Why is it only white people that are racist?

[WAB]

A tan can be seen as a lower class given that the common laborer is a lot of times outside, while the executives, intellectuals, and such are inside.

To be honest, I think that's a very outdated view. The executives and CEO's, after all, have tons of vacation time: plenty of long hours basking in the sun in various hotspots around the world.

Not only that, some of the most oppressed workers are INSIDE: in filthy factories, in supermarkets, in casinos, hotels, restaurants, hospitals, healthcare kitchens, prisons, as well as the various and sundry playgrounds of the rich all across the world - not to mention undergound, in the mines, in the subway and sewer systems, etc, etc, etc.

Personally, I think the whole discussion of skin color, as if it matters, or is actually relevant to the character of the individual wrapped in skin, is absolutely absurd. Until we can get past this nonsense, none of our technological advances will mean a damn thing.

 

[Toni]

I think your observations of Asians avoiding tans supports rather than contradicts my observations. While (some) white people like tanned skin that evokes a life spent on ski slopes and in spas, that's hardly universal. Or pertinent to what other people from other races and ethnicities find attractive and desirable.

Few people here do not consider a tanned person more attractive than someone without a tan.

I wasn't necessarily talking about here. That is, assuming that by 'here' you are talking about the US. I was specifically talking about people I knew from other parts of the world, most of them not permanent residents.

But even within the US, there are differences. I live in the upper mid-west. Tan is not considered to be so much a statement of beauty as it is a statement of....someone whose youth and inexperience leads them to tanning beds and a future filled with skin cancer screenings. Or tans are associated with farmers (in the summer).

I mean, there are exceptions: swimsuit models and fire fighters on calendars are generally seen as more attractive sporting tans.

I mean, around here, people joke about being all paste-y white but it's more a humble brag than anything else. Tans are for people who are too shallow to be doing real work in a real job, generally away from sunlight. Except for farmers. When's the last time you heard people think of farmers as sexy?

If you are too tan around here, you might be mistaken for a Native American, Hispanic, or Muslim. Unless you are also blonde, as a lot of people are.

I'm kind of making fun of people around here (where I live) but that doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it.

I think that in general, in more northern, especially more urban settings, tan is not considered a mark of beauty/leisure, except in certain settings.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

wtf

If you deny the reality that the affirmative action is racist then my post makes no sense.

I agree fully as long as I turn off the contextual portion of my brain. Hmm... I also now think the 49ers are the worst Franchise of all time because of their record this year.

*Fuck!* I need to turn that thing back on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you deny the reality that the affirmative action is racist then my post makes no sense.

I agree fully as long as I turn off the contextual portion of my brain. Hmm... I also now think the 49ers are the worst Franchise of all time because of their record this year.

*Fuck!* I need to turn that thing back on.

In other words, you can't understand something that doesn't agree with your worldview.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree fully as long as I turn off the contextual portion of my brain. Hmm... I also now think the 49ers are the worst Franchise of all time because of their record this year.

*Fuck!* I need to turn that thing back on.

In other words, you can't understand something that doesn't agree with your worldview.

No, in other words, things have context, and you need to ignore context in order to say Affirmative Action is "racism".

 

[blastula]

WHAT?

You mean like Black people making all these rules and regulation to keep white people from voting? Like that?

Red herring. It's about keeping the poor from voting. The racial aspect of the legal challenges is because it's not illegal to discriminate against the poor.

Or how all those black legislators, cops and judges manage to get white punks locked up for every little thing but let black punks just walk with a warning?

Once again, what you are actually complaining about is economic. It's not their skin color that's putting them in jail, it's that they're poor.

Or do you mean like how every time a little black girl goes missing it's all over the news, but we never hear a thing about missing white girls?

Once again, economic. It's news when a middle class or above person goes missing. It's not news when the poor go missing.

Or maybe you mean how loans and mortgages are offered to black people at lower rates than white people?

Crap from the DOJ trying to show discrimination. They were not doing apples-to-apples comparisons.

A much more sensible explanation of redlining is that the bankers are paying attention to the expected appreciation of the property. If it's really racial why is there only an effect on low-down mortgages in poor (where there is little appreciation) areas?

Maybe you were thinking about how it is easier for a black high school drop out with a criminal conviction to get a job than a white man with an honors diploma.

And why are black people just as likely to "discriminate" against other blacks as whites?

Nah, I can't tell what on earth you were thinking when you wrote that. Perhaps it was a typo and you've fixed it by the time I click "post."

How about affirmative action? Legally supported discrimination, sometimes legally mandated discrimination. It's much easier for that black guy to get into the good schools.

Even if so, then why isn't "black on white racism" also economic alone?

 

[blastula]

Poor whitey can never catch a break, always the victim.

Well, no. As you well know.

But the libs have got it rigged so that poor whitey can't say anything without pissing someone off.

Yeah, always the victim.

 

[sharon45]

A tan can be seen as a lower class given that the common laborer is a lot of times outside, while the executives, intellectuals, and such are inside.

To be honest, I think that's a very outdated view. The executives and CEO's, after all, have tons of vacation time: plenty of long hours basking in the sun in various hotspots around the world.

I originally thought my above idea was an old view, yet so is this one, which means they both could still be hanging around in many people's heads anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, you can't understand something that doesn't agree with your worldview.

No, in other words, things have context, and you need to ignore context in order to say Affirmative Action is "racism".

Affirmative action is taking actions based on the race of the people involved. Textbook definition of racism. You just think it's good racism.

 

[bilby]

No, in other words, things have context, and you need to ignore context in order to say Affirmative Action is "racism".

Affirmative action is taking actions based on the race of the people involved. Textbook definition of racism. You just think it's good racism.

Self defence is taking actions intended to physically restrain or injure another person. Textbook definition of assault and deprivation of liberty. You just think it's good assault and deprivation of liberty.

And of course, so does everyone else who has thought it through. If the effect of an assault is that a person need to defend himself to avoid further injury, then he should be allowed to do so - although there may be plenty of room for debate about how far he might reasonably go. And reasonable self-defense isn't called assault or deprivation of liberty, because that would be misleading - just as misleading as it would be to refer to Affirmative Action as 'racism'.

If the effect of past racism is that a person needs assistance to achieve what they might have achieved had the racism not occurred, then that assistance should be provided. It may be technically racism, but it's no less justified than is self defence - I can't just walk up to you in the street and punch you, but I am perfectly justified in punching you if you just stabbed me.

 

[repoman]

 

[WAB]

Well, no. As you well know.

But the libs have got it rigged so that poor whitey can't say anything without pissing someone off.

Yeah, always the victim.

Well, no. WTF?

 

[blastula]

Yeah, always the victim.

Well, no. WTF?

Yes, that's what you said.

But the libs have got it rigged so that poor whitey can't say anything without pissing someone off.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Poor whitey can never catch a break, always the victim.

Well, no. As you well know.

But the libs have got it rigged so that poor whitey can't say anything without pissing someone off.

Yeah, I mean the vast majority of people on welfare, Medicare, Social Security, etc... are white, but you know... they don't get nuthin'!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Affirmative action is taking actions based on the race of the people involved. Textbook definition of racism. You just think it's good racism.

Self defence is taking actions intended to physically restrain or injure another person. Textbook definition of assault and deprivation of liberty. You just think it's good assault and deprivation of liberty.

And of course, so does everyone else who has thought it through. If the effect of an assault is that a person need to defend himself to avoid further injury, then he should be allowed to do so - although there may be plenty of room for debate about how far he might reasonably go. And reasonable self-defense isn't called assault or deprivation of liberty, because that would be misleading - just as misleading as it would be to refer to Affirmative Action as 'racism'.

If the effect of past racism is that a person needs assistance to achieve what they might have achieved had the racism not occurred, then that assistance should be provided. It may be technically racism, but it's no less justified than is self defence - I can't just walk up to you in the street and punch you, but I am perfectly justified in punching you if you just stabbed me.

And to use a self defense defense you must show that there was specific evidence of a threat. You can't shoot someone for wearing gang colors even though that shows they're of a group likely to be a threat.

Likewise, you shouldn't get to commit racism without specific evidence of a problem in the situation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Self defence is taking actions intended to physically restrain or injure another person. Textbook definition of assault and deprivation of liberty. You just think it's good assault and deprivation of liberty.

And of course, so does everyone else who has thought it through. If the effect of an assault is that a person need to defend himself to avoid further injury, then he should be allowed to do so - although there may be plenty of room for debate about how far he might reasonably go. And reasonable self-defense isn't called assault or deprivation of liberty, because that would be misleading - just as misleading as it would be to refer to Affirmative Action as 'racism'.

If the effect of past racism is that a person needs assistance to achieve what they might have achieved had the racism not occurred, then that assistance should be provided. It may be technically racism, but it's no less justified than is self defence - I can't just walk up to you in the street and punch you, but I am perfectly justified in punching you if you just stabbed me.

And to use a self defense defense you must show that there was specific evidence of a threat. You can't shoot someone for wearing gang colors even though that shows they're of a group likely to be a threat.

Likewise, you shouldn't get to commit racism without specific evidence of a problem in the situation.

*air ball*

 

[WAB]

Well, no. WTF?

Yes, that's what you said.

But the libs have got it rigged so that poor whitey can't say anything without pissing someone off.

How do you manage to equate "pissing people off" with "always the victim?"

Do you understand English?

 

[WAB]

Well, no. As you well know.

But the libs have got it rigged so that poor whitey can't say anything without pissing someone off.

Yeah, I mean the vast majority of people on welfare, Medicare, Social Security, etc... are white, but you know... they don't get nuthin'!

There is a difference between saying I'm pissing people off and playing victim. Or do you not understand English either?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, I mean the vast majority of people on welfare, Medicare, Social Security, etc... are white, but you know... they don't get nuthin'!

There is a difference between saying I'm pissing people off and playing victim. Or do you not understand English either?

Have you considered that maybe you piss people off because your arguments are crap?

 

[blastula]

Yes, that's what you said.

But the libs have got it rigged so that poor whitey can't say anything without pissing someone off.

How do you manage to equate "pissing people off" with "always the victim?"

Do you understand English?

So, you are not complaining about pissing people off?