Creepy Ass Cracker.... Racist or no? [W:329/550]

Mr. Invisible said:

I meant slip up in terms of the reviewers. The reviewers slipped up.

Well, sociology is based on the study of society, not interpretation, from those studies one can begin to form sociological theory, such as feminism.

Click to expand...

Reviewers "slipping up" would be they let something with one or two bad details slip by. This was total and utterly made up garbage about how quantum gravity has progressive implications and that the scientific method "cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counterhegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities." No one in the scientific community would take crap like that seriously. Then the journal tried to defend the piece by saying "its status as parody does not alter, substantially, our interest in the piece, itself, as a symptomatic document." LOL. Oh yeah the article was completely made up and written as a joke, but we actually think its highly informative and a quality piece of work. :lamo

ecofarm said:

Everyone is held to the same standard, oppression and privilege by the majority power is racism (the institutionalized dominance of one race over another). Anything less is mere bigotry.

Click to expand...

The majority power now allows people of color to indulge in behavior that would be roundly condemned were it arising from white. The fact that the majority power is also white does not distract from such a double standard, even if such institutionalied attitdes are symptiomatic of white guilt and the attemt to address past wrongs by elevating the former targets to an inviolate position.

Caine said:

Please do provide a source and point out the language in the law that singles out black voters.

Click to expand...

I've asked him at least a dozen times to provide SOME sort of evidence. He refused by saying things like "oh you don't believe that institutional racism exists?" Someone else tried to, and I shut them down in post #298 on page 30. I haven't heard a response from them, but it seems that "institutional racism" is just another one of those things that people believe in but are hopeless to prove. Sort of like Santa Clause.

ecofarm said:

Everyone is held to the same standard, oppression and privilege by the majority power is racism (the institutionalized dominance of one race over another). Anything less is mere bigotry.

Click to expand...

Eco...with all due respect. You continue to purport that a sociological system theory regarding racism...is the most commonly used definition...and socially used form of the meaning of "racism". It's simply not the case. In an academic setting, you'll find various sociological systems theories disseminated.

Are you aware that a person can actually be a bigot...and not be a racist? But a racist is always a bigot.

I just can't agree with your definition.

Gotta head to town...later yall...

Removable Mind said:

Eco...with all due respect. You continue to purport that a sociological system theory regarding racism...is the most commonly used definition...and socially used form of the meaning of "racism". It's simply not the case.

Click to expand...

I never claimed any such thing; don't put words in my mouth The fact remains, it is the most holistic definition and includes the important aspects of oppression and privilege which are the real issues in racism as opposed to mere racial bigotry. Of course, the definition is not for everyone, as some people wish to ignore the sociological implications for one reason or another and dwell merely on the mundane and superficial aspects of racial bigotry.

It is not a social theory. It is a definition that includes the sociological implications of racism.

Gardener said:

The majority power now allows people of color to indulge in behavior that would be roundly condemned were it arising from white. The fact that the majority power is also white does not distract from such a double standard, even if such institutionalied attitdes are symptiomatic of white guilt and the attemt to address past wrongs by elevating the former targets to an inviolate position.

Click to expand...

There is no double standard. Those in power being racial bigots is FAR more devastating to society than powerless minorities pissing in the wind. To ignore the sociological implications of racism is to reduce the term to a childish perspective and sweep under the rug the real conversation. That would be like ignoring context in an Israel/Hamas discussion and treating the two entities as the same thing.

ecofarm said:

I don't think we really jumped the shark until a black guy was defending an historical Nazi (because he was a good tanker) and denying that racism is an obstacle for blacks in America (but only as an aside to rejecting a claim of 'anti-white discrimination'). At that point, the "creepy ass cracker" thread hit some sort of trifecta or critical mass of absurd.

Click to expand...

I defended him as a soldier, not a Nazi. Considering I was also a 19E, go figure. Please point out where I denied anything about racism for blacks? I said I don't accept it as an excuse for failure white or black.

You need to accept the fact that you are the one who attacked his name and don't know a regular soldier vs a war criminal Nazi.

Your lack of understanding is amazing.

Black Manta said:

I defended him as a soldier, not a Nazi. Considering I was also a 19E, go figure. Please point out where I denied anything about racism for blacks? I said I don't accept it as an excuse for failure white or black.

You need to accept the fact that you are the one who attacked his name and don't know a regular soldier vs a war criminal Nazi.

Your lack of understanding is amazing.

Click to expand...

I was not making an attack on you or trying to twist the situation. I was just pointing out the irony of the meta in a thread entitled such.

ecofarm said:

I was not making an attack on you or trying to twist the situation. I was just pointing out the irony of the meta in a thread entitled such.

Click to expand...

Buy completely exaggerating what I said? Not cool man.

Anyway, no more derailment. Back to the cracker thing...

Yes it's racism, does not matter what "sociologists" think it means, the dictionary says different. This is however not downplaying institutionalised racism or it's affects. This does not make it anything else or change the meaning of the word.

ecofarm said:

There is no double standard. Those in power being racial bigots is FAR more devastating to society than powerless minorities pissing in the wind. To ignore the sociological implications of racism is to reduce the term to a childish perspective and sweep under the rug the real conversation.

