Conquer Club

Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Which one for president???

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby reminisco on Thu May 01, 2008 11:00 pm

DRoZ wrote:Poor is poor is poor, my friend. Although I agree with your statement about there is no summer, I wholeheartedly disagree with the "especially that of poor black americans" part. The struggles of the poor black americans are no different than that of the poor mexican americans, poor asian americans or any other poor american. Your comment is part of what is wrong with race relations today, even when you are defending african americans, you treat them differently. Although your heart is in the right place, by seperating black poverty from any other poverty, you are seperating races from each other.


in many ways you are absolutely right.

but there is one monumental difference you didn't mention between black americans and pretty much all other immigrants -- how they came here in the first place.

i'm not suggesting that no other minority has been exploited, hell, pretty much all of em were. but there's that whole centuries of bondage thing that just can't be forgotten. and to say "aw, they should just get over it" is wrong too. i'm sure you'll agree. they need to rise above it, absolutely. W.E.B. DuBois writes about the issue much more eloquently than I ever could in The Souls of Black Folk. but they cannot, honestly, ever be expected to forget it. especially not when as a nation, we're always thumping our chests and rallying about how we'll never forget September 11, or the fact that we celebrate national holidays like Thanksgiving, Independence Day, Memorial Day, etc.

it is that monumental setback that all black americans must rise above, something we as white people can never truly understand, and why i still think it is more difficult for poor black americans. and i'm not writing this in order to proffer excuses for them as individuals, only in an attempt to provoke empathy for the struggle they face on a daily basis.

there are no easy answers. none.
have you ever seen an idealist with grey hairs on his head?
or successful men who keep in touch with unsuccessful friends?
you only think you did
i could have sworn i saw it too
but as it turns out it was just a clever ad for cigarettes.
Corporal reminisco
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:30 pm
Location: Killadelphia, Pennsylvania

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby muy_thaiguy on Thu May 01, 2008 11:03 pm

reminisco wrote:
DRoZ wrote:Poor is poor is poor, my friend. Although I agree with your statement about there is no summer, I wholeheartedly disagree with the "especially that of poor black americans" part. The struggles of the poor black americans are no different than that of the poor mexican americans, poor asian americans or any other poor american. Your comment is part of what is wrong with race relations today, even when you are defending african americans, you treat them differently. Although your heart is in the right place, by seperating black poverty from any other poverty, you are seperating races from each other.


in many ways you are absolutely right.

but there is one monumental difference you didn't mention between black americans and pretty much all other immigrants -- how they came here in the first place.

i'm not suggesting that no other minority has been exploited, hell, pretty much all of em were. but there's that whole centuries of bondage thing that just can't be forgotten. and to say "aw, they should just get over it" is wrong too. i'm sure you'll agree. they need to rise above it, absolutely. W.E.B. DuBois writes about the issue much more eloquently than I ever could in The Souls of Black Folk. but they cannot, honestly, ever be expected to forget it. especially not when as a nation, we're always thumping our chests and rallying about how we'll never forget September 11, or the fact that we celebrate national holidays like Thanksgiving, Independence Day, Memorial Day, etc.

it is that monumental setback that all black americans must rise above, something we as white people can never truly understand, and why i still think it is more difficult for poor black americans. and i'm not writing this in order to proffer excuses for them as individuals, only in an attempt to provoke empathy for the struggle they face on a daily basis.

there are no easy answers. none.
The problem with that line of thinking remi, is that not all blacks were slaves, hell, there even slave-owning blacks back when it was legal prior to the end of the Civil War. Another problem is, no living black person was EVER a slave, so to make the argument like there were still people from that time is simply ludicrous. True, it is important to not forget the past, but when you practically live in it, well, it defeats the point of actually doing something about todays world. And no, you are not doing it as individuals, you are doing it as a vast group, assuming that all blacks have to face a hard life in the hood, or similar scenarios. I could go on, but I really don't feel like it at the moment.
"Eh, whatever."
-Anonymous


