Let me put myself in this situation:

Quote :

"or not providing them the same level of service they would to a white person"

I'm black or some other minority. I'm at a restaurant and the white waiter is being a dick to me. How do I know it's because he's a racist? Would his actions toward me be worse if it could somehow be proven that his actions toward me were racially motivated?

7/29/2009 4:46:04 PM

^^ It doesn't

It shows you saying on one hand that racist thoughts (or any negative!) is inevitably (do you know what this word means?) going to translate to racist actions.

I clearly post plenty about why i think thats not the case and show you even contradicting it by later saying youre not doomed to act out the thoughts (i guess those actions arent so inevitable!)

And all you come back with is white-male-victim horseshit to try to derail the topic.

[Edited on July 29, 2009 at 4:47 PM. Reason : *]

Also please show where I am playing a white male victim?

[Edited on July 29, 2009 at 4:51 PM. Reason : **]

7/29/2009 4:46:35 PM

^ you haven't posted anything reasonable that shows that if someone thinks a certain way in a continuous manner, they will not act in accordance with this way of thinking.

^^ whether you can "prove" he was being racist would require an interview of the waiter, or other factors of the situation.

This would make it "worse" than if he wasn't being racist, because it shows a pattern of behavior that could eek out in situations other than waiting. If he were racist, and were promoted to a manager, for example, he would have an impact greater than causing a black patron to stop visiting his restaurant. Not to mention that if he were racist, it helps to maintain the idea that the system which was obviously tilted against blacks 2 or 3 decades ago is still somewhat tilted against them.

If he was just having a bad day, or was a dick to everyone, then his impact wouldn't be disproportional.

7/29/2009 4:56:38 PM

If you can recognize your prejudice as irrational, then you are not prejudiced. Plain and simple.

Otherwise you are just putting on a show by not acting on those racist tendencies that you recognize (you can't be aware of them all).

7/29/2009 5:00:55 PM

uhhhh

i know hating Pakistanis is irrational but I HAAAAATE THEM!!!!!!!



im not buying that.

7/29/2009 5:14:34 PM

Quote :

"This would make it "worse" than if he wasn't being racist, because it shows a pattern of behavior that could eek out in situations other than waiting"

How does one instance of dickery show a pattern? Does it have to be part of a pattern of action to be considered racist?

And I don't agree with faulting someone for something they *could* do. That's just silly thoughtcrime bullshit.

7/29/2009 5:20:43 PM

^ one instance of dickery doesn't show a pattern. If that instance of dickery was caused by racism, it implies a pattern though, because racism is generally thought of as being a sort of state of mind.

And I don't understand what you mean by faulting someone for something they "could" do. Your hypothetical involves something that was done. I was saying this makes it worse than if he was just a dick, or was having a bad day, because it provides a framework for predicting in a systematic way when the dickish actions my present themselves.

7/29/2009 5:47:35 PM

Quote :

"you haven't posted anything reasonable that shows that if someone thinks a certain way in a continuous manner, they will not act in accordance with this way of thinking."

You haven't shown that they will inevitably act in accordance with that thinking. its on you genius, you made the claim. I merely take the stance that there is no guarantee that the person doesn't recognize it as irrational and corrects their judgment.

But apparently its inevitable!!

oh and

Quote :

"Also please show where I am playing a white male victim?"

[Edited on July 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM. Reason : *]

7/29/2009 5:48:33 PM

^ so you are really disagreeing with my statement that people's actions are controlled by their thoughts?

If someone recognizes one thought as irrational, with another thought, and suppresses their initial thought they are acting on their thoughts. They also are not exhibiting a racial thought in the way I was describing. They are exhibiting a very even-tempered thought, and are acting on it. How do you not see this?

IOW, someone who is racist isn't generally going to know when their racist thoughts are irrational. If they do, and they correct it, then they are not really racist.

[Edited on July 29, 2009 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2009 5:51:04 PM

Quote :

"IOW, someone who is racist isn't generally going to know when their racist thoughts are irrational. If they do, and they correct it, then they are not really racist."

which in turn would make

Quote :

"Racist thoughts (or any negative thought) is inevitably going to translate to racist actions"

a load of crack.

Unless you're now arguing that the simple act of correcting (i.e. not acting on a racist/prejudice thought) somehow makes said thought not racist/prejudice?

Quote :

"If someone recognizes one thought as irrational, with another thought, and suppresses their initial thought they are acting on their thoughts. They also are not exhibiting a racial thought in the way I was describing. They are exhibiting a very even-tempered thought, and are acting on it. How do you not see this?"

Youre asking me how i dont see some bullshit circle talk you just concocted that makes one though somehow over-write the validity of another thought? Jesus

what i meant by racist thought is a racist thought that is not immediately followed up by a thought that identifies it as racist and wrong!!

[Edited on July 29, 2009 at 6:09 PM. Reason : *]

7/29/2009 6:01:46 PM

okay...so looking at what Professor Gates has said in the past, it could be argued that he is a racist.

All we know from Sgt. James Crowley is that he teaches a racial profiling course at the police station.

The call to the police had no mention of race in it.

