Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

So when CAN you call someone a racist?

124678

Posts

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    that's only because you're one of the idiots I mentioned earlier who don't understand what structural racism is.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    What exactly are you blathering about here? What is the point of this statement or line of reasoning? That because we failed to kill EVERYONE 200 years ago that....?

    You're arguing that previous genocide justifies the modern destruction of minority culture. I would disagree.
    The right to ignore the entire English speaking populous of the country? To what purpose?

    None required. It's a free country.
    So why come here, and not learn the language?

    Because a lot of them can apparently live off just fine without it.
    The point is that if you want to talk about racial inequality and that non-whites are at a disadvantage why would you want to further handicap yourself by not learning the Native tongue of the nation you immigrate to?

    Except this analogy isn't valid. It would only be valid if you compared, say, non-english speaking white people with non-english speaking minorities.
    What is your point exactly here? That people should not have to learn the language when they immigrate to a country. except to do it legally you have to speak the language. Here you go, the legal requirements on becoming a citizen.

    Language

    Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:

    * have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 15 years and are over 55 years of age;
    * have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over 50 years of age; or
    * have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn English.

    Did you not notice the list of exemptions that consisted of the bulk of what you posted?
    My point in all this, is that every person living in America should be able to speak English. It increases your chances of a better life, it helps prevent the exploitation of people, and its a legal requirement for being an American citizen.

    I think everyone would be better off if they learned computers, but that would likewise be irrelevant to this thread.
    So what exactly is your point in all this?

    Once again, I'm not the one who brought it up. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and then complain when people ask you where it is.

    Schrodinger on
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    My argument is the current solution to the problem is wrong...

    Killing every minority so they dont have to be rejected by racist establishments is also a solution to the issue, but its also wrong.

    Just because something addressess an issue doesnt mean its automatically right. How about our culture stops potraying negative stereotypes at every corner? That could help the issue...

    I mean theres obviously reasons behind the racial bias in hiring. I refuse to believe its because deep down inside white men are genetically inclined to believe they are better then minorities. The issues that cause these racist hiring practices should be addressed. Fighting them with other racist hiring practices is not a good solution.

    Again, it addressess the whole, trying to even out numbers. But numbers are just that. It does nothing for the individuals. All it does is cause MORE unfair practices towards individuals.

    So the numbers may look better but you still have the same amount of racist owners rejecting qualified minority applicants. But now you also have other establishments potentially rejecting qualified white applicants.

    And you can claim I need to prove these individuals are being passed over due to affirmative action. But then I say, pick out the individual cases where qualified minorities were passed over for less qualified white males. Its almost impossible to pick out the exact cases it happens in with both situations. The obvious fact is, it does happen. Id be stupid to say that the numbers are similar or even close. But its equally stupid to insist that affirmative action has never ever caused a qualifed white male to be passed over for a less qualified minority.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    AcidSerra wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    keep digging...

    Oh, you want me to tell him about how group-membership impairs peoples ability to gain these qualifications he's so obsessed with in the first place, making the qualifications themselves in many cases a tool of group-membership based discrimination in hiring?

    If he hasn't heard anyhting else you've said what makes you think he'll hear this? =P

    And I used positions because your applicants example does not work in any way shape or form, period. Either quotas have a 100% effect on the decision or a very very small effect on the decision. Therefore your example is absolutely meaningless and all your sarcastic and cutting remarks are straight up worthless.
    If you want to bite the guy with truth about AA, use something true.

    He's not concerned with truth, I don't see truth swaying him. I see mocking his ridiculous persecution fantasies as fun, though. The % of applicants thing is more applicable to colleges, I've never worked for a company that used quotas before but with schools if you're doing quotas it makes the most sense to require a certain proportion of incoming freshmen rather than the enrollment level since in 4 years your positions-filled quota is suddenly empty.

    Once again, I'm pretty sure that quotas were ruled unconstitutional in the 70s, at least when it came to schools. Which sort of makes you wonder where these "guarantees" will come from.

    Regardless, there are as people who are likely to get in regardless of AA, people who are unlikely to get in regardless of AA, and people who are in the gray zone when it comes to merit. Not surprisingly, the people in the gray zone most likely to be harmed in the presense of AA are also the people who are most likely to benefit from discrimination in the absense of AA. Funny how that works?

    Schrodinger on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    quotas are banned in government agencies, including schools. Pretty sure even private educational facilities are not allowed to use them. Only some large private companies do, but most have realised that there are more effective ways to get a more representative demographic of workers without sacrificing productivity.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    So wait, does anyone even use quotas? I mean I've worked for some pretty evil corporations and none of them used quotas.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I mean theres obviously reasons behind the racial bias in hiring. I refuse to believe its because deep down inside white men are genetically inclined to believe they are better then minorities.

    And yet you're inclined to believe that you're more deserving of the job than they are in the presense of AA, and that your failures occur for their personal benefit.
    The issues that cause these racist hiring practices should be addressed.

    How?
    Fighting them with other racist hiring practices is not a good solution.

    So I think stealing is wrong. As a general rule, people should not take things that do not belong to them. The other day, I stole a car. The police knocked on my door to take it back. However, since the car does not belong to the police, I think that it would be wrong for hem to take it, which would be a bad and hypocritical situation.
    So the numbers may look better but you still have the same amount of racist owners rejecting qualified minority applicants. But now you also have other establishments potentially rejecting qualified white applicants.

    Yes, because prior to AA, no qualified white person ever got rejected from anything, as there were always more than enough positions to go around. The fact that they are being rejected now can be blamed squarely on the black man.
    And you can claim I need to prove these individuals are being passed over due to affirmative action. But then I say, pick out the individual cases where qualified minorities were passed over for less qualified white males. Its almost impossible to pick out the exact cases it happens in with both situations.

    Which is why your whole talk of "racism may happen on the large scale, but think of the individuals!" is bullshit. You can't think of the individuals when they can't even be identified.

    Schrodinger on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    You're arguing that previous genocide justifies the modern destruction of minority culture. I would disagree.

    Which minority culture are we destroying exactly?
    None required. It's a free country.
    And people have the right to be completely stupid.
    Because a lot of them can apparently live off just fine without it.
    Really? Then they should have absolutely no problem if everything was printed in English, English was the only language taught in schools, and that there was no special treatment for those who don't speak it right? After all, they are getting by fine right?
    Except this analogy isn't valid. It would only be valid if you compared, say, non-english speaking white people with non-english speaking minorities.
    My analogy is quite valid, we are comparing minority X with minority y. We arent even bringing white people into it for this test case.

    Did you not notice the list of exemptions that consisted of the bulk of what you posted?
    Do you have a response other than this? The exceptions are for elderly people who have been living here for quite a few years. This is a very small portion of any group of immigrants that do not speak the language.
    I think everyone would be better off if they learned computers, but that would likewise be irrelevant to this thread.
    I think my statements are quite relevant.
    Once again, I'm not the one who brought it up. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and then complain when people ask you where it is.

    What exactly are you arguing? Every post you respond to is pretty much "i disgaree, this tiny part is wrong because of strawman X" You ignore 99% of what i write, and post nothing at all of worth, weight, or even discussional material. Post something with meat in it. I give you statements on why learning english is a good thing, you ignore them. I point out how it betters minorities, and that falls by the wayside, i point out legal requirements to citizenship and reasons they are good and you want to talk about the exceptions for the elderly who have been living here.

    What exactly do you have to say or contribute?

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    But then I say, pick out the individual cases where qualified minorities were passed over for less qualified white males.

    http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-24-05.html

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    But then I say, pick out the individual cases where qualified minorities were passed over for less qualified white males.

    http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-24-05.html

    see also: Denny's.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    You're right. In that case, they'll just ignore you alltogeher. Problem solved.

    Which is pretty much the case now. They dont want to learn english, its to hard, so lets just ignore anyone who speaks it. Dont see a problem with that i take it?

    Jesus, what the fuck?

