In my philosophy class, we were discussing general semantics, particulary perjoratives, such as nigger and spic. With the exception of the black kids, everyone in the class was using the phrase "the n word" instead of coming out and saying the word "nigger."

When it was my turn to speak I said that using the phrase "the n word" essentially makes the word "nigger" more powerful because by creating a euphamism, you are consciously sidestepping the "real" word and buy result you "give in to its power."

I also brought up the point that words are only symbols -- and that people become offended by the word, not because of the word itself, but because of what it represents. I also said that blacks have adopted the word nigger [nigga or nigguh] because by using it and adapting it, they steal the power of the word -- this is a good thing, and shows that the meaning of words can be altered if the words are offensive.

---

BUT.... Because I used the word "nigger" when I was describing my thoughts, the class turned on me [especially the black kids]. They said that I didn't have the right to use the word and that it fell to "loosely from my lips."

My rebutal was that I was using the word "nigger" in a philosophical/semantical discussion and I was talking ABOUT the word itself [and what it represents], but not actually calling any particular person or thing a nigger. I said that for the purpose of discussion and communication, it would be impossible for me not to use the word and still remain objective...

Imagine I would have said this...

"By using the n-word to sidestep the n-word, you actually make the n-word more powerful, because the n-word is a euphamism and euphamisms are created because people are too afraid, or too passive to use the real word."

See how wordy that is...

I was told by my teacher [and severely told by my classmates] that I was wrong. If the word is offensive, I shouldn't use it... PERIOD!

I don't understand this at all...

I am not a racist, and I was merely discussing the semantical connotations of a particular word. The word admittedly carries much emotional weight, but how can it be possible to have an objective viewpoint and discussion if we all side-step the word. I did not call anyone a nigger [nor would I], I only SAID it... I only discussed it in semantical contexts.

Is it wrong to use that word even in this way if there are people who are offended by it. Or [as I tend to think] are these people just naive and unable to seperate the "word" from the "thing it represents?"

---

Should a person be able to use the word "nigger" if he is discussing the word "nigger." Or should I, in further discussion, avoid using the word altogether regardless of how wordy and confusing the argument becomes? This seems self-defeating..

The group of people ya talked to didn't have an open mind, I guess. That's the thing I hate. People shouldn't be so uptight. They shouldn't make a big deal about so much stuff.

A person should be able to talk about the word "nigger". I don't see what's wrong with just talking about it.

I never really thought about it, but it makes sense that using euphamisms gives power to the word the euphamism replaces.

Nice post, sevenblu.

I think that as long as you are sure what you are saying can’t are taken the wrong way (in a class for example) it is ok. However I would not walk down the street saying "nigger" because if someone only heard a small portion of the conversation it could be taken the wrong way.

While on an intellectual level I have to agree with you, in a practical sense and out of general respect, I'd say it's inappropriate to use that word within earshot of a black person, no matter what the dynamic of the conversation.

I think one problem we white folks have in this regard is that there is no equivalent term used for us. Nothing as harsh and deeply caustic as "The N Word." You can call me cracker or honkey or whitey all day long, I couldn't give a shit. For blacks, just to hear the word, especially spoken by a white person (some blacks don't even think it's right for their own people to use that word, thinking that "That's OUR word" stuff is bull) is a trigger. It's patently offensive, just like to most women the "C" word is patently offensive. There is no context, whether saying in a joke, quoting some insolent moron who used it, whatever, that would make it "sanitary" for them.

Let me put it this way:
They will beat the flying hell out of you if you mention the actual n-word. You should be glad you got away with a mere discussion. However, I think you're right. If Af. Am.'s use "nigger," I see no reason why we can't. Besides, "negro" simply means "black." There's a Niger (sp) river in Africa, and I suspect that also simply means "black."

The word nigger does tend to piss black people off, if you're physically weaker than the black people in ear shot it would be wise to refrain from using it, if they are small or handicapped niggers, I say go nuts.

Ofcourse they're irrational assholes for attacking people who say nigger, but if it were possible to explain why to them, the word wouldn't piss them off in the first place.
There's no point spending too much time trying to explain why the word wouldn't offend a rational human being. You can't rationalise with the irrational about how they are irrational, they are irrational, and thus inherently incapable of understanding your rational argument.
Like I said, time your niggers wisely, thats all, it's not hard. I usually still manage to reach my quota of 186 niggers per day.

Sevenblu:

When it was my turn to speak I said that using the phrase "the n word" essentially makes the word "nigger" more powerful because by creating a euphamism, you are consciously sidestepping the "real" word and buy result you "give in to its power."

I can personally relate to the predicament situation above. I now live in Philadelphia, PA USA and there are proportionately more blacks than any other cities in the States. Accordingly, I get to encountre/interact with blacks quite occasionally.

For instance, I was purchasing a pair of trousers in a department store in Philadelphia and they both happened to be in black colour. And while I was deciding which of the two I was to get, a black clark kindly asked me if I had any question. So I asked the black clark what's the difference between the two pants and he replied that there is no difference except the subtle difference in colour (they both are black colour but I detected some 'subtle' difference), so I carefully look at the sublte difference and told the black clark "I don't like this (refering to one of two pairs) ugly black so I'll pick the other one." It was totally a natural conversation had it been between two white people. But the black clark, somehow, took it personally and started complaining about my useage of ther phrase "ugly black". Ever since that experience, I have a reservation using the word 'black' when black people are arround.

Also, when I was gardening outdoors and when my hands got soiled by black dirt, I accidentaly said "look at my dirty black hands" when some blacks were also around me: they all looked at me with very difficult facial expressions :eek:

Is it wrong to use that word even in this way if there are people who are offended by it. Or [as I tend to think] are these people just naive and unable to seperate the "word" from the "thing it represents?"[/

I beleive people can separate a word from a thing it represents. The difficulty here is that people cannot distingish between a word and a person who says the word. Thus the question doesn't reside within the word you are discussing, but bewteen the dialectical relationship between the speaker and his words. In this way, had you been a black person, I highly doubt, anyone would criticise you for saying the 'n' word. In fact, Philadelphia's blacks call themselves 'niggers' while they become furious when white folks say the very same word.

Hence this becomes irrelevant:

My rebutal was that I was using the word "nigger" in a philosophical/semantical discussion and I was talking ABOUT the word itself [and what it represents], but not actually calling any particular person or thing a nigger.

In general, however, if you'd use the 'n' word in any established social institutions such as college, the primary concern using the term would be a monetary loss. If, as Cato mentioned, someone heards you saying the 'n' word without grasping an entire context, and accuses you within a property of your college, not only you, but the college you are attending to might get sued. So, the teachers inevitably ought to avoid the potential financial loss at all cost. That's the primary goal as to why we ought to be 'politically correct': It is all but about money indeed. Quite pathetic isn't it...

When I was in undergrad, I took a world religions 101 (or something to that effect), and faced the same dillema when we studied about Judaism: We couldn't call them "Jews", instead we had to say "Jewish people", or "people with Jewish faith" etc etc.

Basically, the more limited your social status becomes, the more abundant linguistic mobility you get; if you are an Anglo-Saxon-White-Male, you are more likely to get sued in the realm of racial/religious discrimination; thus your linguistic mobility (among the politically incorrect terms) becomes limited.

If you really want to discuss about politically sensitive terms, I suggest that you leave the States, and go to a homogenious country like Denmark, (Denmark is a country with the strictest immigration laws, so you won't see many racial minorities there). And people in Demark are far more beautiful indeed.
best wishes,

I remember hearing of protetst at Harvard when a new recycling program was put into place. There were bins around campus for recyclable paper marked "White" and "Colored." There was an uproar. I suppose people were recalling the days when PEOPLE were designated in such a way and there were "White" and "Colored" bathrooms, movie theater seats, diner booths, etc ... They were forced to change it to something like "Bleached" and "Unbleached" or something.

I thought the reaction was pretty lame, but apparently people can't disassociate the words from the meaning that was once applied to themselves. So, I guess the point is that if some people can't even get over the word "colored" when it has a legitimate, non-racial meaning, it would have to be one hundred fold more difficult to get over the N word when it is that much more grotesque to them, because there is no equivocation as to the meaning and intent of that word.