What, you expected something deep or flashy?
User avatar
Private 1st Class muy_thaiguy
 
Posts: 12746
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:20 am
Location: Back in Black

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby reminisco on Thu May 01, 2008 11:11 pm

MTG, please review the basics of logical reasoning, double check what i wrote, then come back.

i never said anyone was still around from that time. and read Souls of Black Folk. like, now. :roll:

and if this is the primary concept behind your argument:

muy_thaiguy wrote:there even slave-owning blacks back when it was legal prior to the end of the Civil War.


then you really know nothing, except to misrepresent the totality of the situation with a COMPLETELY unrepresentative sample. seriously, stop listening to the white supremacists in your town, and read a book, for fucksakes, please.

also, please actually READ MY POSTS before you respond to them. i wrote about poor black americans, not black people in general.
have you ever seen an idealist with grey hairs on his head?
or successful men who keep in touch with unsuccessful friends?
you only think you did
i could have sworn i saw it too
but as it turns out it was just a clever ad for cigarettes.
Corporal reminisco
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:30 pm
Location: Killadelphia, Pennsylvania

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby InkL0sed on Fri May 02, 2008 6:17 am

muy_thaiguy wrote:
reminisco wrote:
DRoZ wrote:Poor is poor is poor, my friend. Although I agree with your statement about there is no summer, I wholeheartedly disagree with the "especially that of poor black americans" part. The struggles of the poor black americans are no different than that of the poor mexican americans, poor asian americans or any other poor american. Your comment is part of what is wrong with race relations today, even when you are defending african americans, you treat them differently. Although your heart is in the right place, by seperating black poverty from any other poverty, you are seperating races from each other.


in many ways you are absolutely right.

but there is one monumental difference you didn't mention between black americans and pretty much all other immigrants -- how they came here in the first place.

i'm not suggesting that no other minority has been exploited, hell, pretty much all of em were. but there's that whole centuries of bondage thing that just can't be forgotten. and to say "aw, they should just get over it" is wrong too. i'm sure you'll agree. they need to rise above it, absolutely. W.E.B. DuBois writes about the issue much more eloquently than I ever could in The Souls of Black Folk. but they cannot, honestly, ever be expected to forget it. especially not when as a nation, we're always thumping our chests and rallying about how we'll never forget September 11, or the fact that we celebrate national holidays like Thanksgiving, Independence Day, Memorial Day, etc.

it is that monumental setback that all black americans must rise above, something we as white people can never truly understand, and why i still think it is more difficult for poor black americans. and i'm not writing this in order to proffer excuses for them as individuals, only in an attempt to provoke empathy for the struggle they face on a daily basis.

there are no easy answers. none.
The problem with that line of thinking remi, is that not all blacks were slaves, hell, there even slave-owning blacks back when it was legal prior to the end of the Civil War. Another problem is, no living black person was EVER a slave, so to make the argument like there were still people from that time is simply ludicrous. True, it is important to not forget the past, but when you practically live in it, well, it defeats the point of actually doing something about todays world. And no, you are not doing it as individuals, you are doing it as a vast group, assuming that all blacks have to face a hard life in the hood, or similar scenarios. I could go on, but I really don't feel like it at the moment.


Africans' culture was destroyed by slavery. Any language other than English was banned, their own superstitions/religions were replaced by Christianity, they were not allowed to gather. Families were often torn apart, when a child was "sold down south" -- and the mother would never see that child again. I just went to Monticello -- it was an innovation of Jefferson to have nuclear families live together. And despite his general disagreement with whipping, even he let slaves be whipped (some slave-owners and overseers thought of it as sport). You don't think any of this hasn't affected generations of blacks? You don't think the eradication of their culture didn't do anything to their cultural psyche? You don't think parents pass their problems on to their children?
User avatar
Lieutenant InkL0sed
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:06 pm
Location: underwater

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby Dancing Mustard on Fri May 02, 2008 6:45 am

jay_a2j wrote:Grasshopper, ant, racist, blah, blah, blah....

