General

Because of context?

[quote=uiluj3]..... i think you should be the last person to criticize others for being obtuse and morally incoherent one minute you support desegregation, the next minute you say desegregation is reverse racism.... o.o

giggles [/quote]

Don't confuse desegregation (lack of government stance on race) with affirmative action (government enforced racism).

[quote=meosuke]Only white people that are cool enough can say it f3

And even then they have to say it with an A at the end not that racist ER ending. [/quote]

Anyone familiar with my posts knows that racism disgusts me. But allowing one race to say a certain word while considering it blasphemy if another race says the exact same word...that's a form of racism.

Uiluj3, if you consider what I said disrespectful you're way off. I guess to some Republicans who want me to hate on gays it was disrespectful, but the truth is homosexuality is a form of genetic disorder, albeit not one that's dangerous or needs to be treated unless maybe a gay person wants to conceive a child, that would be the ONLY reason a gay person should consider seeking 'treatment' (let's face it, you can be as tolerant as you want, but it's impossible for two members of the same gender to conceive a child). Society shouldn't give a crap what someone's orientation is, and Republicans are the guilty party for even making this an issue to being with, I'm MORE than happy to attack the Republicans for their stupidity of this issue.

[quote=MarxMaster]You're talking to somebody who's been learning about various laws related to real estate. To me, calling homosexuality a 'disability' is LOLOL as it carries the wrong meaning. In no way does being gay somehow make simple everyday tasks difficult, which in a nutshell is what defines a disability.

I also don't think reverse racism is all that bad as long as it rids of racism for good.[/quote]

I used the phrase 'disability' loosely, and not disrespectfully for lack of a better phrase to use. There are plenty of 'disabilities' that prevent people from acting normally even if it doesn't physically impair them (bipolar disorder OH disorder, that's the phrase I should have used, darn, I solved my own statement in this post). Seriously though, I have friends who are gay, I don't care, and Republicans who try to forcibly ban evolution in classrooms are stupid. Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God anyway.

[quote=MarxMaster]Then I would suggest being careful with posting statistics like these from websites that are totally not biased in any way at all. In this case, you made it sound as though you're making a connection between voting behavior and committing crime.

Reminds me of this guy I slammed on for saying that gay people are somehow proven to be less attractive. [/quote]

Well, too many Republicans are whining about gays. Seriously, it's been proven that genetics play a part in what gender a person is attracted to. Homosexuality is nothing more than a genetic disability (and I'm not saying this in a disrespectful way, but seeing as how it's against the norm and will not allow the species to reproduce which is the entire point of physical attraction, if it was the 'norm' the species would die out I guess you could technically classify it as a disability). That being said, it is a benign genetic condition that should not be something people get upset over, it's really not a big deal. A person can be homosexual and still a productive and decent human being, and frankly (unlike minorities) I really don't blame gay people for hating Republicans, as Republicans actually ARE the homophobic party. The party of racism on the other hand... that's the Democrats.

[quote=MarxMaster]I agree. I find that source to be pretty disgusting unless you lean that far to the right.

Does the source take into account of racial demographics, like one of the commenters brought up, or better yet, population density as I brought up? I seriously don't think you can get away with comparing voting habits with crime rates as if somehow being liberal causes you to kill each other.[/quote]

Being liberal doesn't cause people to kill each other; what it does is offer more opportunities for thugs to take advantage of people who are naturally more submissive.

[quote=uiluj3]i was being sarcastic with my comment about mayor bloomberg no one likes him, but i digress
please dont get off topic, and im still waiting on that statistics about crime rates in conservative cities v. liberal cities.

giggles [/quote]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2750238/posts Here's just one.

[quote=uiluj3]and if you look at a picture of mayor bloomberg, youll see that nyc is full of wallstreet fat cats and the occupy wallstreet movement doesnt depict the emotions of the average new yorker....? lol

and by cracking down on crime, you mean increasing the amount of people in the NYPD and arresting people for graffiti, then yes. if you mean cracking down on crime as in lessening gun laws, then no.
and can i get a link to about this trend you talked about? the one about conservative cities being safer ty

giggles

EDIT: there's so many police in nyc it's ridiculous! lol a lot of them have nothing better to do other than to babysit high schoolers who ditch school LOLOL -cough cough-
jsut to give you an idea of how chillax crime is in nyc. nyc is not like how most TV shows depict us. there's bad neighborhood msot of it is totally safe for even 10yrs old children to walk around it. that's my childhood and you can see why i dotn see racism the same way as other people in the country. i<3NY[/quote]

I don't question that crime rates in New York are a lot lower than they were in the 1980s and 1990s (crime rates were high in big cities everywhere at that time due to crack cocaine). Wall Street and the New York Stock Exchange are the largest financial market area in the world. The problem isn't investment bankers making a lot of money; the problem is they got bailed out using tax dollars (of course, if the federal government didn't force them to make bad loans to begin with it might not have been necessary).

[quote=uiluj3]when an unusual statistic shows up, there's obviously a factor that contibuted to it that has not been accounted for. for example, in nyc we have an overwhelming minority population, yet we have the one of lowest crime rates across the entire nation, and we have one of the strictest gun laws. how can we explain this? well in the 1990s, we had the most notorious crimes rates in the world, but then we tested something called the "broken window theory." we set up a goal to improve neighborhoods nd living conditions, and organized crime and crime in general dropped significantly.
so i ask you, does it look we need guns to reduce crime? no.

here's something else to think about, why are minorities in nyc less susceptable to crime than minorities in atlanta? basic geography; nyc is in the north and atlanta is in the south. racial tension has higher historical value in atlanta, while nyc is famous for its ethnic diversity and open-mindedness.

so i ask you, how can you NOT think that racism might be the direct cause of the crime rate in atlanta and in nyc?[/quote]

If you look at crime trends of cities, you'll find an interesting co-relation; the more liberal a city is, the higher the crime rates on average, and conversely, the more conservative it is, the lower the crime rates on average. You talk about improvement in New York; as early as the 1970s New York invested millions in poorer areas such as Harlem with the Model Cities Programs, with no improvement. It wasn't until Rudy Julaini cracked down on criminals that you started to see the decline of crime in New York.

By the way, for a city as 'racist' as you accuse Atlanta of being, you might want to look at a picture of Kasim Reed, the mayor...

