BF2S Forums racism

lowing wrote:

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

For the record I don't go around shouting "Yellow powa!!"

People just need to open up their minds a little bit, you can't let one experience taint your entire view of a race.
I must admit it's kind of impossible to be racist to white people in terms of people can call you "cracker" etc and get away with it. I remember having a conversation with university mates about racism they said the words mean nothing to them. Racism to me it's all in the mind the culture and people make it so you'd be strange to not be offended.

When someone calls me a chink it doesn't offend me the actual word, what I find offensive is that the person saying it is trying to piss me off. It's funny how we are meant to be the most advance mammal or something living on earth yet we are still finding different things to segregate each other. Racism it's just a stupid thing that your meant to be offended about, fuck it if your going to judge someone on the colour of their skin I'd rather not know you.

Oh yeah I'd like to know what do poor but smart white people have instead of the Negro college fund thing?

Oh and about BET t.v it's a specialist channel, most of television is aimed at the majority right so who is the majority?

DonFck wrote:

killcommies wrote:

Well, have you seen the statistics of how many blacks rape white women per year as compared to how many whites rape blacks? The poor excuse does not work when it comes to rape and sexual assaults.

Have you seen the stats? I mean, you're not precisely laying the "facts" on us now are you? What kind of statistics are they? Do the stats also include how many white people rape white people? Who funds these surveys? Are the sources valid if the survey is funded by a biased group?

Here's what I found, like, by googling a bit. Note that there's a valid source in the quote.

In 1997, 68.3% were perpetrated by someone who knew the victim. (Bureau of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, 1997) 78% of women raped or physically assaulted since they turned 18 were assaulted by a current or former husband, live-in partner or date. 17% were victimized by an acquaintance, 9% by a relative other than a husband and only 14% were assaulted by a stranger. (National Violence Against Women Survey, 1998)

So basically what we have here is a social pattern, not racial.

But if you wish to remain narrow minded (as your nick so elegantly implies), I'd suggest you either a) stay out of D&ST and b) think before you post inappropriate racist material without having valid data to support your bigotry.

Glad someone else picked this up, really stupid post.

Last edited by wah1188 (2008-06-09 22:55:30)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

OK.

Ghettos are violent because they are poor.

The existence of 'blacks groups' is not a racist act in and of itself.

Women have 'womens groups', like in the UK, there's the 'NCT' (National Childbirth Trust) - is that sexist?

No.

Same with college funds and so on.

In fact, none of the OP is anything to do with racism against whites.


Where in America are there, organised groups of blacks going round, in identity-concealing clothing, burning down white churches, for example?

Nowhere.

That would be racism against whites. Not anything listed in the OP.

SO we can have WET tv?

We can have the straight white guy college fund?

We can have white colleges, white miss America,

White Scuba Diving Associations etc....... and none of these groups or actions would be considered racist? Don Imus can not say nappy headed hoes, with out getting fired and being accused of racism, yet hip hop can say that dhit all day long and the result is top record sales.......Yeah ok, no inconsistencies right?

If they're not done in a racist way, yes, you can have all that.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Except that you already have all of those, just by a different name.

In a sense that's true. But only in a sense.

The exclusivness of the titles of these programswould be considered racist in its own right, and you guys damn well know this. White society could not get away with these organisations without being chastized as racists, and you already know that as well. You just will not admit it, because you would have to acknowledge the double standard.

lowing wrote:

Me, I am an American, but you will not get that from the black community, they are African Americans. If I went around claiming to be WHITE American, you would label me a racist. The ethnic groups you mention, the Irish Italians etc.....do not distinguish themselves as Irish American or Italian American, they consider themselves American...................... So tell me, who are the racist?

The point, lowing, is one CAN go around claiming to be "White American", or to make the comparison with 'African American' fairer, let's say "European American".

If you do it in a racist fashion, you will be called a racist, BUT, do it in a non-racist manner and you won't.

It's that simple.

I am not consciously aware of any black organisation that says, essentially, 'we want this and we want to stop you from sharing in it'.

I am however, sadly, all too consciously aware of white organisation that say exactly that.

Of course, I'm sure anti-white black organisations do exist. And, of course, I don't know, other than from what I read/see on tv, what it's like in the US, but it's not like we pale-brethren are forced to sit at the back of the bus because of our lack of skin pigmentation, is it?

imortal wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I am not consciously aware of any black organisation that says, essentially, 'we want this and we want to stop you from sharing in it'.

I am however, sadly, all too consciously aware of white organisation that say exactly that.

NAACP.  There is no other college scholarship or loan program that I know of, that can even attempt to use race as a basis for approval.  Loan applications are not even allowed to ask what race you are.

beat me to it...........

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

imortal wrote:

NAACP.  There is no other college scholarship or loan program that I know of, that can even attempt to use race as a basis for approval.  Loan applications are not even allowed to ask what race you are.

beat me to it...........

HOW? just, how the fuck, IN THE 6th RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD does one organisation that gives money to deprived black-kids so that they might have some chance of escaping poverty, equate to anti-white racism in your addled minds?

Simple..........because if I started an organization that included only white kids, and refused to help a black person for no other reason than for being black...............I would be construed as a racist.. Please do not even think about denying that......

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

beat me to it...........

HOW? just, how the fuck, IN THE 6th RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD does one organisation that gives money to deprived black-kids so that they might have some chance of escaping poverty, equate to anti-white racism in your addled minds?

Simple..........because if I started an organization that included only white kids, and refused to help a black person for no other reason than for being black...............I would be construed as a racist.. Please do not even think about denying that......

Because 'white american' is not a minority group.

imortal wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

beat me to it...........

HOW? just, how the fuck, IN THE 6th RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD does one organisation that gives money to deprived black-kids so that they might have some chance of escaping poverty, equate to anti-white racism in your addled minds?

Someone seems to be losing their temper a bit.  First- point of order.  There is no such thing as "anti-white racism."  There is just "racism," regardless of its origin or its target. 

Second, the entire point of this thread has been that there seems to be a double standard, where any possible incidents of racism directed against whites is overlooked or justified, while any possible incidents of racism by whites is held to the microscope.

Third, the very fact that the NAACP can boldly do what they do, while lawsuits are directed against any organization that seems to prefer whites (justified or not) seems to me to be a case in point.  If there was a single organization in the US who stated, or even hinted that they would take applications for whites, but not for blacks, hispanics, or asians, they would be sued so fast they might as well not put up the sign on their office.

In the state of Texas, state universities are required to set aside a certain number of places in school for the children of illegal aliens, who take the place of other students, regardless of who is more qualified to be at the school.

The very fact that you specified "anti-white racism" in your post suggests that you view racism directed against whites as different from racism directed against others.

NO. This is why I'm getting annoyed - you, lowing, and others are just refusing to actually accept what it is that I am saying.

which is : These 'examples' of so called racism against the white population, they you give, ARE NOT RACISM. FULLSTOP.

having laws that stop white-only groups - now that could be deemed racist - if the majority of americans were black - and a black ruling government had passed them - but who invented those laws? - a white majority did.

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

imortal wrote:

Someone seems to be losing their temper a bit.  First- point of order.  There is no such thing as "anti-white racism."  There is just "racism," regardless of its origin or its target. 

Second, the entire point of this thread has been that there seems to be a double standard, where any possible incidents of racism directed against whites is overlooked or justified, while any possible incidents of racism by whites is held to the microscope.

Third, the very fact that the NAACP can boldly do what they do, while lawsuits are directed against any organization that seems to prefer whites (justified or not) seems to me to be a case in point.  If there was a single organization in the US who stated, or even hinted that they would take applications for whites, but not for blacks, hispanics, or asians, they would be sued so fast they might as well not put up the sign on their office.

In the state of Texas, state universities are required to set aside a certain number of places in school for the children of illegal aliens, who take the place of other students, regardless of who is more qualified to be at the school.

The very fact that you specified "anti-white racism" in your post suggests that you view racism directed against whites as different from racism directed against others.

NO. This is why I'm getting annoyed - you, lowing, and others are just refusing to actually accept what it is that I am saying.

which is : These 'examples' of so called racism against the white population, they you give, ARE NOT RACISM. FULLSTOP.

having laws that stop white-only groups - now that could be deemed racist - if the majority of americans were black - and a black ruling government had passed them - but who invented those laws? - a white majority did.

Please explain the existence of the NAACP or the United Negro College Fund as non-racial. Then do your best to explain how if I started the White Guy College Fund and the NAAWP designed ONLY to help White people, that my organizations would not be scrutinized as discriminating and racist.

Then explain how No one would sue me over it because the current laws would be on my side to discriminate against anyone in favor of white people.

If you don't understand the difference now, I don't believe you'll ever understand the difference.

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Please explain the existence of the NAACP or the United Negro College Fund as non-racial. Then do your best to explain how if I started the White Guy College Fund and the NAAWP designed ONLY to help White people, that my organizations would not be scrutinized as discriminating and racist.

Then explain how No one would sue me over it because the current laws would be on my side to discriminate against anyone in favor of white people.

If you don't understand the difference now, I don't believe you'll ever understand the difference.

Nope, I don't please explain..................Also while you are trying to explain keep in mind there are poor white people that could use "whites only" help as well.

Yes. And WHITES made the laws that stop you going out and helping them.

Not that you are really stopped from going out and just, well, you know, helping them.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-06-10 12:50:56)

I've already explained it.

You didn't get it then.

You won't get it now.

Now, excuse me, while I get on with actually enjoying the world we live in, instead of thinking that everyone and everything is out to get to me.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

having laws that stop white-only groups - now that could be deemed racist - if the majority of americans were black - and a black ruling government had passed them - but who invented those laws? - a white majority did.

Because, the people who I would describe as "bleeding-heart, tree-hugging liberals with a feeling of guilt and misplaced sincerity in their cause" (please note the quotation marks), controlled congress for quite a while.  Somewhere around 40 years.

Now, the Civil rights movement was a good thing.  Equality is GOOD.  I will even admit that there is still a ways to go.  But there are groups of people out there who are ashamed that they were born white, or that their parents made a decent amount of money.  During the lovely 60's, they were convinced by the groups of cool people in which they wanted so much to belong how eveil they were, and they tried to fix it. 

Giving money to blacks because their great-grand parents were slaves is an example.  They want to releive their guilt.  They just go about it in the wrong way.

Current EO policies, while originally in place to ensure that minorities were being hired into the workplace at a level  'consistant with the national population,' has become a quota system where companies are forced to hire 'token' minorities, regardless if they are qualified or not; they are sometimes even forced to pass over a more qualified individual, simply because he is white.

I do not believe in Minortiy Rights.  I do not believe in Gay Rights.  I only believe in an individuals rights.  And yes, they should be enforced regardless of race, saexual orientation, or religion.  But any infractions should be investigated and punished.  I do not think there is a need, nor is it healthy as a nation, to create additional rights in other minority groups to try to compensate in some way.  That still defines them as a minority, or in need of some sort of protection.  I believe that you have the rights you have as an American citizen; anything else is incidental. 

There is a bumper sticker I saw just yesterday. "Equal Rights does not mean Special Rights!"

My suggestion is to enforce policies that ensure that there is no racial bias, not to make new laws to try to 'balance' the game.

So if chimps DNA is 99.4% identical to ours, what's the difference between races?

The very fact of seeing a difference in race, as opposed to the difference between me and, say, a dog, indicates a certain fucked-up-ness in perception.

Proves my view correct, just monkeys with cars. Evolve, people, before its too late!