I usually still manage to reach my quota of 186 niggers per day.

Thats a nigger every 9.7 minutes of your waking day! Well done.

Many blacks have no problem telling derogative jokes about Jews, even when they know they are talking to a jew, so, especially in a classroom setting, I think they have to be less goddamn sensitive.

Is this the first time you all have encountered this double standard? "Offense" isn't about rational behavior, it's about personal drama

It is a personal thing. I was once in a Creative Writing class with 20 other open-minded people (it's basically philosophy and philosophical discussion relating to literature and personal writing). I live in an area dominated by white poeple. There was one minority in the class- a black woman who later bacame a great friend. This woman was somewhat of a dramoid, the kind with a great sense of humor. Of course, in a philosophy class, the topics of racism is not only debated but it is beaten to a pulp and washed away with the anger that arises in the room and in the end, no headway is made in the subject. Everyone seems to become even more judgemental, arrogant and closed-minded.

Anyway, back to my story. We were discussing the power of words, particularily the power of 'taboo' words. (any bad word you can imagine or any expression that can make one flinch, we discussed it) It seemed as though our discussion was moving along smoothly. It was also, although it is odd for me to admit this, an enjoyable discussion full of surprises. I happened to have had my laptop with me at the time, I played the 'fuck' cartoon when someone recalled seeing it once (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/fwordflash.html).
We also learned a lot about the literal power of worlds and how powerful carefully chosen words can be.
Then we came to the word *drum roll* nigger. No one would say the word because there was one black student in the class. Ahe was actually the one that said the word for us to discuss. It was one of the most insightful days in my life. She told us that black people call each other 'nigga' because white people have taken everything away from the black culture. (she was mostly referring to 'wiggers' which appears to be a sub-culture that is exponentially increasing) She said that the word has immense power in the social setting because the word has become so in the anti-racism movement. A century ago (even less), one could refer to others a niggers and it was considered to be normal. This word became taboo during equalisiation periods when everyone was considered equal. She said that if there was another black person in the room that she wouldn't be able to say what she was oing to say because black people are supposed to stick up for eachother. She told us that the word is no big deal at all but it's one of the last powers that black people have over white people. She also said that racism can't be abolished until these childish taboo words are lessened in power. It's part of the culture of fear that the media has created for us.

I don't know if you agree with what she told us or not, but I think it has merit. If it is a room of only white people or only black people, these kind of things can be easily discussed. The "n" word is a powerful word. It can instantly segregate a room.

Should a person be able to use the word "nigger" if he is discussing the word "nigger." Or should I, in further discussion, avoid using the word altogether regardless of how wordy and confusing the argument becomes? This seems self-defeating..


Let's talk about the word "honkey" and see how you like it. Stop your ways for your sounding more like a bigot even if you don't think you are.

Let's talk about the word "honkey" and see how you like it. Stop your ways for your sounding more like a bigot even if you don't think you are.

There really is no word we could discuss that would offend me. That be one of the powers of the word "nigger." There is no racial equivalent when talking about a white man -- most "crackers" just don't care.

She said that if there was another black person in the room that she wouldn't be able to say what she was oing to say because black people are supposed to stick up for each other. She told us that the word is no big deal at all but it's one of the last powers that black people have over white people.

What an interesting way to look at the world -- almost paranoid. There is a cultural bond there that I will never know [being white]. I can see how this holds some truth, but I think it must be deeper than that. Because, if the word was "really no big deal" then people wouldn't die over it. I'm sure there has been a white man [somewhere]that called a black man a nigger and paid for the word with his life. Although I can see how this might be possible, in a tighly wound instance, I can't imagine this is the case in point. In fact, it reads a bit like "white-is-right" propaganda such as it is a direct attack on the black community.

"They have power over us... because they forbid our using the "n-word!!!"

It doesn't seem plausible that the world works in this way. But perhaps I am wrong, because I have little experience with black culture. Yet it does make me think about the "power" of the word in another light: Who really weilds the "power of the n-word?" ...the people who use it to offend, or the people who are offended.

In your scenario, it is the black man...

From a white man's perspective, it can be just the opposite.

Assuming the class and professor had no prior reason to view you as a racist, you were absolutely right, and the response is outragous.
In a philosophy class that had taken up the topic of "the n-word" you were scolded by the professor for saying it? In philosophy, perhaps more than in any other discipline words have to be chosen very carefully as one misplaced word can change the entire meaning of whats being said. That being so, if you censor those words that could offend people you might as well forget the whole thing.
It brings to mind an ucomfortable sex-ed teacher in high school.
"today's topic is..umm..reproduction...it occurs when the ..uh..you know is put in its uh..counterpart...you know.." Well..if you know then you don't need to be in the class.
Emotional responses like that don't have a place in philosophy courses. If its too offensive to them to hear the word used even in that context, they're too fragile to take(or teach) such a course.

No you were not wrong. But its a very hard word to master. I am a white man. I could say nigger in front of my black friends, i've done it in the past. But if it was another white man/or a African American I wasn't close with, its a very different thing.

The hard question is what allows its use? I can't really give a answer to that. The friends from my example have been very close for several years. They understand what im trying to say, so its never taken as a insult. (to them) Im not sure if its because they know I'm not racist, or because they know its not being used as a insult.

First off your arguement wasn't confusing or wordy. Second your arguement certainly has a place in philosophy class. Nice post, nice arguement, I wish your class could have understood the significance of your arguement. Maybe if you had been talking about a less controversial word they would have been more open to the idea of discussing words as symbols that merely represent or point towards meaning and that the words themselves have no power. We give words power and your class's response only reenforced the power of the word nigger.

"niggers' ghot a lot of baggage. lot of pain. whaen someone spits 'NIGGER'in your face, beHIND that hate is lynchings, slavery, whippins, rape, child molestation, poverty, total alienation, etc...so ther's that

Of course some black people use the word now to de-potentiate it, or take it from white-'ownership', but even when done that way it still seriously hurts other black people sometimes

but i don't like 'the 'n' word' neither as though one cannoy say it

we rather i reckon must all be aware of the power of words dhwen directed in hatred.....no matter what the word it is always ugly when used to hurt another

Here's a good example of the power of words over the power of ideas:

Creative writing class in college ... We were reading a book called "Steelwork" written by Gilbert Sorrentino. Basically sort of a mish-mash anthology of various stories. One of which concerned a priest who gets drunk and staggers into a park late at night and ends up getting a handjob from a drunken bum. We discussed in class the notion of "appropriateness." Is this the kind of thing that should be written and published in a book, and read by college students? Of course the overwhelming answer was "Of course ... free speech, etc .... No reason to censor it. It's the reader's choice to read it or not." Right. Agree. Fine....

Later on we were reading each others' short stories. One young lady had a story about children's fears of the "Evil Gypsies" coming into their window at night and stealing them away. The professor told her she shouldn't use the word "Gypsy" to define her evil characters because "that's an ethnic term and applying it to an evil being MIGHT OFFEND SOMEONE." A drunken priest getting jerked off in a park by a vagrant (completely offensive to a wide range of people from Catholics to people of a general conservative sensibility) is fine, but she can't say "Gypsy" because it might be found offensive.

Right ....

The word nigger does tend to piss black people off, if you're physically weaker than the black people in ear shot it would be wise to refrain from using it, if they are small or handicapped niggers, I say go nuts.

Ofcourse they're irrational assholes for attacking people who say nigger, but if it were possible to explain why to them, the word wouldn't piss them off in the first place.
There's no point spending too much time trying to explain why the word wouldn't offend a rational human being. You can't rationalise with the irrational about how they are irrational, they are irrational, and thus inherently incapable of understanding your rational argument.
Like I said, time your niggers wisely, thats all, it's not hard. I usually still manage to reach my quota of 186 niggers per day.

This is one of the most hippocritical messages I've ever read. What you're basically saying is that its ok for you and other members of the KKK to disrespect black people but its not alright for them to disrespect you by calling you a racist term. How would you like it if they called you a racist term? I'm sure you wouldn't. Yet, its ok for you to be racist to them?

