yup yup I was talking to you.I even agree with that myself so i think you and I are on the same page...pretty much.The problem is that while that should be true, that all laws are for everyone and one set should be sufficent for all epopel of all walks of life, they are not.murder is illegal period, so hate laws shouldnt be needed.however, by sticking an extra stiff entence on to a hate frime, it is thought that it persuades more people to not commit a crime.i doubt that myself, but thats the logic behind it.toss in affirmative action and I begin to get pissy.the problem with it is that I can compete with any other people for the smae job, even being better qualified and more experienced, the guy thats black or jewish or what ever is going to get it instead of me, because the laws require so many of the minority to be hired to keep a better balance.i also can see how ever that fthe laws are needed because they bring some balance to thier lives, allow them better jobs and better moeny and earning ability to take care of them and thier familys. I suppose im alot like a woman now, I can see the problem, and I can see Im being fucked. (job wise men get them over women even if the woman is more qualified) but what to do about it ?we shouldnt need the laws, and w wont get past it all race wise till we dont have the laws, at the same time we need those laws because peoiple have not progressed as a whole, to be able to be fair to everyone with out the incentive of punishment to do so.i think thatmakes sense, it does in my mind but Im not sure anyone else can follow the jumps my mnd makes and fill in the blanks that i may of left unpaved.
-
White Pride
-
S>> Indeed. Murder still exists. Does that mean that laws against murder serve no useful purpose?It looks like I said "indeed". That must mean that I agreed with you.R> Have you gone off the deep end? Those were my arguments for the laws!You mean I've gone off the deep end if I agree with you? I'm not playing a game of "disagree with the fuzzy guy". The correctness of a fact does not hinge on who utters it.
-
Are you saying that civil rights legistlation was a waste of time and an extraordinary effort that should not have taken place?
Do you think schools would be integrated or segregated now had laws not been passed to force integration. Something has to be the nexus of change. What would have brought about change without those laws, and for that matter, how long would it have taken?
-
ya know, i read all your shit, and all steves and have my own thoughts and hers one of them.
you and steve are on the same fucking page.
we know you can not legislate morals into the peoples head.
the problem arises that you have to protect the people form the lack of morals on some of the peoples parts.
you can not force me to think what you think or feel what you feel, but you can pass laws that prohibit me from going against what you think and feel.
for proof of that, I offer you the fucked up bullsht laws of Utah and alchohol.
we need certain laws to protect the rights of people, but no those laws will not make people think or feel differently then they already do, the only thing that affects the massive change required to do away with those laws takes generations an generations to come about an comes from parents not instilling hate in thier children.Thor, would you propsoe that we leave the people unprotected till those changes take place over the next few hundred years?
-
Yeah, you showed us you are white in a picture and I'm saying you have no right to speak for minorities.I'm saying that you have no idea whether or not I'm a minority, and that there are minorities who are white, and that it doesn't matter anyway. The idea is not to have an emotional argument here. Facts can be discussed rationally no matter who you are. I wish you could grasp the idea that it's possible to look at the issues on their merits, rather than on the characteristics of people doing the talking.Since the plurality of people in this country are a minority, they'd better have some basis for making decisions about this kind of stuff, since they're largely responsible for the laws that are passed -- or not passed.
-
Not directed at you.I think this is something we should read. It's about 1 way racsim.http://www.rense.com/general70/rcasm.htmThe first paragraph of it is interesting enough.
-
Did you skip over the 2:53 post, or do you have something else in mind?
-
What's interesting to me is that we always think that making a law will change things. It can stem the immediate flow...but only for a short period of time. It never makes a lasting change...and never does even that without having negative effects in other areas to our society as a whole.We all keep approaching the problem with legislation in mind, which never works, and never stop to think that maybe we need to try another approach.Some have glanced on what I think the answer is. How we teach our children and what they're exposed to is a great place to focus on...but unless we all focus on ourselves and our own attitudes first, it won't work. Children see and hear EVERYTHING we do whether we want them to or not! It's not easy...but it's where the real answer begins.
-
Could you tell us what that essay means to you? After a lot of rambling, it seems to say that we should fortify the southern U.S. border to keep Mexicans out.
-
I didn't read the whole thing lol.But i did find this interesting. In reply to:Pat Buchanan in his book [1] points out that there isn't one criminal case of a white man raping a black woman. Why not? Everyone knows that rape is a hate crime. When a white person does a race-related crime their picture is usually posted in the newspaper. But when a black person commits a crime, even murder against a white person their picture usually isn't shown. But various unique first names which black people often have can give away who they are. And now we see that Hispanics are calling for the death of all "gringos." Isn't gringo a term just as racist as calling a person a "cracker" or a black person the "N" word? It's all about WHO does the name calling (i.e. labeling) and NOT WHAT the label is.
-
Teaching our children is fair and good, but that would have pushed far into the future any hope that a black in Mississippi could attend the state university (that he may have paid taxes to support). Are you seriously arguing against the civil rights and voting rights legislation of the 60's?People's attitudes in the South would not have changed as much and as quickly as they have had the legislation not existed. What would have promted the change? There was no other external force acting.There aer still white people who would never vote for a black candidate under any circumstances, although that is thankfully changing. (I won't even mentioned how the Republicans used blacks at their last national convention.)
-
Ugh, Wasn't Abrahm Lincoln a Republican?He is the one who stopped Slavery i think. Not very good on Amercian History
-
S>> Indeed. Murder still exists. Does that mean that laws against murder serve no useful purpose?> Indeed is there, but the other 14 words aren't saying "indeed".Do you really not get that, or are you pulling my leg? That was a rhetorical question, with an obvious answer of "no", that does not require a response. It was not a question directed at you. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I said, "Does thor think that laws against murder serve no useful purpose?", but I didn't think it was ambigous.In the future I'll try to be extra-clear when I reply to you.
-
To the original questions. Was the civil rights act a worthwhile endeavor and do you think schools would be integrated?>>>"How we teach our children and what they're exposed to is a great place to focus on...but unless we all focus on ourselves and our own attitudes first, it won't work. Children see and hear EVERYTHING we do whether we want them to or not! It's not easy...but it's where the real answer begins."How would you reach children in bigoted homes and hope to change their thinking? In places where bigotry is entrenched in the home and community how do you demonstrate to a child that the status quo is maybe not acceptable? Your right, children see everything and if there is another force in society saying that the status quo is wrong or unacceptable they may pick up on it. Some young people are capable on independent thought and if there is a force denouncing what they have grown up understanding they may, and do, reach their own conclusion, independent of what their parents taught them. Change must start somewhere and change outside the home has worked to alter societies in the past.
-
"Change must start somewhere and change outside the home has worked to alter societies in the past."Never completely or permanently.I suppose it depends on whether somebody is actually interested in solving the problem, or (as is all too often with politicians) if they are just interested in looking like they are trying to solve the problem.
-
Ugh, Wasn't Abrahm Lincoln a Republican?Yes. What does being a Republican in the 1800's have to do with being a Republican in the 1960's?> He is the one who stopped Slavery i think. Not very good on Amercian HistoryHe certainly played a huge role in ending slavery.The Republicans weren't the only ones not helpful in passing civil rights legislation in the 60's. The Southern Democrats, or "Dixiecrats", were major impediments. They were politcally conservative, but refused to join the party of Lincoln. They could not get past the Civil War thing at the time.It was more of a conservative versus progressive issue than a political party issue. Still, the impetus and support for the legislation came almost exclusively from the Democrats.
-
Still not answered..In reply to: To the original questions. Was the civil rights act a worthwhile endeavor and do you think schools would be integrated?How would you reach children in bigoted homes and hope to change their thinking? In places where bigotry is entrenched in the home and community how do you demonstrate to a child that the status quo is maybe not acceptable? How do you prepose these thing are achieved?>>>"Never completely or permanently."I never said that and doubt anything could ever achieve that.
-
The seem to have permanently solved the problem of blacks not being allowed to attend public universities in the South until the 1960's, or minorities not having a prayer when applying for certain jobs. Believe it or not, the government is not completely useless; good things do sometimes come out of government actions.
-
"I never said that and doubt anything could ever achieve that."The disbelief of anything being able to acheive total success in this matter is part of the reason why it will never be acheived.As for your other questions, I think the Civil Rights movement had merit...the idea was good. It's just that they focussed their effort in not all the areas they should have. They didn't take their lessons from history.As for how we reach children, we don't focus on this...we focus on ourselves. That's the whole point! When we focus on ourselves and it becomes part of the expected behavior within our society (such as not killing others), this part (the influence on children and others) takes care of itself. Only in recent history where TV (as opposed to reality) has been our primary cultural mover has this not always been true. Nowdays we get a lot of behavior outside of mainstream society (we call it "diversity") as influenced by TV (killings at school and so forth)...so the TV is making things worse rather than better.The whole thing takes time...but a long time is better than no time, which is what we have today.
-
What influences a culture's norms is a comlex thing, and everything can't be placed at the foot of television. I don't think TV is responsible for (until recently) the drop in violent crime. There are other factors involved.
It would be nice if everyone would just be good and fair to others, but sometimes laws are required to make sure that it happens in the here and now. (Laws regarding personal behavior are another issue entirely.) Even if someone doesn't like another person based on skin color, and even if you change the discriminator's opinion now, or in this generation, it's good that the unliked person can get a job that he's qualified for, isn't it?