[quote=MizuiChan]Why is it bugging you? It's just another blank stereotype. If you wanna say it, then say it. Most of us "black people" won't really care, unless you actually say it with offensive intent or you say it [b]just[/b] to generate an effect. If you use it casually in a regular statement, I doubt any of us will reach for our pistols... o.o[/quote]

If I did say it in a negative way, it wouldn't be against the skin color, rather out of protest of the double standard that in some people's minds it's appropriate for one racial group to say it while it's blasphemy if another group says it.

uiluj3, you're not being too harsh, I get what you're saying, but my argument was that some people get so bent out of shape over racism and perceive it even when it's not there (as in the case of Neal Boortz). He was arguing that urban thugs are committing crimes and carjacking and people should be able to carry firearms to defend themselves. However, it just so happens that a disproportionate number of people who commit those crimes happen to be black, but the reason Boortz (and other right-leaners) are angry is because of the violence and carjackings, not because their race. It annoys me that left-leaners only see that the people committing those crimes are overwhelmingly in minorities, and assume that they must be 'victims' because of their race, and in their little 'counter-rants' to Boortz they proposed no solutions to the problem of carjacking, instead choosing only to call out Boortz for what they perceived as 'racism'. They're so worried about political correctness that they don't even acknowledge the problem Boortz was trying to address.

Why is it bugging you? It's just another blank stereotype. If you wanna say it, then say it. Most of us "black people" won't really care, unless you actually say it with offensive intent or you say it [b]just[/b] to generate an effect. If you use it casually in a regular statement, I doubt any of us will reach for our pistols... o.o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSIo0TBSuI8 I think this will help explain one of the points I was trying to make. Neal Boortz (a Libertarian radio talk show host) pointed out the rise in violent crimes and carjackings in Atlanta. He called for his listeners to get certification and training to carry fire arms to defend themselves from being carjacked or robbed from what he referred to as 'urban thugs'. Several commentators (namely Ed Schultz and Young Turks) immediately called him out for being a 'racist' even though he never actually referenced skin color, and was advocating people only kill carjackers and robbers in self-defense (albeit in a very aggressive manner). Ed Schultz and Young Turks were more than happy to turn this into a racial issue, yet ironically, NEITHER of them addressed the issue of carjacking or armed robbery in Atlanta; it's like they were more concerned with calling Boortz a racist. It's like, if a group of people who are mostly in minorities go out and commit crimes and carjack, we have to overlook it because not doing so would be racist, that seems to be the mindset of most liberals, and as I've said before, holding different races to different standards is racist.

[quote=uiluj3]yes maybe someday i can be smarter and yes you gotta understand that i completely respect you, well up until now. it disturbs me that you seem to idolize fhyl i dont like that, you are perfectly capable of forming your own intelligent opinions and arguments, why do you excessively kiss fhyl's butt?

giggles [/quote]

Idolize Fhyl, you need to know the history. I don't idolize him, but I admit when it comes to political knowledge he's a genius. I've seen him debate (and beat) the best of liberal debaters. He knows what he's talking about. I don't agree with him on everything, but the statement that he knows what he's talking about isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. For example, he thinks that Obama getting re-elected this year would be better for this country than Mitt Romney becoming president. I do not agree with him there, and I will challenge him on that (though granted his vast knowledge of politics I'd expect this to be one hell of a debate).

idk its just like that, they just preferr making fun of their own race then having someone else make fun of their race. i mean i do the same

[quote=uiluj3]BRILLIANT! im just stunned at the intellectual progress this thread has made

giggles [/quote]

Agreed. Maybe one day you will be as smart as Fhyl and I are. Heh, you know I like debating with you, right bro?

[quote=uiluj3]so we can at least agree that people who use racial slurs are losers jolly good mate, we finally agree on something

giggles [/quote]

Yes, people who use racial slurs to insult someone are losers (and that includes minorities who use them to insult people).

As long as it doesn't end with a "er", I don't think any black person I know would care if you said it, but my school was hispanics and blacks .. So idk about white people saying it lol.

[quote=uiluj3]you liek someone not by the content of his character, but because he agrees with your political beliefs? how shallow and mundane

giggles [/quote]

Well if that makes you feel like you've won then go ahead. Yeah, I like what he said; what he said reflects on the content of his character, which seems to be "he's a smartass who doesn't care of some loser calls him a racial slur, and laughs it off' a perspective which I totally respect.

[quote=BlizzardSwarm]I'm black, and I don't give a flying (insert bad word here) if you use the N word or any other slur. It really doesn't matter to most black people. As you said it's mostly white people that say it's a bad thing to say the N word. If you're saying it to be funny, don't care, if you're using it as a slur, still don't care. The point is say whatever you want, no one really cares anymore. As for the political jargon, it's not surprise that they do that. Hypocrisy is one of the best ways to relay a message, especially one for wanting power.

But yes, I agree with you.

PS: Say it all day long until you run out of breath.[/quote]

I like this guy.

And uiluj3, even according to your latter definition Fhyl still won.

I'm black, and I don't give a flying (insert bad word here) if you use the N word or any other slur. It really doesn't matter to most black people. As you said it's mostly white people that say it's a bad thing to say the N word. If you're saying it to be funny, don't care, if you're using it as a slur, still don't care. The point is say whatever you want, no one really cares anymore. As for the political jargon, it's not surprise that they do that. Hypocrisy is one of the best ways to relay a message, especially one for wanting power.

But yes, I agree with you.

PS: Say it all day long until you run out of breath.

[quote=uiluj3]expert in politics? he asks rhetorical questions all the time, and his knowledge of US history doesnt seem to go past the 20th century. there's more to politics than politicans. there's law too, and if he'd read some court cases or read some books, he'd knwo what normal debates are like.
he should've at least been in a high school english class, and he would know that a proper thesis paper requires [b]a lot[/b] of quoting things out of context, and analyzing the quote. in a debating context, you're [b]suppose[/b] to dissect your opponents arguments in order to destroy his credibility and reveal his ignorance on the topic. @marxmaster did that pretty successfully.

and by the way, @marxmaster is not a liberal. last i checked, she's a centrist/moral relativist.

giggles[/quote]

MarxMaster's argument that didn't even hardly address what he had to say that I just posted a rebuttal to? That argument beat Fhyl.... I don't think so...

[quote=uiluj3]...um wow. okay then. jsut out of curiosity, have i done that with you yet? no, so dont say "you libs" as if all liberals are like that, or as if it's an improper way to debate. i am just telling you how most people in the real world do things. if you dont like it, well you're outcasting yourself from a lot of intelligent conversations that goes on in the world around you. do wahtever you want, but stop overgeneralizing.

giggles [/quote]

That's your response? Err, ok I guess. Warned you about debating Fhyl for a reason... He's an expert on politics (and he even said why he hates the Republican Party). There's a difference between him and me; I tend to somewhat side with the Republican Party (though I'm happy to point out their faults), he doesn't. Granted he hates the Democrats more, he doesn't seem like he'd side with the Republicans either just to keep the Democrats from winning.

@uiluj3: what typing a 10 page mess vomiting it in between other things i said? taking some things out of context and blatantly purposely ignoring the meaning of what i said? yeah i suppose that is the way most of you libs debate. But its not the way I debate.

