Trayvon Martin

[The Sir]

I take this as an admission that your ideology leaves you blind to any racial issues.

 

You made the claim that it isn't racial profiling.how did you conclude that.

 

No. Race just isn't a cornerstone to my ideology. And I don't see why it needs to be brought into everything. Cutting welfare because its injust and using money we don't have is racism? Gimme a break. There are legit arguments against me on that one, but racism isn't one. Its a method of censorship. In short, the race card is overplayed and the race hustlers out there (Sharpton, Jackson, the NAACP etc) are overemployed.

[Quin]

Meh. I'm not a race obsessed lefty so I wouldn't know.

 

 

Seriously?

 

That's, I dunno, common sense.

 

That's like a caucasian in New York saying "Southern hicks are a bunch of racist s***s"

 

Then saying that it's cool guys, he's only talking about his fellow white people.

[Y2HH]

 

Seriously?

 

That's, I dunno, common sense.

 

That's like a caucasian in New York saying "Southern hicks are a bunch of racist s***s"

 

Then saying that it's cool guys, he's only talking about his fellow white people.

 

First, posting a image that calls someone ignorant is the same as just calling them ignorant.

 

Second, whether you realize it or not, it *IS* widely accepted that people of a specific race are "allowed" to do exactly what you just said. Is it right that they do it? Not in my opinion, but regardless of what you may think, it IS accepted by society at large. Hence why a black comedian can stand on stage and toss the N word around but a white comedian cannot.

 

Lastly, to answer someone elses question, not all Hispanics are Mexican, but all Mexicans are Hispanics.

 

Maybe you should PM that image to yourself next time.

[StrangeSox]

Lastly, to answer someone elses question, not all Hispanics are Mexican, but all Mexicans are Hispanics.

 

False. Though their numbers are low, there are indigenous non-Hispanic populations in Mexico and throughout the rest of the Americas.

 

You can also contrast the silly idea that it's not racial profiling because "it's just one Hispanic dude ragging on Mexicans, fellow Hispanics!" with the treatment of those potato-eating Mc's stealing all the good protestant man's jobs.

Edited May 3, 2012 by StrangeSox

[mr_genius]

those potato-eating Mc's stealing all the good protestant man's jobs.

 

^^^

 

forum rules violation.

 

Edited May 3, 2012 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

I'm part-potato-eating Mc myself so it's ok!

[mr_genius]

I'm part-potato-eating Mc myself so it's ok!

 

oh ok. never mind then.

[StrangeSox]

TNC says this better than I could:

 

From comments: [on a video of a debate between James Baldwin and William Buckley, Jr.]

 

We conservatives will have a purge of the folks you liberals especially hate if you liberals have a purge of the folks we especially hate.

 

I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with.

 

The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who. If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic.

 

This is a very old way of you thinking. It's what you get out of watching Buckley's bumbling response to Baldwin--he neither regards Baldwin with any seriousness, nor the issue with any real concern. It's a game to him. He is effectively a homer for team red. Nothing else matters.

 

That tradition of viewing racism, not as an actual thing of import, but merely as rhetoric continues today. To abandon that tradition, I suspect, would be cause for an existential crisis.

[Y2HH]

False. Though their numbers are low, there are indigenous non-Hispanic populations in Mexico and throughout the rest of the Americas.

 

You can also contrast the silly idea that it's not racial profiling because "it's just one Hispanic dude ragging on Mexicans, fellow Hispanics!" with the treatment of those potato-eating Mc's stealing all the good protestant man's jobs.

 

You're purposefully being overly technical and while that may be correct (on that technical but not universally accepted basis), you are also ignoring the fact that over the years that the word Hispanic has become a very generalized term, much like "Latino", often used to avoid mistaking a Mexican for a puerto rican, etc...which they tend to get REALLY offended by.

 

Definition of Hispanic:

 

Adjective:

Of or relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, esp. those of Latin America.

 

Noun:

A Spanish-speaking person living in the US, esp. one of Latin American descent.

 

Mexicans speak a dialect of Spanish. Also note that the word "Latin American" is used, also known as "Latino", which is also a generalized term.

 

I maintain that while I don't agree with it, what I said IS widely accepted by society, whether it's right or not. It IS accepted that if a Hispanic rags on Mexicans, it's okay. There are numerous examples of very popular stand up acts that show it. I'd love to see you go on stage and perform Chris Rock's "n****s vs Black People" routine. Meanwhile, Chris Rock did it and people laughed.

 

Also of note, calling a "Police Wagon" a "Paddy Wagon" is a racist, but universally accepted term that nobody cares about...but it IS racist nonetheless. So, if you've ever said it...congratulations, you're a racist pig.

 

----

 

* The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".

 

* The U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race."

 

* This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses. In addition, both the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Conference include representatives of both Spanish and Portuguese descent.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Y2HH

[The Sir]

TNC says this better than I could:

 

 

 

I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with.

