"Racist is the new Bling"
- Thread starter Sergeant Hustle
- Start date
Yet & still I think maybee.....................Yeah I read it again..................OWNED!
You must be old as fuck callen me junior? How old are you?
As far as the comment on St. Patties day. It was a matter of interpretation, the difference between opinion and belief. Sgt. should have added an "In my opinon" before saying its just a day to get folded. That leaves the door open for someone to say well in my opinion its blah blah blah........or in my opinion your an idiot.
When stated as a fact an opinion is interpereted as a belief. A deep seeded belief that is considered racist leaves no room for interpretation its an automatic fuck you back from the group that feels slighted & there are some irish people who take catholicism seriously. They belive that Saint Patrics day is holy. So that lady was like fuck you back. It could have been avoided by just saying "I think" before hand. Thats why those phrases exist its to avoid confusion. Assuming that Sgt. wasn't trying to offend the Hybernians.
You must be old as fuck callen me junior? How old are you?
As far as the comment on St. Patties day. It was a matter of interpretation, the difference between opinion and belief. Sgt. should have added an "In my opinon" before saying its just a day to get folded. That leaves the door open for someone to say well in my opinion its blah blah blah........or in my opinion your an idiot.
When stated as a fact an opinion is interpereted as a belief. A deep seeded belief that is considered racist leaves no room for interpretation its an automatic fuck you back from the group that feels slighted & there are some irish people who take catholicism seriously. They belive that Saint Patrics day is holy. So that lady was like fuck you back. It could have been avoided by just saying "I think" before hand. Thats why those phrases exist its to avoid confusion. Assuming that Sgt. wasn't trying to offend the Hybernians.
We are supposed to be having a civil discussion, but here you are pushin buttons muthafucka....the fuck is wrong with you?
I called you junior becuase of the way you proceeded in this thread, as in "youre coming off as a child"....
Now, do you want to continue to escalate this argument or do you wanna drop it and let this thread stay in a realm of adulthood? Its your choice.
I called you junior becuase of the way you proceeded in this thread, as in "youre coming off as a child"....
Now, do you want to continue to escalate this argument or do you wanna drop it and let this thread stay in a realm of adulthood? Its your choice.
Not much I'm willing to add right now, but briefly to address your comment. I think that your comment about St. Patrick’s Day was pretty insensitive and inaccurate, but certainly not racist in its own right. I also wouldn't consider your typical Armenian as being "white", but it's socially subjective i guess. Obama's recent speech sheds a lot of light on what you're saying though and I agree.. Too much of a preoccupation with race and racism, it's tiring.
yea, i think white people feel like they need a cross to bear in order to shift the reality of the white man's burden elsewhere or to make them feel like they aren't a part of the problem. passing the racist buck is key. collect as many "racist" atrocities as you can toward your people (like the irish lady, who has currently racked up one in her "racist" bank account), so that later in a conversation with a minority, you can refer to the "racism" you experienced at the hands of a lady on the radio.
Regarding Al and Jesse...read this article. It's one of my faves.
By William Jelani Cobb
There was a time in the not-too-distant past when "Black president" was synonymous with "president of Black America." That was the office to which Jesse Jackson appointed himself in the 1970s--resigned to the fact that the actual presidency was out of reach. In 2003, Chris Rock wrote and directed "Head of State," a film about the first Black man to win the presidency. (It was a comedy.) And in the ultimate concession, some African Americans have attempted to bestow the title of Black president upon Bill Clinton--a white man.
In the wake of his strong showing in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has already permanently changed the meaning of that term. It is no longer an oxymoron or a quixotic in-joke. And this, perhaps more than anything else, explains his tortured relationship with Black civil-rights leaders.
The most amazing thing about the 2008 presidential race is not that a Black man is a bona fide contender but the lukewarm response he has received from the luminaries whose sacrifices made this run possible. With the notable exception of Joseph Lowery, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference veteran who gave a stirring invocation at Obamas Atlanta campaign rally in June and subsequently endorsed him, Obama has been running without much support from many of the most recognizable Black figures in the political landscape.
Thats because, positioned as he is between the Black boomers and the hip-hop generation, Obama is indebted, but not beholden, to the civil-rights gerontocracy. A successful Obama candidacy would simultaneously represent a huge leap forward for Black America and the death knell for the reign of the civil-rights-era leadership--or at least the illusion of their influence.
The most recent example of the old guards apparent aversion to Obama was Andrew Youngs febrile YouTube ramblings about Bill Clinton being "every bit as Black as Barack Obama" and his armchair speculation that Clinton had probably bedded more Black women during his lifetime than the senator from Illinois--as if racial identity could be transmitted like an STD.