You can always find a way to be a "victim". The disease of laziness knows no race and is bound by no color. And it's true what another poster said about "that's what's wrong with this country". At least ONE thing that is wrong with it. There are far too many people wanting a free-ride through life and expect the responsible people in the world to take care of them. (I see it everyday with 40 year old inmates who have never worked a day in their life - outside of selling drugs)


Compassion.... yes.

Compassion for those who are TRYING to achieve, not waiting for all that "life owes them".

So are you denying that there are racial undertones to the 'revised' tale. Or are you just quoting me then running off on a preachy little jolly of your own about laziness?

If you're going to reply to my question, then give me an answer. Don't just respond with off-point rants and rambles about how you personally feel about laziness, healthcare, and the optimum dimple incidence of golfballs.

Do you, or do you not, deny that the revamped tale has racial undertones; regardless of the message it alleges to be pushing?
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!

Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
User avatar
Corporal Dancing Mustard
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby Jucdor on Fri May 02, 2008 7:54 am

Nickbaldquim wrote:
Jucdor wrote:
When compared to high taxes and low taxes the same amount of money still moves.


Yes.

The government still pays salaries, builds roads and does everything your average company does,


Ahh yes, but after numerous barriers of beauracratic resistance, lemon-tea drinking and general inefficiency.

the theory is that it doesn't do that as efficiently as the private sector so with the same amount of money you're supposed to get more from private sector
.

Bingo! though quite a basic analysis, cock-chops.


Indeed that's why I used "supposed to" as you could do well and look to Nordic countries which indeed have quite large public sector and still are economically as competetive as the United States of A. But then again, Nordic wellfare system is something you call a "pseudo socialist" society so surely there's nothing to be learned to make your goverment more efficient - whatever country that is as your profile seems to be deleted. I assume due to bad behavior as far I see it I didn't say anything to warrant your aggressive behavior.

But even that wasn't what I was talking about. Sure America could strip off the public sector even all-together and forget the poor-old-bastards that can't afford to put their kids to private schools or pay for medical insurance. Cutting costs there would make a short-term financing very good, you could lower taxes and balance the budget with more money from the wealthy middle-class. But that would also widen the gab between lower middle class and strip you from good-old-tax-paying citizens as over time the societal rise from the lower poorer parts of the society would stop and they'd be stuck in poverty. Oh wait! That's exactly what's one of the key-problems in America. Sure the American dream is a nice thing, but you can see that happen a lot more often in Nordic countries than in America. But then again I like to pay taxes so that means I must be wrong.
User avatar
Captain Jucdor
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:45 am
Location: Finland

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby greenoaks on Fri May 02, 2008 8:11 am

let it go Jucdor.

you can't see his profile because that was one of Norse's multis. whenever they catch him in here they ban his account. don't worry, he will be back in a few days with a new disguise. and i think Norse is British not American.
User avatar
Sergeant greenoaks
 
Posts: 9977
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:47 am

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby muy_thaiguy on Fri May 02, 2008 1:41 pm

then you really know nothing, except to misrepresent the totality of the situation with a COMPLETELY unrepresentative sample. seriously, stop listening to the white supremacists in your town, and read a book, for fucksakes, please.

also, please actually READ MY POSTS before you respond to them. i wrote about poor black americans, not black people in general.
First of all, you are jumping to conclusions that "Oh, he doesn't agree with me therefore, he must be racist or listening to racists." Newsflash, I don't listen racists on from either side.

Next, maybe re-wording your post so that it says more along the lines of "though not all blacks are poor, this book focuses on the ones that are." Instead of giving vague ideas instead. I did read your post, you merely worded it wrong.