Click to expand...

"Creepy ass cracker" is an offensive racial comment. It is the same as if Trayvon Martin had been referred to as a "creepy ass" something else. Racial bigotry is not limited to any specific race and it doesn't matter if they are a minority or majority. And as far as who is in power or not, well, if that is the case, the highest office of the land is held by a black man and the highest ranking cop also known as United States Attorney General is a black man too, so if you are judging simply by race, then who is in power again? Anyway, racism happens no matter who is in power. The term I find funny is so-called reverse racism, when someone is a referring to a white person being acted against, when in reality racism is just racism no matter who is doing it.

Black Manta said:

Buy completely exaggerating what I said? Not cool man.

Click to expand...

I didn't exaggerate. I made it clear that you were defending a historical Nazi on the basis that he was a good tanker. It's still ironic, given thread title/subject. It kinda parallels people claiming that "cracker" is not so bad based on the source of the comment and the target - in a NON-direct and NON-insulting way regarding your contribution. On it's face, the whole situation had become rather comically twisted.

I meant no insult and I did not mean to distort your posts. I only meant to comment on the bizarre meta and undertones in regard to the topic.

Caine said:

And yet why is it that so many black people volunteer to be a part of Civil War Battle reenactments....... What role do you think they are playing hm?

Click to expand...

Try asking some of them.

They might be able to help you.

I have no interest in civil war or any other reenactments.

Porchev said:

"Creepy ass cracker" is an offensive racial comment. It is the same as if Trayvon Martin had been referred to as a "creepy ass" something else. Racial bigotry is not limited to any specific race and it doesn't matter if they are a minority or majority. And as far as who is in power or not, well, if that is the case, the highest office of the land is held by a black man and the highest ranking cop also known as United States Attorney General is a black man too, so if you are judging simply by race, then who is in power again? Anyway, racism happens no matter who is in power. The term I find funny is so-called reverse racism, when someone is a referring to a white person being acted against, when in reality racism is just racism no matter who is doing it.

Click to expand...

I agree with your statement except regarding minorities being capable of racism. That, for me, simply drops too much context - to the point of promoting ignorance and false equivalence.

Mathematician said:

Of course it is, but many blacks will deny it until the cows come home.

Click to expand...

Of course Conservatives are going to jump out of the woodwork and make it about blacks. Black on white prejudice is the only kind they see.

Why should black people not be spared from the PC police?

bubbabgone said:

A big part of Liberal society that can't acknowledge ongoing black racism is the part of the problem you can worry about ... not humbolt.

Click to expand...

So you are equally offended by it when Rush says it?

Sorry, the people who come in droves to defend Rush are the first to go on about prejudice when it's on them. If you think you're persecuted because you're white or Christian or conservative, get real. Man up and take some of that "personal responsibility" you guys love to talk about. If you say things that make you sound like an asshole, people are going to judge that you are an asshole.

ecofarm said:

I didn't exaggerate. I made it clear that you were defending a historical Nazi on the basis that he was a good tanker. It's still ironic, given thread title/subject.

Click to expand...

See this is exactly what I mean. My statements had little to do with "defending a Nazi" that is just trying to demonize. at least be honest about your intentions. Nothing Ironic about it.

ecofarm said:

It kinda parallels people claiming that "cracker" is not so bad based on the source of the comment and the target - in a NON-direct and NON-insulting way regarding your contribution.

Click to expand...

Bull it is insulting as you try and make it sound like I am defending Nazi's. I also was not defending him on the fact he was a tanker. I was defending the fact you were condemning someone using the name and you went Godwin on something you don't know anything about. I was defending the fact he committed no war crimes and was a soldier doing his job for his country. You were in the military so I know damn well you understand it.

ecofarm said:

On it's face, the whole situation had become rather comically twisted.

Click to expand...

In your opinion. I think your comments where just play it off exaggerations because you went off the reservation.

ecofarm said:

I meant no insult and I did not mean to distort your posts. I only meant to comment on the bizarre meta and undertones in regard to the topic.

Click to expand...

You're kidding right?

I don't think we really jumped the shark until a black guy was defending an historical Nazi (because he was a good tanker) and denying that racism is an obstacle for blacks in America

Completely misrepresented what I said and exaggerated it for your off topic bull Godwin crap.

Now please point out where I denied "racism is an obstacle for blacks in America" and tell me how that is not an insult?

In fact this is actually what started it..

ecofarm said:

I'm a pro-life (mild), green (market based), hawk (democratic peace theory and ecologic justice) libertarian. See my signature for the cornerstone concepts of my ideology/philosophy.

My lean is independent for a reason. I know very ****ing well what I am. I don't need some Nazi-named liberal hater telling me what they think I am - spare me.

Click to expand...

- http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...cker-racist-no-w-329-a-29.html#post1061985117

You can't hide from your own post.

Black Manta said:

See this is exactly what I mean. My statements had little to do with "defending a Nazi" that is just trying to demonize. at least be honest about your intentions. Nothing Ironic about it.



Bull it is insulting as you try and make it sound like I am defending Nazi's. I also was not defending him on the fact he was a tanker. I was defending the fact you were condemning someone using the name and you went Godwin on something you don't know anything about. I was defending the fact he committed no war crimes and was a soldier doing his job for his country. You were in the military so I know damn well you understand it.



In your opinion. I think your comments where just play it off exaggerations because you went off the reservation.

I meant no insult and I did not mean to distort your posts. I only meant to comment on the bizarre meta and undertones in regard to the topic

You're kidding right?

I don't think we really jumped the shark until a black guy was defending an historical Nazi (because he was a good tanker) and denying that racism is an obstacle for blacks in America

Completely misrepresented what I said and exaggerated it for your off topic bull Godwin crap.

Now please point out where I denied "racism is an obstacle for blacks in America" and tell me how that is not an insult?

In fact this is actually what started it..

- http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...cker-racist-no-w-329-a-29.html#post1061985117

You can't hide from your own post.

Click to expand...

I agree, Hitler was a creepy ass cracker. :mrgreen:

Black Manta said:

See this is exactly what I mean. My statements had little to do with "defending a Nazi" that is just trying to demonize. at least be honest about your intentions. Nothing Ironic about it.

Click to expand...

For the last time, there was no attempt to demonize you. If you feel my comments were a personal insult or otherwise malevolent, feel free to take proper channels and leave the accusations with such. I've had enough of you attempting to tell me and others what my intentions and motives are.

American said:

I agree, Hitler was a creepy ass cracker. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

He was absolutely the creepiest. And an ass.

Cracker, I'm not sure about.

Of course it's racist. It's disrespectfully applying a slur to someone based on their race.

rocket88 said:

Of course Conservatives are going to jump out of the woodwork and make it about blacks. Black on white prejudice is the only kind they see.

Why should black people not be spared from the PC police?

Click to expand...

Because they're the ones who called the PC police in the first place. :roll:

Prejudice from a source without the power to enforce that prejudice is meaningless.

Caine said:

The title says it all.... do you believe calling someone a "Creepy Ass Cracker" is racist???????

Click to expand...

I voted no. I think the disconnect some people make is they notice what they classify as equivalent markers of whatever offensive thing there might be. In this case, I think the use of the word "cracker" being compared to the so-called "n-word." What is being omitted is WHY the "n-word" is offensive. The use of the n-word conjures up imagery of an undeniable history of one of the most horrific chapters in human history. When the n-word comes to mind many people associate it with a history of the most expansive human trafficking campaigns in the history of the world, brutal enslavement of people forced to provide free labor under the harshest of conditions for centuries, rape, torture and murder; all of which was legal with the official stamp of approval of the government of the United States through the US Supreme Court's Dread Scott Decision. Then after slavery had officially ended institutions such as share cropping, segregation and Jim Crow laws were established to keep former slaves and their descendants living in a perpetual state of as close to slavery as possible while being technically free. Then add lynchings, cross burnings, police brutality, church bombings, denial of access to vote, denial of access to equal educational and career opportunities and denial not of of civil rights and human rights but in many cases denial of even animal rights. One prominent denominator is the victims of this inhumane treatment were referred to as the n-word. Cracker, on the other hand, although not exactly polite, conjures up no such historical imagery and has even been used by a sitting Governor (as opposed to the bonafide thugs of inner-city America who use the n-word as a term of endearment) as a complement.

“I know this fella from Arkansas,” boasted Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles as he introduced Bill Clinton to a Democratic fund-raising reception in this GOP stronghold. “And I can tell you he knows how to speak cracker.”

FilmFestGuy said:

And I read the case. They said that race was about 1/3 of the deciding factor (see the link) of the two areas they make decisions on.

Click to expand...

well i know the judge i listened to...... read each of the USSC judges opinions on the case, and among their opinions, he stated "yes" the school knew it discriminated, but they attempted to justify that discrimination by the school actions they took by looking at the womans background , and basically saying they did it for the "GREATER GOOD"

rocket88 said:

Of course Conservatives are going to jump out of the woodwork and make it about blacks. Black on white prejudice is the only kind they see.

Why should black people not be spared from the PC police?

Click to expand...

rocket88 said:

So you are equally offended by it when Rush says it?

Sorry, the people who come in droves to defend Rush are the first to go on about prejudice when it's on them. If you think you're persecuted because you're white or Christian or conservative, get real. Man up and take some of that "personal responsibility" you guys love to talk about. If you say things that make you sound like an asshole, people are going to judge that you are an asshole.

Click to expand...

What does Rush say?

Nevermind ... it doesn't matter ... somewhere along the way racist comments by blacks toward whites have become beyond criticism.

That's undeniable.

The defense of using "cracker" that you see all about you is the most recent and obvious example.

Either everything by anyone should be tolerated or everyone should be accountable for what they say.