7/29/2009 6:03:43 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/07/29/liberia.sex.crimes/index.html

Quote :

"The allegation is shocking: an 8-year-old girl lured to a storage shed with the promise of chewing gum, pinned down and sexually assaulted by four boys, none of them older than 14."

Quote :

"It's something that happens every day in every community in Liberia," said Tania Bernath, a researcher for the human rights group Amnesty International. The country was racked by a brutal civil war for most of 14 years. During that time, rape was used by fighters on all sides as a tool of war and a way to spread terror and demoralize enemies. "

Why does something like this coming from Africa not surprise me..

7/29/2009 7:04:28 PM

dont be such a fuckstick. it has nothing to do with africa, and everything to do with the fact that humans are just a speicies of violent primates.

that shit happens everywhere there is political instability and ethnically based warfare. for instance, serbian christians did it regularly to the bosnian muslims.

7/29/2009 7:09:35 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

7/30/2009 10:01:44 AM

Most of our creepy child molesters in the US are white people too anyway.

[Edited on July 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM. Reason : ]

7/30/2009 10:13:09 AM

Quote :

"Of the 9,700 sex offenders, 67 percent were white males and 32 percent were black males. The percentage rearrested for another sex crime after their release was 5.3 percent of white males and 5.6 percent of black males."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94pr.htm

7/30/2009 10:16:43 AM

Obviously sex crime legislature and judgment is racist as it unduly targets white people.

7/30/2009 10:20:50 AM

I meant to say child molesters

7/30/2009 10:26:26 AM

Quote :

"Most of our creepy child molesters in the US are white people too anyway."

you can spin the stats all you want, but you damn sure don't see tattoos like this on black folks.

(NSFW) : /message_topic.aspx?topic=536654&page=5#13124538

obviously there's something fundamentally wrong with white people.




[Edited on July 30, 2009 at 10:38 AM. Reason : .]

7/30/2009 10:37:16 AM

"Demonstrators protest in front of City Hall in favor of jobs they hope will be created by the construction of a Walmart store on Chicago's Southside July 29, 2009 in Chicago, Illinois. Walmart has been fighting to build another store in the city since 2004 but has failed to win approval from the City Council. There is currently only one Walmart within the Chicago city limits. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)"

Thoughts?

7/30/2009 11:03:39 AM

Quote :

"Thoughts?"

there are zero Wal-Marts within the Seattle city limits.

and i hope our city council continues to ban the wart on the ass of mankind from ever finding its way in here.

7/30/2009 11:07:41 AM

there arnt any in new york either.

we have plenty of big box stores tho.

7/30/2009 11:15:29 AM

I agree with joe. One area the wife and I are looking at moving to wont allow walmart to go in. But of course people, who dont even live in this town, are trying to get it there. Its a positive for us not to have one in an area.

7/30/2009 11:20:52 AM

I don't shop at Walmart. I feel like going there forces me to wade with the underlings of our society.

7/30/2009 12:26:19 PM

I don't get the wal-mart hate and what it has to do with this thread.

7/30/2009 12:38:02 PM

STFU NOOB

7/30/2009 12:43:31 PM

walmart is racist

7/30/2009 12:52:46 PM

Some folks in Alabama claimed to have seen a leprechaun, the local news covered it, and now some are saying the coverage was racist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8

Is that racist?

7/30/2009 1:37:17 PM

theres nothing more i love to hate on than walmart haters. seriously, yall suck.

7/30/2009 1:39:08 PM

7/30/2009 1:41:00 PM

DECLARATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES

The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law.

The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution of checks and balances because they realized the inescapable lesson of history that no man or group of men can be safely entrusted with unlimited power. They framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers of temporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.

We regard the decisions of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal Judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people.

The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th Amendment nor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th Amendment clearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the system of education maintained by the States.

The very Congress which proposed the amendment subsequently provided for segregated schools in the District of Columbia.

When the amendment was adopted in 1868, there were 37 States of the Union. . . .

Every one of the 26 States that had any substantial racial differences among its people, either approved the operation of segregated schools already in existence or subsequently established such schools by action of the same law-making body which considered the 14th Amendment.

As admitted by the Supreme Court in the public school case (Brown v. Board of Education), the doctrine of separate but equal schools "apparently originated in Roberts v. City of Boston (1849), upholding school segregation against attack as being violative of a State constitutional guarantee of equality." This constitutional doctrine began in the North, not in the South, and it was followed not only in Massachusetts, but in Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other northern states until they, exercising their rights as states through the constitutional processes of local self-government, changed their school systems.

In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 the Supreme Court expressly declared that under the 14th Amendment no person was denied any of his rights if the States provided separate but equal facilities. This decision has been followed in many other cases. It is notable that the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Taft, a former President of the United States, unanimously declared in 1927 in Lum v. Rice that the "separate but equal" principle is "within the discretion of the State in regulating its public schools and does not conflict with the 14th Amendment."

This interpretation, restated time and again, became a part of the life of the people of many of the States and confirmed their habits, traditions, and way of life. It is founded on elemental humanity and commonsense, for parents should not be deprived by Government of the right to direct the lives and education of their own children.

