You didn't understand Graus's posts at all.
See, here's the thing. I'm sure you'll notice the irony.

You're complaining to Grausamkeit because she started yelling "hitler genocide bla bla bla" before anyone has even said any opinions regarding racism yet, right?
Why do you think that is? Could it be because Kasdeja has mentioned Godwin's Law three times already before anyone has even said any opinions regarding racism yet? Grausamkeit was just mocking the pointless presumption of Kasdeja.


See the problem here? You have the correct idea: "This discussion hasn't even started, so what the shit is up with the accusations?"
But the thing is that you somehow grabbed the wrong person to tell this.


By the way, this thread is pointless anyway. Catch never makes any sense.

Also, I commend you for not thinking all opinions are equally valid, but you need better reading skills. That bit of Grausamkeit's post was directed to Kasdeja.
She does believe all opinions are equally valid. Or I shouldn't say she believes that; no one does. But she's the type of person that will rather say all opinions are equally valid so that no one criticizes her opinions, instead of taking the effort to showing why her opinions are defensible in any manner.

Now I agree with Awake Knights and would like to point out that I did understand BL's comment, though the references are not as direct, because I didn't feel a strong desire to paraphrase what it said.

I believe people can be responsible and thoughtful thinkers when expressing viewpoints. In fact, it might even be a compliment to assume someone is an empathetic and understanding person.... unlike anyone with a G A S M letters somewhere in their name.

Alright then let's hear your opinions. What beliefs do you hold that 'some would call racist'?

No. That was my point. Reasonable and thoughtful thinkers would all conclude that discriminating against people based on race is arbitrary, illogical, harmful and wrong. Ergo there's no discussion of merit possible where all the reasonable and thoughtful thinkers agree in their positions. All can just state they agree and then silence ensues.

The only conversation would be between those reasonable and thoughtful thinkers, and the ones who hold that racism is somehow justified, who are thereby logically not reasonable (or thoughtful).

I don't (and I suspect most people here don't) want to have a conversation with unreasonable people. It's fruitless and frequently leads to headaches.

Racism in any form is indefensible.

/discussion.

I would like to see this question answered. Any time I've ever dealt with people who swear they're not racist, but have gotten called so in the past, normally believe some stupid stereotype that belittles another race or class of people.

Some people believe that Native Americans are a bunch of lazy fucks that need to pull their heads out of their asses and quit being poor, lazy drunks wallowing in reservations because it's 'easy'.

Some believe that black people really are lazy, latin people are natural thieves, asians are cheap penny-pinching racists....

C'mon, Awake Knights, what form does your racism take? I live in Texas. I've heard it all.

Jill, you're the only one who understands me. :-*

Sorry yes, I misread the post. Stand corrected.

Now here is where I said it's important to define terms.

When someone used to talk about a racist, a racist was a person who wants to "kill all the (not my colour) people." However, if I say forced integration is a disaster for everyone involved, that, to some, qualifies me as an evil racist. Or if I say that in the past FIVE years 100% of the rapes (where the rapist could be identified) committed in Norway were non-white on white and that I think it's bad and don't want that to happen, that makes me a racist. That said, I don't automatically hate someone for the colour of their skin. So it's up to you to decide.

That's wrong. A racist isn't just someone who wants to kill non-whites. People don't have to be members of murderous organizations like the KKK to be racists.

A racist is someone who looks down on people of other races and thinks they are better due to an accident of birth.

I'm not accusing you of anything, I just thought it was interesting enough to point out that you said a racist isn't just someone who wants to kill non-whites or be a member of the KKK. Both of those being attributed to whites only. It's just a popular social conciousness to attribute racism to whites. Which can have an interesting relation to the whole Godwins Law thing. Just an observation.

But to your second line there, do you equate merely stating the fact that there are differences between races with thinking one is better?

It depends on how that idea is expressed.

There has been more white-on-minority racism in America than any minority-on-white. Hence why racism is normally seen as something 'them white folks' do.

If you automatically assume that because there's a difference of colour, there's an integration problem, that makes you racist. If you're willing to believe that statistic, from which the original story said that 100% of the rapes in OSLO, not NORWAY, came from a supposed COMMEDIAN and has since been spread around by racists as the gospel truth, then there's a very good chance you're a racist.

What I don't get about the anti-integration crap is how you define race. If someone is half black, do you think he shouldn't have been born? Who is he supposed to be grouped with?

White people still have a lot of privilege and power. What is an aboriginal going to say to me to hurt my feelings? My country which deems her a second class citizen is on my side, always.

'fact?'

If you can provide decent empirical evidence to support your ideas, nobody can accuse you of being racist. For example if that **** statistic is true, then it would not be racist at all to repeat it (although 100% sounds a little far fetched and I'd have to ask you to show me your sources before I believed it myself).

Also saying 'there are differences between races' is all well and good but it hides what you're really trying to express, namely what you think those differences are.

I'm willing to bet nearly all examples of "minority-on-white racism" are little more than over-privileged WASPs whining because it's socially unacceptable to call minorities "boy" and demand they shine their shoes for them.

One drop rule I'd assume

True, I forget that white privilege, sometimes.

That just simply isn't true.

Some stats favor us both because they are soo skewed. One thing to keep in consideration with stats is that when (as you can see when filling out certain forms that ask you to state your race) when latinos are the perpetrator of a crime they are listed as white, when they are the victim of a crime they are listed as hispanic/non-white. One 2007 report for L.A. (which is something you have to consider in respect to population demographics) says that "The majority of these crimes was motivated by bias against race/ethnicity and national origin. In “antiblack” crimes, 71 percent of suspects were hispanic; in anti-hispanic crimes, 56 percent of suspects were black." While for the first one whites were 25% and 32% for the latter. It also needs to be considered that massive ammounts of documented events in which during a black on white crime racial slurs were used and perps who were captured by police even admitted that their attacks were racially motivated STILL were not prosecuted nor the case treated as a hate crime. Still with roles reversed when a black was a victim of a white individual or group it was treated as a racially motivated attack even when no racial slurs were used.

It may also be relevant to state that white, heterosexual males are the only group not specifically protected under hate-crime legislation.

I second that. Who pissed in your cheerios and gave you such a bad attitude, Graus?

So....'racial slurs' make a crime racist? Damn. Wow. also....Holy shit....


I have been so totally edumacated by your balogny statistics....not. Your statistics are not scientific.

Let's not get distracted, this is the question that needs addressing:

Throwing out statistics gets us nowhere if we're not being honest about what we're trying to demonstrate with them

You spelled "bologna" wrong. Just thought I'd put that out there.

Great, then what do you use to provide evidence to the contrary? If you don't want to accept stats, do you want to talk mere science then? Biology ect?

Racist fucktards did.

I also spelled 'edumacate' wrong, genius.

If you are about to attempt to use science to prove racial superiority or inferiority all I can do is laugh at you, son.

It's not for me to decide who should and should not have been born.

First, my problem with integration is that it is being forced. Just one example, you can get away with having an all black school. You tell the govt you want an all white only school and see what response you get.

As for who they should be grouped with, that is actually a very good question. And I don't know. They are not considered to be a part of the white community, are they? Nor are they considered by many blacks to be a part of them. Some mixed blacks get treated in their own communities and being white. Idk, it's the parents that put their children in that position though.