The University of Delaware had a mandatory program for all residence hall students that evaluated their positions on a variety of issues and attempted to ensure that all students have views in line with those of the extreme left wing.

The "shocking program of ideological reeducation," which the school itself defines as a "treatment" for students' incorrect attitudes and beliefs, is nothing less than "Orwellian," FIRE said.

The school requires its approximately 7,000 residence hall students "to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism."

For instance:
A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people
and
Requirements for students include: "Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society," "Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression," and "Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality," FIRE said.


The foundation said students even are "pressured or even required" to make social statements that meet with the school's approval.
after an investigation showed that males demonstrated 'a higher degree of resistance to educational efforts,' the Rodney complex chose to hire 'strong male RAs.' Each such RA 'combats male residents' concepts of traditional male identity,' in order to 'ensure the delivery of the curriculum at the same level as in the female floors.'

Anyone found to have thoughts not in synch with the leftist university party line was sentenced to "treatment" to cure them of their thought crimes.
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8555.html?PHPSESSID=ef9d0db44f2593676f9d9a32116590 ce
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426
The good news is, after just a couple days of this travesty becoming public, the university caved and has discontinued the program.
Late Thursday, University of Delaware President Patrick Harker released on the school’s website a Message to the University of Delaware Community terminating the university’s ideological reeducation program, which FIRE condemned as an exercise in thought reform. He stated, “I have directed that the program be stopped immediately. No further activities under the current framework will be conducted.” Harker also called for a “full and broad-based review” of the program’s practices and purposes.

Higher education in America has become a cesspool of ideological indoctrination. Why this surprises people anymore is beyond me. Visit a college campus. They exist on plains of reality not generally connected to the rest of the nation (or the world). The good news is, the "conservative media," for all its ills now exists to point this junk out to people, whereas 20 years ago, the sane among us would have had to suffer in silence.

How terrible to be forced to consider that people are all the same.

How terrible to be forced to consider that people are all the same.
Except for whites, who are all racists.

" A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people"

I hope that's a misquote.

I think all the whites who seem to be racist should go to a different university out of respect for the minorities there.

I think all the whites who seem to be racist should go to a different university out of respect for the minorities there.
Good idea. We should also stop sending our racist public funds to support the university. We don't want the university tainted by money from an inherently racist system.

How terrible to be forced to consider that people are all the same.

Did you think before you said that, or did you just pound away on the keyboard? Yes, it's ALWAYS terrible to be "forced" to think anyway. People should be free to be liberal, racist, religious, Nazis, whatever. It's the job of the university to provide the information which, hopefully, will open minds; it's NOT the job of the university to start administering litmus tests or worse, to start attempting to indoctrinate people to a specific ideology.

Also, only a fool would subscribe to the notion that "all people are the same." All people are not. All people SHOULD have the same rights, but people are born very, VERY much different. Some are quite inferior, and others are obviously superior in many ways. Only in our insipidly liberal society is it a faux pas to actually point out the blatantly obvious.

~String

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/31/whats-wrong-with-the-university-of-delaware-update-the-school-responds/

Typically, Delaware denied that the program is compulsory. But visit the above site, and read the material in their 'voluntary' re-education program. What a load of bullshit. I'm stunned that the University thinks it can get away with such nonsense.

S.A.M:

Originally Posted by S.A.M.
How terrible to be forced to consider that people are all the same.


Yes, how terrible it is when organisations with an agenda attempt to actively force a person to adopt certain subjective beliefs and opinions! Good golly, that sounds similar to something I read in Orwell. What was it again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimestop

Oh man, get a load of this:

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/31/whats-wrong-with-the-university-of-delaware-update-the-school-responds/

“Have you ever heard a well-meaning white person say, ‘I’m not a member of any race except the human race?’ What she usually means by this statement is that she doesn’t want to perpetuate racial categories by acknowledging that she is white. This is an evasion of responsibility for her participation in a system based on supremacy for white people.” - Page 8


So let me get this straight:

- If a 'white' person claims that race exists, they are racist. Because race is an artifical construct invented by colonial powers to justify oppression of non-whites.

- If a 'white' person claims that race does not exist, they are racist. This is because they are trying to 'evade their responsibility' for being a big bad whitey.

I mean, WTF? It's a lose/lose situation.

What's funny is how they use the term 'white', although 'white' in itself is often regarded as a race. So on one hand, they claim that race does not exist. Except when we need to group all of the white race together to bitch about them.

* Note how they use the pronoun 'She'. LOL!


“Under Moorish rule, Spain had been the center of European culture. The Moors built 11 universities, thousands of book stores, hot and cold running water perfumed with roses, and a system of public baths for poor as well as rich. Moorish cities were centers of trade with Africa and Asia. Jewish people flourished during the Moorish empire; they had major roles in education and commerce, and were treated more justly than at any other time in European history.”

I guess Poland doesn't count? :rolleyes:

" A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people"

I hope that's a misquote.

No, not really. The problem, though, is that such specific definitions, in order to foster such septic conservative outrage and infect otherwise rational people with grotesquely misbegotten fears, must be recklessly applied.

Consider, please, on the one hand, Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s joke in Hocus Pocus that, once they'd divvied up the prisons by race, they realized they had left a few groups out. Thus, Asians were sent to white prisons, and considered "honorary white people".

It's a subtle joke, I admit, but strikes me as hilarious. After all, I'm Asian enough to be considered an Asian-American, but I've been raised entirely in the white culture. I might look at this strange definition and try to except myself on the obscure point that I grew up no more at home among hostile white children than a half-white black friend of mine. And yes, I chose those words deliberately. Because even though I've been beaten for looking too Asian, that was as a child, and even though I don't hear of many hate crimes against adults with freckles, much of that took place at a time when kids were beating one another for freckles, having curly hair. ("Havin' nigger hair!" I once heard, and a fight quickly ensued. The funny thing, in retrospect, is that, while the curls were tight, indeed, these days I'd probably expect some sort of faggot joke about that haircut. Anyway, I digress.)

When a cop pulls me over for a suspected DUI, I heard, "Good evening, sir. License, registration please? Proof of insurance? Do you know why I stopped you this evening, sir?" When my half-white black friend gets pulled over for running a yellow light, it's, "Driver, step out of the vehicle!"

The truth of the matter is that I do benefit from the white supremacist system. And, like most of my racist neighbors, I haven't really done much about that system except benefit from it. The only real problem I have with such a definition is that, if it is taken out of its proper context--and the basis of our discussion, this topic, reflects one of those improper contextual shifts--it can legitimize severe behavior. I do think there is a difference between those of us who haven't thrown away every principle, virtue, or value we ever learned or were taught, and those who seek to regularly exploit and sharpen the imbalance.

I'm not prepared to destroy everything for this. I'm not prepared to throw away every scrap of progress over this. If the revolution comes, I'll pick a side, but for f@ck's sake, there are better ways. In the abstract, they're worth it. One of them, my favorite, is to simply not worry about any of it. I wish I could convince the dedicated, proactive, and even militant racists, homophobes, sexists, &c. how much more enjoyable the realities of their lives will be when they decide to stop worrying about such useless crap. But that's a little bit harder to pull off than it sounds in the query letter. In treatment form, it seems script development will be constant insofar as, whether direct or functional or otherwise, progress occurs, qualitatively and quantitatively, according to predictable vector dynamics.

It always seems that way. And rarely, if ever, is it actually that way. This is what the teenage years were for, people. Seriously. I learned it then. I learned what it meant sometime later. The magnitude is what caught me. The permeating effect. But the point is that I can figure it out. One would think those with degrees and careers, whose intelligence and wisdom is, comparatively, affirmed, should understand it. Or, to be less selective about it, those who think they know better than I. What? It's not a crime to think you know better than I. All I'm after is that more people should recognize some form of what I'm talking about.

Because it really is simple enough to realize that I ought not feel guilty for failing to figure out the solution. Any solution in this case necessarily involves implementation, and if the human species is thus far incapable of repeating simple technology consistently enough to deliver clean, potable water to every human being on the planet, something so considerably more intricate and subtle, with no immediate manifestations to signal success, presents tremendous challenges in identifying, naming, and describing.

I'm sorry I'm not up to it. In the meantime, the least I can do is try to pay attention. It really is a low-maintenance regard for the issues. And it helps to bear in mind that the fact that one acquires certain information should not inherently suggest one knows what to do with it.

We should also remember that history, while not a precise body of information, does obey certain principles. For instance, one could easily suggest that, had the whole economic settling that took place through the era of white supremacy and internationalization--a period that, technically, continues today--taken place without the ethnic-racial identity politics of justification, history could have seen exploitation along ethnic lines but made no specific judgments. To the other, though, the process would necessarily have run differently. The ethnic condemnations exist as justifications. If our social character had evolved so differently as to not require justification, the character and very nature of our species would also be different. It's hard to figure what other lines might have been drawn; by the time of the American slavery crisis, the age of the barbarians had passed. Language was not sufficient to dehumanize. Religion was, but in those wars you could, technically, convert. Sort of. But skin color ... that's pretty obvious to the superstitious mind seeking stronger justification for what it otherwise would consider greater evil.

So we are, essentially, stuck with what is, including those parts we cannot easily see or recognize.

In the meantime, 'tis best to not distress ourselves with such broad definitions of racism. The idea is obscure for its (oxymoronic) specific generality, and not intended for casual use.

• • •


Yes, it's ALWAYS terrible to be "forced" to think anyway.

Who's forcing them to go to college? Who is forcing them to spend money they don't have for a degree? A public university, obviously, cannot make everyone happy. What everyone is panicking about is an idea that is, once you grasp it, shockingly familiar. In fact, it's obvious. It is not presently the job of high schools to make people look at reasons why. That's something for the fancier education. So why, when getting that higher education, should one object to its purpose?

