posted
Well AchillesHeel, you are the one extolling the virtues of prejudging people you've never met on the basis of what you've heard about them from others. Not even intimate friends whose trustworthiness you can rely on, but coworkers in a convenience store who, statistically speaking, are likely to harbor a decent number of thieves themselves.
Given that, why so critical of someone being judgmental of you? Perhaps Kwea has heard plenty of stories not to trust people who make sweeping generalizations of people they've never met based on second-hand (at best) information.
posted
Wow, that reply wouldn't even be considered in America. If I were going to rent my house to someone, I would require a credit check. Black-white-brown, whatever...you pass...you win.
Not all Africans where you live are illegal aliens. I wouldn't rent to an illegal alien or a leach on society...hence the credit check. Pass the credit check, get the room. Even where you live, LEGAL Africans have a right to rent. I wouldn't automatically assume they are illegitimate.
If they are illegal or leaches, they wont submit to the check and filter themselves out.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention that you were BRAGGING about being rude, stating it as if it was OBVIOUSLY the right thing to do, or at least a good thing when you do it.
Just because you find something rude doesn't give you the right to try and scare them, and doing so is a complete act of idiocy. The fact that you are proud of it only makes it worse.
I don't like ignorant people, and your post came across as highly ignorant for several reasons. Feel free to try and scare me for calling you out over it if you want though.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Unless you seriously think AH fears the Romani ethnicity rather than the gypsy lifestyle, I think your outrage is uncalled for. If he said he doesn't trust cholos, would you correct him to say that they should properly be called Mexicans?
How exactly does my reply bespeak outrage? And in what way am I not clear that I understand AH's mistake and am attempting to correct it factually.
You also, apparently, have a poor understanding of what we're talking about. "Cholos" and "Mexicans" is not a good analogy. The difference between a Rom, and what Americans think of as a "gypsy," is that The Roma are an ethnic group, and gypsies, in American parlance, are travelers of any kind, usually grifters or con-men. The second meaning follows from the first, but is not dependent upon it. In the way that all "cholos" are presumed to be Mexicans, "gypsy" in America is not concommitant with "Roma."
I know who gypsies are -- you've mentioned it repeatedly, and besides, you're not the only one here who's lived in Europe. And it's clear AH was referring to the American definition of gypsies rather than the ethnicity. So why is your response to his post that Europeans connote the Roma with gypsies? How is that possibly relevant to a fairly easy rebuttal to AH's assertion that he'll never trust gypsies? And how do you think it's a recyclable argument to turn on me?
In any case, you completely ignored the thrust of my earlier post. Being a gypsy is, and must be, distinguished from being Romani. Unless you really believe that all Roma people are gypsies, what's the purpose of marrying the two terms? If you're determined that "gypsy" should mean "anyone of the Romani ethnicity," then what term would you use to describe characteristics of the American-defined gypsy lifestyle?
Again, I'd argue that the homeless lifestyle that Americans define as gypsy is a social culture just as thug culture in the States or chav culture in the UK. And on those terms, it's perfectly acceptable to repudiate characteristics of the lifestyle. That's clearly what AH was referring to, and that's an argument you have yet to address.
Btw, out of interest, why are you angry with me? I honestly can't remember offending you.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |