[OPP]

robmik43 robmik43:

Apollo..you're wasting your time with anti-American
idiots like OPP, Streaker and tritium.

As world turns into a violent hate-fest, they still
will have only scorn and contempt for the one people
on earth that values freedom enough to stand up for it.

What a load of goatboy jizzom. If they were so fucking freedom loving they'd scrap the partriot act all together and get rid of the "free speech zones". How fucking laughable is that.

As for Apollo, he's an idiot. Plain and simple.

[OPP]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Im surprised you have never picked up on this before Apollo, every so often Streaker will call a conservative member on the forum a racist, bigot or ask if they are homosexual. I think it is his firm belief that the farther right you are the less tolerant you become; sadly some on this forum support his hypothesis. Luckily a few people on the forum who are left wing are just as bigoted at those on the right, so Streaker's theory is not correct.

There will always be exceptions to the rule.

[Pseudonym]

tritium tritium:

Racism against Homosexuals (Gay bashing, anti-marriage laws)

Is "gay" a race now? I didn't get the memo.

[Pseudonym]

tritium tritium:

Apollo Apollo:

Great "opinion" piece tritium.

How does this prove your point that America is racist?

What the hell is with you man?

I lived there for 16 years, from coast to coast.. the fucking place is racist. Period.

However, at least in the USA they are in-your-face racist, in Canada they are biggots... behind you back racist.

I've been there 21 years, so my anecdotal evidence trumps yours. Not racist!

[Zipperfish]

Well, it was the liberals that drove the civil rights movement of the 60s and the conservatives that opposed it.

However, I'd say that it's probably the distance from the centre that is a bigger indicator of racism, sexism and all those other nasty -isms, as opposed to what side of the centre you're on. It's the far right and the far left--the idealogues with extreme views--that are more dangerous

[Pseudonym]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Apollo Apollo:

If the left can claim that the right is racist, then it should be fair game to call the left a bunch of freeloading welfare cases.

Quite a few right wingers do....

Name-calling is, after all, the most effective debate technique available.

[Pseudonym]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, it was the liberals that drove the civil rights movement of the 60s and the conservatives that opposed it.

However, I'd say that it's probably the distance from the centre that is a bigger indicator of racism, sexism and all those other nasty -isms, as opposed to what side of the centre you're on. It's the far right and the far left--the idealogues with extreme views--that are more dangerous

I wonder why this is? I, myself, hold rather "extreme" views on some points, yet am fairly sure I am not racist (feel free to correct me if this is not the case ). I believe it is because bigots like to hide themselves in extreme ideologies rather than the ideologies creating racism in and of themselves. However, some belief systems themselves were crafted in racism. It's actually fairly interesting if people stop calling one another idiots when we consider this.

[Zipperfish]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

I wonder why this is? I, myself, hold rather "extreme" views on some points, yet am fairly sure I am not racist (feel free to correct me if this is not the case ). I believe it is because bigots like to hide themselves in extreme ideologies rather than the ideologies creating racism in and of themselves. However, some belief systems themselves were crafted in racism. It's actually fairly interesting if people stop calling one another idiots when we consider this.

Why would extremists be more racist? I think it's because both science and common sense experience indicate that there's not a whole lot of difference between individuals with different melanin content in their skin--differences between individuals of the same race are of much greater magnitude than differences between groups of different races. Idealogues--extremists--are very proficient at rejecting common sense and scientific evidence if it doesn't agree wiht their viewpoint, which is why is why extremists would have more of a tendecy to be racist.

But people usually mix racism with culturalism. Being anti-Muslim isn't racist--at least no necessarily so. Islam is a religion, a culture--not a race. You can be black and Christian, or white and Muslim. So being anti-Muslim is actually "culturalist" as opposed to racist.

Social conservatvies are clearly more "culturalist" (since, by definition, social conservatives are seeking to "conserve" their culture).

However, the question I've been pondering for some time now is: Is it wrong to be culturalist? I'm not convinced that that is the case. I think "culturalism"--actively discriminating against certain cultures--can be good.

[OPP]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

I wonder why this is? I, myself, hold rather "extreme" views on some points, yet am fairly sure I am not racist (feel free to correct me if this is not the case ). I believe it is because bigots like to hide themselves in extreme ideologies rather than the ideologies creating racism in and of themselves. However, some belief systems themselves were crafted in racism. It's actually fairly interesting if people stop calling one another idiots when we consider this.

