Moderateman Moderateman

Racism is more than a two way street.

▼

Racism is more than a two way street.

Blacks are every bit as racist as whites are.

from JoeUser Forums

I am so tired of every time someone points out a black doing anything, they get leaped all over and called racist, well not every person that mentions the word black is a racist I know I am not.

The overuse of blacks of the race card is getting tiresome.

There are just too many examples to point out so I am not going to cite any.
Surely if I do someone will be quick to point out how racist that is, or what a closet racist I am.

MOST of the looting in New Orleans was done by blacks {fact} pointing this out is just calling it like it is, not some kind of vast white right wing conspiracy.

I see plenty of black racism that no one dares point out because it ain't politically correct to do so.

This crying racist is going the way of the boy that cried wolf.

I had my ass handed to me in Harlem for the crime of www.. {walking while white} what was I doing in Harlem? I lived there is what.

I was robbed at gunpoint by blacks while having my store open in Oakland California that just loved taunting me with racial slurs while they were taking a money donation from me at gunpoint. Am I to assume from that 2 instances {new york and 3300 miles away in Oakland that all blacks are thugs and thieves? nope I do not.



Are all blacks racist? I think not, well neither are whites all racist either.

I have been called in my life "dirty Jew" by both whites and blacks "Jesse Jackson called new york city, Jew york city where was the outrage then? The leader of the black Muslim nation Louis farrakhan is an out and out Jew hater, a white hater too, why are these two not mentioned when racism is being talked about?

Before you "african americans" throw stones
take a look at you own behavior, and the general behavior of your own people.
"
15,720 views 54 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: dharmagrlPosted: Sunday, September 04, 2005It's getting to where you can't mention the color of someone's skin or comment on their culture without being accused of rascism.


that's my point exactly. thank you.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: PhilomedyPosted: Sunday, September 04, 2005


No, you pointed out that African-Americans need to look at what other African-Americans do before criticizing Caucasian-Americans for doing something. I didn't make anything about race; You did. You could have pointed out an universal truth: That people should take a good, long look at themselves before criticizing others. You chose not to do that. You chose to point out that black people should take a good, long look at black people before critizing white people.


ok I cannot argue with how you perceive things philo, I am not in your skin or mind.

Note, I'm not calling you a racist. Just saying what I got out of this article. I don't understand why so much is being written about "Why do black people do this" and "Why don't white people do this" and "blacks should" and "whites should" and all of that stuff. I don't get why we can't write about what people should do without classifying them as one thing or another


philo, when a robbery is commited and the police give a description, the say things like 5ft 11 inches tall, blond hair, white, or 6ft 2 inces tall black male, are those racist statements or just a simple reporting of who, what and where.?
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Identifying the perpertrators of a crime as one race or another is one thing.  making a sweeping generalization based upon incomplete data and extending that to a race is another.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Identifying the perpertrators of a crime as one race or another is one thing. making a sweeping generalization based upon incomplete data and extending that to a race is another.


Reminds me of a thread I wrote... where I saw 'suspected thieves' and called the police. The first question they asked me was "Were they Arabs"?
I took that as racist as I was able to identify them and tell the cops what they were wearing. The assumption that they were Arabs was just downright racist.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
29 by Dr. Guy
Monday, September 05, 2005


Identifying the perpertrators of a crime as one race or another is one thing. making a sweeping generalization based upon incomplete data and extending that to a race is another.


and where did I do this?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
#30 by Manopeace
Monday, September 05, 2005


Reminds me of a thread I wrote... where I saw 'suspected thieves' and called the police. The first question they asked me was "Were they Arabs"?
I took that as racist as I was able to identify them and tell the cops what they were wearing. The assumption that they were Arabs was just downright racist.


when the majoritty of crime is perpatrated by purple people, it's not uncommon to ask where they purple.That is not racist but using common sense and history.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
#33 by little_whip
Monday, September 05, 2005


Identifying the perpertrators of a crime as one race or another is one thing


As i did, when I asked the question "Why are all these looters black?"

I realize I should have used "the overwhelming majority of" rather than "all of" but I hate long titles that spill over into the second line of the sidebar.

If they had all been lesbians, or brazilians with pink hair, it would have been a legitimate question as well. But when asked of blacks, all hell breaks loose.


we are just not being politically correct enough, i AM TIRED OF p.c. BEHAVIOR AND WHEN THAT BEHAVIOR HAS ONE SET OF RULES FOR ONE RACE AND A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET FOR ANOTHER, Well that's just wrong and unfair.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
and where did I do this?


Read what you write.

Let me pose a question: Why were you compelled to single out black people in this article? Do only black people have to look at what all other black people do before they criticize someone else, or does that go for whites and hispanics and asians and jews as well? And let's say that a black person does consider the actions of black people and then criticizes someone? Is their claim invalidated? More validated? I guess the place where I'm going with this is, what was your point?

As i did, when I asked the question "Why are all these looters black?"


You'll notice that MM's comments about identifying criminals mentioned a lot of other things beside race, like height, weight, hair color, clothing, etc. Just citing race, or just citing height or weight is an inadequate description, and so (rightfully) is met with indignation. If your entire description of a criminal is "he's black" or "he's tall" or "he's fat" or "he's got short hair", and the cops go and stop and question every black guy or every tall guy or every fat guy or every guy with short hair, there's going to be backlash from all of those people.

You obviously don't want to go into what I think of you, so all I'll say here is that your words went far beyond description.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

Identifying the perpertrators of a crime as one race or another is one thing. making a sweeping generalization based upon incomplete data and extending that to a race is another.


and where did I do this?