I once wrote something about the fact that many students are shocked when, in college, they are exposed to the truth of the historical record. I can't believe the Myth of Southern Reconstruction still kicks. It's still a bit strange to think of the fight on behalf of the Columbus myth. The public discussion about Thomas Jefferson's illegitimate offspring has never, that I've witnessed, tread in useful territory. Of course, I haven't really looked. It's just that whenever I come across it, it's about the scandal aspect. Who cares? I think that makes for a great essay question: Describe Thomas Jefferson's state of mind as he was banging a Negro slave.

The whole point is that you are supposed to look at history in a certain way. And every nationalist trend exploits that way for political traction, but there is a fundamental truth about any story. And history is a story.

Nothing ever begins.

There is no first moment; no single word or place from which this or any other story springs.

The threads can always be traced back to some earlier tale, and to the tales that preceded that; though as the narrator's voice recedes the connections will seem to grow more tenuous, for each age will want the tale told as if it were of its own making.

Thus the pagan will be sanctified, the tragic become laughable; great lovers will stoop to sentiment, and demons dwindle to clockwork toys.

Nothing is fixed. In and out the shuttle goes, fact and fiction, mind and matter woven into patterns that may have only this in common: that hidden among them is a filigree that will with time become a world.

(Clive Barker)

Reminding students specifically that civilized society, like life, is unfair doesn't seem very Orwellian. I understand why, politically, at least, it makes certain folks uncomfortable. Nobody wants the burden of openly arguing that engineered injustice is a natural necessity.

but people are born very, VERY much different. Some are quite inferior, and others are obviously superior in many ways. Only in our insipidly liberal society is it a faux pas to actually point out the blatantly obvious.

Sincerely, where does this one come from? Because the only time I ever run into this version of equality, it is someone arguing against a liberal argument that I've never actually heard.

Er ... from a liberal.

How terrible to be forced to consider that people are all the same.


I wasn't aware that India had abolished the caste system?

The University of Delaware had a mandatory program for all residence hall students that evaluated their positions on a variety of issues and attempted to ensure that all students have views in line with those of the extreme left wing.


For instance:

and



Anyone found to have thoughts not in synch with the leftist university party line was sentenced to "treatment" to cure them of their thought crimes.
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8555.html?PHPSESSID=ef9d0db44f2593676f9d9a32116590 ce
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426
The good news is, after just a couple days of this travesty becoming public, the university caved and has discontinued the program.

Again, I wish conservatives would also be uproared over the patriotic tripe that is handed out as american history to CHILDREN. Children being much more vulnerable and manipulatible.

It sounds from your post like UD is doing something just plain wrong.

But it never bothered conservatives when children were brainwashed and given very slanted views of history. That is considered natural.

I can remember one kid asking the teacher why GW was such a great general since it seemed like he mostly retreated and had this one big victory where he attacked on Christmas. Something that didn't seem fair to the kid. He got blasted. I mean yelled at. And this was not some wise ass. He was good student and he was disturbed by what he had read OUTSIDE THE TEXTBOOOK. Anyone raising questions about Manifest Destiny, the righteousness of annexation of Texas, interventions in S>A, and so on was blasted. But the real problem was not what happened when anyone questioned, it was the fact that we as small children mostly did not know to question or had been long since trained not to question what teachers said.

And not one Goddam conservative ever gave a shit about any of this.

But you have your nuts in a pretzel over how adults are being brainwashed.

University students aren't vulnerable to manipulation? Especially the green ones straight out of high school? Give me a break.

But I do understand what you are saying, Granty. Children should not be indoctrinated into a conservative belief system. Political and religious protelyzing should remain outside the classroom

I wasn't aware that India had abolished the caste system?

They have, and in fact, they have a rigorous affirmative action mechanism in place that is more far-reaching than anything in the USA.

~String

They have, and in fact, they have a rigorous affirmative action mechanism in place that is more far-reaching than anything in the USA.

~String


String,

I don't know you well enough to tell whether your being sarcastic or not.

I guess you are.

Who's forcing them to go to college? Who is forcing them to spend money they don't have for a degree? A public university, obviously, cannot make everyone happy.

A good point and I would agree with you wholeheartedly if this were a private institution. But its a university that's funded by all those tax dollars from nasty white racists.

So why, when getting that higher education, should one object to its purpose?

The university should offer this concept as part of a class that can be taken. Just because this ridiculous brainwashing meshes with liberalism doesn't make it right to force it upon every student who walks on campus. Yes, I do indeed benefit from a system that has been built to better white men for ages. It's perfectly acceptable to expose me to this notion in a civics, history, philosophy, or economics class, it is not acceptable to foist the notion on me that, simply by existing within that system, I'm somehow a racist. Moreover, if I'm to be exposed to this left-wing indoctrination, I should be given some counterbalance to this idea as well as educated as to the strides this nation has made in creating equality. And while the college is at it, it might want to start exploring other racial issues like, why even in racially mixed and wealthy communities with racially balance educational staffs (like certain universities, and school districts like... say... Shaker Heights, Ohio) why black students still account for the most drop-outs, score the lowest on tests and end up in detention at rates far exceeding white or Asian students-- even despite economic parity within the community. (I know by even knowing and acknowledging this, I'm a horrible racist)

One cannot attempt to hold white bad people accountable for their misdeeds (which, apparently, all whites must pay for /answer for as a community) without calling out the current misdeeds of minorities (which, if whites have to suffer for all the crimes of all white people, it should only be fair to call this out to the entire "black" or "Hispanic" community).

~String

excellent post above.

re: They have, and in fact, they have a rigorous affirmative action mechanism in place that is more far-reaching than anything in the USA.

~String

the caste system was abolished decades ago. yet even with government programs like the one you mentioned, the culture of the caste system exists.

i know a guy whose father forbade to marry a girl from a lower caste. that was as recent as 2002. and he's from Mumbai, which is a large city, and large cities tend to be more progressive.

the caste system is alive and well, even if the State says it isn't.

Seems that after the University's review was conducted they determined that FIRE was wrong about a bunch of its claims. From the University's letter to FIRE:

Your letter asserts a number of conclusions that can be supported by a selective citation of documents, but are not actualized. The idea that students are “required to adopt university approved views” on the issues listed is not a goal of this institution or of the residence life department. This type of goal is both highly undesired and wholly unattainable. Students are challenged to express themselves as free-thinking citizens. The indoctrination you speak of serves no educational purpose and does not exist as part of a systematic effort on this campus. I assume that you have noted the absence of any policy, rule, or regulation pertaining to your concerns about disciplinary action being taken against students for unwillingness to be changed in the manner that you describe.

There is in fact a program within the residence halls that engages students in self –examination of the roles they hope to take in society. This effort is consistent with the mission of the University which states, “Our graduates should know how to reason critically and independently…communicate clearly in writing and speech, and develop into informed citizens and leaders.” The program is designed to encourage students to think about and to consider a number of issues, but all make their own decisions about the outcome of this reflection. FIRE’s assertion that students are told what to think is inaccurate. In common with FIRE, our institution values free speech, active voice, and open dialogue. We believe that students learn and grow in part by engaging in significant discussions on both sides of the classroom door.


http://www.udel.edu/PR/response/

Looking at the competencies materials from the program provided on the FIRE web site it seems pretty clear that students were asked to consider their feelings on these subjects and discuss them not to accept any given belief system.

Now most educational materials derived by professional educators are poorly written and pretty worthless so I wouldn't doubt that students might be implenting them in all kinds of ways that are contrary to the intent of the program, but I don't see how this program is an attempt at thought-control. Just another crappy residential life program similar to what goes on in schools all around the country. If I remember correctly my school had one, which I never bothered to attend.

I agree that sounds really stupid.

Do you still basically get extra points towards admission for not being white in the american university system?

I don't think that's the official policy any more, but the alter of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" still runs strongs in the thoroughly Marxist college and university systems in the states. That is, if you come from a certain background, have a certain name or certain skin tone, you will probably be selected ahead of a white male with similar grades and test scores. This is even true in the workplace, in particular with the American government. They even have minority outreach programs at places like the NSA and CIA.

It's the same in the place I work. On a poster on the wall I am absolutely 100% sure they have made sure to have included a smiling face from one of every ethnic minority they could possibly think of so their asses don't get sued.

How terrible to be forced to consider that people are all the same.

We are not all the same and rest assured this university isn't going to tell people that "minorities" are racist as well or that blacks commit 90% of interracial crime.

I don't think that's the official policy any more, but the alter of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" still runs Strong's in the thoroughly Marxist college and university systems in the states. That is, if you come from a certain background, have a certain name or certain skin tone, you will probably be selected ahead of a white male with similar grades and test scores. This is even true in the workplace, in particular with the American government. They even have minority outreach programs at places like the NSA and CIA.

The company I work for has a motto that's attached to all memos, "We value a diverse workplace!"

Although they don't have specific quotas of whom I should have, the guideline is: my staff needs to look like the community it serves (which I agree with and let's face it, we're bound to do better business if the community sees us as part of it). My store is in a community that is roughly 20% black, 30% Hispanic, 40% white, 10% mixed & other. Recently, though, my visiting HR-VP told me that I didn't have enough blacks working at my store and that I should, at the very least, be hiring the same percentage of the race that applies (i.e. if 50% of my applicants are Asian, then I better higher 50% Asian). The only issue is this: I have no way of knowing the race of people when they apply beyond the obvious stereotypical names (I've never met a white LaShonda or a black Trevor). So, now I and my fellow managers (luckily one is black two are Hispanic) are forced to hire people that we truly don't find capable of doing the job, passing up people we think would be solid employees, which is the height of stupidity.

~String

If that's not racism then what is?

Personally, String, I don't care who sells me what I want in a store. The job of most retail employees is functionary, and so long as they perform the function I could care less about their background.

An interesting excercise would be to flip your proscription, which I know is not really "yours," and apply it to a suburban setting. If suburban whites go to Wendy's or Target or something, do they expect/want to see other suburban whites handing them their fries or assisting them with durable goods?

Personally, String, I don't care who sells me what I want in a store. The job of most retail employees is functionary, and so long as they perform the function I could care less about their background.

An interesting excercise would be to flip your proscription, which I know is not really "yours," and apply it to a suburban setting. If suburban whites go to Wendy's or Target or something, do they expect/want to see other suburban whites handing them their fries or assisting them with durable goods?

Heavens NO, Counte! That would be racism!

~String

Recently, though, my visiting HR-VP told me that I didn't have enough blacks working at my store and that I should, at the very least, be hiring the same percentage of the race that applies (i.e. if 50% of my applicants are Asian, then I better higher 50% Asian).That's bullshit. You actually do it? That's the kind of idiotic crap I'd ignore. How would your VP know what percent of each race applied for jobs? Perhaps you should ask the VP if you could add a section on the employment application for race so that you could better impliment his race based hiring scheme. Although I'm pretty sure that would be illegal.

I usually make a point to tick the "other" or "don't wish to say" boxes on that bit in forms. It's just pure racism.

That's bullshit. You actually do it? That's the kind of idiotic crap I'd ignore. How would your VP know what percent of each race applied for jobs? Perhaps you should ask the VP if you could add a section on the employment application for race so that you could better implement his race based hiring scheme. Although I'm pretty sure that would be illegal.

Well, I have to look out for my job (which, for the most part, I love). It pays the mortgage and the car loan... oh, and there's my cable Internet, credit cards and that pesky digital cable + DVR. Um... gotta keep the job, so I do what I'm told... to a point.

I hire the best that I can, I pay special attention to minorities (always looking for ways to attract qualified minorities-- especially promoting a black person ['secially a woman] is like wearing a gold badge at my company)... but for the most part, I hire people who are qualified, but sometimes to do what I'm told, I have to hire people who fit a demographic demand at my company.

It blows, but it's what they demand.

~String

Well, I have to look out for my job (which, for the most part, I love). It pays the mortgage and the car loan... oh, and there's my cable Internet, credit cards and that pesky digital cable + DVR. Um... gotta keep the job, so I do what I'm told... to a point.

I hire the best that I can, I pay special attention to minorities (always looking for ways to attract qualified minorities-- especially promoting a black person ['secially a woman] is like wearing a gold badge at my company)... but for the most part, I hire people who are qualified, but sometimes to do what I'm told, I have to hire people who fit a demographic demand at my company.

It blows, but it's what they demand.

~String
Well, of course I wouldn't want you to lose your job. Do you think they are really serious about this crap?

Would they be happier if your branch did not exactly mirror your community yet was extremely profitable as you had hired only the best. Or if you had the exact right racial makeup for your branch,but were losing money?

I've generally found corporations to be pretty forgiving so long as you're making money; and that all the "rainbow coalition" mamsy pamsy crap doesn't mean shit if you're not making money.

So cover your ass. Be on the lookout for quality minority applicants. But don't screw yourself with some piece of crap employee just to fill a racial quota.

I remember I once worked with this black guy, who was also gay. He was really a nice guy, but a really slow worker. Despite the fact that this company fired people left and right, he never did get fired. After all, he was a two-fer.

A good point and I would agree with you wholeheartedly if this were a private institution. But its a university that's funded by all those tax dollars from nasty white racists.

I generally find arguments intending to assert affirmative action on behalf of racism and the exercise of politics in lieu of education repugnant, and your argument is no different, String. It seems to me that you're asserting that, just because they're a public university, they ought to lower their standards in order to make insecure bigots more comfortable. You agree that a public institution cannot make everyone happy, so you assert, instead, that they should make you happy. The problem with this is that your happiness depends on the university's endorsement of crap or refusal to examine basic truths. Neither of those conditions suggest quality education.

The university should offer this concept as part of a class that can be taken. Just because this ridiculous brainwashing meshes with liberalism doesn't make it right to force it upon every student who walks on campus.

Oh, boo-hoo. I can't believe you think it's brainwashing that a university rejects political myopia. So it's harder to write a paper that says Africa is poor because blacks are inferior. It's harder to write a paper that says people are poor because they deserve to be. It's harder to write a paper that says people are inferior because they're not like you. Oh, those poor students are so oppressed.

Yes, I do indeed benefit from a system that has been built to better white men for ages. It's perfectly acceptable to expose me to this notion in a civics, history, philosophy, or economics class, it is not acceptable to foist the notion on me that, simply by existing within that system, I'm somehow a racist.

Ah. Well, that's a problem for your own pride to figure out. Maybe offended racists should hold a parade to celebrate their identity.

Moreover, if I'm to be exposed to this left-wing indoctrination, I should be given some counterbalance to this idea as well as educated as to the strides this nation has made in creating equality.

What is it with you conservatives (oh, right, you're "not a conservative" ... chortle!) and affirmative action?

And while the college is at it, it might want to start exploring other racial issues like, why even in racially mixed and wealthy communities with racially balance educational staffs (like certain universities, and school districts like... say... Shaker Heights, Ohio) why black students still account for the most drop-outs, score the lowest on tests and end up in detention at rates far exceeding white or Asian students-- even despite economic parity within the community. (I know by even knowing and acknowledging this, I'm a horrible racist)

Actually, what that last parenthetic note suggests is not that you're a horrible racist, but that you're a jerk who refuses to take the situation seriously.

Seriously, I think you're aware that there is more to any one person's life than the range of a school district. What you're asserting requires a leap of logic akin to the idea that, since four square centimeters of your skin are clear of festering wounds, you must be cured of chicken pox.

One cannot attempt to hold white bad people accountable for their misdeeds (which, apparently, all whites must pay for /answer for as a community) without calling out the current misdeeds of minorities (which, if whites have to suffer for all the crimes of all white people, it should only be fair to call this out to the entire "black" or "Hispanic" community).

You conservatives make this leap so often people are starting to resent it. This is one of those things where the only time I hear about it is when conservatives are attempting to describe something they don't like.

So tell me, String: where do we begin? It is, after all, an arbitrary point. So why don't we begin in Shaker Heights in the last decade, and that way you conservatives can pretend that there has always been economic parity, and get back to blaming the black people for not being white?

I generally find arguments intending to assert affirmative action on behalf of racism and the exercise of politics in lieu of education repugnant, and your argument is no different, String. It seems to me that you're asserting that, just because they're a public university, they ought to lower their standards in order to make insecure bigots more comfortable.
I think he's just calling for fairness, which is nowhere an issue in your processes apparently.


Oh, boo-hoo. I can't believe you think it's brainwashing that a university rejects political myopia.
No That's a University administration Projecting it's own Myopia.

So it's harder to write a paper that says Africa is poor because blacks are inferior. It's harder to write a paper that says people are poor because they deserve to be. It's harder to write a paper that says people are inferior because they're not like you. Oh, those poor students are so oppressed.
It's already Politically untenable to write such a paper even if True.
The authors would be, and in fact have been savaged for such.. such as on IQ.

I would point to a growing Black movement that points accurately to black's plight being their own fault and needing to take Responsibility instead of Whining "Prejudice".
Most recognizable name, Bill Cosby among others.

EDIT:::
I also posted Shelby Steele http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72621 which the other Leftist Brownshirts here Locked the string on.


Ah. Well, that's a problem for your own pride to figure out. Maybe offended racists should hold a parade to celebrate their identity.
Calling truthful/non-PC people Racists is obviously a Problem you have, not him.


Actually, what that last parenthetic note suggests is not that you're a horrible racist, but that you're a jerk who refuses to take the situation seriously.
How so? I find this part of his comment followed by the parenthetical very accurate.
You don't rebut a single thing
Just call him a racist again.
Pretty pathetic.


So tell me, String: where do we begin? It is, after all, an arbitrary point. So why don't we begin in Shaker Heights in the last decade, and that way you conservatives can pretend that there has always been economic parity, and get back to blaming the black people for not being white?
Why don't we begin with the unvarnished truth superstring posted (this is 'sci'forums, not PCforums) and You didn't touch- Just called/categozized everything he said "Racist".

You know Tiassa, I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.

And, I'm sure it's to my own detriment that I missed out on all your cutting and insightful remarks, but... alas, you are hardly worth my time.

Carry on.

~String

A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people

Is that from the Fourth Reich?

You know Tiassa, I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.

And, I'm sure it's to my own detriment that I missed out on all your cutting and insightful remarks, but... alas, you are hardly worth my time.

Carry on. ~String

String, you might be gay, and I might not ordinarily like gays, but with that post, you came waaaaayyyy up on my checklist. No, I still don't like gays, but you're now disliked a lot less than before! :D

Baron Max

PS - Don't go spreading that around all over the sciforums now, okay?

superstring:

You know Tiassa, I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.

And, I'm sure it's to my own detriment that I missed out on all your cutting and insightful remarks, but... alas, you are hardly worth my time.


Welcome to the club. I think the vast majority of posters (including the hard left wingers) ignore Tiassa's drivel. He's more fluff than anything else.

Edit: By the way, Tiassa's post, as usual, contains numerous personal insults. I suggest that everyone report it, instead of adopting the 'oh, the mods won't do anything if I report'. You're probably right, but at least James R can't use the bullshit excuse 'their posts are never reported' when his mods are placed in the spotlight.

You know Tiassa, I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.

And, I'm sure it's to my own detriment that I missed out on all your cutting and insightful remarks, but... alas, you are hardly worth my time.

Carry on.

