Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MICHELLE_OBAMA_E_MAIL?SITE=ALMON&S ECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT So, TL;DR, guy who isn't a fan of Obama and his wife and such put out an e-mail with an attached picture comparing Michelle Obama to a chimpanzee. Naturally, people got pissed, and a few people ended contracts with the guy because of it. I, for one, find this BULLSHIT. Yeah, it's a little immature, but it's political humor. Seriously, google "Bush monkey" or something similar, and you'll see tons of those. I've seen the whole "Bush looks like a monkey" routine EVERYWHERE. Comedians, late night talk show hosts, etc. You name it. But the second you do it to Obama and/or his wife, it's wrong. I guarantee they were offended because OH NO! IT'S RACIST! I'm fucking sick of this bullshit. Racism still exists- it's just that now you're not allowed to do anything or say anything bad about blacks.
Yea today ANYTHING you say against a black person is automatically racist now even if it is not intended racial or it doesnt even make sense to be racial. That is just stupid that people thought simple political humor was racist. and i searched "Bush Monkey" and found pictures comparing bush to a monkey that was not removed from any sites but when i searched "Michelle Obama Monkey" most of the pictures were removed from the original sites.
I believe this is the .gif you're looking for. Moving along. I certainly don't agree with racism, but I will stand up for anyone's right to create whatever the hell they want. No censorship, no bitching, no complaining what so ever. A little freedom in our short lives is all I ask for. Grow up.
I don't know. It really depends on what types of contracts were ended and what his position was. If he was some high level executive or something, then it makes sense that if someone saw it they would want to end a contract with him. It really doesn't have to be a racist issue... While it is his right to put up whatever he wants to without censorship, it's also in the rights of the contract holders to end someone's contract for whatever reason.
It's obviously lame redneck racism...I wouldn't want to be associated with such an idiot, either.
JohnDoe wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 04:15 It's obviously lame redneck racism...I wouldn't want to be associated with such an idiot, either. what if you have not choice but to be associated with them on a daily bases.....
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sat, 06 March 2010 19:15 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MICHELLE_OBAMA_E_MAIL?SITE=ALMON&S ECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT So, TL;DR, guy who isn't a fan of Obama and his wife and such put out an e-mail with an attached picture comparing Michelle Obama to a chimpanzee. Naturally, people got pissed, and a few people ended contracts with the guy because of it. I, for one, find this BULLSHIT. Yeah, it's a little immature, but it's political humor. Seriously, google "Bush monkey" or something similar, and you'll see tons of those. I've seen the whole "Bush looks like a monkey" routine EVERYWHERE. Comedians, late night talk show hosts, etc. You name it. But the second you do it to Obama and/or his wife, it's wrong. I guarantee they were offended because OH NO! IT'S RACIST! I'm fucking sick of this bullshit. Racism still exists- it's just that now you're not allowed to do anything or say anything bad about blacks. Just one difference. Comedians, late night talk show hosts, etc are people whose job it is to entertain people and this usually happens when they make fun of certain people. If someone, who I had a business contract with, publicly made fun of the presidents wife I would also end that contract. Not because it is racist, not because I dislike it, but because it is unprofessional.
JohnDoe wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 04:15 It's obviously lame redneck racism...I wouldn't want to be associated with such an idiot, either. But if it was making fun of Bush or his wife, no one would care nearly as much. That's the point I'm trying to make here. SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 12:42 Just one difference. Comedians, late night talk show hosts, etc are people whose job it is to entertain people and this usually happens when they make fun of certain people. If someone, who I had a business contract with, publicly made fun of the presidents wife I would also end that contract. Not because it is racist, not because I dislike it, but because it is unprofessional. Yes, but for one, I haven't really seen them do a bit about Obama or his wife (yet) in a similar fashion. If they were, I GUARANTEE people would bitch about racism. Like I said, yes it's immature, and I understand why someone would be a little uncomfortable from that aspect, but I just don't think that was the only reason. The guy even said "I didn't mean for it to be malicious, I just meant for it to be political humor". Which means that people didn't SEE IT as political humor, and saw it as- of course- racism . which is fucking bullshit.
If you cant see how comparing a black person to a monkey could appear to be more racemotivated than comparing bush to a monkey...
surth? / surth! wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 14:12 If you cant see how comparing a black person to a monkey could appear to be more racemotivated than comparing bush to a monkey... how is it more "racemotivated"
I'm pretty sure if John McCain won the office and this person did the same monkey comparison to his wife instead, he would have lost the same contracts. It isn't about race, it's about professionalism. It's only racist if you apply it as such. (It could be racist, but then again it could be any number of things.)
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 15:50 surth? / surth! wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 14:12 If you cant see how comparing a black person to a monkey could appear to be more racemotivated than comparing bush to a monkey... how is it more "racemotivated" because some people call black people monkeys as a racial slur
This topic has been here for 3 days... and still inb4 rocko, ralph or any other person who pretends to be black... Serious note, we all know you can't say anything bad about any minority or you are automatically a racist, even if it has nothing to do with their ethnicity. Also like some others have already said, the fact that comparing black people to monkeys is one of the oldest racial slurs doesn't help much... even if that was not this person's intent, it was bound to be the way a lot of people seen it.
liquidv2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 00:26 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 15:50 surth? / surth! wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 14:12 If you cant see how comparing a black person to a monkey could appear to be more racemotivated than comparing bush to a monkey... how is it more "racemotivated" because some people call black people monkeys as a racial slur Of course they do, but who the fuck cares? "Cracker" and "pinky" are apparently racial slurs towards whites. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly forbidden from saying the words "cracker" and "pinky" in the proper context. Wheras if you even remotely THINK of a black person as a monkey or compare them to it, AUTOMATICALLY RACIST. Even if your intention was more towards "You're as stupid as a monkey" (Which can be said to ANY race, by the way). But yet it's only bad towards black? No, fuck that shit.
I thought monkeys were white? They just have a lot of dark colored hair... White on the inside, black on the outside
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 16:24 Of course they do, but who the fuck cares? "Cracker" and "pinky" are apparently racial slurs towards whites. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly forbidden from saying the words "cracker" and "pinky" in the proper context. Wheras if you even remotely THINK of a black person as a monkey or compare them to it, AUTOMATICALLY RACIST. Even if your intention was more towards "You're as stupid as a monkey" (Which can be said to ANY race, by the way). But yet it's only bad towards black? No, fuck that shit. You're right, it's an injustice, I agree. It's infuriating TBH. However, I wouldn't want to put myself in the situation where I had to rely on that arguement, because everyone else is either too scared to say how it really is, or there thick as shit. But you know if you said it at work you would end up in-front of a disciplinary board, and you'd be totally fucked. It's not right, but you know that's how it is these days. Political correctness gone mad! Call me a coward if you like, but I would not test the arguement when my job was on the line, I have a family to support. This guy who sent that email should of had a bit more of a clue about the way of the world, however wrong it is...
reborn wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 00:37 You're right, it's an injustice, I agree. It's infuriating TBH. However, I wouldn't want to put myself in the situation where I had to rely on that arguement, because everyone else is either too scared to say how it really is, or there thick as shit. But you know if you said it at work you would end up in-front of a disciplinary board, and you'd be totally fucked. It's not right, but you know that's how it is these days. Political correctness gone mad! Call me a coward if you like, but I would not test the arguement when my job was on the line, I have a family to support. This guy who sent that email should of had a bit more of a clue about the way of the world, however wrong it is... Yeah, I guess this is why we have the internet, eh? Good place to share what people really think. I really wish that you COULD speak out publically, though. America especially- aren't we supposed to have a special piece of paper that let's us do so? I just wish that people WOULD speak out about this sort of thing. It's never going to get better by ignoring it- so why DO we ignore it?
