Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/10/2005 7:43:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 7:50:06 AM EDT by BeetleBailey]
Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j-ds
Function: noun
(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
____________________________________________________



So, by definition, if I reach a conclusion about something AFTER having experienced a sufficient amount of facts regarding it, then I am not being "prejudice" towards it, I am having an educated opinion - is this right?

If by statistical proof the hippos at our local zoo attack the trainers 80% more times than the walruses, then would I not be within reasonable grounds to have negative connotations regarding the hippos rather than the walruses?

WTH?

Now, PETA is going to come in and say that by nature the hippos have more of a pre-disposition to attack because of their different environment, treatment, etc., but the question still remains - am I not justified in having more adverse opinions of the hippos simply due to their behaviour?

Link Posted: 8/10/2005 7:47:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:


So, by definition, if I reach a conclusion about something AFTER having experienced a sufficient amount of facts regarding it, then I am not being "prejudice" towards it, I am having an educated opinion - is this right?





Then you'd be commiting the evil act of postjudice.

You'll be hearing from the ACLU soon.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 8:16:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 8:17:11 AM EDT by Fenian]
If you are Caucasian, and come to any conclusion, notwithstanding that it is based on fact, that is even remotely critical of non-Caucasians, you are an evil honkey mofo racist.

If, however, you are a non-Caucasian, and come to the conclusion that Caucasians are the root cause of every evil in the face of the planet, then you are just stating fact, and will be widely applauded for doing so. . In fact, it will be your duty to shout it from the rooftops.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 9:49:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fenian:
If you are Caucasian, and come to any conclusion, notwithstanding that it is based on fact, that is even remotely critical of non-Caucasians, you are an evil honkey mofo racist.

If, however, you are a non-Caucasian, and come to the conclusion that Caucasians are the root cause of every evil in the face of the planet, then you are just stating fact, and will be widely applauded for doing so. . In fact, it will be your duty to shout it from the rooftops.



A big +1!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 9:51:11 AM EDT
ibtpcpl!!!
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 9:53:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:
I am having an educated opinion - is this right?


You're comparing human beings to animals in a zoo aren't you?

(your qustion kind of answers itself)
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 9:53:34 AM EDT
Hate everything equally = no prejudice
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 9:54:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 9:55:13 AM EDT by AssaultRifler]
being "prejudiced" means you're just getting the "judice" part done up front. Could be a time saver.

I'm prejudiced towards blonds with big thingies.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 9:55:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fenian:
If you are a male hetero Christian Caucasian, and come to any conclusion, notwithstanding that it is based on fact, that is even remotely critical of non-Caucasians, you are an evil honkey mofo racist.

If, however, you are a non-male hetero Christian Caucasian, and come to the conclusion that Caucasians are the root cause of every evil in the face of the planet, then you are just stating fact, and will be widely applauded for doing so. . In fact, it will be your duty to shout it from the rooftops.



fixed.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 9:55:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fenian:
If you are Caucasian, and come to any conclusion, notwithstanding that it is based on fact, that is even remotely critical of non-Caucasians, you are an evil honkey mofo racist.

If, however, you are a non-Caucasian, and come to the conclusion that Caucasians are the root cause of every evil in the face of the planet, then you are just stating fact, and will be widely applauded for doing so. . In fact, it will be your duty to shout it from the rooftops.




+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

I've been saying almost exactly what you just said for many years.

The words like racist and such are generally used to keep Caucasian from simply telling the truth.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 9:57:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:
Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j-ds
Function: noun
(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
____________________________________________________



So, by definition, if I reach a conclusion about something AFTER having experienced a sufficient amount of facts regarding it, then I am not being "prejudice" towards it, I am having an educated opinion - is this right?

If by statistical proof the hippos at our local zoo attack the trainers 80% more times than the walruses, then would I not be within reasonable grounds to have negative connotations regarding the hippos rather than the walruses?

WTH?

Now, PETA is going to come in and say that by nature the hippos have more of a pre-disposition to attack because of their different environment, treatment, etc., but the question still remains - am I not justified in having more adverse opinions of the hippos simply due to their behaviour?




You may well be justified in feeling that way.

However, given the way hippos have been oppressed, enslaved and generally mistreated in our country's history, you should approach the subject very delicately.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 9:59:53 AM EDT
I "pre judge" people all the time.

