A rant about what seemingly constitutes "Racism" these days.

rubadub

Tha Gopher wrote:

Irishgirl1: Did you see the X Factor last night?
IG2: No I missed it, who got thorwn out?
IG1 : John (it was some black contestant, i dunno his name as i dont watch it, lets just say thats his name)
IG2: Which one is he?
IG1: The....*looks at her black mate, who isnt even really listening o the convo*.......the one who looks like Lamar.

As said, I dont watch it, maybe he does look like him, but it was still funny she was so terrified of somehow offending her. Would she really go on such a roundabout way if her mate and whoever was being talked about were white English?

Or if all the people on x factor were black except for one white guy who got thrown off. I am sure she would have no problem in saying "the white guy", in front of the black friend. (But if it was the white guy who WON she may have a problem).

Even parkinson was saying to samuel l jackson the "n" word and how he (parky) is not allowed to say it but that he (sam) is. I find that odd too. I was called a racist on another forum the other day, I was talking about an irish guy at a party and saying "he was probably drinking, he is irish and at a party after all", the site owner (american) was saying he didnt want racist comments like that. After I explained I was Irish and that I only know one single Irish person my age who does no drink he had no reply at all, sort of the same thing as blacks seemingly being allowed to use the n word. I cannot even type it as I presume it is deemed an offensive word on this board, YET the word cracker, the white equivalent is allowed! maybe on forums in predominantly black countries the n word is allowed and cracker is ******ed

some people also think the fact if your house has wheels attached you are from a different race, bizarre

Dyr

Karl Hungus wrote:

So, if I lived in L.A. and I simply said that there were criminals there, because (As you said) most crimes are committed by blacks, then you would choose to twist that into saying that all blacks are criminals. You're a peachy one, aren't you? You just keep spinning your own inventions here, whatever keeps you happy.

I used that example as ive seen another forum where people constantly link to clips of black guys commiting crimes etc and ranting about "the f****ng savages" etc. people pull them up over its inherently racist overtone and they're excuse is pretty much the same as the one people use here for scumbags etc "its only these people that im on about, you cant deny those guys are savages". I tend to think a lot of post here are of a similar nature, they arent honest enough to admit they're issue isnt with individuals but a whole swathe of people

Oddly enough i have no difference using terms like scumbag etc but i dont have the phobia that some people here do about anyone who wears tracksuits, crappy argos jewllery etc

:v: its probably just another manifestation of society's fear of the proleteriat that's at the heart of most crime related stories

Hmmm....Don't think that I'd go that far, pakthingy, but there was a good article in a simlar vein in last weeks tribune about the clontarf shootings though

bagdaddy

pickarooney wrote:

Nobody really knows, as the goalposts shift constantly. I think the problem with the word is that in order to know when it's applicable you have to make a conscious distinction between groups of people, and even that's bordering on racism by some definitions.

I think if you say "I hate all Americans" it's neither racism nor prejudice, simply your own feelings, however flawed or illogical they might seem.
"All Americans are idiots" is, however, over the line.

Yeah i think your right but it is funny that saying 'i hate all americans' would probably be accepted but saying 'i hate all blacks' would not be.

joe_chicken

rubadub wrote:

...YET the word cracker, the white equivalent is allowed!...

Cracker, to me, is something i eat with cheese!

Now the n word that you refer to, has only one meaning... and doesnt sound good no matter who says it

Karl Hungus

Bambi wrote:

I used that example as ive seen another forum where people constantly link to clips of black guys commiting crimes etc and ranting about "the f****ng savages" etc. people pull them up over its inherently racist overtone and they're excuse is pretty much the same as the one people use here for scumbags etc "its only these people that im on about, you cant deny those guys are savages". I tend to think a lot of post here are of a similar nature, they arent honest enough to admit they're issue isnt with individuals but a whole swathe of people

Oddly enough i have no difference using terms like scumbag etc but i dont have the phobia that some people here do about anyone who wears tracksuits, crappy argos jewllery etc

:v: its probably just another manifestation of society's fear of the proleteriat that's at the heart of most crime related stories

Hmmm....Don't think that I'd go that far, pakthingy, but there was a good article in a simlar vein in last weeks tribune about the clontarf shootings though

Right... You've seen a forum where people post videos of Black people committing crimes and calling them savages, and you can see some sort of racist agenda there. This is supposed to be some kind of parallel with what I've been saying? Is that what you mean?

And supposedly you "Have no difference using a term like scumbag."

Is that supposed to mean you don't see a difference in using a term like scumbag, or that you have no problem using such a term? If it's the latter, then why would you have no problem with the term scumbag, yet take exception to the word skanger, saying by no small means that is it predjudiced, yet both words describe the same behaveour, or person that behaves as such.

Whatever logic your posts are running on, I'm just not privvy to it I'm afraid.

Furthermore...

Bambi wrote:

i dont have the phobia that some people here do about anyone who wears tracksuits, crappy argos jewllery etc

That isn't the issue of this thread at all. Sure, some people could certainly have a phobia like that, but that's a topic for another thread altogether, as this one deals with something else, and I've already pointed out that absolutely none of what I am saying is to say that anyone who might wear a tracksuit is a skanger, but rather that it is first and foremost actions that defines a person as a skanger.

If you'd payed attention to what's been said, you'd know that:

Karl Hungus wrote:

You'd have a point if I was saying that "Everyone who wears a tracksuit is a skanger!" Certainly, that would be wrong, because anyone who might have a pair of Nikes, or whatever tracksuits are the fashion, they might be perfectly upstanding members of society. But that's not what I'm saying at all.

Honestly, as it is Bambi... Your logic is baffling, and you seem to be ignoring everything that's clearly being said in order to spin meanings of your own invention.

Dyr

Yes admittedly the old posts are bit scattergun on this but i'm typing in between bouts of....*spits* work or late at night after extended bouts of...*spits* work

You're annoyed that people use the term "racism" incorrectly. Im just pointing out that you can find parallels between the mindset of people who use racist terms and many who reel out such boards staples as "skanger" , "knacker" etc. Which might explain why people misuse the term "racist" in that context

I use plenty of bold words to describe people (because I like bold words) but i'm at least honest about it, instead of being prejudiced towards certain groups but not openly admitting to it, which seems to be the case with some people

capiché?

:v: <he's probably just sore over the opeth thing

yeah, probably *chukkle*

joe_chicken

Bambi wrote:

:v: <he's probably just sore over the opeth thing

If only that damn pacman would tell us more... he knows so much!

Karl Hungus

Bambi wrote:

You're annoyed that people use the term "racism" incorrectly. Im just pointing out that you can find parallels between the mindset of people who use racist terms and many who reel out such boards staples as "skanger" , "knacker" etc. Which might explain why people misuse the term "racist" in that context

I use plenty of bold words to describe people (because I like bold words) but i'm at least honest about it, instead of being prejudiced towards certain groups but not openly admitting to it, which seems to be the case with some people

capiché?

You know, I'd agree with you if (And I really stress if here) it were a case of anyone here saying that everyone who wears a tracksuit is a skanger, or everyone with LeCoque Sportif tracksuits should be ethnically cleansed, or any other such example or what would be considered predjudiced, or if applied to another race, racist. But it's not. The case is simply skanger is as skanger does, and saying skanger is no more predjudiced than saying their or arsonist.

Bambi wrote:

:v: <he's probably just sore over the opeth thing

yeah, probably *chukkle*

Naw, no reason to be sore. Opeth are beyond criticism.

SprostonGreen

Great post Karl Hungus, I completely agree. I got accused of being racist on boards by saying that George Bush got elected by bible bashing hicks, this warranted a pm by the gimp accusing me of racism.

Then he goes and posts a complaint about Latvians, because there were some afore mentioned Latvians keeping him awake at night.

As you say, clueless about what the word means.

Dyr

Karl Hungus wrote:

Naw, no reason to be sore. Opeth are beyond criticism.

what despite the fact the that for a "progressive" band they havent progressed beyond the style they've been punting for ten years? Also their lyrics are pretty dire and that acoustic thing proved that they werent too hot at writing songs as opposed to nice passages of music. Maybe its just the level of touting they got from MFN/RR etc or the fanboyism they recieve but opeth deserve much criticism. MUCHO

:v: < and dont forget that knakerfeldt ate all the pies

you little racist, pakthingy! :mad:

dSTAR

Karl Hungus wrote:

So, if I lived in L.A. and I simply said that there were criminals there, because (As you said) most crimes are committed by blacks, then you would choose to twist that into saying that all blacks are criminals. You're a peachy one, aren't you? You just keep spinning your own inventions here, whatever keeps you happy.

Here are some facts to contemplate. Remember I am just the messenger...

Paul Sheehan, an Australian reporter, dug out the following information for an article in the Sydney Morning Herald , May 2, 1995. Sheehan based his statistics on crime data compiled by the FBI and partially reported each year in The FBI Uniform Crime Report . These reports can be researched at the FBI's website, www.fbi.gov.

• Blacks murder more than 1,600 whites each year.
• Blacks murder whites at 18 times the rate whites murder blacks.
• Blacks murdered, raped, robbed, or assaulted about one million whites in 1992.
• In the last 30 years, blacks committed 170 million violent and non-violent crimes against whites.
• Blacks under 18 are more than 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than whites under 18.
• About 90% of the victims of interracial crimes are white.
• Blacks commit 7.5 times more violent interracial crimes than whites, although whites outnumber blacks by 7 to 1.
• On a per capita basis, blacks commit 50 times more violent crime than whites.
• Black neighborhoods are 35 times more violent than white neighborhoods.
• Of the 27 million nonviolent robberies in 1992, 31% (8.4 million) were committed by blacks against whites. Less than 2% were committed by whites against blacks.
• Of the 6.6 million violent crimes, 20% (1.3 million) were interracial.
• Of the the 1.3 million interracial violent crimes, 90% (1.17 million) are black against white.

Tar.Aldarion

Don't post a joke anyway about race unless you like to argue like moi
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054851902

Karl Hungus

Bambi wrote:

what despite the fact the that for a "progressive" band they havent progressed beyond the style they've been punting for ten years? Also their lyrics are pretty dire and that acoustic thing proved that they werent too hot at writing songs as opposed to nice passages of music. Maybe its just the level of touting they got from MFN/RR etc or the fanboyism they recieve but opeth deserve much criticism. MUCHO

:v: < and dont forget that knakerfeldt ate all the pies

you little racist, pakthingy! :mad:

You know, even if they did deserve criticism, I doubt you little collection of vague statements, insinuations and obvious lack of knowledge dealing with what you're talking about would even qualify as criticism, even at it's most base levels. What "Criticism" did you even have to offer?

A third person insinuation that Akerfeldt is fat?
Yeah, first-rate criticism right there. :rolleyes:

Something about a supposed "Acoustic thing" - which I might add if you're talking about an acoustic album, is something that Opeth have never done, thus shows your lack of knowledge on the very thing you're apparently critiquing - an "Acoustic thing" that somehow proves that they're not too hot at songwriting?

I'm sorry, it proves it, does it? Proves it how!? Was there a study conducted where there was X amount of songwriting abilty somehow measured with this "Acoustic thing" you're refering to? And were the results of this study compared against some kind of globaly recognised standard of what constinutes good songwriting? Or if that's not the case, then can you please provide this elusive "Proof" you're blithering about?

And could you please elaborate on what you mean by saying they've not progressed 'Beyond' their style? Do you mean style of music? If so, what does the "Beyond" in your statement refering to exactly? Is that to say a band has to change to another style to be considered good, or is it something more? Is there some (again) globally recognised standard reguarding what styles a band must "Progress beyond" in order to be considered good?

Or do you mean the band's particular style of playing hasn't progressed "Beyond" a certain point? In which case, how is this charted or guaged? Or do you simply mean they've not progressed, or changed at all? In which case I'd say you're painfully wrong entirely, and again it would seem you're talking about something you've no understanding of. Personally, as a musician myself, I say the band has progressed remarkably altogether, especially if we look at their first few albums, which certainly had hints of Iron Maiden influence going on, which quickly became less apparant, as the band developed more of a unique style, and even lately they've not been comfortable with producing a staple sound if it were, they recorded Damnation, and most recently with the addition of a keyboard player, they've certainly explored musical themes that they haven't done before. I'd consider they've progressed and evolved more as a band than most others.

Anyway, I won't waffle on any longer, as your comments about touting and fanboyism certainly indicate you've got some kind of problem with people who actually like Opeth, and the fact that you bring this up on a completely unrelated thread entirely would compound the notion.

dSTAR wrote:

Here are some facts to contemplate. Remember I am just the messenger...

No, dSTAR, you are most certainly not "Just the messenger..." as there was no message delivered; only statistics. Seeing as I cannot find any reason at all why such statistics are of relevence to the topic at hand, I'd say that you certainly had some kind of point to make by providing those statistics... or dare I say you had an agenda?

But judging by your past behaveour on After Hours, you've been extremely reluctant to offer any opinion of your own on the very subject you're posting on, so I won't even bother asking about whatever point or agenda you had in posting those statistics, or if you really were a messenger, I won't ask about whatever point or agended the person or persons you're posting for. No, I'll just tell you to shut up if you don't have a valid point.

Shut up dSTAR. :v:

joe_chicken

Karl Hungus wrote:

No, dSTAR, you are most certainly not "Just the messenger..." as there was no message delivered; only statistics. Seeing as I cannot find any reason at all why such statistics are of relevence to the topic at hand, I'd say that you certainly had some kind of point to make by providing those statistics... or dare I say you had an agenda?

Shut up dSTAR. :v:

Well put... not too sure about the rant about Opeth though... i gave up after a while since Bambis only pullin your chain anyway

cooperguy

Sparky_S wrote:

hey now your making me look bad
Anyway would most people not think that with so many skangers around the place, that they have become a race of people?

No thats just stupid

nesf

Why are people debating music on here? This isn't the music forum guys.....

Karl Hungus

joe_chicken wrote:

i gave up after a while since Bambis only pullin your chain anyway

Oh of course! I just use any excuse to rant.

pickarooney

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Don't post a joke anyway about race unless you like to argue like moi
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054851902

Quality thread! Only in humour...

dSTAR

Karl Hungus wrote:

...I won't ask about whatever point or agended the person or persons you're posting for. No, I'll just tell you to shut up if you don't have a valid point.

Shut up dSTAR. :v:

Hello pot...I am the kettle!

Just read over some of the non information you just posted again. Completely off topic I would say?

But then again I have come to expect it from someone like yourself judging by some of YOUR previous posts.

How do you report a bad post / poster?

nesf

dSTAR wrote:

How do you report a bad post / poster?

You use the little red and white triangle button on the bottom left of this post.

Though, using it because you disagree with a poster is not looked on kindly. Don't report posts because you disagree with them. Report them for racism, porn links, requests for illegal materials, trolling etc.

Giblet

Thanks for the reported post dSTAR!
Please stop reporting trivial things.

dSTAR

I don't appreciate insuations that I have some kind of hidden agenda. And I certainly won't sit by as some 'nobody' tells me to 'shut up'.

The report button is for 'rude and problematic posts'. I think that this qualifies.

nesf

dSTAR wrote:

I don't appreciate insuations that I have some kind of hidden agenda. And I certainly won't sit by as some 'nobody' tells me to 'shut up'.

The report button is for 'rude and problematic posts'. I think that this qualifies.

But reporting a post doesn't mean that the mods will agree with your view on it.

Sparky

Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.

speaks for itself, so dont use unless its because of above;)

dSTAR

Can we please just get back on topic?

OK I will nail my colors on the mast. I am the first to admit that I have a problem with certain races. I challenge anyone to live in the areas that I have and say that they love everything about Mexicans, Afro Americans, Italians or English, all of which I have lived with.

