• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Agree With This Statement?

Do you agree with the statement quoted in the OP?

  • Total voters
    32
R
ttwtt78640 said:
What part? You indicated nothing in your reply with quote.

Here is what I said, again:

I will try for you: have complete free will or be held personally accountable. Did you understand the preceding sentence in the OP link? We are constantly being told to hold minorities to different (usually lower) standards of behavior, speech or eductional levels often without realizing just how rediculously offensive/demeaning that really is.
Click to expand...

The part I highlighted. No one has ever followed me no matter where I have walked. No police officer ever assumed I was or might be guilty of anything. Women have never crossed the street when I walked near them. Explaining this and the effects if this is not holding minorities to a different let alone lower standard. This is largely a false narrative put forth my whites, often white males.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
I do not have a clue who Rachel Jeantel is, nor is anything you say proving your claim. Hint: once is not the same as constantly.
Click to expand...

I gave you an ample and recent example of my point. Either accept it or ignore it, but do not attempt to dismiss it because you do not know who the subject is. Surely you remember seeing many discussions about "black English", ebonics and "urban culture". Allow me try to give you more examples (to ignore or dismiss):

Florida's Race-based Goals For Students Spark Debate

Why It's Time to Get Rid of Standardized Tests | TIME.com

http://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/files/racial_justice_and_testing_12-10.pdf
 
Boo Radley said:
R

The part I highlighted. No one has ever followed me no matter where I have walked. No police officer ever assumed I was or might be guilty of anything. Women have never crossed the street when I walked near them. Explaining this and the effects if this is not holding minorities to a different let alone lower standard. This is largely a false narrative put forth my whites, often white males.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Redress has raised similar doubts, let me refer you to my posts #75 and #78 in this thread for examples that I have linked to.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Thank you. Redress has raised similar doubts, let me refer you to my posts #75 and #78 in this thread for examples that I have linked to.
Click to expand...

Not much there that is really helpful. I remember one very smart young lady who asked me once how could the way she spoke be wrong when everyone she knew spoke that way. She has a point. What we call proper is largely arbitrary. And nothing is more useless than a standardized test. Explaining a problem is not lowering standards. Nor is questioning the arbitrary standard. It is factually that blacks experience our country differently than whites do. We as whites are lucky that everything fits in mostly with how we experience the country. Believing that there is a neutral, objective standard is largely false.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I gave you an ample and recent example of my point. Either accept it or ignore it, but do not attempt to dismiss it because you do not know who the subject is. Surely you remember seeing many discussions about "black English", ebonics and "urban culture". Allow me try to give you more examples (to ignore or dismiss):

Florida's Race-based Goals For Students Spark Debate

Why It's Time to Get Rid of Standardized Tests | TIME.com

http://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/files/racial_justice_and_testing_12-10.pdf
Click to expand...

So now we learn you do not understand your own sources, and that you don't understand what constantly means, and that you exaggerate some into all. Well done!
 
Boo Radley said:
Not much there that is really helpful. I remember one very smart young lady who asked me once how could the way she spoke be wrong when everyone she knew spoke that way. She has a point. What we call proper is largely arbitrary. And nothing is more useless than a standardized test. Explaining a problem is not lowering standards. Nor is questioning the arbitrary standard. It is factually that blacks experience our country differently than whites do. We as whites are lucky that everything fits in mostly with how we experience the country. Believing that there is a neutral, objective standard is largely false.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. We are a nation of immigrants yet expect assimilation not a continuous multilingual stew of ghettos. How is it that Asians, European and middle eastern folks have not remained largely separate? Most immigrants have no difficulty assimilating after, at most, two generations.
 
Redress said:
So now we learn you do not understand your own sources, and that you don't understand what constantly means, and that you exaggerate some into all. Well done!
Click to expand...

I see. My misuse of language is an issue yet Boo asserts that we may speak any way that we like. Perhaps I should have said fequently and often instead of constantly, I do not recall saying all, so let me change that to some, most or many. The fact remains that SOME standards differ intentionally based on race and I have provided SOME examples to back that up. ;)
 
Redress said:
Here is the statement:

Here is the context, the editorial it was taken from: To Avoid Looking Like a Criminal, Don't Commit a Crime - Ann Coulter - Page full

So, you do agree with the above quoted statement?
Click to expand...

Hard for me to relate to the quote, because when I look at a person I don't see their race. I see a person, and I evaluate them based on the things they say and their actions.

The quote, if taken literally, means that blacks will some day be treated like people capable of exercising free will and possibilities. They already have that right, it's written into the Constitution. Socially speaking, it's iffy... but it's iffy everywhere. Most multi-ethnic countries experience racism, unless the ethnicities have lived together in relative peace for hundreds of years. If it's a new congregation, then there is always tension.

The difference is that America loves branding its racism in many different ways, and marketing it. It becomes a media event for everyone to entertain themselves with. Racism is show business. I find that rather anomalous.

Added to that... I don't think historical grievances have really been addressed. The U.S. has done a lot to try and fix it, but it's not going to make it all better over night. In places like Brazil, black people live in the lowest tier of society as a vestage of the slavery years. Any country that used to have black slavery has a disproportionately poor black population, so I don't know why the U.S. is acting like this is some kind of big mystery, or that the problem should just go away.

The inequities we see today are partly due to historical poverty, and partly due to some blacks too heavily identifying with the culture of disenfranchisement being sold to them. No other country in the world has something as depraved as B.E.T. If I had a black child I would never let them watch that crap because all it does it teach them that they are worthless. America's corporate media have packaged racist self-degradation into something to be sold to blacks. If it weren't for that, I think we'd be seeing a lot more recovery.

Black people already have free will. They need to start using it as Dr. King suggested.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Here is the statement:

Here is the context, the editorial it was taken from: http://townhall.com/columnists/annc...iminal-dont-commit-a-crime-n1643187/page/full

So, you do agree with the above quoted statement?
Click to expand...

Well, since you won't change the sentence's poor choice of adjective to bring more clarity to the sentence...why? I have no idea...and since I've had a jolt of clarity this morning...I'll have a go at it:

Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet.
Click to expand...

Translation: "Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like individual thinkers. But not yet."

As with any generality, it's too all encompassing. But I understand it now, and I tend to agree. Certainly, in this particular instance, there can be no doubt a herd mentality is at work.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense. We are a nation of immigrants yet expect assimilation not a continuous multilingual stew of ghettos. How is it that Asians, European and middle eastern folks have not remained largely separate? Most immigrants have no difficulty assimilating after, at most, two generations.
Click to expand...

Said from someone not having to do it. We've never been a melting pot. We have many different languages and customs and behaviors. And in a free country, that's fine.

However, that's not really what I'm talking about. They came here as slaves, then as discriminated citizens, and the expectation that just saying you're free will make all that history nil is silly. There was no history to draw on, no blue print, no stories. You really must understand the real and tangible differences.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Said from someone not having to do it. We've never been a melting pot. We have many different languages and customs and behaviors. And in a free country, that's fine.

However, that's not really what I'm talking about. They came here as slaves, then as discriminated citizens, and the expectation that just saying you're free will make all that history nil is silly. There was no history to draw on, no blue print, no stories. You really must understand the real and tangible differences.
Click to expand...

You must stop making silly excuses. Take Rachel Jeantel, for example, born in the US, attending free public school and, at age 19, can barely converse, much less read or write English. That argument may have held some sway in 1965, but that was quite a few generations ago. Concepts, such as telling the truth (especially when under oath), should not be strange or foreign to anyone.

She told West she altered her story about Martin because his mom was in the room during the state attorney interview. Jeantel said she didn't want his mother to hear Martin use words such as "cracker." She also said she didn't originally tell Fulton she overheard Martin saying, "get off, get off."
Click to expand...

Rachel Jeantel faces 2nd day of questioning in George Zimmerman trial | News - Home


Take a simple thing like describing to another person what "creepy ass cracka" means, and yet comming up with many versions, seeming to believe that words mean different things on different days in front of different people:

Patterico's Pontifications » Rachel Jeantel Tells Piers Morgan “Creepy Ass Cracka” Does Not Refer to a White Person, Morgan “Forgets” Her Courtroom Testimony to the Contrary

‘Star witness’ Rachel Jeantel: ‘Creepy-ass cracker’ means ‘pervert’ in my culture | Twitchy
 
radcen said:
Yet even the most extreme partisan on either side of the political aisle is correct once-in-awhile, so it would be better to address their point as either correct or incorrect rather than contribute nothing to the conversation by stooping to the standard ad hominem character assassination.
Click to expand...




Just about every time that Ann Coulter opens her mouth she reveals to the world exactly what kind of a low-life soulless lizard person she is.

When people tell me what they believe, I believe them.
 
shrubnose said:
Just about every time that Ann Coulter opens her mouth she reveals to the world exactly what kind of a low-life soulless lizard person she is.

When people tell me what they believe, I believe them.
Click to expand...

She's a brilliant provocateuse.:peace
 
I don't think we have a problem with blacks being held responsible for their actions when we're speaking in terms of justice. You can look up arrest numbers and jail population percentages in virtually any state and see that. Of course, this could be due to the fact that blacks overwhelmingly commit more crimes that any other race, but I digress.
I agree with Coulter in that blacks always create a HUGE uproar against any sort of perceived injustice committed against them by the white race ie the Zimmerman verdict. However, blacks never seem to find the time to be very critical of themselves. Sure, there are some black leaders who do what they can to address the problems of black children born out of wedlock, black on black crime, etc. However, they never raise the stink that they raise when they see what they think is a good opportunity to fill their coffers with money when a black person is "victimized" by a white person. Race opportunists such as Sharpton and J. Jackson (Pres Obama?) do everything they can to make as big a deal as possible of things such as this. Instead of pointing the finger, it's time they take a look in the mirror. Women clutch their purses when a young black man enters an elevator because the fact of the matter is that it's more likely they'll get mugged by him than a young white man. Doors lock on cars as a young black man passes because it's more likely that he will car jack the owner than if a young white male was passing. Those are facts. They are indisputable. You can Google black crime rates and see NUMEROUS studies that corroborate this. That is, unless you look at a study done by the NAACP or Van Jones. Of course, that brings us back to the first part of my post......
 
