 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Without knowing the motives for not wanting a black man as president,
> > it's impossible to say whether those motives are racist in nature or not.
> If your reason for not wanting someone as president is *because* he's black,
> that's racist.
But it might not be that this person is prejudiced against black people or
has any ideology against them. In other words, it's not necessarily because
he opposes a black person being the president per se.
What else could it be, you may ask? Maybe he doesn't oppose a black
president per se, but he fears he will get sick and tired of all the
racist boasting around the country if it happens, ie. that many people
will celebrate that a black person was finally elected president (as if
skin color was all that important), and other people would oppose him
vocally for racist reasons.
Maybe what he meant was that a black president would be ok the day when
there is *no* racism whatsoever in the country, in which case skin color of
the president is exactly as unimportant as eye color or hair color. Before
that a black president might only cause furor, both pro and con.
(No, I don't know the motives this person had to say that, but I'm just
saying that it could be *plausible* that he is not being a racist.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What else could it be, you may ask? Maybe he doesn't oppose a black
> president per se, but he fears he will get sick and tired of all the
> racist boasting around the country if it happens,
I'll grant you that.
But, trust me, it wasn't that. :-)
The people around him, for example, were carrying signs reading "It's the
*white* house!"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The people around him, for example, were carrying signs reading "It's the
> *white* house!"
Curious. In Finland you would get arrested for such an open display of
racism (one of the few situations where that law is used *correctly*,
I suppose). I'm surprised it's not the same in the US.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The people around him, for example, were carrying signs reading "It's the
>> *white* house!"
>
> Curious. In Finland you would get arrested for such an open display of
> racism (one of the few situations where that law is used *correctly*,
> I suppose). I'm surprised it's not the same in the US.
50 years ago you weren't allowed to marry interracially, and you expect the
US to punish racists now? :-)
No, but seriously, one thing Americans do go on about is how obnoxious
they're allowed to be while speaking or writing, with that whole "First
Amendment" thing. I have to admit I agree with it, tho.
We punish people who do more than *say* racist things, mind. You can get
extra punishment if you beat someone up *because* you're a racist, for
example. But talk? Talk is easy.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> We punish people who do more than *say* racist things, mind. You can get
> extra punishment if you beat someone up *because* you're a racist, for
> example. But talk? Talk is easy.
So if you publicly say racial slurs, and then later you beat a black guy,
you will get a extra punishment even though the reason for beating him might
not have been racist?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> So if you publicly say racial slurs, and then later you beat a black guy,
> you will get a extra punishment even though the reason for beating him might
> not have been racist?
I wouldn't think so. I think if you beat up a black guy *while* screaming
racial slurs, then (say) tie him to a fence, kick him to death, then paint
racial slurs on the corpse, you'll be accused of a "hate crime". (Yeah,
real example, only with gays rather than blacks.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/16/09 16:20, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> So if you publicly say racial slurs, and then later you beat a black guy,
>> you will get a extra punishment even though the reason for beating him
>> might
>> not have been racist?
>
> I wouldn't think so. I think if you beat up a black guy *while*
> screaming racial slurs, then (say) tie him to a fence, kick him to
> death, then paint racial slurs on the corpse, you'll be accused of a
> "hate crime". (Yeah, real example, only with gays rather than blacks.)
You're arguing an extreme.
If a person has a proven penchant for saying racist things, and then
beats up a black guy, and there isn't an obvious motive (money, self
defense, organized crime), I'm sure many will push for it to be treated
as a hate crime.
But that's a guess. I never observed if this kind of stuff happens.
--
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/16/09 16:20, Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> So if you publicly say racial slurs, and then later you beat a black
>>> guy,
>>> you will get a extra punishment even though the reason for beating him
>>> might
>>> not have been racist?
>>
>> I wouldn't think so. I think if you beat up a black guy *while*
>> screaming racial slurs, then (say) tie him to a fence, kick him to
>> death, then paint racial slurs on the corpse, you'll be accused of a
>> "hate crime". (Yeah, real example, only with gays rather than blacks.)
>
> You're arguing an extreme.
> If a person has a proven penchant for saying racist things,
I'm not sure how much you're allowed to bring that sort of thing into
question, if it didn't happen during the actual commission of the crime.
I was just saying that there are clearly cases where it's a hate crime, and
clearly cases where it isn't, and you'd have to look at the individual cases
and lawyers prosecuting them to see how they turn out if it's not extreme.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> or social status, which is correlated to race.
As in, "I'm not racist, I'm just opposed to people with certain
lifestyle/moral/political views" (that are overwhelmingly correlated to
race)? When attribute x is associated with race, it's still racism, in
the end effect. Kind of like saying "I don't hate women, I just have an
issue with people who menstruate". The motivation is a paper-thin
excuse covering what the real problem is, at least for the targeted
group. It doesn't matter *why* you're bigoted, just the fact that you are.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-7-2009 4:50, Tim Cook wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> or social status, which is correlated to race.
>
> As in, "I'm not racist, I'm just opposed to people with certain
> lifestyle/moral/political views" (that are overwhelmingly correlated to
> race)? When attribute x is associated with race, it's still racism, in
> the end effect. Kind of like saying "I don't hate women, I just have an
> issue with people who menstruate". The motivation is a paper-thin
> excuse covering what the real problem is, at least for the targeted
> group. It doesn't matter *why* you're bigoted, just the fact that you are.
My remark was about political preferences of groups of people in the US,
not about interaction between members of groups.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
