Race baiting media at it again...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Star428
Apparently, now it's considered offensive and/or racist to just have the word "white" tattooed on your body. The liberal race-baiting media can't resist any chance to get people riled up over anything related to race by printing stories like this trash:



http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/08/clinton-campaign-deletes-photo-after-controversial-tattoo-spotte/21206627





"Controversial tattoo". LMAO. Of course, I'm sure if a black guy had been spotted with a tattoo that said "Black" then nobody would be saying a phucking thing.

Ushgarak
Let's be clear about what's happening here- no-one is banning such a tattoo or saying the guy should be put away or the like.

What they ARE saying is that people might not want to be associated with someone sporting such a tattoo, and judging someone by how they express themselves is perfectly legitimate. I think it very reasonable to ask why someone would have a tattoo and what it may symbolise; I am hard-pressed to think of reasons that are not effectively racist and hence this is not something the Clinton campaign would want to associate with.

Freedom of expression is not freedom from judgement.

Digi
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Freedom of expression is not freedom from judgement.

I love this sentiment, because it responds to so much out there these days.

Surtur
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Let's be clear about what's happening here- no-one is banning such a tattoo or saying the guy should be put away or the like.

What they ARE saying is that people might not want to be associated with someone sporting such a tattoo, and judging someone by how they express themselves is perfectly legitimate. I think it very reasonable to ask why someone would have a tattoo and what it may symbolise; I am hard-pressed to think of reasons that are not effectively racist and hence this is not something the Clinton campaign would want to associate with.

Freedom of expression is not freedom from judgement.

But honest question: do you feel a black man with the word "black" or "african" tatooed on his arm would receive the exact same amount of backlash for it? Would such a person be automatically labeled a black supremacist?

Bardock42
A black man with the word "black" tattooed on him, is not the same as a white man with the word "white". These have completely different contexts and disregarding them will lead you to misunderstand the situation.

That being said, there'd likely be a different kind of backlash (for example remember the FOX News outrage over the rapper Common in the White House)

Ushgarak
It wouldn't make them my person of the year because I dislike tribalism in general- however, there is a giant difference between the oppressor and the oppressed in that sort of cultural self-identity so I would judge it differently.

Surtur
So why is a white guy doing it not the same as a black guy? Just because one group was more oppressed?

Once again we have an instance of "it is okay for one race to do something, but not another".

Ushgarak
That's exactly what it is, yes- the problem is that you aren't paying any heed to the cultural nuances that make it that way; you're simply seeing it as straight out unfairness. It is not. The simple truth is that the two expressions have different meanings- you are not comparing like for like.

Bardock42
Ush has hit on it the dynamic of oppressor and oppressed is different. Pride in whiteness has an extensive history of racism and oppression. Blackness in America has been devalued and degraded for years, so someone expressing their pride in it is an attempt to regain a respect that is denied to them. White people are not a marginalised group, so talking about white pride sends a different message.

Surtur
But that is utterly silly to me though. So you can't take pride in being white because white people oppressed black people. But you can take pride in being black because you were oppressed.

Ushgarak
See you just boiling it down to 'take pride in' is where you are over-simplifying the matter. I can see why you think it is utterly silly but I am afraid the only solution here is to take a much wider look at how expressing yourself as part of a genetic culture like that is something that has a meaning that is not based on a blank slate but instead takes place in historical and social context.

It's possible for a black person to sport such a tattoo based on purely racist beliefs- and like I said, it would make me wary. But it's very possible for it instead to be based on solidarity born of oppression. As I said originally, I am hard-pressed to think of a positive spin on a white pride tattoo.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
But that is utterly silly to me though. So you can't take pride in being white because white people oppressed black people. But you can take pride in being black because you were oppressed.

But you understand the context, yes?

If you see a white person that has white tattoed on their body you are asking yourself why they felt the need to put that on their body, why someone whose race faces absolutely no obstacles is obsessed enough with his race to tattoo it on themselves (999/1000 it's a racist person, perhaps a nazi or a KKK member).

A black person is confronted with their race and how their race is an obstacle in a predominantly white society constantly. So them writing "black" on their body doesn't mean they hate white people necessarily, just that they do not accept the narrative of black people as bad.

Q99
Originally posted by Surtur
But that is utterly silly to me though. So you can't take pride in being white because white people oppressed black people. But you can take pride in being black because you were oppressed.


There is the matter that 'White Pride' groups like the KKK, Stormfront, and similar, tend to be completely horrible people, while the same can't be said in reverse.


There's a term, 'punching down.' When someone is down to begin with, doing something to help build up is, generally, just moving closer to a level playing field. When one's already on top, doing things to elevate the group even higher tends to be more about disadvantaging everyone else, which... well, not so good.


And there's another angle: White people hardly need special pride groups because whiteness is celebrated everywhere. They're the default. The standards of beauty are white models and white actors. Movies and TV have white people disproportionately in the heroic roles. Most celebrated figures in history are white.

There doesn't need to be any special white-pride separate from anything because the mainstream culture is already a predominantly white one.

Surtur
If it is possible for a tatoo on a black man to be based on solidarity then why isn't it possible for the white one to be? Just because white supremacists exist doesn't mean everyone who has pride is in that group.

You are basically saying because white hate groups exist that nobody could take pride in it.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
Just because white supremacists exist doesn't mean everyone who has pride is in that group.

It pretty much does mean that every time.

Ushgarak
I am unaware of any historical or social context that requires such an expression of solidarity- which is a response to oppression. So, as Bardock says, that pretty much just leaves racism.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bardock42
It pretty much does mean that every time.

But this is a sweeping generalization. The same type that people like blacks, latino's, and others hate when it is applied to them. Why is it okay to generalize one group and not another?

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Digi
I love this sentiment, because it responds to so much out there these days.

Just on this point- yes indeed; people often mistake 'freedom to express' with 'immunity to criticism'. "It's my opinion" is a defence to someone telling you you are not allowed to talk, but it's an irrelevant comment to someone telling you that you are wrong. If you are unable or unwilling to justify your opinion, then it will be judged accordingly.

Of course, there is a reversal here too- judgement has no implicit power unless it too can be rationally backed. Hence, being offended at someone's expression is not in of itself of any significance except to yourself. Unless the offence can be connected to some genuine wider issue, it's all just talk.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Surtur
But this is a sweeping generalization. The same type that people like blacks, latino's, and others hate when it is applied to them. Why is it okay to generalize one group and not another?

'Sweeping generalization' is only a relevant criticism if it distorts the truth, which I don't think it does here.

Surtur
So how the hell can this country ever overcome racism when we hold different races to different standards? Based on how *some* members of that race behave.

Bardock42
Why don't we have hospitals for healthy people?
Why don't we put living people in cemetaries?
Why don't we have food banks for rich people?

Isn't that really unfair to them?

Ushgarak
Well now you have come to a MUCH harder question. There is an idealised time in the future when everyone can be treated the same in the way you want it and this can be done with no risk of unfairness. Right now, though, if you try to treat everyone equally in the way you mean it, you end up with massive inequality.

Easy example- charging everyone without exception $100k a year for university is equal treatment, but socially it shuts all but the rich out of higher education so it is broadly unfair, and hence there are tweaks.

You want a society where the tweaks are not needed. That takes a LOT of movement, involving both sides, and a lot of cultural understanding. A long-term job.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why don't we have hospitals for healthy people?
Why don't we put living people in cemetaries?
Why don't we have food banks for rich people?

Isn't that really unfair to them?

So in other words: if you were oppressed in the past then taking pride in who you are is totally kosher. If you weren't, it is not.

Ushgarak
Again, 'taking pride' is where you are mis-representing the debate via simplification.

Surtur
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, 'taking pride' is where you are mis-representing the debate via simplification.

So it is not simplification to say every single white person in the country who feels pride is also a racist who is itching to join the KKK and all that?

Ushgarak
Well, no, because you are adding details to that so that makes it complication. It's wrong, regardless.

It is accurate to say that those bearing white pride tattoos very likely hold racist beliefs or are holding association with such beliefs. This association is something that it is valid to judge by.

Surtur
Here is a crazy thought, why not if we see a person with the name of their race tatooed on them..we simply ask them what they are trying to invoke by having that tatoo, as opposed to immediately jumping to conclusions about it?

Every tatoo usually has a story or reason behind it, so why not ask for it instead of assuming? It's not like the tatoo said "white power" or "I hate black people forever".

At least this way you know for sure the person you are labeling as racist is..well, racist.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
Here is a crazy thought, why not if we see a person with the name of their race tatooed on them..we simply ask them what they are trying to invoke by having that tatoo, as opposed to immediately jumping to conclusions about it?

Every tatoo usually has a story or reason behind it, so why not ask for it instead of assuming? It's not like the tatoo said "white power" or "I had black people forever".

That's a good idea, and when you see an angry guy chasing you with a lead pipe you probably should also ask if he's actually angry or whether this is just some funny improv session.

Ushgarak
Would you do that with a white man bearing a swastika?

It is not unreasonable to draw judgements based on such expressions, and someone bearing such an expression should know what message it is likely to give out.

psmith81992
Freedom of speech isn't absolute. It cannot be used to incite or revolt. Different standard exists for logical reasons (men vs. women where abuse exists).

Surtur
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Would you do that with a white man bearing a swastika?

It is not unreasonable to draw judgements based on such expressions, and someone bearing such an expression should know what message it is likely to give out.

But a swastika is a clear sign of hatred. The word "white" is not.

What if my last name was white, and I get a tatoo of it? Will dipshits be assuming I'm all for white power?

Astner
To me tattoos signal white trash regardless of their motif, size or location. And while the word "white" isn't an exception, it's so ambiguous that you've to be pretty short-sighted to jump to the conclusion that it's racist.

Then again, vocal liberals tend to be idiots, so it doesn't surprise me.

Star428
Originally posted by Bardock42
A black man with the word "black" tattooed on him, is not the same as a white man with the word "white". These have completely different contexts and disregarding them will lead you to misunderstand the situation.

That being said, there'd likely be a different kind of backlash (for example remember the FOX News outrage over the rapper Common in the White House)


Sorry, but no. It's no goddamn different. It's a double standard and white Americans are getting tired of people who have an attitude like yours about it.

Surtur
Originally posted by Astner
To me tattoos signal white trash regardless of their motif, size or location. And while the word "white" isn't an exception, it's so ambiguous that you've to be pretty short-sighted to jump to the conclusion that it's racist.

Then again, vocal liberals tend to be idiots, so it doesn't surprise me.

So a black guy with a tatoo is white trash?

Bashar Teg
oppressive majorities always fancy themselves clever when they're feigning persecution as part of an obvious campaign to persecute others. relevant: http://rt.com/politics/272416-russia-straight-flag-family/?

Surtur
To be honest I actually don't see it as persecution. Just outright bullshit. Just like saying all black people are thugs is bullshit, or all latino's are rapists is bullshit.

Astner
Originally posted by Surtur
So a black guy with a tatoo is white trash?
The thread is about white people tattooing the word white on their bodies. Not even the liberals would consider a black man who tattoos the word white on his body a racist.

Star428
LOL. The overwhelming majority of people in this thread who are making lame ass excuses for this double standard behavior are not even American. They haven't had to put up with this double standard bullshit for decades so it's not hard to see why they're all so ignorant on the matter. If you all want to be ashamed of "being white" then that's your right. Pretty sad and pathetic if u ask me but it's your right.As for me, I will always be just as every bit as proud of being white as all the blacks who play their racist so-called "music" are of being black. And if you think I'm a racist for feeling that way then I really don't give a goddamn.

Quincy
I wonder what the tattoo is for, have they found this guy?

psmith81992
I'm a conservative American but I don't nitpick as much as you do. Double standards DO exist and sometimes they ARE valid. "White power" is as bad as "black power". One has KKK connotations, the other, Black Panthers.

Star428
Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm a conservative American but I don't nitpick as much as you do. Double standards DO exist and sometimes they ARE valid. "White power" is as bad as "black power". One has KKK connotations, the other, Black Panthers.


Nitpick? LOL. Getting sick and tired of double standard BS is "nitpicking"? This guy wasn't advertising or supporting the KKK. Only thing he did was have the word "white" tattooed on his arm. It didn't say "white power" or "KKK rules" or any other racist slogan. So the word "white" is going to be considered a racist word from now on?

Time-Immemorial
Funny Clinton signed a law as governor honoring the confederate Flag, when he ran for President he had a Clinton/Gore Pin with the flag on it, he also belongs to a white only golf club to this day.

At a funeral for Senator Robert Bird a staunch KKK member lead the filibuster against the American Civil Liberty Act.

Bill Clinton was making excuses for a this guy at his funeral.

Talk about bullshit. Liberals would have no standards if they didn't have a double standard.

Not to mention the people that started the confederacy where liberal Democrates. Now her deleting this photo and trying to cover it up is equally as deplorable.

psmith81992
Yes, because some double standards are in place for a reason. The fact that you simply call it a "double standard" ignores the context completely.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Star428
LOL. The overwhelming majority of people in this thread who are making lame ass excuses for this double standard behavior are not even American.

Remember America is the the most respected country in the world and we have Obama as our leader. We can expect that we will have many haters and naysayers.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/01/obama-ive-restored-the-us-as-the-most-respected-country-in-the-world/

With Obama is charge, we shall not tire or fail.

Star428
Originally posted by psmith81992
Yes, because some double standards are in place for a reason. The fact that you simply call it a "double standard" ignores the context completely.



LOL. No. Double standards are never justified, dude. So the word "white" is a racist term now? That is the only thing the tattoo on his arm said. It didn't say "white power" or something else obviously racist. Just "white" which could've meant a dozen different things. Even if it meant he was actually proud of being white how is that a crime? So it's not ok for him to wear a tattoo that says "white" but it's ok for blacks to blast their garbage "music" about murdering white cops and raping white women?



Sorry, but I'm not buying your claim that you're a conservative. Not for a second. You sound awfully libtarded. If you check out the comments below that article you'll see that I'm not the only one who is "nitpicking" (LOL) about double standards.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Star428
LOL. No. Double standards are never justified, dude. So the word "white" is a racist term now? That is the only thing the tattoo on his arm said. It didn't say "white power" or something else obviously racist. Just "white" which could've meant a dozen different things. Even if it meant he was actually proud of being white how is that a crime? So it's not ok for him to wear a tattoo that says "white" but it's ok for blacks to blast their garbage "music" about murdering white cops and raping white women?



Sorry, but I'm not buying your claim that you're a conservative. Not for a second. You sound awfully libtarded. If you check out the comments below that article you'll see that I'm not the only one who is "nitpicking" (LOL) about double standards.

Lol look what I posted above.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

Talk about bullshit. Liberals would have no standards if they didn't have a double standard.

Star428
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Funny Clinton signed a law as governor honoring the confederate Flag, when he ran for President he had a Clinton/Gore Pin with the flag on it, he also belongs to a white only golf club to this day.

At a funeral for Senator Robert Bird a staunch KKK member lead the filibuster against the American Civil Liberty Act.

Bill Clinton was making excuses for a this guy at his funeral.

Talk about bullshit. Liberals would have no standards if they didn't have a double standard.

Not to mention the people that started the confederacy where liberal Democrates. Now her deleting this photo and trying to cover it up is equally as deplorable.