Why would extremists be more racist? I think it's because both science and common sense experience indicate that there's not a whole lot of difference between individuals with different melanin content in their skin--differences between individuals of the same race are of much greater magnitude than differences between groups of different races. Idealogues--extremists--are very proficient at rejecting common sense and scientific evidence if it doesn't agree wiht their viewpoint, which is why is why extremists would have more of a tendecy to be racist.

But people usually mix racism with culturalism. Being anti-Muslim isn't racist--at least no necessarily so. Islam is a religion, a culture--not a race. You can be black and Christian, or white and Muslim. So being anti-Muslim is actually "culturalist" as opposed to racist.

Social conservatvies are clearly more "culturalist" (since, by definition, social conservatives are seeking to "conserve" their culture).

However, the question I've been pondering for some time now is: Is it wrong to be culturalist? I'm not convinced that that is the case. I think "culturalism"--actively discriminating against certain cultures--can be good.

Religion is to some extent culture becaus christian and muslim values have become law in most countries in the world but most of these values are shared by religious and atheist people alike. So I wouldn't call religion culture.

Btw, here in Sweden, atleast, and I would be surprised if it was any different in Canada or any other part of the world, the extreme left groups/organizations are at it's core anti racist. Many of them exist for this sole purpose.
Fascism is the direct opposite of socialism so I don't see how you could possibly be a left wing racist???

[Tokimini]

Castro's views on the US, like Steaker's, OPP's, Mr Canada's, etc., can hardly be called unbiased. I hope they're not too disappointed when their prediction fails to materialize.

Colin Powell, black, former top commander of all US military forces, former Sec. of State - still alive

Condolezza Rice, black, current Sec of State - still alive but we're hoping she gets really sick

Clarence Thomas, black, Supreme Court Justice - still alive

David Patterson, black, New York governor - still alive

These are just a few I thought of off the top of my head. I wonder how many visible minorities in Canada, Sweden, Cuba or any other country have attained such powerful positions?

[tritium]

Tokimini Tokimini:

Castro's views on the US, like Steaker's, OPP's, Mr Canada's, etc., can hardly be called unbiased. I hope they're not too disappointed when their prediction fails to materialize.

Colin Powell, black, former top commander of all US military forces, former Sec. of State - still alive

Condolezza Rice, black, current Sec of State - still alive but we're hoping she gets really sick

Clarence Thomas, black, Supreme Court Justice - still alive

David Patterson, black, New York governor - still alive

These are just a few I thought of off the top of my head. I wonder how many visible minorities in Canada, Sweden, Cuba or any other country have attained such powerful positions?

Yeah, but Tokimini they are part of the Republican Party.

President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy both Democrats. Maybe it will not be about color, but more about policy.

In short, Obama wants to pull out of Iraq, which lost of big military contracts will fail. Billion dollar contracts.

Kennedy was planning to pull out of Vietnam, shortly after he was assassinated. Senator Robert F. Kennedy had the same desire.

So will Obama be assassinated because he is black or maybe because of his anti-war policies?

[OPP]

Tokimini Tokimini:

Castro's views on the US, like Steaker's, OPP's, Mr Canada's, etc., can hardly be called unbiased. I hope they're not too disappointed when their prediction fails to materialize.

Colin Powell, black, former top commander of all US military forces, former Sec. of State - still alive

Condolezza Rice, black, current Sec of State - still alive but we're hoping she gets really sick

Clarence Thomas, black, Supreme Court Justice - still alive

David Patterson, black, New York governor - still alive

These are just a few I thought of off the top of my head. I wonder how many visible minorities in Canada, Sweden, Cuba or any other country have attained such powerful positions?

First off, I don't support Castros statement. If anyone had bothered to read what I wrote in the first place instead of just looking at who wrote it, then there wouldn't be a debate.

As I've previosly pointed out, Obama is hardly assassination material.

[OPP]

tritium tritium:

Tokimini Tokimini:

Castro's views on the US, like Steaker's, OPP's, Mr Canada's, etc., can hardly be called unbiased. I hope they're not too disappointed when their prediction fails to materialize.

Colin Powell, black, former top commander of all US military forces, former Sec. of State - still alive

Condolezza Rice, black, current Sec of State - still alive but we're hoping she gets really sick

Clarence Thomas, black, Supreme Court Justice - still alive

David Patterson, black, New York governor - still alive

These are just a few I thought of off the top of my head. I wonder how many visible minorities in Canada, Sweden, Cuba or any other country have attained such powerful positions?

Yeah, but Tokimini they are part of the Republican Party.

President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy both Democrats. Maybe it will not be about color, but more about policy.

In short, Obama wants to pull out of Iraq, which lost of big military contracts will fail. Billion dollar contracts.

Kennedy was planning to pull out of Vietnam, shortly after he was assassinated. Senator Robert F. Kennedy had the same desire.

So will Obama be assassinated because he is black or maybe because of his anti-war policies?

Obama is not anti-war. He may have held speeches to that effect but I can assure you that american troops will still be stationed in Iraq when his term is up.

[llama66]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Who's Castro?
He's a sad bookmark in history that should be remembered only as another sad warning against socialism.

funny, he's outlasted every president since Eisenhower (despite 900+ assassination attempts), He's given Cuba the best health system in Latin America, He has done so much for Cuba, Remember under Batista, Cuba was run by Corporations, Castro returned Cuba to her people. I think Castro will be more remembered for saying "No" to the systemic rape of his nation and for standing up to a Nation a hundred time more powerful and getting them to back down. Castro is not a sad bookmark nor is he a warning against socialism.

[Pseudonym]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

I wonder why this is? I, myself, hold rather "extreme" views on some points, yet am fairly sure I am not racist (feel free to correct me if this is not the case ). I believe it is because bigots like to hide themselves in extreme ideologies rather than the ideologies creating racism in and of themselves. However, some belief systems themselves were crafted in racism. It's actually fairly interesting if people stop calling one another idiots when we consider this.

Why would extremists be more racist? I think it's because both science and common sense experience indicate that there's not a whole lot of difference between individuals with different melanin content in their skin--differences between individuals of the same race are of much greater magnitude than differences between groups of different races. Idealogues--extremists--are very proficient at rejecting common sense and scientific evidence if it doesn't agree with their viewpoint, which is why is why extremists would have more of a tendecy to be racist.

But people usually mix racism with culturalism. Being anti-Muslim isn't racist--at least no necessarily so. Islam is a religion, a culture--not a race. You can be black and Christian, or white and Muslim. So being anti-Muslim is actually "culturalist" as opposed to racist.

Social conservatvies are clearly more "culturalist" (since, by definition, social conservatives are seeking to "conserve" their culture).

However, the question I've been pondering for some time now is: Is it wrong to be culturalist? I'm not convinced that that is the case. I think "culturalism"--actively discriminating against certain cultures--can be good.

I don't usually try to get too deep in debates, but this is interesting. Let's see where it leads.

Perhaps this would be a good time to discuss "discrimination". Discrimination, in its original, truest sense, indicates the ability to tell the difference between two things. I actually view discrimination itself as a good thing. You need to be able to tell the difference between two givens to be able to function, period. "Discrimination is the knife of reason" as one of my friends once said, and it is true.

Now all that setup is a roundabout way of me coming to this point: whether or not the discrimination ends up being a good thing keys on what factors you base it upon. Racism is discrimination based on race, whereas you have defined culturalism as discrimination based on culture. Please correct me here if I am defining my terms poorly or incorrectly.

What I find irritating about accusations of racism and the like is they fail to account for factors apart from race that come into statements. For example, if I were to say that blacks tend to fail more often in school, I will get hit with the racist label before I can blink, when all I am trying to do is declare a fact that I have gleaned from a hypothetical study (we are assuming such a thing exists) on such and such a thing. If I were given a group of a variety of races, accurately represented by said study, then I would have to state that the blacks would be more likely to have failed compared to the other races, based upon this hypothetical study. To do otherwise would be intellectually dishonest (or polite, I get the two confused).

Now, according to my definition, this would appear to be racism, when it is not, because what I am actually doing is discriminating based upon facts that I have heard from a hypothetical accurate study, not race. It would certainly behoove me to investigate the accuracy of the study, the factors observed, socioeconomic status and other such sociology buzzwords. In all this, it is important to note that correlation does not imply causation.

From all this, I am going to present this conclusion: That discrimination based on correlative factors, as long as they are recognized as such, and one is aware of the basis/evidence presented of such correlation, is not wrong, and, in fact, is quite rational.

I'm not sure how well I expressed that. Any other thoughts?

EDIT: Spelling.