[quote=iLikeDex]I'm a black guy, I honestly couldn't tell you because I don't know the answer.
I get mad when anyone calls me the N word.
[/quote]

Does that include other black people too? Or just people who aren't black? (not trying to be confrontational, just wondering bro).

I'm a black guy, I honestly couldn't tell you because I don't know the answer.
I get mad when anyone calls me the N word.

[quote=MarxMaster]There's the possibility that subtle racism would actually help employers because some racial groups have certain negative meanings attached to them. You don't wanna damage your image as a company, do you?

I thought they don't actually hire unqualified people. I'm calling this a straw-man argument for now.

What's the alternative, ignoring the problem? There are ridiculous cultural and economic differences that are heavily correlated with race. Unless disadvantaged minorities somehow work harder than other races that are better off (which IMO heavily contradicts the idea that races are equal), the differences are more likely to perpetuate themselves. These differences will keep reminding us that we are a very divided people.

I don't do my research and look what's in my food, but do [i]you[/i] ever personally check? I don't, and I'm glad the FDA has required food companies to go through the trouble of putting nutritional facts among other things.

I used to buy into this line of thinking, then I realized it's MUCH better to rely on empirical studies over coming up with theories on paper. Even then, are you aware of the logic behind believing that minimum wage is a good idea? If more people have more money in their pockets, they can spend more money to support businesses.

Cute.

Somebody fill me in. What's so bad about 'class warfare'? Why is it so taboo?

Yeah, who the hell needs federal regulations like the civil rights act? I already mentioned that in the real estate market racism is actually smart and rational, and even an experienced real estate agent confirmed this for me. I don't think we agree that making racism worse is good, don't we?

A universal negative? That's a very dangerous move. Public schools are actually just as good as private schools IF you take into account of socio-economic class.

lol @ neoslavery. You know what slavery is, right?

Also, you're gonna have to explain what you meant by a better education making people not need gov't handouts.[/quote]

I don't actually know how to make this thing work where I can only quote a portion then respond to it (UGH I feel like I should know by now but in response to:

There's the possibility that subtle racism would actually help employers because some racial groups have certain negative meanings attached to them. You don't wanna damage your image as a company, do you?

Yeah, because if it ever got out that company was being racist (even subtly) that wouldn't damage their image would it?

I thought they don't actually hire unqualified people. I'm calling this a straw-man argument for now.

Affirmative action calls for racial quotas, and that means in some cases, overlooking an applicant who is more qualified for the sake of meeting racial quotas, it's a form of government-enforced racism.

What's the alternative, ignoring the problem? There are ridiculous cultural and economic differences that are heavily correlated with race. Unless disadvantaged minorities somehow work harder than other races that are better off (which IMO heavily contradicts the idea that races are equal), the differences are more likely to perpetuate themselves. These differences will keep reminding us that we are a very divided people.

If they work harder individually, and prove themselves more useful than their white counterparts, they WILL become more successful. No 'greedy rich businessman' goes to work thinking 'how can I prevent black people from becoming successful?' They think 'how can I improve the company and increase profits?' If a black person (or someone of any race) becomes the greatest asset, they'll achieve success (look at Herman Cain).

I don't do my research and look what's in my food, but do [i]you[/i] ever personally check? I don't, and I'm glad the FDA has required food companies to go through the trouble of putting nutritional facts among other things.

Maybe this is why so many Americans have weight problems? Well, actually, that probably has a lot more to do with lack of exercise...

I used to buy into this line of thinking, then I realized it's MUCH better to rely on empirical studies over coming up with theories on paper. Even then, are you aware of the logic behind believing that minimum wage is a good idea? If more people have more money in their pockets, they can spend more money to support businesses.

See, this is what I don't understand. More than 95% of all jobs in this country pay far above the minimum wage. If you cannot, after several years of hard work, get a job that pays better than minimum wage by working hard and proving you're a valuable employee (which far more than 5% of all employees aren't) then you're a loser. Seriously, take advantage of opportunity, show up to work on time with a good attitude, work hard, and eventually you'll get promoted (or move on to a job that will promote you). Having extra money to spend doesn't mean anything when the price of everything goes up.

Cute.

Very good, the 'I don't know how to respond so I'll say something to demean the argument' response.

Somebody fill me in. What's so bad about 'class warfare'? Why is it so taboo?

Aside from the violence and the riots and the further divisions between people and several other horrible things, there's nothing bad about it.

Yeah, who the hell needs federal regulations like the civil rights act? I already mentioned that in the real estate market racism is actually smart and rational, and even an experienced real estate agent confirmed this for me. I don't think we agree that making racism worse is good, don't we?

Well, maybe if people of different races didn't ruin their image by behaving like the stereotypical people in Harlem or South Central do, that wouldn't happen. Don't get me wrong, it IS wrong to judge an individual of a certain skin color for what other people do, but face it, it's a statistical fact that black men commit crimes at far higher proportional levels than white people (empirical statistics, remember). If you want to blame anyone for the 'racism' in real estate, blame street gangs and the image that goes with that. It makes sense that nobody would want to move into a neighborhood with violent crimes being normal.

A universal negative? That's a very dangerous move. Public schools are actually just as good as private schools IF you take into account of socio-economic class.

lol @ neoslavery. You know what slavery is, right?

Also, you're gonna have to explain what you meant by a better education making people not need gov't handouts.[/quote]

I agree that universal negatives are dangerous, but it is true that statistically speaking private schools do far better at educating than public schools in the United States.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egtaV6Pj8yI&feature=related]Yes it's ok[/url]

@MarxMaster: yeah im not reading through that mess, sorry

[quote=uiluj3]you, unlike @fightthewar , dislike progressive policies in general. i mentioned all those progressive policies to test whether there's a deeper reason as to why you oppose affirmative action, and apparently you do.
you seem to love criticizing progressive policies without even knowing a smidgen of US history and why those progressive policies were legislated in the first place. you point out all the flaws without understanding the implications of what society would look like if those policies were removed. if there's a flaw you fix it, not get rid of it entirely. you have reaped the benefits of modern society without understanding what were the factors that contributed to our perfect, suburban childhood, and that hurts my feelings. and it also concerns me how you think that a free enterprise would solve all the problems in society
anyways, no one is trying to repair centuries of racism, if anything, it's embracing racism. similarly, the existence of laws prohibiting murder is the result of acknowledging the fact that human beings will commit murder, and no amount of legislation will justify the centuries of murders commited in our country. but, if something is perpetual in the human condition, it is not a sound argument to simply ignore it. with or without the existence of affirmative action, people will be racist. the only question is, what will society do about it? will we legislate against racism with affirmative action, or will we do nothing and hope that the human capacity for love will endure?

giggles [/quote]

I don't think any of what you said really applied to Fhyl's statement. I mean, we understand that in the past there was injustice, but you don't fix that by continuing to hold ethnic groups to different standards. Now, in most cases, I actually do dislike 'progressive policies' or any other policy that involves, on the fundamental level, taking something from someone who earned it, and giving it to someone else (often in exchange for votes, which some would say is a form of corruption). One of the few stances I take that could genuinely be called 'progressive' is my stance on gay marriage. Gay people can get married and be happy... and it doesn't effect me or anyone else in the slightest except whiny social conservatives who get offended that two members of the same gender are doing something they don't like behind closed doors. So pathetic. Now granted, flamboyant gay (and straight) people who act overly sexual all the time will hurt their opportunities for success if they choose to act in ways that cause people to perceive them as such, but just the act of being homosexual and getting married is hardly what I call delinquent, and I wish more Republicans (namely Rick Santorum, I HATE that guy) would wake up to it.

[quote=Laguniroth]@UglierBetty: They covered up the fact that he was injured when he was arrested too. Obviously this doesn't prove that Treyvon was the aggressor.. And it may still very well be that Zimmerman started it all, but it does paint a very different picture than the "Zimmerman was looking for a fight, killed an unarmed black man for no reason" story that the media is trying to run with.

The black panthers actually put out a BOUNTY on Zimmerman... (as in "dead or alive&quot and noone in the mainstream on the left is even *commenting* on it let alone condemning it for the hate mongering that it is.

Also, spike lee put up an address on twitter that he claimed was Zimmerman's home address. (Obviously with the intention that his more millitant followers would do "something&quot But the only problem is he put the WRONG address up, and some innocent people have been injured and had their house vandalized because of it.

There is some major mishandling of this incident all around by the "tolerant" left.

@uiluj3: When did i EVER say that racism is no longer a problem in this country? There is a ton of it today, and its only being aggrivated by Obama (a man who at his core is a racist. read his books if you dont believe me.) You go on a rant about housing prices, which to be honest is something i have no clue about.. Im not in the market to buy or sell a house, and if i were I wouldnt care in the slightest what the skin color of the person i bought from or sold to was.

You actually aggreed with my point (which im guessing you barely skimmed over) Yes employers CAN be racist, but it actually *hurts* them in the long run to be so. However it hurts just as badly when the government steps in and forces companies/colleges/ etc to take a greater percentage of people in "minorities" regardless of whether they are qualified or not. This is not "social justice" either. You can not repair centuries of racism against black people with racism against white people... Racism is racism. and it's all disgusting.
My point that, )disgusting as it may be) racism should most certainly still be *allowed* on a private level still stands..

affirmative action is a TERRIBLE thing. I will profess ignorance as to what the Food and Drug Administration has to do with race at all.. But I will say they haven't done a very good job keeping "pink slime" out of our meats.. Or amonia out of many of our foods, which only proves how corrupt these "progressive" implementations really are at their core, and that isnt even getting into their issue of constitutionaliity... (or lack thereof) Such matters should be handled by the state level..As should most of what the Democrat party has illegally given the Federal government powers to do.. Same thing as the anti trust legislation(which has literally nothing at all to do with race). The same thing also goes for minimum wage legislation, I can safely say that a minimum wage is a TERRIBLE idea, and is one of MANY things that liberals have pushed that is screwing over our country. When you artificially raise what a company *must* pay its workers, you raise what that company must CHARGE its consumers. This is compounded to the point where prices of necessities rise much faster than a minimum wage could... Which Liberals are counting on, so they can blame it on the "greedy corporations" and gain more votes with promises to raise the minimum wage even more (which as a vicious cycle only makes things worse).
Do you seriously think those things you mentioned have alieviated class warfare? Because I submit that the Democrat party WANTS class warfare. It is one of many tools that they use to garner votes for themselves, and if people were to ever stop looking into other peoples wallets, they might realize just how much "progressive" legislation keeps screwing everyone in the country over (unless they happen to be a liberal politician obviously THOSE people should be allowed to hoarde the wealth, they *care* after all dont they? >.&gt.

If you want to talk about what has never worked- The federal GOVERNMENT has never worked. There is literaly NOTHING it does well, which is why the federal postal system, amtrek, and the public school systems are all failing compared to private alternatives.. To the point where the government feels it has to artifically intervene and flex its muscles to PUNISH a private company that can provide a better quality service for cheaper. Amtrak would not exist at all without government subsidies. And UPS/FEDEX would have made the American Postal service completely obsolete if it weren't for federal legislation forbidding anyone but them from sending lettered mail. And don't even get me started on what a joke public education is. There is a party that is pushing to allow parents to have choice of where to send their children, even proposing the ability of them to use vouchers (which they pay for in tax money) to send their children to a private school instead of a public one... MAny of the worst schools in this country are in predominantly "black districts" and thus those minorities would be greatly helped by a choice... And yet it isn't the Republican party denying it to them, its the minority-"loving" Democrat party. (Who realizes that if more americans were better educated, they wouldnt need the government to provide handouts with them... and thus wouldnt be held in the neo slavery that exist between minorities/poor people and the federal government... i.e. the democrats)[/quote]

Brilliant...absolutely brilliant point...

@UglierBetty: They covered up the fact that he was injured when he was arrested too. Obviously this doesn't prove that Treyvon was the aggressor.. And it may still very well be that Zimmerman started it all, but it does paint a very different picture than the "Zimmerman was looking for a fight, killed an unarmed black man for no reason" story that the media is trying to run with.

The black panthers actually put out a BOUNTY on Zimmerman... (as in "dead or alive&quot and noone in the mainstream on the left is even *commenting* on it let alone condemning it for the hate mongering that it is.

Also, spike lee put up an address on twitter that he claimed was Zimmerman's home address. (Obviously with the intention that his more millitant followers would do "something&quot But the only problem is he put the WRONG address up, and some innocent people have been injured and had their house vandalized because of it.

There is some major mishandling of this incident all around by the "tolerant" left.

@uiluj3: When did i EVER say that racism is no longer a problem in this country? There is a ton of it today, and its only being aggrivated by Obama (a man who at his core is a racist. read his books if you dont believe me.) You go on a rant about housing prices, which to be honest is something i have no clue about.. Im not in the market to buy or sell a house, and if i were I wouldnt care in the slightest what the skin color of the person i bought from or sold to was.

