Just about a year ago, I blogged that I would “reconsider my opposition” to hate crimes legislation should I see “convincing evidence that such laws actually reduce violent crime”. In that post, I pointed out that “we have a whole raft of evidence showing that crime rates go down when states adopt concealed-carry laws.”
Hence my belief that such legislation advances “gay rights” because it offers us an effective tool to protect ourselves from gay-bashers. If such creeps fear we have a gun, they’ll be less likely to attack.
Just this week, we learn how effective that fear can be — and how it served to protect one of our friends attacked by a teenager in a jurisdiction with “a hate crimes law explicitly address[ing] sexual orientation.”
Riding home from work on his bike a few days ago, GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia “was attacked on a secluded street behind Union Station“:
. . . the unidentified youth punched him in the chest about 8:30 p.m. as he rode past the youth and six or seven other male teenagers who were with the person that struck him on 2nd Street, N.E. just north of L Street.
After calling Jimmy a “faggot”,
the attacker and a few of the others with him “puffed up their chests and were clearly ready to continue the attack,” [Jimmy] said. But seconds later, the group fled the scene after he kept his hand inside his backpack, “allowing them to wonder if I was reaching for a gun.”
The District’s hate crimes law didn’t deter Jimmy’s attackers; the fear he had a gun did.
Glad to hear Jimmy’s doing okay.
Hate crimes laws are completely unnecessary if one has the ability to equalize any given situation. Perhaps this will stop homosexual on homosexual violence and blaming the behavior on the heterosexual community.
Yet by the same token, Dan, the District’s laws against assault & battery, robbery, murder, etc. didn’t deter his attackers either but you don’t oppose them so your logic here doesn’t follow.
I am glad that LaSalvia is okay and I also strongly support the concealed-carry laws you speak of.
The truth is that the likelihood of a victim being legally armed in the District is astonishingly low. The thugs know that they have little to fear from the law-abiding in D.C. and act accordingly. When caught, they face a very light sentence and are soon out to continue their misdeeds.
As Dan points out, it is only the threat of violent reply that made them hesitate. Gun rights are civil rights. Laws that oppress gun rights are laws that oppress the citizens. If you want to deter gay-bashing, support concealed-carry reform…not more “hate-crime” legislation.
Fair point, John AGJ.
With that comment, I was also referencing back to the beginning of the post where I related my opposition to hate crimes laws to the absence of evidence they deter violent crime.
No, I don’t think it was. Let’s consider.
No it does follow, if you read Dan’s comment with intelligence and goodwill. I mean, yes, Dan left out a couple steps in the chain as people often do in haste, and you have to be willing (hence the goodwill) and able (hence the intelligence) to mentally fill in those steps. Let me say what they are. To your point: it’s true that criminal laws do not *reliably* deter determined criminals. They deter some would-be criminals, but not all. The most important aspect of criminal law is in giving society a due process of law for incarcerating criminals after-the-crime. In other words, criminal law reduces crime, in the largest part, by physically removing proven criminals (the people most likely to commit new crimes) from society. Now, Dan said:
In effect, Dan poses the question: does hate crimes legislation enhance criminal law’s existing benefit in removing violent criminals from society? It could be, but it is by no means certain. In California, for example, the prisons are overcrowded and are under a court order to reduce population. In such conditions, keeping violent criminal A in prison longer, means practically that violent criminal B must be released from prison sooner. Thus, the overall likelihood (or level) of violent crime is not reduced by A’s enhanced sentence. In other words, it is quite possible that enhancing criminal penalties in a narrow area – such as alleged “hate crimes” – will have no effect whatever, in reducing violent crime.
Hence, Dan’s (implied) question: he wants to see evidence that a certain alteration to existing “laws against assault & battery, robbery, murder, etc.” – namely, hate crimes legislation – will benefit society in fact, by reducing violent crime in fact. Will it? And next, the reader who has intelligence and goodwill enough to fill in Dan’s missing pieces, should stop to consider: why would Dan ask such a question? It may be that there are good reasons to oppose hate crimes legislation. It may be that hate crimes legislation is *different*, in some important way, from existing “laws against assault & battery, robbery, murder, etc.” (And so it is: hate crimes legislation attempts to punish people for their social-political thoughts and feelings, is a mere expression of left-wing political correctness, etc.) Thus, in contemplating hate crimes legislation, Dan could reasonably demand a proof of benefit – namely, evidence that it does actually reduce violent crime, in the jurisdictions where it has been tried – that Dan should not or need not demand with regard to keeping existing “laws against assault & battery, robbery, murder, etc.” on the books, and also without regard to the fact (as I acknowledged earlier) that neither type of criminal law serves primarily to *deter* crime. In Dan’s concluding point:
… Dan argues implicitly against those who may advocate hate crimes legislation *on the grounds that* it would supposedly deter hate crimes. Dan rightly points out to such advocates that it won’t. The fact (which you pointed out) that existing “laws against assault & battery, robbery, murder, etc.” also do not reliably deter crime is irrelevant to that point, because hate crimes legislation is a proposed change to existing criminal law with a different (and quite possibly harmful) character, such that we should need to see very good evidence of its benefit, before adopting it any further.
THANKS ILC.
Sooo…what if these guys had been armed as well? Gun’s won’t help against other guns.
Gangbangers are notorious cowards. They lack the cajones to fight on-on-one, and generally prefer to use whatever money they have to buy booze and/or drugs rather than weapons.
Nothing terrifies “urban youths” quite like the idea of going up against a bullet.
Gee, Dooms…I wonder if you’d have felt that same way, had Matthew Shepard were a conservative who had a weapon…
Something tells me you’d feel differently.
“An armed society is a polite society.”
You do realize Shepard was knocked unconscious first right? He had no idea he was even in danger, lot of good a gun would have done him.
Uh…in a group of “gangbangers”, one of them will more than likely be “strapped”, or at the very least have a knife. Just to clarify. You know who else refuses to fight one on one? Gay bashers in general.
And I have to ask, why is “urban youths” in quotes? Are you trying to “say something else”?
You know who else uses that very gay slur? Ann Coulter!
An interesting argument you lay out, ILC, but you proceed from a false premise: I have not before nor am I now arguing in favor of hate crimes laws. My point was solely that his original argument was inconsistent with that expressed in opposition to hate crimes laws. I didn’t support the 2009 Matthew Shephard Act when it passed so any deficiencies you see in that law or similar state laws I’ll leave to their defenders to address. In fairness, I also didn’t oppose the 2009 law because it was quite clear that the only reason the GOP as a party was opposing it was because it involved gays. I have no problems with someone opposing all such laws as Dan does, but not when it’s selective and inconsistent.
You;re making a pretty brazen assumption, but hardly surprising, considering your political beliefs.
You don’t live in my neighborhood, so your further assumption is utterly ridiculous on it’s face. “Just to clarify,” I live in the 25th Chicago Police District, 1600 North and 4400 West, so next time you wanna try telling me what the gangbangers in the inner city do, perhaps you might want to speak from experience, kiddo.
But of course….I’m forbidden from saying “black Gangster Disciples,” because to do so is RAAAAAAAAAAAAA-CIST, you ignorant tool.
What would have saved Matt Shepard is the common sense not to leave a bar to have sex and do drugs with two guys he just met. But, that aside, what Dooms is really advocating… in his dumb, ignorant, liberal way… is for law-abiding people to be disarmed so that criminals, who won’t obey gun laws anyway, will have easier prey.
As they say, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-cist!!!!!!!!!
Not only are you a bigot, but you’re also spectacularly ignorant, as well.
Maybe you might want to think about living in an inner-city neighborhood before you decide to comment on a situation you have absolutely NO knowledge of.
Brilliant conclusion, V, and spot on. But of course, Dooms would have us believe that reckless behaviors should result in no consequences whatsoever, per liberal ideology.
Erm? I kind of live in Philadelphia..so you know… there’s that,and I have family members who have been affected by gang violence so…again…there’s that.
The fact remains, a gun would not have saved Shepard’s life.
If you think a gun is going to save you from other gun wielding assailants or someone who catches you off guard..well you aren’t using your head.
There’s a word for people who are unwilling to use a firearm in self-defense: victims.
Oh god, you guys are going to bash the poor kid for a bad choice? This is what I don’t like about gay conservatives, they put themselves on this pedestal and act as if they have never made mistakes.
Why don’t you guy’s tell the whole story? “In February 1995 during a high school trip to Morocco, Shepard was beaten, robbed, and raped, causing him to withdraw from school and experience bouts of depression and panic attacks, according to his mother. One of Shepard’s friends feared that his depression had driven him to become involved with drugs during his time in college.”
It sickens me that you guys would attack a kid who was going through something like that.
I don’t need a gun for self defense.
And how, pray tell, are you able to substantiate that position????
Care to tell me how?
Go ahead…I’ll wait…
Ah, so Dooms is from Philadelphia, where city employees are punished for singing the national anthem. That explains a lot.
Whatever Matt Shepard’s motives for getting messed up with drugs and thugs were, two things are clear. 1. His death was not the fault of Christians or Republicans and 2. If he had had a gun, he would have had a better chance of surviving the situation he put himself into.
And not that we act as though we never made mistakes. We accept the consequences of our mistakes and believe everyone else ought to do the same, instead of whining, playing the victim card and insisting that we are not responsible for our bad choices and that we should bear no consequences for them.
Unlike some people around here.
Like I said, he was knocked unconscious and had no idea his life was in danger. A gun would not have saved him.(especially considering his attackers used a gun to knock him out)
And oh hey you found a really strange story that happened in Philly, go you!
Also a point needs to be made, V the K, that link you provided is pathetic at best. The blogger classifies a black owned business that sells books by black people as racists?
That’s disgusting, even for you
How DARE you use a young man’s murder to advance your sick politics???????
Ah, because, of course, it is impossible for Black people to be racist.
I have to note that working an internship in Baltimore this summer has done a lot to cure the BF of his liberalism.
You unapologetic, unashamed, blatant, RAAAAAAA-CIST!!!!!!
How dare you come onto this site and spew your bigoted hate?!?!?!?
Shame on you, sir.
18.Erm? I kind of live in Philadelphia..so you know… there’s that,and I have family members who have been affected by gang violence so…again…there’s that.
Which is funny, because Philadelphia is a city controlled by racist Obama Party members who use “gun control” as an excuse, when it’s pretty obvious that the problem is their failure to enforce the law.
But what do you expect? After all, Barack Obama endorses and supports rappers who praise people who rape women and shoot police officers. Does anyone here think that racist boy Dooms would seriously arrest, report, or prosecute non-white people for handgun possession or violating the law? He won’t do it now, nor will his Obama Party.
Hells yeah! You wouldn’t tell a kid he made a stupid mistake because that might make you a hypocrite? If you learn from your mistakes, as a man does, it becomes experience. Telling a kid that he made a stupid mistake doesn’t make you a hypocrite, it’s sharing your experience and wisdom. Would you say the same of AA or any other rehab program?
I pray to God that you aren’t a parent or someone who works with kids or younger folks of any sort. I’m not a parent, but I do know that you can’t coddle them and fear hurting their feelings or fear looking like a hypocrite.
TGC, read all of what I posted and you might find out how stupid you sound.
Northy, you can drop that whole Common thing, not only is it a not issue but the double standards are disgusting. Common (the guy from the GAP commercials) is a “thug” while Ted Nugent is a “Patriot”. Yea…real nice how that works out.
Eric Olsen, how is a black owned book store that sells books by black people racists? Why is it conservatives love to blame the black community for not doing “enough for our youth” while in the same breath condemning anything black people do to enrich their community?
V The K, I never said black people couldn’t be racist, I just fail to see how anything about that video was racist.
Yes, and notice also how Dooms has managed to change the subject here. The post wasn’t about Shepard. It’s about Jimmy LaSalvia.
Changing the subject is a standard Dooms tactic, and for that matter a standard tactic of the left-winger, when faced with a point he can’t answer.
Show me a guy who is responsible and careful enough to learn to use a gun in self-defense and become licensed to carry one with him… and I will show you nearly the last guy on Earth who would voluntarily leave a bar with 2 strangers for purposes of having sex and drugs with them, and resulting in his being knocked out, robbed and murdered. I ain’t saying it could never happen, but… Less likely.
Exactly. We all make mistakes. No one here pretends otherwise. And yet: Mistakes, they remain.
P.S. And yes Dooms, for the record, you are a racist.
Um…I didn’t bring up Shepard, V the K did.
Man this is exactly what I’m talking about.
Dooms, you played the race card, and hence, clearly missed the joke.
I’ve held my nose and read every bit of the bullshit that you’ve posted. Now, tell me how what I said was wrong. Isn’t it true that you’re loathe to be so un-PC as to criticize a stupid move by a gay icon?
BTW, the Wikipedia article you quoted says that Shepard begged for his life. You can’t do that while unconscious.
Further, I’ve treated a straight kid who had a hammer taken to his face and was left in a ditch to die. He didn’t even make the local news. I have to wonder if it was because he wasn’t gay or hot enough.
No actually, Eric Olsen did. We’re both wrong about that, then.
Hey now, ILC…I didn’t bring up Shepard, but I certainly contributed to the topic. Just wanted to clear that up.
Ilovecaptalism, Take it you aren’t going to apologize?
TGC, if you can’t understand how someone begs for their life after they’ve woken up from being unconscious, or during the process of being made unconscious, then I can’t help you.
So, just to be clear, are you saying nobody but criminals and cops should have access to firearms????
I never once said that, Guns for home and business defense are more than understandable, but for personal protection there are just so many better options.
P.S. To justify my comment #34: A racist is anyone who thinks in racial terms and advocates racially NON-neutral policies, or a color-discriminating (as opposed to color-blind) society. Tim Wise is an example, and Dooms has advocated for his viewpoint in the past. Other racist aspects of Dooms’ viewpoint include his tendency to “erase” (i.e. deny or ignore completey) the experience if not the existence of conservative people of color – Black, Hispanic, Asian, First Nation, etc. conservatives.
Eric, sorry but I think you did. Your comment #8 is the first mention of Mathew Shepard in this thread. If I’m not understanding some earlier comment that referred to him, let me know.
For what? I said that my earlier comment was wrong, about who brought up Mathew Shepard. And so was yours. Are you going set an example and do some further apologize? But again, for what? why?
Lol, I love how it’s always the part of the minority to “forgive and forget” no matter what has been done to that group.
Look, when white privileged is no longer a problem get back to me. When black and latino men aren’t going to jail for almost 2x as long as white men (despite having done the same crime with the same record), get back to me. When blacks have an equal chance of getting a job, get back to me.
Until then stop spewing your “shut up and deal with it” nonsense.
Whoa, who said that?
Looks like more of the ol’ subject-changing; as I said earlier, a typical tactic of left-wingers and of Dooms, even if it is the case that Dooms didn’t bring up Mathew Shepard in this thread, and that both Dooms and I managed to be wrong about who exactly did.
I was responding to this “P.S. To justify my comment #34: A racist is anyone who thinks in racial terms and advocates racially NON-neutral policies, or a color-discriminating (as opposed to color-blind) society. Tim Wise is an example, and Dooms has advocated for his viewpoint in the past. Other racist aspects of Dooms’ viewpoint include his tendency to “erase” (i.e. deny or ignore completey) the experience if not the existence of conservative people of color – Black, Hispanic, Asian, First Nation, etc. conservatives.”
You just spewed the old “If you wanted equality, you would shut your mouth right now!”
Whoa, who said that? I know I didn’t.
Looks like more of the ol’ subject-changing; as I said earlier, a typical tactic of left-wingers and of Dooms, even if it is the case that Dooms didn’t bring up Mathew Shepard in this thread, and that both Dooms and I managed to be wrong about who exactly did.
I did make the following specific points:
1) That a racist is anyone who thinks in racial terms and advocates racially NON-neutral policies, or a color-discriminating (as opposed to color-blind) society.
2) That Tim Wise is such a person.
3) That Dooms (from his comments) has been such a person.
4) That Dooms (from his comments) tends to “erase” (i.e. deny or ignore completely) the experience if not the existence of conservative people of color – Black, Hispanic, Asian, First Nation, etc. conservatives.”
Dooms: As of now, you have refuted none of that. None. Please be informed that your childish attempts to change the subject of what I said (by putting false words into my mouth) is not a refutation.
And this is the typical tactic of conservative. Claiming that someone of a minority background is some how biased or angry, all in an attempt to diminish the validity of their daily life experiences, ideas, and arguments.
Color neutral politics don’t work because we are not a color neutral country. The deck is stacked in the favor of white males (bonus points for being straight and christian).
I’m not a conservative, so your comment must not be meant for me.
But I didn’t. As a rule, before I make such claims, I wait for the person (minority, or otherwise) to do or say something that is visibly biased or angry.
What I did do, again, is claim the following:
1) That a racist is anyone who thinks in racial terms and advocates racially NON-neutral policies, or a color-discriminating (as opposed to color-blind) society.
2) That Tim Wise is such a person.
3) That Dooms (from his comments) has been such a person.
4) That Dooms (from his comments) tends to “erase” (i.e. deny or ignore completely) the experience if not the existence of conservative people of color – Black, Hispanic, Asian, First Nation, etc. conservatives.”
Dooms: As of now, you have refuted none of that. None. Please be informed that your childish attempts to change the subject of what I said (by putting false words into my mouth) is not a refutation.
And you propose that we become color neutral, by abandoning any/all efforts to actually become color neutral?
As I said: Racist.
So quick to paint someone else a racist when you can’t see the inherit racism of your statements.
More “reverse racism” keeping the white man down eh?
So I guess anyone who even hints that something is racial, or America has an issue with race, is to be branded a racist? Just sweep it under the rug instead of deal with the problem, sad.
And this is the typical tactic of conservative. Claiming that someone of a minority background is some how biased or angry, all in an attempt to diminish the validity of their daily life experiences, ideas, and arguments.
That is because, Dooms, you have stated that only black peoples’ opinions on anything matter, and that white people should shut up. You have stated that black people should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of skin color, while a “whites-only” bookstore would have been denounced by the SPLC and NAACP as a hate organization.
The problem is that here, we judge you based on what you say, rather than your skin color, and you are incapable of dealing with that. You are used to an environment where, like your hero Sheila Jackson Lee, you can say whatever you want, no matter how stupid, and have it treated as a pronouncement from on high. You expect your ideas to be considered valid, no matter how stupid they are, because you are of a minority background.
You will never comprehend that. Ever.
So I guess anyone who even hints that something is racial, or America has an issue with race, is to be branded a racist?
Why not? You do, when it’s white people saying it.
Now you’re talking to the mirror: accusing others of your traits/failings.
Good luck in life.
Dooms, put bluntly, you state that your ideas are automatically valid because you have black skin — and that, if someone with white skin speaks, their answers are always wrong because of “white privilege”.
That is a racist statement. Period.
Northy, can you make any kind of statement without using lies? The bookstore is not BLACK ONLY, it’s black owned and sells books by BLACK PEOPLE. How is this racist?
Northy, I state my arguments and ideas are valid because I am living as a black man in America.
Why is it so hard to believe that things are different when you aren’t white?
Isn’t it funny how the delusions of Obama Party members like Dooms always facilitate their inherent racist beliefs?
Dooms never screws up; it’s all whitey’s fault.
Black people never commit crimes; whitey just puts them in jail for being black.
Dooms’s hero Charles Rangel was justified in not paying his taxes and in committing welfare fraud; any charges brought against him were due to racism.
So when I point out you are a liar you throw a few red herrings around?
Must suck to be as sad and lonely as you lot.
Northy, I state my arguments and ideas are valid because I am living as a black man in America.
Thank you for proving my point.
In your opinion, the validity of your ideas has nothing to do with the content of your character. You mentioned nothing of the sort. Indeed, the validity of your ideas is solely based on the fact that you are a black man. What makes your ideas valid is the color of your skin, not the content of your character.
Still talking to the mirror: accusing others of your traits/failings. Dooms, see your comments #45, #47, #49, where you throw red herrings around (which I exposed in my response comments). Among others.
And, good luck in life.
Wait, so it’s some how wrong for me to point out things using my experiences and those of others as the basis?
The content of my character has NOTHING to do with how people or society responds to my skin color, the only thing I can control is how I manage that.
This is just typical though, you are so used to being catered to by society that you can’t understand what it’s like for someone else apparently.
Really “ilovecaptalism” stop with this “you’re rubber I’m glue” bit. If you can’t argue coherently your ideas, then you are just being a noisy child.
…, one who denies/ignores – i.e., one who ERASES – the experiences of other black men living in America, experiences that happen to be inconvenient to his own divisive, racist viewpoint. Namely, the experiences of black American conservatives. And of Hispanic, Asian and First Nation conservatives.
Still talking to the mirror: accusing others of your traits/failings. Dooms, see your comments #45, #47, #49, where you throw red herrings around (which I exposed in my response comments) and UTTERLY FAIL to argue your viewpoint, much less with something resembling coherence.
Again, I claim the following:
1) That a racist is anyone who thinks in racial terms and advocates racially NON-neutral policies, or a color-discriminating (as opposed to color-blind) society.
2) That Tim Wise is such a person.
3) That Dooms (from his comments) has been such a person.
4) That Dooms (from his comments) tends to “erase” (i.e. deny or ignore completely) the experience if not the existence of conservative people of color – Black, Hispanic, Asian, First Nation, etc. conservatives.
Dooms: As of now, you have refuted none of that. None. Be informed that none of your childish attempts to change the subject of what I said (by putting false words into my mouth) are a refutation.
Wait, so it’s some how wrong for me to point out things using my experiences and those of others as the basis?
Nice try, Dooms, but this is what you stated:
Northy, I state my arguments and ideas are valid because I am living as a black man in America.
You said all of your ideas and arguments were valid because of your skin color. You said nothing about content of character, behavior, or anything of the sort; you stated that your ideas were valid SOLELY because of your skin color.
And then this:
The content of my character has NOTHING to do with how people or society responds to my skin color
Exactly. You don’t look at content of character; you look solely at skin color. You dismiss the argument of any white person as being automatically tainted regardless of what they say and regardless of what they do.
You’re a racist, Doomsie, and you just got called out as such. You don’t believe in character; you judge solely on the basis of skin color, and since you do it, you project that onto everyone else.
There is no reason for me to refute any of it because it’s a false label you slapped on. You are trying to distract from the fact that I am correct, but whatever.
Besides, nothing I or anyone else could say/do would change your mind. That’s just the way the conservative mind is wired.
Indeed he did. NDT +1
Actually, Doomsie, now that you’ve been revealed as a desperate racist who will do and say anything to rationalize the fact that you discriminate based on skin color, no one really cares.
Northy, if you can’t tell that I’m talking about the context of the conversation and on race in general, well you are just a sad little man.
That with your violent hatred of other gays paints a very vivid picture of a very sad and alone man. I say this with seriousness, please seek help before you hurt yourself or someone else. There is NO shame in needing help, and just because mental illness is “invisible” doesn’t make it any less real.
Who am I discriminating against exactly? Do you have evidence of any of my alleged racism?
You are free to look me up and look for any racist content.
It’s instructive to see such a clear example of the psychological phenomena of “denial” and “projection”.
– Dooms is racist, racist, racist… and refuses to see it. Instead he frantically accuses others of it (with no evidence).
– Dooms can’t argue his viewpoint… Ditto.
– Dooms instead uses subject-changing tactics and red herrings… Ditto.
1) A racist is anyone who thinks in racial terms and advocates racially NON-neutral policies, or a color-discriminating (as opposed to color-blind) society.
2) Tim Wise is such a person.
3) You (from your comments) have been such a person.
4) You (from your comments) tend to “erase” (i.e. deny or ignore completely) the experience if not the existence of conservative people of color – Black, Hispanic, Asian, First Nation, etc. conservatives.
Pfft
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/07/19/breitbart-video-reveals-naacp-racism-against-whites/
Very well then. Dooms, you said this:
Which says, Dooms, that you think your ideas are valid SOLELY because of your skin color. That is a deeply racist viewpoint.
Again, I was speaking about the context of this conversation and race in general.
If you can’t understand that I really pity that thing you call a brain.
Again, it’s instructive to see such a clear example of the psychological phenomena of “denial” and “projection”.
The only person here denying anything is you, you continue to frame arguments to suit your needs, while picking and choosing which of my words you will ignore.
You do yourself a disservice with that level of intellectual dishonesty.
Still talking to the mirror: accusing others of your traits/failings.
Back to the “rubber and glue” defense? sad.
Again, I was speaking about the context of this conversation and race in general.
Indeed. You were stating that your ideas and arguments are valid solely because of your skin color, and that everyone else’s ideas and arguments are invalid because of theirs.
Again, you are a racist. You are trying to argue that the content of your character and the logic/rationality of your argument are irrelevant, and that everyone should just accept what you say based on your skin color.
Furthermore, your attempt to diagnose me as mentally ill is two things: one, if you are not a certified or trained psychiatrist or psychologist, a blatant attempt at slander, and two, if you are, a complete and total violation of medical ethics.
So Dooms, produce your license and your authorization to practice medicine. If you can’t, then you acknowledge that you deliberately and with malice made a statement that you are not qualified to make in an attempt to publicly slander me. If you have such a license and refuse to surrender it upon demand as is the law, then I will simply get your IP address and email and have you reported to the board certification authority in your state for ethics abuse.
LULZ, by all means Northy, share with em your experiences with racism as a black man.
LULZ, by all means Northy, share with em your experiences with racism as a black man.
And once again, Dooms, you demonstrate that you do not base judgment on actual experiences or content of character, but solely on the basis of skin color.
You keep trying to play the card that your arguments cannot be questioned because of your skin color, and keep providing more and more examples of how you are a racist in the process.
No northy, I am saying that when it comes to dealing with the racial experiences of black people, you haven’t a leg to stand on until you’ve done the research.
Nope. Just the truth. Which, Dooms, it is clear that you can’t handle.
Once more, “Anything, but to the point!” Utterly fails to make any sort of argument or address anything NDT said.
I’m glad Mr. LaSalvia is ok, but being able to carry a concealed handgun is NOT a gay rights issue! I’m a black woman. Knowing, or just suspecting, that his potential prey might be armed could deter a would be rapist or skinhead from attacking, and that would certainly benefit blacks and women, yet I don’t view conceal and carry laws as a women’s rights issue or a minorities’ rights issue. Rather, they are a constitutional rights issue. Something that benefits ALL of us as Americans should not be used to advance identity politics of any kind. Conservatism simply isn’t about that.
