Damn peace process is to deadly

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2003, 2:11 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/ ... index.html

Post by **Xouqoa** » June 11, 2003, 3:09 pm

Yeah, that 'sincere peace attempt' lasted what, three days?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 11, 2003, 3:22 pm

The longer this bullshit goes on, the worse the Palestinians look. Why should we give these assholes a country?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2003, 3:28 pm

masteen wrote:The longer this bullshit goes on, the worse the Palestinians look. Why should we give these assholes a country?

I say wall it off and winner takes all.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » June 11, 2003, 3:31 pm

masteen wrote:The longer this bullshit goes on, the worse the Palestinians look. Why should we give these assholes a country?

Well that's obvious... we want them to feel good about themselves.

kyoukan wrote:because gay people are discriminated against a lot of the time, so it is nice for them to be able to have days when they can feel good about themselves with people that share their sexual orientation.

it is the same thing with women, and with minorities.

being the middle class white male that you are it is virtually impossible for you to understand that though.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 11, 2003, 3:41 pm

And yesterday 3 Israeli gunships threw 11 missiles into a car in the middle of Gaza Strip, killing some and injuring a bunch more. What did you expect?

I didn't see you posting that.

I don't see you posting this either.

But yeah. It's all the palestinian's fault.

And yes drawing parallels to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and a gay pride party at the DOJ is a brilliant way to not look like a stupid fucking inbred moron Metanis. Keep trying, retard.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 11, 2003, 3:49 pm

Which was a response to palestinian gunmen attacking and killing 5 israeli soldiers.

Hamas doesn't want co-existence. It's a shame too because most Palestinian people would be fine w/ it. The terrorists will continue to purposely ruin each and every effort towards peace because they don't want it. And calling Hamas anything short of terrorists is idiotic.

Post by **Xouqoa** » June 11, 2003, 3:50 pm

It's both their damn faults. Both sides instigate and provoke.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2003, 3:51 pm

Chidoro wrote:Which was a response to palestinian gunmen attacking and killing 5 israeli soldiers.

Hamas doesn't want co-existence. It's a shame too because most Palestinian people would be fine w/ it. The terrorists will continue to purposely ruin each and every effort towards peace because they don't want it. And calling Hamas anything short of terrorists is idiotic.

I guess Kyoukan decided to overlook that little tidbit, but hey I guess we can add Jews to her list of people she is racist towards.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 11, 2003, 3:58 pm

Well Hamas is beyond the point of negotiation; they just want to kill jews. And although I personally think the world would be better off without them I find it difficult to blame Hamas directly after 36 years of Israel illegally occupying Arab land and denying Palestinians self government. People don't blow themselves up because they think jews suck; they do it because there are few other ways they can retaliate.

Nor do I consider Hamas to be any less a terrorist organization than the IDF. Just because you have uniforms and expensive military helicopters doesn't excuse you from killing civilians and calling it collateral damage when you spray crowded streets and full apartment buildings with hellfire missiles.

Neither side is morally correct in this issue, but of course the rightie circle jerkers on this forum will continue to ignore Israeli attacks while crying over the palestinian omg nevar forget terrorist attacks like they are just a bunch of evil palestinians preying on innocent jews for sport.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 11, 2003, 4:01 pm

Cartalas wrote:I guess Kyoukan decided to overlook that little tidbit, but hey I guess we can add Jews to her list of people she is racist towards.

Don't you play the fucking racist card with me you stupid little nazi.

People told me to take you off ignore because you weren't acting like such a cunt anymore. I guess the joke is on me. Oh well, welcome back to being the only fuckhead stupid enough to make my STFU list.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 11, 2003, 4:07 pm

Illegally occupying arab land as a result of arab countries initiating an advance to eradicate Israel.

Should they give it back, absolutely. Can they give it back and provide what limited defense against terrorist threats they currently have, unfortunately, that has been left up to the Palestinian people. They are, either, in the dark and don't know who to out, or, support the attempt to eradicate Israel.

Hamas and the IDF are not the same thing and I know you're just saying it for effect.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2003, 4:13 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Cartalas wrote:I guess Kyoukan decided to overlook that little tidbit, but hey I guess we can add Jews to her list of people she is racist towards.
Don't you play the fucking racist card with me you stupid little nazi.

People told me to take you off ignore because you weren't acting like such a cunt anymore. I guess the joke is on me. Oh well, welcome back to being the only fuckhead stupid enough to make my STFU list.

Ohhh the drama, Dont you get it Kyoukan im just pointing out the same shit you point out to everyone else on this board. You blame all of us White middle class males as racist you make comments like Nazi,inbred and you call us the racist. Yes I made the mistake of having you drag me down to your level by making a racist remark about your boyfriend for that I said I was sorry. Kyoukan stop the hate and look inside and you will see you are the pot calling the kettle black ( No racial overtone here). Put me on STFU I really dont care its a lot more peaceful when you do. Kyoukan did you read your first post in here? I doubt you did! A simple "hey its both isreal and Palastine's Fault", but no you had to stir the pot and pick a side that you clearly knew whould piss some people off.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 11, 2003, 4:34 pm

Either side she picks will obviously piss off the other side, so how could that have been her master plan? You give her wayyy too much credit.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2003, 4:38 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Either side she picks will obviously piss off the other side, so how could that have been her master plan? You give her wayyy too much credit.

Not true she said in her 2nd post that both sides were wrong, So her first post was a bait tactic.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 11, 2003, 4:41 pm

cart none of your posts yet show you have a substantial level of understanding of the situation there.

Hamas != Palestinian government.

IDF tries to kill a Hamas leader but instead wounds 20 civilians, they retaliate. That is a shocker.

Here is the #1 problem with this whole scenario. A huge percentage of the people in Palsestine/Israel are fundamentally irrational people. How can i make such a broad sweeping statement?

it is simple:

a fair number of the people in that square of dirt think that God Himself has told them that the square of dirt is elevated above all other squares of dirt, and also that people of their ethnicity are the chosen people of God. Hence they have a claim through Divine right to that dirt.

Newsflash, people who adhere to 1500, 2000, 3000 year old world views are very difficult to deal with.

ANd there are plenty of both on both sides.

Maybe i'm really cynical, but i dont think we are going to see anything but a big ass escalation of violence there.

The suicide bombing by Hamas and Islamic Jihad is hideous. But the mobilization of heavy military equipment by the Israeli Defense Force against groups of civilians that may contain 1 potential terrorist is equally deplorable.

Both kill and maim civilians randomly.

I was watching Sharon address the Knesset the other day, and there were all these maniac Fundamentalists BLOWING WHISTLES the whole time he was speaking. This is how that government operates? Dissenters just blow whistles like fucking 4 year oldss when somebody is talking.

Really a pinacle of civilization.

The Palestinian government obviously has ties to terrorist groups because tactically they have no choice.

Trusting Sharon (somebody who has personally led a slaughter of women and children while in the army) to not flex the military muscle in Gaza and elsewhere would be a tremendous tactical blunder. A loose association with is a response to not having a military and being threatened by continueing military occupation and attacks.

I hope it works out. I think it wont. If people approach the world from an inherently tribalistic perspective, it will always result in conflict with other ethnicities.

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » June 11, 2003, 4:57 pm

Personally we just need to get the hell out and let the Middle East handle itself. *shrug* No matter which side we "belong" to, we're going to be hated by the other side.

I could care less.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 11, 2003, 5:01 pm

being involved in the Arab/ Israeli peace initiatives is a huge party of the US strategy to develop relationships with governments that sponsor terrorist groups.

If there is a viable Palestinian state along side Israel then there is no way for Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other countries who WE HAVE TO DO BUSINESS WITH to justify supporting terrorist organizations.

It is in the strategic interest of the US to resolve this, the central stability issue in the region, so that organizations that also support anti-American terrorism loose the vast majority of their sponsorship.