You actually aggreed with my point (which im guessing you barely skimmed over) Yes employers CAN be racist, but it actually *hurts* them in the long run to be so. However it hurts just as badly when the government steps in and forces companies/colleges/ etc to take a greater percentage of people in "minorities" regardless of whether they are qualified or not. This is not "social justice" either. You can not repair centuries of racism against black people with racism against white people... Racism is racism. and it's all disgusting.
My point that, )disgusting as it may be) racism should most certainly still be *allowed* on a private level still stands..

affirmative action is a TERRIBLE thing. I will profess ignorance as to what the Food and Drug Administration has to do with race at all.. But I will say they haven't done a very good job keeping "pink slime" out of our meats.. Or amonia out of many of our foods, which only proves how corrupt these "progressive" implementations really are at their core, and that isnt even getting into their issue of constitutionaliity... (or lack thereof) Such matters should be handled by the state level..As should most of what the Democrat party has illegally given the Federal government powers to do.. Same thing as the anti trust legislation(which has literally nothing at all to do with race). The same thing also goes for minimum wage legislation, I can safely say that a minimum wage is a TERRIBLE idea, and is one of MANY things that liberals have pushed that is screwing over our country. When you artificially raise what a company *must* pay its workers, you raise what that company must CHARGE its consumers. This is compounded to the point where prices of necessities rise much faster than a minimum wage could... Which Liberals are counting on, so they can blame it on the "greedy corporations" and gain more votes with promises to raise the minimum wage even more (which as a vicious cycle only makes things worse).
Do you seriously think those things you mentioned have alieviated class warfare? Because I submit that the Democrat party WANTS class warfare. It is one of many tools that they use to garner votes for themselves, and if people were to ever stop looking into other peoples wallets, they might realize just how much "progressive" legislation keeps screwing everyone in the country over (unless they happen to be a liberal politician obviously THOSE people should be allowed to hoarde the wealth, they *care* after all dont they? >.&gt.

If you want to talk about what has never worked- The federal GOVERNMENT has never worked. There is literaly NOTHING it does well, which is why the federal postal system, amtrek, and the public school systems are all failing compared to private alternatives.. To the point where the government feels it has to artifically intervene and flex its muscles to PUNISH a private company that can provide a better quality service for cheaper. Amtrak would not exist at all without government subsidies. And UPS/FEDEX would have made the American Postal service completely obsolete if it weren't for federal legislation forbidding anyone but them from sending lettered mail. And don't even get me started on what a joke public education is. There is a party that is pushing to allow parents to have choice of where to send their children, even proposing the ability of them to use vouchers (which they pay for in tax money) to send their children to a private school instead of a public one... MAny of the worst schools in this country are in predominantly "black districts" and thus those minorities would be greatly helped by a choice... And yet it isn't the Republican party denying it to them, its the minority-"loving" Democrat party. (Who realizes that if more americans were better educated, they wouldnt need the government to provide handouts with them... and thus wouldnt be held in the neo slavery that exist between minorities/poor people and the federal government... i.e. the democrats)

[quote=uiluj3]you advocate for legalizing drugs, right? how is drugs any different than serving food with rat urine? you go to restaurant and you made an implied consent to eat WHATEVER the restaurant serves you. it's not the government's job to make sure you put healthy things in your body, it's your job right? if an advertisement overexaggerates the health benefits of dietary supplements, that's not the responsibility of the government to make sure idiots dont buy sugar pills.
why should the government enforce affirmative action? racist people dont exist, and being racist is not beneficial in a self-regulating free market, right?

giggles [/quote]

I advocate the legalization for drugs for different reasons than most people; I don't actually think it's smart to use them, but it's a way for stupid people to occupy themselves and eventually die off from health problems. Nobody should actually USE drugs, only morons would take that kind of chance with their health, so it's easier to give them a way to legally kill themselves off so they don't become a burden to tax payers.

Edit: And, before you accuse me of advocating genocide. Remember, I said we should keep anti-drug education in schools and public service ads. But the people who still choose to ignore all those warnings and 'rebel' and do drugs are going to get what's coming to them, and they won't achieve success or anything worth while in their lives if drugs hold them back.

[quote=uiluj3]no one is stopping you from calling the FDA unconstitutional, though im curious why you havent made this argument yet. but regardless, im tired of your overgeneralizations. i could honestly care less if a restaurant served cocroaches with yoru food. it's none of my business and it's none of the goverment's business! it's THEIR business and YOUR business whether you eat cocroaches and rat urine with your hamburger. go on your crusade against government intervention; keep believing that it's what the founding fathers would've wanted. continue despising the very institution that makes human beings unique from animals. who am i to say that the free market doesnt represent freedom and democracy?

giggles [/quote]

I already addressed the issue in a previous post. The FDA protects people from criminals who try to push poison and call it 'food', which falls into the job of the federal government. However, deciding how many people a business will employ, how much they will pay someone, how far from the sidewalk a business must be, how many windows must be per room in a building, other crap like that don't fall into the role of the federal government.

[quote=uiluj3]i posted that newyorktimes article probably nearly 10times in all the discussion i ahve had with, and i doubt that you've read it. over 150million americans make less than $33,000. with an aging workforce from the baby-boomer generation, people nearing retirement are forced to support children and old people with less than satisfactory salaries. [b]This is the new middle class.[/b] look me in the eye and tell me that these people are all lazy and incompetent.

giggles [/quote]

So the solution is to make new rules and regulations that make it harder for businesses to expand and hire people and create better jobs? Or is it to take more money from those businesses so that the government has more money to give people allowing them to live more comfortably for not doing anything?

What are you talking about? I am white and I say it all the time.

[quote=uiluj3]stop stereotyping welfare recipients. in a county that ELECTED A LIBERTARIAN REPRESENTATIVE, that county has one of the highest welfare income in the world, nearly 25% of income in that county is from government benefits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=alland
im sorry but there are tons of people who work as hard as you and dont make it. whether or not the government caused that is another story because the government isnt perfect, but neither is the free market. YOU decided to pursue a career within the government, and unfortunately you must live with the flaws of the government more than most people. i have friends who wish a career in the miltiary too, and god bless them....

giggles [/quote]

I typed out a long and drawn out answer then surprise surprised Basil crashed and it never was posted. Basically it ended with me pointing out that some welfare recipents use the money they receive to help themselves out of poverty, but others just live off it, so my suggestion was to pass a law that took voting rights away from anyone receiving welfare until they got into a position where they no longer required it, that would give them motivation to improve themselves.

as somone who's mother is black ( father isn't) it's more like when a black person says it to another black person, they no they are kidding it's a joke. not to be offensive, and it's clear. whereas when someone white or any other race says it it sometimes isn't always so clear. although if you feel comfortable enough around whoever you are saying it to say it go ahead. Also @MostAnnoying the reason you have xbl people saying it is because they are protected by the anonymity of the interent and virtual world. whereas the majority wouldn't say it to a black persons face irl.

Dear God,

Please, let us open a dictionary or a grammar book and read it

Amen

OT:
Because it's something ONLY black people can do.
Seriously, don't be bothered of something you can't have...