Yeah, of course it makes sense for someone like her though I guess. She knows she can't be associated with anything that blacks might stupidly interpret as racism as they typically do at every little thing. She relies on the colored votes too much to do something like that.

psmith81992
Oh jesus, I look liberal compared to you. Example of a justified double standard: domestic abuse. Men are predominantly guilty for domestic abuse, as well as being bigger and stronger than women, therefore they are held to a different stand. There's no "never" in your argument.


You're going off on a tangent due to emotion, don't be like Rob. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you're comparing a "white" tattoo to blasting music, raping women, and killing cops. Those things are unlike getting a tattoo. You don't have a point here.

Star428
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Talk about bullshit. Liberals would have no standards if they didn't have a double standard.





thumb up

Omega Vision
Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm a conservative American but I don't nitpick as much as you do. Double standards DO exist and sometimes they ARE valid. "White power" is as bad as "black power". One has KKK connotations, the other, Black Panthers.
You raise a valid point, and we should be on guard against hate groups of any provenance, but let's not let this skew the fact that the Black Panthers haven't racked up nearly the same racially-motivated bodycount as the KKK have, even just considering the last 50 years to make it fair to the BP who haven't been around nearly as long.

You should also consider the context in which each group arose. BPs, however flawed and backward they might be in their approach and philosophy, formed to protect black communities from white mob violence, whereas the KKK formed to (1) keep black people from exercising their right to vote and (2) to chase Northern Republicans out of the South so as to perpetuate white dominance over blacks.

This is one of those instances where to say "both sides are bad" ignores the bigger problem: that both groups arise from a situation where whites are in an unfair dominant position over blacks.

Robtard
Saying the BP are just as bad as the KKK. Oh, my. How Embarrassing.

Star428
Whatever, psmith. I have no interest in trying to reason with someone who thinks this double standard behavior is acceptable. It outright disgusts me that people have an attitude like yours about this. Good day.

Omega Vision
I think I could accidentally step into a Black Panther meeting and the worst that would happen is I'd get shoved out roughly.

A black man who stumbles onto a KKK gathering in the woods...

psmith81992
Granted, I was just presenting two different perspectives so there is no "double standard", and Star wouldn't blow a gasket.


Their formations notwithstanding, they've both done some pretty abhorrent things. To say "black panther" paints anything other than an unflattering picture, would be intellectually dishonest.

But that's not to say they're both the same.


Wonderful! You're intolerant of those who disagree with you and bring up more valid points than you. At least we're getting somewhere.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by psmith81992
Granted, I was just presenting two different perspectives so there is no "double standard", and Star wouldn't blow a gasket.

Just don't bother with Star. He's incapable of seeing nuance or recognizing legitimate disagreement. His first reaction to disagreement is to try to delegitimize his opposition on some flimsy grounds ("You collect welfare, get a job, RAAHHH!" or "You're not from America, stop saying the word AMERICA, ONLY AMERICANS CAN SAY AMERICA, THAT'S OUR WORD!!"wink and his second reaction is to add the person to his ignore list.


All right, it did seem like you were equating them, but fair enough. We agree where it counts. thumb up

Henry_Pym
Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh jesus, I look liberal compared to you. Example of a justified double standard: domestic abuse. Men are predominantly guilty for domestic abuse, as well as being bigger and stronger than women, therefore they are held to a different stand. There's no "never" in your argument. Men are "found guilty" but a major reason is because they don't question the woman, as that would be victim blaming...

Shakyamunison
My opinion:

First off, this is just because of the way I was raised, but anyone I see with a tattoo is automatically calorized as a deviant. I realize that is completely wrong, and that I should never judge a book by its cover. But it is the truth.

If I were to see a white man with a tattoo that said "white" I might think he was a deviant racist. Also, a black with a tattoo of the word black would also be a deviant racist. However, I would immediately remind myself that all people are Buddhas at their base nature, and that I should withhold judgment.

Robtard
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Just don't bother with Star.

It's amusing that even self-labeled conservatives pause and think "WTF, dude" after just a couple exchanges with him.

psmith81992
even*

Robtard
Originally posted by psmith81992
even*

Yeah, that's what I said. Is your rage making you do flips again?

psmith81992
Oh that's cute Rob. At least this time you had the sense to go back and change it before embarrassing yourself again and getting all emotional laughing out loud

Robtard
You and your silly games, I'll leave you to them.

psmith81992
Originally posted by Robtard
You and your silly games, I'll leave you to them.

Sure thing Rob. My games mixed with your tenuous grasp on the english language leaves a lot to be desired thumb up

Robtard
Admitting you play silly games. That's a step in the right direction, buddy thumb up

Omega Vision
Smh at this grammar bullshit.

psmith81992
Originally posted by Robtard
Admitting you play silly games. That's a step in the right direction, buddy thumb up

Well, we don't expect you to admit you have a hard time understanding and writing English so this is next best thing laughing

Robtard
Get it all out.

psmith81992
It's ok Rob, we know you're angry and always want the last word. I look forward to seeing your post 1 minute after this and we'll stop right then mk? Wouldn't want you to lose your mind 3 days in a row laughing out loud

Omega Vision
I don't understand psmith's beef with Rob.

Robtard
Originally posted by Robtard
Get it all out.

Bashar Teg
robtard's woeful inability to read and write proper english is way off topic.

Robtard
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't understand psmith's beef with Rob.

We had a minor clash in the Same-Sex Marriage thread a little while back. He's had a grudge ever since. Rather silly, imo.

Flyattractor
So if "the News Media" is race baiting does that mean its a slow news day or that one of their political bosses did something stupid that they have to distract every body from?

psmith81992
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
robtard's woeful inability to read and write proper english is way off topic. thumb up

jaden101
Originally posted by Robtard
We had a minor clash in the Same-Sex Marriage thread a little while back. He's had a grudge ever since. Rather silly, imo.

He proposed and you spurned his advances?

Robtard
To share some of the blame, I did lead on like a tease.

Surtur
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My opinion:

First off, this is just because of the way I was raised, but anyone I see with a tattoo is automatically calorized as a deviant. I realize that is completely wrong, and that I should never judge a book by its cover. But it is the truth.

If I were to see a white man with a tattoo that said "white" I might think he was a deviant racist. Also, a black with a tattoo of the word black would also be a deviant racist. However, I would immediately remind myself that all people are Buddhas at their base nature, and that I should withhold judgment.

Well at least this is consistent. This country really needs to do away with all "okay for one race, but not the other" bs. So no words that only certain races can say, no topics only certain races can discuss, and no actions certain races can take that are not okay for others.

Oh and definitely no immediately jumping to speculation about things. You want to call someone racist this day and age? You need more then "dude had the word white tatted on him". This wasn't white power, it wasn't a tatoo of a black man hanging from a tree, it wasn't an image of this guy wearing a KKK uniform.

Every tatoo has a certain intent, so why not find that out before jumping to conclusions? This wasn't a life or death situation, nobody was in any danger. For all I know he could be the grand wizard of the KKK, but his specific tatoo doesn't tell us that.

Even worse, do you read motherf*ckers tatoo's if you see a person with one? I sure as hell don't take the time, even if I'm shaking their hand. So people get pissy with Hilary, this was just probably one of a crap load of people she shook hands with that day. Unless a tatoo is of massive size of has a variety of bright colors..I tend not to pay it no mind. So even if someone wanted to say "this tatoo is racist"...changing that to whining about Hilary doesn't fly unless you know she specifically knew this guy was a white supremacist.

This is the world we live in: immediately accuse people of racism. That is our new thing. Even if we don't know this person and even if we really don't have much of a leg to stand on in labeling them racist..we will STILL do it.

Time-Immemorial
The media loves a good crisis, and they like to start them.

