Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I was watching Football yesterday and I saw an advertisement for Blackpeoplemeet.com.

I can't help think that if there had been a internationally televised commercial for a "whites only" dating service that there would have been a stink raised somewhere.

When is discrimination acceptable?

When there's no history or body of oppression and the consequences for the discriminated party are "Bummer, oh well moving on..."


At any rate we should see if the things we are comparing are actually comparable beyond a very shallow examination. For example most of us realize that the Nazi party and the Westboro baptist church having a white pride parade is distasteful and wrong, while a gay pride parade is not at all the same thing (cause completely different implications and reasons for it).

So are you saying that this isn't discrimination because of previous historical injustices?

I am just talking about the simple exclusion of one part of society (be it based on race, sexual orientation of gender) by another and when people might find it more acceptable than others.

Another example would be "women only" gyms.

No, I'm saying it's acceptable and not particularly harmful. And not only because of previous historical injustices, but also ongoing injustices.

Taking your dating site example, there are statistics that show that black people get considerably less messages than white people on dating sites. And the majority of English dating sites are overwhelmingly white. As such, white people have a perfectly fine platform that reminds them subtly that they are the "default" and that suits their dating needs. The only reason for a white person to have a "no coloured people" site is prejudice against an oppressed group, or racism. Racism is frowned upon, so that would get backlash. On the other hand, black people will have to go through a lot of white people's profiles if they desire to date someone with a similar experience to them (being black in america) and they will be actually discriminated against on the site they are. A black only dating site could potentially solve these issues, and is therefore not in the least prejudiced.

Similar arguments can be made for women only gyms (for example the tendency of certain men to make women feel uncomfortable or creeped out by oogling or hitting on them).

That's what I'm saying, when you look at two situations that appear similar or the same to you, you should look at the surrounding issues and figure out whether they really are similar at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
when you look at two situations that appear similar or the same to you, you should look at the surrounding issues and figure out whether they really are similar at all.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you (or agreeing with you for that matter), just trying to get a topic going, and this came to mind.

But doesn't this continue to foster such injustices?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Not necessarily disagreeing with you (or agreeing with you for that matter), just trying to get a topic going, and this came to mind.

But doesn't this continue to foster such injustices?

Well, I don't think it is an injustice. So I guess my answer would be no.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...there are statistics that show that black people get considerably less messages than white people on dating sites.

crylaugh

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with wanting to date people of your own race, and if you want to make a website dedicated to that, so be it.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I was watching Football yesterday and I saw an advertisement for Blackpeoplemeet.com.

Everything people do motivated by race is creepy and weird.

I just had to bring this up..lol why can black people say the n word and white people cant? Hey man tats racist they say, yet u hear it in rap being thrown around like its nothing?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with wanting to date people of your own race, and if you want to make a website dedicated to that, so be it. my previous roomate told me he didnt believe in race mixing, tat whites should stay w whites, european equality no mixing of the pure blood, then i called him a racist. I also asked him but arent u friends w so and so and he said, its okay to be friends w them just not to breed w them. Lol Then i found out he was homophobic too and kicked him out.

Originally posted by rudester
I just had to bring this up..lol why can black people say the n word and white people cant? Hey man tats racist they say, yet u hear it in rap being thrown around like its nothing?

Why can you call your mom a ***** but I can't? Same reason.

Originally posted by rudester
I just had to bring this up..lol why can black people say the n word and white people cant? Hey man tats racist they say, yet u hear it in rap being thrown around like its nothing? because slavery.

edit - my favorite white people complaint has got to be 'why can black people have BET but white people can't have WET,' conveniently ignoring that BET is owned by a corporation run primarily by white men.

All these examples come down to comparing things which only seem similar by disregarding the context in which they exist.

For example. Why no White Entertainment Channel? Because that's every channel, there is no lack of entertainment with white (predominantly male) protagonists to relate to.

Therefore a BET and a WET while on the surface the same (a TV Channel) are completely different. And one is alright while the other is creepy and somewhat ****ed up.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I was watching Football yesterday and I saw an advertisement for Blackpeoplemeet.com.

I can't help think that if there had been a internationally televised commercial for a "whites only" dating service that there would have been a stink raised somewhere.

When is discrimination acceptable? Was it explicitly mentioned that the site was for black people only? No one else can join?

When I read this, I immediately thought of commercials I see for Christian dating websites and Jewish dating websites, also for people over age 50. I would imagine there are still more dating sites catering to other 'specific clientele' that aren't advertising as much, for whatever reason (too expensive?).

