Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

May. 4th, 2002

OKay... I have to say something about this idiot.

I said this:

" Mmno. Look up the word "racist" It doesn't say "white people who discriminate against people of color"
If you discriminate against people on the basis of their skin tone, you are racist. PERIOD.

Apologist bullshit is just that.. BULLSHIT. Stuff that happened hundreds of years ago happened to people who lived hundreds of years ago. Not you, not me, not the office workers in that woman's building, and not the woman herself. I understand that it created an entreanched mindset..a general climate of opression. I realize that it didn't just happen back then and then stop. But to turn around and be so hypocritical as to forgive bigotry in *any* form...that's pretty stupid.

This kind of racism is okay. And that kind is okay. But oh no, not that kind over there.

Reverse racism is a myth created by people who wanted retribution while they screamed for justice. "

In response to her post basically saying that 'people of color' making anti-white remarks and discriminating wasn't racism on their part becuase people of color don't have the 'power' to be racist, and even if they are, it's okay because of their history.

This was her latest response.

"well, believe it or not, its still going on. If you get caught and the media gets wind of it, you're going down, hmmm, sometimes, those cops got away with beating a man on tape and it was justified as them doing their duty.

OH, and the guy in texas being dragged from back of this idiots truck, oh what about the other guy being hung in tree in his front yard because he was dating outside his race? Shall I continue?

And you don't know what happened to me as far as how I'm being treated because of my race. You're probably tucked away in your own little world with your back turned against the truth.

hmmm, why so hostile, I never said it was right.

geez, get a grip!"

No, I'm not replying anymore. She's a fucking idiot. total idiot.
Nope, I'm not even going to put her name up here because she annoys me THAT MUCH.
She's been all over debate today, I'm not responding anymore because I really just want to pop her little non spelling head off her cutesy lil "LMFAO!!!!!"- shoulders.

The reason I put this here at all is ...
Do any of you have any clue what the HELL she is trying to say? Did she just not understand a word I said or are we speaking different languages?
I'm usually pretty good at deciphering morons... but it just isn't working with this one.


( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
May. 4th, 2002 07:41 pm (UTC)
There are perhaps 4 sentences in that response that I can decipher.
What really bothers me about that kind of post is how it says absolutely nothing, and then goes on to demean any point she had made in her previous post. She says, "shall I continue?" but has said nothing from which to continue. And then she goes on to say nothing. So I suppose she was continuing the nothingness. And after wasting time typing out nonsense, she tells us that she never agreed with the point she had made earlier.
My question to her is: if you didn't agree with it, why make it? If you're playing devil's advocate, go all the way. If not, type what you do agree with and debate that.

Bleh. All you can do is ignore.
May. 5th, 2002 03:06 pm (UTC)
Sure, you reply all over the place... but where are *your* posts???
May. 4th, 2002 11:42 pm (UTC)
Well, it's pretty obvious what she's trying to say in the second thing is "well, white-on-black racism still exists." Which is actually relevant, since you did talk about racism as "stuff that happened hundreds of years ago." It doesn't address your main point at all, but then neither did the one half-a-paragraph she's replying to. So, yes, she's a moron, or dishonest... but you did give her that something to go misdirect herself on.

Then, of course, you run into the question of whether it's worth lavishing enough care on your text so that it can't be mis-used by idiots. I cannot answer that one.
May. 5th, 2002 11:41 am (UTC)
Now I think you're misreading. Holly talked about "stuff" that happened years and years ago.

To me, that was clearly referring to racist actions of the past (being used justifcation for current racism), rather than past racism.

Or am I off base here?
May. 5th, 2002 12:18 pm (UTC)
In the context of the whole argument you could see that she didn't mean racism of hundreds of years ago, but that it was 'okay' or 'understandable' for 'people of color' (specificially black people) to be discriminatory, bigotted and rude toward whites because of the history of blacks in this country.
To me, she seemed to be directly pointing toward slavery, but I could have been wrong.

Later I clarified and made it clear that I realize that racism didn't stop 200 hundred years ago and that I realize that the reprecussions of slavery and badly worded constitutional amendments allowed hardcore racism and discrimination to predominate for years and years after even the 15th amendment.
I made it clear that I understood that an entrenched and pervasive cycle of injustice was present in the black culture. That wasn't my point.

My point was only that racism is racism, period. And to make an *excuse* for it by saying that there is a history there is silly and damaging.
It may *explain* it, but it won't ever make is forgiveable.

May. 5th, 2002 12:20 pm (UTC)
Yeah! Let's kill all dissenters!
May. 5th, 2002 12:21 pm (UTC)
Again, it was a context thing.
She wasn't just referring to racism. She was saying that non whites don't have the "power" to be racist, that it's an inherently white thing and that even if they ARE being racist, it's more like just being discriminatory (racism being too harsh a word), given the history of blacks in this country.

She wasn't talking about racism, she was talking about the entire history of black people in america. To me (and I could have been wrong) she was pointing directly at their subjugation through slavery and segregation.

May. 5th, 2002 01:17 am (UTC)
it's because she's a fucking obtuse MORON.

i'm sad i even started reading debate. most of those people don't understand the basics of logic or the concept of statistics.

kneejerk reactionary rejects
May. 5th, 2002 01:17 am (UTC)
You both appear to be using English. You are using it to communicate, she is using it to express.

You have a thought. You saw what appeared to be a thought on her part, and it inspired thoughts of your own. You wrote your thoughts, and used more sentences to display complementary thoughts-- sort of building a bridge of facts (assumed to be mutually trusted) and logic (assumed to be mutually understood) from her initial statements to your conclusion.

She had a feeling. She wrote down various observations and experiences that shared some subjective theme with this feeling. You presented a response that consisted of sentences that did not evoke this same feeling, and were therefore wrong. With precious little structure or order, she provided more sentences that matched her original feeling, and a few that were elicited by your response as evidence of how wrong you really were.

We can train animals and machines to make noises that sound like words, too. Doesn't mean "communication" is necessarily occuring.
May. 5th, 2002 10:36 am (UTC)
You get the beverage of your choice purchased by me next time I'm in the place that you are. Wherever that is.

Consider this your coupon.
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )


A Non-Newtonian Fluid

Latest Month

March 2010
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow