|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tophatcat
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Location: under the hat
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Two young black males calmly entered a pawn store to pawn/sell their pistols and hoodies. They pulled out their pistols to show the store owners. One of the young black men was even kind enough to climb over the counter to show the clerk his pistol. They were planning to use the money to attend college in the spring. Then for no reason, a white female clerk pulled a gun and began shooting at and eventually hitting one of the young innocent black males.
Hands Up! Don't Shoot!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
As to the Thug label, which Candy Bar introduced to this thread.
| Quote: |
"Thug" in its modern usage, as Sherman was saying, has come to mean a black person—generally a black man—who has committed any perceived infraction a white person can think of. "Thug" might have once described people actually deserving of the term—Wall Street swindlers or cops who harass and kill citizens with impunity. But now it's mostly deployed to attack the character of black Americans, many of whom have done nothing wrong but be offensive to a white person's sensibilities.
"Talking loudly," as Sherman had put it. "[T]alking like I'm not supposed to." |
A teenager who threatens and postures at a store clerk is not necessarily a thug, he does exhibit witless stupidity. Its the act of a proud and callous youth.
As for the altercation with the officer, I continue to believe that Michael Brown was somehow provoked. |
Careful, TUM demanded an apology from me before because I suggested there might be a racial reason for his calling Trayvon a thug. |
Well yes if you are going to call someone a racist when he has not said anything racist they probably do deserve an apology. And the more so when you have never met said person and in fact do not know him at all except for some offhand posts on a website.
In the instance you are alluding to I clearly outlined in multiple posts why I thought Trayvon was a thug. Nowhere did I use a racial angle/reason/basis in doing so. I also stated that if a white person had done the same things Trayvon had done I would refer to him as a thug too. But because Trayvon happened to be black you jumped to what was not only a hasty and erroneous conclusion, but a particularly nasty character smear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
As to the Thug label, which Candy Bar introduced to this thread.
| Quote: |
"Thug" in its modern usage, as Sherman was saying, has come to mean a black person—generally a black man—who has committed any perceived infraction a white person can think of. "Thug" might have once described people actually deserving of the term—Wall Street swindlers or cops who harass and kill citizens with impunity. But now it's mostly deployed to attack the character of black Americans, many of whom have done nothing wrong but be offensive to a white person's sensibilities.
"Talking loudly," as Sherman had put it. "[T]alking like I'm not supposed to." |
A teenager who threatens and postures at a store clerk is not necessarily a thug, he does exhibit witless stupidity. Its the act of a proud and callous youth.
As for the altercation with the officer, I continue to believe that Michael Brown was somehow provoked. |
Careful, TUM demanded an apology from me before because I suggested there might be a racial reason for his calling Trayvon a thug. |
Well yes if you are going to call someone a racist when he has not said anything racist they probably do deserve an apology. And the more so when you have never met said person and in fact do not know him at all except for some offhand posts on a website.
In the instance you are alluding to I clearly outlined in multiple posts why I thought Trayvon was a thug. Nowhere did I use a racial angle/reason/basis in doing so. I also stated that if a white person had done the same things Trayvon had done I would refer to him as a thug too. But because Trayvon happened to be black you jumped to what was not only a hasty and erroneous conclusion, but a particularly nasty character smear. |
Still touchy, eh? And still calling black kids thugs because GOP fanboys think they may have at some point chugged some Robitussin? Stay classy, TUM, stay classy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why all the race baiting?
Race is nothing but a social construct.
If it were not, than all ethnicities throughout the world would act the same.
It is cultural and unfortunately, Americans have allowed themselves to be divided.
The race card generally falls on those who simply refuse to acknowledge obvious cultural shifts and traits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Race is nothing but a social construct.
If it were not, than all ethnicities throughout the world would act the same. |
If race was not a social construct, we would all act the same? How does that make sense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If race was not a social construct, we would all act the same? |
Yes. Whites would act the same way everwhere in the world. Those of hispanic origin, blacks, mongols, and so forth. All would act the same according to their given stereotype in their respective residence.
So West Afriancs act the same as Black Americans?
Do white Americans act the same as white Germans?
Do black Englishmen act the same as black Americans?
Do Afrikans act the same as the Dutch?
It is all about ehtnic and cultural divides. There is only one race..the human race.
Making remarks about an ehtnicty in a country that is not hemogonous does not constitute racism....because race does not excist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cut For Time: Morning News - Saturday Night Live
A St. Louis news station reconsiders its morning programming in light of the Ferguson riots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVzCih9RnWg
NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” opened the show mocking Al Sharpton talking about the reaction to the grand jury decisions in Ferguson, Missouri, and New York City. But what that audience didn’t know is that the show had another Ferguson-related sketch scheduled for later that never aired because it was cut for time.