    How could that possibly be construed as a problem? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

    Are you so convinced that your white-male privelege extends to everyone paying you attention as you see fit? This just in, everyone is pretty much allowed to ignore who ever they want both legally and ethically - if they do so because they speak different languages, then bully for them.

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    So I think stealing is wrong. As a general rule, people should not take things that do not belong to them. The other day, I stole a car. The police knocked on my door to take it back. However, since the car does not belong to the police, I think that it would be wrong for hem to take it, which would be a bad and hypocritical situation.

    No, no no. It would be as if you stole a car, and then the police went and took a car from someone who looked like you.
    And yet you're inclined to believe that you're more deserving of the job than they are in the presense of AA, and that your failures occur for their personal benefit.

    Um, we somehow are under the impression ive been personally effected by AA? Cause, I havent. I really highly doubt I ever will be. I dont really have a personal stake in this, the assumption I do is bullshit. Yes I am a white male, but my stake in it goes no further then that.

    You keep making this personal....for example this next comment is ridiculous...
    Yes, because prior to AA, no qualified white person ever got rejected from anything, as there were always more than enough positions to go around. The fact that they are being rejected now can be blamed squarely on the black man.

    First off, I have no idea what your even trying to say here. Are you trying to say that racial bias against white people is not soley born from AA? Because thats not important. Lets say person A murders 4 people. Just because person A hasnt murdered EVERYONE doesnt mean it would be nice to get him off the streets and stop murdering people. Just because AA isnt the sole reason qualified people are passed over doesnt mean we should ignore it when it IS the cause...

    And the more insane comment is the one about blaming the black man. Never once have I somehow insinuated its the minorities fault. In fact, its white men passing laws that I disagree with. I dont blame the guy who gets the job because of AA, I blame the hypocrites responsible for the system.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Which minority culture are we destroying exactly?

    Non-english speaking ones.
    Because a lot of them can apparently live off just fine without it.
    Really? Then they should have absolutely no problem if everything was printed in English, English was the only language taught in schools, and that there was no special treatment for those who don't speak it right? After all, they are getting by fine right?

    Non-sequitor. You're trying to change the game in order to justify changing the game. It's like someone saying "I'm fine with just my X-Box," and you replying with, "Really? Then you should have no problem if all your games were only released for the PS2, right?"

    You seem to have a habit of making completely irrelevant points.
    My analogy is quite valid, we are comparing minority X with minority y. We arent even bringing white people into it for this test case.

    Thereby completely ignoring the main reason I brought up the study in the first place.
    Do you have a response other than this? The exceptions are for elderly people who have been living here for quite a few years. This is a very small portion of any group of immigrants that do not speak the language.

    Jesus Christ, you're dense. For a guy who keeps harping on how everyone should learn english, you seem to have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're arguing, or what anyone else is.

    Recap:

    You: "I believe everyone living in the United States of American, even california, should speak english. I dont care where you immigrated from, learn the language."

    Me: "Even if you're 50 years old and you've gotten by fine without it?

    You: "Yes, welcome to America, learn the language or GTFO."

    Zalbinion and others: "NEWS FLASH: English Not Official Language of United States"

    You: "Here you go, the legal requirements on becoming a citizen. Language Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing: * have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 15 years and are over 55 years of age; * have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over 50 years of age; or * have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn English."

    Me: "Did you not notice the list of exemptions that consisted of the bulk of what you posted?"

    You: "Do you have a response other than this? The exceptions are for elderly people who have been living here for quite a few years. This is a very small portion of any group of immigrants that do not speak the language."

    It's funny how the phrase "everyone", specifically including people over 50, apparently now includes exemptions for the elderly. That's a funny definition of the word "everyone" you have there. Just out of curiousity, where did you learn English?
    I think my statements are quite relevant.

    Well, you've been wrong on everything else.
    I give you statements on why learning english is a good thing, you ignore them. I point out how it betters minorities, and that falls by the wayside, i point out legal requirements to citizenship and reasons they are good and you want to talk about the exceptions for the elderly who have been living here.