Never said you did.  I was making an observation on generalizations.

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

As i did, when I asked the question "Why are all these looters black?"

Never said you did not in your original thesis.

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

we are just not being politically correct enough, i AM TIRED OF p.c. BEHAVIOR AND WHEN THAT BEHAVIOR HAS ONE SET OF RULES FOR ONE RACE AND A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET FOR ANOTHER, Well that's just wrong and unfair.

Since I instigated this brouhaha, I will respond.  Identifying criminals of any race is never wrong.  Making criminals of a race always is.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gee whiz, I was supposed to say


How about if you want to write an article about race relations, you do it without questioning why an entire race performs an illegal activity (strike 1), you do it without implying that there's some difference between races that leads one race to commit crimes while others don't (strike 2), and you actually have the guts to answer the question that you pose (strike 3)?
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
pfft. Dont let your personal dislike of me stand in the way of reason, Phil...we know you wouldnt do that.


Just like you woulnd't possibly let your personal dislike of blacks affect your reasoning. It's not like you'd ever say they were all looters or anything.

Do you REALLY require that many "disclaimers for the dense?"


Forgive me if I require a little explanation. I must not speak racist.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh btw, feel free to come talk on the thread that's actually about this, instead of taking over MM's thread with it.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
well reading you 2 whip, philo was fun.. sounds like a good exchange. who knows maybe a comming together of ideas.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: little_whipPosted: Tuesday, September 06, 2005It's not like you'd ever say they were all looters or anything.Again, you put words in my mouth, reversing the order in which they were said to change the meaning entirely.I NEVER said all blacks were looters, I said all the looters were black. Huge difference there.


typical , to turn ther order of words around to try and make a point. happens to me alla time.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
I NEVER said all blacks were looters, I said all the looters were black. Huge difference there.


It's funny how you never imply anything, but everyone else does, isn't it?

I could say the same to you, I had a thread going where you could have expressed this, but you chose to take it to your own blog.


Yeah, my blog, where I can say whatever I want. Not to someone else's blog about a completely unrelated subject.

And given your history, one of two things would have happened had I responded on your blog: A) You would have blacklisted me or deleted my comments cuz your delicate nature can't stand cursing, or B) I would have been reported to the moderators for bruising the delicate flower with my horrible inappropriate language.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

I NEVER said all blacks were looters, I said all the looters were black. Huge difference there.


It's funny how you never imply anything, but everyone else does, isn't it?

I could say the same to you, I had a thread going where you could have expressed this, but you chose to take it to your own blog.


Yeah, my blog, where I can say whatever I want. Not to someone else's blog about a completely unrelated subject.


Are we having a hard time comprehending the written word? "You're" the one doing the implying here.

I NEVER said all blacks were looters, I said all the looters were black. Huge difference there.


What is so hard to understand here? This is NOT a racial statement! But you're trying to make it one, aren't cha?
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

I guess my view is what exactly is the relevance of pointing out what the pigment of the looters is?  I mean, what's the point?  Most of the looters were male too.  They were mostly of a certain age group. 

Unless the argument is that people who are "black" are more likely to steal than other reasons, then there's no real point in observing the color of the skin of the looters. 

Pointing out the color of someone's skin isn't racism.  It depends on what the motivation is behind pointing out someone's skin color.

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
I saw it as more of an observation. I mean, it was in the form of a question, right? I could give you several answers for why the majority of the looters were black, all of them PC and reasonable.

I don't for a moment have any doubt that LW has some beliefs that many would find distasteful. It does give me pause when we can't ask questions like that, though, considering it IS a dangerous social problem. The mere fact that looting is on the rise, now, after everyone knows about it and there are thousands of boots on the ground, makes me worry.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
It all comes down to "victim = respect". To many people, since Black people are the "victim" so of course their "right" to hate should be respected. It also helps feed into feelings of self loathing, allowing the self-loather to see him or herself as a victim...

so, in reality it is good because it promotes self respect! ;~D
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: DraginolPosted: Tuesday, September 06, 2005I guess my view is what exactly is the relevance of pointing out what the pigment of the looters is? I mean, what's the point? Most of the looters were male too. They were mostly of a certain age group. Unless the argument is that people who are "black" are more likely to steal than other reasons, then there's no real point in observing the color of the skin of the looters. Pointing out the color of someone's skin isn't racism. It depends on what the motivation is behind pointing out someone's skin color.


I pointed out the skin color as a fact of news brad. period.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Wednesday, September 07, 2005It all comes down to "victim = respect". To many people, since Black people are the "victim" so of course their "right" to hate should be respected. It also helps feed into feelings of self loathing, allowing the self-loather to see him or herself as a victim... so, in reality it is good because it promotes self respect! ;~D


keen observation ted.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Forgive me for having faults. Or don't. The sun still shone on my face when I woke up today.


and the sun was pleased to look upon that face. smile
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

Are we having a hard time comprehending the written word? "You're" the one doing the implying here.


If you read her entire article and came away with no implications, you need a reading comprehension course.


What is so hard to understand here? This is NOT a racial statement! But you're trying to make it one, aren't cha?


Again, read her whole article. She wrote way more than one innocent sentence.

Unless the argument is that people who are "black" are more likely to steal than other reasons, then there's no real point in observing the color of the skin of the looters.

Pointing out the color of someone's skin isn't racism. It depends on what the motivation is behind pointing out someone's skin color.


Perhaps you said it better than I, for no one's jumped on you. But this is my point.