~String

Amen. I didn't read that rot after the flavor I ascertained from the first few lines. It seems Tiassa has swallowed the multiculturalism myth (and its Orwellian and Marxist enforcements methods) hook, line and sinker. No point in reading that swill.

Edit: By the way, Tiassa's post, as usual, contains numerous personal insults. I suggest everyone to report it, instead of adopting the 'oh, the mods won't do anything if a report'. You're probably right, but at least James R can't use the bullshit excuse 'their posts are never reported' when his mods are placed in the spotlight.

It was my understanding that moderators could not be carded or reported for their remarks. If that's not the case, then I have about a dozen threads I could point to so far as this person is concerned. But why whine about it? He/she/ is not going to change. Ignoring him/her is a much more effective.

Of course he won't change! He's pretty much immune to any punishment, being a long standing member and moderator. Apparently those in charge think he's the pillar which holds sciforums up, or some shit like that.

But if no one points out this bullshit, the other moderators and administrators will keep touting their catchphrase 'Well, no one else has complained! X is hardly ever reported for bad behaviour!" At least they can't feign ignorance if we all call certain mods on their very unmod like behaviour.

Of course he won't change! He's pretty much immune to any punishment, being a long standing member and moderator. Apparently those in charge think he's the pillar which holds sciforums up, or some shit like that.

But if no one points out this bullshit, the other moderators and administrators will keep touting their catchphrase 'Well, no one else has complained! X is hardly ever reported for bad behaviour!" At least they can't feign ignorance if we all call certain mods on their very unmod like behaviour.

I don't "report" people.

It's a website, guys. I'm not hurt and my skin is thick enough to handle whatever people say.

~String

Can I ask, did anyone actually read the links in the article from http://s3.amazonaws.com/thefirecache/8555.html?PHPSESSID=ef9d0db44f2593676f9d9a32116590 ce, which madant posted?

After having glanced through the links posted in the article in 'Fire', it would appear that quite a bit was taken out of context and blown out of proportion.

super:

I don't "report" people.

It's a website, guys. I'm not hurt and my skin is thick enough to handle whatever people say.

~String


Yet Tiassa has no qualms whatsoever about handing out 5 point infractions after insulting him, even when he was the one who started the conflict!

It's not being insulted that bothers me, but the double standards regarding discipline of said insults.

Bells:

Can I ask, did anyone actually read the links in the article from http://s3.amazonaws.com/thefirecache...9d9a32116590ce, which madant posted?

After having glanced through the links posted in the article in 'Fire', it would appear that quite a bit was taken out of context and blown out of proportion.


Yes, I have read them. The one which RA's are given is a kicker.

There is some controversy over whether the program and floor meetings are mandatory. Quite a few students got the impression that the program was mandatory, and it mentions that students are expected to attend floor meetings, where discussions regarding race/sexuality etc. occur.

The university denies that the programs were mandatory.

Of course, this begs the question. Does something need to be proclaimed 'mandatory' in order to coerce students into participating? I know that the ridiculous activities at my place of campus residence weren't mandatory, but you were strongly pressured into attending. For analogy: A husband/wife doesn't need to use direct violence to coerce their spouse into having sex with them. University freshman are hardly going to say no when they are placed in an unfamiliar, alien environment.

And even if such a program isn't mandatory, does that mean that indoctrination is not occuring? According to the definition, used in this context:

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/indoctrinated

2. To instruct in, or imbue with, doctrines, principles or
ideologies, especially from a specific point of view which
may be partisan or biased; to strongly press one's own
point of view upon.


Indoctrination does not require forced attendance.

To be honest, I'd love to hear from students living on that residence. That's the only way we can find out the truth of the matter.

And, I'm sure it's to my own detriment that I missed out on all your cutting and insightful remarks, but... alas, you are hardly worth my time.

Sorry, String. I didn't mean to ask you to think. I realize that it is unfair to ask you to be so politically correct as to actually put thought into your opinion and, furthermore, violates your rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A mod who trolls. How novel.

A mod who trolls. How novel.

It would be rude to ignore him. It's not my fault if he chose to not post anything relevant to the discussion.

In the meantime, I find it interesting that you conservatives are so unsettled by my outlook that you actually feel the need to stop all other discussion in order to put on a communal chest-beating. Really, I hope y'all feel better.

Go ahead. Keep talking about whatever you like (Your word count in this thread has far exceeded anyone else's). Just don't expect everyone to gather round and sit quietly at your knee to hear your drivel. Unsettled has nothing to do with it. People are tired of your nonsense, your unwillingness to debate, your personal attacks and your often and various self-aggrandizements, and frankly, there's nothing that requires us to listen to you...

Except for the fact that we are prohibited from placing moderators on our 'ignore list'.

Tiassa:

find it interesting that you conservatives are so unsettled by my outlook


For a start, I'm not a conservative. And no, nobody is 'unsettled' by your outlook. What a number of posters are 'unsettled' about is your unprofessional conduct as a moderator. Your hypocrisy in giving infractions for insults while engaging in similar (if not worse) behaviour. Your long winded posts which add nothing to the discussion. Your belittling of anyone who dares to criticise your viewpoint/style of posting. Your bigotry against entire groups of people who hold particular political beliefs, and 'white' culture. And in general, your complete lack of substance and strength of character.

I think he's just calling for fairness, which is nowhere an issue in your processes apparently.

No, actually, he's overreacting to the notion that a definition of the word "racist" includes him.

No That's a University administration Projecting it's own Myopia.

I'm more forgiving of that argument. I just think some folks are overlooking a simple truth expressed in the Barker excerpt included in an earlier post.

When people remove something from its own context and assign it a deliberately-controversial one, of course they're going to find something to complain about. That's the point of insisting that everyone else looks at the issue as you do. What I don't see in the general objections to the policy is any indication that it is being viewed for what it is and what it regards. It is a lot easier to scream "Thought Police" than it is to actually think about what a concept in history means.

It's already Politically untenable to write such a paper even if True.

The problem with those papers is that they're not true. If I infect a mouse in a cage with a disease, can I claim that the mouse always had that disease? One of the problems the more deliberate racists have encountered in supporting the thesis, say, that Africa is poor because Africans are inferior is that such arguments generally can't figure out the evidence.

I would point to a growing Black movement that points accurately to black's plight being their own fault and needing to take Responsibility instead of Whining "Prejudice".
Most recognizable name, Bill Cosby among others.

And? It's not that they do not have a point, but the reality is that the empowered majority is never going simply allow equality to come about, so there is some merit in the notion that at some point oppressed minorities should stop waiting for justice.

Calling truthful/non-PC people Racists is obviously a Problem you have, not him.

I dispute the integrity of this point, Abu Afak. You, as have others, assign an irrelevant definition to the word in order to complain. This is not honest.

In the end, what it comes down to is that certain people have a problem with any definition of the word "racist" that includes them.

How so? I find this part of his comment followed by the parenthetical very accurate.
You don't rebut a single thing
Just call him a racist again.
Pretty pathetic.

It's too bad, Abu Afak, that you don't bother to consider the next paragraph:

Seriously, I think you're aware that there is more to any one person's life than the range of a school district. What you're asserting requires a leap of logic akin to the idea that, since four square centimeters of your skin are clear of festering wounds, you must be cured of chicken pox.

He shouldn't be offended by the notion that he's smart enough to know the difference. Unless, of course, he's not smart enough to know the difference, in which case, I may regrettably have oppressed his ability set.

Why don't we begin with the unvarnished truth superstring posted (this is 'sci'forums, not PCforums) and You didn't touch- Just called/categozized everything he said "Racist".

I find your use of the phrase "unvarnished truth" almost funny. I offered one up, and nobody wants to touch it, except for the fact that their arguments tread all over it. Nothing ever begins, Abu. He wants to make this about race and ethnicity, not history. He wants to pick an arbitrary point to begin in order to exonerate himself.

It's kind of sad. The entire weight of insult these conservatives feel is self-generated.

When String demands that we "[call] out the current misdeeds of minorities (which, if whites have to suffer for all the crimes of all white people, it should only be fair to call this out to the entire "black" or "Hispanic" community)", he is overlooking a certain fact that this policy conservative reactionaries find so objectionable attempts to address. If we take his statement purely at its face value, we might take it to suggest that the crimes committed by minorities are somehow completely independent of history, as if blacks and Hispanics just appeared one day and started making all the noble, lovely white people miserable.

However, no matter how badly one wishes to indict and damn nonwhites, it is impossible to fully erase the influences of history. This reality is part of what the objections find so objectionable.

When the correlations of aesthetics and circumstance wane, when the echoes of these chapters of history finally fade to ambient noise, we might then be able to strip down the argument into such pretentious ideological blocs. Then again, we likely won't feel compelled to, because justice will have arrived, and the only people seeking to keep it alive will be those who, for whatever reasons, oppose that justice. In the meantime, it is arbitrary, and therefore irresponsible, to apply so many artificial and superficial constraints about historical examination.

The objections tend more to be about aesthetics. And truth--whatever it equals--is never as pretty as we might hope.

Yes, I have read them. The one which RA's are given is a kicker.



I must admit the questionnaire was a tad disturbing.

There is some controversy over whether the program and floor meetings are mandatory. Quite a few students got the impression that the program was mandatory, and it mentions that students are expected to attend floor meetings, where discussions regarding race/sexuality etc. occur.
It has its good side and its bad side, depending on how it is handled. Is it so bad to attempt to open up discussion on those issues? I understand there had been an incident of racial discrimination by some members of the university earlier this year. Link (http://www.campuslaraza.org/racism.html) This could be their way of attempting to ensure something like this does not happen again.:shrug:

It is the invasion of privacy that got me with this. Does the RA really need to know the students sexuality? And them give them a competency grade in how they respond and react to the question? It's just going too far. If I ("the liberal do-gooder") was asked such questions, the answer would be 'sod off and mind your own business'.

I can understand the reasoning and possibly the need behind the program, but to force anyone to do this is unethical. Have it as a course or seminar at the university, where students can choose for themselves if they wish to attend.

For a start, I'm not a conservative

I believe you.

And no, nobody is 'unsettled' by your outlook.

I believe you.

What a number of posters are 'unsettled' about is your unprofessional conduct as a moderator.

Hmm ... you and Max? Right. I'll worry about your opinion of my conduct when you worry about getting some integrity, Mountainhare.

Your hypocrisy in giving infractions for insults while engaging in similar (if not worse) behaviour.

Since you won't give it a rest, I might as well respond: You don't seem to recall the period during which I refused to give infractions at all. You are unaware of my prior policy of not issuing infractions in topics that I started or arguments I was having.

Your own ignorance is what unsettles you, Mountainhare. Personally, I think the prior insistence on going through the longest possible process, while honorable in its intent to give members every last chance to correct difficult behavior, was a bad idea. I'm not going to blame their unwillingness to act until the situation had dragged out for months for your perception of my approach, but the nature of your complaints strongly suggests that you're incapable of understanding the situation.

Really. If the administration and moderators had not extended special rights and protections to members like you and Max, we wouldn't be in this mess right now. Given that our efforts to make sure conservative posters were not completely alienated only gave them cause to complain, I really don't give a rat's ass what unsettles you.

Grow up. Conduct yourself with some integrity and decency. Maybe then we'll be able to have a conversation that does not suffer the prerequisite of psychically obeying some arcane and hidden script that allows your eventual satisfaction.

Your long winded posts which add nothing to the discussion.

(chortle!)

That criticism coming from a semi-literate thug with a chip on his shoulder is almost amusing. We need to use absolute values in order to describe your contribution in positive terms.

Your belittling of anyone who dares to criticise your viewpoint/style of posting.

No, it's the dishonesty I belittle. If you had some integrity and comprehension skills, you might realize this. I'm not upset with Superstring99 for disagreeing with me. I'm upset with him for being a cheap liar and provocateur. I'm not upset with Max for disagreeing with me. I'm puzzled by his bizarre infatuation. I'm not upset with you for disagreeing with me. I'm disgusted by your childish, dishonest tantrums.

I am not one of those who demands you must earn my respect. I am, however, one who gets the hint quickly when you make a point of insisting that you don't want it.

And as to my style? When half-wit thugs complain that I'm confusing them, I suppose I should be honored.

In the history of this website, the one thing I've taken the most shit for is presuming people are intelligent. And, no, Mountainhare, I'm not particularly sorry that I can't stoop low enough to satisfy you.

Your bigotry against entire groups of people who hold particular political beliefs, and 'white' culture.

I admit that I'm sometimes sharp with conservatives in general on this point, but after years of hearing conservatives demand the right to discriminate against and hurt people simply for existing, I haven't much sympathy for people who make the choice to be cruel.

It has nothing to do with white culture. It has to do with the dishonesty of white supremacists who try to pretend they're not.

And it also has to do with people like String and Madanthonywayne and other conservatives who insist they know what someone else was thinking. In doing so, they substitute definitions of words in order to create the impression that someone has done something wrong. It's not just Sciforums, Mountainhare. After years of looking into various claims and accusations and finding that whatever other issues might exist, conservatives never seem to give me anything real to work with, I'm tired of trying to pretend that people who can never get it right are actually correct. I'm tired of pretending that it's normal that I should have to grant so many presuppositions at the outset as to nullify the purpose of the discussion.

You might be a fine, upstanding fellow in life. You might be someone I'd enjoy a beer with over a football game or something. But if you're really as dishonest as your Sciforums presentation, no. I can't lie to you enough to make that relationship work.

Do you understand that there is a difference between what someone is and what someone chooses? Conservatives in general seemed to remember this until one day they realized gays simply are, and not by choice. In the last couple years especially, though it's a hallmark of conservative political argument, we've heard the volume come up on the complaint that rejecting what someone chooses is somehow an offense akin to persecuting what someone is. Do you understand that difference? Blacks, women, gays, and other commonly-victimized empowerment minorities are treated poorly for what they are: black, female, gay. Conservatives, however, when lamenting that they are discriminated against, are complaining that reality does not accommodate equally what they choose to believe despite reality.

It's like the argument with Madanthonywayne last week. He raises one issue, and it is explored. When it looks like his issue is bogus, does he make the note? No. He changes subjects and complains about college professors making jokes. And when that doesn't have the desired effect, does he acknowledge that? No. He jumps onto an academic discrimination complaint that becomes so messy that, by the end, he's asking me if I've read his guy's side of the story when that's what I've been building my argument from the whole time, and then comes back to justify his player according to a point I'd made earlier that he decried as a straw man. Do you understand that it's not that he disagrees with me that I find so annoying? Do you understand that I'm getting sick of taking him seriously, trying to give his argument credit, when he's not even trying?

Do you understand that what annoys me about String's argument is the fundamental dishonesty that comes from assigning his own definition of "racist" in order to be upset that another definition of "racist" includes him? He has an aesthetic problem, so it's suddenly something the University needs to balance by giving bullshit equal time?

Now, you might doubt my assessment of the facts of the case. You might perceive String's conduct--or Madanthonywayne's, for that matter--differently. But can you at least admit that, from my perspective, it seems really annoying and disingenuous? Can you or any of your (closet) conservative associates actually dispel this appearance? Can you address it without the whining and crying?

Think about it: All String had to do was shrug and say, "Well, that pretty much includes every white person, and is therefore an inapplicable, generally useless, obscure definition that hasn't much practical value." All Madanthonywayne had to do was shrug and say, "Okay, I think that's bullshit. What is it for?"

That's all I did. I'm not disturbed at being called a racist according to such weak terms. Why does it bother them, or anyone else, so much? If this was about drugs or sex or music piracy, people would wonder about the sharp reaction and what it suggested about the person.

But there are only two things conservatives seem to get from this story: "I'm not racist! And liberals are evil!"

And, really, man, if you can't figure out that it's the dishonesty and not the political label, that's your own damn problem, and stop trying to make it mine.

Or should I just lie to you and pretend that you have a decent, honest, functional point?

And the word count continues to go up and up...

Sorry, String. I didn't mean to ask you to think. I realize that it is unfair to ask you to be so politically correct as to actually put thought into your opinion and, furthermore, violates your rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Wow... you inferred that I was disabled. Witty.

The liberal débutante shows his true stripes. Instead of any mature & cogent debate (of which we see vary little from Tiassa), it always comes down to the name calling. Aghast that someone would have better things to do than dwell on YET ANOTHER his witless mega-rants on how conservatives are to blame [for everything], we get... even MORE name calling.

My... how original you are Tiassa!

So, the question that comes to mind: How old are you Tiassa? Are we still in high school? I'll admit that your diction is admirable for a teenager, but your constant backsliding to name calling gives you away.

A note to non-brain-washed extremist: notice how it's okay for liberals to call names and get away with name calling, especially when one gets a smidgen of power (no matter how infinitesimal), and uses it to badger conservatives. You can bet that if the tables were turned on young Tiassa, we'd have a barrage of liberal outcries against the actions of the evil "neo-cons".

I admit, Tiassa, I love you... you're the best thing going on this website. You do wonders in making my argument against extreme partisanship.

Please, PLEASE, carry on.

~String

No, actually, he's overreacting to the notion that a definition of the word "racist" includes him.
I disagree "racist" includes him
And Your post Littered with that charge is Intellectual Laziness, as he, unlike you, makes a Case, with Facts for his positions.


I'm more forgiving of that argument. I just think some folks are overlooking a simple truth expressed in the Barker excerpt included in an earlier post.
Better!


The problem with those papers is that they're not true. If I infect a mouse in a cage with a disease, can I claim that the mouse always had that disease? One of the problems the more deliberate racists have encountered in supporting the thesis, say, that Africa is poor because Africans are inferior is that such arguments generally can't figure out the evidence.

Those papers/Books ARE true.
And there have been 6 strings to that effect in the Science section, but only the 2 (later) PC-titles remain Unlocked.
Your cohorts/S.A.M. stopped the Original one"Dr Watson's views on race seem very sensible" among others.

The evidence, as on IQ, is Overwhelming in fact.
This has PCers tails in a Knot! even tho some know it's true.
So, what can They/Do they do/Say?
1. "'Race is Fuzzy", doesn't really exist.
2. (caving slowly). "It's true but due to nutrition or economics".
3. "You're a Racist".

Be glad to/even Prefer debating this one-on-one here with Anyone including You without the constant Trolling that Includes Childish, last-wording Moderators like S.A.M. Harrassing and deleting posts, issuing violations, and closing string titles she doesn't like and replacing strings like the above 'Watson' one with "Why do Racists have lower IQ's."
It's an Outrage. Forcing one side to debate under a demeaning premise that doesn't even include them.
It's Moderators using the tools to be even worse Trolls than any poster Can be.

Without going categorical/quoting any of the rest- I found superstring99, continuously point to Facts while you pointed to His Facts and called him "Racist" a number of times without rebutting those numerous facts.
It's troubling, as this behavior is even more common in Mods, who have power and confidence of position and each others views to Brow Beat anyone who puts up contrary opinion.

I'm a mod. He can brow-beat me all he wants.

(I respect your thoughts and appreciate the insight, Abu)

~String

It seems to me that you're asserting that, just because they're a public university, they ought to lower their standards in order to make insecure bigots more comfortable.

...Tiassa, I wonder at your comprehension. Quotas would reduce standards, not raise them. What Orwellian translator is your corpus plugged into?