I'm starting to believe black people when they whine about most whites still being closet racists...either that or there are more than a few people with Asperger's posting ITT.
I suppose allot of people see the worst in eachother, so when something like this appears, people make assumptions? The guy who wrote that email is just mis-understood. Some people may just enjoy seeing others downfall, and when they see something that could be deemed as contentious, they stir it up. But the largest contributing factor in my opinion as to why people believe this is racist, is the media. As to why we allow this kind of political correctness gone mad bullshit to carry on, in my pesimistic view is that really we're all slaves to the system and too frightened to fight it, as we know we'll get no back-up from all the other frightened sheep. It's not that no one cares, we just know that the fight aint fair.
Yeah this is pure racism. It was widely viewed that George Bush was as dumb as a chimp and his often clueless facial expressions lent themselves to images comparing him with one. However, I've yet to hear anyone say Michelle Obama is as dumb as a chimp. This discussion by these nerds will pretty much go to show that it's just a bunch of angry racist white and brown people. http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/race-issues/87672-michelle-obama-monkey-picture -deleted-google-found.html
So when it was Bush it was fine? But this is racist? Nikki, check this out: http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/presidential-double-standards-bush-an d-obama-given-different-treatment-on-same-issues/
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:41 We get it. You're autistic, not racist. says the one living in Germany
As an American living in Germany I'm clearly sensible enough to African-American history in order to be aware of the blatant lowbrow racism, as any educated person should be. If you can't see how comparing the Harvard-educated wife of the first black president in US history visually to a monkey, which just so happens be a racial slur used by people who lynched blacks not too long ago, is racist, then I can only feel pity. You obviously can only belong to four types of people: 1. Extremely sheltered and of low intelligence living in all-white region like North Dakota, which makes you ignorant to anything related to African-Americans; 2. A closet racist; 3. A troll; 4. Autistic. From what I can tell, you're either a troll or a closet racist (which is why I didn't bother with a serious reply), but this Reborn guy is definitely not a troll, which makes this a lot more interesting.
I just don't understand how the attached images are acceptable, but the exact same thing to Obama's wife is racially motivated? Surely it's the same political humour?
reborn wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 03:53 I just don't understand how the attached images are acceptable, but the exact same thing to Obama's wife is racially motivated? Surely it's the same political humour? I explained it...which part don't you understand? I'm trying to figure out which category you fall into.
I'm not a troll. I do not like, nor do I get the humour of that sort of thing. I'm not autistic. I do not live in North Dakota. I'm possibly naive, but I do not consider myself to be of low intelligence. That kinda leaves me with closet racist. But really, all I feel I am doing is calling out a double standard. It's hypocritical really... Sure I can see that the guy who made the image is a dumbass for not thinking to himself "Shit, Michelle is of African descent, so making her look like a monkey might make people think I'm a racist". I just think it's a pity that people should have to forward think in that manor just because some people make assumptions about their actions. I mean.. If the guy is saying it's political humour, just like the Bush stuff, then anyone else saying it's racist is just assuming the worst and jumping to that conclusion. If they carry that sort of thing in their own heart and see the worst in others, is that not their own problem? Perhaps they are judging him by their own standards? I mean, in English newspapers politicians are sometimes characterised in cartoon images of them as pigs, because of their greed. If they did the same thing to a Jewish politician, is this anti-semetic?
what does someone who makes racist jokes but is not racist fall under?
I'd just go with unprofessional really. Hell if someone put an email out with Bush as a monkey it'd be just as stupid and unprofessional. But naturally there's the "racist" tinge to it. But honestly, I don't really care. They can end contracts with whoever the hell they want. It really doesn't bother me. But I live in Birmingham, Alabama, which (was) pretty much the racist capital of America, so this kind of crap happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME. So I can't really say this even phases me.
Zeratul wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:22 what does someone who makes racist jokes but is not racist fall under? Unless it's was specifically created to be a racial joke, the only racism that goes on is in the mind of the viewer. (Someone who sees the image and immediately thinks it's a racial joke has the most racist view of the situation.) Basically, if I was to make a joke image against a black guy with no real intention of it being a racist joke, the only person/people who would be racist are the people who see the image and assume it's racist.
reborn wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:16 I'm not a troll. I do not like, nor do I get the humour of that sort of thing. I'm not autistic. I do not live in North Dakota. I'm possibly naive, but I do not consider myself to be of low intelligence. That kinda leaves me with closet racist. But really, all I feel I am doing is calling out a double standard. It's hypocritical really... Sure I can see that the guy who made the image is a dumbass for not thinking to himself "Shit, Michelle is of African descent, so making her look like a monkey might make people think I'm a racist". I just think it's a pity that people should have to forward think in that manor just because some people make assumptions about their actions. I mean.. If the guy is saying it's political humour, just like the Bush stuff, then anyone else saying it's racist is just assuming the worst and jumping to that conclusion. If they carry that sort of thing in their own heart and see the worst in others, is that not their own problem? Perhaps they are judging him by their own standards? I mean, in English newspapers politicians are sometimes characterised in cartoon images of them as pigs, because of their greed. If they did the same thing to a Jewish politician, is this anti-semetic? If African-Americans were enslaved, raped and lyched en masse in your country because of the color of their skin, then you better inconveniently "forward think" before comparing a person of said group to a racist term due to their appearance - especially if it's a person who just made history. What's wrong with you? This level of insensitivity definitely beyond naive. To answer the Jewish question: It depends on the picture. If a religious or cultural symbol like the Star of David is involved, then it's definitely racist. If a non-jewish accomplice is pictured as well, then it most likely isn't. Everything in between will have Jews complaining, but must not be inherently racist. A racist would i.e. make the pig's features look as "Jewish as possible".
Arabic, Scottish and Jewish people are often as a people described as greedy (probably other nationals too, but these spring to mind). "A tight fisted Jew", "A penny pinching Scot" or a "greedy Arab" are terms that I have heard used. A joke even... "Why do Jews have such big noses? Because air is free". This in my view is clearly racist. You're trying to say a whole race has a trait and it's filled with hatred. But does that mean it's only okay to call non-Arabic, non-Scottish and non-Jewish politicians greedy? Does that mean calling a Scottish politician who was caught fiddling their expenses "greedy" constitute racism? Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's nice to compare anyone to a monkey, George or Michelle. It's not exactly pleasant.
JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 09:20 The Wire & BSG are quite possibly the best series ever, so congratulations on being one of only 12 Germans to know about these gems. Not exactly sure why you picked Ziggy, tho. I'm actually rather proud to have convinced someone in my grade (im 16) to watch the wire, and he actually likes it. He didnt like bsg though, probably because his brain shut off when he saw spaceships. I was torn between Ziggy, Wallace and Randy for the Worst Fortune Ever Award. The reason I went for Ziggy must be my closeted racism... reborn: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sperglord
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 23:19 Unless it's was specifically created to be a racial joke, the only racism that goes on is in the mind of the viewer. (Someone who sees the image and immediately thinks it's a racial joke has the most racist view of the situation.) Basically, if I was to make a joke image against a black guy with no real intention of it being a racist joke, the only person/people who would be racist are the people who see the image and assume it's racist. That makes sense... some of the black people i know take every joke seriously and always comment,"Why are WHITE people ALWAYS so racist" yet when someone who is not white makes the same type of joke its fine.... this is sign of racism and THAT is the type of people i dont like
Zeratul wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 16:10 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 23:19 Unless it's was specifically created to be a racial joke, the only racism that goes on is in the mind of the viewer. (Someone who sees the image and immediately thinks it's a racial joke has the most racist view of the situation.) Basically, if I was to make a joke image against a black guy with no real intention of it being a racist joke, the only person/people who would be racist are the people who see the image and assume it's racist. That makes sense... some of the black people i know take every joke seriously and always comment,"Why are WHITE people ALWAYS so racist" yet when someone who is not white makes the same type of joke its fine.... this is sign of racism and THAT is the type of people i dont like I see a ton of blacks calling each other n****s at school as a joke, and it makes me mad because I know if a white guy said it, they'd be offended.
IS DOES NOT APPLY TO WIGGERS(not sure if i can use that term), found that out today... i hate that so much also once this drug testing at my school starts ANY testing on a black man will be claimed as "racist" by the ones who think everything is racist... which will make the ENTIRE thing overblown.... and will make me hate that type of person EVEN MORE.... which i didn't think was even possible.... will it ever end?
Zeratul wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 22:41 IS DOES NOT APPLY TO WIGGERS(not sure if i can use that term), found that out today... Really? It still applies here, at any rate... nowadays there are worse terms, though...
Altzan wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 07:28 Zeratul wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 22:41 IS DOES NOT APPLY TO WIGGERS(not sure if i can use that term), found that out today... Really? It still applies here, at any rate... nowadays there are worse terms, though... I am surprised as well with all the blacks that completely flip over a white man saying it... i was called racist yesterday because i knew a guy was black from his voice on XBox Live....
Zeratul wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 03:09 I am surprised as well with all the blacks that completely flip over a white man saying it... i was called racist yesterday because i knew a guy was black from his voice on XBox Live.... Why would you want to call someone a Nigger? Never mind about if you've heard black people calling each other it, why would you want to say it to a black man? Great, you worked out that a guy on the Xbox live system was black from the sound of his voice. Under what circumstances did it arise that you felt it necessary to let him know that you thought he was a black man? Why did you have to let him know that's what you thought?
reborn wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 02:15 Why would you want to call someone a Nigger? Never mind about if you've heard black people calling each other it, why would you want to say it to a black man? Great, you worked out that a guy on the Xbox live system was black from the sound of his voice. Under what circumstances did it arise that you felt it necessary to let him know that you thought he was a black man? Why did you have to let him know that's what you thought? Simple, why do i want to? i don't, i was simply raising a point. He stated that he was black after a game, so i said i know. when he asked how i knew i said i could tell by the sound of his voice... then some random (voice deep enough to be over 6, i did not say an IQ over 6) dumb ass called me racist (It wasn't in a joking format/voice so it started an argument ending in him actually calling me a "Racist Fagot incapable of having a life")
lol all this racism stuff is about people of different races wanting to be equally treated. Now, how is it equal if they can use certain words and others can't?
SSADMVR wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 23:15 lol all this racism stuff is about people of different races wanting to be equally treated. Now, how is it equal if they can use certain words and others can't? It's an ignorant word to begin with, but there's a difference saying it when your ancestors enslaved, raped and lynched the group you're saying it to. Using the equality argument to justify your racism is pretty pathetic.
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean I condone said raping, lynching and enslaving. (Obviously, I wouldn't use the word, but just playing devil's advocate)
Actually, it does - at least in a historical context.
JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 11:40 Actually, it does - at least in a historical context. so what your saying is they can call us "cracker," "White Trash" or whatever they want and we cannot say "N****," "Monkey" or whatever we want?(i of course would not use these terms for i am not racist)i just either want them unable to use terms against us or for us to be able to use the terms against them, does not matter which.
Zeratul wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 12:55 JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 11:40 Actually, it does - at least in a historical context. so what your saying is they can call us "cracker," "White Trash" or whatever they want and we cannot say "N****," "Monkey" or whatever we want?(i of course would not use these terms for i am not racist)i just either want them unable to use terms against us or for us to be able to use the terms against them, does not matter which. I'm sure they'd stop calling white people dumb names if white people just didn't act like dicks to them. Plus, 'cracker' is a hilarious word; how could you not laugh at it? Same goes for 'white trash'. The thing is, the historical context of these particular words was brought on by white people unto themselves - cracker refers to the shitty diet of poor whites, and white trash represents poor, dumb, inebriated, racist white people who squeezed out way too many bucktoothed, inbred children.
Zeratul wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 12:55 JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 11:40 Actually, it does - at least in a historical context. so what your saying is they can call us "cracker," "White Trash" or whatever they want and we cannot say "N****," "Monkey" or whatever we want?(i of course would not use these terms for i am not racist)i just either want them unable to use terms against us or for us to be able to use the terms against them, does not matter which. Sorry, but I can't take derogatory terms for white people serious - maybe I just have thick skin. Which historical wounds are gonna open up? Maybe if you're inbred trailor trash, but unlike black history, that life wasn't forced upon your ancestors. Besides, if that businessman was black and sent around emails calling Bush a cracker, expect lots of drama on Fox.
lol thats a good point but it just bugs me they said they wanted equal rights but now they seem above us to me... they need to be even (im not saying less than us just equal instead of acting above)
My English is not expanded enough to come up with better words
isnt english your first language?
Zeratul wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 15:47 lol thats a good point but it just bugs me they said they wanted equal rights but now they seem above us to me... they need to be even (im not saying less than us just equal instead of acting above) ...you came to that conclusion because you're not allowed to use the n-word? Black people, forget about being the poorest, least educated, most imprisoned racial group in the US, forget about having the lowest life expectancy and the most diseases and single mothers. Until you stop holding the white man down with your n-word supremacy, your little problems are meaningless! I wonder if I should feel bad about laughing at blacks claiming that most whites still are closet racists, but then I remind myself of the intellectual and social capacity of the average Renegade player. It's certainly interesting to find out how these little minds work, tho.
Ziggy Sobotka wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 15:43 isnt english your first language? Yes but i slack off in school and don't read therefore don't learn much and don't have much of an extended English
Historical wounds... oh get the fuck over it already...
Most Dutchies are still butthurt about Germany owning them in 3 days and occupying the country for a few years, yet you're telling black people to get over centuries of slavery? You're nothing more than a cowardly online racist, pretty impressive!
spoil the image drng have i been 2 sided on this?
JohnDoe wrote on Sun, 14 March 2010 12:18 hurr they call me out for being a faggot must be a troll Seriously. The only argument you've given is "Well, the blacks endured shit, so you shouldn't be racist against them!!1", which is fucking stupid. Every single race has had bad shit happen to them. Giving the people that were at one point discriminated and treated badly some magical given right that protects them from certain insults/humor because it was used back when they were enslaved/treated like shit/whatever, is fucking retarded beyond belief. Come up with a better argument than "that's just how it is, DEAL WITH IT LOL". That's the same logic used when people lynched blacks, FYI.
