A Purdue University student attempted to pay a parking ticket by dropping off a box containing the ticket, the money to pay the ticket, the wheel lock put on his car and his information at the Purdue Parking Authority Office. He's been arrested for terroristic mischief, after the authorities evacuated the building fearing the box was a bomb.
So, it wasn't the brightest way to attempt to pay a parking ticket, obviously. And while evacuating the building was probably overkill, being suspicious of the package was not entirely unreasonable.
But charging the poor kid with a class C felony? A stern talking to, maybe suspension or a fine is far more reasonable. Charging him as a terrorist? Really?!
Editted to add: the second article says he's also being charged with possession of stolen property... meaning the wheel lock, apparently? That's just ridiculous...
[ November 27, 2009, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I only read the text, but they're going to have a very hard time showing the level of intent that seems to be required unless they have a witnessed account.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't see how he is responsible for the overreaction of the school administration.
Basically what they're saying is that any box is potentially a weapon of mass destruction. That's going way over the line. There needs to be a much higher standard than that. I understand you can't shout "fire" in a crowded building, but now you can't leave a box in an administration building?
On an offhanded note, how'd he get the wheel lock off his car? He's apparently getting a pretty decent education there.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I think the charges will be dropped. Sounds to me like someone's just trying to cover their butt after ordering the evacuation.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Detective Sgt. Matt Rosenbarger said that "terroristic mischief" is when a person knowingly or intentionally places a device with intent to cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a weapon of mass destruction.
The charge for terroristic mischief in this case is a Class C felony, punishable by up to eight years in prison and a fine of $10,000.
Wow.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:On an offhanded note, how'd he get the wheel lock off his car? He's apparently getting a pretty decent education there.
I wondered that, too. Maybe that's where they're getting the possession of stolen property charge?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:He's apparently getting a pretty decent education there.
That's what I learned there. If only the administrator had attended...
Hobbes Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I certainly feel that if somebody puts a wheel lock on my car that that lock then belongs to me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's probably it. And that one might be reasonable, depending on what information was on the notice attached to the car (and assuming the wheel lock was properly attached).
(edit: in response to Alcon's last)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I certainly feel that if somebody puts a wheel lock on my car that that lock then belongs to me.
The law in my state (and presumably others) says you are wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I certainly feel that if somebody puts a wheel lock on my car that that lock then belongs to me.
The law in my state (and presumably others) says you are wrong.
Oh so California belongs to you now, and yet you begrudge me a wheel lock? Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
You can have mine.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
BB, precisely.
Ya got a problem wit dat?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
What did the box look like if it caused enough panic to merit an evacuation? I feel like we're missing a lot of details here.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
But he was giving the wheel lock back to the owner. It's not like he used it on someone else's car or put it up on ebay to make a profit off it.
This whole thing is whack.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric: But he was giving the wheel lock back to the owner. It's not like he used it on someone else's car or put it up on ebay to make a profit off it.
This whole thing is whack.
Wiggity Whack?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Godric is bringing back the 90s.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Heh... A client of mine wanted to name an event "Wiggity Whack" until I pointed out the term generally implies a negative connotation. The 90s weren't that long ago, right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, but a lot of people in the 90s weren't really with the 90s.
They didn't get the 411, so to speak.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
When I was in college in the early 80s, a friend of mine took a denver boot off his car and delivered it to the police station with a nasty note. Something like "Don't ever frakking touch my car again."
But he wasn't stupid enough to pay the ticket at the same time, and apparently they didn't have serial numbers on the things.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Respect, your friend was a BSG nerd before it was popular.... indie BSG nerd.
I really want to google on how to take off the boot, but I fear the cookies. How to remove law enforcement property should be a flagged subject am I right?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric: Heh... A client of mine wanted to name an event "Wiggity Whack" until I pointed out the term generally implies a negative connotation. The 90s weren't that long ago, right?
I'm not sure why, but it seems that more and more our society seems to overreact to things. Things that would likely have been excused as youthful indiscretion, mostly harmless pranks or misfortunate understandings are now seen as dangerous acts that we should punish with the full force of law.
I'm not sure why, but it seems like our society has completely lost its sense of humor and perspective.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Let me give an example.
Back in the 70s when I was in junior high school, one of my friends "borrowed" some chemicals from the chemistry lab and they exploded in his school locker making a loud noise and causing some superficial damage.
He was given a stern talking to and then encouraged to study more chemistry. This friend is now a respected productive citizen with a Ph.D in chemistry.
What do you think would have happened to him under the same circumstances today?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
That's a troubling question, Rabbit. I'm not sure what would happen but I would not be surprised if the response now was disproportionate to the response then.
-
quote:Originally posted by Godric: Heh... A client of mine wanted to name an event "Wiggity Whack" until I pointed out the term generally implies a negative connotation. The 90s weren't that long ago, right?
*winces* This reminds me of a family reunion a couple of years ago. The family name is "Black." Somebody made up some t-shirts for the reunion that said "It's wack to be Black." It was doubly painful because I'm pretty sure they didn't mean to disparage the family, and because of the potential for a racist interpretation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
My advisor tells stories of making black powder in chemistry class - sulfur, saltpeter and charcoal. He went to an English school where they had, the year of Elizabeth's coronation, a collection to buy a memorial chair - an oaken affair to sit in the assembly hall. However, in addition to chemistry the boys had been taught math; and the six pence per week (obligatory) from each boy, over a long period, added up to rather more than the chair cost. Further, the Head was known to enjoy his whiskey. (Black powder and alcohol...) Two and two make four, and black powder makes a hell of a bang when blowing up a much-hated chair.
They were men in the old days!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Let me give an example.
Back in the 70s when I was in junior high school, one of my friends "borrowed" some chemicals from the chemistry lab and they exploded in his school locker making a loud noise and causing some superficial damage.
He was given a stern talking to and then encouraged to study more chemistry. This friend is now a respected productive citizen with a Ph.D in chemistry.
What do you think would have happened to him under the same circumstances today?
Well it's a delicate balance to be sure. In the past, if you were a boy, "taking a licking" was more common place and less manly boys would be encouraged to stand up for themselves rather than seek outside help.
When you got into mischief, authority figures would employ corporeal punishment, and afterwards you'd look back on the transgression and think, "*sigh* Boys will be boys." If a neighbor spanked you and you whined to your parents about it you were often told "respect your elders" and the neighbors were often thanked for assisting in the discipline.
Corporeal punishment has been all but abolished and yet discipline is still needed. Unfortunately instead of implementing progressive disciplinary measures we have migrated to punishing parents via their pocketbook and simply removing troubled children from amongst us by suspension, or sending them to reeducation centers.
It seems like if you want greater tolerance for mischievous behavior you also have to accept that when you move that bar up, there are going to be more instances of outright physical and emotional abuse in human interactions.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Respect, your friend was a BSG nerd before it was popular.... indie BSG nerd.
Heh.
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I really want to google on how to take off the boot, but I fear the cookies. How to remove law enforcement property should be a flagged subject am I right?
So Google something like "How to take off a denver boot that was put on by a private citizen because I'd never break the law. Bwa!" That should be safe enough.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think the acceptance and use of corporal punishment has probably gone down in the same time period, but I'm not sure I can see how tolerance for mischief is really tied to it.
Aversion to risk has gone way up, I think. I don't think this is the reason that corporal punishment is out of style.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Well it's a delicate balance to be sure. In the past, if you were a boy, "taking a licking" was more common place and less manly boys would be encouraged to stand up for themselves rather than seek outside help.
When you got into mischief, authority figures would employ corporeal punishment, and afterwards you'd look back on the transgression and think, "*sigh* Boys will be boys." If a neighbor spanked you and you whined to your parents about it you were often told "respect your elders" and the neighbors were often thanked for assisting in the discipline
Not during the time period I'm talking about, at least not in the area where I lived. Corporal punishment was never acceptable in any school I attended. I never lived in a neighborhood where it was considered acceptable to spank someone else's children. Those things may have been acceptable in the 50s, but they certainly weren't in the 70s (at least not where I lived).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Corporeal punishment has been all but abolished and yet discipline is still needed. Unfortunately instead of implementing progressive disciplinary measures we have migrated to punishing parents via their pocketbook and simply removing troubled children from amongst us by suspension, or sending them to reeducation centers.
That just isn't an accurate description of what's happened. When my friend took chemicals from the school lab and made them into something so unstable it exploded in in his locker, he wasn't beaten by the school principle. No one worried that he was a troubled child who might start shooting classmates. They thought of him as a curious kid doing the kind of stupid things that normal kids do. It never occurred to them that he was a dangerous potential terrorist who needed to be locked up to protect society. He was just a curious kid who need guidance, supervision and encouragement.
And this isn't an isolated incident. I'd estimate that about 90% of the Ph.D. chemists and engineers I know at sometime in their youth experimented with making black powder, building a basement still or making dry ice bombs. I remember one high school party I was at where there was a long serious of attempts to blow up various toys using increasing numbers of firecrackers networked together in different ways. And we were generally thought of as "the good kids".
Don't get me wrong, these were definitely stupid and dangerous things to be doing and demonstrated poor judgement on our part. What they weren't was abnormal behavior for lobeless teenagers. What worries me is that society has begun completely overreacting to this this kind of thing and those overreactions are even more likely to ruin someone's life than the dumb things kids do.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Let me give an example.
Back in the 70s when I was in junior high school, one of my friends "borrowed" some chemicals from the chemistry lab and they exploded in his school locker making a loud noise and causing some superficial damage.
He was given a stern talking to and then encouraged to study more chemistry. This friend is now a respected productive citizen with a Ph.D in chemistry.
What do you think would have happened to him under the same circumstances today?
In 4th grade I told in share & tell that I shook up bottles of seltzer and threw it so it would hit the ground and explode in a rocket. They sen me to the school councillor saying I had violent behavior. They reccommended I go to councilling for now on.
My parents didn't listen, but schools are very strict now.
Thank god the High School doesn't know about the thermite. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I made touch powder once before chem class that went off during. The teacher hit the deck and was pissed, but didn't do anything about it - no disciplinary action whatsoever. This was in 1994, I think.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It used to be very easy to buy a boot, btw. We have one at work for people who park in the visitor parking spots and don't sign in. Ordered it out of a security catalog.
Not that we actually use it or anything. >_>
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Godric: This whole thing is whack.
Wiggity Whack?
Nope, just regular type.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
place holder
[ November 25, 2009, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Things that would likely have been excused as youthful indiscretion, mostly harmless pranks or misfortunate understandings are now seen as dangerous acts that we should punish with the full force of law.
You nailed it! When I was in high school, I use to sluff (cut class) all the time. Once I ran into our vice principal at Wal*mart. I went hiking, played arcades, or just stayed home.
I was on good terms with all my teachers. It was stupid what I did and it caused me to miss out on some scholarships. I was never made to feel I was a threat to society.
Now I work at the same school I used to ditch and we have a truancy officer to track down kids who skip school. They and their parents can be charged for neglecting school. Kids are loosing the "youthful indiscretion" buffer for stupid behavior.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Do you live in the same country where they are now inspecting homes for child safety hazards and sorting through your trash to make sure you are recycling?
Of course we've lost our minds. I watched 2 TSA agents carry an old paralyzed lady through the metal detector last week. It kept going off while she was screaming, "It's my hip". Finally they put he back in her wheel chair and frisked every inch of her body for about ten minutes. My squadron of 100 uniformed military members held up the entire airport because military boots take a long time to remove to check for bombs. Navy Seals are going to court martial for giving a fat lip to a guy who murdered five people and dragged their mutilated corpses through the street to hang from a bridge. And disregard the fact that the Fort Hood shooter donated 30k a year to Hamas and yelled Ala Akbar while murdering 14 people; he's just a crazy person, nothing to do with Islamic terror according to our PC leaders. Retarded (sorry, mentally handicapped or is it mentally challenged, perhaps deficient? Not quite sure what is appropriate anymore.)
[ November 25, 2009, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Not quite sure what is appropriate anymore.
It doesn't sound like you've made any effort to learn.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I spend my time in the real world, not studying 2009 PC terms. Reality is reality and if a midget prefers to be called a little person this year, I'll do my best...next year it'll be something else. Doesn't change the fact that TSA drags paralyzed old women through metal detectors but a 30k a year contributor to Hamas who screams Ala Akbar while murdering 14 people isn't considered a terrorist. You are so wise for your PC sensibilities. Make sure you recycle or they might find a piece of plastic in your trash. Afterall, it's for the betterment of humanity.
[ November 25, 2009, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Retarded (sorry, mentally handicapped or is it mentally challenged, perhaps deficient? Not quite sure what is appropriate anymore.)
That might be because there is no appropriate term. Not for pejoratives. Not for insults. "Retarded" is no longer an acceptable word because it is a slur. Using other terms as a slur doesn't make the slur politically correct, acceptable, or polite.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Retarded (sorry, mentally handicapped or is it mentally challenged, perhaps deficient? Not quite sure what is appropriate anymore.)
That might be because there is no appropriate term. Not for pejoratives. Not for insults. "Retarded" is no longer an acceptable word because it is a slur. Using other terms as a slur doesn't make the slur politically correct, acceptable, or polite.
Honest comment, thank you. What we now consider slurs were at one time (still) scientific, ie negro. I would never call a black a negro but that term wasn't always considered offensive, even though scientific in nature. I would think the least offensive would be scientific in nature but it is the perception of the younger generation that matters. All generations rebel against their parent's generation. The child of a midget, negro, etc, reject what they were called and want a new label. My position is that labels do not change the reality of the object and aren't necessarily said with negative intent. White's are still whites....perhaps because white children carry no defensive baggage about their color. Politically correct terms change at the discretion of the offended. What was once accepted, is now offensive...hence my frustration. The frustration of a person who doesn't care what you call me...I know what I am and your labels do not matter.
[ November 26, 2009, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Retarded (sorry, mentally handicapped or is it mentally challenged, perhaps deficient? Not quite sure what is appropriate anymore.)
That might be because there is no appropriate term. Not for pejoratives. Not for insults. "Retarded" is no longer an acceptable word because it is a slur. Using other terms as a slur doesn't make the slur politically correct, acceptable, or polite.
Honest comment, thank you. What we now consider slurs were at one time (still) scientific, ie negro. I would never call a black a negro but that term wasn't always considered offensive, even though scientific in nature. I would think the least offensive would be scientific in nature but it is the perception of the younger generation that matters. All generations rebel against their parent's generation. The child of a midget, negro, etc, reject what they were called and want a new label. My position is that labels do not change the reality of the object and aren't necessarily said with negative intent. White's are still whites....perhaps because white children carry no defensive baggage about their color. Politically correct terms change at the discretion of the offended. What once was not offensive, is now offensive.
Would you call a person a midget to his face (assuming that he was standing on a ladder or something, or you were kneeling down)?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I would not call person a midget to his face for sensitivity to his internal struggles. I would be sensitive to his personal baggage and call him whatever the current generation of midgets accepted as correct,...a little person. I will guarantee that your grandchildren will not call midgets of their day "little people",,,,"little" will be offensive. No man is less than another irregardless of height. The midget is a man equal to me. As I said, the PC terms change at the discretion of the offended and the people who are ashamed of what they are. It is for the rest of us to call them as they wish to lessen their shame. My preference is that all people will be proud of what they are instead of focused on ever changing labels.
I do not care if you call me opey, red-neck, trailer trash, whitey, etc. I am confident in what I am and. "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me" It is my hope that the so often offended about names will eventually settle upon a name because I can say "dwarf", "midget" or "little person" and they mean the same thing to me. They only mean something different to the listener. Only when the offended accept what they are with pride, will they be able to live a life as equals and unoffended.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The midget is a man equal to me.
Is that what they mean by "damning with faint praise" or is that more of a back-handed compliment?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I don't judge a man by his height, strength, weight, color, whatever. I'm 5'10, is a 5'6 man less than me? Is a man with more freckles or more melanin less or more than me? I do not believe so. Especially in our current society...I work on computers and any midget is my equal with a typewriter. Just pick a label and stick with it already. Even your slurs for me do not bother me. It is my greatest hope that all minorities will have the same level of self confidence.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
What you are explaining here is not quite the same as what you did. You used to term "retarded" about a person/situation that is not in fact "retarded". You used it as a pejorative to mean something that is so ridiculous it is beneath contempt. This is what is insulting to the people with the actual mental condition.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: It is my hope that the so often offended about names will eventually settle upon a name because I can say "dwarf", "midget" or "little person" and they mean the same thing to me.
Yes, well, here's the thing about communication: it's not all about you. No one would be offended in the slightest if you called a black person a negro in total privacy because of course no one would ever know about it.
But when you start using words towards and with other people? Sorry, dude. You don't get to decide what is offensive to someone else. You can decide not to care, but you can't suggest they just 'get over it' and be taken seriously, because of course that exact same complaint can be made to you from them, and be exactly as valid.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I think you are still missing my point. It's not about rejecting the labels of previous generations. It's not about what is or isn't politically correct. I'm not one to push the appearance of not giving offence for the sake of appearance.
"Retarded" was an acceptable word. Then it was co-opted as an insult. An entire category of human beings had their identities and selves degraded to the point where they became an insult. The pejorative use of the word retard became so prevalent that it fell out of technical usage. It wasn't just a new generation of social workers and psychologists saying "let's change things up!" The terminology changed, and still changes, because thoughtless, cruel people continue to find ways to make disability an insult, and the words lose their ability to be useful technical terms.
Saying "That's so mentally disabled" is no better than "that's so retarded" or "that's so n****r". Civilised human beings do not use each others' characteristics as insults and slurs. That is what I meant when I said there is no appropriate term. There never will be a string of sounds that is appropriate because the sentiment behind them is never appropriate.
Edit:
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: What you are explaining here is not quite the same as what you did. You used to term "retarded" about a person/situation that is not in fact "retarded". You used it as a pejorative to mean something that is so ridiculous it is beneath contempt. This is what is insulting to the people with the actual mental condition.
Or that, but wordier.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: What you are explaining here is not quite the same as what you did. You used to term "retarded" about a person/situation that is not in fact "retarded". You used it as a pejorative to mean something that is so ridiculous it is beneath contempt. This is what is insulting to the people with the actual mental condition.
You are correct...The mentally handicapped should be offended that I correlated the correct term for them from 20 years ago to the current climate of political correctness. It would be offensive to sailors to say the record deficit spending is similar to that of a drunken sailor. I am sincerely sorry to the mentally deficient in our nation for equating you with the current administration.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Retarded (sorry, mentally handicapped or is it mentally challenged, perhaps deficient? Not quite sure what is appropriate anymore.)
We just call him malanthrop, but thanks for asking....
