It annoys me to no end that racial-profiling whites are the entire reason behind "the talk" that black parents have to have with their children, yet then white people scream that the blacks are the ones being racist. It's so freaking convenient. And then that gives them the excuse to write racist garbage and hide behind the label of sarcasm. It preys on the racist, ignorant, and/or weak-minded who can't see through the bullshit.

welcome to the real world.

I know you think it's really clever to keep telling me to read the article even after I keep telling you that I have. I assure you, I have read it. I understand that you are trying hard to find a way to construe it as not racist. It's like how people say "Hey I'm not racist but... how come I can't start a White Pride Club" or "I'm not racist but... why can't we have white history month?"

This is "I'm not racist but... if black people can tell their kids not to buy a water gun because they might get shot by police, then I should be able to tell my kid that black people are less intelligent than them!"

He can say he meant it as satire, and you can read it that way if you want, but it's not. It is racist garbage.

-

Ben, you misread Ludovico's reply. He said it was Derbyshire's response to "The Talk." He then explains what "The Talk" is for context.

He read the article. It's racist. Section 10 is what grabbed headlines. However, almost the rest of the article is just as bad.

Personally, I would sign up for the first Pro-PLO anti-Zionist class that would become available.

Sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to the same person.

I think I made my point. I think I see your point. I'm not convinced it was racist, and I'm not convinced that it wasn't.

Regarding the "White History Month". You are correct that most people who would say that are doing so because they indeed are racist. But do you think it is inherently racist to have a month celebrating the contributions to civil society made by Caucasians? I don't. I think it is important to distinguish between what is inherently racist, and what is the sort of statement that makes racists smile.

My argument on this thread will make racists smile. (And then can go to h---.) But I don't think I am racist.
"The Talk" is an article that will make racists smile. But I am not convinced that it is inherently racist. I would not have written it, and I don't think he should have. But it is possible he is just a fool, and not every fool is a racist.

I totally understand the bind that your position inherently puts you in. I often find myself in similar situations, arguing a position that is, in itself, not racist or offensive, but is too often used as a subterfuge but those who actually are racist or hateful. Thus, the argument itself becomes "tainted" as being nothing more than a facade. As you said, its difficult for one to make the "White History Month" point without the suspicion arising that its just a backhanded way of conveying one's racism.

I agree with the people who say talk to others. You never know, a lot of professors don't let their personal beliefs bleed into the curriculum. Then again a lot do. Don't sit there and take offensive remarks all semester long that will drive you crazy, but then again, it may be valuable to be able to add in a new perspective.

I actually had the opposite problem at my school. One of our professors is also black and I didn't agree with his, somewhat radical in my view, characterization of certain cases. It made me kind of uncomfortable, but that's what learning is about and it was fine that I disagreed.

Breh, no need for white history month. It's called history.

Dude, I know. Its more of a rhetorical point than an actual proposal.

Yea breh, I agree. Do you think it's okay for blacks to have the NAACP but whites can't have something like the NAAWP because of political correctness? Y or y not?

Its not that whites can't have such a group. I just think there isn't really a need for it. A minority needs groups to look out for it and ensure it isn't being trampled by the majority. The majority doesn't have that same fear. Its not really a matter of political correction as much as it is a matter of just being unnecessary.

What abt whites who come from poor socioeconomic backgrounds similar to blacks, like hicks? They go to equally poor schools in maybe single-parent households but they don't get the benefits of AA. Why not make AA based on SES rather than race?

i absolutely LOVE how easy it is for threads to turn into AA debates.



like we haven't heard this before.

Uh, theres certainly an argument to be made to that effect, but I don't think this thread is the appropriate place to have such a discussion. We aren't actually debating these issues themselves, as much as we were merely acknowledging that it is certainly possible for one to make out logical arguments for positions that may sometimes come off as sounding racist (due to the fact that these arguments are often used as subterfuges for racist people to get their hateful views across).

Nope. Don't even start this. There's already a thread for that if you want to talk about that

Okay. But why can't a disadvantaged minority like white hicks have a white hick pride group but blacks can? U see what I'm saying, breh?

Seriously. shut up

Plz explain.

obvious troll is obvious.

The AA debate is over.

Sorry I humored the troll. Hopefully we can get this discussion back on track.

Uh, theres certainly an argument to be made to that effect, but I don't think this thread is the appropriate place to have such a discussion.[/quote]
Okay. But why can't a disadvantaged minority like white hicks have a white hick pride group but blacks can? U see what I'm saying, breh?[/quote]

If you're not a minority, you just can't understand. I mean that sounds cliche, but a white person has historically been judged by their personal traits, whereas blacks (and other minorities) are looked at for their race, and it's a barrier to entry. Now this is clearing up significantly, but I mean just think about it-- whites usually hang with whites and blacks usually hang with blacks. It's just cause you like what's familiar to you, you know? Even if no one is racist, if there's a firm and the partners are choosing the next partner, if every partner is white, then that next partner's going to be white. An equally qualified black guy is probably going to get passed over, only because his culture is unfamiliar. So you spend a period balancing that out, and once the in-group is diverse enough, then you can stop with all the groups and programs. In a lot of places, we're there, and there's a backlash because it's never a fair system in a world of scarce resources. I honestly feel bad for other minorities sometimes because the discussion is always black and white, but one thing at a time. But I guess the point is, the mainstream default "group" is already white.