Africans' culture was destroyed by slavery. Any language other than English was banned, their own superstitions/religions were replaced by Christianity, they were not allowed to gather. Families were often torn apart, when a child was "sold down south" -- and the mother would never see that child again. I just went to Monticello -- it was an innovation of Jefferson to have nuclear families live together. And despite his general disagreement with whipping, even he let slaves be whipped (some slave-owners and overseers thought of it as sport). You don't think any of this hasn't affected generations of blacks? You don't think the eradication of their culture didn't do anything to their cultural psyche? You don't think parents pass their problems on to their children?
Then first of all, lay the blame on those who captured them in Africa, the other tribes who captured and sold them into slavery in the first place. Next of all, asking rhetorical questions isn't going to get us anywhere. Of course it is going to affect them, but when people like Dr. King appeared on the screen 100 years afterwards, and tells people not to look at the skin color, but at the character of the person them self, people seem to have forgotten that simple and very clear message today. What has happened in the past has happened, we can't go back in time and change it, no matter how bad it was. Those days though, are over and done with, and even with the whipping, that was rarely done, since the slave owners viewed their slaves as valuable property.
But when people dawdle in the past like that, that is just begging to make trouble in today's world. Not all whites owned slaves, not all blacks were slaves, and now that that horrible thing is over with, it is time for everyone to move on with their lives, otherwise things like this will continuously tie us down and hold us back from actually being tolerant of everyone.
"Eh, whatever."
-Anonymous


What, you expected something deep or flashy?
User avatar
Private 1st Class muy_thaiguy
 
Posts: 12746
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:20 am
Location: Back in Black

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby Napoleon Ier on Fri May 02, 2008 6:24 pm

Dancing Mustard wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
Dancing Mustard wrote:Sorry, but I can't help but notice that the revamped 'Ant Vs Grasshopper' tale contains several extremely strong hints towards the fact that the Grasshopper represents a black man.

Is the revamped tale really intended to push the '"lazy people get a free ride in todays world" angle? Or is it really trying to say "black people are lazy, and they're getting a free ride in todays world" while masquerading as the former?
It makes the excellent point that ignorant white liberal masochism has led to an increased supply of free rides to blacks, which in turn has created a sector of lazy black recipients larger than the white sector. At no point, however, does it state that Blacks are genetically inferior. It's entirely compatible with the old "socio-cultural phenomena" argument for blacks overall being poorer in Western economies.

So once we cut through the noise about 'genetically inferior' and throw out the stinking red herrings of your trademark pseudo-jargon, the answer you're rambling out is "Yes DM, it is the latter of those two options".

Whether you agree with the tale's revised motto or not is irrelevant to your answer to my question (though it's a seperate debate that there's probably some mileage in). Essentially, you're an option two kind of guy, and you accept that the tale is making a racial judgement, and is not a straight tale about work-ethic alone. Cheers.


No, if you actually read it, I'm suggesting a revolutionnary, unprecedented "third way" of interpreting the story. Read before responding. Cheers...
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby Dancing Mustard on Fri May 02, 2008 6:41 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:No, if you actually read it, I'm suggesting a revolutionnary, unprecedented "third way" of interpreting the story.
A way so radical, that it is entirely subsumed in every way by option two.

No no Nappy, you're right, it's a groundbreaking idea you've got there. You have succesfully combined for the first time in human history, the concepts of redundancy, hubris and tedium, then combined them in a single moronic and entirely unhelpful answer... revolutionary stuff indeed, science in motion... I'm awed just thinking about how inane you're answer just managed to be; you really pulled out all the stops with it.

I'll call the people who do the admin for deciding who wins the Nobel Prize for Stupid Remarks and tell them to get your name engraved on the trophy shall I? Can't see anybody else managing to trump you on that front till at least 2010.

Kindly get a clue before next answering in your usual blundering style. Cheers...
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!

Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
User avatar
Corporal Dancing Mustard
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby Napoleon Ier on Sat May 03, 2008 8:12 am

Dancing Mustard wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:No, if you actually read it, I'm suggesting a revolutionnary, unprecedented "third way" of interpreting the story.
A way so radical, that it is entirely subsumed in every way by option two.

No no Nappy, you're right, it's a groundbreaking idea you've got there. You have succesfully combined for the first time in human history, the concepts of redundancy, hubris and tedium, then combined them in a single moronic and entirely unhelpful answer... revolutionary stuff indeed, science in motion... I'm awed just thinking about how inane you're answer just managed to be; you really pulled out all the stops with it.

I'll call the people who do the admin for deciding who wins the Nobel Prize for Stupid Remarks and tell them to get your name engraved on the trophy shall I? Can't see anybody else managing to trump you on that front till at least 2010.

Kindly get a clue before next answering in your usual blundering style. Cheers...


Ahh..the favorite option of the pastry-faced pseudo-socialist nuu laybor-politikally korrekt when faced with the righteous thunder of a Conservative's anger: call them a bigoted wacist and then say they're stupid. Sadly, if you read the original point of "option 2" you posited, it directly implies the story is suggesting blacks are inferior as a race:

I quote;
Dancing Mustard wrote:Black people are lazy"
,

whereas my "option 3" you're refusing to understand (as a Freudian defense mechanism? affaire Ć  suivre...) interpretes the story without making any wild, rash, unsubstantiated claims about it's intent.

As far as I can tell, the story merely implies that some black people happen to be lazy, but because they are black, an army of red robboes gleefully rub their spidery hands together at the prospect of turning the issue into a race problem, which it clearly isn't.

Not too difficult to understand the concept, is it? Give it a try...
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby jay_a2j on Sat May 03, 2008 9:37 am

Dancing Mustard wrote:So are you denying that there are racial undertones to the 'revised' tale. Or are you just quoting me then running off on a preachy little jolly of your own about laziness?

If you're going to reply to my question, then give me an answer. Don't just respond with off-point rants and rambles about how you personally feel about laziness, healthcare, and the optimum dimple incidence of golfballs.

Do you, or do you not, deny that the revamped tale has racial undertones; regardless of the message it alleges to be pushing?



There are racial undertones for those LOOKING for them. Close your eyes for a moment, imagine the grasshopper working for a living, preparing for winter, being kind to the ant.

Now....


Imagine the grasshopper is white.


Moral of the story is ...It doesn't matter what color you are, JUST BE A RESPONSIBLE PERSON!
(You can do and say very little these days without somebody playing the race card) :(
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby Dancing Mustard on Sat May 03, 2008 10:06 am

Napoleon Ier wrote:Ahh..the favorite option of the pastry-faced pseudo-socialist nuu laybor-politikally korrekt when faced with the righteous thunder of a Conservative's anger: call them a bigoted wacist and then say they're stupid.
Yawn yawn, here we go again, Nappy trys to patronise posters who don't agree with him to draw attention from the fact that he doesn't actually have a point... note also his hilarious attempts to hoodwink everyone into thinking I called him a racist, pathetic stuff indeed.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Sadly, if you read the original point of "option 2" you posited, it directly implies the story is suggesting blacks are inferior as a race:
I quote;
Dancing Mustard wrote:Black people are lazy"


whereas my "option 3" you're refusing to understand insert patronising obsolete bollocks here) interpretes the story without making any wild, rash, unsubstantiated claims about it's intent.
Given that my claims aren't wild, rash or unsubstantiated (for the reasons given above, which you conveniently failed to address in your response); it appears you're batting at a losing wicket here...
If you're saying that the story is not making a comment about black people, then you're opting for option 1, and I can only pity your inability to correctly identify subtext. There is no magical option 3 which lets you say "the story isn't racially loaded and is just fine, but black people are definately all lazy and a waste of my taxes", stop trying to conjour one up.