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I spend my time in the real world
god, i wish that even half the people who say this weren't profound examples of aggressive ignorance.
Yet as usual I see it used essentially and unwittingly to mean "I can't be arsed to know what the hell I'm talking about."
Way to go.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Is a woman penis deficient or penile challenged? You can grab portions of a sentence if you like but in the real world a midget is a midget no matter what you call him. Enlighten me as to what his preference is so I can avoid offending him. There is an offended without the offensive. REALITY is that my grandmother still says "NEGRO", but she is not a racist. Perception is reality. Call me a cracker, honkey, red neck, opey, inbread, whatever,...I do not care. I am proud of what I am and so should the "Little People" and "African Americans" (Apologies to readers from the year 2020 - "little people" and "African American" were acceptable terms in 2009)
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
How come African Americans get to choose what they're called, but when I tell them I what I want to be called they get all mad?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
They knew you were mocking them. In 1991 I took a college class called "black culture", (I know insensitive, now it's African American Culture). The students then were offended by being called black despite the class title, now they are the professors and the course title has changed to Afican American. Anyway, when I demanded they refer to me as a "German American" in reciprocity for their "African American" demands, they were offended. They knew I was mocking them since my European ancestry really didn't matter to me. German American pointed out the rediculousnes of their demands. We are all people, all Americans. I look for the day when a blacks consider themselves Americans just as I do. By the way, my black "Black Studies" professor liked me a lot and gave me an A.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
In order to remind folks that African Americans are not one homogenous group, I'd like to point out that a buddy of mine does prefer the term black. His family is Carribean and Scottish, so African isn't terribly descriptive for him.
People get to be different, regardless of skin color. Just throwing that out there.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Of course you know that Caribbeans came from Africa as slaves just like most other black Americans so I'm not seeing how that makes such a big difference.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You can grab portions of a sentence if you like but in the real world a midget is a midget no matter what you call him.
You're acting as though there is a list somewhere of actual, factual definitions to words like this upon which all human language is derived.
There isn't. Words like 'midget' and 'negro' aren't etched-in-stone concepts like 'two' and 'seventeen'. They shift with the passage of time. Instead of foolishly complaining about this completely natural slow shift in definitions, you ought to just get over yourself and adapt with the rest of the fellow human beings.
So you have to learn, every so often, not to say certain words. Big deal. You're a smart man, or so you so very often imply to everyone around here. You can handle it, I hope.
quote: I am proud of what I am and so should the "Little People" and "African Americans" (Apologies to readers from the year 2020 - "little people" and "African American" were acceptable terms in 2009)
Oh, wait, I understand. Black people who get irritated about being called 'negro' get that way because they 'aren't proud' of being black. Heh. Well, that's one way to justify complaining about having to actually take into account the reactions of minorities.
quote:They knew I was mocking them since my European ancestry really didn't matter to me. German American pointed out the rediculousnes of their demands.
Why would it have mattered to you? It wasn't the foundation of centuries of ongoing oppression. Of course it wouldn't matter to you. Is it possible for you to see why it might matter to them more than you? 'Rediculous' indeed.
I wonder if your grandmother is as much of a not-racist as you are.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Are there people out there who get uppity about how you refer to thier ethinicity? DUH and are there people who still want to refer to those people as negroes and coloreds? DUH
Someday these people will die, I really dont care about something so insignificant as "african-american" vs "black" in fact I dont think much about anyone who does not have a direct effect on how I live. There are alot Africans in the area around my store, I say African because they (themselves individually) are from Africa, when someone with melatonin enriched skin comes into my store, someone who watched the same cartoons as a kid and went to same schools as I did I call him American.
quote: Of course you know that Caribbeans came from Africa as slaves just like most other black Americans so I'm not seeing how that makes such a big difference.
Of course you know that the people of the African continent had been enslaving each other long before Europeans began paying those on the coast to deliver slaves to them. In fact there are still people in Africa who hate the English for making slavery illegal, thus taking away the only export they had at the time and impoverishing the rich slave owner families that had always been paid in supplys such. Africa was not the only continent with a lengthy history of slavery, nor were black slaves in America the worst treated in history, albeit they were treated as slaves. I have never owned another human being, I have never knowingly met a person who was entirely owned by another, and if I ever do it will apperantly be a young white girl living in shed or one of the many enduntured Mexican slaves in the south west. So unless you just spent twenty years farming in rags and no shoes, had your family threatened if you do not smuggle cocaine and God knows what else up your bum, or given birth to the child of your long time rapist in a dirt floored room shut up.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It does rather say something that we consider a lengthy and indirect descent from a large, extremely heterogeneous continent more relevant for ethnic identity than more recent, more direct descent from two fairly well-specified regions (Scotland and the Caribbean). I would say it makes quite a bit of difference. Especially as, while people with black skin in the Caribbean almost certainly have some ancestors from Africa (within the last dozen generations or so), ethnicity developed in many places there in a very complicated way. It is entirely possible (especially if from, say, Trinidad and Tobago) that he only has a small minority of his genetics that came from Africa within recent history. To paint someone with African-American because of ten percent or less of his genetics (note: I am speaking of abstract individuals, not this specific individual as I don't know his ancestry, though I have known such people) when he doesn't want to be identified as such reflects a disturbing focus on skin color.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Of course you know that the people of the African continent had been enslaving each other long before Europeans began paying those on the coast to deliver slaves to them.
This always comes up and my answer has never changed, because I've never heard anything approaching a good response to it: So?
quote:So unless you just spent twenty years farming in rags and no shoes, had your family threatened if you do not smuggle cocaine and God knows what else up your bum, or given birth to the child of your long time rapist in a dirt floored room shut up.
Yeah, because that's the only way someone can be impacted by slavery. So until you can get that idea in your head, perhaps you ought to take your own advice?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Africa was not the only continent with a lengthy history of slavery, nor were black slaves in America the worst treated in history, albeit they were treated as slaves.
I think its possible to make a strong argument to the contrary.
quote:Especially as, while people with black skin in the Caribbean almost certainly have some ancestors from Africa (within the last dozen generations or so), ethnicity developed in many places there in a very complicated way. It is entirely possible (especially if from, say, Trinidad and Tobago) that he only has a small minority of his genetics that came from Africa within recent history.
I've been living in Trinidad and Tobago for the past two years and I have a better grasp of the racial subtleties of the region than you think. Although there is much racial mixing, most people here identify themselves either as "Afro-Trini's" or "Indo-Trini's" (Indo referring to India not the Carib, there are a few people who identify themselves as Carib, but they are very few).
I'm a bit surprised that someone would think of themselves as "Caribbean" as that isn't something I've heard down here. People identify themselves with a particular island, they are "Jamaican", "Dominican", "Trini" or "Tobagonian".
Most people who call them selves "African-American" are also racially mixed although that is rarely recognized. Part of the legacy of the "one drop" rule in the US, is a continuing tendency to see every anyone with any African ancestry as "black". America still doesn't really accept mixed race as something distinct.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I didn't think he would have called himself Caribbean, I was referring to how he might identify in one of the ways a Caribbean might (as opposed to identifying as African-American).
quote:Most people who call them selves "African-American" are also racially mixed although that is rarely recognized.
Certainly. I have no problem with people self-identifying as almost anything they like. My posts have been in specific reference to this one person who asked not to be identified as African-American despite tendencies to do so, and the general class of people meeting that characteristic.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have no problem with how people self identify and have no doubt that many Americans with some ancestry from Africa don't prefer the term "African-American".
My question was why you thought coming from the Caribbean would be an important factor in that preference. Much of what you said seems to imply that people in the Caribbean are more distantly related to people who came from Africa than are the typical blacks in the US. That just isn't true.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... Anyway, when I demanded they refer to me as a "German American" in reciprocity for their "African American" demands, they were offended.
Odd.
For me, it is usually the other way around.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: My question was why you thought coming from the Caribbean would be an important factor in that preference.
Maybe it's more interesting to say, "My family came from some really cool island" than, "My family came from Georgia"?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Just a reminder.
People of African descent originally claimed the word African American not to emphasis their African roots, but to emphasis their American status. At the times people in the US were divided between Blacks, Mexicans, Immigrants, Irish, and Americans--Americans being White and mostly Protestant.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I look for the day when a blacks consider themselves Americans just as I do.
Hah. it will probably be the day *you* start considering them Americans, and possibly acknowledging them as entities separate from yourself with their own unique identities.
But like all real racists, you don't even really get what racism is all about.
ETA: I suppose it might never have occurred to you that someone's urge to self identify in a different way from you could be easily fueled by your urge for them to suppress their identity and submerge it in the majority identity with which you have aligned yourself. So mocking someone's minor vanity at being a self styled "African American" doesn't seem so bad to you- since you can easily say "European American" and have that be as meaningless in our culture as it really is. Of course, you have never had to, nor will you ever have to, experience life as anything other than an obvious member of America's ethnic majority and economically dominant race. So the fact that you experience less racial strife is not surprising- a member of an ethnic majority is not even encouraged to notice racism directed at himself, even when it exists. There is an advantage in simple ignorance of race. But your total lack of sensitivity, your absolutely willful ignorance of the very real cultural heritage of black Americans, and the effect that has on how a person chooses to self-identify, tells me you haven't really given this much thought at all. And so I suppose we should excuse you for your rudeness and your total lack of decorum. It's not that I think you are uneducated, but that I do think you have been poorly led.
