Govt schools still turning out garbage

[PLC1]

Ha ha, Welcome back Kotter. That's a blast from the past.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. It's okay to bash "rednecks." Try bashing "black thugs" or other assorted groups, or even using that term in some scenarios, and see what happens.

The problem with the phrase "black thugs" is it implies that all thugs are black, or perhaps all blacks are thugs. There is no real difference between black thugs and white thugs.

 

[Jason76]

Ha ha, Welcome back Kotter. That's a blast from the past.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. It's okay to bash "rednecks." Try bashing "black thugs" or other assorted groups, or even using that term in some scenarios, and see what happens.

Actually, most blacks don't like the culture. However, it's easy for outside groups to see all blacks as being a part of that culture. Blacks know this situation is true, and are very sensitive about it.

Likewise, generalizations about Appalachians as KKK people obviously annoys and angers the targeted group.

 

[PLC1]

Actually, most blacks don't like the culture. However, it's easy for outside groups to see all blacks as being a part of that culture. Blacks know this situation is true, and are very sensitive about it.

Likewise, generalizations about Appalachians as KKK people obviously annoys and angers the targeted group.

I think that could be said of most stereotypes.

 

[Zynni]

The problem with the phrase "black thugs" is it implies that all thugs are black, or perhaps all blacks are thugs. There is no real difference between black thugs and white thugs.

Exactly. Thugs are thugs. I don't care if they are pink or purple.

Actually, most blacks don't like the culture. However, it's easy for outside groups to see all blacks as being a part of that culture. Blacks know this situation is true, and are very sensitive about it.

Likewise, generalizations about Appalachians as KKK people obviously annoys and angers the targeted group.

Yeah, again, that's kind of the point. People described as rednecks are sensitive too, but for some reason they don't count.

 

[Jason76]

Exactly. Thugs are thugs. I don't care if they are pink or purple.



Yeah, again, that's kind of the point. People described as rednecks are sensitive too, but for some reason they don't count.

You have a point. However, past laws like the Jim Crow ones, specifically targeted color as did slavery. Poor whites have always existed. However, in the US those people didn't have legalized forms of oppression directed at them. Of course, explaining this idea to real so called rednecks annoys and angers them. It's pretty much like talking to a wall. The same could be said when someone explains such things to social conservatives.

 

[nytegeek]

You have a point. However, past laws like the Jim Crow ones, specifically targeted color as did slavery. Poor whites have always existed. However, in the US those people didn't have legalized forms of oppression directed at them. Of course, explaining this idea to real so called rednecks annoys and angers them. It's pretty much like talking to a wall. The same could be said when someone explains such things to social conservatives.

I think what angers people is that the only proposed solutions that get any real attention would amount to legalized oppression being applied to white people in retaliation for what happened to other groups. It is ridiculous. You don't make things right by holding *any* group back based on skin color or social status. You don't have to hold white people back for black people to succeed. The whole thing is stupid. Race is an artificial construct used to oppress people. It isn't real. All humans are one race. Chimpanzees are a different race, black, white, and asian people are all the same race. We are just to snooty as humans to use the word breed for ourselves.

 

[dogtowner]

I think what angers people is that the only proposed solutions that get any real attention would amount to legalized oppression being applied to white people in retaliation for what happened to other groups. It is ridiculous. You don't make things right by holding *any* group back based on skin color or social status. You don't have to hold white people back for black people to succeed. The whole thing is stupid. Race is an artificial construct used to oppress people. It isn't real. All humans are one race. Chimpanzees are a different race, black, white, and asian people are all the same race. We are just to snooty as humans to use the word breed for ourselves.

I think you're confusing species for race.

 

[Jason76]

I think what angers people is that the only proposed solutions that get any real attention would amount to legalized oppression being applied to white people in retaliation for what happened to other groups. It is ridiculous. You don't make things right by holding *any* group back based on skin color or social status. You don't have to hold white people back for black people to succeed. The whole thing is stupid. Race is an artificial construct used to oppress people. It isn't real. All humans are one race. Chimpanzees are a different race, black, white, and asian people are all the same race. We are just to snooty as humans to use the word breed for ourselves.

You have a point. However, the sad and uncomfortable truth is that people reap what they sow on all sides. Groups other than white people have made mistakes and have to reap a karma. Also, whites have resorted to oppressing others and hence, will have to deal with the fallout.

The main fallacy people make is saying other groups are more evil than their own group.

In regards to your other comment, I think people are divided into groups, but that doesn't mean I'm a racist. For instance, if I said white southerners, in general, supported Jim Crow, well, I'm dividing people into groups which are sort of based on race.

 

[PLC1]

I think you're confusing species for race.

There used to be other species of the genus homo, but they're all extinct. Now, there is just one species of human. Race means, what again? Are we to make up a new classification beyond species?

No, humans are all one species. We just need to learn to act like it.

Not only one species, but one with very little genetic variation. Anthropologists think the human species was down to about 2,000 individuals some 70,000 years ago. Since then, there has been little time for evolution. We're all pretty much the same.

 

[Jason76]

There used to be other species of the genus homo, but they're all extinct. Now, there is just one species of human. Race means, what again? Are we to make up a new classification beyond species?

No, humans are all one species. We just need to learn to act like it.

Not only one species, but one with very little genetic variation. Anthropologists think the human species was down to about 2,000 individuals some 70,000 years ago. Since then, there has been little time for evolution. We're all pretty much the same.

Humans are divided into groups based on culture, and a majority of people are loyal to their group. Given this stuation, people have to look at other people as belonging to a group. Of course, I'm not saying there are real genetic differences among races and nationalities, but there are cultural ones, and some cultures can't exist well with each other.

Ultimately, the people of the world cannot be one mainly cause of culture, not genetics. I don't know if there is a solution to this problem, but at least since the 1960s there has been massive progress in the US and other western nations.

Racists are trying to say there are differences beyond stuff like resistance to diabetes etc.. In other words, they venture into study of IQ and other ridiculous garbage, all with the main goal of trying to prove one race is superior, while of course massively ignoring environmental factors.

 

[PLC1]

Humans are divided into groups based on culture, and a majority of people are loyal to their group. Given this stuation, people have to look at other people as belonging to a group. Of course, I'm not saying there are real genetic differences among races and nationalities, but there are cultural ones, and some cultures can't exist well with each other.

Ultimately, the people of the world cannot be one mainly cause of culture, not genetics. I don't know if there is a solution to this problem, but at least since the 1960s there has been massive progress in the US and other western nations.

Racists are trying to say there are differences beyond stuff like resistance to diabetes etc.. In other words, they venture into study of IQ and other ridiculous garbage, all with the main goal of trying to prove one race is superior, while of course massively ignoring environmental factors.

Yes, humans have been dividing ourselves up since there were humans on Earth. The guys in the next cave over are not like us, so they are evil, so it's OK to kill and enslave them.

Luckily, we're starting (haven't finished yet by any means) to get over tribalism and accept people from different cultures. Maybe in another thousand years or so, there will be peace.

 

[Jason76]

Yes, humans have been dividing ourselves up since there were humans on Earth. The guys in the next cave over are not like us, so they are evil, so it's OK to kill and enslave them.

Luckily, we're starting (haven't finished yet by any means) to get over tribalism and accept people from different cultures. Maybe in another thousand years or so, there will be peace.

However, it's easier to make that statement when your in some coffeehouse. Unfortunately, real people have a real reasons to hate people from other cultures. For instance, you might get robbed by someone from another race. In another case, someone from another culture lynched your grandpa. Anyhow, I don't think it's right to just dismiss racists as angry blacks, latinos etc.. or white trash.

I always look at the example of my brother. It seems like whenever he's in close proximity to a certain group he hates them, but once they're away then he comes all tolerant. For instance, he hated gays in college, now he can stand them. He used to like blacks more in the past, but now he has lives in a poor black neighborhood. He used to be a trendy globalist, but now his computer jobs are threatened by East Indians.

 

[PLC1]

However, it's easier to make that statement when your in some coffeehouse. Unfortunately, real people have a real reasons to hate people from other cultures. For instance, you might get robbed by someone from another race. In another case, someone from another culture lynched your grandpa. Anyhow, I don't think it's right to just dismiss racists as angry blacks, latinos etc.. or white trash.

I always look at the example of my brother. It seems like whenever he's in close proximity to a certain group he hates them, but once they're away then he comes all tolerant. For instance, he hated gays in college, now he can stand them. He used to like blacks more in the past, but now he has lives in a poor black neighborhood. He used to be a trendy globalist, but now his computer jobs are threatened by East Indians.

That's the problem, isn't it, stereotyping and grouping? If a black did something to me, then does that mean I should hate all blacks because of the one person? If whites kept slaves, and they did, then should blacks hate whites? Whites spoke out against slavery as well. Moreover, there actually were black slave owners. Why not judge based on those examples? If I'm annoyed by the advances of a gay man, should I hate all gays? It's irrational. Unfortunately, it's a human reaction to stereotype, but it is still irrational.

 

[Jason76]

That's the problem, isn't it, stereotyping and grouping? If a black did something to me, then does that mean I should hate all blacks because of the one person? If whites kept slaves, and they did, then should blacks hate whites? Whites spoke out against slavery as well. Moreover, there actually were black slave owners. Why not judge based on those examples? If I'm annoyed by the advances of a gay man, should I hate all gays? It's irrational. Unfortunately, it's a human reaction to stereotype, but it is still irrational.

Generally speaking your extreme racists types had some traumatic experience happen to them which gave them the chip on the shoulder. On the other hand, the lesser racist ones generally have gotten their indoctrination from family and friends. I don't really know how to deal with irrational people except to stay away from them. The same advice anyone would give regarding dangerous psychotic people.

Nowadays of course, political movements other than the Klan etc.. are catering to these lost souls so to speak, these extreme Archie Bunker types.

 

[dogtowner]

That's the problem, isn't it, stereotyping and grouping? If a black did something to me, then does that mean I should hate all blacks because of the one person? If whites kept slaves, and they did, then should blacks hate whites? Whites spoke out against slavery as well. Moreover, there actually were black slave owners. Why not judge based on those examples? If I'm annoyed by the advances of a gay man, should I hate all gays? It's irrational. Unfortunately, it's a human reaction to stereotype, but it is still irrational.

Or sometimes stereotypes develope from simple observation. My niece jumped down her dad's throat when he made some racially oriented remark. He responded to her that she had only ever seen black people and so her perceptions slanted accordingly. And it's true that in the toney suburb where they lived there were no, as they say in the white house, niggahs there. He continues referencing a black business owner she knew that once when he was chatting with a group of blacks who thought they were out of view were speaking ebonically. The point being that you had to consider whether you are seeing the person or the persona.