Racism is for Ignorant Fools, not ATS.

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
reply to post by Chovy

 

Ever heard of the "human race"?

If so, perhaps you should consider joining, membership is free for all who are willing to rise above the ignorance of racism, in ALL forms.

Those who found necessary to counsel others about the evil of ignorant racism are actually the most ignorant individuals, coz racial wars are virtually non-existent, as opposed to frequent, nasty ethnic wars (Rwanda, Yugoslavia, etc).

But when racial wars are waged, the causalties are enormous. The war between the blue and the pink people in Galaxy Ardus claimed about 30 billion lives and a cat got killed too. Nobody talks about that -- I mean, the cat.

Originally posted by clcreek
[

Well considering that everyone is ignorant, admission is the first step to recovery... the second step would be to get a new motto.

Well CL,

All is not lost, we found common ground, and you are still here.
We are all ignorant of something and the first step is admitting it.

So what new Motto would you suggest.

Originally posted by ziggystrange
I have one question for you. Why are you defending and applauding Joe Wilson in the "Racism is for Ignorant Fools" thread?

I'm looking you right in the eyes and I'm telling you that I will defend and applaud Free Speech every day of the goddamn year. Decorum be damned.

Are you one of those mental defectives who thinks Joe Wilson is a racist?

Because this issue — this whole issue — is not about race.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


You don't see how allowing racism on a board will degrade the board as a whole? And the reason you disregard words is because maybe they don't apply to you. Which is why we have the atmosphere that we have today,too many of us are able to sympathize but not empathize.

You can sympathize with what the blacks went through in the 60's but can you truly identify with them? I know what it feels like to be been called the "n" word by whites at every turn, I have a permanent scare down my back from a bike chain because I was black and on this wrong side of town in Chicago back in the 60's.

So yeah, there are certain words I don't like.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by Eight]

reply to post by ziggystrange


Nice post. Also people are very myopic if they think Obama's color has nothing to do with all the attention he is getting. There are things being said and done that has never been done before. I have over heard people say they are not prejudice but they just don't want a black in the oval office.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by ziggystrange
I have one question for you. Why are you defending and applauding Joe Wilson in the "Racism is for Ignorant Fools" thread?

I'm looking you right in the eyes and I'm telling you that I will defend and applaud Free Speech every day of the goddamn year. Decorum be damned.

Are you one of those mental defectives who thinks Joe Wilson is a racist?

Because this issue — this whole issue — is not about race.

Hey Pal,

Get pissy all you want, froth at the mouth Hoss. I'm not certain that your hero is a racist, I suspect he is, but I'm pretty sure you are.

In case you have not noticed, the one who labels Joe Wilson as a racist is you, Just by insisting on defending him. What's even more incriminating for the 2 of you is the simple fact that the liar was Wilson.

You are ignorantly defending a big mouthed jerk that made an ass of himself at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and to boot, his accusation was false.

Hide behind whatever amendment you want. Your argument is weak.
Your ilk is self evident, and you sound like a broken record.

Get a brain blowhard.

reply to post by Eight


Thanks Eight,

As you can see there is an abundance of idiotic rationalizations flying around here in circles. Interesting how the argument is always the same.

Peace
Ziggy

Originally posted by Monteriano


He certainly did die a racist and had plans to send all African Americans back to Africa. I suggest you read a little history about the man who destroyed the Republic before commenting on his racist behalf.

No he didn't, and maybe YOU should read history in the proper context To apply 20th century beliefs and standards to an America of 1858 and declare Abraham Lincoln a "racist", isn't being very honest or objective. And Lincoln did think about returning them to their home land as many advised it was the right thing to do. Yet when Lincoln saw the black troops fight along side the whites for this country, he changed his mind and was convinced they wanted to be Americans.

You can read any of the debates Lincoln had with fredrick douglass and you wil see lincoln was waaay ahead of his time for the kinds of thoughts and ideas he had about blacks for that time.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
My point is, we are not seeing a resurgence of racism in America, not real racism as I and many others remember it. What we're seeing is a war on thought.

It starts out by assailing those thoughts that most people disdain anyway, such as racism. But once we agree that all racist remarks are indicative of ignorant, tiny minds that we will not tolerate, then the war on thought moves on to another target...such as religion.

Interesting thoughts, I have to say, BUT..... whats wrong with having a sensible discussion without all the rhetoric in it?

Why use the labels, the obfuscation, and the offensive stuff when the simple facts of the matter can be laid out, and sorted out?

Discussing facts is one thing - setting out to deliberately highlight differences for the sake of it is another,

How long before religion is considered too ignorant for discussion on ATS? According to many, many ATS members, it already is.

After religion is banned on ATS, how long before nationalism is considered too ignorant and narrow-minded from a global perspective?

See above - again, why can't such things be discussed without the mindless rhetoric.

When people go off the deep end, for the sake of it, then whatever point they are trying to make gets diluted in a cacophony of their own brand of vitriol. And where is the point in that?

SO's post is nothing new on ATS when you look at it. Its a reaffirmation of the Civility and Decorum requirement. Its needed because society in general appears to be slipping down the very slippery slope of solely blaming issues on skin colour. Thats not ATS's fault, its societies. ATS is trying to be above that kind of crap, and deal with the facts and the issues without the pointless dilution.

See, I'm not crazy about a lot of things that people think, but I'm not going to refuse to tolerate them because I think I have the moral high ground. When you play that moral high ground game, you're talking about yet one more kind of supremacy.

No. You're talking about civility.

I mean, I tolerate lots of idiots everyday, we all do. But to refuse to acknowledge or to refuse to tolerate people because they offend us is simply another form of discrimination.

Cleverly put. But when you say you tolerate lots of idiots everyday that means that you refuse to acknowledge them and go about your business. Thats what tolerance is.

And what if one of them really gets in your face and really pushes all the buttons, and really takes things too far and absolutely flat out refuses to comply with your basic human right to exist, soley because your screen name on ATS is DocVelocity and to them you are an inferior being who doesn't deserve to breath the same air, and at every opportunity they are going to remind you about it, and at every opportunity they are going to deride you and mock you, tell you your opinions don't count, tell you that your existence is an aberration, that your only motive for doing something is solely because of your screen name and you can't get away from it because it keeps being brought up.

Then what?

Wouldn't you want that to stop?

And when - eventually - you say you want it to stop, will you be discriminating, or will you simply be exercising your right to exist without a label and the rhetoric?

I've seen several posters, even a couple mods on this thread claim that there are no races... What? I can maybe see buying into the whole globalist thing, but that's just crazy talk.
I'm a proud melungeon, I have a big knot on the back of my head and I can't grow a decent beard but I take some measure of pride in being part native american, and yeah I know it's crazy, but I also take pride in my Scotch Irish Melungeon heritage, and honestly I'm kind of offended by the unrealistic expectations of some people who claim there aren't differences in people. There are no races.. are you kidding? Tell that to the people in South Africa, or Pallestine, or Wounded Knee.

Originally posted by Eight
So yeah, there are certain words I don't like.

Oh, I'm very impressed with your soulful urban narrative and I'll log that in my respect book:
(Must respect the urban ghetto background of some individual using the screen name Eight)

See, my contention is that there aint no racism in America today compared to the blind horror of the 1950s and 1960s. You might get your little ass whipped on occasion in a street fight, but I seriously doubt that you've ever met up with some real, down-home, Southern Democrat KKK cross-burning racists.

Because that would be a life-changing event for you. As in, you don't come back from it. The rotten-ass, oppressive, life-threatening racism of the mid-20th Century was so cruel and ragged and raw that it would turn Samuel L. Jackson into a little pink girlscout today. Racism in the 1950s and 1960s was deadly dangerous stuff, like a machete dripping blood.

But today's "racism" is leisurely, it's convenient, it's almost stylish.

Today, we can choose to be offended or not, we have selective racism, we "play the race card"... It's effeminate. OMG, he said the "N-WORD".... It's all spineless and emasculated.

What we have today is NOT "racism". What we have is mind control.

Don't get sucked in!

I'm planting a seed in your brain right now [color=lime]PING that will enable you to see through the nonsense and the false racial hysteria and the other lies that the New World Order is raining down upon you.


— Doc Velocity






[edit on 9/20/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by ziggystrange


In case you have not noticed, the one who labels Joe Wilson as a racist is you, Just by insisting on defending him. What's even more incriminating for the 2 of you is the simple fact that the liar was Wilson.

No, you're wrong, Obama was lying and if you recall Obama said their is no heatlh care for illegal aliens and up to the night Obama gave that speech, Republicans wanted to add a very specific addendum to the bill which makes it very clear that none of the healthcares funding will go to illegal aliens but the democrats refused to put any language in there that specific. Rachel Maddow shows the exact paragrapgh where she believes it says illegals won't get any health care and it is the same paragrapgh they always cite and from a legal standpoint, it means absolutley nothing . Joe Wilson, what a great statesman what a courageuous gutsy thing to do. I hope more and more start calling Obama on his lies.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Eight
So yeah, there are certain words I don't like.

Oh, I'm very impressed with your soulful urban narrative and I'll log that in my respect book:
(Must respect the urban ghetto background of some individual using the screen name Eight)

See, my contention is that there aint no racism in America today compared to the blind horror of the 1950s and 1960s. You might get your little ass whipped on occasion in a street fight, but I seriously doubt that you've ever met up with some real, down-home, Southern Democrat KKK cross-burning racists.