JohnDoe wrote on Sun, 14 March 2010 10:32 Most Dutchies are still butthurt about Germany owning them in 3 days and occupying the country for a few years, yet you're telling black people to get over centuries of slavery? You're nothing more than a cowardly online racist, pretty impressive! Sure, when their own tribal leaders sold them out for trinkets
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sun, 14 March 2010 12:49 JohnDoe wrote on Sun, 14 March 2010 12:18 hurr they call me out for being a faggot must be a troll Seriously. The only argument you've given is "Well, the blacks endured shit, so you shouldn't be racist against them!!1", which is fucking stupid. Every single race has had bad shit happen to them. There is just one race, the human race. stupid! Didnt you learn to listen to Admiral Adama when he was at the UN?
Ziggy Sobotka wrote on Sun, 14 March 2010 13:08 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sun, 14 March 2010 12:49 JohnDoe wrote on Sun, 14 March 2010 12:18 hurr they call me out for being a faggot must be a troll Seriously. The only argument you've given is "Well, the blacks endured shit, so you shouldn't be racist against them!!1", which is fucking stupid. Every single race has had bad shit happen to them. There is just one race, the human race. stupid! Didnt you learn to listen to Admiral Adama when he was at the UN? oh, trust me, I believe that to a fairly full degree- but until people can get rid of their retarded "WELL THESE GUIZE HAD TO PUT UP WITH BAD THINGS", I can't really use any other term to describe the situation. it's kinda ironic- by trying to remove racism and give certain races privileges as compensation for past abuse to their race, YOU'RE PERPETUATING A BROKEN SYSTEM, and also racism itself as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTEarb93HVA thank you and goodnight.
JohnDoe wrote on Sun, 14 March 2010 10:32 Most Dutchies are still butthurt about Germany owning them in 3 days and occupying the country for a few years, yet you're telling black people to get over centuries of slavery? You're nothing more than a cowardly online racist, pretty impressive! Exactly, most. And there is a great difference in the time factor. But hey I don't care. Most Dutch people my age already joke about the subject. Therefore, black need to get over it as well. But yeah, because I disagree with the fact that it is ok for a black man to say mean mean black person but not for a white man obviously makes me a racist. Even though I would never use the word, simply because it's a retarded word. And exactly how many races have been subject to slavery? A lot more then just the blacks.
SSADMVR wrote on Mon, 15 March 2010 10:37 JohnDoe wrote on Sun, 14 March 2010 10:32 Most Dutchies are still butthurt about Germany owning them in 3 days and occupying the country for a few years, yet you're telling black people to get over centuries of slavery? You're nothing more than a cowardly online racist, pretty impressive! Exactly, most. And there is a great difference in the time factor. But hey I don't care. Most Dutch people my age already joke about the subject. Therefore, black need to get over it as well. But yeah, because I disagree with the fact that it is ok for a black man to say mean mean black person but not for a white man obviously makes me a racist. Even though I would never use the word, simply because it's a retarded word. And exactly how many races have been subject to slavery? A lot more then just the blacks. Blacks need to stop playing the race card on a lot of occasions. What that doesn't mean is that white people should feel entitled to use the n-word, especially in the country with the worst history of slavery, the USA. Jim Crow Laws were still in effect 20 years after the Germans left Holland. Zimmer tried to troll by saying that all types of people were subject to discrimination, but can't give any examples. That's exactly the problem with white people using the n-word. We discriminated against others, but were never discriminated against in terms of race/skin color as we've been ruling the world. Black people using the n-word shows ignorance, white people using it shows racism. The we-are-the-racist-world trolling attempt was funny, tho. George Zimmer spoke I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together and call each other nigg3rs
I'm discriminated against in my own own country. It's called positive discrimination, and however it's dressed up, it's still discrimination!
reborn wrote on Mon, 15 March 2010 06:05 I'm discriminated against in my own own country. It's called positive discrimination, and however it's dressed up, it's still discrimination! I'm sure your plight compares to slavery . Get your fat goofy ass off Renegade forums and pick some cotton, pinky.
Now you're just resorting to name calling. I guess you've just been trolling me this whole time? Positive discrimination is pretty bad actually, considering the times we live in. But seriously, I do not agree with your whole theory of "Black people had it really bad, so basically you better watch what you say!". It was insensative to portray Bush as a monkey, and equally so to portray Michelle as a monkey, too. But I do not believe it's more insensative to Michelle's feelings because she is black, just equally so. The guy said it was political humour, there was no intent of racism. If people saw it that way, then perhaps in their own heart they have some pre-conceptions? In my mind it's like believing you cannot compare George Michael or Elton John to anything that has been used in a derogatory way against homo-sexuals, just in case it hurts their feelings more than it would someone who is not a homo-sexual. If I called someone a big fairy, purely because they are skirting and dancing around a sensative subject, is it worse because they are homo-sexual? But anyway, like I said, I'm pretty sure you're trolling me anyway, so whatever...
reborn wrote on Mon, 15 March 2010 08:25 Now you're just resorting to name calling. I guess you've just been trolling me this whole time? Positive discrimination is pretty bad actually, considering the times we live in. But seriously, I do not agree with your whole theory of "Black people had it really bad, so basically you better watch what you say!". It was insensative to portray Bush as a monkey, and equally so to portray Michelle as a monkey, too. But I do not believe it's more insensative to Michelle's feelings because she is black, just equally so. The guy said it was political humour, there was no intent of racism. If people saw it that way, then perhaps in their own heart they have some pre-conceptions? In my mind it's like believing you cannot compare George Michael or Elton John to anything that has been used in a derogatory way against homo-sexuals, just in case it hurts their feelings more than it would someone who is not a homo-sexual. If I called someone a big fairy, purely because they are skirting and dancing around a sensative subject, is it worse because they are homo-sexual? But anyway, like I said, I'm pretty sure you're trolling me anyway, so whatever... You're telling me there's no difference between me calling you a faggot over the internet and saying it to a homosexual person's face? Oh, and as long as you call it political humor, anything goes, right? I guess if I write a self-proclaimed politically humorous magazine article about how I wish all of Benjamin Netanjahu's family had been gassed in Auschwitz I'm not being racist...right? You're the one putting positive discrimination in the UK on the same level as slavery - you really shouldn't label me a troll for calling you out on that inane comparison. The intellectual and social depth of the Renegade community never ceases to amaze. George, you're really getting to me!!!11 I'm gonna take you serious any second now!!!11
JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 15 March 2010 08:55 George, you're really getting to me!!!11 I'm gonna take you serious any second now!!!11 Confirmed for faggot. Make up a decent argument. Not because I'm pissed, but because you're the only one that seems to be strongly disagreeing with me on this subject. Oh, what's that? You can't? That's what I thought.
You've been saying that for a while now, I just don't believe anything you've posted deserves a decent reply. You will just have to keep reading my replies to the sincere posters or say something other than "your argument doesn't count".
JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 15 March 2010 10:38 You've been saying that for a while now, I just don't believe anything you've posted deserves a decent reply. You will just have to keep reading my replies to the sincere posters or say something other than "your argument doesn't count". Really? I've posted a legitimate issue that deserves discussion, and you deem it "undeserving of a reply"? Fuck you.
...and which would that be?
JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 15 March 2010 13:04 ...and which would that be? Faggot.
...still waiting..
JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 15 March 2010 13:28 ...still waiting.. gee, maybe my original post? Why the fuck do you come into a thread that's about something moderately interesting (and, obviously, controversial), COMPLETELY shit it up, then CONTINUE to shit it up?
I replied to your idiotic first post throughout the course of this thread, it's not my problem you're too dense to realize this. The only reason this thread got replies is because it was a controversial shock thread, not because it was intellectually interesting.
JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 15 March 2010 14:03 I replied to your idiotic first post throughout the course of this thread, it's not my problem you're too dense to realize this. The only reason this thread got replies is because it was a controversial shock thread, not because it was intellectually interesting. you're right, what a fool I am to have not realized such well thought out replies and arguments such as: JohnDoe wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 04:15 It's obviously lame redneck racism...I wouldn't want to be associated with such an idiot, either. JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 01:46 fuckin aspie JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 15:40 JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 02:26 I'm starting to believe black people when they whine about most whites still being closet racists...either that or there are more than a few people with Asperger's posting ITT. JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:41 We get it. You're autistic, not racist. JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 02:40 As an American living in Germany I'm clearly sensible enough to African-American history in order to be aware of the blatant lowbrow racism, as any educated person should be. If you can't see how comparing the Harvard-educated wife of the first black president in US history visually to a monkey, which just so happens be a racial slur used by people who lynched blacks not too long ago, is racist, then I can only feel pity. You obviously can only belong to four types of people: 1. Extremely sheltered and of low intelligence living in all-white region like North Dakota, which makes you ignorant to anything related to African-Americans; 2. A closet racist; 3. A troll; 4. Autistic. From what I can tell, you're either a troll or a closet racist (which is why I didn't bother with a serious reply), but this Reborn guy is definitely not a troll, which makes this a lot more interesting. ah, here we go- after 4 replies, you replied with something SOMEWHAT interesting, and made a semi-serious reply to another post: JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 02:56 If African-Americans were enslaved, raped and lyched en masse in your country because of the color of their skin, then you better inconveniently "forward think" before comparing a person of said group to a racist term due to their appearance - especially if it's a person who just made history. What's wrong with you? This level of insensitivity definitely beyond naive. To answer the Jewish question: It depends on the picture. If a religious or cultural symbol like the Star of David is involved, then it's definitely racist. If a non-jewish accomplice is pictured as well, then it most likely isn't. Everything in between will have Jews complaining, but must not be inherently racist. A racist would i.e. make the pig's features look as "Jewish as possible". ...then when your obviously infallible logic is challenged, you resort to: JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 08:38 I for one welcome our new Sperglord Reborn. So say we all! then some shit about BSG, I don't know and won't bother posting it JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 01:45 Zeratul&Alsamething -> Examples for categories 1&2. "Howdy!" "Hello." "Why can't I call them colored folks nigg3rs? They even use the word themselves!" "..." Sorry, but what? That's not even what's being said, and is obviously just another shitpost. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 08:13 It's an ignorant word to begin with, but there's a difference saying it when your ancestors enslaved, raped and lynched the group you're saying it to. Using the equality argument to justify your racism is pretty pathetic. you're basically repeating what you said before- except that your points had already been argued, and you ignore them. I think I'll just stop there, but you haven't made any real points past the middle few. However, since I'm nice, I'll re-argue it (despite Reborn having done this already). JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 02:40 As an American living in Germany I'm clearly sensible enough to African-American history in order to be aware of the blatant lowbrow racism, as any educated person should be. So, the guy claims it's political humor, and it pretty much is, but it's "lowbrow racism" because of previously (as in, ages old) discriminatory remarks? This is just proving my point- people jump right fucking to the race card. You're only perpetuating racism in general by doing this, you know. JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 02:40 If you can't see how comparing the Harvard-educated wife of the first black president in US history visually to a monkey, which just so happens be a racial slur used by people who lynched blacks not too long ago, is racist, then I can only feel pity. Firstly, it WAS long ago. Generally speaking, shit that happened 20-30 years ago should hardly come into consideration as much as it does for "racist" words. But whatever, I guess everyone has their own definition for how long ago "awhile ago" was. Secondly, yes, it... is a coincidence, dipshit. People have compared political figures and the people around them to monkeys since fucking Abraham Lincoln. If we just DISREGARDED those stupid racist remarks altogether as being bad, it wouldn't be a problem at ALL. But no, people can't understand that by getting upset, they're making the whole racism problem worse. Plus, it makes genuinely racist people more pissed off. Which doesn't help either... JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 02:56 If African-Americans were enslaved, raped and lyched en masse in your country because of the color of their skin, then you better inconveniently "forward think" before comparing a person of said group to a racist term due to their appearance - especially if it's a person who just made history. What's wrong with you? This level of insensitivity definitely beyond naive. Irish were enslaved, treated like SHIT when they came here to America, and were more than likely raped just as much. The Dutch have dealt with shit. And I dare you to tell me that French don't get their fair share of shit from Americans. Like I've said- EVERY RACE HAS PUT UP WITH SHIT. Africans aren't the only ones. "BUT THEY GOT RAPED AND LYNCHED AND THAT WAS BAD". Yes, it was, but African-Americans just get the most attention when it comes to that shit. That doesn't make it any less terrible- but many, MANY other counts of racism, TO THIS DAY, go unnoticed. And, there's no other way to put this, and I guarantee you'll jump down my throat on this, but really... most African-Americans are the ones who make the biggest deal about "racism" these days. But nearly every race is discriminated just as much as them these days (which is to say, not nearly as much of a deal these days), with their own set of racial slurs that are said just as much. Really, African-Americans are essentially to American racism what the Jews were to WWII. It was terrible, it should have never happened, but they get the most attention when it comes to people explaining the atrocities... despite there being other groups of people being discriminated against. Because of the fact that they get the most attention though, people really think they're about the only ones who had bad shit happen to them. Which is simply not true. And you're pretty much playing right into that- so, congrats on being an unoriginal, uneducated fuckwit. Now, let me restate a point: THE MORE YOU BITCH ABOUT HOW A CERTAIN WORD OR CERTAIN COMPARISONS ARE "RACIST", THE MORE YOU PERPETUATE RACISM ITSELF. I don't care if you're defending it, it only makes it worse. I'm not saying "IGNORE RACISM!", but for fucks sake, how is it going to help? Think of it like this: Suddenly, the word "Xefu" is outlawed. You're not allowed to say it. Obviously, people wouldn't say it normally. But now, anyone that says it, get in big fucking trouble, and are subject to an ass beating. Because it suddenly became such a taboo word, people start using it as such- they use it as a BAD word. People start getting offended- they don't know why, other than that it's illegal. But they get "offended". Because it's now an offensive word, it works its way into a banned list of words. You can't really say it in public. People now regard it as a really bad word- they don't know why still, but it's BAD. And for what? Why does "Xefu" have to be banned? It wouldn't make its way into normal discussion, except the occasional gibberish speak or typo or the like. Now, I'm sure you're going to jump down my throat on how "But "Nigger" had a bad meaning to it BEFORE it became as illegal as it is! They were discriminated against first, and were treated horribly before it became taboo! YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID, HAH, I WIN!". But see, here's the funny part- ALMOST EVERY AFRICAN AMERICAN WHO BITCHES ABOUT THE WORD "NIGGER" HAS NEVER ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED THE ATROCITIES THEIR ANCESTORS DID. My ancestors have experienced shit at one point. Yours have, too. Everyone's has. Does this mean we should start treating said people as horrible? NO. This bullshit of "Oh, well, it happened to their ancestors, so it applies to them". No. THAT RIGHT THERE is why racism continues to exist. Stop that shit. Yes, even if everyone just stopped this all at once, some racist pricks would continue to live. But that doesn't mean you should continue a shitty policy of "It happened to their ancestors; they deserve retribution!". FYI, a HUGE amount of racism comes from this way of thinking. For example, a Jew steal's someone's cash some time, 150 years ago. This guy gets pissed, obviously. So he ends up telling his kids "Hey, I had my shit stolen by a Jew, don't trust 'em". That kid tells his kid "Hey, Jews steal shit, don't trust 'em". This continues on. You get the picture. This entire train of thought needs to just EXPLODE. Why it still runs in people's minds is beyond me, but we as a species need to fucking get over ancestral ties. I could go on, but this is way too TL;DR as it is, and I have a funny feeling you won't fucking respond to any of what I've said. But this would only further prove I'm right, since you wouldn't be able to properly argue, and can only stoop to shitty "argument " tactics (trolling). So yeah, good luck with that. Good enough of a post for ya?
nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 15 March 2010 15:23 :/ Hey, I was bored, and plus, I'm legitimately curious how someone can actually debate this issue from the other side :[
After the post three posts before this one I feel obliged to do some moderating and clean the topic up - splitting the spam and the worst of the trolling. Temp lock. Open for posting! Please try to get past the ad hominem and address the issue. Further picture spam and idiocy will be warnings and/or more, depending on severity and previous record.
My picture spam made a valid statement about the nature of this debate. It shouldn't have been removed.
Canadacdn wrote on Mon, 15 March 2010 23:41 My picture spam made a valid statement about the nature of this debate. It shouldn't have been removed. Please use words to make such statements in future. (Spoilerised pictures with explanations may be acceptable).
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 15 March 2010 15:10 JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 15 March 2010 14:03 I replied to your idiotic first post throughout the course of this thread, it's not my problem you're too dense to realize this. The only reason this thread got replies is because it was a controversial shock thread, not because it was intellectually interesting. you're right, what a fool I am to have not realized such well thought out replies and arguments such as: JohnDoe wrote on Sun, 07 March 2010 04:15 It's obviously lame redneck racism...I wouldn't want to be associated with such an idiot, either. JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 01:46 fuckin aspie JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 15:40 JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 02:26 I'm starting to believe black people when they whine about most whites still being closet racists...either that or there are more than a few people with Asperger's posting ITT. JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:41 We get it. You're autistic, not racist. JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 02:40 As an American living in Germany I'm clearly sensible enough to African-American history in order to be aware of the blatant lowbrow racism, as any educated person should be. If you can't see how comparing the Harvard-educated wife of the first black president in US history visually to a monkey, which just so happens be a racial slur used by people who lynched blacks not too long ago, is racist, then I can only feel pity. You obviously can only belong to four types of people: 1. Extremely sheltered and of low intelligence living in all-white region like North Dakota, which makes you ignorant to anything related to African-Americans; 2. A closet racist; 3. A troll; 4. Autistic. From what I can tell, you're either a troll or a closet racist (which is why I didn't bother with a serious reply), but this Reborn guy is definitely not a troll, which makes this a lot more interesting. ah, here we go- after 4 replies, you replied with something SOMEWHAT interesting, and made a semi-serious reply to another post: JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 02:56 If African-Americans were enslaved, raped and lyched en masse in your country because of the color of their skin, then you better inconveniently "forward think" before comparing a person of said group to a racist term due to their appearance - especially if it's a person who just made history. What's wrong with you? This level of insensitivity definitely beyond naive. To answer the Jewish question: It depends on the picture. If a religious or cultural symbol like the Star of David is involved, then it's definitely racist. If a non-jewish accomplice is pictured as well, then it most likely isn't. Everything in between will have Jews complaining, but must not be inherently racist. A racist would i.e. make the pig's features look as "Jewish as possible". ...then when your obviously infallible logic is challenged, you resort to: JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 08:38 I for one welcome our new Sperglord Reborn. So say we all! then some shit about BSG, I don't know and won't bother posting it JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 01:45 Zeratul&Alsamething -> Examples for categories 1&2. "Howdy!" "Hello." "Why can't I call them colored folks nigg3rs? They even use the word themselves!" "..." Sorry, but what? That's not even what's being said, and is obviously just another shitpost. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 13 March 2010 08:13 It's an ignorant word to begin with, but there's a difference saying it when your ancestors enslaved, raped and lynched the group you're saying it to. Using the equality argument to justify your racism is pretty pathetic. you're basically repeating what you said before- except that your points had already been argued, and you ignore them. I think I'll just stop there, but you haven't made any real points past the middle few. However, since I'm nice, I'll re-argue it (despite Reborn having done this already). JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 02:40 As an American living in Germany I'm clearly sensible enough to African-American history in order to be aware of the blatant lowbrow racism, as any educated person should be. So, the guy claims it's political humor, and it pretty much is, but it's "lowbrow racism" because of previously (as in, ages old) discriminatory remarks? This is just proving my point- people jump right fucking to the race card. You're only perpetuating racism in general by doing this, you know. JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 02:40 If you can't see how comparing the Harvard-educated wife of the first black president in US history visually to a monkey, which just so happens be a racial slur used by people who lynched blacks not too long ago, is racist, then I can only feel pity. Firstly, it WAS long ago. Generally speaking, shit that happened 20-30 years ago should hardly come into consideration as much as it does for "racist" words. But whatever, I guess everyone has their own definition for how long ago "awhile ago" was. Secondly, yes, it... is a coincidence, dipshit. People have compared political figures and the people around them to monkeys since fucking Abraham Lincoln. If we just DISREGARDED those stupid racist remarks altogether as being bad, it wouldn't be a problem at ALL. But no, people can't understand that by getting upset, they're making the whole racism problem worse. Plus, it makes genuinely racist people more pissed off. Which doesn't help either... JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 02:56 If African-Americans were enslaved, raped and lyched en masse in your country because of the color of their skin, then you better inconveniently "forward think" before comparing a person of said group to a racist term due to their appearance - especially if it's a person who just made history. What's wrong with you? This level of insensitivity definitely beyond naive. Irish were enslaved, treated like SHIT when they came here to America, and were more than likely raped just as much. The Dutch have dealt with shit. And I dare you to tell me that French don't get their fair share of shit from Americans. Like I've said- EVERY RACE HAS PUT UP WITH SHIT. Africans aren't the only ones. "BUT THEY GOT RAPED AND LYNCHED AND THAT WAS BAD". Yes, it was, but African-Americans just get the most attention when it comes to that shit. That doesn't make it any less terrible- but many, MANY other counts of racism, TO THIS DAY, go unnoticed. And, there's no other way to put this, and I guarantee you'll jump down