 

The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who. If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic.

 

This is a very old way of you thinking. It's what you get out of watching Buckley's bumbling response to Baldwin--he neither regards Baldwin with any seriousness, nor the issue with any real concern. It's a game to him. He is effectively a homer for team red. Nothing else matters.

 

That tradition of viewing racism, not as an actual thing of import, but merely as rhetoric continues today. To abandon that tradition, I suspect, would be cause for an existential crisis.

 

How do you think we got there? If I suggest a measure that might hit black people hard, but that has nothing to do with my motives, and you scream racism anyway, isn't it logical that I'll see it as an attempt to embarass me out of my beliefs? I know what I'm thinking and why I'm doing what I'm doing. You don't. So I'm going to react poorly when you try to assign my motives.

 

Again, you can argue my points all day. We need a social safety net, or equal income distribution is better for all of us or whatever. But when you scream racism, it just seems desperate. And it does seem to be a rhetorical instrument.

 

There are actual racists out there. No, they aren't Tea Partiers who dislike Obama's policies or who want Herman Cain to be president because he knows his place. Someone actually said this on MSNBC...racists supporting their target so their racism is hidden? Does it get more bizarre than that? As far as I'm concerned, this silliness just distracts from actual racism and its dangerous effects.

[Soxbadger]

Y2hh,

 

The problem with your argument is that Zimmerman didnt say "Hispanics", he said "Mexicans" a group he would not identify himself with. Its like arguing that Nazi's can say bad things about German Jews because the Jews were Germans so its "cool". The way its "ok" by your standards is if the person identifies himself with the group they are making fun of.

 

IE Jerry Seinfeld can make fun of Jews, but he cant make fun of Dentists because he is a Jew but not a Dentist.

 

I would agree that if Zimmerman had said "hispanics" he likely would be included in that group. But he said "Mexicans" and he is "Peruvian", which are not even close. They dont even come from the same original culture as Peru was Incan and Mexico was Aztec. So while they do share a similar "Spain conquered us story" its like calling some one from Italy the same as someone from France, because at one time Rome controlled both.

 

So I entirely agree that Zimmerman could consider himself Hispanic, it just is irrelevant as he was specifically knocking Mexicans, which is a subset of Hispanic that he is not a part of.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

You're purposefully being overly technical and while that may be correct (on that technical but not universally accepted basis), you are also ignoring the fact that over the years that the word Hispanic has become a very generalized term, much like "Latino", often used to avoid mistaking a Mexican for a puerto rican, etc...which they tend to get REALLY offended by.

 

Definition of Hispanic:

 

Adjective:

Of or relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, esp. those of Latin America.

 

Noun:

A Spanish-speaking person living in the US, esp. one of Latin American descent.

 

Mexicans speak a dialect of Spanish. Also note that the word "Latin American" is used, also known as "Latino", which is also a generalized term.

 

I maintain that while I don't agree with it, what I said IS widely accepted by society, whether it's right or not. It IS accepted that if a Hispanic rags on Mexicans, it's okay. There are numerous examples of very popular stand up acts that show it. I'd love to see you go on stage and perform Chris Rock's "n****s vs Black People" routine. Meanwhile, Chris Rock did it and people laughed.

 

Hispanic refers to an ethnic background that is not shared by indigenous people in majority-Hispanic countries. Given its wide-spread nature and how it is the result of centuries-long mixing of multiple ethnic blood lines, Hispanic is more akin to Asian than to a nationality like Mexican. Being Hispanic doesn't excuse racism towards Mexicans any more than being Asian would excuse a Chinese person's racist statements about Japanese people. Hell, even being Mexican doesn't really excuse racist statements against Mexicans.

 

Comedy and satire like Chris Rock is distinctly different from an American of Hispanic dissent making broad condemnations of Mexicans.

 

edit: Charles Mann's 1493 has an interesting section that examines how obsessed with categorizing all the different ethnic breeding possibilities.

edit2: the wiki on indigenous peoples of Mexico. Yes, this is a pedantic quibble.

Edited May 3, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

Y2hh,

 

The problem with your argument is that Zimmerman didnt say "Hispanics", he said "Mexicans" a group he would not identify himself with. Its like arguing that Nazi's can say bad things about German Jews because the Jews were Germans so its "cool". The way its "ok" by your standards is if the person identifies himself with the group they are making fun of.

 

IE Jerry Seinfeld can make fun of Jews, but he cant make fun of Dentists because he is a Jew but not a Dentist.

 

I would agree that if Zimmerman had said "hispanics" he likely would be included in that group. But he said "Mexicans" and he is "Peruvian", which are not even close. They dont even come from the same original culture as Peru was Incan and Mexico was Aztec. So while they do share a similar "Spain conquered us story" its like calling some one from Italy the same as someone from France, because at one time Rome controlled both.