Though there has been no constitutional amendment or act of Congress changing this established legal principle almost a century old, the Supreme Court of the United States, with no legal basis for such action, undertook to exercise their naked judicial power and substituted their personal political and social ideas for the established law of the land.

This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.

Without regard to the consent of the governed, outside mediators are threatening immediate and revolutionary changes in our public schools systems. If done, this is certain to destroy the system of public education in some of the States.

With the gravest concern for the explosive and dangerous condition created by this decision and inflamed by outside meddlers:

We reaffirm our reliance on the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land.

We decry the Supreme Court's encroachment on the rights reserved to the States and to the people, contrary to established law, and to the Constitution.

We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means.

We appeal to the States and people who are not directly affected by these decisions to consider the constitutional principles involved against the time when they too, on issues vital to them may be the victims of judicial encroachment.

Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.

We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.

In this trying period, as we all seek to right this wrong, we appeal to our people not to be provoked by the agitators and troublemakers invading our States and to scrupulously refrain from disorder and lawless acts.

Is this racist?

[Edited on July 30, 2009 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2009 1:44:14 PM

haha no that video is hilarious

7/30/2009 1:57:06 PM

^ Yeah. But, no, it's not racist?

7/30/2009 1:58:22 PM

Quote :

"STFU NOOB"

Insightful and helpful coming from someone with less than 3000 days on TWW. <applause>

7/30/2009 2:29:19 PM

i may be edited to make the people in the video look retarded but that does not make it racist.

so not racist

[Edited on July 30, 2009 at 2:30 PM. Reason : !]

7/30/2009 2:30:20 PM

^ I agree that the video is not racist. But some are now saying that it is. Some are now asking whether or not it's racist.

[Edited on July 30, 2009 at 2:41 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2009 2:35:47 PM

hooksaw, the coverage is not racist.

But local news stations have made a living off exploiting the hysterics of folks in lower class neighborhoods. It satisfies the voyeuristic urges and reinforces the prejudices of middle and upper class folks who can delight in the ignorance and misery of others--all without getting out of bed.

The truth is we're all ignorant. We all get emotional. And we all act a fool. But some of us have homes large enough to contain us. And some of us don't have camera crews trolling our neighborhoods, looking for comment every time some tragic (but unremarkable) event occurs.

Don't get me wrong. Some folks are more ignorant than others. Perhaps the people at NBC 15 should have followed up the leprechaun story with a report on the state of public education in Mobile, Alabama. It would have been entirely condescending and heavy-handed, but fuck it...



All that said, I suspect the interesting characters that often turn up for interviews are in on the joke. They're having fun with the news and attention. The only time I'm really bothered is when they air some devastated woman sobbing over the loss of her trailer and her baby. The understanding is that it's good news because it tugs at the heartstrings of viewers and keeps them watching, but we all know most viewers are more likely to comment on the woman's saggy breasts and poor dye job than to feel any kind of real sympathy for her.

[Edited on July 30, 2009 at 2:51 PM. Reason : Hot damn, I use "folks" a lot.]

7/30/2009 2:42:17 PM

^

7/30/2009 2:48:39 PM

^^ Fair enough. And I would point out that one of the anchors and the cameraman, I think, are black journalists.

Yeah, the guy with the "thousand-year-old flute" seemed to be messing with the news team--or either he's just crazy.



[Edited on July 30, 2009 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2009 2:50:32 PM

Does laughing at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk6u2zEszw0&feature=related (bug flies in reporter's mouth) make you a racist?

7/30/2009 3:03:08 PM

^^ Im going to go along with Bridget and say that the video has more to do with class differences than race differences. We don't think its funny because these people are black, we think its funny because they're pretty stupid and most likely very poor. If they were white it would be just as funny.

someone might think its funny because they're black and chances are that person is poor and stupid.

7/30/2009 3:56:28 PM

Quote :

"stu: Insightful and helpful coming from someone with less than 3000 days on TWW. <applause>"

the fact that you've been lurking since '01 still doesn't prevent you from being blatantly trolled.

noob.

7/30/2009 4:01:17 PM

^ haha schmoe always make me lol

7/30/2009 8:11:13 PM

^^^only if these were white people, you all would use the terms white trash and redneck.......ohh the hypocracy.....

I saw this video like 2 years ago. The flute guy is not faking.

[Edited on July 30, 2009 at 11:08 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2009 11:07:40 PM

^ oh, that's not necessarily true.

however.... when i *do* think of white trash rednecks, your name is always near the top of the list.

7/31/2009 1:10:19 AM

Cop called Gates a banana-eating jungle monkey.....racist? He says he is not a racist....

[Edited on July 31, 2009 at 1:35 AM. Reason : w]

7/31/2009 1:34:10 AM

^^^ aw . . . poor whitey, can't catch a break.

[Edited on July 31, 2009 at 1:43 AM. Reason : ]

7/31/2009 1:38:16 AM

^^^^ and?

7/31/2009 1:47:18 AM

bump by request

1/10/2010 11:31:07 AM