It is our perceived biased support of Israel in the past which has generated a lot of ill-will towards our country over the last several decades. If we dont try to fix it, nobody will, and if it doesnt get fixed, groups that are anti-Israeli/anti-Western only increase their power and influence in the region.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2003, 5:58 pm

Voronwë wrote:cart none of your posts yet show you have a substantial level of understanding of the situation there.

Hamas != Palestinian government.

IDF tries to kill a Hamas leader but instead wounds 20 civilians, they retaliate. That is a shocker.

Here is the #1 problem with this whole scenario. A huge percentage of the people in Palsestine/Israel are fundamentally irrational people. How can i make such a broad sweeping statement?

it is simple:

a fair number of the people in that square of dirt think that God Himself has told them that the square of dirt is elevated above all other squares of dirt, and also that people of their ethnicity are the chosen people of God. Hence they have a claim through Divine right to that dirt.

Newsflash, people who adhere to 1500, 2000, 3000 year old world views are very difficult to deal with.

ANd there are plenty of both on both sides.

Maybe i'm really cynical, but i dont think we are going to see anything but a big ass escalation of violence there.

The suicide bombing by Hamas and Islamic Jihad is hideous. But the mobilization of heavy military equipment by the Israeli Defense Force against groups of civilians that may contain 1 potential terrorist is equally deplorable.

Both kill and maim civilians randomly.

I was watching Sharon address the Knesset the other day, and there were all these maniac Fundamentalists BLOWING WHISTLES the whole time he was speaking. This is how that government operates? Dissenters just blow whistles like fucking 4 year oldss when somebody is talking.

Really a pinacle of civilization.

The Palestinian government obviously has ties to terrorist groups because tactically they have no choice.

Trusting Sharon (somebody who has personally led a slaughter of women and children while in the army) to not flex the military muscle in Gaza and elsewhere would be a tremendous tactical blunder. A loose association with is a response to not having a military and being threatened by continueing military occupation and attacks.

I hope it works out. I think it wont. If people approach the world from an inherently tribalistic perspective, it will always result in conflict with other ethnicities.

Trust me V-man I know the situation in the middle east, I just try not to voice my opinion cause I will get the typical BAHHAHAH LOOK AT THE WAR MONGER POST!!!

I for one could care the least bit for israel or the Palestinians Im tired of all there bullshit, I think the US should stop backing Israel and let the two fight it out until 1. They are out of bullets or bombs, or 2. Until they are out of people that want to kill each other.

As far as religious reasons do you or they really believe God finds that little strip of sand more holy then all the rest of the world? I would hope our god is more senseable then that.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 11, 2003, 6:03 pm

oops wrong thread.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2003, 6:06 pm

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » June 11, 2003, 7:05 pm

Personally we just need to get the hell out and let the Middle East handle itself. *shrug* No matter which side we "belong" to, we're going to be hated by the other side.

That or get a neutral country to supervise a ten-mile wide DMZ down the middle and don't aloow any cultural contact for a generation.

How many centuries of this shit does it take to prove that two peoples simply cannot co-exist?

noel · Post by **noel** » June 11, 2003, 7:46 pm

Excellent post, Voro.

For those advocating us abandoning Israel... As nice as that would be, there's the whole problem of them using the tactical nuclear weapons that we sold them looking very bad for the US if Israel started to lose a fight. Israel needs to be yanked back under control.

Both sides are wrong in this, and sadly they hate each other enough that I don't see an end to this bullshit in my lifetime.

PS. Cart, Jewish is not a race, it's a religion, and you saying you understand this issue is like you or anyone calling Kyoukan a racist. In short, both are figaments of your fucking imagination.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » June 11, 2003, 8:15 pm

Man, I can't believe I am doing this ...

