BF2S Forums racism

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

paul386 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Because we whites weren't the ones being oppressed in the very near past.

"we whites" is a racist term. You are grouping people together based on a common feature.

Who that lives in this country now was ever legally held in slavery?

No one.


Racism is grouping people together. Wether it be derogatory or not, it is still racism. Start thinking of people as individuals, and only then you are not a racist.

I know. And I agree.

However, the oppression of people largely of African or Caribbean origin, largely by those of a European origin, continued for at least good 100 years after the abolition of slavery.

It's only been a little over 40 years since the US Civil Rights act was passed in congress.

We, you and I, may not have been doing the oppression, but our fathers/mothers or grandfathers/grandmothers (speaking generally) were.

So, whilst you are entirely correct that any grouping of people based on a common feature is discriminatory, it is, at the same time, entirely understandable that the children/grandchildren of people that were oppressed because of a shared feature might feel a little aggrieved with the children/grandchildren, as well as the parents/grandparents, of those that had oppressed their parents/grandparents.

If you see what I mean.

So you are saying that it is acceptable for someone who has never been oppressed to hold ME accountable for the actions of someone I had no association with or control against someone they had no relation with or control over?

Why is this okay? You want to hold me accountable for individuals actions because I share a command skin color with them? You want to assume someone's grandparents were oppressed because of the color of their skin?

Give me a break.

The biggest problem with racial tension these days is that the government groups us by race and we become suspicious that the other races are getting more of the government "loot" than "we" are.

" A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty. "

- Ron Paul

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

paul386 wrote:

"we whites" is a racist term. You are grouping people together based on a common feature.

Who that lives in this country now was ever legally held in slavery?

No one.


Racism is grouping people together. Wether it be derogatory or not, it is still racism. Start thinking of people as individuals, and only then you are not a racist.

I know. And I agree.

However, the oppression of people largely of African or Caribbean origin, largely by those of a European origin, continued for at least good 100 years after the abolition of slavery.

It's only been a little over 40 years since the US Civil Rights act was passed in congress.

We, you and I, may not have been doing the oppression, but our fathers/mothers or grandfathers/grandmothers (speaking generally) were.

So, whilst you are entirely correct that any grouping of people based on a common feature is discriminatory, it is, at the same time, entirely understandable that the children/grandchildren of people that were oppressed because of a shared feature might feel a little aggrieved with the children/grandchildren, as well as the parents/grandparents, of those that had oppressed their parents/grandparents.

If you see what I mean.

I do see what you mean, so then the question becomes; Just how long is the "aggrieved" victim, card alowed to be played? Where is the cut off when you will finally say, Ok, enough is enough, move on? Keeping in mind that blacks were not the only race held in bondage in history.

Well, that's the thing - it's not down to anyone, other than those that feel aggrieved, to decide.

paul386 wrote:

So you are saying that it is acceptable for someone who has never been oppressed to hold ME accountable for the actions of someone I had no association with or control against someone they had no relation with or control over?

Why is this okay? You want to hold me accountable for individuals actions because I share a command skin color with them? You want to assume someone's grandparents were oppressed because of the color of their skin?

It's OK because that's the way it is.

OK, say someone punches you in the face, you have the right to feel aggrieved, yes?

Now, say everyone starts punching you in the face every time they see you, and this goes on for years and years, until one day someone says "oh, sorry we've all been punching you in the face for so long, we'll stop now... ...oh, but you're not now allowed to punch us in the face... ...but you're ok with that, aren't you? ...'cos if you're not, and you try to punch anyone, then we'll lock you up..."

How long would it take you to stop feeling aggrieved?

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I know. And I agree.

However, the oppression of people largely of African or Caribbean origin, largely by those of a European origin, continued for at least good 100 years after the abolition of slavery.

It's only been a little over 40 years since the US Civil Rights act was passed in congress.

We, you and I, may not have been doing the oppression, but our fathers/mothers or grandfathers/grandmothers (speaking generally) were.

