So you would equate ethnic/political slurs with criticism of a political figure then?
In that regard referring to african-Americans as F-in’ N-word-s would be the same as calling Jean Cretien (former PM of Canada) a dishonest mercenary?there is a big difference between “dishonest mercenary”, and “his idiotship” or “that dumbass”. theres also a big difference between “dishonest mercenary” and “nigger”
and actually, ive got a problem with the term “african american”. what kind of bs is that? do we call all white people in this country “european americans”? no. not all black people are from africa (meaning, most werent born there, nor were there parents, etc., from a very long time ago). isnt it insulting to label them this way? isnt that basically saying “well, hes black, so clearly hes from africa”. when black people are asked where they from, and say “georgia” for example, then the questioner gets disappointed, because he meant where in africa, the black person gets upset (in my experience) so how is it any different to say “african american”? what about black people in europe? are they “african europeans?”
same sh*t, different day
Reminds me of that nice white boy who was accept to college because he listed himself as an African American. When they tried to expell him he sued, for literally, he was born in Africa and held citizenship in both Africa and North America thus he was truely an African American!
And yes, I agree with you, Janus. We should not be differentiating ourselves based on our genetic code. Women are not Female-Americans. Whites are not French-Americans. Christians are not Christian-Americans. We are just Americans.
Personally, I feel it’s a way for the government to keep the populace divided and warring amoungst each other to maintain power and create an establishment of jealousy and fear amoung the people. But then, I was born into a family and raised by a family that truely believes that the only enemy of freedom is government and that the only good government is a small government run by people directly involved in the situation.
Ironically, neighborhood associations is the closest thing I can find to a good government. They are run by residents. They are small. They are relatively powerless to do anything but mediate disputes between neighbors. And, they are not normally over bloated in social beauracracy. (And last time I checked, they didn’t ask you if you were African American or Caucasion (like all whites hail from teh caucasus or something) or Asian or whatnot.)
So you would equate ethnic/political slurs with criticism of a political figure then?
In that regard referring to african-Americans as F-in’ N-word-s would be the same as calling Jean Cretien (former PM of Canada) a dishonest mercenary?there is a big difference between “dishonest mercenary”, and “his idiotship” or “that dumbass”. theres also a big difference between “dishonest mercenary” and “nigger”
in my mind Cretian was a terrible person - manipulative and hubristic. This is probably worse than being merely stupid. Having said that, i think that Bush is quite manipulative in his own stupid way.
But back to the point - putting down a president is different than putting down an entire group of people, referring to them as demons, useless, or suggesting that it would be just as well for them to be wiped off the face of the earth.
and actually, ive got a problem with the term “african american”. what kind of bs is that? do we call all white people in this country “european americans”? no. not all black people are from africa (meaning, most werent born there, nor were there parents, etc., from a very long time ago). isnt it insulting to label them this way? isnt that basically saying “well, hes black, so clearly hes from africa”. when black people are asked where they from, and say “georgia” for example, then the questioner gets disappointed, because he meant where in africa, the black person gets upset (in my experience) so how is it any different to say “african american”? what about black people in europe? are they “african europeans?”
well,
granted i do not refer to whities as european americans as they (still) appear to be the majority.
Anyway, African-American or African-Canadian seems currently to be the least offensive. I suppose I am wrong given that you are evidently offended by this. ahhh well. I guess someone will always be offended - even with the most deliberate attempts to be polite.
The thing is, it is simply an identifier. I do not honestly consider that all people who are evidently of African descent are recently from Africa. I consider that most of them are second, third, etc. generation Canadian, or from the Caribbean or America. At the same time, it is not that much more insulting than referring to a Japanese-Canadian as being Japanese-Canadian, is it?
well, im not offended by it, i just think its ludicrous. as to qualifiers: who needs them? first, dont they merely perpetuate the cycle of “us” vs. “them”, they point out the differences, which is what were supposed to avoid doing. and they are plain wrong. plus, there is a big difference between japanese american and african american. one is a country, the other a continent. and since you and falk are so big on this accuracy in labels (USan) i would think this would carry over
National pride is not morally wrong. Racial bias is wrong because it’s based on something out of control of the person being biased against.
You also have no control over the place you are born in. So, by your definition, it is ok to slam on citizens of a country …. apart from all that are under 18 and thus were not yet able to chose their own nationality
(It is out of control for them, you should know that) ?
For instance, if I were to decide to fire all my Canadian employees (I don’t have any, but this is just a hypothetical) and not hire anymore, there is no country - that I know of - that would have a law forbidding this.
I am 98% sure that that would be illegal in Germany.
What about making sexist jokes? There are ways to “change” your own sex, so would it be “morally” ok for you to make sexist jokes?
Jokes on blondes …. hair colour is easy to change, so they are ok?
well, im not offended by it, i just think its ludicrous. as to qualifiers: who needs them?
“where’s the bbq?”
“oh - it’s a Frank’s house”
“who’s Frank?”
"new guy in Accounting - you know, the tall guy with the really intense suntan . . . "
first, dont they merely perpetuate the cycle of “us” vs. “them”, they point out the differences, which is what were supposed to avoid doing.
naaaa
my black friends know they’re black.
And besides - there ARE differences. Not just color, but often cultural background, ways of relating and being related to the rest of their community. Often this does not hold true in Canada, but often it is true as well.
and they are plain wrong. plus, there is a big difference between japanese american and african american. one is a country, the other a continent. and since you and falk are so big on this accuracy in labels (USan) i would think this would carry over
well,
fair enough. At the same time, i am not always correct when i describe a “black guy” as Rwandan/Zimbabwe-an/South African/Angolan.
I just noticed when typing this that people from all of these nations speak different languages. I’m sure that the Rwandan would prefer not to be referred to as Belgian/French, however, as the Angolan - Portuguese, the South African “Africaans” etc.
Funny thing - my next door neighbour is from South Africa. The other night he invited me to guess his racial background. THAT was a toughie.
@F_alk:
National pride is not morally wrong. Racial bias is wrong because it’s based on something out of control of the person being biased against.
You also have no control over the place you are born in. So, by your definition, it is ok to slam on citizens of a country …. apart from all that are under 18 and thus were not yet able to chose their own nationality
(It is out of control for them, you should know that) ?
Not really, I slam the members of that country. If you choose to change membership or fix your country then you are no longer slammed. You see, they have the ability to change. A person with or without color does not have the ability to change himself on the genetic level.
@F_alk:
For instance, if I were to decide to fire all my Canadian employees (I don’t have any, but this is just a hypothetical) and not hire anymore, there is no country - that I know of - that would have a law forbidding this.
I am 98% sure that that would be illegal in Germany.
What about making sexist jokes? There are ways to “change” your own sex, so would it be “morally” ok for you to make sexist jokes?
Jokes on blondes …. hair colour is easy to change, so they are ok?
I’m not 100% on my German law. It’s probably illegal to do it if you are a German company, but I don’t know if their law would apply to foreign companies such as British, Canadian or Mexican companies that do business in Germany. It might.
And no, it wouldnt be wrong to slam women or men. Actually, I think it’s a national past time in this country. Yes, because you can conceal or alter your sex. But also because if one biggotted man refuses to hire a woman, that woman can take her impeccable skills and open a new firm or join another firm to drive that man out of business. How do you think new companies start?
@F_alk:
apart from all that are under 18 and thus were not yet able to chose their own nationality
…You see, they have the ability to change.
What about people who are too young to be able to change ?
A person with or without color does not have the ability to change himself on the genetic level.
Cool. Racist jokes will become ok once our genetic engineering becomes better ?
@F_alk:
@F_alk:
apart from all that are under 18 and thus were not yet able to chose their own nationality
…You see, they have the ability to change.
What about people who are too young to be able to change ?
A person with or without color does not have the ability to change himself on the genetic level.
Cool. Racist jokes will become ok once our genetic engineering becomes better ?
Perhaps they will, once culture adapts to the situation. Personally, I think too much is made of race. The only race I personally see is the Human Race or Species. I don’t see black, white, yellow or red. Which is probably why I am rather irritated when governments force divisions in the population by establishing definitions for race.
As for children being forbidden to change genders, keep in mind children are wards of their parents, ie they are property of their parents in a sense. This is because children do not yet have the wisdom or knowledge to make decisions such as this on their own. However, at the age of ascention (ie 18 in hte United States) they do have the power to spend their own money and time and get the operation if they wish. Until that time, they can dress in drag or dress as a man, which ever fits the situation, to conceal their genetic identity and display their inner-true identity.
And btw, I have no problem with a sex changed man marrying a man, in case you are wondering.
I thought that i could rarely be surprised these days - just given the amount of things that i have seen and heard . . . .
Still, it amazes me that not only are supposedly literate/educated people racist/sexist/overly nationalist, but they reason that there is nothing wrong with this.
@F_alk:
@F_alk:
apart from all that are under 18 and thus were not yet able to chose their own nationality
…You see, they have the ability to change.
What about people who are too young to be able to change ?
As for children being forbidden to change genders…
I sincerely hope that the boldfaced text makes clear why i am … irritated. And i would like to be able to follow your thoughts that shift the topic so … interestingly.
But back to what i wanted to know from you in the first place:
Is it ok to slam all people of a nation, or only those that are older than 18 (because the younger ones might want to be another nationalitiy , but can’t do anything) ??
@F_alk:
@F_alk:
@F_alk:
apart from all that are under 18 and thus were not yet able to chose their own nationality
…You see, they have the ability to change.
What about people who are too young to be able to change ?
As for children being forbidden to change genders…
I sincerely hope that the boldfaced text makes clear why i am … irritated. And i would like to be able to follow your thoughts that shift the topic so … interestingly.
But back to what i wanted to know from you in the first place:
Is it ok to slam all people of a nation, or only those that are older than 18 (because the younger ones might want to be another nationalitiy , but can’t do anything) ??
It’s okay to slam a nation, those who choose to be members of that nation choose so on their own volition. Parents are responsible for their children’s well being, if they wish not to have their children associated with a nation that is being slammed, then they should revolt, change citizenship or work within the laws to change the nation in such a way it is not slammed anymore.
For instance, they could work to reduce the haughty, holier than thou attitude many experience from the French. They could train elite fighting units to dissuade slams about being a military non-entity. They could even serve Ketchup and tap water in their restaraunts if they wanted too!
After all, there are not many who slam French Cuisine or French Romantics. But there are many who slam their warriors and their over all national attitude. (Children are mostly exempt from this because they have no ability to be real soldiers yet and they usually do not have an attitude developed yet.)
Russia is usually slammed for being uneducated, morally and ethically devoid of skills and religiously infantile. However, the people there are striving to change this world opinion and have been making very good strides in that regard.
Likewise, Americans were considered yankee doodles until well into World War II when they changed their world image to that of strong military men with developped technologies and educated scientists.
Russia is usually slammed for being uneducated, morally and ethically devoid of skills and religiously infantile. However, the people there are striving to change this world opinion and have been making very good strides in that regard.
am i the only one who has never heard this?
Likewise, Americans were considered yankee doodles until well into World War II when they changed their world image to that of strong military men with developped technologies and educated scientists.
wtf is a yankee doodle?
@F_alk:
apart from all that are under 18 and thus were not yet able to chose their own nationality
It’s okay to slam a nation, those who choose to be members of that nation choose so on their own volition.
Is my question obvious now?
…
or should i make a joke where i compare immigrants to the US with people who volunteer in a partial lobotomy and do not find a difference? (You know that the world has the image of the USan being uneducated and/or stupid … thus an immigration to the US etc. i hope you do get the joke, and of course you can’t feel insulted, as it is ok to slam nationalities.)
For instance, they could work to reduce the haughty, holier than thou attitude many experience from the French. They could train elite fighting units to dissuade slams about being a military non-entity. They could even serve Ketchup and tap water in their restaraunts if they wanted too!
Or as they already do all of this, they could just laugh at those “stupid Americains”.
But there are many who slam … their over all national attitude.
I wonder how any “average USamerican” can even dare to attack this attitude. Have a look at this board and people like you, Marine, Zooey etc. etc. … and then say again that their national attitude is worse than yours.
(Children are mostly exempt from this because they have no ability to be real soldiers yet and they usually do not have an attitude developed yet.)
What an irritating statement …
why are they not excempt because they were not able to choose yet?
Likewise, Americans (are) considered … educated scientists.
Unfortunately the relative amount of scientists is quite negligible in the USA.
F_alk, you failed to incorporate that statement where I said after World War II. Did I say present day?