If a person is dressed like a gang banger, regardless of race, I will "pre judge" them to be a POS until I learn differently.

If a person is wearing a US military uniform, regardless of race, I will "pre judge" them to be a good person until I learn differently.

Now a "racist" is something else entirely. I'm not a racist. That would mean I'd have to not like Colin Powell but do like Charles Manson. And that just don't make sense.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 10:00:49 AM EDT
animals are animals and people are individuals.
a lion is dangerous due to it's instincts. it's a natural born killer and a hunter.

people don't have instinct. if they act dangerous it's because they choose to.
not because they look a certain way.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 10:02:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 89grand:
The words like racist and such are generally used to keep Caucasian from simply telling the truth.


Would it be possible to ask for some examples of this? Please keep in mind that my work computer can't access sights like battlefront or Church of the Creator.

(and keep in mind that the "White Pride Country Wide" thread is already over 7 pages long)
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 10:03:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By 89grand:
The words like racist and such are generally used to keep Caucasian from simply telling the truth.


Would it be possible to ask for some examples of this? Please keep in mind that my work computer can't access sights like battlefront or Church of the Creator.

(and keep in mind that the "White Pride Country Wide" thread is already over 7 pages long)



There's a "white pride" thread here? Tell me you're joking.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 10:09:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 10:11:41 AM EDT by Dolomite]

Originally Posted By Coop_K:
There's a "white pride" thread here? Tell me you're joking.


Some guy (OK so it was Lugerman) cross posted a thread which started on a "white civil rights" board wherein the author wrote a check out to the US Patent Office (part of the ZOG no less) and tried to apply to have a Service Mark issued for the slogan "White Pride Country Wide". He didn't really want to protect the saying for commercial reasons, he just wanted to own the trademark because "Black Pride", "Asian Pride", and so forth were already taken.

Several members here became moved at this horrible atrocity against the white race and were moved to "get active" and support the author by sending angry e-mails to some .gov lackey.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 10:10:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By 89grand:
The words like racist and such are generally used to keep Caucasian from simply telling the truth.


Would it be possible to ask for some examples of this? Please keep in mind that my work computer can't access sights like battlefront or Church of the Creator.

(and keep in mind that the "White Pride Country Wide" thread is already over 7 pages long)



I knew it was only a matter of time before you said something utterly retarded in this thread.

Accusing me of being a racist simply because I stated fact just proves my point that you quoted.

I could name enough examples to fill up three whole pages...but you would still refuse to see truth.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 10:11:02 AM EDT
Opinions based on prejudice are not necessarily wrong.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 10:12:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 89grand:
I could name enough examples to fill up three whole pages...but you would still refuse to see truth.


I bet you can't.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 10:13:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
Opinions based on prejudice are not necessarily wrong.



According to Dolomite it is. Opinions based on indisputable fact even are.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 10:26:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 10:51:12 AM EDT by Dolomite]

Originally Posted By 89grand:

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
Opinions based on prejudice are not necessarily wrong.


According to Dolomite it is. Opinions based on indisputable fact even are.


Actually I agree 100% with CA Kids statement - other than to point out the obvious that opinions based on prejudice are not necessarily correct.

For example; Is it wrong to call someone a nigger because of their race?

I submit that it is - but others, raised in an evironment where their Father may have frequently used the word, may be at complete ease with it. At some point in their lives they may find themselves in the company of people that do not share the same appreciation for the word nigger as they do - so they may feel shunned. The word nigger isn't itself wrong, it's just a word afterall - how can a word be wrong?

See, shortly after, they feel victimized by this and begin to try and find outlets for their racial confusion. They see the "truth" (a word by itself cannot be "wrong") and they feel "hate" (to regard with extreme dislike and hostility) for anyone that doesn't see this - or - like the crossburning neo-88's are so fond of saying: "Truth is 'hate' to those that hate the truth!"

I'm not confused.

I'm white and I'm proud with what I've accomplished in life - but thanks to a bunch of racist assholes and the image they've cultivated for themselves and their "movement" - I'd never say that I have "White Pride". Mostly because for my race, most of the population looks down on you if you say such stupid things. So... Thanks prejudice assholes - you've robbed all of us a "White Pride Country Wide" festival (and I had a chili recipe all ready to go for the cook off).
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:36:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By Coop_K:
There's a "white pride" thread here? Tell me you're joking.


Some guy (OK so it was Lugerman) cross posted a thread which started on a "white civil rights" board wherein the author wrote a check out to the US Patent Office (part of the ZOG no less) and tried to apply to have a Service Mark issued for the slogan "White Pride Country Wide". He didn't really want to protect the saying for commercial reasons, he just wanted to own the trademark because "Black Pride", "Asian Pride", and so forth were already taken.

Several members here became moved at this horrible atrocity against the white race and were moved to "get active" and support the author by sending angry e-mails to some .gov lackey.



And some of us were merely content to point out the obvious double standard. Some of you guys are trying to say Black Power and Burn Baby Burn weren't racist or promoting one race over another, and got called on it...so either OUR .gov allows them all, or it shouldn't allow ANY. I guess that was a horrible atrocity against every other race, given how quickly the charges of racism were thrown around afterwards. Our views differ...so I think you're just stupid, (as I do anyone else who disagrees with me ), and you think I'M a racist because I disagree with you...the difference is YOU'RE the one playing the race card here.

Dude, there is one thing we *can* agree on, though...it needs more cowbell! I support cowbellers of EVERY race, creed, national origin, or sexual preference!!

Link Posted: 8/10/2005 11:39:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:
I am having an educated opinion - is this right?


You're comparing human beings to animals in a zoo aren't you?

(your qustion kind of answers itself)



way to take things out of context!
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 1:23:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 1:23:25 PM EDT by Dolomite]
Ya know why Huey Newton's widow is applying for (it has yet to be issued) the "Burn Baby Burn" trademark or service mark?

The slogan appears on the "Revolutionary Hot Sauce" she wants to start selling.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 1:49:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Ya know why Huey Newton's widow is applying for (it has yet to be issued) the "Burn Baby Burn" trademark or service mark?

The slogan appears on the "Revolutionary Hot Sauce" she wants to start selling.



And that's acceptable? Kinda proves the double standard.

Try and come out with KKK Hot Sauce with the "Lynchin Hot" slogan.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 2:16:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 2:31:58 PM EDT by Dolomite]






And these are just from the first page.

Can you guess what two words I plugged in to get these?







Odd how someone could be led to believe that "White Pride" has anything to do racists.



Funny – this one’s captioned “White City White Pride Card Winners”
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 3:28:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
www.bookpool.com/covers/312/0321241312_500.gif

www.oilcrash.com/images/bbb_cvr.jpg

www.shadowfist.com/html/gallery/card%20images/JPG%20images%20400%20pix%20high/bcl%20jpg%20400pix%20square%20corners/burn_baby_burn_bcl_400.jpg

And these are just from the first page.

Can you guess what two words I plugged in to get these?

www.wndu.com/news/pics/pic_15418.JPG

www.willshonkytonk.com/images/white_pride_ride_30.jpg

www.inforiot.de/westhavelland/76g.jpg

Odd how someone could be led to believe that "White Pride" has anything to do racists.


www.wchuskies.com/WhitePrideCardWinners.jpg
Funny – this one’s captioned “White City White Pride Card Winners”



Yeah but the White Pride links weren't items for sale. Which was kinda my point.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 3:31:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
I "pre judge" people all the time.

If a person is dressed like a gang banger, regardless of race, I will "pre judge" them to be a POS until I learn differently.

If a person is wearing a US military uniform, regardless of race, I will "pre judge" them to be a good person until I learn differently.

Now a "racist" is something else entirely. I'm not a racist. That would mean I'd have to not like Colin Powell but do like Charles Manson. And that just don't make sense.



Why would it mean you have to like Manson? I've yet to meet a racist that believes all white people are good. I do agree with you that there are no absolutes, but there are damn sure probabilities and odds and to ignore them is foolish. In some cases, ignoring certain facts could cost you your life.

I know a whole mess of people that aren't racist, and not one of them takes a 2am stroll down the local Martin Luther King Blvd in their city slapping high fives to their "bros." The same people wouldn't hesitate to walk my neighborhood at any time of day. It has nothing to do with racist. Wether they want to admit it or not even those who are not "racist" still recognize certain differences in behavior trends, they are just too scared of a politically incorrect label to admit as much, even to themselves.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 3:38:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
www.bookpool.com/covers/312/0321241312_500.gif

www.oilcrash.com/images/bbb_cvr.jpg

www.shadowfist.com/html/gallery/card%20images/JPG%20images%20400%20pix%20high/bcl%20jpg%20400pix%20square%20corners/burn_baby_burn_bcl_400.jpg

And these are just from the first page.

Can you guess what two words I plugged in to get these?

www.wndu.com/news/pics/pic_15418.JPG

www.willshonkytonk.com/images/white_pride_ride_30.jpg

www.inforiot.de/westhavelland/76g.jpg

Odd how someone could be led to believe that "White Pride" has anything to do racists.


www.wchuskies.com/WhitePrideCardWinners.jpg
Funny – this one’s captioned “White City White Pride Card Winners”



dude, while your googling skills are indeed impressive, but you and I BOTH know what the original meaning of that slogan was. Don't forget, I was around in the 60's...and did my share of counter-culture style agitatin'. So...you haven't gotten up early enough yet to fool ME.

I'm just as entitled to be offended by seeing that as someone else is when they see "white pride", *right*? Or a Confederat Flag...it's the *symbology*, right? (so, now we have a serial crusher theory AND a huge guy theory).

Or do my feeling not count in the topsy turvy mixed up PC world? I guess being an evil honkey racist mofo® ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 3:41:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By 89grand:
The words like racist and such are generally used to keep Caucasian from simply telling the truth.


Would it be possible to ask for some examples of this? Please keep in mind that my work computer can't access sights like battlefront or Church of the Creator.

(and keep in mind that the "White Pride Country Wide" thread is already over 7 pages long)



You REALLY want an example? How about the fact that blacks commit 3 times more rape and like 5 times more murder per capita than any other race of people in the US. Assaults, robberies and car thefts are close to 7 times more. Am I racist yet? If your answer is yes, no further example need be made. Since you can't access the sites listed above I'll go ahead and assume you have access to the FBI and their uniform crime reports since that is my source.

That's a pretty good example of a truth that will generally get you labeled as racist.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 3:49:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By 89grand:
I could name enough examples to fill up three whole pages...but you would still refuse to see truth.


I bet you can't.



He doesn't need to. The uniform crime reports I cited above far exceed three pages. Closer to 27 regarding race stats alone. Unless of course the FBI compiling a list from every police agency in the US isn't "impartial" enough for you. By the way, these results, compiled yearly, have been consistant for over a decade. I'm sure it's quite a conspiracy though, you know, just another example of the man trying to oppress the disadvantaged.

Want to now argue that poverty causes crime? I'll link you to some surprising info on the census berau website that breaks down poverty by race. It'll leave that theory more broken that Al Gores spirit after the 2000 elections, guaranteed.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 3:49:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hatebreed:


Why would it mean you have to like Manson? I've yet to meet a racist that believes all white people are good. I do agree with you that there are no absolutes, but there are damn sure probabilities and odds and to ignore them is foolish. In some cases, ignoring certain facts could cost you your life.

I know a whole mess of people that aren't racist, and not one of them takes a 2am stroll down the local Martin Luther King Blvd in their city slapping high fives to their "bros." The same people wouldn't hesitate to walk my neighborhood at any time of day. It has nothing to do with racist. Wether they want to admit it or not even those who are not "racist" still recognize certain differences in behavior trends, they are just too scared of a politically incorrect label to admit as much, even to themselves.



As I understand it "racism" is making value judgements based soley upon race. This means if you are a white racists you believe whites are good and blacks are bad or at least not as good.

I'm not a racists so I don't hate black folks. But I am one who "pre judges" so I won't be taking a stroll down MLK at any time of the day. Cause a lot of "black folks" is racists.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 4:00:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 4:13:22 PM EDT by Dolomite]
But if the zoo keepers are the FBI and the hippos are African Americans, has it proven to be prudent for the zoo keepers to turn their backs on all the non-hippo presidential assasins, meth cooks, and federal building bombers?

I missed the paragraph in the FBI UCR where they stated that what was needed was more prejudice on behalf of the zoo keepers.