my throat on this, but really... most African-Americans are the ones who make the biggest deal about "racism" these days. But nearly every race is discriminated just as much as them these days (which is to say, not nearly as much of a deal these days), with their own set of racial slurs that are said just as much. Really, African-Americans are essentially to American racism what the Jews were to WWII. It was terrible, it should have never happened, but they get the most attention when it comes to people explaining the atrocities... despite there being other groups of people being discriminated against. Because of the fact that they get the most attention though, people really think they're about the only ones who had bad shit happen to them. Which is simply not true. And you're pretty much playing right into that- so, congrats on being an unoriginal, uneducated fuckwit. Now, let me restate a point: THE MORE YOU BITCH ABOUT HOW A CERTAIN WORD OR CERTAIN COMPARISONS ARE "RACIST", THE MORE YOU PERPETUATE RACISM ITSELF. I don't care if you're defending it, it only makes it worse. I'm not saying "IGNORE RACISM!", but for fucks sake, how is it going to help? Think of it like this: Suddenly, the word "Xefu" is outlawed. You're not allowed to say it. Obviously, people wouldn't say it normally. But now, anyone that says it, get in big fucking trouble, and are subject to an ass beating. Because it suddenly became such a taboo word, people start using it as such- they use it as a BAD word. People start getting offended- they don't know why, other than that it's illegal. But they get "offended". Because it's now an offensive word, it works its way into a banned list of words. You can't really say it in public. People now regard it as a really bad word- they don't know why still, but it's BAD. And for what? Why does "Xefu" have to be banned? It wouldn't make its way into normal discussion, except the occasional gibberish speak or typo or the like. Now, I'm sure you're going to jump down my throat on how "But "Nigger" had a bad meaning to it BEFORE it became as illegal as it is! They were discriminated against first, and were treated horribly before it became taboo! YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID, HAH, I WIN!". But see, here's the funny part- ALMOST EVERY AFRICAN AMERICAN WHO BITCHES ABOUT THE WORD "NIGGER" HAS NEVER ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED THE ATROCITIES THEIR ANCESTORS DID. My ancestors have experienced shit at one point. Yours have, too. Everyone's has. Does this mean we should start treating said people as horrible? NO. This bullshit of "Oh, well, it happened to their ancestors, so it applies to them". No. THAT RIGHT THERE is why racism continues to exist. Stop that shit. Yes, even if everyone just stopped this all at once, some racist pricks would continue to live. But that doesn't mean you should continue a shitty policy of "It happened to their ancestors; they deserve retribution!". FYI, a HUGE amount of racism comes from this way of thinking. For example, a Jew steal's someone's cash some time, 150 years ago. This guy gets pissed, obviously. So he ends up telling his kids "Hey, I had my shit stolen by a Jew, don't trust 'em". That kid tells his kid "Hey, Jews steal shit, don't trust 'em". This continues on. You get the picture. This entire train of thought needs to just EXPLODE. Why it still runs in people's minds is beyond me, but we as a species need to fucking get over ancestral ties. I could go on, but this is way too TL;DR as it is, and I have a funny feeling you won't fucking respond to any of what I've said. But this would only further prove I'm right, since you wouldn't be able to properly argue, and can only stoop to shitty "argument " tactics (trolling). So yeah, good luck with that. Good enough of a post for ya? BWAHAHAHAHAHA...
It's pretty sad that you spent so much time on such an empty post. Let's start at the beginning: You're making a shock thread about how comparing Michelle Obama visually to a monkey is "political humor" instead of the obvious choice, racism, because George Bush was in a similar situation. Nikki called you out on that nonsense. Bush was pictured like that because of being perceived as unintelligent (like a primate) - at least by presidential standards - which supposedly led to poor political decisions. Michelle is a Harvard lawyer and isn't in charge of any policy, so the only reason she's pictured next to a monkey is her appearance. Henceforth, there is nothing political about that type of "humor", it's classless, lowbrow racism. Even if the connection to the racist term "monkey" were simply a coincidence - which is highly unlikely - you're defending a classless, unprovoked personal attack on a woman. Good job, internet soldier! Since you're obviously having trouble making a case, you decide to shed your skin and show your true racist colors by claiming that slavery wasn't that bad and black people need to condone white people labeling them "nigg3rs" because every "race" went through rough periods. Now we get to an inane list of comparisons: Reborn takes the cake for comparing positive discrimination in the UK to centuries of slavery. After being pressured to provide examples, you finally do so somewhere in your wall of text. First up, the French, which apparently "get their fair share of shit from the Americans". LMFAO...so being perceived as surrender-happy equals to going trough centuries of slavery? On second thought, this might be even crazier than Reborn's comparison. Next up, the Dutch, which apparently have "dealt with shit". OK, then which "shit" have they "dealt with" that compares to centuries of slavery? I'm waiting! Finally, the Irish. Their plight can actually be compared to what blacks went through. So far so good, but what's the connection to racial slurs such as "nigg3r" and "monkey"? Those two slurs were designed to label blacks as sub-human in a time when blacks were perceived as such. I'm not very knowledgeable on fringe racial slurs, so if there a comparable slur which targets the Irish people's fortune as sub-human slaves, I'm sure it's equally as inappropriate and intolerable. Slurs targeting white people as a whole (such as the examples "wigger" and "pinky") therefore aren't comparable. The use of "nigg3r" and "monkey" by white people will never be condoned. If a black person does so, it's different, albeit ignorant - the same way me calling you a faggot over the internet and calling an outed homosexual a faggot to his face is different. As for putting the Irish, Dutch, French and "African" race in the same category...you're by no chance related to a certain woman from Alaska, right?
I accept that depicting Michelle as a Monkey isn't nice, but neither is doing it to anyone. I accept that calling a mentally handicapped person a "mong" is worse than saying it to someone who isn't handicapped. But this is because the word "mong" or "spastic" is specifically and used for describing and cussing said group. These words only have One real meaning... Calling a Mexican a "wet-back" is racist, it's only purpose is to basically call them an illegal migrant, and that you hold the person in low regard. Calling a Mexican a stupid dumb-ass isn't racist. I believe this is what the guy was trying to say with his depiction of Michelle (just the same as others tried depicting when they drew Bush as a Monkey, they wasn't saying he was a black man, they was calling him a dumb-ass).
...have you actually seen the image? Clearly, this shows the Harvard lawyer looking like a dumbass instead of likening her features and skin to a monkey's...
Yeah, I suppose it is a bit graphic, actually...
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 It's pretty sad that you spent so much time on such an empty post. and already you're incapable of making a post without looking like a prick, good job JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 You're making a shock thread Wasn't a "shock thread" JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 about how comparing Michelle Obama visually to a monkey is "political humor" instead of the obvious choice, racism, because George Bush was in a similar situation. See, that's what I'm talking about. Why is it the "obvious choice"? Refer to my post which you decided to, y'know, entirely ignore- this type of shit only furthers racism. JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 Nikki called you out on that nonsense. Bush was pictured like that because of being perceived as unintelligent (like a primate) - at least by presidential standards - which supposedly led to poor political decisions. It isn't just that "his policies were unintelligent", a lot of the jokes were just plain because he looked like a monkey sometimes. It happens, and again, popular people tend to be compared to a monkey or something along those lines just because they can. So, yeah, blacks were compared to monkeys at some point. Big fucking deal, if I was called an asshole and it hurts my feelings (lol), does that mean you should NEVER call my children an asshole? No, because that'd be a fucking stupid reason to not call someone an asshole. JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 Michelle is a Harvard lawyer and isn't in charge of any policy, so the only reason she's pictured next to a monkey is her appearance. Personally, I think she's pretty dumb- I don't see why she should be excluded from any remarks/jokes just because she doesn't work on policy (so I suppose "political humor" isn't quite the right term, but that hardly changes much). by the way, Bush attended Yale and Harvard. just throwing that out there. JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 Henceforth, there is nothing political about that type of "humor", it's classless, lowbrow racism. So it's either strictly humor directly relating to big political figures, or it's racism? I see, I didn't know there were only two types of humor allowed. JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 Even if the connection to the racist term "monkey" were simply a coincidence - which is highly unlikely - you're defending a classless, unprovoked personal attack on a woman. Good job, internet soldier! oh no, someone was insulted because she's popular (and quite frankly, not all that intelligent either). BUT SHE'S BLACK SO IT MUST BE WRONG AND UNPROVOKED AND A PERSONAL ATTACK AND RACIST, AMIRITE? Get your head out of your ass. People in the media get insulted all the time. Why should someone who's black be excluded from this? JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 Since you're obviously having trouble making a case, you decide to shed your skin and show your true racist colors by claiming that slavery wasn't that bad This is the point where you prove you're 100 different types of retarded. I already said- the racism that African-Americans endured way back then was terrible. JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 and black people need to condone white people labeling them "nigg3rs" because every "race" went through rough periods. because that's exactly how I put it, right? and not "Everyone gets shit no matter what- African-Americans are just the most popular example" why are you so stupid JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 Now we get to an inane list of comparisons: Reborn takes the cake for comparing positive discrimination in the UK to centuries of slavery. Because past discrimination still should be considered to have happened to people today, right? JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 After being pressured to provide examples, you finally do so somewhere in your wall of text. First up, the French, which apparently "get their fair share of shit from the Americans". LMFAO...so being perceived as surrender-happy equals to going trough centuries of slavery? Because there was obviously never any point in time ever that an American beat the shit out of a French guy just because they're French, right? I mean, it wasn't in popular media... must not have happened JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 On second thought, this might be even crazier than Reborn's comparison. Next up, the Dutch, which apparently have "dealt with shit". OK, then which "shit" have they "dealt with" that compares to centuries of slavery? I'm waiting! Germany JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 Finally, the Irish. Their plight can actually be compared to what blacks went through. So far so good, but what's the connection to racial slurs such as "nigg3r" and "monkey"? Those two slurs were designed to label blacks as sub-human in a time when blacks were perceived as such. Because there were obviously never ANY form of hurtful things said to the Irish ever, right? JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 I'm not very knowledgeable on fringe racial slurs, so if there a comparable slur which targets the Irish people's fortune as sub-human slaves, I'm sure it's equally as inappropriate and intolerable. so wait, you're basically saying here that insults are only inappropriate if at one point there was a bad context in which they were used? I guess I shouldn't say fruit anymore; after all, homosexuals have been called "fruits", and they've been THE most discriminated group in history. JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 Slurs targeting white people as a whole (such as the examples "wigger" and "pinky") therefore aren't comparable. The use of "nigg3r" and "monkey" by white people will never be condoned. see above. There are those who've been treated worse throughout history, but I don't see negative words made towards them being as illegalized. Not to mention, as you can see these days, the words that WERE negative almost exclusively towards those individuals are fading into simply being blind insult words (Faggot, for example). They lose their meaning, thus, it's hardly much of a discriminatory word. Eventually, "faggot" will become something of a "bastard" or "asshole" or "douchebag". If I walk up to a black guy and call him an "asshole", he wouldn't get nearly as offended if I were to call him a "n!gger". Obviously, he'd still be offended, but not to near as much of a degree. So, if "n!gger" becomes just a general word and not one used against African-Americans... well, shit, it's not really racist anymore. JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 If a black person does so, it's different, albeit ignorant - the same way me calling you a faggot over the internet and calling an outed homosexual a faggot to his face is different. See above. If it becomes a word which is no longer targeted at a group, they shouldn't even be offended anymore. Sure, people might still be, but it won't be nearly as bad. Which is the whole point I'm trying to make- people need to lighten the fuck up, and realize words are words. JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 06:29 As for putting the Irish, Dutch, French and "African" race in the same category...you're by no chance related to a certain woman from Alaska, right? har.
We've been over this so many times, even Reborn conceded the point once he got to see that picture. There's no point in repeating myself as you've proven yourself intellectually incapable of comprehending and therefore responding to my nuanced argument. Everybody can see that you're nothing more than a cowardly online racist and there's no point in debating the mental diarrhea you're spewing any longer. If there is still genuine controversy, I encourage others to intellectually challenge my argument, otherwise Carrier might as well lock this shock thread.
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 09:35 Carrier might as well lock this shock thread. I SECOND THIS MOTION!
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 09:35 NANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU I WIN
Speak for yourself...I won't reiterate my post just to watch it go over your head...again. I guess Carrier could leave it open and we could watch you try to form a coherent rebuttal instead of dissecting every sentence twice in the hope of obscuring the argument. Big Brother for keyboard racists.
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 14:15 Speak for yourself...I won't reiterate my post just to watch it go over your head...again. I guess Carrier could leave it open and we could watch you try to form a coherent rebuttal instead of dissecting every sentence twice in the hope of obscuring the argument. Big Brother for keyboard racists. right, your general point there was "African-Americans endured tough shit; they are thus entitled to be excluded from certain remarks", basically- right?
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 15:35 We've been over this so many times, even Reborn conceded the point once he got to see that picture. There's no point in repeating myself as you've proven yourself intellectually incapable of comprehending and therefore responding to my nuanced argument. Everybody can see that you're nothing more than a cowardly online racist and there's no point in debating the mental diarrhea you're spewing any longer. If there is still genuine controversy, I encourage others to intellectually challenge my argument, otherwise Carrier might as well lock this shock thread. Start with the first sentence and slowly work yourself through the following ones. We're supporting you all the way. Don't forget to update this thread with personal logs of your progress.
No, it's cool that you can't actually respond to what I say. I totally understand- that'd mean you'd have to have to actually, y'know, think.
I think there is no point in trying to change a racist's opinion. I think I've done enough to change everyone else's. What do you think?
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 16:49 I think there is no point in trying to change a racist's opinion. I think I've done enough to change everyone else's. What do you think? But I'm not a racist- that's what's so insane about this. seriously though, you've done nothing but prove you're incapable of actually arguing, and instead, make yourself look like a prick. but I guess I'm still somehow wrong because I've clearly not presented any form of argument, nope, not atall just sitting here, saying "n!ggers should be hung!", apparently Edit: If there's someone who agrees with JohnDoe (or atleast is of a similar opposition to my arguments), I'd greatly appreciate it if you could post in this thread. It's a little annoying trying to squeeze a half decent argument out of him every 1 in 5 posts.
Instead of making posts it would be easier to just have a vote on who you agree with.
but... but that'd be the simple, SENSICAL thing to do :[