Your fallacious 'third way' to interpret this that simpy cannot exist. Either the story is a simple one about work ethic with no attempt to indicate race in its content, or otherwise it is intended to make the reader imagine a black man when visualising its lazy character (i.e. it's racially loaded). Either it has race conotations or it doesn;t, simple choice... now give me a straight answer.

It's a simple thing to do, give it a try...
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!

Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
User avatar
Corporal Dancing Mustard
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby Dancing Mustard on Sat May 03, 2008 10:12 am

jay_a2j wrote:There are racial undertones for those LOOKING for them.
...and for anybody who reads that tale and has an ounce of common sense.
Come on Jay, stop bunging your fingers in your ears and tell me why that story would explicitly references Jesse Jackson unless it wanted to make you think of a certain racial group? Then when you're done with that, tell me why it would mention AA programs if it was trying to be race neutral?

I think what your quote should have said is "There are racial undertones for those looking at the story and not wilfully ignoring them", that would have been more accurate.

jay_a2j wrote:Close your eyes for a moment, imagine the grasshopper working for a living, preparing for winter, being kind to the ant.

Now....


Imagine the grasshopper is white.
What would the point of that bizzare exercise be? You've just told me to imagine another story in which a white person is the virtuous individual; which isn't particularly helpful to this discussion.

Fact is that the revamped story is deliberately designed to imply that the lazy character is black. Until you can explain away the fairly glaring context clues that suggest that, then you're just being nonsensical in denying that.


jay_a2j wrote:Moral of the story is ...It doesn't matter what color you are, JUST BE A RESPONSIBLE PERSON!
No.
That was the moral of the original story; the revamped one adds an extra layer alongside that message.
Wake up and stop being such a sheeple.

jay_a2j wrote:(You can do and say very little these days without somebody playing the race card)
Well perhaps that's the author's fault for attempting to play it himself. Come on Jay, he needs to 'just be a responsible person' about what he's done. No need to defend him for something he so clearly intends, right?
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!

Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
User avatar
Corporal Dancing Mustard
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby Napoleon Ier on Sat May 03, 2008 10:21 am

Dancing Mustard wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:Ahh..the favorite option of the pastry-faced pseudo-socialist nuu laybor-politikally korrekt when faced with the righteous thunder of a Conservative's anger: call them a bigoted wacist and then say they're stupid.
Yawn yawn, here we go again, Nappy trys to patronise posters who don't agree with him to draw attention from the fact that he doesn't actually have a point... note also his hilarious attempts to hoodwink everyone into thinking I called him a racist, pathetic stuff indeed.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Sadly, if you read the original point of "option 2" you posited, it directly implies the story is suggesting blacks are inferior as a race:
I quote;
Dancing Mustard wrote:Black people are lazy"


whereas my "option 3" you're refusing to understand insert patronising obsolete bollocks here) interpretes the story without making any wild, rash, unsubstantiated claims about it's intent.
Given that my claims aren't wild, rash or unsubstantiated (for the reasons given above, which you conveniently failed to address in your response); it appears you're batting at a losing wicket here...
If you're saying that the story is not making a comment about black people, then you're opting for option 1, and I can only pity your inability to correctly identify subtext. There is no magical option 3 which lets you say "the story isn't racially loaded and is just fine, but black people are definately all lazy and a waste of my taxes", stop trying to conjour one up.

Your fallacious 'third way' to interpret this that simpy cannot exist. Either the story is a simple one about work ethic with no attempt to indicate race in its content, or otherwise it is intended to make the reader imagine a black man when visualising its lazy character (i.e. it's racially loaded). Either it has race conotations or it doesn;t, simple choice... now give me a straight answer.

It's a simple thing to do, give it a try...


Saying it has racial connotations and saying it is racist are two very different things.

You said, and I quote directly, that the story was trying to make us think

all black people are lazy


when actually it's trying to say that those who are unfortunately can get away with it in today's world.

Capisce?
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby Dancing Mustard on Sat May 03, 2008 11:18 am

Napoleon Ier wrote:Saying it has racial connotations and saying it is racist are two very different things.

You said, and I quote directly, that the story was trying to make us think

all black people are lazy


when actually it's trying to say that those who are unfortunately can get away with it in today's world.

So in fact you agree with option 2... for God's sake Nappy, make up your mind already.

As for the scope of the story's intent: you might think it's aimed at a section of black society, I choose to think it's aimed wider than that.
The truth of the matter is that discussion is irrelevant as your argument is all just sophistry anyway. Who cares if the story is describing some or all black people, it's still describing them as lazy spongers (in a way other sectors of society aren't) while describing some or all white people as being virtuous citizens. Regardless of how widely you think the racial judgement applies, it's still a racial judgement unbacked by genuine evidence and designed to incite prejudice. That makes it racist.

Whether you choose to see it as a lot racist or a little racist is up to you; but the facts are there clear as day. The story is designed to make you think of a lazy black man, instead of just a lazy man in general; that in turn is supposed to give you the impression that some/all black people are lazy goodfornothings who sponge of the state at the expense of other races. Given that the judgment hasn't been applied to other races simultaneously and is designed to draw negative reactions to a certain racially identifiable segment of society, that makes it racist.

Capisce?
Or are you going to give me another rambling passage of verbage that misses the point in yet another different way?
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!

Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
User avatar
Corporal Dancing Mustard
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby Napoleon Ier on Sat May 03, 2008 12:53 pm

Dancing Mustard wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:Saying it has racial connotations and saying it is racist are two very different things.

You said, and I quote directly, that the story was trying to make us think

all black people are lazy


when actually it's trying to say that those who are unfortunately can get away with it in today's world.

So in fact you agree with option 2... for God's sake Nappy, make up your mind already.

As for the scope of the story's intent: you might think it's aimed at a section of black society, I choose to think it's aimed wider than that.
The truth of the matter is that discussion is irrelevant as your argument is all just sophistry anyway. Who cares if the story is describing some or all black people, it's still describing them as lazy spongers (in a way other sectors of society aren't) while describing some or all white people as being virtuous citizens. Regardless of how widely you think the racial judgement applies, it's still a racial judgement unbacked by genuine evidence and designed to incite prejudice. That makes it racist.

Whether you choose to see it as a lot racist or a little racist is up to you; but the facts are there clear as day. The story is designed to make you think of a lazy black man, instead of just a lazy man in general; that in turn is supposed to give you the impression that some/all black people are lazy goodfornothings who sponge of the state at the expense of other races. Given that the judgment hasn't been applied to other races simultaneously and is designed to draw negative reactions to a certain racially identifiable segment of society, that makes it racist.

Capisce?
Or are you going to give me another rambling passage of verbage that misses the point in yet another different way?


A satire on the misguided redistributive allocations of welfare benefits isn't racist. What would be racist is if it claimed black people are inferior, but as it is, you're just trigger-happily scanning all posts for a whiff of racial issues discussion in order to then jump up and down screaming it's all racist and Nazi and fascist and Lord knows what else. Frankly sir, that's a pathetic, despicable tactic used by wishy-washy socialist welfareist types to try and calumniate and hence discredit liberal opponents.

I certainly don't agree with option two, since although the story does make a point about race relations in society, it's only by the grossest misreading that one can arrive at the conclusion that it's racist. Now it is fairly incontrovertible that your simplistic two-option system isn't adequate ground on which to base a serious interpretation of the story, and you've presented no evidence to endear the system to me.

The rest of the post deals with your wild and populist witch-hunt for racism, and is effectively a rather simple logical fallacy.

To surmise your argument:

P1/Some black people are described as lazy
P2/White people are not described as lazy
C1/The story is saying all black people are lazy; and therefore, is racist.