So it's harder to write a paper that says Africa is poor because blacks are inferior. It's harder to write a paper that says people are poor because they deserve to be. It's harder to write a paper that says people are inferior because they're not like you. Oh, those poor students are so oppressed.

Tiassa, I'm not sure you've actually ever attended a university, but there isn't a pack of evil students running around trying to blame African poverty on them being African, or wasn't when I was there. Is String making this argument? Perhaps you should follow along and see if there might be some other reason for his statements.

Ah. Well, that's a problem for your own pride to figure out. Maybe offended racists should hold a parade to celebrate their identity.

Now you're inferring that String is racist? BTW, it isn't only conservatives who aren't in favour of affirmative action.

Sorry, String. I didn't mean to ask you to think. I realize that it is unfair to ask you to be so politically correct as to actually put thought into your opinion and, furthermore, violates your rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Aaaaand here you ridicule the mentally disabled.

No, actually, he's overreacting to the notion that a definition of the word "racist" includes him.

[QUOTE]In the end, what it comes down to is that certain people have a problem with any definition of the word "racist" that includes them.

Say, if they weren't racist or something. The racists.

It has nothing to do with white culture. It has to do with the dishonesty of white supremacists who try to pretend they're not.

Rather, it has to do with a public university permitting the policy opinion that all white people are racist. If it has nothing to do with white people, then they should not all be blamed. This is quite a straightforward concept.

Do you understand that there is a difference between what someone is and what someone chooses?

As in their race, perhaps?

Do you understand that what annoys me about String's argument is the fundamental dishonesty that comes from assigning his own definition of "racist" in order to be upset that another definition of "racist" includes him? He has an aesthetic problem, so it's suddenly something the University needs to balance by giving bullshit equal time?

What bullshit? Your variety? String has, as a white person, been categorized into "racist", yet perversely you think he's somehow dishonest. Ridiculous.

But there are only two things conservatives seem to get from this story: "I'm not racist! And liberals are evil!"

You know, Tiassa, a more honest person might be able to interpret the story and divine that maybe liberalism had gone too far, and that criticism of it was deserved. This is the real dishonesty here: it's the lie that underscores all your arguments. You know that the university's actions were excessive, but you're actually - actually, really dishonestly for a change; an ironic dimension only matched by the song "Ironic" - unable to criticize it.

You're a disgrace as a mod and a purported thinker. This is nothing new to you, of course.

American universities. They are all designed to oppress the "sticking it to the man".

I admit, Tiassa, I love you... you're the best thing going on this website. You do wonders in making my argument against extreme partisanship.

Whatever you say, String. Keep running your con job if you really think you can.

notice how it's okay for liberals to call names and get away with name calling, especially when one gets a smidgen of power

Change the word "liberal" to the phrase "extremist shill", and you've pretty much described yourself.

What I wonder is why you're so afraid of the argument. Why it is that when presented with a challenge all you can do is cry and complain.

• • •

Proposition/Response:

S.A.M.: How terrible to be forced to consider that people are all the same.

Superstring99: Did you think before you said that, or did you just pound away on the keyboard?

How to offend Superstring99:

String: Yes, it's ALWAYS terrible to be "forced" to think anyway.

Tiassa: Who's forcing them to go to college? Who is forcing them to spend money they don't have for a degree? A public university, obviously, cannot make everyone happy.

String: A good point and I would agree with you wholeheartedly if this were a private institution. But its a university that's funded by all those tax dollars from nasty white racists.

Tiassa: I generally find arguments intending to assert affirmative action on behalf of racism and the exercise of politics in lieu of education repugnant, and your argument is no different, String. It seems to me that you're asserting that, just because they're a public university, they ought to lower their standards in order to make insecure bigots more comfortable. You agree that a public institution cannot make everyone happy, so you assert, instead, that they should make you happy. The problem with this is that your happiness depends on the university's endorsement of crap or refusal to examine basic truths. Neither of those conditions suggest quality education.

Now, it seems you find that upsetting, String. But instead of arguing that I'm perceiving your objection too broadly or affixing it too narrowly, you instead invest your expression in criticizing what you claim to not have read:

String: You know Tiassa, I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.

I think it says more about you that I'm worth your time to actually put the effort into being dishonest just so you can feel like you've stung me.

How to upset Superstring99 (pt. 2):

String: Yes, it's ALWAYS terrible to be "forced" to think anyway.

Tiassa: It is not presently the job of high schools to make people look at reasons why. That's something for the fancier education. So why, when getting that higher education, should one object to its purpose?

String: The university should offer this concept as part of a class that can be taken. Just because this ridiculous brainwashing meshes with liberalism doesn't make it right to force it upon every student who walks on campus.

Tiassa: Oh, boo-hoo. I can't believe you think it's brainwashing that a university rejects political myopia. So it's harder to write a paper that says Africa is poor because blacks are inferior. It's harder to write a paper that says people are poor because they deserve to be. It's harder to write a paper that says people are inferior because they're not like you. Oh, those poor students are so oppressed.

String: You know Tiassa, I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.

Wow. You mean if I don't accept your assertion at the outset, that this is brainwashing and liberal indoctrination, I'm wasting your time?

How to really upset Superstring99:

String: Yes, it's ALWAYS terrible to be "forced" to think anyway.

Tiassa: It is not presently the job of high schools to make people look at reasons why. That's something for the fancier education. So why, when getting that higher education, should one object to its purpose?

String: And while the college is at it, it might want to start exploring other racial issues like, why even in racially mixed and wealthy communities with racially balance educational staffs (like certain universities, and school districts like... say... Shaker Heights, Ohio) why black students still account for the most drop-outs, score the lowest on tests and end up in detention at rates far exceeding white or Asian students-- even despite economic parity within the community. (I know by even knowing and acknowledging this, I'm a horrible racist)

Tiassa: Actually, what that last parenthetic note suggests is not that you're a horrible racist, but that you're a jerk who refuses to take the situation seriously .... Seriously, I think you're aware that there is more to any one person's life than the range of a school district. What you're asserting requires a leap of logic akin to the idea that, since four square centimeters of your skin are clear of festering wounds, you must be cured of chicken pox.


String: You know Tiassa, I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.

Something I've never understood are hysterical notes like, "I know that even by acknowledging this, I'm a horrible racist." Now, given that your response to learning of this topic was to throw out any intent, thought, context, or definitions relevant to the university and invent your own in order to indict them, it's pretty clear that your statement characterizes your opinion of those who disagree with you. That you require such a simplistic opposition in order to feel you're making progress is telling, String. You treat people as if they're stupid, and then get offended if they don't thank you for doing so.

How to upset Superstring99 so badly that he won't respond:

String: Yes, it's ALWAYS terrible to be "forced" to think anyway.

Tiassa: It is not presently the job of high schools to make people look at reasons why. That's something for the fancier education. So why, when getting that higher education, should one object to its purpose?

String: One cannot attempt to hold white bad people accountable for their misdeeds (which, apparently, all whites must pay for /answer for as a community) without calling out the current misdeeds of minorities (which, if whites have to suffer for all the crimes of all white people, it should only be fair to call this out to the entire "black" or "Hispanic" community).

Tiassa: You conservatives make this leap so often people are starting to resent it. This is one of those things where the only time I hear about it is when conservatives are attempting to describe something they don't like.

So tell me, String: where do we begin? It is, after all, an arbitrary point. So why don't we begin in Shaker Heights in the last decade, and that way you conservatives can pretend that there has always been economic parity, and get back to blaming the black people for not being white?

And, on that last one:

Tiassa: (to Abu Afak) When String demands that we "[call] out the current misdeeds of minorities (which, if whites have to suffer for all the crimes of all white people, it should only be fair to call this out to the entire "black" or "Hispanic" community)", he is overlooking a certain fact that this policy conservative reactionaries find so objectionable attempts to address. If we take his statement purely at its face value, we might take it to suggest that the crimes committed by minorities are somehow completely independent of history, as if blacks and Hispanics just appeared one day and started making all the noble, lovely white people miserable.

However, no matter how badly one wishes to indict and damn nonwhites, it is impossible to fully erase the influences of history. This reality is part of what the objections find so objectionable.

In the meantime, I've carried on other aspects of this discussion, and am met with silence except for a bunch of conservative savages who are only interested in a self-righteous power play. For some reason, the more I discuss the issues at hand, the more you, Mountainhare, and your buddy Counte want to avoid discussing those issues.

And so we find ourselves this far in, and you've spent more posts reflecting on your assessment of my character than actually considering the issue. In the meantime, I'll leave you with your own hypocrisy to choke on:

String: Did you think before you said that, or did you just pound away on the keyboard?

String: I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.

String: The liberal débutante shows his true stripes.

String: So, the question that comes to mind: How old are you Tiassa? Are we still in high school?

String: A note to non-brain-washed extremist ....

The only thing I find striking about your tone is that you're simultaneously trying to pretend you're outraged over my conduct. In the meantime, why is it that you and your conservative buddies always get upset when someone does you the courtesy of addressing you according to your own standards?

So let me know if you're ever ready to have a useful discussion, String.

• • •

A note for Abu Afak


I disagree "racist" includes him

I understand. And at some point I would probably agree. But that's actually beside the point. Instead of looking at the concept according to its actual terminology and boundaries, String and others (yourself included) have chosen to write different definitions in order to be upset at the concept.

Even String acknowledges that the broad definition applies to him; he just rejects the idea that it's racism. And he's got a point. After all, if he murders someone, takes their money, and buys some drugs with it, and he and I get high together, I haven't exactly committed murder. Neither am I innocent, however, if I know that the profits were ill-gotten.

And that seems to be what upsets him. He doesn't want to think of himself as guilty in any way, even if that way has no actual moral effect or assignation. At least, that's how it seems. It would be easier to know what it all equals if we weren't using wildly subjective variables whose only purpose is to create the basis for complaint.