Last spring, Al Sharpton cautioned Obama "not to take the Black vote for granted." Presumably, he meant that the senator had not won over the supposed gatekeepers of the Black electorate. Asked why he had not endorsed Obama, Sharpton replied that he would "not be cajoled or intimidated by any candidate." More recently, Sharpton claimed on his radio show that the candidates recent attention to civil rights was a product of pressure from him.
Although Jackson is not entirely unfamiliar with the kind of thing thats happening to Obama--Coretta Scott King endorsed Walter Mondale over him in 1984--he also got into the act. He criticized Obama for not championing the Jena 6 cause--the case of six young Black men in Louisiana charged with beating a white classmate--vigorously enough. After Obamas Iowa victory, Jackson demanded that the senator bolster "hope with substance."
Taken as a conglomerate, Jackson, Young, Sharpton and Georgia U.S. Rep. John Lewis represent a sort of civil-rights old-boys network--a Black-boys network--that has parlayed its dated activist credentials into cash and jobs. Jackson, a two-time presidential candidate, has become a CNN host; Young was mayor of Atlanta and sits on numerous corporate boards; and Lewis is essentially representative-for-life of the 5th District in Georgia. Sharpton is younger than the others but a peer in spirit.
To the extent that the term "leader" is applicable, these four men likely represent the interests of Democratic Party insiders more than those of the Black community. Both Young and Lewis have endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton; Sharpton and Jackson have acted ambivalent, alternately mouthing niceties about Obama and criticizing his stances on Black issues.
It may be that, because they doubt that he can actually win, the civil-rights leaders are holding Obama at arms length to build their houses on what looks to be the firmer ground. And there are certainly patronage benefits should Clinton win. She owes Black pols, starting with Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., who first suggested that the party endorse her for a New York Senate seat. Rangel has also lined up behind Clinton.
There is far more to politics--even racial politics--than skin color. Still, it is counterintuitive to think that Lewis, whose political career began when he was bludgeoned in Selma, Ala., fighting for Black voting rights, is witnessing the rise of the first viable Black presidential candidate and yet opts to support a white machine politician.
Part of this disconnect is a generational divide, one that is apparent in Jacksons own household. Following Jacksons criticism of Obama in the Chicago Sun-Times, his son, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., wrote a passionate defense of Obamas activist credentials.
As polls show increasing Black support for Obama, Jackson, Sharpton and Young begin to look like a once-wealthy family that has lost its fortune but has to keep spending to maintain appearances. Obamas tepid early showing among Blacks in the polls had more to do with name recognition and concerns about his viability as a candidate than with Jackson or Sharpton withholding their endorsement.
Ignoring Sharpton or Jackson is not the same thing as taking the Black vote for granted. It is a reasonable calculation that neither of them can deliver many votes, and certainly not enough to offset the number of white votes that their approval could lose Obama. Jackson and Sharpton might be holding out for a better deal in exchange for their support, but with Oprah Winfrey and Chris Rock among Obamas list of supporters, they have little to bargain with.
If Obama makes a strong showing in the South Carolina primary--the first with a substantial number of Black voters--it will become apparent that the old-Black network has begun bouncing checks.
The irony is that for generations of Black "firsts," the prerequisite for entering an institution was proving that you were just like the establishment that ran it. (Think of Jackie Robinsons approach to the major leagues, or the host of "articulate Negro" roles in Sidney Poitiers work.) Obama has been vastly successful by doing just the opposite: masterfully positioning himself as an outsider. In the process, hes opened the door even wider for Black outsiders. Too bad his predecessors refuse to help push him the rest of the way inside.
By William Jelani Cobb
There was a time in the not-too-distant past when "Black president" was synonymous with "president of Black America." That was the office to which Jesse Jackson appointed himself in the 1970s--resigned to the fact that the actual presidency was out of reach. In 2003, Chris Rock wrote and directed "Head of State," a film about the first Black man to win the presidency. (It was a comedy.) And in the ultimate concession, some African Americans have attempted to bestow the title of Black president upon Bill Clinton--a white man.
In the wake of his strong showing in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has already permanently changed the meaning of that term. It is no longer an oxymoron or a quixotic in-joke. And this, perhaps more than anything else, explains his tortured relationship with Black civil-rights leaders.
The most amazing thing about the 2008 presidential race is not that a Black man is a bona fide contender but the lukewarm response he has received from the luminaries whose sacrifices made this run possible. With the notable exception of Joseph Lowery, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference veteran who gave a stirring invocation at Obamas Atlanta campaign rally in June and subsequently endorsed him, Obama has been running without much support from many of the most recognizable Black figures in the political landscape.