Well now, that's just plain invalid, philosophically speaking, and frankly, until you come up with a better argument than "it leaves the vague suggestion that black people may be lazier than whites which my ultra-extra-sensory PC detection systems has picked up on", I don't see much reason to prolong this argument which seems to me basically comes down to being a vast smokescreen put up by you to mask the damning critique of welfareism the story presents which yourn poor understanding of economics prevents you from rebutting.
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby got tonkaed on Sat May 03, 2008 1:03 pm

i think there probably always can and should be some kind of response when you take a story like this, which although relatively harmless, and only really of value to people who believe in the metaphor as an example of the ills of welfare (though its certainly not a "damning critique" as one might have suggested) or to a much smaller group of people who would extend the metaphor in the story. Still, it is rather harmless stories like these which often inform ways of thinking which do end up having relevance and therefore, these stories should be nipped in the bud. It isnt that hard to draw out on "the pc side" where the problem lies. Theres really no need to allow that analogy in that fashion to be extended to a place where it doesnt need to go. Any attempts to generalize its message, should be seen for what they are, a rather silly and not very intellectual prop, for a shot on welfare which could be judged on its own merits as is.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby Napoleon Ier on Sat May 03, 2008 1:06 pm

got tonkaed wrote:i think there probably always can and should be some kind of response when you take a story like this, which although relatively harmless, and only really of value to people who believe in the metaphor as an example of the ills of welfare (though its certainly not a "damning critique" as one might have suggested) or to a much smaller group of people who would extend the metaphor in the story. Still, it is rather harmless stories like these which often inform ways of thinking which do end up having relevance and therefore, these stories should be nipped in the bud. It isnt that hard to draw out on "the pc side" where the problem lies. Theres really no need to allow that analogy in that fashion to be extended to a place where it doesnt need to go. Any attempts to generalize its message, should be seen for what they are, a rather silly and not very intellectual prop, for a shot on welfare which could be judged on its own merits as is.


Personally I find it an extrememly powerful, touching story about the tragic prevelance of albophobia today, often promoted by a vast masochistic guilt-complex at a societal level.
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby got tonkaed on Sat May 03, 2008 1:07 pm

i personally think its the type of thing that a hack children's story writer could have come up with in 5 minutes if they felt like ranting about the welfare system. But to each their own.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby InkL0sed on Sat May 03, 2008 1:54 pm

got tonkaed wrote:i personally think its the type of thing that a hack children's story writer could have come up with in 5 minutes if they felt like ranting about the welfare system. But to each their own.


Yeah, it's extremely translucent, and poorly written.

On another note, I just noticed that Hillary's name is spelled wrong in the title :?
User avatar
Lieutenant InkL0sed
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:06 pm
Location: underwater

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby War Dog on Sun May 04, 2008 8:53 pm

ahh who cares
Image
Lock and load and prepare for war
User avatar
Cook War Dog
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:41 pm

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby SupremeAdmiral on Sun May 04, 2008 11:42 pm

Senator McCain should be president because he is the best choice. He maybe old fashion, however old fashion is how our country has been ran for years and obviously it has worked
User avatar
Private 1st Class SupremeAdmiral
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:12 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby spurgistan on Sun May 04, 2008 11:46 pm

Well, d.u.h.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Obama, Hilliary, or Mccain

Postby greenoaks on Mon May 05, 2008 12:30 am

SupremeAdmiral wrote:Senator McCain should be president because he is the best choice. He maybe old fashion, however old fashion is how our country has been ran for years and obviously it has worked

if by 'has worked' you mean high levels of homelessness, obesity & violent crimes, rising budget deficits & interest repayments, falling value of the dollar, a sub-prime mortgage crisis, credit crisis & liquidity crunch, unaffordable health/medical treatment or insurance and a chronically underfunded education system then yes McCain is clearly the best choice.
User avatar
Sergeant greenoaks
 
Posts: 9977
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:47 am

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap, Dukasaur