And no, I don't find this a particularly honest outlook. I also understand that people fall into it fairly easy. The disappointing part is that this seems to be what he chooses. He wants to be offended. He wants to feel like a victim. So he will believe anything in order to justify himself.

At least, that's what it looks like. The easiest thing to change that appearance would be to consider the issues according to their original context.

Also, Abu Afak, I would ask you to consider that this topic (and its poster) derive from another discussion. The source for this is a group called FIRE, whom we previously encountered over in the EM&J forum during another discussion about universities. In that, our topic poster posted a complaint; when that complaint was dismantled and not so much debunked as placed in serious doubt, our topic poster changed the subject. When that argument about professors making jokes fell apart in no small measure because of the conduct and unreliability of the poor, beleaguered conservative student he advocated, he changed the subject.

So, first off, do you understand the problem here? I think people would be happier, or at least at greater ease, if they realized that the seeming conspiracies they find so blatant would not seem so dangerous if they did not devoting energy to redefining them specifically to seem threatening. The spectres these conservatives lash out against are born in their own imaginations. And that's why he changed the subject. It's not about winning and losing the argument, Abu Afak. Society will actually benefit when it can focus on real problems instead of taking time out to accommodate worrisome figments of overzealous political imagination. At any point, had our topic poster wanted to discuss the misperceptions and disagreements, so that we could come to a common outlook, that would have been great.

It comes to a head, though, when the subject changes to a sexual harassment investigation. With only scant details to operate on, I went out and found paperwork from the accused's attorneys, a Christian-advocacy group. I built my perspective from this, the richest record of events possible. To the point that, after using Savage's lawyer's assertions to build my perspective, our topic poster asks if I've bothered to read Savage's side of the story. And then, after having dismissed my note about this group FIRE as a straw man (Savage was feeding information to FIRE before the situation completely blew out of hand, which leaves him with the appearance of being a provocateur), our topic poster came back a bit later to make the "straw man" point in defense of Savage.

Obviously, we did not settle a whole bunch of issues then, but we see the outcome. Our topic poster has grabbed onto another propaganda group and run with it. Instead of considering the deeper aspects of any one situation, we are simply supposed to hop from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory, ever damned to only be allowed to consider the most superficial aspects possible, lest we offend the political conservatives.

This whole topic is just another dishonest slight of hand on behalf of a conservative agenda that the advocates are afraid to admit. I am, after all, amused when someone who claims to not be a conservative only ever is distressed by liberals, and in order to bolster their non-conservative credentials, claim to disagree with George Bush's non-conservative policies and general ineptitude.

I just wonder why these conservative outbursts demand that the only way to view a situation is according to the conservative political assessment? It doesn't make for a credible argument, especially when they claim to be somehow oppressed when people don't believe them.

Okay, a couple notes:

Better!

I'm glad I could satisfy you. Now then, I would ask that you go back and read through that Barker quote (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1609001&postcount=11) and consider it in relation to my argument.

And also, please, consider your earlier response:

Tiassa: So tell me, String: where do we begin? It is, after all, an arbitrary point. So why don't we begin in Shaker Heights in the last decade, and that way you conservatives can pretend that there has always been economic parity, and get back to blaming the black people for not being white?

Abu Afak: Why don't we begin with the unvarnished truth superstring posted (this is 'sci'forums, not PCforums) and You didn't touch- Just called/categozized everything he said "Racist".

So where do we begin? Go back and read through that Barker quote, and if you decide that you understand it, let me know where we should begin the telling of history. As I wrote you earlier:

When String demands that we "[call] out the current misdeeds of minorities (which, if whites have to suffer for all the crimes of all white people, it should only be fair to call this out to the entire "black" or "Hispanic" community)", he is overlooking a certain fact that this policy conservative reactionaries find so objectionable attempts to address. If we take his statement purely at its face value, we might take it to suggest that the crimes committed by minorities are somehow completely independent of history, as if blacks and Hispanics just appeared one day and started making all the noble, lovely white people miserable.

However, no matter how badly one wishes to indict and damn nonwhites, it is impossible to fully erase the influences of history. This reality is part of what the objections find so objectionable.

When the correlations of aesthetics and circumstance wane, when the echoes of these chapters of history finally fade to ambient noise, we might then be able to strip down the argument into such pretentious ideological blocs. Then again, we likely won't feel compelled to, because justice will have arrived, and the only people seeking to keep it alive will be those who, for whatever reasons, oppose that justice. In the meantime, it is arbitrary, and therefore irresponsible, to apply so many artificial and superficial constraints about historical examination.

The objections tend more to be about aesthetics. And truth--whatever it equals--is never as pretty as we might hope.

It is a dubious proposition to declare an arbitrary starting point designed specifically to distort history in order to accommodate the sentimental demands of the empowered majority.

The sentimental demands of the "empowered majority" being that they're not all racist?

The sentimental demands of the "empowered majority" being that they're not all racist?

That's one way of looking at it. It's the kind of watering down of education that left people with college degrees stunned on 9/11 not just by what happened, but by the thought that anyone would do such a thing to Americans. (This sentimental demand is called "American exceptionalism", which, when you cut through everything else, asserts that Americans are unique in history, and thus the rules, ethics, and standards of history must be redefined before examining American history; that is, we are to judge American history by a separate standard than we judge the rest of the world.)

I just don't understand why people are so distressed that a broad standard of racism would include them. If we were looking at other people reaping benefits off a history of injustice, we would include the beneficiaries among the guilty. Maybe not as the killers or oppressors, but like I noted in my initial response to this topic,

The truth of the matter is that I do benefit from the white supremacist system. And, like most of my racist neighbors, I haven't really done much about that system except benefit from it. The only real problem I have with such a definition is that, if it is taken out of its proper context--and the basis of our discussion, this topic, reflects one of those improper contextual shifts--it can legitimize severe behavior. I do think there is a difference between those of us who haven't thrown away every principle, virtue, or value we ever learned or were taught, and those who seek to regularly exploit and sharpen the imbalance.

As one who is, by this definition, guilty, I'm puzzled at the reactionary hyperbole put forth by exceptionalists. In the grand scheme of things, it's a pretty weak indictment and, as I noted, brings certain problems when applied generally.

Nothing ever begins, Geoff. It's kind of like the truism that everyone is somebody's son/daughter. Everyone, at some point, has a mother. This fact, in and of itself, means almost nothing. White people are inherently racist for benefitting from racism? This fact, in and of itself, means even less.

The above is just more of the same, Tiassa. You've been challenged and called out onto the carpet, so you typically fill the screen with as much chum as you can in the hope that volume (and the ferocity of your childish anger) will overpower quality. I hope others do as I do and don't bother reading your rubbish.

I am amused by the conservative habit of criticizing what they claim to have not read:


The above is just more of the same, Tiassa. You've been challenged and called out onto the carpet, so you typically fill the screen with as much chum as you can in the hope that volume (and the ferocity of your childish anger) will overpower quality. I hope others do as I do and don't bother reading your rubbish.

(#1612069/61 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1612069&postcount=61))

Or, perhaps ....


You know Tiassa, I'm glad you wasted your precious time writing another one of your yawn-fest diatribes, I'm sure, blaming my shortsightedness, conservative whining... blah....blah.... blah. And If I had even a scrap of respect for what you puke out onto the screen I might even bother reading.

I mean, really. If you don't want to bother reading what I write, that's fine. But the idea that you would then go out of your way to post insults?

Perhaps I'm going about this wrongly. First Max. And then Mountainhare. And here we've got you and your buddy String. Y'all do realize, don't you, that the only reason I'm so damned important is that you've decided I am?

And that's easy enough for y'all to fix. Or, at least, it should be.

But why am I so important to you?

Your'e fun, Tiassa.

~String

I read about a line or two of your posts and if I recognize it as chum, which it typically is once your omnipotence has been challenged, then I stop. As for important, who thinks they are important? You're the sad soul who spills hundreds (in this case, thousands) of words in a thread like this, one assumes, in the vain hope that people will read your rants and be swayed by them. So yeah, I enjoy robbing you of that little joy. And watching you fume and make an ass out of yourself when you don't get your way.

So to sum up, I don't think responding to you and calling you on your crap makes you important. In fact, it properly contextualizes you. Or just consider it like this: Some people are sick of the way you behave. They're going to voice that frustration so long as you behave the way you have in this thread...

Interesting journalism there; if this is your pattern of enquiry and debate.

Right Sam, try to make it about me. How brave (and wholly original) of you. Next, please?

Tiassa:

Hmm ... you and Max?

Far more than that, Tiassa. The difference between them and me is that they are apathetic, because they know that you are immune from being disciplined for your unprofessional behaviour. But I'm sure as hell not going to let you get away with it. Every time you break the rules, I will report you, and will push for the mods to do their damn job, and actually give you an infraction. The gloves are off.

But why am I so important to you?

You make me laugh, that makes you of enormous value. I'm surrounded by left-wing ideologues who are actually nice, so I don't want to create any animosity at work. You aren't all that likable, so it's okay to garner your unfounded wrath.

I have to admit... we're all sort of competing over who can instigate you into posting the largest diatribe.

Thus far, I think, I'm winning... though, I think that Counte has me beat in overall posts from you in all topics.

So, please, OH PLEASE, spew out more liberal shibboleths... but, I HAVE A NIFTY IDEA, make it a really really long post. Don't address any of the facts, just attack me (OH HELL, go ahead, attack Counte, Mountainhare and Madanthony while you're at it) and make sure you avoid any culpability at all costs. Tell us how really-really-I-MEAN-IT-super-duper-bad conservatives are, but use lots of words, and BETTER YET, spin the whole thing so that you are the innocent liberal fending off a conservative onslaught.

Oh... um... don't forget to make it really long and boring. Like... UNREADABLY long.