So, whilst you are entirely correct that any grouping of people based on a common feature is discriminatory, it is, at the same time, entirely understandable that the children/grandchildren of people that were oppressed because of a shared feature might feel a little aggrieved with the children/grandchildren, as well as the parents/grandparents, of those that had oppressed their parents/grandparents.

If you see what I mean.

I do see what you mean, so then the question becomes; Just how long is the "aggrieved" victim, card alowed to be played? Where is the cut off when you will finally say, Ok, enough is enough, move on? Keeping in mind that blacks were not the only race held in bondage in history.

Well, that's the thing - it's not down to anyone, other than those that feel aggrieved, to decide.

paul386 wrote:

So you are saying that it is acceptable for someone who has never been oppressed to hold ME accountable for the actions of someone I had no association with or control against someone they had no relation with or control over?

Why is this okay? You want to hold me accountable for individuals actions because I share a command skin color with them? You want to assume someone's grandparents were oppressed because of the color of their skin?

It's OK because that's the way it is.

OK, say someone punches you in the face, you have the right to feel aggrieved, yes?

Now, say everyone starts punching you in the face every time they see you, and this goes on for years and years, until one day someone says "oh, sorry we've all been punching you in the face for so long, we'll stop now... ...oh, but you're not now allowed to punch us in the face... ...but you're ok with that, aren't you? ...'cos if you're not, and you try to punch anyone, then we'll lock you up..."

How long would it take you to stop feeling aggrieved?

No its not quite like that.

Again you are attaching the group mentality to the situation.

In your example, the guy gets punched.

The people stop punching him.

He has children, they were never punched.

I never punched anyone, yet his children are mad at me because I resemble the people that punched him.

You are saying that I did wrong and I should have to pay for it?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Uh, huh. Which is exactly why I saw no need to elaborate for your confused benefit.

/farcical 'discussion'

Yeah, it is very confusing when a simple question has been asked and you say anything and everything, except answer the question.

The answer was already given. You just wanted it in different wording.

No I asked for a more decisive answer. It was a yes and no question only requiring a yes or no answer with an explaination. If you do not want to answer it, then so be it.

Last edited by lowing (2008-06-03 05:29:41)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

paul386 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do see what you mean, so then the question becomes; Just how long is the "aggrieved" victim, card alowed to be played? Where is the cut off when you will finally say, Ok, enough is enough, move on? Keeping in mind that blacks were not the only race held in bondage in history.

Well, that's the thing - it's not down to anyone, other than those that feel aggrieved, to decide.


It's OK because that's the way it is.

OK, say someone punches you in the face, you have the right to feel aggrieved, yes?

Now, say everyone starts punching you in the face every time they see you, and this goes on for years and years, until one day someone says "oh, sorry we've all been punching you in the face for so long, we'll stop now... ...oh, but you're not now allowed to punch us in the face... ...but you're ok with that, aren't you? ...'cos if you're not, and you try to punch anyone, then we'll lock you up..."

How long would it take you to stop feeling aggrieved?

No its not quite like that.

Again you are attaching the group mentality to the situation.

In your example, the guy gets punched.

The people stop punching him.

He has children, they were never punched.

I never punched anyone, yet his children are mad at me because I resemble the people that punched him.

Well, the chances are, those children will have shitty life growing up because they're dad, rightfully, has a chip on his shoulder from being punched so much, and, so, the children are pissed off about how what was done to their dad has effect their own lives.

paul386 wrote:

You are saying that I did wrong and I should have to pay for it?

No, I'm saying that this is the way the world works, and to some degree is understandable.

lowing wrote:

Based on that, does that mean it is up to everyone else just how long we are going to listen and cater to this lame excuse for personal failure.

In essence, yes.

In time things will change, but it takes more than a generation or so for an entire population to get over the misdeeds done to that population in the past.

And it is only a generation or so - thinking just in terms of when slavery ended is wrong - as I have said before, blacks in America were still being oppressed for quite some time after the abolition of slavery - those, more recent, acts are still fresh in the minds of many black-americans.