[ November 26, 2009, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I have two Jamaican immigrant neighbors...if you listened to how they talked about American blacks (minus the accent and with your eyes closed), you would think they were skinheads. They drop the N word more than any white person I know. They do not consider themselves African American or Jamaican American. They came from poverty and now work hard in America and have a good life. They see how pathetic the victim mindset is. The racist sees them as black, I see them as contributing members of society....American. The same way they see themselves..proudly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're not a racist...but you view two obvious racists (from your description) approvingly and with respect. Yeah, people get bad ideas about your politics because they're eager to judge.
Here's the thing you apparently cannot understand: viewing one's self as 'something-American' and being a productive, contributing member of society are not by any means mutually exclusive concepts.
The 'victim mindset' is crap, yes. Recognizing ways in which one's society habitually victimizes people who look a certain way, on the other hand, is only crap if it's not true.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The racist sees them as black, I see them as contributing members of society....American. The same way they see themselves..proudly.
No, human beings see them as black. The racist sees them as reflections of his own stereotypes toward that race, whether those stereotypes are positive or negative. In my opinion, everybody is at least a little bit racist. That's just how society has trained us. Pretty much every society in the world is at least a little xenophobic, so to characterize one person or another as a racist individual is just as ignorant as the 'racist' himself. Where the line needs to be drawn is whether or not this affects a person's thought or decision making process. I'm not really arguing with anyone here, I guess I just don't like the term racist. Maybe another word.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I'd add in that it's not just society that has trained us, but evolution that has instilled in us a natural tendency to fear outsiders. To separate ourselves into in-group and out-group. Though obviously society and culture help to define exactly what we consider in and out group. Which isn't a defense of this mode of being, more so an indication that we as individuals and as a society need to overcome some inherent biases to treat everyone we meet fairly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Something always strange to me about folks who talk like malanthrop does about race relations: they have such an incredibly optimistic view of how quickly an entire continent-spanning hundreds-of-millions society and culture can radically change itself.
Not two generations ago, nobody - not even malanthrop, I think - could argue that racial minorities in this country were very badly discriminated against, politically, economically, and socially. It was wide and deep, that discrimination, penetrating not just into our laws but into the hearts and minds of our people-not just the majority but the minorities themselves.
And yet he'd have us believe, less than half a century after the Civil Rights Act was passed into law...we've pretty much gotten over those problems, and those complaining they still exist are harboring a pathetic victim mindset.
'Optimistic' is actually a very charitable word I'm using to describe that sort of thinking.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I have two Jamaican immigrant neighbors...if you listened to how they talked about American blacks (minus the accent and with your eyes closed), you would think they were skinheads. They drop the N word more than any white person I know. They do not consider themselves African American or Jamaican American. They came from poverty and now work hard in America and have a good life. They see how pathetic the victim mindset is. The racist sees them as black, I see them as contributing members of society....American. The same way they see themselves..proudly.
Appeal to authority, persuasion by anecdote, and favoring sentiment over content. Those are your sins here, among others.
I don't know, Mal, I don't want to go down the road of another poster who recently decided that an excellent response to *anything* I say is total and utter refusal to acknowledge even my ability to communicate. I think you *could* get why what you are saying betrays ignorance. I think you could get that if you weren't as interested as you are in winning an argument with me, which you have found to be impossible- a fact which I have not made so easy for you to overcome. I should have given you a few more outs there, if I expected a reasoned response. So, let's try this.
Look, the reason your Jamaican neighbors feel that way is that they are not African Americans in the sense implied in the culture of the United States. Like you, they have nothing invested in being black American (and again, forgive me the clumsy lexical device of "American" to mean " estadunidense ," which I think we should be using by now in English anyway). And you can work out why that is. Blacks are the majority in Jamaica, and it's a small country that was spared some if not all of the racial strife of the mainland colonies, especially after the British ended slavery, a good while earlier than America managed to. In short, your Jamaican neighbors are black, but they did not grow up as black Americans. One wonders why indeed they *would* have any sympathy for American racial tension, since they come from a country with such a heavy tourist economy, and such a cleaner history of racial relations.
I would really love to know why you find those particular people's opinions on anything regarding race in America more valid than an actual American- even yourself. Why do you countenance their racial slurs when you yourself are too timid to use them. If you were so righteous, and your anti-pc cause was so just, you would use the "n-word" as much as you like, rather than bowing to the PC culture. But you don't. And you know why you don't? Because you're fully aware that you're also full of shit.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Pretty much every society in the world is at least a little xenophobic, so to characterize one person or another as a racist individual is just as ignorant as the 'racist' himself.
Not by a long shot. Calling anyone a "racist" in general terms is simplistic. But there are legitimate reasons why people resort to simplistic terminology- it can be and often is effective, if used with the understanding that it does not in itself stand in for reasoning. That's why me calling Mal a racist was one sentence, and me explaining *why* Mal is a racist in particular took several paragraphs.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
estadunidense
That's got too many syllables to catch on.
Just to clarify that I understand the word, you're saying they have no wish to self identify as natives of the US while not commenting on their feelings as natives of the American continent?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Essentially yes- I'm citing the very significant difference in histories between Jamaica and the US.
For instance, while Black/white relations in Jamaica have long been smoother than in the US, Jamaica is still known as the most homophobic country on Earth. So Jamaicans are no strangers to bigotry, just perhaps strangers to the American experience of it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Orincoro, Your grasp of the significance of racism in the colonial and post colonial caribbean is really bad.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm sorry, did I overreach my authority? Because I said something extremely general, because I'm not an expert in the field. The British proscribed slavery and the slave trade decades before the United States did. Right? The histories of the two nations are, in fact *different* right? That's all I care to point out- that is the only statement that matters to me.
ETA: When the hell did I ever say there wasn't racism in the Caribean? I just don't think things are THE SAME there as in the states. Clearly there *is* racism, because his neighbors are pretty racist. But please, don't let me stop you from swooping in with a one-liner to inform me of my ignorance- because that's something I do *all the time* to you.
[ November 27, 2009, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: estadunidense
That's got too many syllables to catch on.
One might reasonably shorten it to 'dense.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm sorry Orincoro, I didn't mean any offense. Yes, the history of the Caribbean is quite different from that of the states and the issues of race and ethnicity are quite different in the Caribbean than they are in the US. My objection (and I should have been more specific) was to your claim that "Black/White relations in Jamaica have long been smoother than in the US." Different? Yes, Smoother? No, that isn't an accurate assessment.
One of the most notable racial differences between the US and the Caribbean is in how people with mixed racial background are viewed. Lots of people who are considered "black" in the US would be considered "white" in the Caribbean. Neither Obama nor Collin Powell would be considered black in the Caribbean.
Its also true that racial issues vary pretty dramatically in different regions of the US. The experience of a black person who grew up in the Seattle suburbs will be very very different from the experience of someone who grew up in inner city Miami.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So far as terminology goes, I generally say black, though there are circumstances when African-American strikes me as more appropriate, and I say it. Black and white are descriptive terms as far as I'm concerned. Negro, the N-word, etc, are all either inappropriate or downright offensive, I think.
quote:One of the most notable racial differences between the US and the Caribbean is in how people with mixed racial background are viewed. Lots of people who are considered "black" in the US would be considered "white" in the Caribbean. Neither Obama nor Collin Powell would be considered black in the Caribbean.
From what I've read of post-colonial Africa, this is true in many areas there as well. Sort of an inverse from the "one drop rule" in America. Here, a drop of black blood makes you black, regardless of your heritage. There, a little white blood makes you white, regardless of your heritage.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Well in the Caribbean, after several centuries of depraved white slave owners, I doubt there is anyone that doesn't have at least a little white blood.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
A good friend of mine in college had a leg that was severely broken and he was still in a full leg cast the day he got a boot on his car. Unable to walk, he took the wheel off the car, put his spare tire on, and drove across campus to the police station to pay the ticket and have the boot removed from his tire. Upon arrival, he too was arrested for posession of stolen property and (I believe) obstruction of justice.
That was almost 10 years ago. This "mental" issue is not a new thing.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Carribean slave owners? How did the conversation get to where it is from where it started?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: A good friend of mine in college had a leg that was severely broken and he was still in a full leg cast the day he got a boot on his car. Unable to walk, he took the wheel off the car, put his spare tire on, and drove across campus to the police station to pay the ticket and have the boot removed from his tire. Upon arrival, he too was arrested for posession of stolen property and (I believe) obstruction of justice.
That was almost 10 years ago. This "mental" issue is not a new thing.
I think that's a case of the letter of the law violating the spirit of the law.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
we took an absurd conversation and turned it into a decent one.
Happens all the time here. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... Clearly there *is* racism, because his neighbors are pretty racist.
Alleged neighbours, anyways.
(I don't have doubt that there are racist Jamacians, but I do often have doubts with mal's depiction/claims about his neighbours and co-workers. I'm not particularly inclined to judge them as racists in absentia based on just mal's viewpoint)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Consider them as discussed her to be the notional figures that Mal has presented, and treat them as such. I think of them only as figments of Mal's imagination or the image of himself that he chooses to represent here, and their actual convergence with real people I don't place much importance on. Since they were conjured very conveniently into a conversation into which Mal has in the past conjured many convenient facts and experiences to reinforce his own views, I don't think they need to be treated like "real" people for the purposes of talking about them as examples here- especially when in the end Mal controls what contribution they get to make to the debate, since he speaks in their voice. Notice, he does this consistently and unabashedly despite the fact that most of the other people here do it sparingly or not at all, because we are all mostly aware that anecdotes such as those are a) less valuable than they appear, and b) often suspect.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
A racist sees two black men and assumes that they are greedy, lazy welfare bums until he talks to them to find out that they are productive members of society.