“1) That a racist is anyone who thinks in racial terms and advocates racially NON-neutral policies, or a color-discriminating (as opposed to color-blind) society.”
That doesn’t make you a racist. People of different races, genders, backgrounds are different, it’s called diversity. Treating someone different because of their race or gender doesn’t necessarily make you racist. Treating people of different backgrounds different because you believe one is better than the other would be a more accurate assessment of racism/sexism/etc.
Yeah… except it does. If you support a color-discriminating society, you are a racist. Face facts.
Which is why we should have a color-*neutral* (i.e., *not* color-discriminating) society, a society where people are judged as individuals, on “the content of their character” (Martin Luther King).
Gender… Obviously not. Race… Yes it does. Treating someone differently because of their race is, indeed, one of the very definitions of racism.
… is, at bottom, the only real reason that anyone ever treats someone differently because of their alleged (i.e., real or imagined) race. You can try to blather about correcting historical injustice or whatever, but it is just blather, because the position is deeply unjust and incoherent: the people alive today are far from being the people who committed the historic injustices, collective (as opposed to individual) punishments are inherently unjust, etc.
*make you a racist or sexist
By the way – Is it just me, or is the statement “Treating someone different because of their race… doesn’t necessarily make you racist” absurd on its face? A proof of how the modern Left has fallen? Maybe downright nuts? None of the Kennedys, for example, would make such a statement – unless they were trying to parody a white Southern racist.
Sexism has nothing to do with what I’ve been talking about here. You’re introducing it, I believe, to muddy the waters.
No it’s not. It’s possible to treat people differently without favoring one over the other. Pretty much every definition of racism includes favoring one race over the other, believing in an inherent superiority of one race, or an imbalance of sorts.
Treating people different because of race can make you a racist, I’m not saying that. Just saying it doesn’t necessarily make you one. Obviously discriminating against people because of their race shows a belief that one race is less than another.
Ah, is our resident racist acting up again?
Remember, Dooms doesn’t want anyone to have guns because of what they might do.
Also since Dooms believes in being approved to use our second amendment rights, I’m sure he supports literacy tests to vote too.
I knew I’d have fun with that thread.
Poor Dooms. all we ask is that you judge us by the content of our characters, not the colour of our skins.
aj,
How is treating someone differently because of their race not discriminatory?
(Not that all discrimination is wrong. I’d treat, say, Lori differently than I would a straight woman who I respected because Lori’s not a potential partner/mate/wife.) 😛
Because people of different races aren’t always the same. Why treat people exactly the same that aren’t exactly the same? That doesn’t seem to make much sense to me.
Treating people differently doesn’t mean you’re discriminating against them. Discriminating against someone implies favoring one side over the other. Treating people differently doesn’t carry that same implication.
I mean maybe some people see it differently, but that’s how I see things. People of different races are different and it’s a beautiful thing. Not saying anyone is better or worse, just different.
So, even though Shepard’s life had previously been endangered… he learned nothing from that experience and still put himself in a vulnerable situation?
Cheese Louise, how did the Darwin Awards miss that one?
Well, please, AFTER you answer my question how I was wrong in #31, perhaps you can explain the physics head trauma and traumatic brain injuries. I mean, I only have about a dozen years experience. Maybe you can rely on your experience of growing up black in America to learn me a thing or three.
Why does absolutely everything need to be reduced to being about any one particular group’s rights? If there were a serious push, on the part of social reactionaries, to ban gun ownership ONLY for gays, this might be an issue. I don’t see that happening, because it would undermine the stance of the Right, in general, in favor of the Second Amendment.
I can’t believe I’m actually agreeing with Seane-Anna, but there it is.
I’m sorry, I have only read the first 7 comments. But, I couldn’t resist commenting on this:
#7 “Sooo…what if these guys had been armed as well? Gun’s won’t help against other guns.”
That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Do I need to explain why? Or is it as self evidently dumb as I think it is?
Also, how is hate as a motive for a crime any different from any other motive? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way.)
Naamloos how exactly is this stupid? What if once they knocked him down they pulled guns?
Armed gays don’t get bashed? No, they get shot by bashers with guns.
“Because people of different races aren’t always the same. Why treat people exactly the same that aren’t exactly the same? That doesn’t seem to make much sense to me.”
If that is the case, then they would be treated differently because of the difference that isn’t race. People of different races are obviously different in that way, but that difference (should be) inconsequential.
Dooms, if I understand correctly, you are saying that if someone is threatened by someone that has a gun, that if the person who is being threatened has a gun, then that gun would not be able to help the person who is being threatened. If someone is threatened by someone with a gun, wouldn’t it be better if that person had a gun he/she could use to defend themself?
*himself/herself
You didn’t say anything about being knocked down.
“Armed gays don’t get bashed? No, they get shot by bashers with guns.”
What is your point? How would not having a gun help gays in the latter situation? A
#75: Dooms, you posted this:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/07/19/breitbart-video-reveals-naacp-racism-against-whites/
Can you explain how it supports any of the “arguments” you’ve made? Because it actually support the arguments that are being made by NDT, ILC, V the K, etc.
Naamloos, realize this: Dooms is a racist. He is trying to rationalize why a white person has no right to carry a gun and should be punished if they do, but that black people who carry guns illegally and use them to bash white people are just the victims of white racism.
Dooms is a weakling racist and a coward. Let’s see Dooms be man enough to go confront gangbangers and scream at them about how guns cause violence.
Exactly. All crimes that harm another’s life, liberty or property involve hate, on some level.
Apparently, they aren’t teaching concepts like EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW or EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS in school anymore.
I knew that although “equality” is the Great Shibboleth of the Left, leftists would one day degenerate (through carelessness or lack of education) to openly proclaiming the Left’s real intention: a non-equal society. A la the hierarchical-collectivist society of Orwell’s _1984_.
His position is that anybody carrying a gun will NEVER have a chance to use it. He allegedly has “self defense” skills that will ALWAYS that makes him invincible. In the off chance that doesn’t work, he’s got Matrix moves as a fail safe. And just in case, he has been trained by Jefferson Twilight to defeat blackulas.
I’m thinking that his self defense training only included shouting “racist” at anybody who dares threaten him. Liberals firmly believe that this will make anyone shut up and cower in a corner.
And just in case someone asks a question he can’t answer, he has the ability to deftly change the subject.
And surely you have many, many real-life examples to back this up.
Guys, don’t forget Dooms has already outed himself several times with his racisim and wanting to control people with what they ‘might’ do.
Unless they’re black of course.
Another answer on this:
would be that “race”, unlike (say) gender, is in fact a socially-imposed construct and as such, a false construct. Often, a person’s alleged “race” is misperceived, i.e. imaginary.