Give it time.

I will bet you 10 bucks there are no blacks that are bitching  on this forum, that remember the cvil rights movement either.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I know. And I agree.

However, the oppression of people largely of African or Caribbean origin, largely by those of a European origin, continued for at least good 100 years after the abolition of slavery.

It's only been a little over 40 years since the US Civil Rights act was passed in congress.

We, you and I, may not have been doing the oppression, but our fathers/mothers or grandfathers/grandmothers (speaking generally) were.

So, whilst you are entirely correct that any grouping of people based on a common feature is discriminatory, it is, at the same time, entirely understandable that the children/grandchildren of people that were oppressed because of a shared feature might feel a little aggrieved with the children/grandchildren, as well as the parents/grandparents, of those that had oppressed their parents/grandparents.

If you see what I mean.

I do see what you mean, so then the question becomes; Just how long is the "aggrieved" victim, card alowed to be played? Where is the cut off when you will finally say, Ok, enough is enough, move on? Keeping in mind that blacks were not the only race held in bondage in history.

Well, that's the thing - it's not down to anyone, other than those that feel aggrieved, to decide.

paul386 wrote:

So you are saying that it is acceptable for someone who has never been oppressed to hold ME accountable for the actions of someone I had no association with or control against someone they had no relation with or control over?

Why is this okay? You want to hold me accountable for individuals actions because I share a command skin color with them? You want to assume someone's grandparents were oppressed because of the color of their skin?

It's OK because that's the way it is.

OK, say someone punches you in the face, you have the right to feel aggrieved, yes?

Now, say everyone starts punching you in the face every time they see you, and this goes on for years and years, until one day someone says "oh, sorry we've all been punching you in the face for so long, we'll stop now... ...oh, but you're not now allowed to punch us in the face... ...but you're ok with that, aren't you? ...'cos if you're not, and you try to punch anyone, then we'll lock you up..."

How long would it take you to stop feeling aggrieved?

That kind of logic stopped making sense to me right around my 8th birthday.

What irks me the most is how white people want to feel sorry for themselves because they do have to more sensative to race than blacks. Like if you have a history of your generations past bieng raped, murdered, and enslaved. Pfft.

lowing wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah, it is very confusing when a simple question has been asked and you say anything and everything, except answer the question.

The answer was already given. You just wanted it in different wording.

No I asked for a more decisive answer. It was a yes and no question only requiring a yes or no answer with an explaination. If you do not want to answer it, then so be it.

Alright, McFruitcakes, I'll boil what was already said down for you: yes, reverse racism is stupid. No, you shouldn't bother griefing about it.

people who actually think there is such a thing as reverse racism are big fat racists themselves.

God Save the Queen wrote:

people who actually think there is such a thing as reverse racism are big fat racists themselves.

Racism is racism is racism. Doesn't matter if you're black, white, green or purple.

...except Romany gypsies of course, everyone hates them.

Braddock wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

people who actually think there is such a thing as reverse racism are big fat racists themselves.

Racism is racism is racism. Doesn't matter if you're black, white, green or purple.

...except Romany gypsies of course, everyone hates them.

thats why i cant stand that term.  Reverse racism.  Like there is only "White" and "other".....I mean WTF.

God Save the Queen wrote:

people who actually think there is such a thing as reverse racism are big fat racists themselves.

Technically reverse racism would be not being racist but when people say it they're refering to people countering racism with more racism.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The answer was already given. You just wanted it in different wording.

No I asked for a more decisive answer. It was a yes and no question only requiring a yes or no answer with an explanation. If you do not want to answer it, then so be it.

Alright, McFruitcakes, I'll boil what was already said down for you: yes, reverse racism is stupid. No, you shouldn't bother griefing about it.

Close, but not yet, I did not ask how intelligent you think reverse racism is, nor did I ask if it should be grieved over. I asked you if agree that there is a double standard in America regarding racism. Do minorities get a free pass with their racism while whites are bombarded with racial accusations?