[quote=Laguniroth]@FightTheWar: Treyvon Martin [/quote]

Did you hear about what MSNBC did?

They broadcasted the video of Zimmerman's conversation with the police and EDITED what he said...

This is what the TV watchers heard: [b]"This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."[/b] Which obviously sounds terrible.

But this is what actually happened: [b]Zimmerman: "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there's a real suspicious guy. It's Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."[/b]

[b]911 Dispatcher: "Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?"[/b]

[b]Zimmerman: "He looks black."[/b]

[url=http://rt.com/usa/news/trayvon-zimmerman-call-racist-902/]Source[/url]

@uiluj3: You are just repeating the same things over and over again. And you've still failed to answer *my* question. The answer you gave is invalid, as it would make certain particular people whom liberals view today as "heroes"... "actually a Republican" by your logic. Hell, even by your logic, if this "flip" happened, LBJ is actually a Republican. Which is funny as hell that you'd say that.

By the way, your rant on "social justice" was backwards as well. Libertarians don't think ther is anything wrong at all with a *PRIVATE* business hiring whomever they wish to, be they white, black, red, or brown, or even limiting who can or cant shop in their store based on "arbitrary" factors" because there SHOULDN'T be. That's not propaganda, thats the Constitution. A store owner who wants to cut... say... black people from his clientelle, is hurting HIMSELF, as hes denying himself revenue from a sgnificant portion of the population (not to mention revenue from other people who would undoubtedly not shop at his store out of disgust)
The only problem comes when the government steps in and says that a private business has to hire an UNQUALIFIED person of a certain ethnicity over a QUALIFIED person of another. Or hires that unqualified "minority" themselves... This is wrong, and goes against everything this country was founded on. If a operson isn't good enough to get a job based on the merits of their work, as you say.. Something as totally arbitrary as the color of their skin shouldn't give them a "leg up". Likewise, someone of another skin color who *is* qualified, should not be punished because there happen to be more people who share that particular skin color at this moment.

Back at the subject at hand. As a white man, there is absolutely nothing legally stopping me from going out in public and saying the "n word" even in a hateful manner. In the united states at least, "hate speech" is protected. Obviously, I could not type it out here on this site, and that is because it is a private site owned by a private individual who has determined that saying that word is not allowed for anyone. I agree with this stance because it makes sense and overall it's fair. If something is ok for one person to say, it should be ok for any race to say. On a semi related note, I don't hear anyone complain when a black person uses the word "cracker" which is JUST as offensive as the N word. Or "gringo" which is pretty much literally the mexican equivalent of the n word.. only against white people. But those two words are somehow ok while "The N word is not"? BS.

quote=Lordofrage]did you just say democrats are racists lol...hey watch out ppl we got a angry white republican that cant handle life. boy you think only white ppl arent able to say it? no, only black ppl can say it and no other races. this includes asians and hispanics. man what country you from? you sure your not some terrorist trying to stir something up here. terrorists, thats what you ppl are always overly scared of rite? but in all seriousness, its not only white people. i swear the caucasian community in basil needs to get over themselves. ive seen so many threads with white people complaining about some minority race.

heres the big picture. we all know originally there was a lot more racism than today. so we try to balance that out by having programs that help minorities. because heres the idea. caucasians who were originally here got there first so that means they are financially and academically better off. everyone was poor. yea even the asians. so those programs happened. and you know what, it helped some people. what do you see today? there are some very successful minority people from all races. so this illusion is built. the programs are the reason for this transition. true. however, caucasians think that if we just let time pass some more, the same programs will even things out. but because they are not minorities and don't know the system's effect on minorities, they can't see the different barriers that can't be broken by these programs. (reader: whoa whoa whoa....whats with these big ideas, were just talking about the n word here man and why other races cant say it; me: getting to that, this is overhead) so the effect that is created is that white people still see minorities complaining and they think that "oh we already try to make things better, now its their turn". the well known definition of racial discrimination is discriminating against a race. but that is not true. its a very specific kind of discrimination that dehumanizes, demeans, demoralizes, insults, and ridicules another race. these are just some examples, there are more than this that i am too lazy to specify and go into detail, but it is not just discriminating against another race. however, white people only see it as "discriminating against another race" because they arent minorities and dont understand what that word means to the minorities. so people who want to take advantage of the term and those that misunderstand that term take it that being unable to say the n word is racist.

now as to why it cant be said, its a safety zone and a sensitivity zone for different black people. its either one or the other or both. as i said above, minorities feel there are still barriers that racially discriminates them. these are very discrete barriers so there not so easily noticable unless you are the victim. they do not think the current system can solve that. so they need to take matters into their own hands. they know that the n word has a strong negative connotation to it. so by saying "oh this is our word", they taking ownership of that word so no one is allowed to use it against them. its like the the two pacifist men and the gun. but the thing is they dont know that the other man is a pacifist, so they both want the gun, not to use it, but the prevent the other guy from using it. so that is one branch of the safety zone (at this point i realize i did not mention two branches before...sry to lazy to go back). the second branch applies very well to this thread. it does have to do with oversensitivity, but its reasonable. if you allowed everyone to say the n word, you dont know who is insulting you and who isnt. the idea is black people wont hate black people, so we can say it. but other races can't because they might use it in an offensive way, so we say they cant use it just to be safe. there are some variations on this as i have seen some black people allow mexicans and asians use it. the reason is this. as minorities were on the same boat. so yea. im sry caucasians, but you created this world. you want to fix it? well it aint gonna be as easy as you like it to be. you have to make lost of sacrifices.

now the sensitivity zone is going to be short because its not as complicated. people are sensitive about the issues of slavery and still feel it strongly. i know my professor in ESPM said that she knew a person who was afraid to go into the forest because in the past thats where lynches happen and she felt the forest was white territory (not like she believed it, but an innate feeling; this is something you will have to research on your own. its how black people in american relate to the land). the big idea to take from that though is that even though it was such a long time ago, its sting actually passes down this far. so they dont like to hear that word, not even from their own. this probably does not apply to the thread as much.

here is also another idea, kind of an extension of what i previously said about the ownership of the word and preventing other people from using it. so there are two ideas again. one of retribution and the other of sticking it in your face. retribution because they felt that the word really dehumanized them so they decided to take it away from themselves, allow them to do anything they want with it, but not let other people use it. so its like okay i get this, because you did this to me in the past as retribution. a discrete difference from what i said before. the idea of sticking in your face is this. they basically use it at will but not let anyone else, just to stick it in other people's faces. its like okay, this is our word now, you cant use it anymore, this is what you get for what you did in the past.

there are other possible reason for this phenomenon, but these are some main ones.

main idea is this. the way im reading your thread, you feel like a great injustice has been done to you. there is a shift in the scales towards the black people on this matter true, but you have no right to complain about it. the scale is still heavily shifted towards white people. you will see lot of minorities do things that will shift things towards their scale and you may feel like "hey thats not fair". because you are only looking at that event you feel its not fair, but in the bigger picture, the scales are still tipped towards white. what we want is the scales evenly tipped. so yea only they are allowed to use the word. get over it.