"Ofcourse they're all a bunch of irrational assholes for attacking people who call them Niggers. Its totally a good thing to call black people Niggers or whatever racist word you want." is what your 80 word message boils down to.

hmmm... this kind of racism can and should get you banned from the sciforums.

The group of people ya talked to didn't have an open mind, I guess. That's the thing I hate. People shouldn't be so uptight. They shouldn't make a big deal about so much stuff.

A person should be able to talk about the word "nigger". I don't see what's wrong with just talking about it.

I never really thought about it, but it makes sense that using euphamisms gives power to the word the euphamism replaces.

Nice post, sevenblu.


I totally agree with you: A person should be able to talk about the word "nigger".

if a black person calls another black person a nigger, it's just a greeting
if a white person calls a black person a nigger, it's an insult...

that makes no sense

the word nigger, as i intend it, is as inoffensive as the words Brit, Aussie, Frenchie

"loosely from my lips."Excuse me? It's not exactly a 4 sylable SAT word.

The proper reaction seems to be to look around the room, studder, and quietly say 'um... you know'. If you were calling someone a nigger, I'd fully expect them to wait for you after class... likewise if you called them a bastard or some other insult.

But you were talking about the word and why it has a stigma attached to it. It's incredibly stupid and empowering to not even allow open dialog on A WORD.

I went to college in Philly, and when we had discussions in class people understood the difference.

In my philosophy class, we were discussing general semantics, particulary perjoratives, such as nigger and spic. With the exception of the black kids, everyone in the class was using the phrase "the n word" instead of coming out and saying the word "nigger."

When it was my turn to speak I said that using the phrase "the n word" essentially makes the word "nigger" more powerful because by creating a euphamism, you are consciously sidestepping the "real" word and buy result you "give in to its power."

I also brought up the point that words are only symbols -- and that people become offended by the word, not because of the word itself, but because of what it represents. I also said that blacks have adopted the word nigger [nigga or nigguh] because by using it and adapting it, they steal the power of the word -- this is a good thing, and shows that the meaning of words can be altered if the words are offensive.

---

BUT.... Because I used the word "nigger" when I was describing my thoughts, the class turned on me [especially the black kids]. They said that I didn't have the right to use the word and that it fell to "loosely from my lips."

My rebutal was that I was using the word "nigger" in a philosophical/semantical discussion and I was talking ABOUT the word itself [and what it represents], but not actually calling any particular person or thing a nigger. I said that for the purpose of discussion and communication, it would be impossible for me not to use the word and still remain objective...

Imagine I would have said this...

"By using the n-word to sidestep the n-word, you actually make the n-word more powerful, because the n-word is a euphamism and euphamisms are created because people are too afraid, or too passive to use the real word."

See how wordy that is...

I was told by my teacher [and severely told by my classmates] that I was wrong. If the word is offensive, I shouldn't use it... PERIOD!

I don't understand this at all...

I am not a racist, and I was merely discussing the semantical connotations of a particular word. The word admittedly carries much emotional weight, but how can it be possible to have an objective viewpoint and discussion if we all side-step the word. I did not call anyone a nigger [nor would I], I only SAID it... I only discussed it in semantical contexts.

Is it wrong to use that word even in this way if there are people who are offended by it. Or [as I tend to think] are these people just naive and unable to seperate the "word" from the "thing it represents?"

---

Should a person be able to use the word "nigger" if he is discussing the word "nigger." Or should I, in further discussion, avoid using the word altogether regardless of how wordy and confusing the argument becomes? This seems self-defeating..


I've had many a successful 'philosophical' conversation with black people
about the word 'nigger'. Really the way I do it is simply get agreement from
everyone involved in the conversation that the word is going to be used
for discussion 'as is'. Works like a charm.

People who are self-conscious shouldn't venture into a house of mirrors.

"The proper reaction seems to be to look around the room, studder, and quietly say 'um... you know'. If you were calling someone a nigger, I'd fully expect them to wait for you after class... likewise if you called them a bastard or some other insult."

you racist son of a bitch!
nigger is NOT an insult

Have you ever read the book Nigger?
It talks about the origins of the word and how it wasn't an insult to begin with. It became an insult.

nigger is NOT an insultAnd that's your opinion... but other people take it as an insult. Regardless of what it started out as, that's what it became.

Likewise most people would consider 'bastard' and insult... even if they technically are a bastard.

eh. its wierd because blacks seem to be the only group really that offended by racial slurs. i have friends that i call chink or kink or heeb or slope, sometimes even random people, but they really dont care. nigger is just the ultimate taboo. only blacks appear to be offended by it, but it'll probably take sometime, and after a while it will connotate nothing. But modern day blacks still act as if the whole "slavery" thing is still bringing them down. except its not. you dont see the jews complaining about the pogroms, the Holocaust, the whole Moses in the desert business. I just dont get it. and i like blacks, but i hate niggers. :m:

It's fairly stupid to be insulted by any of that family of insults.... call someone a nigger, bastard, chink, honkey, asshole, jackass... whatever....

You aren't being any more descriptive than 'I dont like you'. If you call someone a nigger you don't like them... being black is just a sidebar (in your and some others case).

That said, if all you are going to say is "I don't like you"... you might as well use a different word that won't label you a racist.

"Racism" is a witch-hunt.

It's as simple as this folks,

The word nigger is bad(relative to sensitive minds), the word "nigga" is light-hearted. The reason that "nigger" is so offensive is due to enculturation and a repressed sense of inadequacy. If it were not taught at a young age that "we(black people, and yes I am one) are in our current substandard of living because they(white people) called us nigger; thus when you hear the word being used it helps perpetuate our current struggle, unless we use it with each other and therefore show that we have 'ownership' over the word." then this wouldn't be a problem. But in all cases enculturation leads to misconceptions, and misconceptions lead to silly conclusions, and silly conclusions lead to a mass idiocy, indefatigable and insurmountable.

It happens on both sides of the fence, there is no way to avoid it.

“ nigger is NOT an insult ”

And that's your opinion...

no it isnt, it is the deffinition of the word. some people have twisted nigger into being an insult, just as some people have turned pom into an insult

pom? :m:

"The god-damn pom poming chearleaders..."

I guess like that

oh. i thought i was pom pon... :m:

It seems we are both right (some adult material):
http://images.google.com/images?q=pom+pom&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=pom+pon&btnG=Search

And just a note.... cheerleaders shouldn't square dance
http://www.lps.wels.net/scanathletics/poms/img_1002.jpg

In my home town some decades ago, there was a great football player called E.S. Brown who ended up with his name on one of the grandstands. So what, right?

The issue is that the printing on the grandstand reads The E.S. "Nigger" Brown Stand. It seems that this blond fair-haired boy was given that nickname at an early age (I guess due to his surname and as an opposite to his fair complexion). The bizarre thing, however, is that most people here seem to accept the difference between the concepts behind the word, and seem genuinely baffled that others could consider the word itself to be inherently offensive. To the point that this has progressed through the entire Australian court hierarchy, and all agreed that the word is not inherently offensive.

Personally, I don't care whether the word is "inherently offensive" or not - it's enough that a significant number of local and visiting people do consider it offensive, and that an obvious alternative ("The E.S. Brown Stand") is available that the name should be changed. The outcry against the alternative is that it would somehow dishonour the man's memory. Apparently even his gravestone bears his nickname.

What do you think? Am I living in a town/country full of bigots?

Let me put it this way:
They will beat the flying hell out of you if you mention the actual n-word. You should be glad you got away with a mere discussion. However, I think you're right. If Af. Am.'s use "nigger," I see no reason why we can't. Besides, "negro" simply means "black." There's a Niger (sp) river in Africa, and I suspect that also simply means "black."

heh, in my geography lessons the teacher used the phrase "nigers live in africa" and pretty much everyone here also, especially the older generation.
Chinese live in China, latinos in Latin America, nigers in Africa - that's the logic, with no intention to insult. And there is noone to insult here too. There maybe are about 20 black persons in the whole country. :)

What are they doing there?

Some exchange students, a few refugees who didn't get further to the west, a few basketball players employed by some local teams, two singers (they sing latvian folk songs mixed with african beats).

Refugees from where?

How odd.
Living in the US, it is queer to imagine a country so white.

whitewolf:
Somalia, Ghana, probably.

Refugees from where?
Africa. A few in their travel to western Europe had gotten on some Russian ships and then from Russia through Latvia wanted to get further, but were caught on the border.

Oh there's a black woman leading a talk show in Russia. Shocking.
I remember while I was still in Latvia I saw one black person who looked like a tourist. It was too weird.

There are more tourists now. If you really want you can see a few each week in the old city. EU and all.. :rolleyes:

Africa. A few in their travel to western Europe had gotten on some Russian ships and then from Russia through Latvia wanted to get further, but were caught on the border.
Are they in the process of being kicked out?

I remember they were showed on tv once. Don't remember their exact status, but they're stuck here for some years.

I hope nobody finds them "exotic" or anything.... Fling them back to where they came from. Or to Russia, hehe.

Better to the US. With all the politcorrect love for the black people there you wouldn't reject them.

Unfortunately I recall reading somewhere on bbc news that EU wants a milder policy towards refugees which would make countries deeper in to accept them as well. Well, as long as Latvia doesn't have some clause that would give them citizenship, I'm not too worried.

They want to get to Germany, UK and the like anyways, the more civilized and african inhabited lands, where you get payed better and actually can live on social security.

Yeah I doubt anybody would migrate into the Baltics, or the whole former USSR within the next decade at least. That's why it's so surprising that they're there.

It's a word. Need more be said? They're all the same, some just carry the meaning more vehemently. If you have a problem with the words used(Exception:Explicit descrpitions of things no one would want to hear), then ignore them. If it were up to me, all words would carry different meaning, but it would all be on the same level-niger would be the same as calling someone black. No big deal. But, the language of the world is not up to me.

(Exception:Explicit descrpitions of things no one would want to hear)
Interesting exception...
Why is it an exception? Is it because the words are inherently bad?
What if the explicit description were in a language that no one in earshot (except the speaker) knew?

I think that on examination, the "n" word is considered unacceptable for exactly the same reason that you consider your exception unacceptable - both call up unacceptable concepts in the mind of the hearer.

Point taken. I do not mind any word that I do not hear(or do not see on paper, etc. etc.). If you wish to say things to yourself, do so.

The words aren't inherently bad, but that which they are describing. It is not the words themselves that bother me. I do not wish to hear several teenagers accounts on what their last group orgy felt like/how it went. Merely calling someone nigger doesn't effect me. I guess they both come from the same grounds, however.

Hahaha. My new ultimatum-If you do not like what they say, do not listen to them. Another exception, however-areas of science/philsophy/debate. Listen to their ideas, check them against your own and reason. However, one does not have to listen to pointless obscenities or sex descriptions.

heres my idea:
black people can call other black people "nigga" as long as:
white people can call white people crackers, chinese can call each others "chinks", vietnamese can call each other "gook", and so on and et cetera.

I have never met an intelligent black man.

“Oh my god… you racist!”

Seriously, I don’t know any black people. I’ve seen some on TV, though.
I think they are a hoax.


It doesn’t really matter if I use the word nigger, it really doesn't imply that niggers are inferior.
And usually there’s no one to take offence.
I don’t live within the yank-culture, so don't cry over the monocles of slavery and how the word is hurting “our” black brothers but realize that the word represents… nothing to me. Like avatar coached, in some places the word is commonly used to identify a black person, with no ill attempt.

Example of the “who the fuck cares” attitude: http://www.translocal.net/ground/progress/laku/laku1.html

There was no slavery here, nor are racistic cultural molds tutored like they are in the states.
The neo-Nazis (we did loose the WW2, and the masses are slow) though, have their petty little circles but they hate hippies and metal-heads as much as they hate niggers so at least they are consistent.

Hapsburg
Nice plan, faggot.
Whoops…

Ah, here quite a few metal-heads are also neo-nazis. Pisses me off at concerts! :mad:
Especially if some nazi metal band is preforming.

...which is why i never go to metal band concerts.

Perfect....you stated that "in some places the word is commonly used to identify a black person", why not just call them a black person or identify them solely on the location of where their from/are..

A word can have more than one meaning can it not?? It applies to this word. I don't even curse because it's offensive so I most definately can't or won't say the word nigger....You have to experience our life in order to understand, this can't become a debate...that alone is quite rude in itself....Black people are human...there's no particular category we need to be put in...we simply want to be left alone with our own thoughts and agenda's, you don't have to understand every little thing about everything....being called a nigger is a feeling more than just a word....I get offended if a black person says nigger also because they have also forgot what that feels like...it's true we need to put it behind us but never ever under no circumstances forget how that word came to be. I don't even like being called an African American. I'm not from Africa..never been and don't plan on going anytime soon....I am an eight generation american....as a matter of fact does anyone here even know what the word nigger actually means??

heh
avatar and whitewolf
wannabe nazis
whats up with that?
granpa served with the ss?
tradition and all that, ja?

hey! a jew! after him!!!!

why not just call them a black person or identify them solely on the location of where their from/are..
Maybe because the term "black person" is already taken by other group of people here?
And since the africans can be counted on fingers in this country, they have no real claim over the term.
I call them africans or niggers, so what? They have been called by that name for generations. There is nobody to offend with that name here, and I wouldn't care less for some person living on the other side of the atlantic ocean.
Besides North America is not in my list of places I'd want to visit. /shudders

granpa served with the ss?
tradition and all that, ja?
Actually, yes. :)

buljlja suuds, debils!

:)

You wouldn't want I report you to the mods, would you?

lemme think........

It is a Sacred White Duty to follow the Glorious Aryan Fuehrer Path
For the Race, for the Reich, Heil Hitler!"

Therefore, in the Manner of your ForeFathers...
Snitch Away
Baltic Style

Maybe because the term "black person" is already taken by other group of people here?
And since the africans can be counted on fingers in this country, they have no real claim over the term.
I call them africans or niggers, so what? They have been called by that name for generations. There is nobody to offend with that name here, and I wouldn't care less for some person living on the other side of the atlantic ocean.
Besides North America is not in my list of places I'd want to visit. /shudders


Actually, yes. :)

Well if that's the case then everyone in the whole wide world would be niggers and africans....if that works for you then fine....i would prefer earthling or human since that is what I am....

hey, whatever suits your thinking, you can call yourself whatever you want :D

Actually, my grandpa was on the Soviet side, being Jewish.
I simply have grown to strongly dislike negroes. I dislike them for the same reason I dislike Jews and Arabs. Homo- and bisexuals are fine with me.

One my grandfather was in the red army, the other was an ss legionare.
Good they didn't shoot each other.

Ha, that's some good luck!
I'm not sure my other grandpa served anywhere. He was a Petrov and a drunkard, went to jail, too.

My great-grandpa, the father of the grandma who married the Petrov, was a devoted commie, also a Jew, from Russia. This side of my family, it appears, came from Greece to Russia and then lived in Latvia for a good century. These were harmless poor prople. I think my grandparents were entitled to some land during the redistribution, but they never claimed anything as they were anxious to move to US. My dad's side, with the grandpa who served in the army, came from Ukraine, but they're also Russians, not Ukrainians (you can see, I'm a thoroughbred commie). My dad served in the army for some month in some remote hole before my grandpa dragged him out of there.

Why were your grandparents so anxious to leave? Well, ok, I understand - Latvia is not the USA, people are poorer here.
I like this land though. :)

You like baltic swampland?
:bugeye:

Well, the pension in Latvia isn't something useful, while the programs in US are at least bearable. The financial crisis with Repsha's currency.... (why is he in gov't?) Besides, they left because their family was here. First, my grandma's sister's son came here, and brought his mother, and then there were some others, and they all dragged half of the family. The other half went to Israel the same way. I have only one uncle left in Latvia, alone (his wife, kids, grandkids went from Israel to Canada). Then, there are my aunt's husband's relatives (farmers, businessmen), and my sis's husband's family. My bro in law is half Latvian.
Funny, eh?
See, the Americans value land, and my family could've obtained some in Latvia, but not in US. I think it was fashionable back then to run to US and Israel. And now it isn't anymore. What drives humans: fashion and habit.