Redress said:
Here is the statement:



Here is the context, the editorial it was taken from: To Avoid Looking Like a Criminal, Don't Commit a Crime - Ann Coulter - Page full

So, you do agree with the above quoted statement?
Click to expand...

You see this a lot in discussions about the Israeli/Arab conflict and those involving the west and developing world. What she is referring to is the fact that the violence emanating from these groups is always presented as an inevitable outcome. And the the ability to act as their own independent agents is removed from the individual. Nature and circumstance leaves them no choice, and thus, they are always the victim.

The author is someone I particularly do not like, and it's a point that could certainly be worded in a less crass manner. But she does have a point here. It's a rather demeaning and paternalistic view to take of a group of people. And it certainly doesn't help solve the underlying issues facing black america
 
PS Also, many people seem to be misunderstanding who and what the comment "win that right" was directed at. She is referring to the type of writer who is always blaming society for violence emanating from black america. She's saying such writers are not looking at these people as individuals able to make their own choices, but unthinking automatons that simply react to stimuli.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You must stop making silly excuses. Take Rachel Jeantel, for example, born in the US, attending free public school and, at age 19, can barely converse, much less read or write English. That argument may have held some sway in 1965, but that was quite a few generations ago. Concepts, such as telling the truth (especially when under oath), should not be strange or foreign to anyone.



Rachel Jeantel faces 2nd day of questioning in George Zimmerman trial | News - Home


Take a simple thing like describing to another person what "creepy ass cracka" means, and yet comming up with many versions, seeming to believe that words mean different things on different days in front of different people:

Patterico's Pontifications » Rachel Jeantel Tells Piers Morgan “Creepy Ass Cracka” Does Not Refer to a White Person, Morgan “Forgets” Her Courtroom Testimony to the Contrary

‘Star witness’ Rachel Jeantel: ‘Creepy-ass cracker’ means ‘pervert’ in my culture | Twitchy
Click to expand...

First, you're talking entertainers picking rare events and trying to make it look larger. Redress was trying to point this out to you earlier. You just can't take so few and try to make it huge. Secondly, much of this is based in real issues, even today. The sixties only seem long ago. It really was just yesterday in terms of the problem. A bit arrogant for the priviledge group to tell minorities to get over it. Seriously.
 
Boo Radley said:
First, you're talking entertainers picking rare events and trying to make it look larger. Redress was trying to point this out to you earlier. You just can't take so few and try to make it huge. Secondly, much of this is based in real issues, even today. The sixties only seem long ago. It really was just yesterday in terms of the problem. A bit arrogant for the priviledge group to tell minorities to get over it. Seriously.
Click to expand...

Yet you are doing exactly the same thing; taking the word of the POTUS, that has encountered literally millions of people in the course of his life, yet "vividly recalls" 3 or 4 of them that reacted to his presence in a negative way that he considered to be racially discriminatory.

The 1960's are about three generations ago now, which is hardly "yesterday", and we seem to see many (if not most) US immigrants choose to loose their hyphenated status after that period of time - when was the last time that you heard about the plight of the "boat people"? Many of those of Japanese decent were herded into isolation camps in the 1940's yet mananged to overcome, not dwelling on it and teaching their offspring to beware of those "round eyed" folks.

Just how long should the racial "pity party" last before you think it is time to say buck up, get an education, obey the laws and get a job? The black out of wedlock childbirth rate is now at 73% (and rising), 1 in 3 of all black males can be expected to do some prison time (1 in 2 if a HS drop out and under age 30) and General Welfare is now largley replacing the black male as "daddy"/provider.
 
Strucker said:
It means Coulter is very intentionally trying to be a provocative jackass to get people talking about her.

Success.
Click to expand...
She's often right on the mark, so she's right AND she gets the attention. How cool is that??
 
shrubnose said:
Just about every time that Ann Coulter opens her mouth she reveals to the world exactly what kind of a low-life soulless lizard person she is.
Click to expand...
That's the Left you're thinking of. Coulter's just brutally honest.
 
Superfly said:
If Ann Coulter came on TV and told me that the sky was blue, I'd call her a liar and check for myself. She's a horrid person who has done more damage to the right than anybody in the last 10 years combined.

Y'all seriously need to get her off your side.
Click to expand...

She's not on our side, that's the problem. Anyone who thinks she speaks for all conservatives really needs to reassess. :-/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom