The statement wasn't "I bet that kid will win, because he's black" it was "I bet that kid will win, the one who appears big and black, in case 'that' wasn't specific enough". There's a difference.
QFEBubbalo wrote:
The statement wasn't "I bet that kid will win, because he's black" it was "I bet that kid will win, the one who appears big and black, in case 'that' wasn't specific enough". There's a difference.
It's what I was about to type, thanks for saving me the time bubbalo.
It depends. Did he win or not?teamorange wrote:
well i was talking to my friend at a track meet, when the 100m race came up he said, "i bet that kid will win.... the big black one" I told him that is being racist. He said no I am stereotyping about race, IMO that was the same thing. Well we decided to ask some other kids on the team, they all replied that is stereotyping about race. Now in my school we have about 5 kids who are black out of 1000, so most of them are racially insensitive (we have had many conversations on the team) but am I making an issue out something that shouldn't be an issue?
post your opinions here
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Racism is seriously overrated. You've seen black guys run fast. You can note based on your observations of black people in similar shape run fast. Thus, thats not racist, you're merely applying what you've seen before.
Racism is hating someone based on their racial attributes and not just that, but discriminating against them.
Example: Timmy is black. He applies for a job for a store because he sees they need workers. The manager however refuses him in to the job, even though, we have to assume, his work qualifications and all that are in order. Thats an example of racism.
Not liking a group of people isn't racist, and stereotyping isn't either. Its not the best thing to do but it isn't racist.
Point given that we're better off not worrying if we're being racist or not, because chances are somebody's going to find something offensive, and there's no point trying to make your life miserable about it.
Racism is hating someone based on their racial attributes and not just that, but discriminating against them.
Example: Timmy is black. He applies for a job for a store because he sees they need workers. The manager however refuses him in to the job, even though, we have to assume, his work qualifications and all that are in order. Thats an example of racism.
Not liking a group of people isn't racist, and stereotyping isn't either. Its not the best thing to do but it isn't racist.
Point given that we're better off not worrying if we're being racist or not, because chances are somebody's going to find something offensive, and there's no point trying to make your life miserable about it.
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-05-02 20:22:51)
sergeriver wrote:
It's stereotyping, not racist.
We stereotype everyday. We see a fat person on the street and immediately think, "Ate too much McDonalds." We see someone that looks VERY muscular, we think, "Steroids."
But racial stereotyping is a touchy issue IMO. I'd say it's borderline racist, only because it's still a judgement of a person without actually knowing him based on what he looks like. It annoys me sometimes when some guy walks up to me and asks how many hours a day I study. I ask him, what makes you think I study? The answer is almost always, "Well, you're Asian aren't you?" I'm actually a lazy bastard with a tendency to procrastinate. But some guy I barely know comes out of the blue, asking me something based on my race.
Now, most stereotypes almost undeniably have some truth behind them. But again, not all people display those qualities that sterotypes say they have. And it's those people you might be hurting.
I honestly don't know if it's racist or not. But I can tell you that it will piss some people off, so better off trying to stereotype as little as possible.
But racial stereotyping is a touchy issue IMO. I'd say it's borderline racist, only because it's still a judgement of a person without actually knowing him based on what he looks like. It annoys me sometimes when some guy walks up to me and asks how many hours a day I study. I ask him, what makes you think I study? The answer is almost always, "Well, you're Asian aren't you?" I'm actually a lazy bastard with a tendency to procrastinate. But some guy I barely know comes out of the blue, asking me something based on my race.
Now, most stereotypes almost undeniably have some truth behind them. But again, not all people display those qualities that sterotypes say they have. And it's those people you might be hurting.
I honestly don't know if it's racist or not. But I can tell you that it will piss some people off, so better off trying to stereotype as little as possible.
Racism is racial stereotyping. That's the definition.
ill agree with you here, racism even within a non-racially diverse group is still racism. i mean. yeah...we've all said jokes from time to time, but the key is to know when you are doing it...and realize that its not helping anything. it may get a laugh or two from buddy's, but is it worth it to compromise your integrity with it?PuckMercury wrote:
so if a tree falls in a forest and there's no one around to hear it ...Bonesaw wrote:
My personal definition of racism is: committing an act or saying something meant to deliberately attack or demoralize someone of another race than you. I don't think 3 white guys on a boat by themselves telling black jokes is racist. It may be inappropriate and juvenile, but if there's no one around to be offended by it, I don't think it counts as racism.
anyway, if THAT is your definition of racism, it's totally reactive. You have to commit an act and then have it evaluated by an arbitrary mass before it can be determined to be racist. That's what the FCC does actually ... but that's not really the point.
I think that any definition should be able to be applied before commission, so I therefore reject your definition.
Agreed, there's a movies called "White Men Can't Jump" but I don't see any protests about that....Bonesaw wrote:
yeah I agree. And you were black and your track team was black except for one white guy, and you said "hey I bet that white dude can't run for shit" for some reason that wouldn't be racist by todays standards. I refuse to be politically correct until they level the playing field and have rules for everyone.
That's fucking hilarious +1CommieChipmunk wrote:
I'm not racist, racism is a crime. And crime's for black people.
Fuckin ridiculous.
Seriously what do you expect him to say "I bet he big built athletic african american will win". z0mg he said black, racist! fuck off with that bullshit, no wonder western countries are plagued with this racially paranoid idiots.
Its like a black guy going "I bet that big white guy will win" Oh but wait its never racist in that scenario....
Seriously what do you expect him to say "I bet he big built athletic african american will win". z0mg he said black, racist! fuck off with that bullshit, no wonder western countries are plagued with this racially paranoid idiots.
Its like a black guy going "I bet that big white guy will win" Oh but wait its never racist in that scenario....
Oh here we go, just because a manager doesn't hire a worker who happens to be of that race hes racist. What if the manager is black?The_Mac wrote:
Racism is seriously overrated. You've seen black guys run fast. You can note based on your observations of black people in similar shape run fast. Thus, thats not racist, you're merely applying what you've seen before.
Racism is hating someone based on their racial attributes and not just that, but discriminating against them.
Example: Timmy is black. He applies for a job for a store because he sees they need workers. The manager however refuses him in to the job, even though, we have to assume, his work qualifications and all that are in order. Thats an example of racism.
Question:
If Timmy is white and goes for a job and the manager is black and he is assumed to have adequate qualifcations that are well presented and in order and of the specific job title and he is refused, is that racism?
Answer:
No because only whites can be racist.
It's not racism to throw around racistic jokes when they're not pointed at anyone, damn it!lavadisk wrote:
Yes. You need more karma.Schwarzelungen wrote:
yes, racism is always bad. racism is the prejudice of another group based on difference in skin color or national origin.
thats not good. it only fuels ignorance and hate.
Realizing differences and respecting them is not racism...
Edit: You know, all my friends are racist. They aren't KKK racist but they always throw around mexican/blacks/sexist jokes. It's really hard to not be racist when everyone around is.
I to people who go over board with their anti racism seem like closet racists.
If someone has a black skin I'm going to use that to describe him for sure. Skin color is quite a big part of ones looks...
I don't mind if someone says I'm white so why sould a black guy mind if I call him black? (Not that I would adres him as "mr. black" )
I'm 100% sure most black people don't mind if they're called black.
Some slave owners bred their strongest, to produce stronger slaves capable of harder work. This explains Shaq and about 99% of black athletes.ATG wrote:
Whats the percentage of sports professionals ( basketball/football ) that are black?
Seems like about 80%
That says something, doesn't it.
I had a friend who lived there for a year. If you're anything other Japanese, you're a Gaijin to them, which is kind of a veiled way of classifying you as inferior. From the people I've known who have traveled abroad, I've heard that Japan is one of the most xenophobic countries in the world.lavadisk wrote:
I donno. I think that people now a days in this country are going out of their way to try and not seem racist. I'm going to japan as an exchange student soon (hopefully) and from what I've read I might be 'discriminated' the same way that your friend did to that black athlete.
O.k most people are saying that what he said wasn't racist, because it wasn't BUT the manner in which he said it in, also specifically choosing the the word he used "black" like it was no other option. He could of said i choose lane 5, or 6. He is what my definitions is of what a racist comment is something proving that your race OR his race is better in another way. Also many of you are asking if he won, no he didn't because he tripped in the first 20 meters.
that is incorrect, the slaveholders didn't breed slave; they aren't horses (even though they were treated like ones). But what is true is that in the 1600-1700 when they were bring slaves over from Africa they were selective in who they were bring over, the bigger and stronger ones, but even that is a flimsy argument.mKmalfunction wrote:
Some slave owners bred their strongest, to produce stronger slaves capable of harder work. This explains Shaq and about 99% of black athletes.
yes but he did eventually dunk at the end proving this stereotypes wrong. Also 2 close friends of mine are Jewish and white, and both can dunk; so i don't think you should bring in White Man Can't Jump into this argument.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Agreed, there's a movies called "White Men Can't Jump" but I don't see any protests about that....
Last edited by teamorange (2007-05-03 18:51:27)
Most of the world doesn't understand the difference between having "prejudices" (the ACTUAL definition), or being prejudiced, and "racism".
Don't be upset if I go over this at a 5th grade level, there might be 5th graders reading.
We ALL prejudge, and we HAVE to. Don't think so? Every time you drive through a green light without freaking out you are PREJUDGING that the person stopped at the red light isn't a raving lunatic who was waitingfor the right moment to t-bone another driver.
Every time you eat at a restaurant you're prejuding that the cook isn'ta homicidal maniac who poisoned everyone's food.
Prejudging is acting based on the probabilities you have discerned from previous encounters.
Let's say that you see a pickup truck with a HUGE rebel flag (stars and bars) on it and a sticker that says "ain't skeered" and another that says "heritage, not hate".
Now you see a cowboy walking across the parking lot, a white guy who is chewing tobacco, wearing a cowboy hat and boots, and you automatically assume that's his truck.
Fair? Is that racism or prejudging based on what you've seen in the past?
You're clearly prejuding based on what you've been lead to believe, by previous experiences or the probabilities, that the redneck is driving the truck. You probably also assume he's a racist. How ironic.
Let's go one further and say that you have one white cowboy in your neighborhood, and he has a bunch of little cowkids, and someone spraypaints the word "niggers suck" (pardon me) on a building wall. Do you think there's a better chance that it was your black neighbor, or the white cowkids?
If you assume that the cowkids did it then you're prejudging.
When I see a kid, black, white, oriental, or none of the above, wearing a doo-rag, a big baggy Oakland Raiders jacket, baggy ass pants hanging down to his knees, and a hat cocked off to the side I assume that person is much more likely to be a danger to me and my property than any person, black, white, or other, wearing a business suit and an Hermes tie, carrying a briefcase.
I'm prejudging. Doesn't make me a racist.
There's nothing wrong with prejudging based on the facts. Facts are that blacks are 12% of the population and commit 80% of the violent crimes. Facts are that 99% of the mass murderers in this country have been white. Embezellment is a mainly white crime, even over-representing the percentage of whites in a position to do so.
When you hear that someone shot 50 people do you ever assume it was a 50 year old black woman? Hell no because it never happens. It's always a white guy between 15 and 45 who is a loner, blah, blah, blah.
Not racist. Prejudiced.
Racism is a different deal all together. If your new neighbor is a black guy, and you think "well there's a better chance that his kids will commit a violent crime than mine" you're right and you are prejudging. IF you then meet his kids, and they're honor students, and they are in the band, and the are in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and they offer to mow your yard when they're mowing theirs for nothing, and you're still suspicious of them, then you're a racist. You're disregarding facts AFTER they're been presented. It's okay to worry about the black kids standing on the corner at midnight, because the math tells you to. It's not okay to dislike someone after they've shown you that they are different than your supposition said they would be.
Don't be upset if I go over this at a 5th grade level, there might be 5th graders reading.
We ALL prejudge, and we HAVE to. Don't think so? Every time you drive through a green light without freaking out you are PREJUDGING that the person stopped at the red light isn't a raving lunatic who was waitingfor the right moment to t-bone another driver.
Every time you eat at a restaurant you're prejuding that the cook isn'ta homicidal maniac who poisoned everyone's food.
Prejudging is acting based on the probabilities you have discerned from previous encounters.
Let's say that you see a pickup truck with a HUGE rebel flag (stars and bars) on it and a sticker that says "ain't skeered" and another that says "heritage, not hate".
Now you see a cowboy walking across the parking lot, a white guy who is chewing tobacco, wearing a cowboy hat and boots, and you automatically assume that's his truck.
Fair? Is that racism or prejudging based on what you've seen in the past?
You're clearly prejuding based on what you've been lead to believe, by previous experiences or the probabilities, that the redneck is driving the truck. You probably also assume he's a racist. How ironic.
Let's go one further and say that you have one white cowboy in your neighborhood, and he has a bunch of little cowkids, and someone spraypaints the word "niggers suck" (pardon me) on a building wall. Do you think there's a better chance that it was your black neighbor, or the white cowkids?
If you assume that the cowkids did it then you're prejudging.
When I see a kid, black, white, oriental, or none of the above, wearing a doo-rag, a big baggy Oakland Raiders jacket, baggy ass pants hanging down to his knees, and a hat cocked off to the side I assume that person is much more likely to be a danger to me and my property than any person, black, white, or other, wearing a business suit and an Hermes tie, carrying a briefcase.
I'm prejudging. Doesn't make me a racist.
There's nothing wrong with prejudging based on the facts. Facts are that blacks are 12% of the population and commit 80% of the violent crimes. Facts are that 99% of the mass murderers in this country have been white. Embezellment is a mainly white crime, even over-representing the percentage of whites in a position to do so.
When you hear that someone shot 50 people do you ever assume it was a 50 year old black woman? Hell no because it never happens. It's always a white guy between 15 and 45 who is a loner, blah, blah, blah.
Not racist. Prejudiced.
Racism is a different deal all together. If your new neighbor is a black guy, and you think "well there's a better chance that his kids will commit a violent crime than mine" you're right and you are prejudging. IF you then meet his kids, and they're honor students, and they are in the band, and the are in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and they offer to mow your yard when they're mowing theirs for nothing, and you're still suspicious of them, then you're a racist. You're disregarding facts AFTER they're been presented. It's okay to worry about the black kids standing on the corner at midnight, because the math tells you to. It's not okay to dislike someone after they've shown you that they are different than your supposition said they would be.
Last edited by Dersmikner (2007-05-03 19:24:49)
Or maybe it has more to do with the fact that poor people play sport because they can't afford computers and TVs. Hence Kenyan runners: there's no other sport they can do.mKmalfunction wrote:
Some slave owners bred their strongest, to produce stronger slaves capable of harder work. This explains Shaq and about 99% of black athletes.ATG wrote:
Whats the percentage of sports professionals ( basketball/football ) that are black?
Seems like about 80%
That says something, doesn't it.
I'm pretty sure slave owners did actually breed their "investments." I know that humans aren't horses. However when you have large Plantations with numerous slaves, and you know you're still going to be in the business for another 20 years, a smart businessman would breed for the future.
Since owning humans is appalling, look at it this way. Say you buy some horses from Arabia. Your livelihood depends on these horses. You have two options. Wait for your horses to die and buy more, or breed your strongest ones for a steady and free supply. I'd opt for option two.
I think it's very safe to say that a good portion of the slaves you'd find at an auction during the 1800's were born here in America.
Since owning humans is appalling, look at it this way. Say you buy some horses from Arabia. Your livelihood depends on these horses. You have two options. Wait for your horses to die and buy more, or breed your strongest ones for a steady and free supply. I'd opt for option two.
I think it's very safe to say that a good portion of the slaves you'd find at an auction during the 1800's were born here in America.
Perpetual servitude. Well documented practise. Some plantation owned buys some stock being slaves, breeds them and there children are automatically the property of the plantation owner, thereby making his free, constant source of labour.mKmalfunction wrote:
I'm pretty sure slave owners did actually breed their "investments." I know that humans aren't horses. However when you have large Plantations with numerous slaves, and you know you're still going to be in the business for another 20 years, a smart businessman would breed for the future.
Since owning humans is appalling, look at it this way. Say you buy some horses from Arabia. Your livelihood depends on these horses. You have two options. Wait for your horses to die and buy more, or breed your strongest ones for a steady and free supply. I'd opt for option two.
I think it's very safe to say that a good portion of the slaves you'd find at an auction during the 1800's were born here in America.
Really? That's how breeding works? It all makes sense now!mKmalfunction wrote:
I'm pretty sure slave owners did actually breed their "investments." I know that humans aren't horses. However when you have large Plantations with numerous slaves, and you know you're still going to be in the business for another 20 years, a smart businessman would breed for the future.
Since owning humans is appalling, look at it this way. Say you buy some horses from Arabia. Your livelihood depends on these horses. You have two options. Wait for your horses to die and buy more, or breed your strongest ones for a steady and free supply. I'd opt for option two.
I think it's very safe to say that a good portion of the slaves you'd find at an auction during the 1800's were born here in America.
/sarcasm
Breeding takes many generations to have an effect, and that sort of thing is approximated by nature anyway.
Wow, and to think, at one time I thought you weren't a douche. Thanks for proving me wrong. It would make sense to say that breeding takes many generations to have a full effect. That's possible in the 300+ years slavery existed.Bubbalo wrote:
Really? That's how breeding works? It all makes sense now!mKmalfunction wrote:
I'm pretty sure slave owners did actually breed their "investments." I know that humans aren't horses. However when you have large Plantations with numerous slaves, and you know you're still going to be in the business for another 20 years, a smart businessman would breed for the future.
Since owning humans is appalling, look at it this way. Say you buy some horses from Arabia. Your livelihood depends on these horses. You have two options. Wait for your horses to die and buy more, or breed your strongest ones for a steady and free supply. I'd opt for option two.
I think it's very safe to say that a good portion of the slaves you'd find at an auction during the 1800's were born here in America.
/sarcasm
Breeding takes many generations to have an effect, and that sort of thing is approximated by nature anyway.
But it's very probable in one generation as well. Say two people, both over 6 feet tall have a baby. While it's possible that the child will only grow to a little over 5 feet by the time (s)he reaches adult hood, it's more likely that (s)he too will be over 6 feet tall.
Can I add something?
The white people made guns and arrows and grew their food in towns
Tribes in Africa ran around with spears and never had towns really. Mostly camps. they lived life on the go and thats a tad harder.
Hmm.. I think that that just about accounts for breeding.
The white people made guns and arrows and grew their food in towns
Tribes in Africa ran around with spears and never had towns really. Mostly camps. they lived life on the go and thats a tad harder.
Hmm.. I think that that just about accounts for breeding.
Breeding takes exactly one generation. If you breed two people who are 7'0" tall you have a much better chance of ending up with Yao Mind than you do if you breed two people who are 5'7". To change an entire population you have to go through SEVERAL generations and a lot of work, but to control a small sampling of people all you have to do is breed the subjects who possess the characteristics you're interested in replicating.
So, I take it you aren't exactly a trained biologist? Because if you honestly think the changes you're talking about can happen in the timeframes you're talking about without an outside group being introduced, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.mKmalfunction wrote:
Wow, and to think, at one time I thought you weren't a douche. Thanks for proving me wrong. It would make sense to say that breeding takes many generations to have a full effect. That's possible in the 300+ years slavery existed.
But it's very probable in one generation as well. Say two people, both over 6 feet tall have a baby. While it's possible that the child will only grow to a little over 5 feet by the time (s)he reaches adult hood, it's more likely that (s)he too will be over 6 feet tall.