Anyone who does not understand that we all need less of “race” in our lives – i.e., anyone who thinks we need more of it and supports imposing it on people regardless of their *individual* uniqueness and moral character – is a racist. Equivalent words to “racist” are: “collectivist”… and “stupid”. Ayn Rand put it like this:
RTWT.
Yes and no. There are biological and genetic differences between the races, not to mention cultural ones (though race isn’t necessarily the determining factor there). Someone who is white and someone who is black are not exactly the same.
Socially imposed or not, there are very real differences when appealing or marketing to different demographics, including race.
When marketing to a white males 18-35 you may use different messages than when marketing to black males in the same age range. Does that make a company racist for appealing to different people in a different way?
If you think it does, then we just have different views on what racism is. Treating different people differently doesn’t constitute racism in my view or under the definition of racism in general. There needs to be an inherent belief that one race is better than the other to be qualified as racism.
aj @ #113:
Congratulations. You have successfully laid the first plank of every genocidal platform ever built.
How you “market” to culture is not salient to your already phony argument. Draggy pants and baseball caps worn cockeyed like Sparky the Chimp is popular ghetto wear among white trash, black yoyos, Puerto Rican no-minds and other ethnic groups. You can go into their ‘hoods and find plenty of same age people who dress for success and don’t own even one Mercedes hubcap pendant.
There is no such thing as race. The scientists gave up on it when they got flummoxed doing the DNA. Big noses, curly hair, dark skin pigment and all the “visual signs” don’t make the grade in modern science.
So, aj, you need race in order to keep racism alive and active.
When I see a gang of hip hop knuckledraggers, I immediately pay attention. Be they white, black, PR, whatever, I think anyone who listens to that crap to the point that they dress the role is worth avoiding.
How come the “black race” isn’t into sticking all sorts of metal crap through their tongues, ears, noses, lips, etc.? Biological or genetic? And what’s up with the tattoos? You can hardly see them.
Yea, and it’s your mind who went straight to the genocide after I mentioned scientific fact. Don’t know why you went there, but it’s kind of weird and worrisome.
There’s a reason Asian’s don’t tend to sweat as much as other races or people who originate from certain west African areas are immune to certain diseases.
I didn’t bring up inner city or suburban differences, but you’re right, there are plenty of white people who live in the inner city.. never refuted that. Just said from a marketing standpoint people of different races may be segmented into different categories to receive different messages/products.
Hair care products are a perfect example. There are aisles in supermarkets for “ethnic” hair products for a reason. Marketing hair products to white people and black people the same exact way didn’t prove make economic sense because the consumers are different. Are those companies and vendors racist in your eyes?
No there aren’t. At least not anything significant – not anything that should matter except to the stupidest person. Scientists found that every person is 99.8% genetically the same as every other.
Ethnic groups have a little bit of signficance medically – e.g., a particular gene variant might be more common in ethnic group X. But just barely. “Race”, as a super-grouping of ethnic groups, is arbritrary and only **RACISTS**, apparently such as yourself aj, believe in it.
No you didn’t mention scientific fact, aj. You mentioned the rankest, most stupidest, ignorant and incorrect kind of prejudice.
P.S. I can’t believe it’s the 21st century, and we still have to combat people with 18th-century attitudes like:
Even more shocking is that such racists call themselves liberal.
See my above example. Differences in hair may be trivial on the surface, but to a company making hair care products it’s a huge deal. Are they racist and vile for marketing different products to different races of people? Are “ethnic” hair isles in supermarkets racist because they provide different consumers with different, but relevant products?
aj,
Focus. There is no such thing as race. There is no Asian race. You are stuck in the eugenics of creating “race” out of observable characteristics. You are back in the days of Darwinism that informed Hitler, Shaw, Sanger and the rest.
aj, Planned Parenthood is positioned and structured to be in proximity to kill the black fetus. They won’t say that blacks are inferior, but they sure do mean to kill those babies before they go on welfare, rob stores, end up in prison, create more black babies and contaminate the gene pool. Their founder, Margaret Sanger, a Darwinist eugenics expert was not coy about their role and mission.
That, aj, is why I informed you that your biological and genetic differences between the races argument is the front door that leads to genocide.
Apparently, you want to stick to curly hair and ethnic hair as your proof. No one denies that you can look at many people and tell them from other people. No one denies that some blacks have a sickle cell problem. All that is in the same biological mystery category as homosexuality. Are homosexuals a race? Are the Irish a race? (One can find reference to “the Irish race.”)
Get your thinking in order. Race serves a purpose for you. You need it. You even promote the idea that blacks are genetically and biologically different. But I doubt you include the blacks of India in your race, because you probably only include African origin in the category of “black.” All that human evolution stuff is still being worked out and authenticated. Meanwhile, old casual Darwinist race categories die hard.
What the heck. Read and understand this article in Wiki. It is fair enough in exposing the tip of the iceberg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts
Race is a way to categorize those biological differences the same way gender is a way to categorize biological differnces between males and females. Sure, humans made up labels to categorize different things, but the differences are real. Is gender all a made up construct as well?
No aj, hair products are an incredibly stupid example. Differences in hair – and for that matter, differences in hair products – are just about the most minor, unimportant kind of difference there is. That’s the best you can do – seriously? That’s your basis for upholding “race” as a valid construct? Because certain extremely minor hair differences are concentrated in particular ETHNIC GROUPS, we should uphold the entire edifice of racism – including treating people in materially unequal ways (for example, college admissions)?
RACIST.
Wrong again. “Race” as a system of biological classification breaks down as soon as you try to use it. Are we supposed to base it on hair type? (Incredibly stupid, I know, but you brought it up.) But then what about skin color? You can have a kinky-haired person with light skin, or a straight-haired person with very dark skin. Are we going to add “land of birth”? You can have a straight-haired light-skinned person from Africa, or a straight-haired dark-skinned person from Africa, or a straight-haired dark-skinned person from China, or a kinky-haired light-skinned person from Sweden, on and on.
In other words: RACE IS A BIOLOGICALLY FALSE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. And we have a word for the people who believe it is somehow a biologically valid classification system: RACIST.
Wow, you’re expanding what I said way to far. I didn’t say that people who use race to differ between groups are never racist or always right. I said that doing it doesn’t necessarily make you a racist, it very easily can.
The example I gave is an example of when treating different races differntly isn’t racism. Do you care to address that statement instead of inferring what you want and taking my words WAY out of context?
aj – did you not see comment #121? Or do you have reading problems?
Sorry, #121 and #122 both. Hair differences are an incredibly stupid basis for trying to uphold “race” as a biological classification system. “Race” is not a valid biological classification system. The people who try to uphold it as one are RACISTS as such – whether or not they go on to advocate that people should be treated differently because of it (although of course they always do in the end).