Thats because, positioned as he is between the Black boomers and the hip-hop generation, Obama is indebted, but not beholden, to the civil-rights gerontocracy. A successful Obama candidacy would simultaneously represent a huge leap forward for Black America and the death knell for the reign of the civil-rights-era leadership--or at least the illusion of their influence.
The most recent example of the old guards apparent aversion to Obama was Andrew Youngs febrile YouTube ramblings about Bill Clinton being "every bit as Black as Barack Obama" and his armchair speculation that Clinton had probably bedded more Black women during his lifetime than the senator from Illinois--as if racial identity could be transmitted like an STD.
Last spring, Al Sharpton cautioned Obama "not to take the Black vote for granted." Presumably, he meant that the senator had not won over the supposed gatekeepers of the Black electorate. Asked why he had not endorsed Obama, Sharpton replied that he would "not be cajoled or intimidated by any candidate." More recently, Sharpton claimed on his radio show that the candidates recent attention to civil rights was a product of pressure from him.
Although Jackson is not entirely unfamiliar with the kind of thing thats happening to Obama--Coretta Scott King endorsed Walter Mondale over him in 1984--he also got into the act. He criticized Obama for not championing the Jena 6 cause--the case of six young Black men in Louisiana charged with beating a white classmate--vigorously enough. After Obamas Iowa victory, Jackson demanded that the senator bolster "hope with substance."
Taken as a conglomerate, Jackson, Young, Sharpton and Georgia U.S. Rep. John Lewis represent a sort of civil-rights old-boys network--a Black-boys network--that has parlayed its dated activist credentials into cash and jobs. Jackson, a two-time presidential candidate, has become a CNN host; Young was mayor of Atlanta and sits on numerous corporate boards; and Lewis is essentially representative-for-life of the 5th District in Georgia. Sharpton is younger than the others but a peer in spirit.
To the extent that the term "leader" is applicable, these four men likely represent the interests of Democratic Party insiders more than those of the Black community. Both Young and Lewis have endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton; Sharpton and Jackson have acted ambivalent, alternately mouthing niceties about Obama and criticizing his stances on Black issues.
It may be that, because they doubt that he can actually win, the civil-rights leaders are holding Obama at arms length to build their houses on what looks to be the firmer ground. And there are certainly patronage benefits should Clinton win. She owes Black pols, starting with Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., who first suggested that the party endorse her for a New York Senate seat. Rangel has also lined up behind Clinton.
There is far more to politics--even racial politics--than skin color. Still, it is counterintuitive to think that Lewis, whose political career began when he was bludgeoned in Selma, Ala., fighting for Black voting rights, is witnessing the rise of the first viable Black presidential candidate and yet opts to support a white machine politician.
Part of this disconnect is a generational divide, one that is apparent in Jacksons own household. Following Jacksons criticism of Obama in the Chicago Sun-Times, his son, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., wrote a passionate defense of Obamas activist credentials.
As polls show increasing Black support for Obama, Jackson, Sharpton and Young begin to look like a once-wealthy family that has lost its fortune but has to keep spending to maintain appearances. Obamas tepid early showing among Blacks in the polls had more to do with name recognition and concerns about his viability as a candidate than with Jackson or Sharpton withholding their endorsement.
Ignoring Sharpton or Jackson is not the same thing as taking the Black vote for granted. It is a reasonable calculation that neither of them can deliver many votes, and certainly not enough to offset the number of white votes that their approval could lose Obama. Jackson and Sharpton might be holding out for a better deal in exchange for their support, but with Oprah Winfrey and Chris Rock among Obamas list of supporters, they have little to bargain with.
If Obama makes a strong showing in the South Carolina primary--the first with a substantial number of Black voters--it will become apparent that the old-Black network has begun bouncing checks.
The irony is that for generations of Black "firsts," the prerequisite for entering an institution was proving that you were just like the establishment that ran it. (Think of Jackie Robinsons approach to the major leagues, or the host of "articulate Negro" roles in Sidney Poitiers work.) Obama has been vastly successful by doing just the opposite: masterfully positioning himself as an outsider. In the process, hes opened the door even wider for Black outsiders. Too bad his predecessors refuse to help push him the rest of the way inside.
i find those videos funny as shit. Fox News is not worth changing past. MSNBC is where its at. back to the video, alot of people hear about the pastors comments and try to bring down Barack. Everyone i work with is against him, and they try to aggravate me with all this negativity. Problem is i am deeply entrenched in this election and can argue all day on issues and have essentially made everyone look like a damn fool.