I don't HATE them. I just think that it is crazy that we cannot make a comment on a segment of society without being branded a racist or intolerant. That goes for skangers, knackers, charvos or bogans (as they are known here).

For the record I don't have any political agenda and I am not some secret member of WN or NF. I am just tired of political correctness gone crazy...

nesf

Certain races or certain nationalities? Or a combination of both?

dSTAR

nesf - Is it OK to dislike a trait in one and not with the other?

Let me make this clear I don't want to stereotype any race or nationality here. For instance it is nonsense (and ignorant) suggesting that all Irish people are alcoholics, all Americans are dumb and all English are whining poms.

But occasions have arose when I have said 'that bloody English bas'tard' or that 'that lazy Mexican son on a biatch' or even 'that little Northside scumbag'! Some people might take this as being racist/prejudiced.

nesf

No, it just makes a difference

A nationality is almost easier to justify. You at least can measure attitudes of the majority there.

But disliking races or nationalities in general is just silly. I dislike certain kinds of American people. Does that mean I dislike all Americans? No, it doesn't.

Giblet

STOP REPORTING POSTS To MAKE SOME KIND OF POINT AS WE ARE THE ONES WHO GET THE EMAIL, SO UNLESS YOU ARE TRYING TO PISS US OFF, QUIT IT

dSTAR

Giblet wrote:

STOP REPORTING POSTS To MAKE SOME KIND OF POINT AS WE ARE THE ONES WHO GET THE EMAIL, SO UNLESS YOU ARE TRYING TO PISS US OFF, QUIT IT

Are you talking to me?

Karl Hungus

dSTAR wrote:

Can we please just get back on topic?

OK I will nail my colors on the mast. I am the first to admit that I have a problem with certain races. I challenge anyone to live in the areas that I have and say that they love everything about Mexicans, Afro Americans, Italians or English, all of which I have lived with.

I don't HATE them. I just think that it is crazy that we cannot make a comment on a segment of society without being branded a racist or intolerant. That goes for skangers, knackers, charvos or bogans (as they are known here).

For the record I don't have any political agenda and I am not some secret member of WN or NF. I am just tired of political correctness gone crazy...

I find it ridiculous that you make demands of people to get back on topic, when your little rant has nothing to do with the topic at hand WHATSOEVER.

CerebralCortex

Karl Hungus wrote:

Agreed. As a young fella, I grew up in Mervue, which was certainly far rougher than were I'm living now, and I would concur about knowing right from wrong, and how to behave in public.

Yep you survived skangland. I totaly agree with the notion that skangers deserve any bad mouthing they get simply because they bring it on themselves.

dSTAR

So you have finally whipped up the courage to come back?

Let me remind you in case you have forgotten that the topic is entitled:

A rant about what seemingly constitutes "Racism" these days.

Your point is?

CerebralCortex

dSTAR wrote:

I don't appreciate insuations that I have some kind of hidden agenda. And I certainly won't sit by as some 'nobody' tells me to 'shut up'.

The report button is for 'rude and problematic posts'. I think that this qualifies.

What?????????

dSTAR

It may time to lock down this thread as it appears to have run its course and is just getting petty now.

CerebralCortex

Relax you don't have to read it.

Prior Of Taize

Karl Hungus wrote:

Where does this irrational hatred come from?

Thats it mister president...lull them into a false sense of security then strike when they least expect it....hence the non confrontational attitude

Karl Hungus

dSTAR wrote:

So you have finally whipped up the courage to come back?

Let me remind you in case you have forgotten that the topic is entitled:

A rant about what seemingly constitutes "Racism" these days.

Your point is?

Discussing what constitutes as racism is an entirely different topic compared to excusing or justifying racism, which is what you seem do be doing to this thread. I'm sure anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence can comprehend the difference.

dSTAR wrote:

It may time to lock down this thread as it appears to have run its course and is just getting petty now.