I think I'm the first one in the (blood) family to like Latvia for Latvia. My dad still has nostalgia for USSR.

You like baltic swampland?
:bugeye:
Why yes, pretty much actually. Land of the werewolves, witches and spirits.
http://ambereye.piparmetra.net/data/media/12/Bilde101.JPG
http://ambereye.piparmetra.net/data/media/14/IMG_0753.jpg

Ah...
The region was better off in the hands of Sweden...

The region is best off on its own, without intervening greed of other nations.

Actually I'm attending a witch trial and burning next week. Poor girl. Her only hope is that maybe the dogs of Dievs or some warriors will save her. The hope is thin though, there will be plenty of Livonic knights there.

I read that; there's no need to reiterate. I don't have exams.

oh, but you haven't seen the pics from the previous fest
http://www.balticmedieval.info/?id=4&val=lv&fest=4&bild=1

The region is best off on its own, without intervening greed of other nations.
Ehh..........
Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
Because that area was under Commonwealth control.
And Poland was a fairly just and open nation, for the time...

Because the majority of blacks have high testosterone and low IQ levels they will react to situations in a more uncivilized manner.

Scientific references please. Specifically the bit about testosterone and such. I personally think this is the white man's attempt at debunking the fact that black men have bigger dicks. Insecurity sucks.

As for IQ level, that is a poverty issue and that has been proven across the globe.

There are numerous articles and study's on this subject, here is just a couple.

The news is worse for men in the District. Prostate cancer is the No. 1 health concern among men in Washington, according to the National Prostate Cancer Coalition. Black men are 60 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer and 2.4 times more likely to die from it than men of other races, according to the coalition. Researchers don't fully know why this is, though they know blacks metabolize testosterone in a speedier fashion, which contributes to accelerated tumor growth.
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050502-101052-3372r.htm

It is my hypothesis that increased testosterone increases HIV infection rates and AIDS . This will explain why AIDS is so high in Africa. Blacks produce more testosterone than whites, and the infection rate of blacks far exceeds the rate in whites. Blacks males produce significantly more testosterone than while males.
http://www.anthropogeny.com/Why%20H...in%20Africa.htm

Blacks in the USA have the highest prostatic cancer rates in the world. Their two-fold increased risk, compared to US whites, is evident at the earliest age at which prostatic cancer occurs. Ross et al. [ref: 24] showed that young US blacks have a 15% higher mean testosterone serum level than young US whites, and argued that this difference could readily explain the two-fold difference in rates.
http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/suppl7/androgenicsteroids.html

As for IQ, do you think people are stupid because they are poor, or poor because there stupid?

Most people often discount I.Q. test results with the excuse that they are culturally biased or because of poverty. Nonetheless, NO ONE, not the NAACP nor the United Negro College Fund, nor NEA had been able to develop an intelligence test which shows Blacks and Whites scoring equally.

The bigger "dicks" that black men have are needed for the bigger vagina's that black women have.

Wow, you know, I just looked in the dictionary for the term 'racist', this is what it said:

"Racist. Noun.
1. A person who discriminates other races because of sterotypes; 2. J.B from SciForums."

Very interesting... :p

Hapsburg, you should have continued reading that definition and you'd have seen .....3. Baron Max

:)

Baron Max

BUT.... Because I used the word "nigger" when I was describing my thoughts, the class turned on me [especially the black kids]. They said that I didn't have the right to use the word and that it fell to "loosely from my lips."

Welcome to double standards.

The only solution to the racial problem is separation. History proves this, and many philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Santayana, Schopenhauer) argue for it.

Only the ignorant oppose it.

Most people often discount I.Q. test results with the excuse that they are culturally biased or because of poverty. Nonetheless, NO ONE, not the NAACP nor the United Negro College Fund, nor NEA had been able to develop an intelligence test which shows Blacks and Whites scoring equally.

Clearly the races exist at different evolutionary levels, but you can't say that without getting called a "racist." When society outlaws truth... only outlaws will have truth. Then it's revolution time, and all those who were calling people "racist" are going to find themselves very fucking dead very fucking fast.

We could avoid this course, but the people calling people "racist" don't seem to want to. Guess they desire a race war and mass death. What sickos.

As for IQ level, that is a poverty issue and that has been proven across the globe.

Scientific references please.

Nonsense, the whole concept of race is non-scientific. It just comes down to people not liking a culture they are unfamiliar with. Hatred for blacks in the US by whites was a requirement for slavery to work, you couldn't subjugate a people that you thought were equal to you. It just proves that you shouldn't be unjust to anyone, because it will come back to haunt you.

Separation would work to a degree, but then you would just have more widescale hatred in the form of wars. And what about people of mixed racial backrounds? How do you classify them? Integration until a variety of skin tones is considered as natural as variation in hair color would work better.

I can admit that inferiority of one race to another is non-scientific, but there certainly are differences, at least visually.
There is a difference in culture, and this difference has only grown wider over the past decades. Blacks became hostile as well. Since there is mutual hostility, I think separation is best.
Edit: nah, pardon, due to fashionable political correctness, whites are less hostile now. True, some are genuinely understanding and sympathetic, but many are simply politically correct.

Black people die of more illness in the U S simply because of healthcare...generations of not being able to have it or proper education....not going to the doc appointment because of cost...white women get more breast cancer than anyone but can catch it before it spreads because of health insurance....Africa was a thriving country before you cave men climbed out of your mother's womb...long before Jesus was born you idiot...Black people are more hostile because for some stupid reasons unknown to me..they are the most hated race of people....why???...for not bowing down to you stupid, demonic, racist pigs....I guess that's why they go around blowing up buildings, killing children at schools...murdering their family (well sometimes)
....hate crimes.......genocide... NOT...... you are nothing but a coward...sorry everyone else, this shiittt pisses me off......there is no inferiority of another race....just different standards that racist whitey can confuse you with...black people aren't hostile their just sick of this shiitt from people like you......given the opportunity.......they just want to be left alone to live free....when will that ever happen....???? Black people do not hate white people in the U S...that's what the media wants you to believe....they could care less what your race is...as long as you're good people then they will like you....that has been proven over and over again....Black people have spent their entire lives throughout history being hated...and why...they're not building bombs...crashing planes into buildings....shooting first and asking questions later......destroying Earth......sending chemicals through the mail....hanging people.....dragging them down the street by your truck because of your skin color......murdering someone because of your right to freedom....locking you in prison without sufficient evidence.....covering up your true identity and heritage.....stealing your land and saying they discovered it first............................................. ..They are very very smart (read the real history books),strong, loving, geniun original race of man. Sumarian, Egyptians, Romans, Africans in general...... You racist JERK!!!! :mad:

.They are very very smart (read the real history books),strong, loving, geniun original race of man.
smart? they are too stupid to govern their own countries!!
look at africa!
ivory coast republic - swimming in diamonds, but the locals just buy weapons for the money and slaughter each other.
tribe against tribe, mindless hate
smart? look at zimbabve. took away farms from white farmers to be their own masters.
what happened? they don't know how to farm. ruined and sold away the equipment, continue to live in poverty and dirt.
I laugh at your words

Bring back the colonial regime to Africa (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35288&page=1&pp=20)

Clearly the races exist at different evolutionary levels, but you can't say that without getting called a "racist." When society outlaws truth... only outlaws will have truth. Then it's revolution time, and all those who were calling people "racist" are going to find themselves very fucking dead very fucking fast.

We could avoid this course, but the people calling people "racist" don't seem to want to. Guess they desire a race war and mass death. What sickos.


Evolutionary levels????? The only real evolutionary difference is that man got sicker in the membranes the lighter he got....JERK..... Race War?????????no one cares that much about the color of skin to fight over it... you LUMMY.......(not even worthy of being called a dummy)

Bring back the colonial regime to Africa (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35288&page=1&pp=20)

Start from the beginning you idiot before white man existed....that's why I said real history books you idiot....Leave them to govern how they see fit at beginning of time...no one has to work the same as the white boy does....

I guess the last sentence is the only thing you can think of huh.....what about all the things mentioned that other people (such as yourself do) compare that to this idiot????????Farming???????Jerk.........