Anyway, perhaps there's a fine line between 'preference' and 'discrimination', with the latter kicking in if a given site prohibits 'outsiders'.

In other words, offhand I see nothing wrong with a site addressing a particular demographic, as long as it doesn't say, "For Only."

There's a dating site for farmers only.

Ranchers may have something to say about that.

Originally posted by Mindship
Ranchers may have something to say about that.
I think it would count them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Therefore a BET and a WET while on the surface the same (a TV Channel) are completely different. And one is alright while the other is creepy and somewhat ****ed up.

We all know that BET is creepy and ****ed up but I have to think WET would be pretty much the same.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We all know that BET is creepy and ****ed up but I have to think WET would be pretty much the same.

I did walk right into that one...

I don't think there's anything wrong with a website for blacks to meet/date blacks or whites to meet whites or even transgendered to meet transgendered. Some people are attracted to certain types and sometimes those types are the same as themselves.

To me it's no different from sites for whites to meet/date blacks. If that's what you're into why waste time looking at websites with all types when you just want a whitey or a darkie

Have seen those commercials too and also one for white goober like farmers dating service. At first it seemed like some sort of SNL skit, and had to check again what program I was watching. A bit surreal. But hey, if it works and they make money at it and does not harm anyone, big whoop and go for it.

Originally posted by juggerman
I don't think there's anything wrong with a website for blacks to meet/date blacks or whites to meet whites or even transgendered to meet transgendered. Some people are attracted to certain types and sometimes those types are the same as themselves.

To me it's no different from sites for whites to meet/date blacks. If that's what you're into why waste time looking at websites with all types when you just want a whitey or a darkie

This guy knows what he's talking about because he's black.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This guy knows what he's talking about because he's black.

Half

Originally posted by rudester
my previous roomate told me he didnt believe in race mixing, tat whites should stay w whites, european equality no mixing of the pure blood, then i called him a racist. I also asked him but arent u friends w so and so and he said, its okay to be friends w them just not to breed w them. Lol Then i found out he was homophobic too and kicked him out.

Good thing I'm not like your ex-roommate, then.

I cant help but think of rudester roommate as Herbert Moon from red dead redemption

Lets just say there was WET wat would be on it?

Originally posted by rudester
Lets just say there was WET wat would be on it?

Klan rallies

Originally posted by rudester
Lets just say there was WET wat would be on it?
It's called Fox News.

Originally posted by rudester
Lets just say there was WET wat would be on it?
ruNrdmjcNTc

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I was watching Football yesterday and I saw an advertisement for Blackpeoplemeet.com.

I can't help think that if there had been a internationally televised commercial for a "whites only" dating service that there would have been a stink raised somewhere.

When is discrimination acceptable?

It isn't and I'm glad that you brought this up. Now what?

I think the whole "African American, Asian American etc" is racist. They're American, why differentiate?

Originally posted by Raisen
I think the whole "African American, Asian American etc" is racist. They're American, why differentiate?

I never understood this. Africa and Asia are huge, ethnically diverse parts of the world. Using these terms under the pretense of political correctness just shows how much some people need a mandatory geography and anthropology class.

Also, the commercial for this website made me laugh because I immediately thought of the trolls posting Scorpion/Sub-Zero pics on Muslim dating sites:

http://anticache.img9.joyreactor.com/pics/post/sites-muslim-wife-scorpion-364649.jpeg

wtf ^

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I never understood this. Africa and Asia are huge, ethnically diverse parts of the world. Using these terms under the pretense of political correctness just shows how much some people need a mandatory geography and anthropology class.

Good point. I generally grow tired of the PC bs.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
wtf ^

It's actually pretty lulz-worthy.

Discriminating against a straight middle class white man is like a five year old teaching a mathematician to count on his fingers, it's cute but at the end of the day no one's offended.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Good point. I generally grow tired of the PC bs.

I generally grow tired of people whining about political correctness. What are you going, ask me to stop?

Now it's just a matter of time before someone posts a Dizzt Do'Urden profile on blackpeoplemeet.com.

Originally posted by Astner
Discriminating against a straight middle class white man is like a five year old teaching a mathematician to count on his fingers, it's cute but at the end of the day no one's offended.

wow

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I generally grow tired of people whining about political correctness. What are you going, ask me to stop?