Oh yes! It's all over when you say it is, is that it? You've got some ego. Tell you what. You want this crap to stop, stop posting crap in my thread that has nothing to do with it. Thanks.

dSTAR

Karl Hungus wrote:

Oh yes! It's all over when you say it is, is that it? You've got some ego. Tell you what. You want this crap to stop, stop posting crap in my thread that has nothing to do with it. Thanks.

'In MY thread!'

Get over yourself!

This is a public forum mate!

It seems that this thread is really just an exercise in your self indulgence.

Unless you have something relevant to say please just GO AWAY!

Sparky

em karl is the OP, so yes this is his thread on a public forum, just like a car belonging to him is his on a public road

dSTAR

Oh please now I have heard it all.

How can you 'own' a thread on a public forum.

Being a mod gives a person certain privileges (which can be abused) but it certainly does NOT give person 'ownership of a thread'.

Giblet

One more off topic comment and a banning we will go!

Tar.Aldarion

Em he said it was his thread because he started it not because he owns it. Acceptable phrase.

'In MY thread!'

Get over yourself!

Trite tripe.


Sorry Giblet your post wasn't there when i was reading this.
Anyway on topic.
What some people think constitutes racism is ridiculous.
Ironic humour on tv is not racist.
Humour in a light manner etc.
If you do something an somebody says it was because he was black...mostly that is just ridiculous as common sense shows us that there is no difference in 'race'.
These are just examples where race is actually involved. A lot of the time the term racist is tossed around and it just makes no sense.

Steven

dSTAR wrote:

'In MY thread!'

Get over yourself!

This is a public forum mate!

It seems that this thread is really just an exercise in your self indulgence.

Unless you have something relevant to say please just GO AWAY!

With all due respect (very little, as it happens), going off on a tangent from the thread to deliver some out-of-context statistics and then turning the thread into stormfront-lite with complete ignorance to the socio-economic rather than racial issues is bad enough, but turning it into an exercise in semantics because you're a little annoyed completely destroys what little credibility you may have salvaged for future discussions on unrelated issues with anyone who has read this thread.


[edit] Goddamn, sorry Giblet. I had the window open for a while before I started Typing. Consider me silenced [/edit]

WhiteWashMan

dSTAR wrote:

I don't appreciate insuations that I have some kind of hidden agenda. And I certainly won't sit by as some 'nobody' tells me to 'shut up'.

The report button is for 'rude and problematic posts'. I think that this qualifies.

then i suggest you use it for rude and problematic posts, not becuase you disagree with another user.

joe_chicken

nesf wrote:

I dislike certain kinds of American people. Does that mean I dislike all Americans? No, it doesn't.

I didnt know they came in different kinds!

How many are there?


I know theres African American, South American, North American, American American....

Is there like Scary American and Posh American...

I think I've seen the first one on the TV with a picture of a bald eagle behind him... but im not too sure....;)

ambro25

Once and for all, enough of the PC brigade creed: racism is not the preserve of 'white' people, so enough of the double-standards

I would venture that (open) racism is but a degree beyond prejudice (racial, xenophobic or otherwise), the same way road-rage-induced fisticuffs are a degree beyond sticking to hurling verbal abuse through a car window...

Like a fuse slowly consuming itself all the way to the powder keg, it's a psychological stage, and following on with my tuppence Betterware-grade psychology, I'd refine that it's a psychological stage mostly experienced by either people who are unable to think for themselves, or highly insecure (generally), or worse - both.

EDIT Oh, and racism has its etymology in 'race' (-ism) and having Google-defined it, it's apparently defined by academics and otherwise full-time thinkers as a race-based concept of discrimination... Now, next topic is obviously what can be defined as "race"? etc, etc.

dSTAR

ambro25 wrote:

I'd refine that it's a psychological stage mostly experienced by either people who are unable to think for themselves, or highly insecure (generally), or worse - both...

I sense you are on the verge of making a quite interesting point, but the above post you've offered is a bit too nebulous to connect.

If you can translate your core point into eveyday terms, that could usefully expand the thread, and bring us in that would be good.