Because that would be a life-changing event for you. As in, you don't come back from it. The rotten-ass, oppressive, life-threatening racism of the mid-20th Century was so cruel and ragged and raw that it would turn Samuel L. Jackson into a little pink girlscout today. Racism in the 1950s and 1960s was deadly dangerous stuff, like a machete dripping blood.

But today's "racism" is leisurely, it's convenient, it's almost stylish.

Today, we can choose to be offended or not, we have selective racism, we "play the race card"... It's effeminate. OMG, he said the "N-WORD".... It's all spineless and emasculated.

What we have today is NOT "racism". What we have is mind control.

Don't get sucked in!

I'm planting a seed in your brain right now [color=lime]PING that will enable you to see through the nonsense and the false racial hysteria and the other lies that the New World Order is raining down upon you.


— Doc Velocity


— Doc Velocity

I guess nothing gets through Doc.

It must be very encouraging to be impregnable to reason. In your own mind, you will always be in the right

Originally posted by Stylez

Originally posted by ziggystrange


In case you have not noticed, the one who labels Joe Wilson as a racist is you, Just by insisting on defending him. What's even more incriminating for the 2 of you is the simple fact that the liar was Wilson.

No, you're wrong, Obama was lying and if you recall Obama said their is no heatlh care for illegal aliens and up to the night Obama gave that speech, Republicans wanted to add a very specific addendum to the bill which makes it very clear that none of the healthcares funding will go to illegal aliens but the democrats refused to put any language in there that specific. Rachel Maddow shows the exact paragrapgh where she believes it says illegals won't get any health care and it is the same paragrapgh they always cite and from a legal standpoint, it means absolutley nothing . Joe Wilson, what a great statesman what a courageuous gutsy thing to do. I hope more and more start calling Obama on his lies.

I beg to differ,

The decision to give, or deny care to illegals, falls on the State. The language you refer to would be an imposition on States Rights, and Conservative pundits would have jumped on that too.

In my opinion the refusal of care to anyone is inhumane, I'm not alone. That is why States make these provisions and policies. It's a Moral Imperative, not a political football.

Illegal immigration is a National issue, the GOV should be involved but Health care reform has enough enemies to address illegals and include them in the Bill. They should but they won't because it's not politically expedient.

I understand when people say, I don't want to foot some other persons bill. I get it. You have the right to feel that way, and to do what you can to change it. Vote out the Dems and bring back the good ol days.

I disagree about Wilson based on my own experience. That was no Dissent, that was a Rebel Yell intended to inflame the lowest common denominator.

I'm entitled to my opinion, Am I not?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Anytime you are against someone or a group of people for a trait they cannot change, it's BIGOTRY!

For someone who throws the word around as often as you do Jaxon roberts, you seem to have no problem at all having your own brand of biblio bigotry.

As a homosexual, I see it everyday.

Not the same thing Jaxon Roberts and the statistics to qualify as a people oppressed by bigotry don't come even close to that.

I remember when sex was something we kept to ourselves and was a private matter where people didn't always go around sharing their un-solicted sexual behavior with everyone. I believe it was the second example in Skeptics post that makes it clear the racism he is talking about is those always making charges of racism and bigotry hatred etc where there is none. In EVERY instance where you have created a thread regarding sexuality as topic, I can't find anyone who has disagreed with you that you didn't make that allegation.

In fact, ours is the only group that it's still 'OK' to discriminate against and openly express bigoted comments about.

That is not true and the 14th amendment protects you the same as everyone else. Comments about gays and the political interests they may have etc

The excuses and justifications used to justify themselves simply boggle my mind. For instance, I started a thread on the Constitutionality of DOMA and the various state's laws banning same sex marriage. Do you think that the debate stayed on topic? Nope, it spiralled into excuses for bigotry.

In many threads you have created to "stir" things up with your tricky titles, I sometimes wonder if having them spiral into excuses for bigotry, wasn't your whole point in making them in the first place.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Changed my mind about what? That Lincoln lived his life as a racist? I would be unable to quote him because I would be banned from this site. Why the personal attack? My wife is half black and I am no racist. I never attacked you personally and will now use my ignore button for your questionable motives. I will not stoop to your level.

Originally posted by ziggystrange

I beg to differ,

The decision to give, or deny care to illegals, falls on the State. The language you refer to would be an imposition on States Rights, and Conservative pundits would have jumped on that too.

This is why Wilson said he lied when he said in his speech that their is no provision for illegal aliens.

In my opinion the refusal of care to anyone is inhumane, I'm not alone. That is why States make these provisions and policies. It's a Moral Imperative, not a political football.

Hey I don't care what you think it is, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!

Illegal immigration is a National issue, the GOV should be involved but Health care reform has enough enemies to address illegals and include them in the Bill. They should but they won't because it's not politically expedient.

They wouldn't be an enemy to address if they included the illegal alien issue making them NO LONGER an issue. Your just offering a cop out.

Saying it isn't politically expediant to handle a primary reason health care costs are not sustainable is the very reason this bill hasn't been without vigorous resistance.

I disagree about Wilson based on my own experience. That was no Dissent,
I'm entitled to my opinion, Am I not?

Based on your own experience? with what? Wilson?

that was a Rebel Yell intended to inflame the lowest common denominator.

Yeah the same common denominator Obama's lies affect most

Originally posted by ziggystrange
I'm not certain that your hero is a racist, I suspect he is, but I'm pretty sure you are.

Which is why, when America recovers from this jumbled and amateurish administration's many massive blunders, we'll make sure you get the psychiatric help you need under a reasonable health plan.

Originally posted by ziggystrange
In case you have not noticed, the one who labels Joe Wilson as a racist is you

SHOW ME where I labeled Rep. Wilson a racist. You can't, because...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c2002623065.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by ziggystrange
You are ignorantly defending a big mouthed jerk that made an ass of himself at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and to boot, his accusation was false.

Rep. Joe Wilson's admonition, "You Lie!" was right on target, because there was NO ENFORCEMENT language in the stupid bill. The president's "healthcare bill" was incomplete and poorly written, and YES Obama LIED when he said the bill would not cover illegal aliens.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c2002623065.jpg[/atsimg]


— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

In fact, the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences in IQ are environmental in origin, not genetic.

The whole article is quite the interesting read ...

All Brains Are the Same Color

Beware of selective scientific cherry picking, lest we go down The Bell Curve path once more ... or worse.

Though your point is valid, inasmuch as this very conversation is a worthy one to have, if only to clarify such misrepresentations as the one proposed in your post. But it also shows that such discourse can happen without race baiting or name calling.

That's a fascinating article you cite.

No doubt the author was compelled by space constraints (or some other equally creditable alternative to "selective scientific cherry picking") to avoid mentioning studies of monozygotic twins reared apart (i.e. "identical twins adopted by different families"), which on the face of it seems like an obvious place to attempt to disentangle the relative influence of genetic versus environmental factors on IQ. Such twin studies as I have run across (and perhaps you are aware of other better twin study research credibly indicating a different conclusion...do tell) seem very broadly to support the opposite conclusion from that expressed in the article you have just cited above, along the lines of the following excerpt from an article in Science, written by Thomas Bouchard Jr., David T. Lykken, Matthew McGue, Nancy L. Segal, and Auke Tellegen...

Sources of Human Psychological Differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart

Since 1979, a continuing study of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, separated in infancy and reared apart, has subjected more than 100 sets of reared-apart twins or triplets to a week of intensive psychological and physiological assessment. Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation. On multiple measures of personality and temperament, occupational and leisure-time interests, and social attitudes, monozygotic twins reared apart are about as similar as are monozygotic twins reared together. These findings extend and support those from numerous other twin, family, and adoption studies ... This evidence for the strong heritability of most psychological traits, sensibly construed, does not detract from the value or importance of parenting, education, and other propaedeutic interventions.

I could easily adduce further reputable mainstream studies/references that seem to militate against the exciting article you have brought to our attention above...but that would be beside the point as it would mask or obscure my broader agreement with you, on the point that this here type of fun research and discussion can both easily and appropriately be engaged in by mature non-hypocritical adults, who are actually in possession of an intellectual conscience, without any recourse to namecalling, race-baiting, and/or personal oppobrium. I myself have actually known such chat sessions to occur...

[edit on 20-9-2009 by nine-eyed-eel]

[edit on 20-9-2009 by nine-eyed-eel]

Originally posted by Eight
Nice post. Also people are very myopic if they think Obama's color has nothing to do with all the attention he is getting. There are things being said and done that has never been done before. I have over heard people say they are not prejudice but they just don't want a black in the oval office.

So you think if it was some white guy nationalizing healthcare, the auto industry, the banks where we take all the risk writing blank checks to people who won't submit to an audit much less a return on our investment. I think Obama being black gives many the opportunity to use the racist allegation so much and so often is it heard I think people are so sick of it they have become desensitzed to even listening to it.

It is the most overused over exaggerated, unsubstantiated, and baseless types of divisiveness I see. To even attempt it on a blog or forum is an indication of the accusers own prejudice because he has NO idea, NOT a CLUE as to who he is talking to and assumes automatically the one he is leveling such a charge must be white but certainly is NOT black.

The idea comes from someone so presumptuous, so quick to judge and so far removed from the facts ther happen to be plenty of Valid Reasons for so much of the resistance to Obama's policies.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Stylez]