No, I'll go out of my way to offend you if I know what type of PC bullshit you arbitrarily decide to start whining about.


Example: "OMG! The word 'retarded' is sooooo offensive."

heh, I love that one. 313

Originally posted by Astner
Discriminating against a straight middle class white man is like a five year old teaching a mathematician to count on his fingers, it's cute but at the end of the day no one's offended.

So what you're saying is that non-whites are like children? Damn now we'll have to carry them around all the time, what a burden for us white guys.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So what you're saying is that non-whites are like children? Damn now we'll have to carry them around all the time, what a burden for us white guys. It IS difficult being the most advantaged group on Earth. The world owes us a debt for carrying them to the future.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So what you're saying is that non-whites are like children? Damn now we'll have to carry them around all the time, what a burden for us white guys.

lol

People took offense to that?

The way I read it was that white people are the masters of discrimination and thus they cannot be discriminated against.


The whole statement was very discriminatory.

Originally posted by Raisen
The way I read it was that white people are the masters of discrimination and thus they cannot be discriminated against.


The whole statement was very discriminatory.

The way you describe it, that means it is a double standard.



I just don't feel slighted for being called a "cracker" or "honkey" even if it is stated with as much vitriol as possible. That does not mean people should get to discriminate against something I was born as, however.

Originally posted by Astner
People took offense to that?

I was going to say no, that we were joking, but apparently Raisen has decided to take offense.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was going to say no, that we were joking, but apparently Raisen has decided to take offense.

i'm just not sure what he meant. everybody responding has different opinions of it.

why are white people the most advantageous? was it given to them originally?

Originally posted by Raisen
The way I read it was that white people are the masters of discrimination and thus they cannot be discriminated against.


The whole statement was very discriminatory.

That's how I read it, too. Though I didn't take offense, because I think it's basically true. Not because individual white people discriminate a lot on purpose necessarily, but because the whole dominant western culture is very white centric.

Also I didn't take offense cause Astner sometimes just says things...and one can safely ignore it.

Originally posted by Raisen
why are white people the most advantageous? was it given to them originally?

Whites, especially in the west, but to some degree everywhere, have advantages due to 500 years of imperialism and the hegemonic white supremacist culture that resulted from it and influences a lot of things globally.

It's not an inherent "betterness" or anything.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's how I read it, too. Though I didn't take offense, because I think it's basically true. Not because individual white people discriminate a lot on purpose necessarily, but because the whole dominant western culture is very white centric.

Also I didn't take offense cause Astner sometimes just says things...and one can safely ignore it.



Whites, especially in the west, but to some degree everywhere, have advantages due to 500 years of imperialism and the hegemonic white supremacist culture that resulted from it and influences a lot of things globally.

It's not an inherent "betterness" or anything.

you managed to give me answers without being an a hole. I appreciate it.

I really didn't take offense to astner either. just didn't know what he was saying.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's how I read it, too. Though I didn't take offense, because I think it's basically true. Not because individual white people discriminate a lot on purpose necessarily, but because the whole dominant western culture is very white centric.

Also I didn't take offense cause Astner sometimes just says things...and one can safely ignore it.



Whites, especially in the west, but to some degree everywhere, have advantages due to 500 years of imperialism and the hegemonic white supremacist culture that resulted from it and influences a lot of things globally.

It's not an inherent "betterness" or anything.

Clearly, we were blessed people. Don't deny it on the altar of political correctness.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/116/154/DUANE.gif

I mean, look at that rhythm.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Similar arguments can be made for women only gyms (for example the tendency of certain men to make women feel uncomfortable or creeped out by oogling or hitting on them).

That's what I'm saying, when you look at two situations that appear similar or the same to you, you should look at the surrounding issues and figure out whether they really are similar at all.
Men exclusive gyms should exist too, right?

how about this, you admit that you feel intimidated and insecure with women sexualizing you, and you can have a men-only gym

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I was watching Football yesterday and I saw an advertisement for Blackpeoplemeet.com.

I can't help think that if there had been a internationally televised commercial for a "whites only" dating service that there would have been a stink raised somewhere.

When is discrimination acceptable? I often register on "blacks only" forums and pretend I'm black.

Originally posted by Oliver North
how about this, you admit that you feel intimidated and insecure with women sexualizing you, and you can have a men-only gym
So men do not need "men only places" where they can express themselves more openly then they would in company of women?