    Was that before or after the part on "Yes, welcome to America, learn the language or GTFO"?

    It's amazing how often you change your position when it doesn't suit you, only to try to blame that change on others.

    Schrodinger on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Are we going to talk about the study where the applicant was the same person just one with a "white sounding" name, and one with a "black sounding" name, and the difference in call back numbers?

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    You're right. In that case, they'll just ignore you alltogeher. Problem solved.

    Which is pretty much the case now. They dont want to learn english, its to hard, so lets just ignore anyone who speaks it. Dont see a problem with that i take it?

    Jesus, what the fuck?

    How could that possibly be construed as a problem? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

    Are you so convinced that your white-male privelege extends to everyone paying you attention as you see fit? This just in, everyone is pretty much allowed to ignore who ever they want both legally and ethically - if they do so because they speak different languages, then bully for them.

    Ahh but to legally live in this country you need to speak the language. You speak of rights, ever notice how every document giving those rights is written in English. How in order to get the full protection and usage of those rights you need to be able to communicate somehow in English. I would avoid bringing legal rights into this as well, considering every single illegal immigrant is a lawbreaker simply by being here. Criminals lose a lot of their rights as well, ever tried to buy a gun as a convicted felon?

    So what is the major malfunction causing people to avoid learning English if at all possibly, and working extra hard so they they dont even have to bother to learn the language at all?

    And what does being a white male have to do with ANYTHING in regards to this line of discussion?

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Ahh but to legally live in this country you need to speak the language.

    Hey Deth, the fire department called. They were asking about your pants.
    So what is the major malfunction causing people to avoid learning English if at all possibly, and working extra hard so they they dont even have to bother to learn the language at all?

    And what does being a white male have to do with ANYTHING in regards to this line of discussion?

    Yeah, what in the world does being white have to do with a discussion on RACISM? We should all go back to discussing whether or not quality of life will go up for english speaking americans. That's totally much more relevant. :roll:

    Schrodinger on
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    while I agree itd be nice if we all spoke the same language, and I agree that logically english would be the best choice since a lot of countries education already include a pretty deep focus on the language...

    its a bit egotistical to demand other people learn your language.

    Are you going to demaned deaf people learn to hear since you cant use sign language? Do you want to demand that blind people learn to read english since you cant write brail?

    Learning another language isnt as easy as youd want to believe. And learning to speak it properly can be literally impossible. For example I know I cant roll my Rs, if I was forced to speak spanish I would never ever be able to do it properly. Accents are not easy to remove. And someone who would fail to speak english properly would be treated almost as unfairly as someone who cant speak it at all...

    If someone wants to talk to me, yeah they should learn my language. But they have no more an obligation to learn mine as I do theres.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2007

    Non-english speaking ones.

    Funny, im not trying to destroy them at all. Have i advocated killing anyone? And how exactly does learning a second language, the native one of the country you live in i might add, destroy a culture. Native Americans seemed to have managed, somehow. Now which american cultures are we destroying exactly?

    Non-sequitor. You're trying to change the game in order to justify changing the game. It's like someone saying "I'm fine with just my X-Box," and you replying with, "Really? Then you should have no problem if all your games were only released for the PS2, right?"
    Straw man. Heres a better example, Pirate Ps2 games dont work on my X-Box i demand Microsoft fix it. Why should microsoft not just ignore me again?
    You seem to have a habit of making completely irrelevant points.

    And you have a habit of making none.
    Thereby completely ignoring the main reason I brought up the study in the first place.

    That white guys get more callbacks than black guys? They both spoke english what does this have to do with your case on why people living here illegally should not have to learn english?

    Jesus Christ, you're dense. For a guy who keeps harping on how everyone should learn english, you seem to have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're arguing, or what anyone else is.

    Insert pointless recap here.

