34 replies to this topic

[Genesis Writer]

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MaiAndy]

Time for that change! Starting January.

[PinKkFloyDd]

Ron Paul 2012. Here's hoping Obama doesn't screw !@#$ up THAT much.

[MaiAndy]

Very pessimistic way to view a person that just became president.

[stephanie]

PinKkFloyDd, on Nov 4 2008, 09:28 PM, said:

Ron Paul 2012. Here's hoping Obama doesn't screw !@#$ up THAT much.

Cheer up, even if you don't like Obama the historical significance of this victory has to be celebrated.

[PinKkFloyDd]

Yeah, I'm usually pessimistic about presidents who have crappy policies.

[PinKkFloyDd]

stephanie, on Nov 4 2008, 11:31 PM, said:

Cheer up, even if you don't like Obama the historical significance of this victory has to be celebrated.

That actually enrages me even more. Who cares if a candidate is black, white, whatever? Having people celebrate because he is the first black President just goes to show that race still plays a role in people's minds. Reverse racism is just as bad as racism.

[Josh]

PinKkFloyDd, on Nov 4 2008, 11:38 PM, said:

That actually enrages me even more. Who cares if a candidate is black, white, whatever? Having people celebrate because he is the first black President just goes to show that race still plays a role in people's minds. Reverse racism is just as bad as racism.

You can't say that celebrating a win for a minority on the basis of their minority status is inherently reverse racism. You're implying that the only allowable course of action is to stay completely silent, that any mention of race is just racism from the minority group.

To many voters, seeing a black man win the highest office DOES mean something. Being a minority is part of their lives, something they have to deal with.

As an example, was it racism when the voters in South Africa went to the polls for the first time?

"Reverse racism" is NOT the same thing as celebrating the accomplishments of one's own group. By saying it is, you are severely belittling it.

[PinKkFloyDd]

Then we must agree to disagree. Celebrating a minority's accomplishments is inherently reverse racism. It is propping up a race's accomplishments as if they mean more than other accomplishments. But of course P.C. America does not see it this way. I hate !@#$ like affirmative action and thinking it's important that Obama is black. !@#$ reverse racism.

[PongyN]

PinKkFloyDd, on Nov 5 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

Then we must agree to disagree. Celebrating a minority's accomplishments is inherently reverse racism. It is propping up a race's accomplishments as if they mean more than other accomplishments. But of course P.C. America does not see it this way. I hate !@#$ like affirmative action and thinking it's important that Obama is black. !@#$ reverse racism.

I get the feeling that if it was up to you, we wouldn't celebrate anything for fear of reverse discrimination. I voted for McCain but still applaud Obama for his accomplishment. I do so not because he's black but because he serves as an example of how far hard work and determination can get someone. Obama just shattered the glass ceiling for minorities and you cannot deny that fact.

[Josh]

PinKkFloyDd, on Nov 5 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

Then we must agree to disagree. Celebrating a minority's accomplishments is inherently reverse racism. It is propping up a race's accomplishments as if they mean more than other accomplishments. But of course P.C. America does not see it this way. I hate !@#$ like affirmative action and thinking it's important that Obama is black. !@#$ reverse racism.

I appreciate the "agree to disagree" statement and seeing that you see our difference and realize it's a philosophical one -- many people just ramble and yell and never look for that. But still, I think there's a bit of logic at issue here, and some loose definitions.

If race poses a challenge to a person, and they overcome it, why can't that be celebrated? Why is "race" not just as interchangeable as "disability," "age," etc.

"Reverse racism" is usually reserved to mean pushing minority advancement at the cost of the majority group. This is not the case.

[PinKkFloyDd]

I use reverse racism as a term to describe propping up a select group because of their race as opposed to racism which shuns someone based on race. I can understand stand someone overcoming a challenge if it's related to what they are doing. For example, it is perfectly fine to be proud of a physically handicapped person to succeed in some sort of athletics event, etc. The two are obviously related. But race has NOTHING to do with one's ability to lead, and I do not know why race is being considered. Yes, he's the first African American president, so what? I have a feeling if he fails as a president, people will still say, "Well, at least he was the first African American president!" We are at a point in history where race should not be examined in something such as political races. We need to start focusing on politicians' plans, ideas, and opinions, and not crap like gender, race, religion, etc where it will just distract voters from what really matters.

[PinKkFloyDd]

PongyN, on Nov 5 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

I get the feeling that if it was up to you, we wouldn't celebrate anything for fear of reverse discrimination. I voted for McCain but still applaud Obama for his accomplishment. I do so not because he's black but because he serves as an example of how far hard work and determination can get someone. Obama just shattered the glass ceiling for minorities and you cannot deny that fact.

There was no glass ceiling in this case. Nothing was prohibiting African Americans from running in presidential races. There were glass ceilings in the past where there were actual laws against blacks participating in politics. Jackie Robinson broke through the proverbial glass ceiling because there were actual rules at the time that were separating blacks and whites. Frederick Douglass broke the proverbial glass ceiling because it was against the law to have slaves become educated. Those were true heroes for minorities. Barack Obama just happens to be African American. He did not break through any barriers.

[Noldi]

It's good that someone started caring for the middle class, Obama 08! Also, I noticed that when I was watching McCain's commencement speech, his whooooole audience was Anglo-Saxon, but hwen I was watching Obama's, you had all kinds of people there, and that's what I like about him, that he can unify everybody. GOOD JOB OBAMA!

[PongyN]

PinKkFloyDd, on Nov 5 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

There was no glass ceiling in this case. Nothing was prohibiting African Americans from running in presidential races. There were glass ceilings in the past where there were actual laws against blacks participating in politics. Jackie Robinson broke through the proverbial glass ceiling because there were actual rules at the time that were separating blacks and whites. Frederick Douglass broke the proverbial glass ceiling because it was against the law to have slaves become educated. Those were true heroes for minorities. Barack Obama just happens to be African American. He did not break through any barriers.

I find your unwillingness to acknowledge the significance of what just happened on Nov. 4, astounding. The reality, while harsh and unpleasant, is minorities still face hardships in society. Whether it be outright racism or just a lack of resources, economic or otherwise, it is still happening.

Not only have you misconstrued what "reverse discrimination" means but you have also misunderstood what a "glass ceiling" is. There does not have to be actual laws preventing acquisition for it to be considered a glass ceiling. Case in point, the low number of female CEOs of big corporations. There is absolutely no concrete law preventing them from achieving such a position but the fact of reality is it is rare. Should anyone be awarded a high position just because of his or her race/gender/creed/etc? Absolutely not but it is only fair to acknowledge the accomplishment when a person of a minority does.

[PinKkFloyDd]

Sorry, but minorities do not face "hardships"; the lower class do. It just happens that a good portion of the lower class consists of minorities. You have to be delusional to think that racism still plays an important in the business world. And your example about the low number of female CEOs: well, if a woman becomes a CEO then they should feel happy about themselves. But that doesn't mean everyone should say, "Ah, what a great triumph for women!" No, it was a great triumph for that individual woman. And how can you say I misconstrued what reverse racism is when I'm simply using it as a term to define a concept that I believe to be true. Fine, from now on I'll refer to my version of "reverse racism" as Politically Correct Bull!@#$ so there's no more argument over something as trivial as word choice.

And Nov. 4 was only significant for the fact that liberty will die a little more in the next four years, especially with the Democraps having unchecked power in the federal government. Hooray for big government I suppose.

Ron Paul 2012.

[MaiAndy]

You know the only way we can erase racism is events like this. Even though it may not seem ideal to some people, it works. Now that an African American man has been elected President, there is nothing separating African Americans and Caucasians or any other race. And so on for other events around the world.

Yelling out Ron Paul 2012 is like Josh Howard yelling Obama 08 while the star spangled banner was being performed.

[PinKkFloyDd]

You don't eliminate racism by putting the formerly neglected and abused minority on a higher pedestal than the majority. It's like saying "Oh okay, I punched you, now you punch me" makes it even. Two wrongs don't make a right. The way you stop racism is, GASP, not classify people by race for GOOD or for BAD.

[Awad]

PinKkFloyDd, on Nov 5 2008, 07:07 PM, said:

Sorry, but minorities do not face "hardships"; the lower class do. It just happens that a good portion of the lower class consists of minorities.

He was pretty lower class growing up, too. Or does that not count for anything?

And to say minorities don't face hardships is a total load of bs. If that were the case, then you wouldn't have these right wingers trying to make something of the guy's middle name, or calling him an arab (which for some reason is an insult?).

[Josh]

PinKkFloyDd, on Nov 5 2008, 04:05 PM, said:

I use reverse racism as a term to describe propping up a select group because of their race as opposed to racism which shuns someone based on race.

And you are the only person I know who uses the term that way. Maybe you should have used a different term, or explained what you meant originally. But this is semantics, so I'll stop.

PinKkFloyDd, on Nov 5 2008, 04:05 PM, said:

I can understand stand someone overcoming a challenge if it's related to what they are doing. For example, it is perfectly fine to be proud of a physically handicapped person to succeed in some sort of athletics event, etc. The two are obviously related. But race has NOTHING to do with one's ability to lead, and I do not know why race is being considered.

His race is not related to his next job. The relevance is to his ability to be elected. Not about his ability to lead. When people say "first black president," they're talking about his ELECTION, not his future SERVICE as president.