Also, if the UCR is the truth - wouldn't it's existance be impossible based on the fact, as stated before, that "words like racist and such are generally used to keep Caucasians from simply telling the truth."? (Remember, that's what I asked for proof of Mr. Sensitive)

Crime is crime. That's the truth. And if you hate the truth, then truth is your hate. Don't be hatin'.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 4:03:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Odd how someone could be led to believe that "White Pride" has anything to do racists.




You would argue that groups like the black panthers that use black pride as a slogan or other groups that use brown pride or such are NOT racist?

Anybody with sense knows that there is no such thing as absolutes. I doubt many here including myself would argue that with you. Any group that is using any of the "pride" slogans is generally "racist," however, to only point this out for the white groups is either showing your ingnorance or proving you have an agenda with your statements. If you disavow the sentiment expressed by a group touting the slogan white pride to thinly veil racism then you should hold black, brown and asian groups to the same standard. Your double standard is what makes you look like an idiot, apply that same logic evenly to all "pride" groups and I for one wouldn't be saying much to you. I can't speak for anyone else.

In short, why do you take issue with the white groups, but not the black, brown or asian ones?
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 4:09:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hatebreed:
In short, why do you take issue with the white groups, but not the black, brown or asian ones?


Fair question. As a I stated in the other thread, it all boils down to this:

Asian Pride festivals, Black Pride festivals, etc welcome people of other races to come and drink beer, eat food, and buy t-shirts - generally enhance a community through economic means.

White Pride parties seem to be a little more exclusive and make less money.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 4:21:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
But if the zoo keepers are the FBI and the hippos are African Americans, has it proven to be prudent for the zoo keepers to turn their backs on all the non-hippo presidential assasins, meth cooks, and federal building bombers?

I missed the paragraph in the FBI UCR where they stated that what was needed was more prejudice on behalf of the zoo keepers.

Crime is crime.



Where did you see me put forth a proposal as to how to fix this crime? Where did you see me state that the FBI needs to be "racist"? I simply stated facts. As a sample I present this:

IF blacks are indeed seven times more likely to commit murder (as the FBI states), then as long as there are blacks at large in society, could one not reasonably argue that one is seven times more likely to be murdered if associating with said group? Oh that's right..."crime is crime"......even if a 10% segment of society IS committing 40% of it..

Supposing the above is true, a man who associates with these groups without caution arguably values his life 7 times less than I value mine. I reserve the right to make that fact based judgement for myself and my family and nobody has (or shouldn't) a right to label me as a "thought criminal" for doing so.

How the "zoo keepers" deal with said animals (criminals, don't miscontrue me here) after they are rounded up is little of my concern. Wether those zoo keepers put down 7 "hippos" for every one "walrus" is of little consequence. Unless of course we have people who go on some misguided crusade to prove "hippos" are more entitled to harm people than "walrus'" are due to their disadvantaged past. Nobody is allowed to commit atrocities against others. When certain groups start having excuses made for their behavior I begin to have a problem. You can't change the facts, so why do you feel compelled to try and justify them?

Stating that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime is not racist, it's reality. After nearly 12 years of compiled stats on this, I'd be hard pressed to say it is not a character trait inherant to them. 1 year is a fluke. Leading in crime in excess of a decade is a trend, not a fluke.


To reiterate, I don't propose a solution. If I had a solution to the problem you'd be voting for me, not arguing with me on an internet message board.

However, a few more blacks like Bill cosby acknowledging this stuff and trying to change it from within would be a great start. A better start than trying to blame the more well behaved segment of society for the more poorly behaved parts crime anyway.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 4:33:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Crime is crime. That's the truth. And if you hate the truth, then truth is your hate. Don't be hatin'.



That's like saying "food poisoning is food posioning." If you are 8 times as likely to get sick from eating chicken, it might be a good idea to examine the behavior of eating chicken at every meal.

When 12% of the population commits 40% of the crime......crime is not just crime. When organized crime begins to commit a disproportionate amount of crime we take steps to limit their ability to do so with RICO statutes and such. When certain gangs have a drastic rise in criminal activity we make task forces to combat that specifically. When meth becomes a bigger problem than weed, we start to shift our focus to meth labs. Crime is not just crime unless all things are equal, and they are FAR from that.