Pathetic

jaden101
Anyone with any kind of tattoo like that on their arm, regardless of whether it's a word or a date or anything, instantly goes in the 'arsehole' category in my book.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by jaden101
Anyone with any kind of tattoo like that on their arm, regardless of whether it's a word or a date or anything, instantly goes in the 'arsehole' category in my book.


Do you think the same thing when you see a tattoo like this?

http://creativefan.com/important/cf/2012/12/thug-life-tattoo/tupac-tattoos.jpg


Also how do you know for sure he was racist, it didn't say white power. It said white, so until the person can be affilated with some group or ideology, this is all speculation is it not? If a black person had a tattoo saying "black" or "thug life", would he be an ******* too? Because we know its cool to be black and rep that status, however the same does not go for white's.

Fair enough?

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Surtur
Well at least this is consistent. This country really needs to do away with all "okay for one race, but not the other" bs. So no words that only certain races can say, no topics only certain races can discuss, and no actions certain races can take that are not okay for others.

Oh and definitely no immediately jumping to speculation about things. You want to call someone racist this day and age? You need more then "dude had the word white tatted on him". This wasn't white power, it wasn't a tatoo of a black man hanging from a tree, it wasn't an image of this guy wearing a KKK uniform.

Every tatoo has a certain intent, so why not find that out before jumping to conclusions? This wasn't a life or death situation, nobody was in any danger. For all I know he could be the grand wizard of the KKK, but his specific tatoo doesn't tell us that.

Even worse, do you read motherf*ckers tatoo's if you see a person with one? I sure as hell don't take the time, even if I'm shaking their hand. So people get pissy with Hilary, this was just probably one of a crap load of people she shook hands with that day. Unless a tatoo is of massive size of has a variety of bright colors..I tend not to pay it no mind. So even if someone wanted to say "this tatoo is racist"...changing that to whining about Hilary doesn't fly unless you know she specifically knew this guy was a white supremacist.

This is the world we live in: immediately accuse people of racism. That is our new thing. Even if we don't know this person and even if we really don't have much of a leg to stand on in labeling them racist..we will STILL do it.

This is very sad, because I thought you were making some effort to engage in reasoned debate, but in fact you are just utterly rejecting anything that does not line up with your blinkered worldview.

You are wrong to talk of ""okay for one race, but not the other" bs." As explained many times earlier, this is an ill-considered position; what you mistake to be equal treatment does in fact end in drastic inequality and unfairness. By perpetuating this position, you are perpetuating inequality.

Your comment about intent is simple deflection of the issue. No single credible scenario has even given at any point as to how this could not be a racist tattoo. The only vague possibility is that it is a reference to someone's name, but that possibility is so remote as to not be worth considering, and it still comes down to appreciating the signals of how you present yourself. It is not- I need to emphasise this very strong- NOT in any way unreasonable to read that tattoo with a negative connotation. It is, however, very disingenuous for you to try and claim moral superiority by saying "let's just ask him what it is about". That is false morality- it is simply avoiding the actual issue. An attempt to cloud the argument by pretending to sound reasonable when in fact you are not.

We do NOT live in a world where we immediately accuse people of racism- this is again a false moral stand you are taking to cloud the issue. We DO, however, live in a world where severe racism issues are very real and judgements such as this are reasonable. Of course, much of the problem of racism is not just found in the individual race haters. It's the people who are utterly unable to shift and expand their cultural understanding of the world to see the nuances of this sort of thing that perpetuate the issue by raising fake moral objections and enabling the issue to get worse.

The sad thing is that you apparently genuinely feel you have some sort of moral position here. A shame. You need to widen your perspective quite considerably- you simply don't understand the issues.

Meanwhile, please cut down on the swearing.

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you think the same thing when you see a tattoo like this?

http://creativefan.com/important/cf/2012/12/thug-life-tattoo/tupac-tattoos.jpg


Also how do you know for sure he was racist, it didn't say white power. It said white, so until the person can be affilated with some group or ideology, this is all speculation is it not? If a black person had a tattoo saying "black" or "thug life", would he be an ******* too? Because we know its cool to be black and rep that status, however the same does not go for white's.

Fair enough? That guy in the pic is definitely a an *******, a stupid ******* to be exact.

To your "White" tattoo comment. No, we don't know for sure if that guy had racist intentions, for all we know his last name is "White" and he tattooed it on his arm or any number of other none racist intentions. But as pointed out, the history behind "White Pride" in America is closely linked with racism and oppression of others, so it's not surprising for people to react negatively to such a tattoo.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Also how do you know for sure he was racist, it didn't say white power. It said white, so until the person can be affilated with some group or ideology, this is all speculation is it not? If a black person had a tattoo saying "black" or "thug life", would he be an ******* too? Because we know its cool to be black and rep that status, however the same does not go for white's.

Fair enough?

As noted, a black person with a tattoo saying 'black' is not the same as a white person bearing one saying 'white'.

People have to stop being culturally and historically blind, else they will continually mis-understand.

Surtur
I mean the problem is real racism exists in this country, no doubt about it. So how about for a change we focus on the shit we know is racist?

Has anyone even researched who this person was? Or know anything about them at all? Besides that one photo? I sure as hell don't, which is why I'm saying I just don't know. Could be racist, could be something else. So I sure as shit wouldn't make a big stink over it until I knew more.

Bardock42
"Big stink" in this case being Hillary Clinton removing the photo from twitter?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak
As noted, a black person with a tattoo saying 'black' is not the same as a white person bearing one saying 'white'.

People have to stop being culturally and historically blind, else they will continually mis-understand.

How is it not the same? I dont accept that, at all.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
That guy in the pic is definitely a an *******, a stupid ******* to be exact.

To your "White" tattoo comment. No, we don't know for sure if that guy had racist intentions, for all we know his last name is "White" and he tattooed it on his arm or any number of other none racist intentions. But as pointed out, the history behind "White Pride" in America is closely linked with racism and oppression of others, so it's not surprising for people to react negatively to such a tattoo.

I think the thread has jumped to conclusions. All we have is a tattoo saying white. Could mean anything. Hilary like a good politician is just covering up her tracks. And thats why this became a big deal more then it was.

Now as far as their past Bill passed laws to honor the confederate flag, his mentor and person he looked up to was a member of the KKK. Bill was also apart of a white only golf coarse and on the clinton/gore ticket, he had campaign pins with the confederate flag.

So why is this not considered racism from the media and public opinion?

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
"Big stink" in this case being Hillary Clinton removing the photo from twitter? I'm pretty sure those same people who are giving Hilary shit for removing the picture would still be giving her shit if she had kept it up.

Surtur
Originally posted by Ushgarak
As noted, a black person with a tattoo saying 'black' is not the same as a white person bearing one saying 'white'.


I understand perfectly, I just disagree. I know the story, to you if a person is white and proud it means they are proud in a "we are superior" kind of way. But for black people it doesn't mean that. Because historically people having that type of pride were racist.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bardock42
"Big stink" in this case being Hillary Clinton removing the photo from twitter?

Because people whined over it and she knew they would. If this wasn't just some random voter she met I might get it, but it appears it was just some random dude. Who gives a shit? Does it mean she is racist? No.

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I think the thread has jumped to conclusions. All we have is a tattoo saying white. Could mean anything. Hilary like a good politician is just covering up her tracks. And thats why this became a big deal more then it was.

Now as far as their past Bill passed laws to honor the confederate flag, his mentor and person he looked up to was a member of the KKK. Bill was also apart of a white only golf coarse and on the clinton/gore ticket, he had campaign pins with the confederate flag.

So why is this not considered racism from the media and public opinion?

The differences have been pointed out. But I have no real objections to what you said there, politically. It's a none story that was made into one by whiners.

To the Confederate Flag business, I'd guess it was a political move to ingratiate himself with moderate-right Southerners. If you want to dig up Bill's past, sure. Not sure this is the thread for it.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How is it not the same? I dont accept that, at all.