'Cause that would be original and new for you.

Really.

~String

superstring, don't bother. He's attempting to bait you. Just report him.

superstring, don't bother. He's attempting to bait you. Just report him.

Bait me? No, my friend, I've gotten more posts from him than anybody else. I'm winning by a long shot.

(Oh, and report him to whom? I'm the mod of this forum, I guess I could delete his posts, but then that defeats the purpose. It's a debate-- he's welcome to make it as personal as he likes. I said this once before, I don't "report" posts. It's a website. I'm a big boy. I'll live.)

~String

super:

guess I could delete his posts, but then that defeats the purpose


Why not give him an infraction? That's what the mods do to me when I break the rules... Hell, they do it to me when I DON'T break the rules!

I, honestly, don't think he's breaking the rules, Mount. It's a political debate forum, it gets ugly. Tiassa enjoys taking it down that path, and I won't give out infractions [any more] to people who offend me. I also have a rule against reporting posts that offend me-- if I don't like what's being said, I'll just click off the website.

(oh, and I've never tried to give out infractions to fellow mods, I honestly don't think that I can)

Again, I refer you back to the point that (a) I'm not offended and (b) I really don't think that Tiassa has crossed the line. If this were some other thread in another forum, then maybe. But it's politics for Pete's sake! Some people just HAVE to make it personal. I can live with that.

~String

super:
I, honestly, don't think he's breaking the rules,

Some people just HAVE to make it personal.


Is that some kind of fucking joke? I've been given infractions on this very forum for 'personal attacks'. Maybe not by you, but that's not the point.

And apparently you need to read the rules:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1424541&postcount=2


spidergoat: Politics can be an especially divisive and controversial subject. For this reason, when discussing an issue, do not attack members personally. In the past, I have been as guilty of this as others, and perhaps there is a place for it in other sub-forums, but from now on, personal attacks will be deleted. This is a long-standing rule, and I hope it will be followed voluntarily. This will help prevent excessive hostilities and flaming, and hopefully stimulate actual discussion of the issues.

You make me laugh, that makes you of enormous value.

Your priorities are your own.

A note for Abu Afak
Also, Abu Afak, I would ask you to consider that this topic (and its poster) derive from another discussion. The source for this is a group called FIRE, whom we previously encountered over in the EM&J forum during another discussion about universities. In that, our topic poster posted a complaint; when that complaint was dismantled and not so much debunked as placed in serious doubt, our topic poster changed the subject. When that argument about professors making jokes fell apart in no small measure because of the conduct and unreliability of the poor, beleaguered conservative student he advocated, he changed the subject.
The previous thread you made reference to was created in response to an article regarding a conservative professor trying to get a job at a university. But the OP clearly stated:
Is it right that students should only be taught by professors who believe the Vietnam war was a crime against humanity? Or that private property is theft? Or that meat is murder? It's absurd to not have the only kind of diversity that matters. Diversity of thought. We've got plenty of diversity in melanin density in our universities, but no diversity of thought.

So I wanted to discuss the general lack of intellectual diversity on University Campuses. The starting off point for the discussion was indeed the specific case of Mark Moyar. You dug up some of his articles and managed to show that, in fact, some of his views were a bit extreme. And that, perhaps, the university was acting reasonably in not hiring him. Yet the fact remains that the members of the faculty in the department he applied to all were members of one political party. Coincidence?

In keeping with the original thread topic (intellectual diversity), I then listed some other examples of liberal intolerance. For instance, the "joke" you made reference to was a professor saying, in class, that all Republicans should be executed. The other topic brought up in that thread was about a guy brought up on sexual harassment charges for suggesting a few conservative titles be added to a reading list for incoming students.

The merits of a particular case do not make or break an argument over the atmosphere at universities in the US. Yet you seem to feel that presenting additional evidence to support my thesis is childish and dishonest. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The ironic thing is that your lack of insight and understanding of the point of view of the other side exemplifies the necessity for intellectual diversity.

hopefully people are getting pretty tired of all this bullshit by now

http://www.pjhlaw.co.uk/uploads/images/racist.jpg
racist.jpg (JPEG Image, 480x336 pixels)

Huwy

That cartoon reminds me of this time my brother and I were driving to Costco. On the way, the sports radio covered a fight that had taken place at a NASCAR event. Some jokes were made, and after a stop at the bank, a trip through a massive warehouse store, waiting in a huge line, and toting everything home, we sat and listened to what became a fight of at least two hours, only surrendering and turning off the radio when an old (white) woman called and compared NASCAR jokes to the racial slurs of the Civil Rights era. We simply couldn't take any more. That, and the chicken was thawing in the trunk.

And what's the point of the above?

Old women crying "racist"? The silliness of white people screaming about race? The toxic standards by which whites treat racism? Maybe white folks aren't generally in a position to understand, much less comment about and criticize the policy. It's obvious that some who are offended have sought to apply the standard wrongly, specifically so that they can claim offense. Watching people get all primadonna about this suggests the unwieldy application of "racist" has some merit.

That's funny, coming from a gook like you, Tiassa. Tell me, what sort of Asian are you? Are you Chinese, who have a history of oppressing the Tibetan people? Are you Japanese, who have a history of oppressing the Chinese?

Do you know what I've been wondering for a while. If you find the racism inherent in white culture so despicable, why don't you get the fuck out of America and move back to your ancestor's own shithole, you vomit coloured little dwarf. You seem to love bitching about white racism, yet have no qualms about taking advantage of their system.

That's funny, coming from a gook like you, Tiassa. Tell me, what sort of Asian are you? Are you Chinese, who have a history of oppressing the Tibetan people? Are you Japanese, who have a history of oppressing the Chinese?

Do you know what I've been wondering for a while. If you find the racism inherent in white culture so despicable, why don't you get the fuck out of America and move back to your ancestor's own shithole, you vomit coloured little dwarf. You seem to love bitching about white racism, yet have no qualms about taking advantage of their system.

What are you talking about? U just revealed the inherent racism yourself.

What does it matter either way to you? You're disingenous because you are not satisfied either way either. lmao

Old women crying "racist"? The silliness of white people screaming about race? The toxic standards by which whites treat racism? Maybe white folks aren't generally in a position to understand, much less comment about and criticize the policy. It's obvious that some who are offended have sought to apply the standard wrongly, specifically so that they can claim offense. Watching people get all primadonna about this suggests the unwieldy application of "racist" has some merit.

Right. There's never any racism practiced against white people. Sure. OK. Your absolutism on every issue makes you sillier by the day, Tiassa.

Right. There's never any racism practiced against white people. Sure. OK. Your absolutism on every issue makes you sillier by the day, Tiassa.

What racism do white people suffer that's so bad? Please list them. I'd like to know. If you mean the general racism from others. LOL, well that's par for the course ain't it? What do you expect, humans to be saints? Whites dish it out, and so do others.

It's not the racism but the dishonesty. Most people who are racist come up with excuses or reasons as justification but the truth is they will never be satisfied because they are inherently racist. It's a farce.

Asians for example are a litmus test, if you can't tolerate them who mainly are quiet and mind thier own business then you are definitely an intolerant bigot, PERIOD. That's why I laugh at people like mountainhaire who are dishonest about nitpicking as well. They will take out thier racism on anyone because they are full of empty moralistic shit.

peta9:

What racism do white people suffer that's so bad?


What 'racism' do blacks and Asians suffer that's so bad? Whites not giving a black a job because he's an incompetent ass? Some whites looking down on Asians, much like some Asians look down on wide eyes?

How well treated are whites in Africa? Asia? The Middle East? Oh, sorry, the question is moot, because those countries don't allow themselves to be swarmed with whites. It's a little hard to be racist when you prevent other races from emigrating to your country. But then again, all that matters to gooks like Tiassa is white racism. God forbid ever considering that whites themselves are discriminated against.

To be honest, I don't have any problem with Asians in general. The vast majority of them integrate well into white culture. Their own culture emphasises hard work and diligence, so they do pretty well in a relatively non-competitive, economically strong and liberal white society. Ironically, the vast majority of my close friends are Asian and Indian/Sri Lankan, although you could attribute this to the environment I'm currently living in.

What I dislike immensely is an uppity gook criticising the white culture that they live within, while neglecting to mention the oppressive shitholes that their own races have produced. ESPECIALLY when they have exploited our 'evil' culture of 'intolerance and oppression' to make a prosperous life for themselves. It really sickens me when these people cry victim, as if whitey continually prevents them from making a life for themselves, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Where would a black man rather live? China, or America? In fact, where would an Asian rather live... China, or America? The answer is so god damn obvious, given the millions of Chinese that migrate to America when their own government can't protect them from corruption, oppression and economic instability.

My mother faced what black people call 'discrimination' when she first immigrated to Australia (she was labelled as a 'wog', despite being Western Slav). My great grandparents also suffered similar discrimination for having a dark skin tone (they were Indian). Yet, despite these occasional barbs, they were immensely better off in a 'racist' Australia than their respective home countries.

Gooks like Tiassa shouldn't be criticising American culture. They should be kissing the ground that they walk on. They should be thankful that one of the freest and most prosperous nations on Earth allows their arrogant little yellow asses in it, because if I had my way, I'd punt the ungrateful ones back to Asialand.

You suffer from discrimination at the hands of some individuals? Tough shit. I've suffered from discrimation in the past for my white skin, my physical appearance, my area of residence, my social skills, and my gender. Suck it up, nancy.

Liberals have created a sissy culture where minorities are encouraged to moan like whores in heat whenever they detect the slightest wiff of discrimination. Now they want to shame the 'white establishment'. Fuck you. I'm not the least bit ashamed of being white, and any attempt to make me feel otherwise will be greeted with scorn and ridicule. I'm not going to take responsibility for