I agree that the solution is not an all out racist campaign. There are plenty of good black folks like Cav and HK and plenty of other fine real life black folks as well. However, if they choose not to do their part in cleaning up their own back yard then something will have to be done or it's a detriment to us all. There's no easy solution here, but labeling folks like me as racist for simply acknowledging a truth is a step in the wrong direction. When we ignore and excuse behavior trentds among ANY group of criminals we endorse a behavior that is dangerous to society as a whole.

If acknowledging a behavioral fact that exhibits itself disproportionately amongst one group of people is discourse of discussion which is frowned upon we may as well give up on the whole idea of justice and peace in our own country. That's not my idea of smart conservative thinking, and I know deep down it's not yours either. Less PC liberal thought and more reality is good medicine for us all, no matter who might get "their feelings hurt." If we can't even acknowledge the problem without taking on a negative connotation, we have no hope of fixing it and that's bad for everyone.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 4:35:55 PM EDT

Stating that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime is not racist, it's reality. After nearly 12 years of compiled stats on this, I'd be hard pressed to say it is not a character trait inherant to them.

Ooooh...

Guess what?
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 4:42:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By hatebreed:
In short, why do you take issue with the white groups, but not the black, brown or asian ones?


Fair question. As a I stated in the other thread, it all boils down to this:

Asian Pride festivals, Black Pride festivals, etc welcome people of other races to come and drink beer, eat food, and buy t-shirts - generally enhance a community through economic means.

White Pride parties seem to be a little more exclusive and make less money.



You been to quite a few black pride festivals have you? The very fact that it's labeled as a black pride festival pretty much excludes whites and others by it's very name. Otherwise it would be a "all humans are great, go us!" festival. We both know what it is. It might be a little less racist on the surface due to good press and there may not be the amount of "known" violence to happen at these. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen or it is less racist.


"____ pride" is either a heap of shit that shouldn't be allowed or it isn't. If you believe America is supposed to be a place where all have an equal chance at happiness and success then the rules are applied evenly accross the board. That was the entire god damned point of the 1964 civil rights act. Everyone is equal means EVERYONE.....not just a reversal of roles.


We both know that ANY "pride" slogan is racist.....so it's either allowed or it isn't. If you don't have a problem with black or asian racism, then you don't have a problem with white racism either. It's all or none when it comes to logic and either RACISM is wrong...or it isn't. To make the rules differently for whites and blacks or asians and blacks or whatever and whoever IS racist by nature and to endorse such policy is to contradict ones own beliefs.

That said....I fully agree the white pride trademark thing is fucking retarded and I couldn't care any LESS about it. You'll never hear me say different, and that's why I never bothered getting worked up in that thread. Some things matter and some don't. Being honest with ones own self and applying our logic and beliefs evenly ALWAYS matters though. It's the difference between a great man and a regular ol' piece of shit.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 4:56:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Stating that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime is not racist, it's reality. After nearly 12 years of compiled stats on this, I'd be hard pressed to say it is not a character trait inherant to them.

Ooooh...

Guess what?



Yeah, guess what? To THEM. That's a collective statement. As a WHOLE blacks are more disposed to commit violent crime. It's true here, it's true in Africa, it's true in Haiti and every other society they've ever inhabited. I don't know that it is a product of geneology as much as just a culturally accepted norm. I tend to believe the latter. That means THEY need to change THEIR culture.

If you don't believe it is a culturally accepted norm, then you MUST believe it to be in their blood. I know you do not believe the latter so you MUST agree with me on the former. SOMETHING causes it....or it wouldn't continue to happen, would it? If it is indeed a part of the culture, guess what it is the duty of THEIR culture to change it. It is THEIR responsibility.


Unless of course....you just believe blacks as a whole have coincedentally been the cause of more crime by CHANCE for 12 years running?

If not as a whole, how would you like me to present them?

"I'd be hard pressed to say it is not a character trait inherant to individual blacks that may or may not effect the majority of blacks but definitely effects more blacks than any other race...on an individual basis, more than any other group of individuals is affected individually as a whole"...????


You can nitpick ANYONE to a racist. The fact is, you understood my language fine, but want to persist with your agenda for a reason I can't quite seem to grasp. What would you rather we do as a society, refuse to acknowledge anything based on the fact that someone might get all pussy hurt about it? This is the future of our country we're talking about and the most important thing you can seem to think of is that we judge every single action individually. Good thing we didn't take this approach in the wars we have fought or we'd still be trying enemy combatants from WW1. Bombs would be out of the question.

The fact is, when a disproportionately large amount of any population act in a certain manner we get the right to judge them as whole. It's always happened and it always will, it's the reason our country is still here.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 4:57:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 5:04:55 PM EDT by Dolomite]

You can nitpick ANYONE to a racist.


Even Rick Rubin, Phil Jackson, and Eminem? I kid!

Well, if it isn't environment - 'splain Jerry Springer and Maury Povich.

Those guys are making fantastic bucks exploiting white people's problems. I would wager that most of them live in similar situations as the ones with the inherant dispostition towards crime.


Originally Posted By hatebreed:
You been to quite a few black pride festivals have you?


A couple (if you count juneteenth day).



We both know that ANY "pride" slogan is racist.


True. By the very definition of the word. True.

But saying, "Thailand has the best looking women and by far the most superior food on the planet." is a wee bit different than David Lane's 14 words ("We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.")

"White Pride" is just the racist's politically correct term for racism. A person doesn't have perform racist acts to claim White Pride, they can be any color too I suppose.


Being honest with ones own self and applying our logic and beliefs evenly ALWAYS matters though. It's the difference between a great man and a regular ol' piece of shit.

I'm trying to be as honest as I can. I honestly believe White Pride is just lazy, dormant racism. (and to a much more harmful degree than "Polynesian Pride")
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:06:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:


Being honest with ones own self and applying our logic and beliefs evenly ALWAYS matters though. It's the difference between a great man and a regular ol' piece of shit.

I'm trying to be as honest as I can. I honestly believe White Pride is just lazy, dormant racism.



But you don't believe the same of black or brown pride? That is like saying you know that guns don't cause crime, but knives definitely do. You either apply evenly logic across the board or you don't. Inanimate objects do not cause crime or they do. "______ pride" is either thinly veiled racism or it isn't. If you believe you are being honest with yourself you are either better at lying to yourself than you thought or you are hesitant to admit you have a flaw in your logic. Why it is important to you to pronounce certain whites as racist but not pronounce certain minorites with those same traits as racist as well I don't understand, but it's clearly a very important perception for you to keep. If that's the course of action you feel is most productive, you can keep on doing it and I'll keep on thinking you are full of shit with a mostly rhetorical argument. Either way affects me very little.

In principle I agree with most of what you say. In reality you take your own perception to such an extreme as to invailidate it as much as that of any racist who take his opposite but equally flawed logic to the same extreme.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:13:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By hatebreed:
In short, why do you take issue with the white groups, but not the black, brown or asian ones?


Fair question. As a I stated in the other thread, it all boils down to this:

Asian Pride festivals, Black Pride festivals, etc welcome people of other races to come and drink beer, eat food, and buy t-shirts - generally enhance a community through economic means.

White Pride parties seem to be a little more exclusive and make less money.



Ummmm BULLSHIT.

I don't think Black Panther Parties had LOTS to do with white folks. They didn't eat with the devil.

The BIG difference is NON RACIST whites don't see the need to form groups and organizations based upon race. Suppossedly NON RACIST blacks do. And THERE is the real problem.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:25:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:
Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j-ds
Function: noun
(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
____________________________________________________



So, by definition, if I reach a conclusion about something AFTER having experienced a sufficient amount of facts regarding it, then I am not being "prejudice" towards it, I am having an educated opinion - is this right?

If by statistical proof the hippos at our local zoo attack the trainers 80% more times than the walruses, then would I not be within reasonable grounds to have negative connotations regarding the hippos rather than the walruses?

WTH?

Now, PETA is going to come in and say that by nature the hippos have more of a pre-disposition to attack because of their different environment, treatment, etc., but the question still remains - am I not justified in having more adverse opinions of the hippos simply due to their behaviour?




Beet, I think you've got it!