As noted, that's because you are totally blind to historical and cultural nuance and don't want to accept anything outside of your narrow field of view.

You don't even want to begin to engage with the wider cultural argument- you think everything can be argued from a blank slate and then use that as a weapon to say people are being unfair on whites by applying double standards.

But that whole situation is a monstrously immoral fake- it's not a blank canvas we are starting from. It's a culture and history where white power has been nothing but evil and oppressive- a sign of evil and an obstacle in the struggle for civilization, where black power has been a fight against oppression, and the civil rights movement a huge step forward in US civilization.

It is, really, monstrous to try and argue the whole thing starting with the assumption that all cultural expressions are even and neutral, because by doing so you are just cutting out all of the generations of pain and suffering- up to this very day- that minorities have had to suffer that make their messages fundamentally different to a white man expressing the same for his culture. I wish to god it WAS a blank slate everyone was working from, but it's not, and it's never going to be one whilst people are in such denial about it.

So, as I stated on the first page- I would be wary of a black person with 'black' tattoed on them because I dislike tribalism, BUT I would not assume it was racist in the same way I would- very reasonably- with a white person sporting one that says 'white'. That is a judgement based on intelligent considerations of people, culture, and history, and that is what you need for proper, intelligent consideration of the situation.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
I have no real objections to what you said there. It's a none story that was made into one by whiners.

To the Confederate Flag business, I'd guess it was a political move to ingratiate himself with moderate-right Southerners. If you want to dig up Bill's past, sure. Not sure this is the thread for it.

Im showing that Hilary/Bill has had past ties with racism and the confederate flag but the media and people ignore this because its irrefutable.

And lets be real this ticket is Bill/Hilary 2016. Bill and Hilary will be running the show. The VP is just going to be public affairs.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Surtur
I understand perfectly, I just disagree. I know the story, to you if a person is white and proud it means they are proud in a "we are superior" kind of way. But for black people it doesn't mean that. Because historically people having that type of pride were racist.

It's not just 'to me', as if it is some sort of artistic judgement. It's a view with my eyes open- and you have failed to make any credible defence of your position.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak
As noted, that's because you are totally blind to historical and cultural nuance and don't want to accept anything outside of your narrow field of view.

You don't even want to begin to engage with the wider cultural argument- you think everything can be argued from a blank slate and then use that as a weapon to say people are being unfair on whites by applying double standards.

But that whole situation is a monstrously immoral fake- it's not a blank canvas we are starting from. It's a culture and history where white power has been nothing but evil and oppressive- a sign of evil and an obstacle in the struggle for civilization, where black power has been a fight against oppression and the civil rights movement a huge step forward in US civilization.

It is, really, monstrous to try and argue the whole thing starting with the assumption that all cultural expressions are even and neutral, because by doing so you are just cutting out all of the generations of pain and suffering- up to this very day- that minorities have had to suffer that make their messages fundamentally different to a white man expressing the same for his culture. I wish to god it WAS a blank slate everyone was working from, but it's not, and it's never going to be one whilst people are in such denial about it.

So, as I stated on the first page- I would be wary of a black person with 'black' tattoed on them because I dislike tribalism, BUT I would not assume it was racist in the same way I would- very reasonably- with a white person sporting one that says 'white'. That is a judgement based on intelligent considerations of people, culture, and history, and that is what you need for proper, intelligent consideration of the situation.

And when did I say I did not want to engage in a wider debate? And whats with all the "you's" and pointing fingers at me. Thats not a way to start a debate by pointing fingers. Considering I made one post disagreeing.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
The differences have been pointed out. But I have no real objections to what you said there, politically. It's a none story that was made into one by whiners.

To the Confederate Flag business, I'd guess it was a political move to ingratiate himself with moderate-right Southerners. If you want to dig up Bill's past, sure. Not sure this is the thread for it.

I think this whole racial thing is made into a story by PC bias whiners if you ask me.

Ushgarak
Well, for a start, you would have read the thread first if you had good intentions there- 'as noted' was a clear reference to what was in the thread before, but instead of reading all that you just flat out rejected the idea. Secondly, your 'I don't accept that at all' comment pretty much nailed your colours to the mast.

By all means, surprise me though.

Surtur
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's not just 'to me', as if it is some sort of artistic judgement. It's a view with my eyes open- and you have failed to make any credible defence of your position.

No, I'm just not going to needlessly speculate. Maybe your eyes are open a bit too wide on this one.

Though of course, the OP? Right on the money with this being race baiting, you see that, right? That this very topic shows that? Since it got us arguing about shit NEITHER CAN PROVE.

So wow, we kinda fell hook line and sinker there.

Bardock42
The topic of race is an important one, I don't think every article on it is race baiting.

Ushgarak
I think 'neither can prove' is a misdirection also. I think not only is the culture/history argument a very reasonable and well-backed position, I also think it is one that has gained widespread cultural acceptance.

And the thread long ago became focussed on the 'equal treatment' part of the argument. That's a valid debate.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How is it not the same? I dont accept that, at all.

I see what you're saying and I understand what Ushgarak is saying.

It's just that, people put emphasis on different things. Some people think historical context is key to putting things into perspective for why something might be offensive to some. Some people think that intention (like you) is 100% paramount in determining whether or not something is racist.

Personally, I would not be offended by a white man wearing a "White" tattoo. But if I were an older black man, at 60+ years of age, I'd probably be justifiably afraid of him. I have had the pleasure of working with many older black people: it's not the ****ing same for them, dude. Some of them got their asses beaten for being black in the wrong place. They experienced Jim Crow or the vestiges of Jim Crow as youth. They had to walk on certain sides of the street. They were treated as subhuman.

If you have an older black man or woman in your life that you consider a friend, sit down with them, talk to them. Ask them about the racism in the past that they experienced. And when they break down and start crying, I fully expect you to be looking at those falling tears through your own blurry vision. It's not about feeling white-guilt. It is about understanding another human's experience. Seeing why it might be frightening for someone to see those kinds of tattoos.

I don't want to get too serious. Alright, peace, dude.

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I think this whole racial thing is made into a story by PC bias whiners if you ask me.
"Clinton campaign deletes photo after controversial tattoo spotted"

That was the story, it was simple and should have gone nowhere since it's obvious what she did was the smart and potentially non-offensive move.

The people who are whining are the ones bringing up double-standards and race inequality, while ignoring historical context.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bardock42
The topic of race is an important one, I don't think every article on it is race baiting.

Yeah, but any discussion of race where people make sweeping generalizations? Is bullshit and helps nobody.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak
As noted, that's because you are totally blind to historical and cultural nuance and don't want to accept anything outside of your narrow field of view.

You don't even want to begin to engage with the wider cultural argument- you think everything can be argued from a blank slate and then use that as a weapon to say people are being unfair on whites by applying double standards.

But that whole situation is a monstrously immoral fake- it's not a blank canvas we are starting from. It's a culture and history where white power has been nothing but evil and oppressive- a sign of evil and an obstacle in the struggle for civilization, where black power has been a fight against oppression, and the civil rights movement a huge step forward in US civilization.

It is, really, monstrous to try and argue the whole thing starting with the assumption that all cultural expressions are even and neutral, because by doing so you are just cutting out all of the generations of pain and suffering- up to this very day- that minorities have had to suffer that make their messages fundamentally different to a white man expressing the same for his culture. I wish to god it WAS a blank slate everyone was working from, but it's not, and it's never going to be one whilst people are in such denial about it.

So, as I stated on the first page- I would be wary of a black person with 'black' tattoed on them because I dislike tribalism, BUT I would not assume it was racist in the same way I would- very reasonably- with a white person sporting one that says 'white'. That is a judgement based on intelligent considerations of people, culture, and history, and that is what you need for proper, intelligent consideration of the situation.