And yes, Children are mostly exempted because they have no power to change even if they wanted too.
I see you keep highlighting that phrase and I keep answering it. You just don’t like my answer.
F_alk, you failed to incorporate that statement where I said after World War II. Did I say present day?
Did World War II start again ?
And yes, Children are mostly exempted because they have no power to change even if they wanted too.
I see you keep highlighting that phrase and I keep answering it. You just don’t like my answer.
Stop irritating me, please. This is the first time you answer it.
Russia is usually slammed for being uneducated, morally and ethically devoid of skills and religiously infantile. However, the people there are striving to change this world opinion and have been making very good strides in that regard.
am i the only one who has never heard this?
Likewise, Americans were considered yankee doodles until well into World War II when they changed their world image to that of strong military men with developped technologies and educated scientists.
wtf is a yankee doodle?
he’s the guy that went to town
riding on a pony
he stuck a feather in his cap and
called it macaroni
geee . . . everyone knows THAT Janus :roll:
:P
@cystic:
Russia is usually slammed for being uneducated, morally and ethically devoid of skills and religiously infantile. However, the people there are striving to change this world opinion and have been making very good strides in that regard.
am i the only one who has never heard this?
Likewise, Americans were considered yankee doodles until well into World War II when they changed their world image to that of strong military men with developped technologies and educated scientists.
wtf is a yankee doodle?
he’s the guy that went to town
riding on a pony
he stuck a feather in his cap and
called it macaronigeee . . . everyone knows THAT Janus :roll:
:P
Yup. It was an American slander created by the British that backfired when Americans took it as a slogan. Later they slandered us again by calling us Dough Boys which we again took as a compliment, further confounding our brethern.
In this way, cultures can over come the hostility of others. They can also change their culture if they wish. That’s kinda the point I’ve been trying to make. Just because you were barbarians back 200 years before Christ doesn’t mean you are still barbarians! Cultures can adapt and evolve, so can people. But if you continue to act in the manner which is getting you critiscized then you deserve the critiscism you receive.
@F_alk:
@El:
… because the French don’t know how to win a real war,
I would like to have a statement of the moderators in how far jokes on nationalities are not considered personal attacks.
Ooops! Good call, F_alk.
$me8 7.m !! Pardon my Arabic.
It did get a couple of posters off this off-topic string.
@Jennifer:
@El:
… and Versailles, IN would be pronounced properly…
According to the Kentuckians of the area, they do pronounce it properly. It’s a he said, she said situation, is it not?
I posted Versailles, IN(Indiana).
However, Kentuckians do proniunce it correctly. Though on other topics I would be hesitant to quote Kentuckians(other than John Wayne.) The most recent education surveys put them just above #51)Mississippi and #50)Washington, D.C. in overall US Education.
Re : Russia…
I recently read online(cannot recall where, though I recall being amazed at the source) that Russia was the most pro-christian nation according to a worldwide survey!!
@F_alk:
There’s a difference between a racial slur and slamming the inhabitants of a foreign nation. Foreigners can move to another nation and change citizenship. Members of a specific race cannot change race, even if they move and change their name.
I disagree with this reasoning to try to justify what i see as nationalism.
…But saying something like “The French have not won a war since WWI” is perfectly legit since they technically lost WWII, lost Vietnam, and lost elsewhere when they were supposed to be a major player. It’s like saying the German’s elected a racist sshle to lead their country! It’s true, as they did elect Adolf Hitler in the 30’s and 40’s.
You really need to check your history.
Hitler never was elected into office.
You’re splitting hairs. It was not a coup. He came to power legaly, and you know that. It is a very weak argument you have if you bring it to this level. Like saying that Hitler wasn’t even German, he was Austrian. Ya, you’re right. But what difference does it make? Argue the point, don’t nit pick over irrelavent facts.
Likewise, Americans were considered yankee doodles until well into World War II when they changed their world image to that of strong military men with developped technologies and educated scientists.
Good statement Jen… Don’t forget to the rest of the world we have a cowboy in the white house.
Not a fair assumption of Bush at all. Honestly I think the man was too privlaged in his youth, and too old now (and still privlaged), to be a cowboy. But if he wants to stop that stereotype than stop vacationing at a ranch!