What pisses me off most is people who say Obama will get assassinated if he wins. First off how can you want to believe in the death of another human. Who wants to think that. Second, how can you not believe that the people of our country are so can't see past the color of anothers skin.
What pisses me off most is people who say Obama will get assassinated if he wins. First off how can you want to believe in the death of another human. Who wants to think that. Second, how can you not believe that the people of our country are so can't see past the color of anothers skin.
Okay lets go back, and focus on the meaning of "racism", because your initial post was on your outrage at being labeled "racist", correct? So aside from all this irrelevant social rhetoric, lets see why your comments were "racist"...
Once again, it doesn't matter if the prejudice is negative or not, if you're discriminating based on race, your statement is racist, you are focusing on aspects and characteristics of different races. This entire statement above is racist. It doesn't matter what race or characteristics you are referring to (or even if they are negative).
I already posted the definition of "racism" but I'll post it again...
rac·ism n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
And keep in mind to "discriminate" simply means to make a distinction. It in itself is not a negative word unlike what many have been misled to believe in politically correct America.
And, keep in mind, the definition can apply to any race, unlike what your strange logic has been purporting.
Thus your very statement...
... is racist. You are making a DISTINCTION that white people (an entire race) for some strange reason cannot be generalized, discriminated, or prejudged. Your statement is an oxymoron...
...It's as if you are categorizing caucasians as not being a race belonging to the human species... very strange and abstract logic.
aranoid:
Your attempt to omit the entire caucasian race from categorization as a race of the human species is quite bizarre.
It's quite blatant that racism is nothing but generalizations, I don't see how you could say otherwise. And your generalizations are based on... race. I'm not saying it's a negative act to generalize people, there are many instances when it's necessary to generalize.
And I'm not disagreeing with your generalizations, personally I agree with most of them. Nor have I said that they are particularly negative. I was explaining why people called you "racist". And that's what you wanted is an explanation, right?
You should understand that in today's society to publicly state generalizations based on something as large as race (whether or not it is negative) is sometimes viewed as showing a certain degree of social ignorance.
Especially if you are a journalist, your generalizations based on race are probably perceived to be in a condescending tone. Even when they are not negative statements.
By definition, yes the statement is obviously racist. But it's not negative. And I totally agree with the statement, it's not wrong. I think your misunderstanding is confusion with the word "racist".
"Racist" is not synonymous with white people prejudging minority races... although this is an example, so are all your statements.
And I agree, the idea of a white person being socially suppressed in America based on their race is very unlikely... But that has NOTHING to do with the definition of "racism" and the meaning of the word itself.
Once again, it doesn't matter if the prejudice is negative or not, if you're discriminating based on race, your statement is racist, you are focusing on aspects and characteristics of different races. This entire statement above is racist. It doesn't matter what race or characteristics you are referring to (or even if they are negative).
I already posted the definition of "racism" but I'll post it again...
rac·ism n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
And keep in mind to "discriminate" simply means to make a distinction. It in itself is not a negative word unlike what many have been misled to believe in politically correct America.
And, keep in mind, the definition can apply to any race, unlike what your strange logic has been purporting.
Thus your very statement...
... is racist. You are making a DISTINCTION that white people (an entire race) for some strange reason cannot be generalized, discriminated, or prejudged. Your statement is an oxymoron...
...It's as if you are categorizing caucasians as not being a race belonging to the human species... very strange and abstract logic.
aranoid:Your attempt to omit the entire caucasian race from categorization as a race of the human species is quite bizarre.
It's quite blatant that racism is nothing but generalizations, I don't see how you could say otherwise. And your generalizations are based on... race. I'm not saying it's a negative act to generalize people, there are many instances when it's necessary to generalize.
And I'm not disagreeing with your generalizations, personally I agree with most of them. Nor have I said that they are particularly negative. I was explaining why people called you "racist". And that's what you wanted is an explanation, right?
You should understand that in today's society to publicly state generalizations based on something as large as race (whether or not it is negative) is sometimes viewed as showing a certain degree of social ignorance.
Especially if you are a journalist, your generalizations based on race are probably perceived to be in a condescending tone. Even when they are not negative statements.
By definition, yes the statement is obviously racist. But it's not negative. And I totally agree with the statement, it's not wrong. I think your misunderstanding is confusion with the word "racist".
"Racist" is not synonymous with white people prejudging minority races... although this is an example, so are all your statements.
And I agree, the idea of a white person being socially suppressed in America based on their race is very unlikely... But that has NOTHING to do with the definition of "racism" and the meaning of the word itself.