@above: ignorant statement. obama was raised by white parents and is half white himself. why wouldnt he like white people?

@those complaining about the double standard: double standard only applies well on even grounds. when its not even grounds, its completely different. and black people vs white people are not even grounds.

edit: i was going to wait for a response from you guys to respond to, but then i realize...im procrastinating...again >_>[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0 In no particular order: yes, I did say that Democrats are racists. Because they are, and have proven time and time again to be. I'm guessing from some of the nonsense you spewed here that you are black yourself, and if that is the case, I really have to wonder why it is that you think your own race to be so inferior that they need "help" from the government to get ahead. I reject your assertion that this is a "white people created this world." If you need any further proof to the contrary of this, take a look at the "wonderful" land that Africa is today (and yesterday). To be perfectly blunt, it is a craphole. Large portions of it not having electricity, running water, or any of the other things both you and I associate with "civilization". I would conjecture that you blame this on "the white man" because 300ish years ago they took people from Africa, to be used as slaves... If you believe this then you are ignorant. The majority of the people who sold blacks into slavery were OTHER blacks in Africa, from rival tribes. According to many scientists and philosophers, Africa is the birthplace of human life, and yet it has come nowhere near as far as most if any of the "white" countries. Again, assuming that you are black, do you truly believe that your life today would be better off had your ancestors stayed in Africa? Is the white man really "keeping you down" by giving you the opportunity to live in a country where anyone REGARDLESS of the color of their skin can make something of themselves? (Case in point, all of the people of *any* nationality who have done so.) If so, I would strongly support a goverment (tax sponsered) program to send you back to your homeland... So long as you are not allowed to return for any reason. We want to be racially sensitive after all.

And in specific response to your response on what I said about Obama: What does the color of his mothers skin have to do with anything? To great deal of the prople in this country (many of them black) Obama is a "black man" and those specific examples I stated were cases where he took a racist stance that was inapropriate for a president to take, and if the races were reversed:
i.e. a white president commenting that a white child killed by a black man (before it was even determined whether it was justified or not) "could be his son", or accused a black police officer of "acting stupidly" for (rightfully) questioning a suspicious and hostile white man, who appeared to be breaking into a house. Or had his attorney general support a white hate group (like the Democrat KKK) who tried to intimidate black voters. These things would NOT BE ACCEPTABLE. And therefore, I submit that they are not acceptable now. Racism is racism, regardless of the color of ones skin, and from his words and actions, Obama is a huge racist... Just like the majority of the Democrat party.

[quote=uiluj3]you should look into how the holocaust has effected the modern judicial system of germany. you dont realize it but as you get older, you'll see how a lot of yoru personality is a direct result of culture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2tOp7OxyQ8&feature=plcp&context=C41bb3faVDvjVQa1PpcFOgb-F9cIn-JcqBmnHuGiN6vJJ2iWVVjgI=[/quote]

Heh, speaking of your previous comment, let me tell you something about the human 'killer' instinct. I know exactly what it feels like to have the blood-killer instincts that are dormant in most humans re-emerge. Every human has them, all it takes is a few weeks of intense mental stress, sleep-deprivation, and hunger and they'll come out. That's exactly what they did at Navy OCS. God it was hell... but it taught me a lot about what real stress and pressure is. If the people who are poor now worked half as hard as I did while I was there, they'd be able to achieve success. Ironically, it seems that in the long term, I went though that hellish ordeal for nothing, since the government decided that handouts for welfare recipients were more important than funding the military. What was supposed to be a 20+ year long career ended after barely 2 years (and it was what I dreamed of doing since I was a kid). Maybe the fact that I worked harder than most people can even perceive to get my dream and having it taken away while welfare recipients continue to get their free handouts (while complaining that other people aren't paying their fair share) has something to do with MY outlook on things?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd_VB0oXdgk

[quote=Hoopla12345]go visit harlem and have fun[/quote]

What are you talking about? The good people of Harlem are misunderstood and victims, it's the white people who are bigoted. The residents of Harlem would NEVER attack anyone just for being a certain skin color, would they?

[quote=uiluj3]...im an egalitarian, not a social darwinist. i dont believe in concepts such as "superiority" or "inferiority." i believe that there are an array of cultures and society that will exist on the planet earth, and each society will arbitrarily allow other people to be happier than other based on where and how they are born. i think a person with schizophrenia is as "handicapped" as someone who has IQ of 200. in some cultures, people with schizophrenia are called "prophets" while in other cultures they are put in mental hospitals. in some cultures, people with high IQ are called "geniuses" while in other cultures they are dangerous blasphemers. there are cultures where people who are physically fit are revered as conquerors and emporers, while in our culture, entreprenuers are revered as conquerors and innovators. depending on when and where you are born, you are less likely to be successful and happy because human nature is simply unfair.
earlier, your friend said that it was reagan's accomploshment to appoint the first black supreme court justice. are you going to argue that out of the thousands of qualified lawyers, judges and politicans, you think it was a coincidence that reagan nominated a black man, even though black people make up less than 15% of the US population? what is affirmative action, if not to overcompensate against the existence of racism? is seperate truly equal? are two distinctly different people equal? did god create all man to be equal?
what is equality? is it the idea that we should jduge people for the content of their character? is it a concept the government invented to protect us from each other?
@fightthewar , if we were to meet in real life, though our personalities may differ, our physical beings are different too. our DNA is different, our height is different, our pigment, our voice, the way we grew up, etc. Sir, how can we be equal if things nothing "equal" about us? how can we categorically treat everyone the same and ignore special circumstances. you claim that democrats have double standards and are pragmatic, yet is there any other way? no, [b]seperate is NOT equal[/b], and thus this is the ultimatum that ended segregation. two distinctly seperate individuals can never be equal under the eyes of god. you fundamentally misunderstood civil rights. it is the right of all men and women to absolve the social injustices and be deserving of the good life. it is important to understand that two unequal things does not imply inferiority or superiority; a hydrogen atom is not inferior or superior to an oxygen atom, they're jsut seperate and not equal.
what is the role of government in all this? the government's duty is to rid of the injustices in nature and human nature; to stop murder, theft, minimize death and poverty, protection from nature and protection from human beings themselves.

@marxmaster dad is a realtor, so i think marxmaster knwos what he's talking about

giggles [/quote]

Very deep answer, but really didn't answer anything. How is comparing H to O or pointing out that separate is not equal (remember, separate but equal itself was a policy enacted by the government). The government cannot be racist, that I agree with. While I may support a private business owners right to discriminate (though I'd openly insult him and his business for being a bigoted moron) the federal government does NOT have that right. The federal government should never be allowed to discriminate on the basis of skin color, religion, gender (except maybe in US special forces for reasons that make sense) or religion. Affirmative action is nothing more than government-enforced discrimination for the purpose of getting votes for Democrat politicians- ERR I mean to help the 'disadvantaged'.

[quote=MarxMaster]They correlate with each other so much it's practically interchangeable.[/quote]

I used to live in the suburbs, and we had black families. Nobody cared. They were decent people like everyone else, and our neighborhood never had a problem with them. We did have some problems with drug pushers (who were white) and they really weren't welcome after a while. It's all about culture and behavior, not race. But yes, as you said, black people tend to embrace that culture at a higher percentage, but it's not the race that's unwelcome; it's the culture.

[quote=MarxMaster]I can argue that the Real Estate market would actually encourage racism if there weren't laws against real estate practitioners from practicing discrimination. Conformity is an important factor in determining the value of a home, so it's in the interest of people to enforce a level of conformity whether it's through common agreement among a community or through local government to place zoning restrictions.

I would call this a straw man. It's not races are inherently inferior, but their circumstances are inferior.[/quote]

People in real estate don't care about skin color and race so much as culture. That's where the 'conformity' issues come in.

[quote=uiluj3]well at least you seem to understand that culture is the most important figure in promoting social injustices. but you're still ignoring important points within the segregation controversy with your confirmation bias. have you heard of "seperate but equal"? it's the idea that restuarants that has "blacks only" signs is the same thing as restuarants with "whites only" signs. similarly, restaurants that says "no smoking" is equal to restaurants that says "smoking allowed." segregation was not about the government splitting the country in half, it's about giving private property owners the right to deny certain individuals onto their private property.

and to put this bluntly, you are naively thinking that employers are incapable of being racist or arbitrary without affirmative action. you think that people wont jduge you by the color of your skin if the government didnt do anything? you think it's "fair" to be born in a culture where people judge you for the way you look? what is equality? how can equality possibly exist if libertarians continue to use categorical moral reasoning?

giggles [/quote]

Employers are far more likely to judge someone based on their appearance and professionalism than skin color. No employer I've met would look at someone who is black who comes into a job interview dressed professionally, uses professional language, and doesn't appear that they buy into the whole ghetto culture. If a private property owner wants to be a bigot and discriminate and deny on the basis of skin color, that's their right; but they will suffer the consequences as I don't know of anyone who would do business with that person, I certainly wouldn't. All affirmative action does is reinforce that inequality between races still exists, and the longer it keeps on going, the longer people will believe that. That's why you support affirmative action, because deep down you do truly believe certain races are inferior and need extra 'help'...and that makes you a racist...

[quote=Ecoutie]I'm black (West Indian). I hate the N word and don't use it. I wouldn't consider it "okay" for me to use it either.

But I'm going to answer the question in your title. Anyone can say the word. There are just different consequences for different people depending on their affiliations/roles. Try to think of how something you say might be appropriate when you're around family members, but not as appropriate if you say it around a group of strangers. I didn't really want to respond to this thread at all to be honest. I'm not in the least surprised that you're the thread starter. It seems you won't give up till all of Basil knows that you're a republican that hates black people. That seems to be your goal from my perspective anyway... Maybe instead of asking basil for their opinions you should do some research on race and communication at a University library near you.

I hope some day you will see people for more than the color of their skin and the political beliefs they hold. Stop treating them as if they are a list of stereotypes because of the groups they fall into. Start treating each person as if they have dignity, as if they are ends in and of themselves. Try to apply this practice when you want to talk about groups too... It's not so wrong to say: X is what I know generally from experience and information given to me about a particular group Y - but I recognize that Y is made up of persons and every person is an individual in some sense... Each person is capable of thinking in different ways. While it is possible that a person might be seeing X from a perspective that is different than my own and different than the perspective I imagine they have now.

Or maybe get out of the country and try experiencing other cultures. I really don't know. Maybe if you learn more about the nature of people and the nature of societies you'll be better equipped to answer these questions on your own. [/quote]

God, so many responses, but since this is most recent I'll address it. I DO look past skin color. This thread is NOT supposed to be an attack on people who are of a different skin color, it's attacking people who have the mindset that people of different skin colors are inferior (including people with different skin colors). A previous poster said that if I supported desegregation but didn't support affirmative action then I was a hypocrite. Well, I do support desegregation because segregation is the legal implication that races are different and need to be held to different standards, just like affirmative action. Skin color should play no role in determining anything about a person. That being said, cultures that people in minorities develop (such as gang cultures) that promote pointless violence and vandalism are frowned upon by society and for good reason, and ultimately that culture is what's keeping many people who are in minorities down, not their skin color. For example, one of the 'trends' of that culture is letting your pants sag down around your underpants (a trend developed in prison); it's a delinquent look and while I believe it should be legal to dress that way, people who do so are sending a clear message that they embrace culture of delinquency, and it will hurt their opportunities to advance in society. I have plenty of friends who are black who understand how pointless that culture is and how it is the source of the problems many minorities face these days, and the sooner people who embrace those cultures figure that out, the sooner they can start to better themselves.

I'm black (West Indian). I hate the N word and don't use it. I wouldn't consider it "okay" for me to use it either.

But I'm going to answer the question in your title to the best of my ability at this point in time. Anyone can say the word. There are just different consequences for different people depending on their affiliations/roles. Try to think of how something you say might be appropriate when you're around family members, but not as appropriate if you say it around a group of strangers. I didn't really want to respond to this thread at all to be honest. I'm not in the least surprised that you're the thread starter. It seems you won't give up till all of Basil knows that you're a republican that hates black people. That seems to be your goal from my perspective anyway... Maybe instead of asking basil for their opinions you should do some research on race and communication at a University library near you.

I hope some day you will see people for more than the color of their skin and the political beliefs they hold. Stop treating them as if they are a list of stereotypes because of the groups they fall into. Start treating each person as if they have dignity, as if they are ends in and of themselves. Try to apply this practice when you want to talk about groups too... It's not so wrong to say: X is what I know generally from experience and information given to me about a particular group Y - but I recognize that Y is made up of persons and every person is an individual in some sense... Each person is capable of thinking in different ways. While it is possible that a person might be seeing X from a perspective that is different than my own, it is equally possible that they are also seeing X from a different perspective than what I imagine they have now.

Or maybe get out of the country and try experiencing other cultures. I really don't know. Maybe if you learn more about the nature of people and the nature of societies you'll be better equipped to answer these questions on your own. K back to homework. I think I've had my fill of basil forums for this weekend.