I never claimed that I feel intimidated by women sexualizing me or something; Like any man, I do like attention from women. However, I would like to visit "men exclusive places" where I can express myself/behave more openly then I would in company of women in general and not distracted by sexual tension/attention involving female gender. This is normal human psychology irrespective of gender.

As far as gym argument is concerned; people go to gyms to work out and many may not appreciate or crave sexual attention in such a setting. Its not as if men would want to be sexualized in every damn possible setting in the world.

Even from gender equality perspective, if women are getting exclusive places, men should as well.

Originally posted by Dolos
I often register on "blacks only" forums and pretend I'm black.
You are black though.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
So men do not need "men only places" where they can express themselves more openly then they would in company of women?

I never claimed that I feel intimidated by women sexualizing me or something; Like any man, I do like attention from women. However, I would like to visit "men exclusive places" where I can express myself/behave more openly then I would in company of women in general and not distracted by sexual tension/attention involving female gender. This is normal human psychology irrespective of gender.

As far as gym argument is concerned; people go to gyms to work out and many may not appreciate or crave sexual attention in such a setting. Its not as if men would want to be sexualized in every damn possible setting in the world.

Even from gender equality perspective, if women are getting exclusive places, men should as well.

/shrug

your answer sort of clarifies why this is more of a free market issue than anything. Like salads on McDonald's menus, people make a huge fuss because they want "healthy eating", then the product doesn't sell. In this case, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong about a men only gym, there would simply be too few clients to run one effectively. If the market really demanded a men only facility, there would be serious court challenges to any law preventing it. Like, nobody sues men's boarding homes for discrimination (sure, they have issues with funding), but the need for such facilities tends to justify discriminating against the other gender.

The question might be phrased as a "why is it ok to discriminate against the men who might want to use the gym", which can easily be answered by the access they have to other gym facilities and the lack of any reason that men might feel uncomfortable working out in front of women (like you said, real men love attention from women). I obviously don't agree with your position on what makes a man, but certainly, using your own argument, you have done nothing but show why there is no need to discriminate against women who want to use the gym in the same way there is a reason to discriminate against the men. Sure, you might disagree that women's desire to not be sexualized is not sufficient reason to discriminate, but at least there is some reason.

It seems like you are looking at this issue as: "why can't I discriminate against women for no reason? Why can't I restrict access to certain facilities just for the sake of it?" Which is preposterous. Women don't have the carte blanche right to restrict the access of men to places, there needs to be some justification. Being upset that women get to have gyms where they can work out without male eyes is little more than petty or spiteful. You said yourself, you don't even want a male only gym, you are just being immature about some abstract feeling of being wronged with no material consequence.

and no, your definition of "gender equality" would seem to suggest Tampax is discriminating against you for not making male tampons.

Originally posted by Oliver North
/shrug

your answer sort of clarifies why this is more of a free market issue than anything. Like salads on McDonald's menus, people make a huge fuss because they want "healthy eating", then the product doesn't sell. In this case, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong about a men only gym, there would simply be too few clients to run one effectively. If the market really demanded a men only facility, there would be serious court challenges to any law preventing it. Like, nobody sues men's boarding homes for discrimination (sure, they have issues with funding), but the need for such facilities tends to justify discriminating against the other gender.

The question might be phrased as a "why is it ok to discriminate against the men who might want to use the gym", which can easily be answered by the access they have to other gym facilities and the lack of any reason that men might feel uncomfortable working out in front of women (like you said, real men love attention from women). I obviously don't agree with your position on what makes a man, but certainly, using your own argument, you have done nothing but show why there is no need to discriminate against women who want to use the gym in the same way there is a reason to discriminate against the men. Sure, you might disagree that women's desire to not be sexualized is not sufficient reason to discriminate, but at least there is some reason.

It seems like you are looking at this issue as: "why can't I discriminate against women for no reason? Why can't I restrict access to certain facilities just for the sake of it?" Which is preposterous. Women don't have the carte blanche right to restrict the access of men to places, there needs to be some justification. Being upset that women get to have gyms where they can work out without male eyes is little more than petty or spiteful. You said yourself, you don't even want a male only gym, you are just being immature about some abstract feeling of being wronged with no material consequence.

and no, your definition of "gender equality" would seem to suggest Tampax is discriminating against you for not making male tampons.
Have you conducted a country-wide survey to support your assumption about preferences of men? How the hell can you speak for preferences of all men for wanting exclusive places or not?