P.S. To nail one more bit of stupidity: Giving people tailored choices is not treating them differently, it is treating them the same, in a positive way – because everyone has the choice. “Treating people differently” means, in this discussion, when law and/or institutions *deny* people choices or opportunities – because of their alleged “race”.
(Or take into account their alleged “race” as such in judging whether they should have an opportunity, etc.)
Thus, the statement is incorrect:
Yes it does make you a racist. Always. “Necessarily”. Believing that people should be judged as group members (rather than as individuals), and using the biologically false concept known as “race” as the basis to do it, is the essence, heart and soul of racism.
I did see your comment. You may think its dumb, but black hair care is a billion dollar a year industry, so its not dumb to a lot of people. Also, you failed to show how treating different races that way is racist.
It is treating them differently because they are actively marketing different products to different groups. Treating them the same would be marketing the same products to the same races of people
.
Your above definition of different is extremely narrow. I wasn’t putting those constraints on it when I made my statement, so maybe we’re just talking about different things.
No, I succeeded. You simply choose not to see it. Let me spell it out one more time. Offering specialized hair products is NOT an example of treating people differently. It is a positive form of treating people the same: that is, increasing everybody’s range of options/choices. Or else are straight-haired people forbidden to buy hair products being marketed to the kinky-haired? Suppose I have straight hair and I try such a product, and I like it. Is that illegal? No, it isn’t. The hair product designed or marketed to the kinky, *ADDS TO* (not detracts from) my own choices. Everyone is being treated the same, by being given more choices. Furthermore, the basis of the product is *kinky hair* alone. NOT the biologically false classification system known as “race”, that you want to uphold (and which therefore makes you a racist). You conflate kinky hair and race, and you are wrong to do so.
Clear now? Trust me aj, if you don’t get it (and you may well continue to refuse to), it doesn’t matter because other people will get it.
The definition of differently, is simply “in a different manner.” By marketing different products to different races, the companies are treating them “in a different manner.”
It may in fact be a positive thing, which is what I’ve been arguing, but it’s still differently. Treating people differently doesn’t imply denying them rights or denying them access to things, it means simply treating them in a different manner.
Are you saying that aiming different marketing campaigns and products at people isn’t treating them in a different manner?
If you say to someone,”hey you should use this product because it does a,b and c,” and then say to someone else, “hey use this product because it does x, y and z,” that’s treating them in a different manner, by any definition out there.
aj,
That’s also not dependent on race, as has been mentioned above. That’s treating them differently based on their unique circumstances.
To use your shampoo examples, I used head and shoulders because I have Dandriff. Donna used one of those shampoos for fragile thin hair. The products weren’t made because I was white and Donna was black (we were both white) A man with kinky hair and dandruff might use my head and shouders as well.
Hair products can definitely be based on race. The black hair industry, specifically, is a billion dollar industry. Hell, there’s even a documentary about the differences and the industry.
Black hair tends to be very different than white people’s hair and companies and marketers have capitalized on this fact. I’m not saying that white people and black people can’t use the same shampoo or whatever, I’m saying companies have actively worked to market products specifically at “ethnic” individuals because of the differences in hair.
Wow, talk about tardy to the party. If I may return to the subject of packing heat, I admit to once being uncomfortable with guns. Katrina changed my perspective on that forever.
My family hired a company, let’s call them “eau du noir” to protect our homes and properties. When we came back to the city, I spent a morning talking with one of those fine gentlemen who, on one particular day, personally dis-armed 40+ persons who were up to no good. He shared quite a few other stories and I found myself quickly shifting stances.
As soon as it was practical, my man and I went straight to the local gunworks establishment, bought personal protection, the essential accroutement and a full course of lessons (lessons are very important). We will be packing forever more.
Bzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. They may be talking to people differently, but they’re increasing the choices of everybody, making products available to all. It may well be illegal for companies to -actually- “treat people in a different manner” by denying products to someone based on that person’s alleged race.
Correct. It may well be illegal for companies to -actually- “treat people in a different manner” by denying products to someone based on that person’s alleged race.
Not in the manner we’re talking about in this thread. It’s only talking to them differently. What we’re talking about in this thread is, judging them differently and denying them opportunities, based not on the content of their character, but on their alleged membership in some group – i.e., on RACISM.
In what sense? Again: Race is FALSE, AS A BIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. If there happens to be a racist creator of hair products – a throwback who still believes, as you do aj, that race is somehow a valid biological classification system – then of course they can *try* to base their product on race, however stupid is such an effort. OR, looking at it from a marketing standpoint and treating race as the purely CULTURAL INVENTION which it is in reality, they may choose to market to those who (foolishly) self-identify with a particular race. That does not make “race” real. It does not change the fact that race is an entirely social construct and as such, a false construct. And that to believe in race – to a degree such that you would judge people as group members (rather than as individuals) based on their alleged race – is the essence, heart and soul of racism.
Yes, we’re talking about different things then. My original statement was simply about treating people differently, not necessarily denying them any rights.
Treating people differently because of their race, which includes speaking to them differently, does not constitute racism. That’s what I said initially, and that’s what I’m still saying. Nothing about denying or excluding, just different.
I apologize if my statement wasn’t exactly aligned with what you were focusing on. But different, in the context of the definition of the word, doesn’t imply racism, denial or any other unequal treatment.
Many of you continue to state scientific opinion as fact. For every scientist that claims race isn’t a logical biological construct, there’s one who does. I have wiki pages too..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin's_Fallacy
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010014
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~kaplanj/2003-PhilSc-race.pdf
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08/john-hawks-on-anne-wojcicki-on-race.html
Scientific arguments aside, which will never be settled, treating people of perceived or biological race or whatever, differently because of their race isn’t racist. In some cases, as ILC pointed out, in can in fact be good. Directing them to goods and services that may be more relevant to their needs.
OT:
Got anything in Chalmette(sp?)? I was perusing Trulia and saw a nice house there. However, I don’t have the wherewithall for such a place.
FIFY.
Also, aj: Come up with one example of a hair product that the company markets as “Created specifically for your genetic profile, as you are part of the African-American race! For Africans only! Whites and Asians, do not use!”
ONE.
To save time: hair products for (say) kinky-haired people, do not count. Since people of any race can be kinky-haired. You must come up with a product that is marketed specifically to a race as such, and where that race is understood as a biological construct. Not to a hair type as such, and not to a general historical/cultural grouping. Otherwise, you have no example and you never did.
Old, racist ideas die hard. As you have given proof.
As recently as a few decades ago, there were scads of world-class scientists who claimed that genetic traits could be acquired environmentally and then passed to new generations in the somatic line. See Lysenkoism.