..you idiot
No, no, showing your ill manners is no way to present the intelligence of the african people.

smart? look at zimbabve. took away farms from white farmers to be their own masters.

It was necessary as a step in modernization. People develop in steps, unlike you. They can't change values of entire (very traditional and conservative) societies over night, or over decades. The problem of poverty doesn't lie singularily in knowing how to use farming equipment.

No, no, showing your ill manners is no way to present the intelligence of the african people.

JERK....look at what you're doing trying to justify an injustice.....Idiot.....

But it lies in the fact that the people don't realise that they have to know something before doing something.
Today Africa is just one big hunting field for the tribe leaders. The target is other tribes.
The main problem is that they draw a line around their tribe and everyone is an outsider,
they don't have the solidarity and vision that streches further than each small group of people.
They want to govern with no idea how to do that.
Of course, if they prefer to slaughter each other, I welcome it. More free living space for the rest of us.

JERK....look at what you're doing trying to justify an injustice.....Idiot.....
What am I doing? Just presenting a mirror.
You know, that shiny thing. :p

Start from the beginning you idiot before white man existed

We don't live in the times when white man doesn't exist, we live in the world of today.
Quiet down those insults, the rules apply to all who participate in discussion here.

!@#$$#^&@*((!&#()#&)@$@)#*@)#*@) how's that quiet for you now....meaning is the same....

We don't live in the times when white man doesn't exist, we live in the world of today.
Quiet down those insults, the rules apply to all who participate in discussion here.

A nation of original people are being insulted and you have the nerve to tell me to quiet down.....you speak up

What am I doing? Just presenting a mirror.
You know, that shiny thing. :p

J@!$@%@^@R^@&@^K :mad:

There is no nation, only tribes, and they also need to learn the language of discussion and debate. Already gripping your spear, warrior?
Or you forgot how to spell in anger already?

But it lies in the fact that the people don't realise that they have to know something before doing something.

One thing is to read books on how to govern, another is to apply those ideas. Successful democratic government of your standards is achieved only through experience and education of the citizens. Education costs money, which the unexperienced government can't provide. It's a vicious cycle in all aspects, there's no single correct formula that'll work. They do need to be left alone to settle down, I agree.

The main problem is that they draw a line around their tribe and everyone is an outsider,

And what are Europeans doing? The only difference is that, for some odd reason, the rest of the world began to find war immoral.

they don't have the solidarity and vision that streches further than each small group of people.

Your solidarity and vision lasts only as long as you don't really have to contact an unfamiliar culture.

Welcome to double standards.

The only solution to the racial problem is separation. History proves this, and many philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Santayana, Schopenhauer) argue for it.

Only the ignorant oppose it.


I guess that's why for the last 50 years or so we've been in a race war because we are not seperated. Huh....you're so smart......Oh wait.....what's with all these interracial couples and babies doing here...don't they know there's a race war going on because we're not seperated....isn't that what history said....You're a Lummy too...... :bugeye:

And what are Europeans doing? The only difference is that, for some odd reason, the rest of the world began to find war immoral.
Not excluding Europeans themselves. From where do you think human rights come?

Your solidarity and vision lasts only as long as you don't really have to contact an unfamiliar culture.
I was speaking abut solidarity between african tribes. Clearly they are not of totally alien culture to each other.

A nation of original people are being insulted and you have the nerve to tell me to quiet down.....you speak up

That's better. Excessive name-calling is unproductive and will get you banned.
Africans are not a single nation. What on earth do you mean by "original" people?

Excessive name-calling is unproductive and will get you banned.
Or killed. Depends on your location.

There is no nation, only tribes, and they also need to learn the language of discussion and debate. Already gripping your spear, warrior?
Or you forgot how to spell in anger already?

not angry....pisssssed...but that lasted for about 20 minutes...realize you're just a Lummy tooo....you don't know any better....or you weren't taught any better....your parents were to busy fitting your white sheet over your head...Lummy

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :D Good one. You made me laugh.

That's better. Excessive name-calling is unproductive and will get you banned.
Africans are not a single nation. What on earth do you mean by "original" people?

I take it you need a lesson about genetic history....or were you told a lie too about where original babies come from....There is no single nation...only a single planet called Earth.....The only real category to put humans in is the animal category in which we are a part other than that we all come from the same origin of the Earth Planet.....so forth and so on....go ponder on it...I'm going to bed now....and no I don't sleep on a haystack in my masters farm....I actually come from a wealthy family...yes I know...say no more...my stepdaddy's white..... :eek:

I was speaking abut solidarity between african tribes. Clearly they are not of totally alien culture to each other

If you, while looking at the formal diplomacy, think that France has solidarity for, say, Germany, you are being naive. International politics of the rest of the world are governed by simple self-interest. They ally with each other only to defend their self-interests, not out of solidarity.
Traditions in African tribes have a huge variety and history, which is why you can't mix them into a single nation.
Their solidarity follows money, just like everywhere else in the world. Those wars in Africa are profitable to many people, just as the war between Russia and Chechnya is profitable.

There is a difference between genetics and civilizations. :)
There is more than one on Earth.
European, North American (yes, already), Chinese, Indian, Arabic, African, some also count in SAmerica

There is a difference between genetics and civilization. :)

read it again lummy......were talking about the word original

Midnight --> meditation time.

If you, while looking at the formal diplomacy, think that France has solidarity for, say, Germany, you are being naive. International politics of the rest of the world are governed by simple self-interest.
Of course, that's what politics are all about, but they are more rational and (should I say) ellegant.

read it again lummy......were talking about the word original

No, you sound like you're excluding the white man from the "original" nation. You need to brush up on your definitions: "nation" is applied to a group of people, not to the entire world.

Midnight --> meditation time.
Each moment should be a meditation. I'm preparing for an exam.

Of course, that's what politics are all about, but they are more rational and (should I say) ellegant.

They're funny.

Oh? Not to me. More like a bit ridiculous. But I'm not interested in politics. I leave it for those who care.

Each moment should be a meditation. I'm preparing for an exam.

I don't think you'll be tested on the contents of "the 'n' word", although you know this subject better than any other you've studied this semester.

Multitasking pwns! ^_^

I have an alternative perspective to share (and I know I am going to get
JERKED and LUMMIED to death for it). I have observed that people are
visually attracted to various facial aesthetics (shape, symmetry, clarity,
and color being key). My experience with the black population is that they
are on average not as visually attractive within the scope of the
aformentioned facial criteria.

Black people are one of a few human varations whom have really gotten
a raw deal historically and I think it could be a result of being easier /
more desireable to kick an ugly dog than an attractive one (now that's
a horrible anology folks).

Black people are attractive to black people, white people are attractive to white people. I'll assert more: people of the same nation are more likely to be attractive to you, not only because of physical characteristics, but because of culture as well. People do mix, as "exotic" is also attractive sometimes; but usually they breed with their own kind.

Ain't she a beauty? :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/south_asia_saris_and_temples/img/6.jpg

To you, yes, because she's "exotic." To fellow-Indians, she's a beauty, too, but they're more likely to actually marry her. A breeding partner isn't simply something you gaze at.

I'm not speaking myth! My own friends date only fellow-Russians because they watched the same movies when they were little and listen to the same music and speak the same language. If you look closely at New York, the melting pot, people really live in communities defined by nationality and stick together that way for the most part. African Americans live together in their own communities, too.

That's the way I really prefer it: let people live in their different communities and work and study together if they wish.

To you, yes, because she's "exotic."
I've always liked indian and gypsy girls. I'm quite exotic myself :p
but they're more likely to actually marry her
Of course, while I stay in Latvia.
A breeding partner isn't simply something you gaze at.
I prefer gazing.

Do you have one of those dolls somewhere in your closet? =D

lol, no, I can well control myself

I'll agree that culture has it's influence and that breeding tends to occur
within the race. I do however disagree about raw attractiveness. If we
take away sight then we are left with smell and how symmetrical &
proportional a male's features are directly correlate to how good his sweat
smells to a female (the opposite is probably true and I have not looked
into it that far). That's the symmetry / shape link. Clarity is an obvious one.
Acne, moles, warts, etc are advertisers of less adapted genetics. Color-wise,
people have historically been attracted to the lighter side of the spectrum.
Sun gods, golden chariots, pearly gates, and so on.

I have worked with alot of people of different backgrounds and ethnicities
and have had the opportunity to find out who they are attracted to. A
common concensus (and this is really bad) is that the bulk of black women
look like gorilla women and are unattractive.

Ain't she a beauty? :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/south_asia_saris_and_temples/img/6.jpg

She's a cutie and that external booger is hideous.

To you, yes, because she's "exotic." To fellow-Indians, she's a beauty, too, but they're more likely to actually marry her. A breeding partner isn't simply something you gaze at.

I'm not speaking myth! My own friends date only fellow-Russians because they watched the same movies when they were little and listen to the same music and speak the same language. If you look closely at New York, the melting pot, people really live in communities defined by nationality and stick together that way for the most part. African Americans live together in their own communities, too.

That's the way I really prefer it: let people live in their different communities and work and study together if they wish.

I think that's a social behavior more than anything. I know in highschool
everyone is in a scramble to look like one another. The successful look-alikes
will band together, share resources, have more influence, etc. The
unsuccesful clones will have a tough time unless they already have equal or
great resources / influence in which case they are pretty much autonomous
and could turn into the next role model.

That frenzy to immitate is something that's present in everyone, and the first imitated role models belong to the same race because that's what's closest. The psychology is fascinating, isn't it?
See, that piercing in her nose repulses me, but it's beautiful to an Indian man. To Avatar, too, yes, he likes that sort of thing, but I'm sure most of his fellow-Latvians would have a different opinion.

Beautiful is one thing. That nose pod may actually look quite intricate and
cool close up and represent a cultural concept of beauty. Put a bunch
of nose podders together and I am certain that symmetry, clarity, shape,
and color will be the attraction distinguishers.

Wow, you know, I just looked in the dictionary for the term 'racist', this is what it said:

"Racist. Noun.
1. A person who discriminates other races because of sterotypes; 2. J.B from SciForums."

Very interesting... :pHow am I "discriminating" and what "sterotype" are you talking about?

My point is that blacks are more violent then other groups of people and blacks have much higher testosterone levels then any other groups of people.

Both these facts are true.

That is why on the average you will get a much more violent reaction from blacks when there is a name calling situation.

How am I "discriminating" and what "sterotype" are you talking about?

My point is that blacks are more violent then other groups of people and blacks have much higher testosterone levels then any other groups of people.

Both these facts are true.

That is why on the average you will get a much more violent reaction from blacks when there is a name calling situation.

What is the percentage of blacks with ring fingers longer than index fingers
and how does this compare to other races?

What is the percentage of blacks with ring fingers longer than index fingers
and how does this compare to other races?
I will look for facts on ring fingers for you, but in the mean time here are some facts you can chew on. If you have ANY facts to dispute this information please provide it, if not you can just personaly attack me like the others do.

The hair is black, crispy, and "woolly" in texture, it is flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct like the hair of Europeans.
The nose is thick, broad and flat, often turned up nostrils exposing the red inner lining of the mucous membrane similar to an ape.
The arms and legs of the Negro are relatively longer than the European. The humerus is a trifle shorter and the forearm longer thereby approximating the simian form.
The eyes are prominent, iris black and the orbits large. The eye often has a yellowish sclerotic coat over it like that of a gorilla.
The Negro has a shorter trunk the cross-section of the chest is more circular than whites. The pelvis is narrower and longer as it is in an ape.
The mouth is wide with very thick, large and protruding lips.
Negro skin has a thick superficial horny layer which resists scratching and impedes the penetration of germs.
The Negro has a larger and shorter neck akin to that of anthropoids.
The cranial sutures are more simple than in the white type and close together earlier.
The ears are roundish, rather small, standing somewhat high and detached thus approaching the simian form.
The Negro is more powerfully developed from the pelvis down and the white more powerfully developed in the chest.
The jaw is larger and stronger and protrudes outward which, along with lower retreating forehead, gives a facial angle of 68 to 70 degrees as opposed to a facial angle of 80 to 82 degrees for Europeans.
The hands and fingers are proportionally narrower and longer. The wrist and ankles are shorter and more robust.
The frontal and paricial bones of the cranium are less excavated and less capacious. The skull is thicker especially on the sides.
The brain of the Negro on the average is 9 to 20% smaller than whites.
The teeth are larger and are wider apart than in the white race.
The three curvatures of the spine are less pronounced in the Negro than in the white and thus more characteristic of an ape.
The femur of the Negro is less oblique, the tibia (shin bone) more curved and bent forward, the calf of the leg high and but little developed.
The heel is broad and projecting, the foot long and broad but slightly arched causing flat soles, the great toe is shorter than in the white.
The two bones proper of the nose are occasionally united, as in apes.
http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/african101facts1.html

Being called similiar like an ape or gorilla is impressive....their very strong...live in packs and protect their own....just proves who was developed first and in the eyes of the one who it really matters too......well you should know the rest of that story ....what you don't understand is that because of our outer appearance we have the strange ability to acknowledge one's soul beauty and love unconditionally than what looks good in the mirror.....it's obvious to all women who they want the most.....black men have white women,oriental women, latino women,canadian women,scottish women, russian women, italian women, hawaiin women, swedish women, arab women, african women.....who by the way does not need face lifts, breast implants, booty implants, bake in the sun to get a tan or pay someone to put us in a tan bed, may not be the most pretty, which is ok because we have so damn much more to offer than a pretty face........you can't top that.........no man in the human race compares to a black mans body...much like a gorilla's I may add which is perfect in every way....strong, dark, lean and mean baby....sexy....just ask all the women your race has lost to them.......and will continue to lose.....why do you think most older black american's are brighter than in Africa...it wasn't just because black women were available but they are also desired....My grandad is mixed.....white dad....black mom....my mother is married to a white mixed German man.....my sister is married to a white man.....by boyfriend is part indian, white, and black.......outside beauty does not say it all.......Compare us all you want to Gorilla's...that's actually a compliment.....so thankyou.....you guys are funny...oh yeah....we're also built to live on this planet as well...we survive the desert heat....a stormy rainfall (without dying of pnuemonia so easily), thrive in the winter.....protected from the sun....can swim, run, jump, climb,make whoopi,play tennis, golf, hockey,football, baseball, soccer..etc....better than anyone else on the planet.....if given a chance in the blue collar upper class community will be your equal or better....just think in a matter of 60 years after seperation and education somewhat changed in america....we already have black (not mixed) billionaire's....how long did it take you........ ;)....one more thing...did you know that their are black african women in Africa who's bodies have learned how to kill AIDS.......HOW STRONG IS THAT....

I will look for facts on ring fingers for you, but in the mean time here are some facts you can chew on. If you have ANY facts to dispute this information please provide it, if not you can just personaly attack me like the others do.

The hair is black, crispy, and "woolly" in texture, it is flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct like the hair of Europeans.
The nose is thick, broad and flat, often turned up nostrils exposing the red inner lining of the mucous membrane similar to an ape.
The arms and legs of the Negro are relatively longer than the European. The humerus is a trifle shorter and the forearm longer thereby approximating the simian form.
The eyes are prominent, iris black and the orbits large. The eye often has a yellowish sclerotic coat over it like that of a gorilla.
The Negro has a shorter trunk the cross-section of the chest is more circular than whites. The pelvis is narrower and longer as it is in an ape.
The mouth is wide with very thick, large and protruding lips.
Negro skin has a thick superficial horny layer which resists scratching and impedes the penetration of germs.
The Negro has a larger and shorter neck akin to that of anthropoids.
The cranial sutures are more simple than in the white type and close together earlier.
The ears are roundish, rather small, standing somewhat high and detached thus approaching the simian form.
The Negro is more powerfully developed from the pelvis down and the white more powerfully developed in the chest.
The jaw is larger and stronger and protrudes outward which, along with lower retreating forehead, gives a facial angle of 68 to 70 degrees as opposed to a facial angle of 80 to 82 degrees for Europeans.
The hands and fingers are proportionally narrower and longer. The wrist and ankles are shorter and more robust.
The frontal and paricial bones of the cranium are less excavated and less capacious. The skull is thicker especially on the sides.
The brain of the Negro on the average is 9 to 20% smaller than whites.
The teeth are larger and are wider apart than in the white race.
The three curvatures of the spine are less pronounced in the Negro than in the white and thus more characteristic of an ape.
The femur of the Negro is less oblique, the tibia (shin bone) more curved and bent forward, the calf of the leg high and but little developed.
The heel is broad and projecting, the foot long and broad but slightly arched causing flat soles, the great toe is shorter than in the white.
The two bones proper of the nose are occasionally united, as in apes.
http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/african101facts1.html

That's alot of detailed observation. It however doesn't support or refute the
assertion that blacks are more violent. Let me know if any finger data is
found.

