you've never owned a slave or met a slave owner when you know damn well that slavery has been banned since 1865. Or has that news not reached south eastern Illinois yet?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Blaming white men for slavery/oppression is about as awesome as blaming black men for crime or middle eastern men for terrorism.[/QUOTE]
You...you...ah fuck it. "Wow" covers it as well as anything else.
 
Sorry - let me rephrase my original statement. I understand how the phrasing did not convey my intent.

[quote name='UncleBob']Blaming all of today's white men for slavery/oppression is about as awesome as blaming all of today's black men for crime or all of today's middle eastern men for terrorism.[/QUOTE]
 
Sure, but how many people blame today's white men for slavery? Not very many.

What's the point of such absurd statements other than to give people cause to pay less attention to you?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sure, but how many people blame today's white men for slavery? Not very many.[/QUOTE]
...
[quote name='JolietJake']Isn't it basically implied that a disadvantaged race would resent those more advantaged? Racism means hating a group of people solely based on their race, but if your people have been repressed for hundreds of years, you have another reason besides race to hate the more advantaged.[/QUOTE]
 
That has little to do with hating people for slavery in past generations.

It's resenting people for a couple centuries of being treated as inferior, and mainly for still facing racism and discrimination in their daily lives in the present. If they were treated equal and didn't have to deal with racism today, that resentment would be all but gone.

It's pretty silly to read JolietJake's statement as just saying they hate white people because their ancestors enslaved their ancestors. He's saying the disadvantage race is naturally going to have some resentment for the race keeping them in disadvantage in the present (and past).

Come on, you're better than that (I think anyway). You don't seem like one of the dimwits on here that only sees things in simple black and white terms (no pun intended) and makes statements for shock value.
 
My point is - hating (or "resenting") an entire race because they're "advantaged" and you're "disadvantaged" is bullcrap. Black people can't blame all the white people for the hardships in their lives. White people can't blame all the middle eastern people for all the terrorism.

That's not to say you can't target your hatred toward specific individuals or groups. But to make blanket statements that it's understandable and okay to hate an entire race? Not buying it.
 
I don't think it's ok ,and the resentment is certainly counterproductive in the fight for equality etc.

But I can see where it comes from and understand it much more than I can straight racism where people are hating a race for no reason to do with how they've been treated. Apples and oranges.
 
Not really. Racism is viewing another race as inferior.

Racsim: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Click to expand...

That's different than resenting another race because of how you've been treated as that doesn't involve any claims of superiority, right to rule other races etc.
 
So, if I say I hate all X people because some X people picked on me in school, that's not racism?

If someone said that law enforcement officers should give "special attention" to middle eastern people because some middle eastern people killed his/her family on 9/11, that's not racism?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, if I say I hate all X people because some X people picked on me in school, that's not racism?[/quote]

That's a tricky one to categorize. Hate can involve feelings of superiority which would be racist by the definition. Or it can just be feelings of bitterness over personal treatment that get over-generalized to feelings toward a whole race vs. just the ignorant people in that race. Which is ignorant, but not inherently racist.

If someone said that law enforcement officers should give "special attention" to middle eastern people because some middle eastern people killed his/her family on 9/11, that's not racism?
Click to expand...

That's a discriminatory statement/policy. But not inherently racist and once doesn't have to think middle eastern people are inferior to think most terrorists are middle eastern and think they should be watched more closely.

It's just a semantics issue, really. It's an ignorant statement for 100% sure, but not racist by the dictionary definition.

I can't do much but chuckle when knuckleheads like you try to whine about reverse racism. Get over it. We've dicked blacks over for a few centuries in this country, it will take time for the deserved resentment to disappear. And resentment does not equal racism in most cases--just bitter feelings over putting up with racism and discrimination, not feelings of superiority.
 
I would HOPE that a wise UncleBob with the richness of his experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.

;)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's a tricky one to categorize. Hate can involve feelings of superiority which would be racist by the definition. Or it can just be feelings of bitterness over personal treatment that get over-generalized to feelings toward a whole race vs. just the ignorant people in that race. Which is ignorant, but not inherently racist.[/QUOTE]

So... if someone says they don't think black and white people should get married - not because of any hard feelings they have against black or white people, but because of what they have experienced as a result of mixed-race relationships, it's not racism?

[quote name='IRHari']I would HOPE that a wise UncleBob with the richness of his experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.

;)[/QUOTE]
You win the thread. ;)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... if someone says they don't think black and white people should get married - not because of any hard feelings they have against black or white people, but because of what they have experienced as a result of mixed-race relationships, it's not racism?
[/QUOTE]

Another hard to categorize as that sounds more like an excuse for not really wanting to come out and say that you think one race is inferior and the races shouldn't mix.

In the LA justice of the peace case, made more clear by saying he wasn't racist since he let blacks use his bathroom. :roll:

If it was TRULY because the person had seen mixed raced folk treated poorly--then yeah that could fall back in ignorance (really, really, ignorant in a day and age where we have a mixed race president) rather than inherently racist.

The problem is people other than outright sociopaths know it's not socially acceptable to say racist things, so you have racists hiding behind statements like your example to try to be discriminatory but "not racist."

But there's a difference between what someone says and what they really mean. So we're getting down to semantics and silly examples again.
 
Maybe we're just becoming desensitized to what "racism" is. When a man calls a politician a liar (woah, that would never happen) and is accused of being a racist, you reach a point that anything is racism.
 
I do think that's part of it. People are so quick to play the racism card, that it's gotten away from it's strict dictionary definition to some extent.

One can have ignorant views without feeling other races are inferior.

Just a pet peeve of mine as words loose meaning if they're used too loosely.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem is people other than outright sociopaths know it's not socially acceptable to say racist things, so you have racists hiding behind statements like your example to try to be discriminatory but "not racist."[/quote]

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top