All I can say is that before life hit me in the face, I was an ideallistic young man. The world has made me wiser over the years, and I have some strong opinions based on statistical experience. Call that what you will, it works for me.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:27:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Coop_K:

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:
Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j-ds
Function: noun
(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
____________________________________________________



So, by definition, if I reach a conclusion about something AFTER having experienced a sufficient amount of facts regarding it, then I am not being "prejudice" towards it, I am having an educated opinion - is this right?

If by statistical proof the hippos at our local zoo attack the trainers 80% more times than the walruses, then would I not be within reasonable grounds to have negative connotations regarding the hippos rather than the walruses?

WTH?

Now, PETA is going to come in and say that by nature the hippos have more of a pre-disposition to attack because of their different environment, treatment, etc., but the question still remains - am I not justified in having more adverse opinions of the hippos simply due to their behaviour?




You may well be justified in feeling that way.

However, given the way hippos have been oppressed, enslaved and generally mistreated in our country's history, you should approach the subject very delicately.



You are aware that hippoes are far more detrimental to themselves via their own interspecies actions than a zookeepr could ever *HOPE* to be, yes?
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:31:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

You can nitpick ANYONE to a racist.


Even Rick Rubin, Phil Jackson, and Eminem? I kid!

Well, if it isn't environment - 'splain Jerry Springer and Maury Povich.

Those guys are making fantastic bucks exploiting white people's problems. I would wager that most of them live in similar situations as the ones with the inherant dispostition towards crime.





You are exactly right, the white trash types DO live in situations that are quite similar to those with an inherant dispostion toward crime. In fact they far surpass those poverty levels according to the Census Berau. As a matter of fact, whites and hispanics both live in poverty in greater numbers than blacks. Yet, if we took whites and hispanics and added them together, they STILL wouldn' be comitting crime in the same numbers per capita that blacks are.

So if your point was that whites (and hispanics) live just as shitty as poor blacks but far less often feel the need to kill, rape or steal from somebody over it then indeed you are right.

I know THOSE FACTS can't be what you were driving at though, so maybe you can try and rephrase your statement to more subtly supplement your illusion based agenda.

But seriously, if you think I'm just some crazy white guy trying to twist numbers, I'd be glad to link you to both sites, and crunch the numbers publically until you agree that they are correct. I'm more than happy to be proven wrong, if it can be done. As was witnessed by our very own DK prof on another board...McUzi.com, it just isn't going to happen.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:52:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 5:54:33 PM EDT by hatebreed]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By hatebreed:
In short, why do you take issue with the white groups, but not the black, brown or asian ones?


Fair question. As a I stated in the other thread, it all boils down to this:

Asian Pride festivals, Black Pride festivals, etc welcome people of other races to come and drink beer, eat food, and buy t-shirts - generally enhance a community through economic means.

White Pride parties seem to be a little more exclusive and make less money.



Ummmm BULLSHIT.

I don't think Black Panther Parties had LOTS to do with white folks. They didn't eat with the devil.

The BIG difference is NON RACIST whites don't see the need to form groups and organizations based upon race. Suppossedly NON RACIST blacks do. And THERE is the real problem.



You absolutely nailed that one.


ETA: I still like your old avatar better. Seeing that guy next to your name I almost feel like yer a whole different guy.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 6:05:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:

Originally Posted By Coop_K:

Originally Posted By BeetleBailey:
Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j-ds
Function: noun
(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
____________________________________________________



So, by definition, if I reach a conclusion about something AFTER having experienced a sufficient amount of facts regarding it, then I am not being "prejudice" towards it, I am having an educated opinion - is this right?

If by statistical proof the hippos at our local zoo attack the trainers 80% more times than the walruses, then would I not be within reasonable grounds to have negative connotations regarding the hippos rather than the walruses?

WTH?

Now, PETA is going to come in and say that by nature the hippos have more of a pre-disposition to attack because of their different environment, treatment, etc., but the question still remains - am I not justified in having more adverse opinions of the hippos simply due to their behaviour?




You may well be justified in feeling that way.

However, given the way hippos have been oppressed, enslaved and generally mistreated in our country's history, you should approach the subject very delicately.



You are aware that hippoes are far more detrimental to themselves via their own interspecies actions than a zookeepr could ever *HOPE* to be, yes?



Yes, that is probably why the keepers feel safer for the moment than they probably should.
Top Top