History reveals that "men-exclusive" places have flourished in the past, and they still can (e.g. "men-exclusive" golf clubs and even "men-exclusive" gyms in some nations). So why should we assume that "men-exclusive" places would falter in current times?

Realistic possibility is that some men may still want to go to gyms which are "men-exclusive," if they are available. This has nothing to do with them not craving women attention but availing an option based on various psychological preferences of their own. Men have their own reasons for wanting exclusive places such as feeling more comfortable in expressing themselves then they would in presence of women or be able to do stuff/activities that they may not do in presence of women. Not recognizing these reasons as valid enough is another thing.

I wouldn't mind working out in a gym which is gender neutral but I still may prefer to join a "men-exclusive gym" if it is available.

You need to realize the fact that the society in which you live is being brain-washed or forced to accept feminist logic in all walks of life. You don't have to defend feminist logic in every possible discussion. Law based argument is not going to convince me either. Yes, I accept the fact that it might be impossible to open "men-exclusive" gym in your society because of law based hurdles, but this has nothing to do with my stand on this matter.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Whites, especially in the west, but to some degree everywhere, have advantages due to 500 years of imperialism and the hegemonic white supremacist culture that resulted from it and influences a lot of things globally.
Given that palefaces were latecomers in human evolution, and that the white race, numbers-wise, has always been the minority, how did it come to dominate so much? Did whites somehow realize they were the smaller, later demographic, and so tried that much harder to be on top?

I always wondered about this.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Have you conducted a country-wide survey to support your assumption about preferences of men?

right

Originally posted by Mindship
Given that palefaces were latecomers in human evolution, and that the white race, numbers-wise, has always been the minority, how did it come to dominate so much? Did whites somehow realize they were the smaller, later demographic, and so tried that much harder to be on top?

I always wondered about this.

The power of Aryan blood cannot be denied.

Originally posted by Mindship
Given that palefaces were latecomers in human evolution, and that the white race, numbers-wise, has always been the minority, how did it come to dominate so much? Did whites somehow realize they were the smaller, later demographic, and so tried that much harder to be on top?

I always wondered about this.

Right place at the right time?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why can you call your mom a ***** but I can't? Same reason.

This is brilliant. I've never heard this before. I'm going to start using this line.

Originally posted by Oliver North
/shrug

your answer sort of clarifies why this is more of a free market issue than anything. Like salads on McDonald's menus, people make a huge fuss because they want "healthy eating", then the product doesn't sell. In this case, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong about a men only gym, there would simply be too few clients to run one effectively. If the market really demanded a men only facility, there would be serious court challenges to any law preventing it. Like, nobody sues men's boarding homes for discrimination (sure, they have issues with funding), but the need for such facilities tends to justify discriminating against the other gender.

The question might be phrased as a "why is it ok to discriminate against the men who might want to use the gym", which can easily be answered by the access they have to other gym facilities and the lack of any reason that men might feel uncomfortable working out in front of women (like you said, real men love attention from women). I obviously don't agree with your position on what makes a man, but certainly, using your own argument, you have done nothing but show why there is no need to discriminate against women who want to use the gym in the same way there is a reason to discriminate against the men. Sure, you might disagree that women's desire to not be sexualized is not sufficient reason to discriminate, but at least there is some reason.

It seems like you are looking at this issue as: "why can't I discriminate against women for no reason? Why can't I restrict access to certain facilities just for the sake of it?" Which is preposterous. Women don't have the carte blanche right to restrict the access of men to places, there needs to be some justification. Being upset that women get to have gyms where they can work out without male eyes is little more than petty or spiteful. You said yourself, you don't even want a male only gym, you are just being immature about some abstract feeling of being wronged with no material consequence.

and no, your definition of "gender equality" would seem to suggest Tampax is discriminating against you for not making male tampons.

I would note that some men ...many many men find having women in the gym to be distracting and would prefer they workout elsewhere.

Have you heard of Oxygen Gym in Kuwait? World famous gym...top tier athletes come to visit from all over the world, Bader Bodai (gym owner) is a super nice guy, etc. etc. But no women in that gym (on the floor...the could be elsewhere but women cannot workout on the gym floor).

Not only is there a market for it but gyms actually exist out there, like that.

I'm sure you've heard of Muslims, before.


Also, most of the local gyms I go to have an very large majority male clientele. I would wager that the gym membership for women only is smaller than the gym membership of males in general (not male only). The issue is...males are generally more relaxed about a gym environment and women are not. Let's blame it on evolution and sexual asymmetry for the reason why. If I were a woman, 130lbs (almost 60kg), walking into a gym with a bunch of semi-angry muscular dudes, I'd probably be intimidated and possibly even scared to go off in a corner out of site.


So, all of that is my reason why it is okay to have a woman's only gym and not a men's only. However, men's only gyms exist and there are plenty of men out there that want a men's only gym.

Originally posted by BackFire
This is brilliant. I've never heard this before. I'm going to start using this line.

I don't think it's brilliant. It's still dumb. It is all extremely arbitrary.

Originally posted by BackFire
This is brilliant. I've never heard this before. I'm going to start using this line.

Thanks.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, all of that is my reason why it is okay to have a woman's only gym and not a men's only. However, men's only gyms exist and there are plenty of men out there that want a men's only gym.

why do you think there is no serious challenge to the law then?

or... maybe I'm making assumptions, is it a law that stops men only gyms?

Originally posted by Oliver North
... maybe I'm making assumptions, is it a law that stops men only gyms?

Nope. It would be creating a law for something that isn't really wanted. Muslims are not in a majority in the US...yet.

so, it is just like I was saying, it boils down to the free market. And places where there is such demand have the facilities, and places whereas there isn't, don't.

1 point in the W column

Sorry, misfounded smartassery, I must edit!!!

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, it is just like I was saying, it boils down to the free market. And places where there is such demand have the facilities, and places whereas there isn't, don't.

1 point in the W column

But that's not true in Muslim countries: there is a market and they make those gyms.

Oxygen Gym is just the most famous.



The real issue is: there just is not enough men, per unit area, to get enough men to purchase a gym membership. They'd have to drive from too far away. So those gyms don't happen in the US. But, trust me, there are plenty of men that don't want women in the Gyms with them, in the US. But there are enough women who want a women only gym, per unit area, to justify women only gym.

There are probably enough men per unit area in large cities that could justify a male only gym. BRB, going to look.



Edit - They do exist in the US: Cuts Fitness for Men


Edit 2 - You may want to erase that W and write in D. The D stands for "deez nuts." 313

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why can you call your mom a ***** but I can't? Same reason.

I can't call my mother that because I'm not a crass mouthed ass.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can't call my mother that because I'm not a crass mouthed ass.

Well, the rules are different for gay dudes: they can call any woman a b*tch and get away with it. I just learned this "rule" at a Halloween party 1 week back from a gay couple.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, the rules are different for gay dudes: they can call any woman a b*tch and get away with it. I just learned this "rule" at a Halloween party 1 week back from a gay couple.

Sounds like an excuse to be rude. If any of them had called my wife a b*tch, I would have gotten into their face. I don't care what their sexuality is. We should treat each other with respect.

Originally posted by Mindship
Given that palefaces were latecomers in human evolution, and that the white race, numbers-wise, has always been the minority, how did it come to dominate so much? Did whites somehow realize they were the smaller, later demographic, and so tried that much harder to be on top?

I always wondered about this.
Did I refer you to Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond?

If not, the thesis in that book was that European cultures became dominant over the rest of the world during the Age of Exploration and beyond because of a combination of superior technology (guns), superior resources (steel), and the assistance of microorganisms (germs). The last one is arguably the most important for Diamond--germs explain why Africa didn't become like the Americas--with the native population more or less wiped out and replaced by settlers and mixed race individuals: the very same germs that destroyed the Amerindian populations were mostly endemic to Africa, and it was the white settlers instead who became sick. There's more to it than that, another important reason why Europeans came to dominate the world was their agricultural model, which was made possible by the favorable climate of Europe. He also uses Europe's geography as a way of explaining why countries like China, who had similar advantages to Europeans, didn't become colonial powers: that the lack of Balkanization (which in Europe was fomented by the many natural boundaries and peninsulas that encouraged the development of small, culturally distinct nations) didn't present the Chinese with sufficient push factors to force them to explore outside of their known world. Eventually this lack of exploration and expansion meant that they lagged behind Europe, despite having been in most ways more advanced than Europe for most of history.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Did I refer you to Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond?
Cool, thanks. Googling it, the book's gotten mostly favorable reviews. Since it was published a while ago, I wonder if it's librarified by now.

Originally posted by Mindship
Cool, thanks. Googling it, the book's gotten mostly favorable reviews. Since it was published a while ago, I wonder if it's librarified by now.
There's a TV movie adaptation made by the author that's free to watch on Youtube. It was very well done.

That's where I actually got most of my info from it--I never had enough time/interest to read the whole book. You might start with that, and then look into the book if you find his thesis/theories interesting.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Did I refer you to Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond?


Why, did Robtard refer you to the same?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, the rules are different for gay dudes: they can call any woman a b*tch and get away with it. I just learned this "rule" at a Halloween party 1 week back from a gay couple.

I'm not gay (shut up, I'm not) and I do this all the time. I've abandoned even trying to remember the names of women, I just call them all *****, with perhaps a number after to differentiate them.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm not gay (shut up, I'm not) and I do this all the time. I've abandoned even trying to remember the names of women, I just call them all *****, with perhaps a number after to differentiate them.

What? Really?

Yes, it's efficient and fun. Try it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why, did Robtard refer you to the same?
My uncle showed it to me around the time the video series came out, which was 2005. Then I saw most of the series first with him, and then again in 10th grade in my AP World History class.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Did I refer you to Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond?

If not, the thesis in that book was that European cultures became dominant over the rest of the world during the Age of Exploration and beyond because of a combination of superior technology (guns), superior resources (steel), and the assistance of microorganisms (germs). The last one is arguably the most important for Diamond--germs explain why Africa didn't become like the Americas--with the native population more or less wiped out and replaced by settlers and mixed race individuals: the very same germs that destroyed the Amerindian populations were mostly endemic to Africa, and it was the white settlers instead who became sick. There's more to it than that, another important reason why Europeans came to dominate the world was their agricultural model, which was made possible by the favorable climate of Europe. He also uses Europe's geography as a way of explaining why countries like China, who had similar advantages to Europeans, didn't become colonial powers: that the lack of Balkanization (which in Europe was fomented by the many natural boundaries and peninsulas that encouraged the development of small, culturally distinct nations) didn't present the Chinese with sufficient push factors to force them to explore outside of their known world. Eventually this lack of exploration and expansion meant that they lagged behind Europe, despite having been in most ways more advanced than Europe for most of history.

I read that book as well some time ago. While I'm not entirely sold on the premise as being absolute(things are rarely as simple as three main causes), overall the work has some good ideas. Implementation of foreign inventions and shipbuilding helped Europe tremendously; in particular, the compass and gunpowder came from Asia by way of Middle East, but it was Europeans who used them in deep blue sea traveling and conquest.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The power of Aryan blood cannot be denied.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/116/154/DUANE.gif

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I read that book as well some time ago. While I'm not entirely sold on the premise as being absolute(things are rarely as simple as three main causes), overall the work has some good ideas. Implementation of foreign inventions and shipbuilding helped Europe tremendously; in particular, the compass and gunpowder came from Asia by way of Middle East, but it was Europeans who used them in deep blue sea traveling and conquest.

Looking at China, it's always very interesting how in one sense they missed their chance to take over the world by looking inward. After all, Zheng He's ships which traveled from China to Madagascar about a century before Columbus sailed to the Caribbean were much larger, more powerful ships than the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria and could have crossed the relatively more gentle Pacific to discover California or Peru, but the Chinese never considered venturing east because they believed there was nothing out there that they needed. As late as the time of the American Revolution the Chinese Emperor told a British trade envoy that the West had nothing to offer China. Then came the Opium Wars...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sounds like an excuse to be rude. ...We should treat each other with respect.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can't call my mother that because I'm not a crass mouthed ass.

So much for treating others with respect.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So much for treating others with respect.

Fail!

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Looking at China, it's always very interesting how in one sense they missed their chance to take over the world by looking inward. After all, Zheng He's ships which traveled from China to Madagascar about a century before Columbus sailed to the Caribbean were much larger, more powerful ships than the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria and could have crossed the relatively more gentle Pacific to discover California or Peru, but the Chinese never considered venturing east because they believed there was nothing out there that they needed. As late as the time of the American Revolution the Chinese Emperor told a British trade envoy that the West had nothing to offer China. Then came the Opium Wars...

China missed a huge change to become a colonial power. At least, back then.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
China missed a huge change to become a colonial power. At least, back then.

They will make up for it.

I'm going to practice Mandarin beforehand. I'm doomed on the wushu though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Fail!

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/hypocrite_zpsb331568d.jpg

Originally posted by Adam_PoE


You have no legitimate point, you are only being a troll. STOP NOW! Or I will place you on my ignore list forever.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have no legitimate point, you are only being a troll. STOP NOW! Or I will place you on my ignore list forever.

lol!

Your point is logically consistent. You don't call your moth a b*tch because it would make a you crass-mouthed ass and you think using the excuse that she's your mother to call her a b*tch, makes a person a crass-mouthed ass. The only way for your statement to be taken as hypocritical is if you really did call your mother a b*tch but pretended not to and still maintained your position that it is "crass-mouthed ass" making.

Saying that someone who calls their mother a b*tch, a crass-mouthed ass, in and of itself, does not make one a crass-mouthed ass. Here is an example for why the hypocrisy position is stupid(color-coded to show the direct parallels):


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can't call my mother that because I'm not a crass mouthed ass.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sounds like an excuse to be rude. We should treat each other with respect.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I can you call my mom a b*tch but you can't.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So much for treating others with respect.

Example 1:

John says it is a bad idea to spit into the wind.

Bill holds that it is okay to spit into the wind.

Bill spits into the wind and gets spit on his face.

John says, "See, it is a bad idea to spit into the wind."

Bill accuses John of having bad ideas because John said spitting into the wind is a bad idea.



Example 2:

John says one becomes a poor farmer if he uses his hands to till.

Bill holds that it is okay to till with his hands.

Bill tills with his hands and harms himself.

John says, "See, you are a poor farmer if you till with your hands."

Bill accuses John of being a hypocrite because John said farming with your hands makes you a poor farmer.



In both of these examples, it is impossible for John to actually be a hypocrite because the actions John outlined for his negative statement were not fulfilled by John. It is possible to purposefully misinterpret John's negative statement and apply it inappropriately but this is dishonest and illogical.





To make a more simple case out of Adam_Poe's direction:


John: It is a bad idea to call others' ideas bad.


Bill: It is okay to call others' ideas bad.

Bill: John, you are hypocrite because you think it is a bad idea to call others' ideas bad. You created a paradox, b*tch.

John:



Obviously, I do not subscribe to forcing paradoxes when a paradox can be avoided through alternative and in-context interpretations of people's statements. This is why I agree with Shakyamunison's perspective that Adam_Poe's hypocrisy accusation was a "fail" attempt.

The meeting I am in, right now, is extremely boring as it covers the access control theory we are going to employ for our SharePoint shares. I am not even halfway through this meeting. I cannot jazz up this post anymore than I have. I hope you enjoy this break-down of the disagreement between these two posters, KMC-ers.

I'm fairly certain Shaky is just kidding. But good effort on the color coding, bro.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I'm fairly certain Shaky is just kidding. But good effort on the color coding, bro.

No, he's not. They have history.

He is legit "mad, bro."

And thanks! It is amazing what too much time can do for you.

Truth is, I'm color blind. I had to have someone else point it out for me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have no legitimate point, you are only being a troll. STOP NOW! Or I will place you on my ignore list forever.

I have a completely legitimate point: you are a hypocrite; you passive-aggressively insult someone in one post and advocate respecting others in the next.

Moreover, you are no one to dictate anything to me and as such, whether you put me on your ignore list for any amount of time is completely inconsequential to me.

Now, do you have anything substantive to say, or shall I call you a whambulance?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have a completely legitimate point: you are a hypocrite; you passive-aggressively insult someone in one post and advocate respecting others in the next.

Moreover, you are no one to dictate anything to me and as such, whether you put me on your ignore list for any amount of time is completely inconsequential to me.

Now, do you have anything substantive to say, or shall I call you a whambulance?

http://d1r5i20o8cadcu.cloudfront.net/designs/images/52774/original/saspinkC.jpg

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I was watching Football yesterday and I saw an advertisement for Blackpeoplemeet.com.

I can't help think that if there had been a internationally televised commercial for a "whites only" dating service that there would have been a stink raised somewhere.

When is discrimination acceptable? Blackpeoplemeet.com is no different then an asian social network, empahsis on Asian in the title or a Latin etc etc. You do no there are other races on the website right? It becomes discrimination if only that particular race is allowed to become a member of the site. Take blackplanet.com as an example. Although it says Blackplanet, you can go there an meet all soughts of people that are not black. Everyone is getting along conversing and having a good time. A good form of acceptabble discrimination is, not being able to live in a certain area because of your color. Of course your not going to be told that, your just not going to be accepted, because your application has mysteriously dissappeared....lol. Or not being able to go to a school because it's out of the neighborhood that you live in.