    See heres the funny part. I said I FEEL. See that makes it an opinion, then i followed it up with information from a legal standpoint. Do i feel people over 50 should learn English yes. Does it matter, to me, if they have been living here for 20 years. Not in the slightest. See heres what your not getting being over 50 is not a get out of English free card. And your arguement to my opinion, followed by legal requirements is that my opinion isnt the exact wording of the legal requirements. This isnt a counter arguement, and your right i have NO IDEA what your arguing. My every attempt to get you to state a logical, well thought out, defendable arguement that counters my own has been completely ignored.

    Well, you've been wrong on everything else.
    At least im saying something as opposed to strawman, logical fallacy, responding to one sentance of a paragraph and then ignoring everything else.
    It's amazing how often you change your position when it doesn't suit you, only to try to blame that change on others.

    My position hasnt changed, its still learn the language or GTFO with elaborations on WHY its a good thing to learn the language. What is your position?

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Ahh but to legally live in this country you need to speak the language.

    Oh, I'm going to need to see some documentation on this outright lie. To legally immigrate you need to show some proficiency in the language, at one time. You can promptly revert to speaking your native tongue after that if you choose [EDIT: and forget any English you learned]. And natural-born citizens can learn or not learn whatever language they choose...well, maybe compulsory education alters that equation a bit.
    You speak of rights, ever notice how every document giving those rights is written in English.

    How many Christians speak Aramaic? Or hell, even Greek?
    How in order to get the full protection and usage of those rights you need to be able to communicate somehow in English. I would avoid bringing legal rights into this as well, considering every single illegal immigrant is a lawbreaker simply by being here. Criminals lose a lot of their rights as well, ever tried to buy a gun as a convicted felon?

    Convicted criminals lose a lot of their rights. An illegal immigrant simply walking down the street actually enjoys many of the same protections as a citizen, at least until he's picked up and his immigration status is confirmed. In theory.
    And what does being a white male have to do with ANYTHING in regards to this line of discussion?

    Well, I think in this case is predisposes people to be raging idiots. But that might be construed as a racist statement. I've been accused of being racist against "my own" many times, this would be nothing new.


    EDIT
    Hey Deth, the fire department called. They were asking about your pants.

    mcdermott on
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    See heres the funny part. I said I FEEL. See that makes it an opinion

    See, here's the funny part (see what I did there), opinions can be wrong.

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Disrupter wrote: »
    its a bit egotistical to demand other people learn your language.

    Are you going to demaned deaf people learn to hear since you cant use sign language? Do you want to demand that blind people learn to read english since you cant write brail?

    Learning another language isnt as easy as youd want to believe. And learning to speak it properly can be literally impossible. For example I know I cant roll my Rs, if I was forced to speak spanish I would never ever be able to do it properly. Accents are not easy to remove. And someone who would fail to speak english properly would be treated almost as unfairly as someone who cant speak it at all...

    If someone wants to talk to me, yeah they should learn my language. But they have no more an obligation to learn mine as I do theres.

    If I moved to any country on this planet and refused to learn the native language i would not go far. Its egotistical to move to a new country, illegally, refuse to learn the language, and expect the native population to accomidate you.

    Again we are not discussing a physical handicap, to date there is no known mental handicap preventing an otherwise fully functional human being from learning a second language.

    Except if they move to their country you are under obligation to learn the language, and to legally move here you are also obligated to learn the language.

    off to bed, have a good night all.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Straw man. Heres a better example, Pirate Ps2 games dont work on my X-Box i demand Microsoft fix it. Why should microsoft not just ignore me again?

    Except they don't have to "demand", there are already many people who will happily "port" games in their language, which is how they managed to get away with no learning English in the first place.
    That white guys get more callbacks than black guys? They both spoke english what does this have to do with your case on why people living here illegally should not have to learn english?

    Nothing. But once again...

    YOU'RE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP!!!!

    Sheesh.
    See heres the funny part. I said I FEEL. See that makes it an opinion, then i followed it up with information from a legal standpoint.

    And the legal standpoint contradicted with your feelings. Deal with it.
    My every attempt to get you to state a logical, well thought out, defendable arguement that counters my own has been completely ignored.

    That's right. You're the only one being reasonable, and every single other person on this thread who has pretty much unanimously called you an idiot is just too stupid to understand you. :roll:

    You seem to have a way of faulting others for your own lack of communication skills.

    Schrodinger on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    its a bit egotistical to demand other people learn your language.

    Are you going to demaned deaf people learn to hear since you cant use sign language? Do you want to demand that blind people learn to read english since you cant write brail?

    Learning another language isnt as easy as youd want to believe. And learning to speak it properly can be literally impossible. For example I know I cant roll my Rs, if I was forced to speak spanish I would never ever be able to do it properly. Accents are not easy to remove. And someone who would fail to speak english properly would be treated almost as unfairly as someone who cant speak it at all...

    If someone wants to talk to me, yeah they should learn my language. But they have no more an obligation to learn mine as I do theres.

    If I moved to any country on this planet and refused to learn the native language i would not go far. Its egotistical to move to a new country, illegally, refuse to learn the language, and expect the native population to accomidate you.

    Again we are not discussing a physical handicap, to date there is no known mental handicap preventing an otherwise fully functional human being from learning a second language.

    Not exactly true, but the rest of your post was stupid enough for this to be a minor nitpick.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    If I moved to any country on this planet and refused to learn the native language i would not go far.

    Right. Like when my friends went to South Africa to study abroad, they all learned the native language of South Africa. It's not like they simply go places that will understand English for the sake of convenient.
    Its egotistical to move to a new country, illegally, refuse to learn the language, and expect the native population to accomidate you.

    The keyword there is "illegally," which in America, it isn't.
    Again we are not discussing a physical handicap, to date there is no known mental handicap preventing an otherwise fully functional human being from learning a second language.

    Really? So why does the list of exemptions that YOU YOURSELF QUOTED include "have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn English."?
    off to bed, have a good night all.

    Great, now maybe we can actually discuss things on topic, rather than seeing you try to derail the discussion and then ask us what our point is when point your your numerous errors and contradictions.

    In conclusion: I might not call you a racist, but I would most certainly call you an idiot.

    Schrodinger on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Its egotistical to move to a new country, illegally, refuse to learn the language, and expect the native population to accomidate you.

    The keyword there is "illegally," which in America, it isn't.

    I think he's basically only referring to illegal immigrants. He may or may not be under the mistaken impression that the only non-English-speaking people running around are illegal immigrants...which, of course, is just as wrong as that "have to speak English to live here legally" line.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Also, if we want an illegal immigration thread, or an English as an official language thread, we could probably either start a new one or resurrect one of the recent ones; I'd prefer the latter, so we can get all the usual bullshit out of the way first.

    But while we're here, funny story; there was this guy who worked at McDonald's while I was in high school...pretended not to speak English. He was the only non-English speaker working there (unusual in Phoenix, but it happens depending on neighborhood), so they basically just had him mopping floors and such, and really didn't have enough work to really keep him busy. But eventually get another Spanish speaker on-staff...and apparently he doesn't speak Spanish either. He's Latino, so that's surprising, but there's always Portuguese or native languages so you never know.

    Until one day the boss walks in on him outside talking to a buddy on his cellphone. In perfect English. Yes, he was promptly fired.

    The guy could have one a fucking acting award. He pulled this shit off for months.

    mcdermott on
  • FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I think that language is an important topic with regards to immigration. However I believe its for safety reasons, both for the individual, their family, and the wider community.

    All those who this its obnoxious to speak a language that isn't yours can go fuck yourselves.

    Immigration usually happens for some pretty serious reasons. These people dont to some kind of international audit of benefit systems to see where is the cushiest place to live without working. Most people people do it to provide a life for their family that is half way decent. Hell, a lot of people do it for the luxury of not having their children shot at.

    Fallingman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, if we want an illegal immigration thread, or an English as an official language thread, we could probably either start a new one or resurrect one of the recent ones; I'd prefer the latter, so we can get all the usual bullshit out of the way first.

    Agreed.

    "This is a discussion on race. Here are some studies on race."
    "Oh yeah? What about English as the National language?"
    "That has nothing to do with race."
    "What if in that study, instead of comparing black people to white people, I compare people who can speak english to people who can't?"
    "That still has nothing to do with race."
    "What's your point?! OMG, you still haven't explained what your point is! I'm just trying to discuss english as the national language, and you're still harping on race."
    "It's in the title."
    "So what's your point? I'm still not seeing it. I'm just saying that English should be the national language."

    Funny story, BTW.

    Schrodinger on
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    arod_77 wrote: »
    The most upsetting thing to me is that assclowns like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton get away with their bias', but then are seemingly invulnerable to counterattack due to their race.

    I discovered an amazing power a year or two ago.

    I was arguing with that one preacher, and made some comment about jalepenos.

    He decided to declare, "That's racist! I'm part Mexican!"

    I rebuffed him with, "Oh yeah? I'm Native American, bitch."

    And he acted like I had just slapped his mouth shut.

    This is why I love the internet. I dont know who the fuck I'm talking to, what race/ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation/etc you people are. Even if I have hidden biases that I'm not aware of, they can't play a role here anyway, and so rasism essentially cannot exist online. Everyone gets treated equally when you first meet them.

    (Sure you can have people talking about racism, but for all I know its some black guy trying to be funny, like that Chapelle KKK skit)

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    Again we are not discussing a physical handicap, to date there is no known mental handicap preventing an otherwise fully functional human being from learning a second language.

    Really? So why does the list of exemptions that YOU YOURSELF QUOTED include "have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn English."?

    Hahahahahahaha.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Interestingly, I use a Hispanic/Latino-sounding screen name on another forum that is largely populated with "conservative" types. You'd not believe some of the shit I run into over there.

    I don't think most of them even believe me when I say I'm white in response.

    mcdermott on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007

    Everyone's a little bit racist
    Sometimes.
    Doesn't mean we go
    Around committing hate crimes.
    Look around and you will find
    No one's really color blind.
    Maybe it's a fact
    We all should face
    Everyone makes judgments
    Based on race.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Wow. I definitely feel dumber after reading some of that stuff (mostly from Disrupter). I agree with Cat; sounds like someone doesn't understand how structural racism is.

    To quote Avenue Q: Everyone's a little bit racist. Edit: BEAT'D. Personally, my bias is actually against Asian people more than anyone else (moderate bias against Asians, a little but not statistically significant against blacks, minor-moderate against Hispanics, moderate bias for whites................I'm an Asian man, incidentally).

    Weird thing is, no one I know would ever categorize me as racist yet the unconscious bias is still there, though I'm proud to say I have far less unconscious bias than most (being trans-racially adopted will do that to you, I think).

    I don't get the "reverse racism" argument ever. It's like having 2 guys start a 1 mile race, with 1 guy running on flat ground and the other guy running uphill at a 10 degree angle. The reverse racism argument would say that if the guy on flat ground finishes first then he won the race! Obviously he's the better runner. Anyone who tries to adjust for the uphill slope is just biasing the results in favor of the uphill runner, which is just as unfair as biasing the track in favor of the flat-ground runner.

    But we all know better than that I would hope.

    sanstodo on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited May 2007
    I think it's mostly a sign that conservatives have finally ceded that "racism" is unacceptable, and being branded a "racist" does in fact carry consequences when dealing with people outside their own strongly ideological subculture. So they've given up on trying to claim that racism isn't so bad, and have gone straight to raising the bar on what entails racism ("hey don't you have a sense of humor"), muddling the definition of racism ("look, I never said that being ape-like is a bad thing. That would be racist"), and created a counter-accusation ("politically correct oloz") to accusations of racism.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I think it's mostly a sign that conservatives have finally ceded that "racism" is unacceptable, and being branded a "racist" does in fact carry consequences when dealing with people outside their own strongly ideological subculture. So they've given up on trying to claim that racism isn't so bad, and have gone straight to raising the bar on what entails racism ("hey don't you have a sense of humor"), muddling the definition of racism ("look, I never said that being ape-like is a bad thing. That would be racist"), and created a counter-accusation ("politically correct oloz") to accusations of racism.

    Smells like group-muting to me. Tastes like it too (my sense of smell is questionable, so I had to confirm).

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »

    I don't get the "reverse racism" argument ever. It's like having 2 guys start a 1 mile race, with 1 guy running on flat ground and the other guy running uphill at a 10 degree angle. The reverse racism argument would say that if the guy on flat ground finishes first then he won the race! Obviously he's the better runner. Anyone who tries to adjust for the uphill slope is just biasing the results in favor of the uphill runner, which is just as unfair as biasing the track in favor of the flat-ground runner.

    But we all know better than that I would hope.

    No, reverse racism would be more akin to the following:

    in race 1- person A) gets to run downhill, person b) runs uphill

    so then in a completely different race, you notice that person C looks like person A and person D looks like person B, so because you felt race 1 was unfair you decide that person D should get to run downhill.

    youre making more races unfair for a completely different person who may or may not have had the advantages of the person from the first race. It allows you to look at overall numbers, smile and go "yep, things are getting better for people who look like persons B and D!"

    But the reality is, person B was treated just as unfairly. Nothing changed because you changed the rules for the second race. The only thing is, now person C was treated unfairly too.

    But but but, its good! Because now the overall numbers are even! this means there isnt a problem anymore! Yay!

    Except, there is still a problem, and now theres more people getting screwed so you can balance the numbers and make the picture look prettier.

    Affirmative Action is not going to stop racist people from not hiring minorities. It will however force other people to hire minorities because of the fact they are minorities. And any time you hire someone based on the color of their skin you are risking not hiring based on qualifications. Its a pretty simple argument. You can claim you are now dumber for having heard it, but honestly if you havent heard it before you havent spoken to anyone who wasnt too busy high fiving you for agreeing on your hypocritical racially biased policiies.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited May 2007
    So four pages in, Disrupter, and you're still not clear on how affirmative action actually works, huh? God, it's like watching my cat bat at a laser pointer.

    Jacobkosh on
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Ok, then tell me, exactly how does it work. Because although quotas may not be common, they do exist.

    What other means are used to accomplish the goals of affirmative action?

    You can say that "quotas arent the norm!" But that doesnt mean that they 100 percent dont exist. But the very concept of giving one race preferential treatment over another is what Im arguing, not the means in which it is done.

    And regardless of how its accomplished, I stand by the fact it will NOT serve to stop minorities from being discriminated against with racially biased hiring practices. It may balance the overall scales but again its not going to do anything on an individual level. Do you really think the black guy who wasnt hired because the owner was a white racist is going to be able to take solace in the fact some other black guy somewhere did get a job? Policies which try to balance the numbers from such a large, impersonal scale arent going to do shit about the issues.

    Like I said, the key is to find out the core behind these racially biased hiring practices. For example find out WHY a white guy wouldnt want to hire a black guy. And then try to address those reasons. Is it because he has seen too many rap videos and now has a twisted point of view about all black men? Is it because of crime statistics? Is it because of the stereotypes portrayed on TV and movies?

    Its like if you want a gray wall, but right now its 100 percent white. So you go in and paint a bunch of black squares all over to make a checker pattern. From a distance, sure its gray, but when you get up close you realize you still just have a bunch of white and black squares, you didnt fix the problem, you just made it look nicer from a distance.

    Disrupter on
    616610-1.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    The examples used in the OP were all completely villifed as racists and had their careers destroyed. I'm not sure I understand why there is some perception that have gotten away from being called racists just because they themselves deny it.

    Yar on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited May 2007
    The way it works in the real world, as opposed to crazy Disrupter moon land, is that if you have two applicants with equal qualifications and one of them is black, you hire him. That's the principle. In practice there are about six thousand other considerations that come into play, and yet somehow through it all white people manage to maintain a disproportionate advantage.

    You can begin frothing at the mouth nonsensically about the horrible unfairness of it all now.

    Jacobkosh on
Sign In or Register to comment.