Who has been the most violent people of the 20th century? Who fought WWI and WWII?

Believe me, white people are just as violent, they just have better public relations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4314209.stm On finger length

The ratio between the length of the 2nd or index finger and the 4th or ring finger (2D:4D) differs between the sexes, such that males have lower 2D:4D than females, and shows considerable ethnic differences, with low values found in Black populations. It has been suggested that the sex difference in 2D:4D arises early in development and that finger ratio is a correlate of prenatal testosterone and oestrogen.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15500996

I will look for facts on ring fingers for you, but in the mean time here are some facts you can chew on. If you have ANY facts to dispute this information please provide it, if not you can just personaly attack me like the others do.

http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/african101facts1.html

"100 Facts", has already been debunked. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34112

Check this out if you will......



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/page04.html :bugeye:

The ratio between the length of the 2nd or index finger and the 4th or ring finger (2D:4D) differs between the sexes, such that males have lower 2D:4D than females, and shows considerable ethnic differences, with low values found in Black populations. It has been suggested that the sex difference in 2D:4D arises early in development and that finger ratio is a correlate of prenatal testosterone and oestrogen.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15500996

The data indicates black people have less chemical influence on agression.
This acts as a contradiction ot the assertion that blacks are more violent.

link doesn't work.

try it now.

My education in psychology doesn't end at a few articles read on select sites. After studying psychology in high school for a year, it became apparent to me that it isn't only the nature, but also the nurture aspect that makes the personality. Even if there is a slight genetic predisposition towards violence, parenting and discipline takes care of it. Those studies on finger length, etc, bear very little importance to me; it is a mere statistic of physical differences which isn't applicable anywhere except in discussions of those who yap about how we're all physically different. Palmistry is ridiculous and would be laughed at in the parapsychology forum.

The data indicates black people have less chemical influence on agression.
This acts as a contradiction ot the assertion that blacks are more violent.
Thats not what it says.

They are saying between black males and black females there is not much difference.

This explains why black females are the most violent females on the planet.

Allow me to educate you futher:
It is known that black males produce significantly more testosterone than white males (J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1986; 76: 45). It is also known that testosterone is higher in black women compared to white women.
http://www.anthropogeny.com/Testosterone%20and%20Socioeconomic%20Differences%2 0in%20Mortality.htm

"100 Facts", has already been debunked. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34112
I see that NO ONE was able to "debunk" any of the 100 facts.

You know, I'd pay some attention to JB, except that what he's parroting doesnt actually matter. Perhaps he needs to spend some time out on the town here in the uK and watch drunk "white" girls fighting.

You know, I'd pay some attention to JB, except that what he's parroting doesnt actually matter. Perhaps he needs to spend some time out on the town here in the uK and watch drunk "white" girls fighting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4536683.stm

Nothing compared to fighting, eh?

The unspoken assumption in those ridiculous facts is that if someone more superficially resembles existing apes, then they are more primitive, giving permission to consider white people as more advanced. But the great apes and Africans share the same habitat, and all humans are apes, so it makes sense that as we go north to different climates, our physical characteristics change. White people are more advanced by the standards they created, black people are more advanced by their own standards. Asians think we're all smelly uncivilized barbarians.



Some facts about J.B

The brain is atrophied, similar to the lesser apes and lemurs.
The thought process is hateful and violent, closely resembling a rabid hyena.
The logic is totally absent, unlike most humanoid species.
The smell is similar to a week-old elephant carcass.

If you say that blacks are generally more violent, you are excusing them, making their violence acceptable. Why punish them if they're born that way?

Besides, were the terrorists of 9/11 black? How many blacks were there among the American soldiers in Iraq who took the infamous pictures?

If you say that blacks are generally more violent, you are excusing them, making their violence acceptable. Why punish them if they're born that way?

Besides, were the terrorists of 9/11 black? How many blacks were there among the American soldiers in Iraq who took the infamous pictures?There is no "excuse for violence.

I am just simply explaining why blacks are more violent (high testosterone, low intelligents). I don't think blacks are being punished, I just think a civilized socity is just protecting themselfs.

We can go back and forth on many different single events, such as 9/11, but that would not give us the whole picture.

Here is the big picture:
Though only 12% of the U.S. population, Blacks commit more than half of all rapes and robberies and 60% of all murders in the U.S.

I am just simply explaining why blacks are more violent (high testosterone, low intelligents).

You mean intelligence?

dumbass.

Thats not what it says.

They are saying between black males and black females there is not much difference.

This explains why black females are the most violent females on the planet.

Allow me to educate you futher:
It is known that black males produce significantly more testosterone than white males (J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1986; 76: 45). It is also known that testosterone is higher in black women compared to white women.
http://www.anthropogeny.com/Testosterone%20and%20Socioeconomic%20Differences%2 0in%20Mortality.htm

You are correct. The data does link a higher percentage of black males to
aggression compared to other races and I mis-interpreted what 'lower
ratio' meant in the article. The finger growth phenomenon link doesn't apply
to women and black women have higher amounts of progesterone than
white women (this staves off aggressiveness). In short your assertion
is supported for black men and not for black women. It is nonetheless
fascinating.

I see that NO ONE was able to "debunk" any of the 100 facts.

Re-Read the link. "100 Facts" was debunked. :m:

No right minded person with any respect for others or self respect for that matter would freely use that word, and i dont have any time for people that do personally.

No right minded person with any respect for others or self respect for that matter would freely use that word
That is only valid in places where africans live and have problems with that word.
Heck, I have a geography book that tells me niggers live in Africa. :D
Chill out, it's just a word.

I have a geography book that tells me niggers live in Africa. :D
Chill out, it's just a word

That's part of the point, why would it not say that
Africans live in Africa? :bugeye:

That's part of the point, why would it not say that
Africans live in Africa? :bugeye:

Well that wouldn't be good marketing for the slave trade would it? The
book is probably very old.

Ttrust JB to confuse a cultural issue with one connected with "race".
Here, try this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3200014.stm
Meanwhile, when I was in LA recently, at 2am outside Denny's diner, I saw some "white and "Hispanic" wannabe gang members attacking some guy.

Heres some facts about me, and you can diagnose my skin colour and intelligence from them if you wish:

I am over 6 feet tall, and have thin and narrow fingers and hands, and narrow wrists.
My foot is long and broad.
My skin is thick and resistant to scratches.
I have good strong and stable legs and pelvis, but less in in my chest and arms, and my arms are longer than average and hang loosely by my side.

I'll take a stab at your ethnicity guthrie: Are you Jewish? (honest question, nothing intended).

Second choice: Chinese.

That is only valid in places where africans live and have problems with that word.
Heck, I have a geography book that tells me niggers live in Africa. :D
Chill out, it's just a word.

I'll think you'll find if you say that word anywhere in the world youre going to find people who have a problem with it, if you dont believe me try it out lol.

Words are loaded with meaning and power, if you think a word is just a group of letters assembled in a particular order then i dare say you havent really grasped the wider implications of what language is and the impact it can have.

A word can not offend anyone who does not associate something bad with it.
I have tried it out.
We have no experience of african slavery or africans (up until the recent tourist influx) for that matter here.
And so more in countries more to the east.

A word can not offend anyone who does not associate something bad with it.
I have tried it out.
We have no experience of african slavery or africans (up until the recent tourist influx) for that matter here.
And so more in countries more to the east.

I think that might exlain your attitude to this topic then.