Let me ask this to clarify, are you saying that a black person that has a tattoo that said "black or african" is tribal. But a white person with "white" is automatically racist? I can see your point, but then we are guilty of generalizing.

Like me saying "All Muslims and are evil"

When in fact its "Extremists and Jihadist"

Surtur
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think 'neither can prove' is a misdirection also. I think not only is the culture/history argument a very reasonable and well-backed position, I also think it is one that has gained widespread cultural acceptance.

And the thread long ago became focussed on the 'equal treatment' part of the argument. That's a valid debate.

It's a valid debate when done correctly. But it hasn't been done correctly by either side. You get that, yes? I don't care how reasonable or well backed you feel you are, you outright generalized an entire group of people without batting an eye.

Then I'm assuming you are not going to reply with a "I shouldn't of done that" but with a defense of your generalizations.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
"Clinton campaign deletes photo after controversial tattoo spotted"

That was the story, it was simple and should have gone nowhere since it's obvious what she did was the smart and potentially non-offensive move.

The people who are whining are the ones bringing up double-standards and race inequality, while ignoring historical context.

Honestly in this case, I really don't care what she did, she shook some random cannon fodders hand. This story was stupid. I just like cutting through PC bias.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Surtur
It's a valid debate when done correctly. But it hasn't been done correctly by either side. You get that, yes? I don't care how reasonable or well backed you feel you are, you outright generalized an entire group of people without batting an eye.

Then I'm assuming you are not going to reply with a "I shouldn't of done that" but with a defense of your generalizations.

There was no generalization in the sense that you mean it- as mentioned many times, this is reasonable inference based in history. You trying to use a pejorative sense of 'generalization' is again misdirection- as is your last comment in that post.

Sorry, but my argument is pretty sound and I have constantly argued it with reasonable backing and assertion. You are doing nothing of the kind. We do not equate.

Surtur
Nobody should care what Hilary did, because that is bullshit. She doesn't even know this person, it was some random guy whose hand she shook. They act like they found her in bed with the guy or found her emailing him or giving him money.

Star428
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How is it not the same? I dont accept that, at all.



It is the same,TI. Just ignore all these people with their double standard arguments. For all we know "White" could've been his last name. But even if it meant he was proud of "being white" there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that except to anyone who is truly racist.

Surtur
Originally posted by Ushgarak
There was no generalization in the sense that you mean it- as mentioned many times, this is reasonable inference based in history. You trying to use a pejorative sense of 'generalization' is again misdirection- as is your last comment in that post.

Sorry, but my argument is pretty sound and I have constantly argued it with reasonable backing and assertion. You are doing nothing of the kind. We do not equate.

So again, you can generalize people and it's cool, because history is on your side? Gotcha.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Let me ask this to clarify, are you saying that a black person that has a tattoo that said "black or african" is tribal. But a white person with "white" is automatically racist? I can see your point, but then we are guilty of generalizing.

Like me saying "All Muslims and are evil"

When in fact its "Extremists and Jihadist"

It's tribal either way- as in, associating with your genetic group rather than by your values or beliefs, which I dislike in general.

But, as explained painstakingly above, indeed yes, the 'white' one is reasonably seen an appeal to racism because white power groups have been about oppressive racism whilst black power groups have been about social advancement- on the whole. In a different country where the roles were reversed, the opposite may apply.

It is absolutely nothing like the generalisations you mention at all.

I used the swastika example earlier because- as is often brought out in debate- it is in origin an ancient religious symbol of various meanings, But that's totally irrelevant because, when born by white men, whatever original meaning it may have had is swamped by the overwhelming history of it being an emblem for race hate. No amount of a man saying "But I am using it in its 'original' sense" actually changes that- that is a culturally inept argument.

Likewise, trying to argue the possibility of an innocent explanation for a 'white' tattoo on a white man is missing the point. It's too culturally loaded of a statement to ignore.

And again, no-one is saying this man should be shot for it- just that it is reasonable to disassociate from someone making such a culturally insensitive statement.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Surtur
So again, you can generalize people and it's cool, because history is on your side? Gotcha.

You know- the pettiness of your comment there aside- history being on my side is actually a valid foundation for this argument.

Surtur
But that is BULLSHIT. So a person can't do something because other mother****ers were rotten and ruined it?

And history being on your side isn't a valid point, because history doesn't tell you that every single person with a tatoo like this is racist.

So you can use the past to make sweeping generalizations, is what it comes down to. If someone disagrees they are using "misdirection" or "just don't get it".

Star428
Sorry, I edited that.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by dadudemon
I see what you're saying and I understand what Ushgarak is saying.

It's just that, people put emphasis on different things. Some people think historical context is key to putting things into perspective for why something might be offensive to some. Some people think that intention (like you) is 100% paramount in determining whether or not something is racist.

Personally, I would not be offended by a white man wearing a "White" tattoo. But if I were an older black man, at 60+ years of age, I'd probably be justifiably afraid of him. I have had the pleasure of working with many older black people: it's not the ****ing same for them, dude. Some of them got their asses beaten for being black in the wrong place. They experienced Jim Crow or the vestiges of Jim Crow as youth. They had to walk on certain sides of the street. They were treated as subhuman.

If you have an older black man or woman in your life that you consider a friend, sit down with them, talk to them. Ask them about the racism in the past that they experienced. And when they break down and start crying, I fully expect you to be looking at those falling tears through your own blurry vision. It's not about feeling white-guilt. It is about understanding another human's experience. Seeing why it might be frightening for someone to see those kinds of tattoos.

I don't want to get too serious. Alright, peace, dude.

I get it. Now hear me out


I am hoping this new age, of all races, especially black and white can forget the past and move on. It could be done, I truly believe that. But I think racial agitators like George Soros and other evil masterminds pit us against each other.

Also lets not forget!!!!!!!!

It was the elite back then who owned slaves. So we could look back into the Rockafeller, JP Morgon, Bush's ancestors and find their family in fact owned slaves. So while the media and the elite pit the common people agains teach other over race, it was them asshats who actually owned slaves.

I am third generation greek, I still have relatives in Greece, I know we didn't own any black slaves. And I am sure that is how it is for many common people. Slave ownership is what made the family's rich, and many are still wealthy off it!

Look at Ben Affleck, his grandfather made the family wealth off slave ownership. Why is no one attacking him here or in the media for long!

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/ben-affleck-slave-owner-censored-family-tree-sony-article-1.2189594

Cheers

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Surtur
But that is BULLSHIT. So a person can't do something because other mother****ers were rotten and ruined it?

And history being on your side isn't a valid point, because history doesn't tell you that every single person with a tatoo like this is racist.

I honestly just think you are commenting in bad faith now rather than trying to understand what is being said. Again a shame- in short, neither of the two things you just said actually relates to an appreciation of my argument. You're close with the 'ruined it' comment (because yes, some things do get ruined- because you have to appreciate the effect of messages on others, not just yourself), but phrased in that way is again missing the point.

Surtur
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I get it. Now hear me out


I am hoping this new age, of all races, especially black and white can forget the past and move on. It could be done, I truly believe that. But I think racial agitators like George Soros and other evil masterminds pit us against each other.


Just the replies in this topic alone show that if we ever do forget the past and move on..it sure as shit won't be in our lifetime..or the lifetime or your kids..or probably their kids either. Not until this silly "different standards for different races" is gone.

But once again we have indeed been duped and race baited. It's impossible to show this guy was racist based off this tatoo. This is no issue that can be solved via discussion, because neither side will budge. Those who think it is racist just focus on past atrocities to justify their belief, those that don't automatically jump there want to give people the benefit of the doubt in this day and age. One step forward, two steps back.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's tribal either way- as in, associating with your genetic group rather than by your values or beliefs, which I dislike in general.

But, as explained painstakingly above, indeed yes, the 'white' one is reasonably seen an appeal to racism because white power groups have been about oppressive racism whilst black power groups have been about social advancement- on the whole. In a different country where the roles were reversed, the opposite may apply.

It is absolutely nothing like the generalisations you mention at all.

I used the swastika example earlier because- as is often brought out in debate- it is in origin an ancient religious symbol of various meanings, But that's totally irrelevant because, when born by white men, whatever original meaning it may have had is swamped by the overwhelming history of it being an emblem for race hate. No amount of a man saying "But I am using it in its 'original' sense" actually changes that- that is a culturally inept argument.

Likewise, trying to argue the possibility of an innocent explanation for a 'white' tattoo on a white man is missing the point. It's too culturally loaded of a statement to ignore.

And again, no-one is saying this man should be shot for it- just that it is reasonable to disassociate from someone making such a culturally insensitive statement.

Im down to forget about the tattoo's as its inconsequential overall as its free will to mark yourself how you please, its just a way to get us arguing, read my comment to DDM if you really want to have a debate on the issue of the overall racial problem

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Surtur
Just the replies in this topic alone show that if we ever do forget the past and move on..it sure as shit won't be in our lifetime..or the lifetime or your kids..or probably their kids either. Not until this silly "different standards for different races" is gone.

You are right in one sense- it won't be even until that is gone. But a. it is not silly and b. it is not the cause- it is a symptom. It won't go until the reasons behind it have gone. Those won;t go until people on all sides of the cultural divide truly commit to equality, and that will involve an appreciation of the argument being made here.

Ignoring that arguments perpetuates racist sentiment.

It;s the same with this confederate flag thing. I know a lot of people WANT it only to represent States' rights and the like- but that's just not the way it is. It is taken as representing race hatred; the flag that flew over the people pouring fire into the Crater yelling "Take the white man, kill the ******".

And so as a symbol, this has to be accepted; by ignoring its cultural meaning to black people, the racial gulf is widened.

One day, we can indeed all work from the blank slate. But that's a LONG way off, and a lot of people will have to change their values.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Surtur
Just the replies in this topic alone show that if we ever do forget the past and move on..it sure as shit won't be in our lifetime..or the lifetime or your kids..or probably their kids either. Not until this silly "different standards for different races" is gone.

But once again we have indeed been duped and race baited. It's impossible to show this guy was racist based off this tatoo. This is no issue that can be solved via discussion, because neither side will budge. Those who think it is racist just focus on past atrocities to justify their belief, those that don't automatically jump there want to give people the benefit of the doubt in this day and age. One step forward, two steps back.

Yes this front line common cannon fodder with a "white" tattoo is absolutely trivial compared to the god damn problems we face. It was the elite who owned the slaves yet the common people are the ones who have to deal with those consequences!

I'm sick and tired of the lies.

Star428
LOL. No one has to "want" the Confederate flag to represent states' rights. IT DOES. Period. Not slavery. Not hate. No matter how many times you say it does won't make it so.

Surtur
But see, people need to grow the hell up though. Symbols change, words change. Black people know this especially given they have turned racist words into words that show respect, etc.

So if we want to move forward we need to cut that shit out all together. I would think people would have to agree that HAS to happen for there to ever be racial equality. One person see's a certain symbol as racist, another person doesn't, and neither is completely right or wrong.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak

One day, we can indeed all work from the blank slate. But that's a LONG way off, and a lot of people will have to change their values.

No we could have it tomorrow if people woke the hell up.

Ushgarak
The sentiment here is all admirable, but I am afraid it is still culturally blind- and spoken from the position of privilege. It's going to take a lot more than that. It will involve appreciating the cultural feelings of the oppressed, and that will involve some sacrifices. Else there is no mutual understanding- and what TI ia asking for is effectively asking for mind control.

'Neither is completely right or wrong'- I am afraid believing this this is part of the problem. If you don't appreciate the cultural insensitivity of a symbol, it is you who are wrong. Without realising that, progress is impeded.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Surtur
But see, people need to grow the hell up though. Symbols change, words change. Black people know this especially given they have turned racist words into words that show respect, etc.

So if we want to move forward we need to cut that shit out all together. I would think people would have to agree that HAS to happen for there to ever be racial equality. One person see's a certain symbol as racist, another person doesn't, and neither is completely right or wrong.

You are focussing on the wrong thing. You want to eliminate racial double standards that are in place to protect the oppressed minority from the majority. If we were at a point where these double standards aren't needed we could talk about it, Ush alluded to this earlier, the question of the transition when we got to a point where oppressed and marginalized groups are treated equally is something that can be discussed then.

Right now there is the much bigger, much more prevalent problem, of conscious white supremacy still being a common enough thing, and more importanly unconscious racial biases against blacks being a significant problem against the advancement of black people.

Or to put it in an analogy, it's as if you are trying to solve over-population of Mars right now, while disregarding issues on Earth.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The sentiment here is all admirable, but I am afraid it is still culturally blind- and spoken from the position of privilege. It's going to take a lot more than that. It will involve appreciating the cultural feelings of the oppressed, and that will involve some sacrifices. Else there is no mutual understanding- and what TI ia asking for is effectively asking for mind control.

'Neither is completely right or wrong'- I am afraid believing this this is part of the problem. If you don't appreciate the cultural insensitivity of a symbol, it is you who are wrong. Without realising that, progress is impeded.

No we are the victims of mind control..

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ferguson-Missouri-paid-protesters/2015/05/25/id/646587/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I get it. Now hear me out


I am hoping this new age, of all races, especially black and white can forget the past and move on. It could be done, I truly believe that. But I think racial agitators like George Soros and other evil masterminds pit us against each other.

Also lets not forget!!!!!!!!

It was the elite back then who owned slaves. So we could look back into the Rockafeller, JP Morgon, Bush's ancestors and find their family in fact owned slaves. So while the media and the elite pit the common people agains teach other over race, it was them asshats who actually owned slaves.

I am third generation greek, I still have relatives in Greece, I know we didn't own any black slaves. And I am sure that is how it is for many common people. Slave ownership is what made the family's rich, and many are still wealthy off it!

Look at Ben Affleck, his grandfather made the family wealth off slave ownership. Why is no one attacking him here or in the media for long!

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/ben-affleck-slave-owner-censored-family-tree-sony-article-1.2189594

Cheers

No one has a comment on this, which is all facts btw.

Robtard
What's to comment on? Yes, some people's ancestors were slave owners. Do we shit on them for something that happened long before they were born?

Bardock42
White people continue to benefit from the historical systems that have kept black people down since before the United States existed. Some of these legal systems designed to benefit white people are less than 60 years old...and social and cultural systems that do the same continue to this day.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
What's to comment on? Yes, some people's ancestors were slave owners. Do we shit on them for something that happened long before they were born?

People here like Bash were shitting on Thomas Jefferson..someone who's long been dead. Why are we not shitting on Ben Affleck, or the Bush's. We should be pointing fingers at the elite, then at each other! They caused this whole mess! It wasn't us, it was them. We arn't the elite, if we were, we would't be here discussing and arguing over these issues and finding ways of discord.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history_lesson/2013/06/ george_w_bush_and_slavery_the_president_and_his_fa
ther_are_descendants_of.html

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
People here like Bash were shitting on Thomas Jefferson..someone who's long been dead. Why are we not shitting on Ben Affleck, or the Bush's. We should be pointing fingers at the elite, then at each other! They caused this whole mess! It wasn't us, it was them. We arn't the elite, if we were, we would't be here discussing and arguing over these issues and finding ways of discord.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history_lesson/2013/06/ george_w_bush_and_slavery_the_president_and_his_fa
ther_are_descendants_of.html

The difference between Thomas Jefferson and Ben Affleck is that Jefferson owned slaved, Ben Affleck hasn't and afaik, he doesn't condone the actions of his ancestors in owning slaves.