When you first saw your neighbors what did you see--two trash talking Jamacian black men, or two people who had yet to show you their true colors?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why even ask him that question? The answer won't be anything but good. How do I know? Because I can't recall the last time I heard malanthrop say anything that wasn't really great about himself-self-made man, works a whole lot of hours, makes lots of money honestly, has good, acceptable beliefs, etc.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Consider them as discussed her to be the notional figures that Mal has presented, and treat them as such.
Good and fair enough, just as long as this is understood.
I only add the slightly less provocative scenario that if Mal is as um, pleasant, company for visible minorities (and potentially the non-religious) as he seems to be on Hatrack, there is always the possibility that people in question might just be messing with him.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: A good friend of mine in college had a leg that was severely broken and he was still in a full leg cast the day he got a boot on his car. Unable to walk, he took the wheel off the car, put his spare tire on, and drove across campus to the police station to pay the ticket and have the boot removed from his tire. Upon arrival, he too was arrested for posession of stolen property and (I believe) obstruction of justice.
I think that's a case of the letter of the law violating the spirit of the law.
I don't. Keep in mind that to get booted, you generally have to have a minimum of 5 unpaid tickets. The idea IS to inconvenience you while you have to wait for the boot to be removed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I don't. Keep in mind that to get booted, you generally have to have a minimum of 5 unpaid tickets. The idea IS to inconvenience you while you have to wait for the boot to be removed.
Meh, even 5 unpaid parking tickets is not a criminal offense is it? And even if it is, we don't live in a justice system that is meant to punish people before they have been convicted of a crime. Considering that the guy was headed straight over to the police to pay the ticket, I'd call that mission accomplished on the part of the cops. The boot got the ticket paid faster than even waiting to come back for it would have, so how exactly is arresting him following the spirit of the law? When you consider that nothing the man did could in itself be characterized as having criminal intent, why should he be treated as a criminal?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You're not a racist...but you view two obvious racists (from your description) approvingly and with respect. Yeah, people get bad ideas about your politics because they're eager to judge.
Here's the thing you apparently cannot understand: viewing one's self as 'something-American' and being a productive, contributing member of society are not by any means mutually exclusive concepts.
The 'victim mindset' is crap, yes. Recognizing ways in which one's society habitually victimizes people who look a certain way, on the other hand, is only crap if it's not true.
I do not believe that racism exists. One group of people dislikes another, not for their skin color (they may share the same skin color) but their culture. Race is not the issue when one of a given race dislikes others of the same race. It is about culture and mindset. African immigrants in America might have the same distaste for the ghetto mentality as a fifth generation German immigrant. No one would call a first generation African immigrant a racist for their views against African Americans when the bulk of their friends are African American. Racism should be replaced with culturism. I dislike the culture of illegitimate birth, fathers who do not take responsibility for their children and money is everything....watch a rap video, that is what I do not like. When I drive by the projects, I see fatherless families and hate the fathers who would abandon their children. It isn't about race, it's about responsibility. The so called protectors of minorities who created the welfare state created this problem. Race is a non issue. Most of my Jamaican neighbors friends are productive African Americans, although they hate niggers. Nigger does not mean an American of African decent. A nigger is equivalent to white trash. A nigger is a thug who impregnates without responsibility. My Jamaican neighbors make clear to me, it's not about color but mentality. Even Chris Rock hates "Niggers".
[ November 29, 2009, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I dislike the culture of illegitimate birth, fathers who do not take responsibility for their children and money is everything....watch a rap video, that is what I do not like.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I dislike the culture of illegitimate birth, fathers who do not take responsibility for their children and money is everything....watch a rap video, that is what I do not like.
You are correct. There is good rap. I stereotyped Will Smith with Lil John. My apologies for insinuating that all rap was bad...only 80% is about the worship of the dollar and victimization of women. There are white rappers as well. Not all rap is the mentality I speak of, but most is. Is stating the fact that all the attackers of 911 were followers of Islam make one a hater of Islam?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Meh, even 5 unpaid parking tickets is not a criminal offense is it?
Removing the boot is. So would damaging a parking meter, which is also city property.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, I understand that it is- I just don't think doing it that particular way is particularly criminalistic. Are you really arguing with that view?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I do not believe that racism exists. ... It is about culture and mindset.
I don't believe that cars exist. To me they're just trucks, sedans, SUVs, and other motor vehicles.
Unfortunately for you, Mal, not to mention every other conservative positive minded solipsist in the world, it's really not enough that *you* don't understand a concept well enough to believe that such a thing actually exists. It does exist. It, in itself, is a description of long known and observed behaviors among human beings, in regards to how a person's culture is conflated with their appearance, and in what ways other human beings make assumptions about culture, or even about a person's most basic humanity, based on appearance.
Again, this phenomenon does not require your understanding to be real. It is real. The reason I say "your understanding" rather than "your belief" is because you do not understand what racism actually is, well enough to understand whether you yourself believe it exists or not. The statements, "I don't believe racism exists" and "it's all about culture and mindset," are at odds with each other. Racism is deeply cultural- it is the rejection of other cultures and the people associated with them, allowing one culture to define another as inferior, and so draw similar conclusions about the people of other cultures themselves.
Ask yourself if this doesn't exist in what you lovingly refer to as "the real world:" a middle class Asian American guy walks up to a gas station window to ask directions. The guy behind the counter is from Pakistan or Afghanistan, and his English is very poor. He doesn't understand the American, and anyway he has suffered quite a bit in the past few years from personal hardships, so he yells at the guy to get lost, or he'll call the cops. The American guy walks away, and in his mind he processes the events. He knows nothing about the foreigner's situation, so perhaps he assumes the foreigner is lazy, or on drugs, or a criminal. He sees this all the time- the city is full of people like that from these middle eastern countries. Maybe there is something genetic about these middle easterners that makes them do all these terrible things to each other. That, Mal, is racism. Most racism is directed at no one in particular, is unorganized, unspoken, unacted upon. The Asian American will, from now on, make sure to stop at the gas station where the white guy runs the counter- and when he sees an Arab, he goes somewhere else. *He knows better than to deal with those people.* And in such a confined scenario, he is not even wrong insofar as he thinks about it at all.
I live in a city where practically the only time you would ever expect to see a black face at all will be on the street, in a tourist area, selling drugs. Otherwise blacks are British tourists, Americans, or too rarely locals with honest jobs. But it takes a person who has been educated, not just by his own experiences, and not just "in the real world," but yes, dammit, in books and studies, to see that the world's population of black people is not in itself defined by drug dealing in a small European country. The thing is, if you never went to school, and you lived in Central Europe, you would be *totally* justified in assuming that all black people, everywhere, are drug dealers. Practically speaking you'd be right most of the time in your limited world.
But there's the rub my friend, you'd still be wrong. You'd be ignorant, and you'd be wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: African immigrants in America might have the same distaste for the ghetto mentality as a fifth generation German immigrant.
Y'know who else has distaste for 'ghetto mentality'? The folks who actually live in a ghetto. Though I don't suppose that would be very persuasive to someone with the smug, comforting idea that everyone is in the place they deserve and want in life, because if they didn't they wouldn't be there.
quote: I do not believe that racism exists.
Of course it exists. How do I know? Because plenty of people - you, I suspect, for example, though you tailor your remarks carefully - dislike or disdain black people on sight, not on experience. And of course disliking someone's culture can also be racism if you don't harbor an equally strong and oft-mentioned disdain for that culture when other races exhibit it.
I don't hear you going on about trailer parks in this thread, which is just one reason why many folks are wondering if you're a racist. Sure, you can take the easy way out and think that it's the massive PC-culture that makes so many people think that way, or you could man up and wonder if maybe the problem is with you.
Drop the victim mindset, in other words.
quote: The so called protectors of minorities who created the welfare state created this problem.
Ugh, what stupidity. Don't you think that maybe literally hundreds of years of systematic oppression might have something to do with it, too? You're so incredibly narrow-minded. You take a span of five hundred years and say, "The only real problem is in the last thirty; the previous four-hundred and seventy don't matter anymore."
Humanity doesn't work that way. Human cultures don't work that way. The world doesn't work that way. While it's easy and lazy to assume it does, that doesn't make it true. You're a typical conservative white dude looking for post-facto explanations.
Oh, and for more recent history: the government does a helluva lot more to and 'for' minorities in this country than have a welfare state mentality for them. Just the easiest, most obvious example: crack vs. cocaine.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I just don't think doing it that particular way is particularly criminalistic.
I don't know what you mean by that. Deliberately and knowingly violating the law is criminal. Removing a boot fulfills both of those requirements.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think it's criminal, but I think it's stupid that to remove the boot and then return it to the dang government while repaying the fine is a criminal act. To remove and keep, destroy, or sell, sure. It smacks of, "You've irritated us, now we're sticking it to you." In fact that's pretty much the purpose of it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I was more than a little troubled by a detailed account of the returning of the boot. It may have been in the local student paper. Not sure -- I can go looking.
Regardless, it sounded like this wasn't a straightforward putting of it in a box and then taking it up to a desk. The box was first stashed in a hallway, then (presumably when it hadn't been noticed) moved to a central waiting room. It just didn't seem like the point of the exercise was to merely return the item and pay the fine, but more some sort of stunt to spark an uproar or prove a point.