 

So I entirely agree that Zimmerman could consider himself Hispanic, it just is irrelevant as he was specifically knocking Mexicans, which is a subset of Hispanic that he is not a part of.

 

I'm not defending Zimmerman with this, I wasn't even speaking of Zimmerman. I was merely pointing out that this "practice" is often accepted by society.

 

I also don't agree with it.

[Y2HH]

Hispanic refers to an ethnic background that is not shared by indigenous people in majority-Hispanic countries. Given its wide-spread nature and how it is the result of centuries-long mixing of multiple ethnic blood lines, Hispanic is more akin to Asian than to a nationality like Mexican. Being Hispanic doesn't excuse racism towards Mexicans any more than being Asian would excuse a Chinese person's racist statements about Japanese people. Hell, even being Mexican doesn't really excuse racist statements against Mexicans.

 

Comedy and satire like Chris Rock is distinctly different from an American of Hispanic dissent making broad condemnations of Mexicans.

 

edit: Charles Mann's 1493 has an interesting section that examines how obsessed with categorizing all the different ethnic breeding possibilities.

edit2: the wiki on indigenous peoples of Mexico. Yes, this is a pedantic quibble.

 

Here is the problem, and it was in edited into my post:

 

* The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".

 

* The U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race."

 

* This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses. In addition, both the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Conference include representatives of both Spanish and Portuguese descent.

 

The U.S. government pretty much agrees with me that the definition of "Hispanic" isn't what it once was and it's now a very general term...much like you pointed out with the word Asian.

 

Edit: And we agree, it doesn't excuse racism toward others, at least, not in my opinion. But society, in general, tends to let people get away with it.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

I personally dont care either way at all.

 

I dislike everyone, therefore Im an equal opportunity jerk as opposed to a racist. That seems simple enough to me.

[Y2HH]

I personally dont care either way at all.

 

I dislike everyone, therefore Im an equal opportunity jerk as opposed to a racist. That seems simple enough to me.

 

You're not an equal opportunity jerk, you're an equal opportunity anti-dumb/stupid/ignorant person, quite like myself. I don't care what color you are, where you're from, etc...I just care that you aren't a brain dead twit that says things that make me shake my head and ask myself, "why bother?"

 

I'd love to say I don't care what religion a person is...but I often do as most either tend to take their "religious beliefs" a la carte, or they take the written books quite literally, which to me is just stupid...thus my judgement cast upon them is that they're stupid because of their religion.

[StrangeSox]

Here is the problem, and it was in edited into my post:

 

* The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".

 

* The U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race."

 

* This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses. In addition, both the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Conference include representatives of both Spanish and Portuguese descent.

 

The U.S. government pretty much agrees with me that the definition of "Hispanic" isn't what it once was and it's now a very general term...much like you pointed out with the word Asian.

 

Edit: And we agree, it doesn't excuse racism toward others, at least, not in my opinion. But society, in general, tends to let people get away with it.

 

 

Well indigenous non-Hispanics are pretty small and impoverished minorities, so it's not surprising that they get lumped into broad categories. Technically it's not correct.

[BigSqwert]

What kind of laws do they have in Florida? What a f***ed up state. This lady gets 20 years for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband.

 

She should have just killed him and said she was standing her ground.

Edited May 11, 2012 by BigSqwert

[Jenksismyhero]

What kind of laws do they have in Florida? What a f***ed up state. This lady gets 20 years for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband.

 

She should have just killed him and said she was standing her ground.

 

Seems excessive but she's shooting towards a room with her two kids in it, and she went back into the house with the gun (intending to do something with it).

Edited May 11, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

I read about that story a few weeks ago.

 

My guess is that there are mitigating circumstances, and its not really relevant to this case.

[BigSqwert]

Seems excessive but she's shooting towards a room with her two kids in it, and she went back into the house with the gun (intending to do something with it).

20 years for not even harming anyone? I'm pretty sure I've seen people get that much time for actually killing someone.

[Soxbadger]

The Florida law is extremely strict on gun use.

 

Its kind of hilarious in that way (I spoke about the 10/20/Life program earlier.)

[Balta1701]

Can't tell what it shows, but one of the pieces of evidence the Prosecution handed over to the defense yesterday is security camera video from the clubhouse in the gated community. That would only be relevant if it showed some portion of the chase/interaction between the 2.

[iamshack]

Can't tell what it shows, but one of the pieces of evidence the Prosecution handed over to the defense yesterday is security camera video from the clubhouse in the gated community. That would only be relevant if it showed some portion of the chase/interaction between the 2.

Nah, that could be anything, really...it could just be video of Martin walking in the community by himself, to be honest.

[Balta1701]

Nah, that could be anything, really...it could just be video of Martin walking in the community by himself, to be honest.

Well, it's only really relevant if it helps establish the timeline.