No, nothing in Chalmette TGC. What we have is mostly commercial anyway.
BTW, what is Trulia? Also, real estate in Chalmette is generally very reasonable I think. Is it one of the plantations?
“But I doubt you include the blacks of India in your race…”
Actually, white people (of European descent) are descended from the peoples of India. As are our languages.
Hence the term “Indo-European.” Though I am not familiar with all the reasons why the Nazis did the things they did, it’s probably also got something to do with why they used the term “Aryan” (an Indian term) to describe themselves, and may have also had something to do with their use of the swastika symbol.
The Nazis certainly considered themselves white people.
I would be interested to know if the connection I think was there did exist.
Crickets chirping… aj, to repeat my challenge, here it is:
If you can’t, then you have no “example” and you never did.
“Actually, white people (of European descent) are descended from the peoples of India. As are our languages.”
To nitpick, technically that isn’t the case for the Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian languages (as well as other Uralic languages); the Basque language; and the Maltese language. Sorry, but I am a linguistics nerd and I couldn’t resist correcting you…
#148 — I figured there would be some exceptions. The Roma people (commonly known as the Gypsies) probably fit in with those. But the majority of us did originate in India.
It does look like what a lot of people are saying here is correct. The color of our skin is not the only thing that makes us who we are.
ILC, I get your point, but there are such products. A simple google such produced results such as Flori Roberts, Black opal and others.
ILC, I get your point, but there are such products. A simple google such produced results such as Flori Roberts, Black opal and others.
Sorry for the double post. The following came directly from one website:
“The first black cosmetics to be sold in upscale department stores, Flori Roberts brings you the finest formulations in black skin care and african-american skin care, unsurpassed for melanin rich skin. View Flori Roberts wide range of products.
Designed specifically for black skin care, Flori Roberts is at the forefront. With special attention to priming the canvas, exfoliation is considered key to the African American skin care ritual.”
David in N.O.:
1) Challenge was addressed to aj.
2) Challenge was addressed to his example of hair products.
3) Even setting those aside, challenge still not met by your example. Insofar as Flori Roberts mentions anything to do with biology or genetics, it only mentions “melanin rich skin” (per your quote). Whites, Asians, Indians, Arabs and other can also have melanin-rich skin (my mom, of southern Italian descent, was often mistaken for black during the summertime) and are eligible to purchase and use Flori Roberts products. Much as Flori Roberts’ idiotic copy may mention “black skin care” or “the African American skin care ritual”, it does not suggest otherwise. I mean, really: since when is “African American” a race? If “African American” is a race, what does that do to the “African (non-American)” race? Are there 2 separate African races, one having been Americanized? Does asking the question not reveal how arbitrary, i.e. biologically meaningless, the concept of “race” is in fact?
(continued) In short, Flori Roberts has chosen to appeal primarily to the general historical/cultural grouping that we know as “African-American”. Big deal. I stated in the challenge, that a mere appeal to a historical/cultural grouping would not be enough. Even taking Flori Roberts’ copy on its own terms, it fails to understand or appeal to race as a biological construct. Flori Roberts’ entire website doesn’t even contain the word “race”. It doesn’t even emphasize having native African ingredients – whereas it does proudly mention having ingredients from, of all places, India:
Clearly, people from India might also have “melanin-rich skin” and be thrilled (potentially, heh) to use Flori Roberts. And Black Opal is even more to my point; it only mentions a vague “women of color” (which, again, could be any of the alleged races – even whites). There again, challenge not met.
Stop whining, it’s beneath you. Like you’ve never taken on a challenge leveled at someone else! And I said I get your point, indeed I agree with with you.
Actually, the Roma trace their ethnic origin to the Indian subcontinent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people) The Romani language is also an Indo-European language.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_language)
Stop being a dumbass. You didn’t meet my challenge. Sounds like you can’t admit it.
Whoops sorry, I should have typed “smartass” as I intended no implication on your general intelligence.
#156 — That’s right, I forgot. Rudy Maxa actually mentioned that on one of his programs.
GayPatriot is always educational, too.
Ok, I’m wrong. I admit it. I failed to meet your challenge. Happy now?
David, Trulia is a real estate website I found. I found their Android app while wondering what the Indianapolis market was like. Trulia seems to have more details than other sites. I’m not looking for a home, but like to look around occasionally.
I found this place that looks nice. I thought it was Chalmette, but it seems to be in Bayou Sauvage refuge area.
http://www.trulia.com/property/3002294838-20309-Old-Spanish-Trl-New-Orleans-LA-70129
In life? Already was. In context of this thread? Nah, still listening to the crickets chirp for aj.
And Dooms.
Overall, aj’s “example” relies on both argument from authority, and circular reasoning. He assumes that race is a biologically valid classification system. Next, he assumes that if a company markets either to American blacks (a historical-cultural grouping) or to people of kinky hair, melanin-rich skin, etc. (who in fact may be found in all of the alleged races), that the company must be marketing *to a race*. Next, as the existence of the company/product is a good thing (adding to consumer choice, jobs, etc.), he says “Look! Race must be a biologically valid concept, because here is a company validating the concept!” That is, in effect, an argument from authority (we should believe in race because, supposedly, company X does). It is also circular: aj began by simply assuming the thing he meant to prove. Racist thinking is often like that.
The other funny thing is how fast a company would get the NAACP’s wrath brought down on them if they advertised this:
“Designed specifically for white skin care, Flori Roberts is at the forefront. With special attention to priming the canvas, exfoliation is considered key to the Caucasian skin care ritual.”
Isn’t it interesting how appealing to race is an acceptable marketing technique — but only when applied for Obama Party and liberal constituencies?
This is the kind of thing that makes me believe that racism is something so intrinsic to the Obama Party and the “progressive” movement that they simply can’t get away from it. They still, like their forbears, believe that non-white individuals are intellectually and emotionally inferior and undeveloped compared to white people; however, they’ve replaced the chains and servitude of the plantation with the public housing and welfare dependence of today’s Obama Party platform.
NDT, great point.
I feel compelled to mention one thing that “Hate Crime” laws definitely do. They promote hate a segregation.
Fill a room with 100 people, pick two out at random and treat them differently than everyone else. When the other 98 get water, give the two wine; give everyone a pb&j sandwich and feed the two roasted chicken, etc. Keep it up for a few hours so that it is noticable; and, you will suddenly find that many people have negative feelings toward “the two”.
Hate crimes do the same thing. Some people who otherwise wouldn’t have an opinion either way have negative feeling toward those who are protected by these laws simply because they feel slighted that certain groups should be given “special” protection. It can be construed as reducing the worth of those not in the “special” group. And that is not a good idea for groups that are very much in the minority.
So, not only do hate crime laws NOT deter those who are already bigots, it potentially influences others toward hate or at the least, apathy.