Bardock42
To be fair Thomas Jefferson owned slaves (while calling it the greatest evil), while Ben Affleck and George Bush (either) didn't.....that is a big difference....

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
The difference between Thomas Jefferson and Ben Affleck is that Jefferson owned slaved, Ben Affleck hasn't and afaik, he doesn't condone the actions of his ancestors in owning slaves.

No but he tried to cover it up!

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Bardock42
To be fair Thomas Jefferson owned slaves (while calling it the greatest evil), while Ben Affleck and George Bush (either) didn't.....that is a big difference....

The sins of the father...

Why are common people guilty of slavery when it was the rulers and dynasties before us that started it!

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No but he tried to cover it up!

Probably because he's embarrassed about having a great grandfather that owned slaves.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
Probably because he's embarrassed about having a great grandfather that owned slaves.

Hiding the past is a admission of truth.

His family wealth is the reason he was able to take the leap into hollywood and pursue his dream. Without his trust fund, he probably would have been another failed actor, But he had money and money in Hollywood goes along way. Had he not had this money he probably would not have taken the gamble on Hollywood. Which 100,000's of people come to every year to try and find fame and fail miserably. Even though he is not directly responsible, he did try and omit it, and went to great lengths to ask the producers to hid this fact.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I get it. Now hear me out


I am hoping this new age, of all races, especially black and white can forget the past and move on. It could be done, I truly believe that. But I think racial agitators like George Soros and other evil masterminds pit us against each other.

Also lets not forget!!!!!!!!

It was the elite back then who owned slaves. So we could look back into the Rockafeller, JP Morgon, Bush's ancestors and find their family in fact owned slaves. So while the media and the elite pit the common people agains teach other over race, it was them asshats who actually owned slaves.

I am third generation greek, I still have relatives in Greece, I know we didn't own any black slaves. And I am sure that is how it is for many common people. Slave ownership is what made the family's rich, and many are still wealthy off it!

Look at Ben Affleck, his grandfather made the family wealth off slave ownership. Why is no one attacking him here or in the media for long!

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/ben-affleck-slave-owner-censored-family-tree-sony-article-1.2189594

Cheers

And my ancestors fought on the side of the north. Some died to fight for black freedom. None of my family have ever owned slaves. In fact, very few Americans have ancestors who did own slaves.

Ben Afleck is ashamed of and condemned his ancestors, however.


So, yeah, if I found out my family and it's wealth (ha! my family is not wealthy) came from being slave owners, I'd definitely try to use some of that wealth to better that black communities. There are more ways to take care of the black community than just throwing money at them.

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hiding the past is a admission of truth.

His family wealth is the reason he was able to take the leap into hollywood and pursue his dream. Without his trust fund, he probably would have been another failed actor, But he had money and money in Hollywood goes along way. Had he not had this money he probably would not have taken the gamble on Hollywood. Which 100,000's of people come to every year to try and find fame and fail miserably. Even though he is not directly responsible, he did try and omit it, and went to great lengths to ask the producers to hid this fact.

What?

Again, he had nothing to do with his ancestors owning slaves, he was born long after.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
What?

Again, he had nothing to do with his ancestors owning slaves, he was born long after.

This didn't counter my post. Give me something better.

Robtard
If you want to shit on Ben Affleck for something that happened before his birth, go ahead, there's really nothing else to discuss, imo.

MF DELPH
The term "Slavery" used in this context doesn't refer only to the ownership of Africans, it's also a catch all for the subsequent segregation/Jim Crow laws put in place by this country up until the 1960s. Some people (myself not included as I try to deal with each person as an individual, not the sum of their descendants transgressions as, for example, I wouldn't expect the actions of the Moors, Cushites, Kemites, or Zulus held against me) hold all White people accountable due to the current day power structure being in place via the subjugation of non-whites here in America. While historically there have always been impoverished whites in America they were still treated with the benefit of citizenship and humanity before My People, even accounting for the horrible treatment of the Irish, Italians, and other groups here in America. We had been the actual bottom of the metaphorical totem pole here for centuries.

By contrast, though, you also have to take into account that many of the people who hold this position also don't have the benefit of historical perspective and either disregard or are ignorant of the treatment of European "minorities" in this county, or the actions of European and American Abolitionists (like William Wilberforce, for example).

Basically, pun not intended, history isn't as black and white as contemporary schools of thought would have you believe.

Time-Immemorial
So you have no opinion on racial agitators, or the fact that the elite caused this problem but now its the common people fighting against each other over it while they use this conflict to get votes on their end?

Flyattractor
Originally posted by MF DELPH

Basically, pun not intended, but history isn't as black and white as contemporary schools of thought would have you believe.

.........Yes it is BLACK and WHITE!

"Grey" is just peoples way of trying to make their "BLACK" seen not so.

MF DELPH
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you have no opinion on racial agitators, or the fact that the elite caused this problem but now its the common people fighting against each other over it while they use this conflict to get votes on their end?

Are you addressing me?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Are you addressing me?

No I was talking to Rob but you got it before me, but feel free to respond.

MF DELPH
Basically, Racism is still a big problem in this country, but there are cases of "Crying Wolf" which muddy the waters and causes division among people with actual common interests. Police brutality, for example, cuts across all ethnic lines, but it's being framed as a White Cop/Black Victim situation which is counterproductive IMO. We need to get past our cosmetic difference and deal with our real issues, which are poverty, education, and industry. All Americans should have access to employment to provide for their families, and all Americans should be treated fairly and equally in all facets of American life. Period.

Quincy
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No but he tried to cover it up!

TV Show: Hey Ben Affleck! We want to do a television series based on your ancestry! Are you down?

Ben Affleck: Oh? Um...

TV Show: Great! One of your ancestors were slaveowners!

Ben Affleck: I'd really prefer that wasn't a thing you televised

TV Show: RACIST

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Basically, Racism is still a big problem in this country, but there are cases of "Crying Wolf" which muddy the waters and causes division among people with actual common interests. Police brutality, for example, cuts across all ethnic lines, but it's being framed as a White Cop/Black Victim situation which is counterproductive IMO. We need to get past our cosmetic difference and deal with our real issues, which are poverty, education, and industry. All Americans should have access to employment to provide for their families, and all Americans should be treated fairly and equally in all facets of American life. Period.

Police are an extension of government, which ancestors stims from slavery and racism. Do you agree?

MF DELPH
Racism and racial preconceptions/bigotry simply add another layer of division here in the U.S. For example, I'm a 35 year old college educated black man with no criminal record, a good paying desk job w/401k, and a credit score in the upper 700s. When I walk down the street in my Jordans, Ecko Polos, and baggy black jeans, my individual character isn't what most people see. More times than not I'd be viewed through the lens of negative preconceptions and stereotypes associated with my appearance versus the content of my individual character. A wise man once gave a speech regarding a dream that one day the latter would replace the former, and we're simply not there yet as a nation.

Our Police forces and Government consists of U.S. Citizens, most of which have been born this side of 1950 and have never owned or been slaves, but have lived through segregation and racial division. This all stems from us collectively. We simply need to get better, as individuals and as one nation. This is all a process.

jaden101
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you think the same thing when you see a tattoo like this?

http://creativefan.com/important/cf/2012/12/thug-life-tattoo/tupac-tattoos.jpg


Also how do you know for sure he was racist, it didn't say white power. It said white, so until the person can be affilated with some group or ideology, this is all speculation is it not? If a black person had a tattoo saying "black" or "thug life", would he be an ******* too? Because we know its cool to be black and rep that status, however the same does not go for white's.

Fair enough?

I only tend to see tattoos like that when I'm ****ing jail birches up the arse. Emotions are mixed then really.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>