The sketch features Cecily Strong and Keenan Thompson as hosts of a St. Louis morning news program struggling to do the show in light of the events in Ferguson. It’s filled with double meanings (the mention of a “superior race” in reference to a local 5k run) and an appearance by James Franco who plays a chef unfortunately named Darrel Wilson whose recipe only calls for the “white” part of the eggs.
“A St. Louis news station reconsiders its morning programming in light of the Ferguson riots,” the video’s description reads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If race was not a social construct, we would all act the same? |
Yes. Whites would act the same way everwhere in the world. Those of hispanic origin, blacks, mongols, and so forth. All would act the same according to their given stereotype in their respective residence.
So West Afriancs act the same as Black Americans?
Do white Americans act the same as white Germans?
Do black Englishmen act the same as black Americans?
Do Afrikans act the same as the Dutch?
It is all about ehtnic and cultural divides. There is only one race..the human race.
Making remarks about an ehtnicty in a country that is not hemogonous does not constitute racism....because race does not excist. |
There seems to me to be a contradiction here. You suggest that if two people are of the same race, then they will act in the same way. You point out that people of ostensibly the same race act differently, and thus suggest they cannot be bound by a racial categorization. But you then say, "There is only one race..the human race." Yet as you said, we act differently, so if two White men acting differently means they cannot be grouped as a race, then the fact that human beings in general act differently clearly means the same thing: there cannot be one human "race," because people act differently, and acting differently evidently means one cannot invoke any sort of racial classification. By the logic you're using here, humanity cannot be "one race," because we act differently. Yet if us acting differently doesn't prevent us from being "one race," then neither can it be used to deny the potential validity of multi-race classification systems.
The common sense notion of race has more or less been proven to have a genetic basis, making it about as sound as any classification can be in a messy field like biology:
| Quote: |
Humans might want everything neatly parcelled up and clearly labelled. But nature is not like that. And we just have to get used to the messiness of natural divisions. In any case, recent genetic studies suggest that it is possible to divide up humanity into a number of major groups that closely resemble commonsense concepts of race. Consider, for instance, the study by Noah Rosenberg and his colleagues that showed that the difference between races accounts for as little as 3-5 per cent of total human variation. The same study also showed that it is nevertheless possible – in fact quite easy – to distinguish genetically between races.
Rosenberg and his colleagues studied 377 DNA sequences from 1056 individuals spread across 52 populations worldwide using a computer programme called structure. Structure takes any set of data, and attempts to find a rational way of dividing it into as many groups as it is asked to. In this study, structure was asked to divide up the populations of the world (represented by the 52 DNA samples) into two, three, four and five groups according to how similar or dissimilar were their DNA sequences. When the scientists asked the computer to divide the population of the world into two groups, one group comprised of DNA samples from Africa, Europe and western Asia and the second group of samples from eastern Asia, Australia and the Americas. When the DNA data was divided into three groups, the group consisting of populations from Eastern Asia and the Americas remained unchanged. But the populations of sub-Saharan Africa were separated from those of Europe and Western Asia. In other words, the three groups were the populations of sub-Saharan Africa, those of Europe and Western Asia, and those of Eastern Asia, Australia and the Americas. When asked to create four groups, structure created a new group by separating the populations of eastern Asia and the Americas. And when asked to break the data into five groups, structure kept all the other groups as they were but separated off the populations of Australasia from the rest of Asia.
There are two things remarkable about these findings. First, the computer programme divides the population of the world according to the continent on which they live, and as we move from two to five groups, the boundaries of the continents become ever more distinct. Second, when the world’s populations are divided into five groups, those five groups correlate closely with what we commonly call ‘races’: Africans, Caucasians, East Asians, Australasians and Native Americans. And all this from DNA sequences in which only 4 per cent of total human variation is apportioned out among the races. Rosenberg’s study seems to suggest that, however small the differences between races, they are nevertheless sufficient to pick them out. |
This computer is not "racist," it cannot be influenced by "social constructs," and it cannot even see the people which it is categorizing. All it is doing is looking for patterns in data sets (which is actually what our minds do as well, albeit using different data than the computer). Yet it reached largely the same conclusions you would with your eyes, using only genetic information.
We don't have to pretend that races don't exist in order to be compassionate to our fellow man. We don't have to pretend that races don't exist in order to be just people. And we certainly don't have to subscribe to race essentialism just because we admit that humans can be broadly classified into races. But if we pretend races don't exist, then we are going to misunderstand some of the problems into which we run, and solving a problem which you misunderstand is all the harder for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If we're just going to post or discuss whatever tangential matter then we might as well go on this tangent: The legal system exists, today, to ensure compliance.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
“Get away [garbled] … for what? Every time you see me, you want to mess with me. I’m tired of it. It stops today. Why would you…? Everyone standing here will tell you I didn’t do nothing. I did not sell nothing. Because every time you see me, you want to harass me. You want to stop me (garbled) Selling cigarettes. I’m minding my business, officer, I’m minding my business. Please just leave me alone. I told you the last time, please just leave me alone. please please, don’t touch me. Do not touch me.”
” I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe,” he said, as officers restrained him. |
What you will hear defenders of the police say is “he was non-compliant.”
Non-compliant.
If a police officer tells you to do anything, you do it immediately. If you do not, anything that happens to you, up to and including death, is your problem.
The legal system exists, today, to ensure compliance.
American oligarchical society rests on people not effectively resisting. All gains now go to the top 10%, with the rest of society losing ground. Incarceration rates blossom in 1980, which is also the year that the oligarchical program is voted in and becomes official. (Trickle down economics can be understood no other way.)
Any part of the population which is inclined to resist, must be taught that it cannot resist. Get out millions to demonstrate against the Iraq war: it will not work. Protest against police killings of African Americans, it will not work.
Nothing you do will work.
You will comply, and you will learn that resistance is futile. |
So, it seems the defense attorney who I posted ten or so pages back was hasty; many in America have seen through the grand jury lie. Now, for the truth: comply or die.
And here's the point some of you have made: racial animus is manufactured.
| Quote: |
The system is doing what it is meant to do. It teaches compliance, it teaches hopelessness and it identifies those who will not obey laws that don’t make sense (marijuana possession, for example), or who will fight or organize against the system and then it destroys them economically and often psychologically through practices like solitary confinement and prison rape.
The system will not change until those who want it to change have the raw power to force it to change, because it does serve the interests of its masters by destroying or marginalizing anyone who is actually a danger to oligarchical control of the system.
Race is an effective tool in this system, dividing the lower classes (and almost everyone is lower class now) against each other. No matter how bad a poor white’s life is, well hey, he ain’t black. He or she can feel superior to someone, can have someone to kick down at. |
After all, Reagan wouldn't have been able to destroy the labor unions on free market ideology alone. He also employed the Southern strategy.
The system has no need for justice. That's the point, it wants its injustice to draw dissenters out into the open like a Beijing free speech zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Victim Mentality: The Propaganda Economy
Stefan Molyneux
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TULs6IJEJ74
"In the aftermath of the Michael Brown case - it seems as though the black identity is so rooted in being the victim or slave.
I feel like many blacks cling to this identity in order to get a sense of unity and power, preventing them from excelling in the free market like other groups - do blacks really want to live in a free society?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bill O'Reilly, Russell Simmons Go Head-To-Head Over Violence In Black Communities
| Quote: |
Following the cases of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York City, Simmons has spoken out to condemn the grand jury verdicts, comparing them to "lightning striking the black community over and over and over again."
O'Reilly, however, felt Simmons was missing the point.
"The bigger issue that you are not acknowledging is that the astronomical crime rate among young black men -- violent crime -- drives suspicion and hostility," O'Reilly said. "You won't acknowledge it, Russell. You won't acknowledge it."
The two went on to battle over whether selling drugs is considered a violent crime, or rather, whether selling drugs is what leads to violence in black communities. Simmons ultimately attributed the violence to the prison industrial complex.
. . .
"The crime rate is driven by the dissolution of the family," O'Reilly argued. "No supervision, kids with no fathers -- the black neighborhoods are devastated by the drug gangs who prey upon their own. That's the problem!" |
Bill O'Reilly is very wrong on this, but at least he invited Russell Simmons so Bill O'Reilly could tell him how wrong he was about the problems in black neighborhoods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| guavashake wrote: |
Victim Mentality: The Propaganda Economy
Stefan Molyneux
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TULs6IJEJ74
"In the aftermath of the Michael Brown case - it seems as though the black identity is so rooted in being the victim or slave.
I feel like many blacks cling to this identity in order to get a sense of unity and power, preventing them from excelling in the free market like other groups - do blacks really want to live in a free society?" |
Er...at what point in American history were Blacks no longer a victim? Slavery? Jim Crow. These VERY SAME arguments were said on national talkshows back in the '50s and '60s.
Blacks as a collective have NEVER asked for anything other than fairness. Like any other group. Were Gays, Women, Jews, etc. having a victim mentality when asking for fair treatement in society or under the law? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox, MSNBC, CNN have a tactic of NEVER inviting anyone who can challenge them. They do it with all groups. They'll invite some celeb female to speak for women issues for example or to speak on gay marriages. Its hit or miss if this person has a grasp on the issues or has the capability to debate the issue better than others. Or they choose someone who is a lightening rod like Sharpton. Ask any black person privately what (even publicly) what they think of Sharpton, yet he's trotted out along with Jackson as represtative of the view point of 43 million blacks.
The media do not go for real, debate because they will get creamed. There are tons of far better people to bring on than Russell Simmons.
The mass media is more about entertaining or elicting emotions than solutions. That's cleary evident. I've seen Cheyneys views in the news lately. Who gives a f*ck what's Cheney's views on the middle east or torture are? My question is to the producer of any news show that has him on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