If so, any sympathy I could have mustered would be rapidly drained away.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, it sounds to me as though there was perhaps something deliberately mischievous going on, too. Especially if it turns out that was the case, I'm fine with criminality here-just not *only* for taking it off and returning it while/after paying the fine, or in order to pay the fine.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think it's stupid that to remove the boot and then return it to the dang government while repaying the fine is a criminal act.
Look, you don't want a boot, pay your tickets. You get a boot, you have to play the game their way. And that means you pay the fine and wait for them to remove the boot.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Errr...yes, rivka, no one's disputing that. I'm saying the game is stupid and we should change the rules, not that because the game is stupid it should be acceptable to violate the rules with impunity.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm saying the game is stupid and we should change the rules
And I'm disagreeing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you were disagreeing with a point nobody was making (or at least not me).
Anyway, why do you disagree? Note I'm not objecting to the use of the boot at all, but to making it criminal to take it off if you're taking it off to go pay the fine. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But officer, I just took it off to pay the fine! Well, yeah, I haven't gotten there yet and it's been three weeks, but I was on my way, honest!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On a slight tangent, I will admit that most American blacks I have met (not a large sample) tend to put me off a bit, because they are often rather loud, and also to apparently believe that their private conversations are of interest to the entire street. A general trait in Americans, true, but for some reason I notice it particularly with black people.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree...I don't care WHAT they say, parking violations do NOT excuse stealing/preventing me from using my own property, which I have paid for and own.
I know that isn't what other people here are saying, but it's what I believe. I don't think boots are a good thing, nor would I have any problem removing one placed on my car, legal or not.
Just my 2 cents, of course.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But officer, I just took it off to pay the fine! Well, yeah, I haven't gotten there yet and it's been three weeks, but I was on my way, honest!
That obviously wouldn't count. Nice dodge, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So at what point would it be too long, in your view?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I don't think boots are a good thing
So you'd rather they went back to impounding vehicles with lots of unpaid tickets instead? Which was more expensive both for the car's owner and for the city, FYI.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The thing that bothers me about this, is that they guy was charged as a terrorist. That's the part I think indicates we've gone completely mental as a society.
We may disagree about whether what he did was criminally stupid or just regular stupid, but I think we can all pretty much agree that it is in a fundamentally different category from blowing up a federal building and killing hundreds of people or boarding a bus with a bomb strapped to your body.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The thing that bothers me about this, is that they guy was charged as a terrorist. That's the part I think indicates we've gone completely mental as a society.
Given the information I've seen so far, I agree. But I share CT's skepticism as to what actually happened and whether he was trying to cause
quote:some sort of stunt to spark an uproar or prove a point.
In that case, the charges might be reasonable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So at what point would it be too long, in your view?
Pretty much the end of that day, really. >24hrs.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Encoding that in law would be difficult (if not impossible), but I see your point.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I believe the exact charges were "terroristic mischief" and "possession of stolen property."
Also, I think I had it backwards. This isn't the same link I found before, which was more detailed, but the following gives some additional information. From the IndyStar'sPurdue senior accused of 'terroristic mischief':
quote: ... According to a university press release, three college-aged people entered the Visitor Information Center in the Northwestern Parking Garage with a package they placed in the lobby. They then moved the package to a hallway and left.
Police evacuated about 10 people from the building, then used a portable X-ray machine to examine the box, the release said.
The box contained a wheel lock, a parking ticket and $20.
People were allowed back inside around 9 a.m., the release said.
Purdue Parking Services had written the ticket found in the box and placed the wheel lock on Sun’s vehicle the previous day because the car allegedly displayed a parking permit that did not belong to him.
Purdue sophomore John Moore said he thought the incident was “crazy.”
“With the way things are now, I don’t know why anyone would try to make themselves look suspicious,” he said. “At least they checked it out and made sure everyone got out the building if it was really a threat.”
Under Indiana law, terroristic mischief is a Class C felony. It’s defined as knowingly or intentionally placing a device with the intent to cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a weapon of mass destruction. ...
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Racism is deeply cultural- it is the rejection of other cultures and the people associated with them
racism is deeply racial.
youre conflating race and culture.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course, the races that racists rail against don't exist, really. Even if one were making an argument for race, the boundaries drawn by racists don't line up. As such, saying it is about race doesn't make much sense. Especially as, for some strange reason, racism is a much greater problem in areas and times with greater socioeconomic (that is, cultural) tensions.
Or are you saying that cultural differences have no impact on racism at all?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Mmm. If you drew lines of equal population density for particular genes, you would presumably find that not only do genes cluster geographically, they correlate. Of course the lines would not be likely to correspond to the visible markers like skin colour, which perhaps is what you were speaking of?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
im saying the two dont go hand in hand. what O said, what i quoted, isnt true. if someone doesnt like blacks, that dislike remains regardless of the black persons socioeconomic status, affluence, culture or nationality. racism is discriminating against someone because of skin color. at best, culture is one in a long list of motivating factors for racial bigotry.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Encoding that in law would be difficult (if not impossible), but I see your point.
Not if we were to include some sort of electronic monitoring device that notes when the boot was removed. It'd be more expensive, sure-tack it onto the ticket cost.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, I'm sure that's politically feasible.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, I see, you just didn't understand the statement. That someone focuses their hate on a group of people defined by a simplified characteristic does not mean the hate does not grow out of culture.
In particular, pay attention to this bit:
quote:and the people associated with them
To many a racist, the people associated are designated mostly by skin color. Of course, there are numerous racists motivated by things other than skin color. For instance, you'll find lots of racists who want to discriminate against biological descendants of people with black skin, even if they themselves lack black skin. Anti-semitism is frequently classed as a kind of racism, and has nothing to do with skin color. You should read the link you gave; notice that it doesn't mention anything about skin color.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man rivka, that's twice you've shifted the conversation now. First was suggesting I said it was acceptable to violate the law because the law was stupid, and then responding as though I was talking about 'expedient' as opposed to 'should be done'. I'm not sure what I did to merit that sort of response.
Anyway, sticking it to lawbreakers happens all the time. It's happening now, with this whole boot business, some would say. Are voters really going to object to a measure that would inject more money into the economy at the expense of people who can't learn where to park?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
When I said that I thought encoding it in law would be difficult, I was including politically. Your failing to understand what I meant does not mean I have shifted the conversation. [Edit: If you wanted to say I was unclear, that would be another question. It's quite possible that I was.]
quote:Are voters really going to object to a measure that would inject more money into the economy at the expense of people who can't learn where to park?
I can't speak for your municipality, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't pass here, even if it made it on the ballot to begin with -- which I think would be politically difficult as well, since I can't see law enforcement being in favor of it either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright, that's fair. You were unclear, then.
Why would law enforcement be against it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Because the current system works pretty well (from what I've been told). And there needs to be strong reason to change it.
And because encouraging people to remove city property is a bad precedent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I certainly wouldn't consider this sort of change a priority or anything. Lots of other stuff would have to be running excellently before this would rise towards even the first volume of a to-do list.
I don't see why there needs to be a strong reason to change it, though, given that it's a completely arbitrary thing - how much we punish bad parking and in what way - and the change under discussion wouldn't actually lessen the amount of punishment by very much at all. In fact I suspect for many it would be greater, in the area of higher ticket amounts.
As for the bad precedent, that's not a slippery slope, and it's inaccurate in and of itself. It's a slippery slope because removing city property from one's own property only to use that property to return the city property would hardly encourage people to, say, make off with stop signs. It's inaccurate because it's not just removing city property, it's removing city property in order to return it faster, and pay a higher ticket fee for the privilege.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Racism is deeply cultural- it is the rejection of other cultures and the people associated with them
racism is deeply racial.
youre conflating race and culture.
Okay, why are we trying to find a logical and rational explanation of the behavior of a group that overall is by definition illogical and irrational?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Racism is not 'by definition' illogical or irrational, and you do your argument no favours by including the phrase. There are many possible worlds in which racism is quite logical and founded on strong empirical evidence, and even in this one it is by no means irrational to act on stereotypes in the absence of other information.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I just don't think doing it that particular way is particularly criminalistic.
I don't know what you mean by that. Deliberately and knowingly violating the law is criminal. Removing a boot fulfills both of those requirements.
Well, for starters the crime has no malicious intent, it has no damaging consequences, and it is not dangerous. The crime in no way impeded the police's ability to prosecute the tickets, and was even done with the specific intent of complying with the law, even if the person had to that point failed to comply.
Now, if the guy showed up yelling and screaming and throwing nickels at the front door, and tossing the boot on the ground and spitting on it, then I can see why the cops would arrest him, and why they would charge him with that crime- it would have a wholly different intent, wouldn't it?
But if the guy just showed up and turned over the boot, with no hostility, I can't see why the police would bother charging him at all. Of course, I would fully expect, given the actual turn out of the story, that the guy probably did a bit more than just turn over the boot.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Racism is deeply cultural- it is the rejection of other cultures and the people associated with them
racism is deeply racial.
youre conflating race and culture.
There were two sentences there, the second of which was the point, the first of which you quoted. If you read this sentence without reading the next one, I can see how you totally missed what I was saying, but otherwise, quoting the one sentence here without the other is just a douche move.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Are voters really going to object to a measure that would inject more money into the economy at the expense of people who can't learn where to park?
It's not "economy," its "city budget." One might as easily argue that this takes money *out* of the economy, though it doesn't really.
:slightly related:
Voters really would object if the search for income eventually invaded their privacy and went beyond the police mission of service and protection. For instance, I voted for a certain city council candidate in my small town who promoted a decrease in parking enforcement. I did this because more than twice, my car was ticketed spuriously while sitting either in my own driveway, or on the street in my secluded dead end road with no traffic- either for being over 12 inches from the curb (what curb?) or being parked in the the wrong direction (again, no danger there at all.
The times I was ticketed, I felt really violated that some local cop had driven out to the neighborhood and papered my car when there was no danger at all, but because the city wanted the money. I understand that my parking may have violated the letter of the law, but it did not violate the spirit of the law one iota. I maintain that's an important thing to consider.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Racism is not 'by definition' illogical or irrational, and you do your argument no favours by including the phrase. There are many possible worlds in which racism is quite logical and founded on strong empirical evidence, and even in this one it is by no means irrational to act on stereotypes in the absence of other information.
Explain some of these worlds where racism is logical.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh? Trivial: Genes for black skin genuinely do correlate with genes for lower IQ. Bing, it is entirely sensible to say "Blacks are not as smart as whites".
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh? Trivial: Genes for black skin genuinely do correlate with genes for lower IQ. Bing, it is entirely sensible to say "Blacks are not as smart as whites".
I thought that Asian-Americans used to score lower on IQ tests that European-descended Americans, back in the 50s, but that the gap no longer exists. Is this not true? I believe I read it in a book that refuted much of "The Bell Curve." Has anyone else read that?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh? Trivial: Genes for black skin genuinely do correlate with genes for lower IQ. Bing, it is entirely sensible to say "Blacks are not as smart as whites".
Except isn't measurements of IQ somewhat unreliable to truly determine the individual worth of human beings and thus a false assumption? And to what extent is this actually LOGICAL to from then step to that if they are not as smart are undeserving of equal rights, represenation, etc?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Here is a quote from Thomas Sowell, from the wiki:
"When European immigrant groups in the United States scored below the national average on mental tests, they scored lowest on the abstract parts of those tests. So did white mountaineer children in the United States tested back in the early 1930s... Strangely, Herrnstein and Murray refer to "folklore" that "Jews and other immigrant groups were thought to be below average in intelligence." It was neither folklore nor anything as subjective as thoughts. It was based on hard data, as hard as any data in The Bell Curve. These groups repeatedly tested below average on the mental tests of the World War I era, both in the army and in civilian life. For Jews, it is clear that later tests showed radically different results — during an era when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of American Jews."
Is this correct? Did American Jews have sudden large increases in average IQ scores, over a period of a few decades? Does anyone know?
KoM, do you actually research anything? Good God, with attitudes and ignorance like yours, it's not shocking that the pogroms, the Holocaust, and Bosnian ethnic cleansing happened. Racism is alive and well today in Europe, I see.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"many possible worlds"
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Here's some quote from the wiki on Thomas Sowell:
"In Intelligence and Ethnicity, Sowell demonstrates how IQ scores have risen among many groups, (see the Flynn effect). He notes that a number of white ethnic groups tallied poor scores as they began entry into the American urban economy. Jews, for example, scored dismally on Army intelligence tests during WWI, leading to assumptions that they were second rate citizens. Jewish IQ scores have risen steadily, and now they rank near the top. Similarly, IQ scores of East Asians were unimpressive in early measurements, but they rank high today. Sowell shows that black IQ progress has been concealed by the practice of statistical redefinitions, or "norming" of beginning measurement baselines. Thus an IQ score that might have been considered "normal" or "average" in 1960, is today considered below par. By recalculating from the original baselines, he demonstrates that not only blacks but entire nations have shown significant rises in IQ over time. He notes that the roughly 15-point gap in contemporary black-white IQ scores is similar to the gap between the national average and the scores of particular ethnic white groups in years past. Indeed similar gaps have been reported within white populations, such as Northern Europeans versus Southern Europeans. Sowell references some of these points in his criticism of the book The Bell Curve.[28] In short Sowell argues, IQ "gaps" are hardly startling or unusual between, and within ethnic groups. What is distressing he claims, is the sometimes hysterical response to the very fact of IQ research, and movements to ban testing in the name of "self-esteem" or "fighting racism." He argues however, that few would have known of black IQ progress if scholars like James Flynn had not undertaken allegedly "racist" research.[29]"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"Explain some of these worlds"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Eh? Trivial: Genes for black skin genuinely do correlate with genes for lower IQ. Bing, it is entirely sensible to say "Blacks are not as smart as whites".
Except isn't measurements of IQ somewhat unreliable to truly determine the individual worth of human beings and thus a false assumption? And to what extent is this actually LOGICAL to from then step to that if they are not as smart are undeserving of equal rights, representation, etc?
I should have said intelligence rather than IQ; further, you are equivocating on racism, which I was using to mean making judgements of intelligence or other personal characteristic from skin colour.
That said, the point remains equally valid if black skin were instead to correlate with, say, a tendency to defect in iterated prisoners' dilemmas, short time horizons, selfishness as measured by ultimatum games, or whatever other index of morality and personal worth you prefer.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, do you actually research anything? Good God, with attitudes and ignorance like yours, it's not shocking that the pogroms, the Holocaust, and Bosnian ethnic cleansing happened. Racism is alive and well today in Europe, I see.
I must say I do not see what I said to which this is a reasonable response. Perhaps you did not read the entire exchange you are responding to?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:KoM, do you actually research anything? Good God, with attitudes and ignorance like yours, it's not shocking that the pogroms, the Holocaust, and Bosnian ethnic cleansing happened. Racism is alive and well today in Europe, I see.
I must say I do not see what I said to which this is a reasonable response. Perhaps you did not read the entire exchange you are responding to?
It all makes sense now. Europeans are huge racists. I would never have thought it, but between the Holocaust and the Serbian ethnic cleansing, there's plenty of evidence for it.
When I was in college, I remember the members of the Dallas Symphony saying how Claus Peter Flor, the conductor, was kind of a Nazi, as in, "extremely anti-Jewish". I thought it was odd, seeing as how surely Europeans had grown beyond such nonsense by the 1990s...I just assumed that Mr. Flor was some kind of outlier.
Apparently not. Wow. I guess if you're surrounded by nothing but white people your whole life, and white people seem to run the world, you might assume that white people are somehow better/smarter. I don't have this problem, but I can see how it would happen, maybe.
To answer you MORE directly, KoM, the fact that you mentioned the IQ differences between American blacks and American whites AT ALL, and acted as if it's some kind of fixed quantity, says to me that you have a gigantic gap in your general knowledge about race. I have no such gap. I simply picked up the knowledge that IQ scores are extremely changeable, back when I was in college. I read The Bell Curve, and I read the articles and books refuting it, or at least skimmed them. Such information was all over the place. OTOH, you, who are probably at least as smart as I, and better-educated, simply are not conversant with this knowledge, so far as I can tell. I must ascribe this to general European racism, right?
[ November 30, 2009, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Steven, in your eagerness to pounce, you are not paying attention. KoM is, I am pretty sure, talking about imagined hypothetical worlds. Not necessarily (or even probably) this one.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Steven, in your eagerness to pounce, you are not paying attention. KoM is, I am pretty sure, talking about imagined hypothetical worlds. Not necessarily (or even probably) this one.
He is? Why would you assume that? I really can't imagine bringing up IQ differences in a discussion about race without automatically also mentioning the complete lack of validity of such testing in determining the relative intelligence of racial groups to each other. Given that, I don't see why he brought it up, unless he really had no idea about the data I mentioned.
I think he had no idea. Further, I think that he has such a shallow depth of knowledge on the subject because he, like probably nearly all Europeans, simply assumes that white Europeans are the smartest race, period. Based on where he grew up, I suppose I can see how such assumptions, wrong as they are, can exist.
I have encountered the data from racial IQ studies before, back when it was huge, in the mid 90s, just like KoM. The DIFFERENCE between him and me is composed of two parts:
1. American whites know that superficial generalizations about race are nearly always totally useless and incorrect. Our media, as well as the people ourselves, are much slower than Europeans to accept such generalizations. In Europe, such assumptions about race pass uncontested. No one would bother to publish The Bell Curve there. They all already believe in the higher intelligence of whites. Even if someone DID publish it, it wouldn't get discussed in the media or around the water cooler. It would be like discussing the wetness of water, to them. "Of course whites are smarter", they'd say. "Why write a whole book about something so OBVIOUS?".
2. I know plenty of very highly intelligent African-Americans. I know at least 1, maybe 2, that are almost certainly are smarter than I am. I'm already in the top 1% for intelligence anyway, according to my SAT scores, so the whole "whites are smarter" thing just doesn't fly with me. Someone like me would naturally, given my background and experience, look for data to refute The Bell Curve. Someone like KoM, with a different background, would simply say "of course whites are smarter" and not even bother to read The Bell Curve at all, let alone look more deeply into the issue.
KoM, I ask you, did you know about the data refuting the racial IQ studies or not?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:He is? Why would you assume that?
Because he said so rather explicitly.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... Further, I think that he has such a shallow depth of knowledge on the subject because he, like probably nearly all Europeans, simply assumes that white Europeans are the smartest race, period. Based on where he grew up, I suppose I can see how such assumptions, wrong as they are, can exist.
Making assumptions sure seems like a European thing.
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... American whites know that superficial generalizations about race are nearly always totally useless and incorrect. Our media, as well as the people ourselves ...
Stupid generalizations! Why do they make so many generalizations! Angry! Hulk smash!
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
So*, judging by the way this thread has devolved. The answer to the question I originally asked in the title would appear to be "Yes".
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Steven, reading comprehension must not have been a part of the SAT when you took it, if you truly did score in the top 1%.
Here's a summary for you.
1) Blayne claimed that racism is inherently irrational. 2) KOM stated that it is not inherently irrational, as there are hypothetical worlds in which racism is quite rational. 3) Blayne asks for an example of such a hypothetical world. 4) KOM suggests a hypothetical world in which skin color correlates to IQ. 5) You then jump on KOM for claiming that skin color correlates to IQ. 6) Several times people try and tell you that you've misunderstood KOM. 7) You continue to attack KOM for claiming something he never did. 8) Xavier gets to work on Monday after a long weekend and simply must post because someone is wrong on the internet.
Edit:
9) Xavier goes and reads sakeriver later that morning, and laughs when he finds steven's post about this thread there.
[ November 30, 2009, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Steven, pretend that KoM was talking about a twilight zone episode where the green people were all smarter than the purple people. That intelligence was connected to the green gene. In such an imaginary, hyporthetical world, racism (believing that green people are smarter) would not be illogical.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:He is? Why would you assume that?
"There are many possible worlds in which racism is quite logical and founded on strong empirical evidence...."
You're building this argument on a foundation of sand, steven. As I very much suspect others will note on the next page.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was right!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, I ask you, did you know about the data refuting the racial IQ studies or not?
Well yes. As others have noted, I was making the rather anodyne point that racism is not 'by definition' illogical, as Blayne was claiming. All I objected to was the argument 'by definition'; I'm trying to help Blayne's arguing skills. The definition of 'racism' does not include 'inherently illogical', although a modern dictionary would likely call it outmoded or disproved. But in any case arguing from the dictionary does not help anyone's cause.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Perhaps, in fairness to Blayne, he was getting at the logic underlying the most popular and traditional definitions of particular examples of human races. I think there'd be a relatively good argument saying that such races are defined illogically.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Perhaps you can strike an easy middle ground and say that modern racism, when not springing from pure ignorance, is largely based on false assumptions and a poor application of logical thinking. If one has enough information about race and other races, the logical basis for racism begins to evaporate.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:KoM, I ask you, did you know about the data refuting the racial IQ studies or not?
Well yes.
Really? When did you find out about them? When I posted about them?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I can see that you're not going to admit to any mistakes. Arguing with someone whose premises are mistaken is rarely productive, so good day to you, sir.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Steven, do you acknowledge that KOM made absolutely no claims on correlation between race and IQ in the world in which we live?
[ November 30, 2009, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Steven, dude, you're looking really silly here. You went nuts on KoM for things, it turned out, he had never said at all in the first place, and now you're suggesting that because he didn't contradict the argument he didn't make after he made it, he didn't know about it at all until you mentioned it?
My head hurts.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm bumping this because I'm curious to see whether Steven is man enough to admit he made a mistake.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
This thread has gone mental. It's jumped the shark. It's whack.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'm bumping this because I'm curious to see whether Steven is man enough to admit he made a mistake.
I make mistakes all the time. So what?
I admit, I have kind of a knee-jerk reaction when people start talking about race and IQ. I also don't really have a big problem with my own knee-jerk reaction. It is what it is. Most white people don't grow up with the same exposure to black people as me. I have a lot more direct experience. I feel that it's my place to bring that experience to bear at the appropriate time. Sometimes I might jump the gun, but I still think there were some people who read the thread who learned something new when I posted, and that's so much more important than scoring points off you.
In other words, I don't care if I win. That's the difference between me and some others. I care more about finding and sharing core truth(s), if such a thing exists. Many others are so stuck in their own patterns of belief or skepticism that they lose focus on the goal of finding the truth. He who seeks diligently is more likely to find.
It isn't about winning arguments, or at least not first and foremost. Yes, I like to debate, but I'm always hoping that my opponents will throw some facts at me that I haven't run across. That's why I debate, I think. Also good is when I can throw some new-to-them facts back at them.\
You have taught me very little, except that you hate religious people, and love video games. Wow. I mean, that's fine and all, but there's more to life than page after page of abusing kateboots, et al, and hours upon hours of Command and Conquer, etc. Not that I don't indulge in the occasional bit of religion-bashing or gaming. They have their place. You, however, waste your life with them. It's your prerogative.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Wow, even the racist, red herring throwing Malanthop will just sit back and watch this one. Political Correctness sucks doesn't it? Political correctness destroys reality based communication. Tucson may as well be considered racist for saying Seattle has a lot of rain because everyone knows, it rains in Tucson as well. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*sigh* Far be it from me to say that KoM is likeable, but steven, dude...a 'dang, my bad. sorry about that' is what's called for here, not a rant about how he's a jerk.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Steven, welcome to your initiation. King of Men named himself as such for complete irony. His name makes me smile for it's ironic value and he does have a religion free perspective. I have enjoyed my interactions with him.
No one here will discuss racial IQ data. If they will, they will suggest the test is racially biased. You are yet to find the boundaries of appropriate discussion. Skin color is undeniable but when it comes to differences between races, it is only appropriate to point out positive differences.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I make mistakes all the time. So what?
Did you, or didn't you, utterly misunderstand what I was saying?
Mal, what the devil are you on about now?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
KoM,
Thank you for leading me to research more of the thread. While I stand firm when it comes to realistic data in regards to minorities, I don't have an axe to grind with any race. In the future I will look further into the conversation before interjecting. Sorry for my assumption,...I can spot an ant-semite when one arises.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I make mistakes all the time. So what?
Did you, or didn't you, utterly misunderstand what I was saying?
I didn't even read any of the previous page at all, to be honest. I don't care, either. The studies I prevented are extremely relevant to the topic, and clearly noone had mentioned them. I think you're missing my point, though. I don't care who wins this. Win it if you want. You're obscuring the facts by focusing on winning, but I'm not that motivated to stop you. I care about presenting useful facts when they haven't been previously presented. That is my ultimate goal here, to learn and reveal truth.
Let's assume that you actually were aware of the studies I linked to. It looked like you were going to go through post after post to even get around to mentioning them, and I saw no reason for a long, drawn-out discussion. You cannot convince people. You can present facts, and let them figure it out for themselves. That's my thought, anyway. Or, to put it another way, I don't have the patience to teach people what to do with facts. Perhaps you do. Great, but the people here are, or should be, smart enough to figure it out themselves, once presented with the facts. If they are not, they do not deserve help, in my view. Or, to put it another way, I won't be giving it. I suck at such, anyway.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Mal, you are not making sense.
Steven, you are still misunderstanding what I was doing, possibly deliberately. I was not discussing race and IQ issues, in which case your studies would have been relevant. I was discussing hypotheticals, logical versus empirical possibility, and what it means to be true "by definition".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
steven,
quote:I didn't even read any of the previous page at all, to be honest. I don't care, either. The studies I prevented are extremely relevant to the topic, and clearly noone had mentioned them. I think you're missing my point, though. I don't care who wins this. Win it if you want. You're obscuring the facts by focusing on winning, but I'm not that motivated to stop you. I care about presenting useful facts when they haven't been previously presented. That is my ultimate goal here, to learn and reveal truth.
I don't believe you. Of course you wanted to win. When you thought you were winning, you went elsewhere and crowed about it, remember? Or did you think that wasn't noticed? If your motivation was so much to bring knowledge to the participants in the thread aside from KoM, it's likely you would've at least noticed when so many people were saying, "Hey, steven, you've got things wrong, slow down!"
Of course you also don't get credit for not being concerned with stopping KoM, since you don't have that ability at all anyway. I might as well get credit for not focusing on being upset I can't stop it from raining today.
quote:Great, but the people here are, or should be, smart enough to figure it out themselves, once presented with the facts.
Here's a fact: KoM did not say what you initially objected to, and thus all of your later posts that were built on the foundation of objecting to what he said were fundamentally flawed in a big way. Another fact is that now, instead of recognizing this mistake, you're working hard to build a framework where it wasn't really a mistake at all, because it was never a priority of yours to respond to what is actually said, and you're doing a public service.
You're not doing a public service. You're covering your own behind, and I'm not even sure you know it, man.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think the problem here is a confusion over the central irrationality of racism. The central problem of racism is not that races need to be statistically equal. Rather, the central problem of racism is when we take generalities about a race and apply them to individual members of that race.
I'll use Middle Earth as an example, since it will probably be less offensive. (Apologies in advance to any Elves or Hobbits on this forum.) In Middle Earth, it was statistically true that Hobbits were less adventurous than Elves. Making such a claim would not be irrational. However, it would be irrational to then flatly assume that Frodo is not adventurous because he's a Hobbit. That, applying the generality of a race to an individual, is the fundamental irrationality of racism.
So, I'd say it doesn't matter that much if one race is found to be statistically better at IQ tests than another race. The important thing is that we don't then take that statistic and start assuming that person X or person Y is less smart because of their race.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The funny thing, steven, is that you clearly do care enough about how you look in this thread to create an entirely different post hoc rationalization for your participation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think the problem here is a confusion over the central irrationality of racism. The central problem of racism is not that races need to be statistically equal. Rather, the central problem of racism is when we take generalities about a race and apply them to individual members of that race.
No, Tres, the problem is that generalities about people only appear valid because they are linked to people's races. There are many generalities about people not tied to their appearance, and so they go unnoticed, or ascribed to causes other than inheritance. Racism is born out of the most classic misappropriation of science.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)