Sorry Aranuil, but you are wrong on a couple of points (only a couple)

by the definitions below

He•brew (h br )
n.
1. A member or descendant of a Semitic people claiming descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; an Israelite; a Jew.
2.
a. The Semitic language of the ancient Hebrews.
b. Any of the various later forms of this language, especially the language of the Israelis.
3. Hebrews (used with a sing. verb) Abbr. Heb. See table at Bible.
jewish
\Jew"ish\, a. Of or pertaining to the Jews or Hebrews; characteristic of or resembling the Jews or their customs; Israelitish. -- Jew\"ish*ly, adv. -- Jew\"ish*ness, n.

race1 (r s)
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

Judiasm is a race as well as a religion.

And by the definition below:

rac•ism (r s z m)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

The comments Kyo has made on this board regarding Middle class white male constitute racist remarks. Up until this point, I have stayed out of this, cause I actually agree with Kyo on some of the points. Including the fact that I, as a middle class white male, personally will have no knowledge or a complete understanding of what it is like to be discriminated against. I was not raised in a situation where it occurred. However that is not to say that ALL will have the same conditions that I had. It is that, which is implied in her posts, that lead to the prejudgment as a whole.

*edit* note, I did not call her a racist, only that her remarks were racist. I don't know her from Adam, so I am not qualified to judge her on that respect.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 11, 2003, 8:36 pm

In the strictest sense of the word, 'Jew' could be considered a race, but in the current argument, it would be more appropriate to say Israeli. So yes technically, I'm wrong, but only slightly. The Jews and Hebrew's spoken about as a race date more toward biblical times than the modern day Israeli IMHO. The fact that all (or at least the vast majority) of Israeli's are Jewish makes the point somewhat moot, but I believe it is nonetheless an important distinction.

Personally, I think you and others are reading far too much into Kyoukan's posts if you think she's racist toward the middle-class white male, but to each his own. It's far more likely that she was exagerrating to make a point. Perhaps my sensitivity level is too low, but given that I'm a middle-class white male, and I've never felt she was hateful toward my socio-economic label, perhaps you'd post some of the more obvious examples?

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » June 11, 2003, 11:04 pm

Well Hamas is beyond the point of negotiation; they just want to kill jews. And although I personally think the world would be better off without them I find it difficult to blame Hamas directly after 36 years of Israel illegally occupying Arab land and denying Palestinians self government

Im just tired. Is this meaning you think the world would be better off without Hamas, or Jews?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2003, 11:59 pm

Aranuil wrote:In the strictest sense of the word, 'Jew' could be considered a race, but in the current argument, it would be more appropriate to say Israeli. So yes technically, I'm wrong, but only slightly. The Jews and Hebrew's spoken about as a race date more toward biblical times than the modern day Israeli IMHO. The fact that all (or at least the vast majority) of Israeli's are Jewish makes the point somewhat moot, but I believe it is nonetheless an important distinction.

Personally, I think you and others are reading far too much into Kyoukan's posts if you think she's racist toward the middle-class white male, but to each his own. It's far more likely that she was exagerrating to make a point. Perhaps my sensitivity level is too low, but given that I'm a middle-class white male, and I've never felt she was hateful toward my socio-economic label, perhaps you'd post some of the more obvious examples?

So you are saying you can not discriminate against a religion and as the above poster pointed out Jews are a race. But it does not matter if Kyoukan wants to always use the race card she needs to look in the mirror. I will not sit by and watch her call everyone that does not agree with her a racist while she sits back and does the same thing. There have been numerous post where she calls white men racist remarks.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 12, 2003, 12:06 am

The difference is that not all Jews are Israelis, hence the importance of the distinction.

As far as the racist remarks go, in the strictest definition, she's made a few, though knowing her fairly well I wouldn't consider her a racist. As I already stated, she's far more likely making those statments to incite a reaction which... grats you, you're giving her.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 12, 2003, 12:16 am

Well as long as we are using the dictionary.

racism.

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

I never really said anything disparaging about white males. I merely said that in the US they will always lack the capacity to understand what it truly is like to be discriminated against.

And yeah yeah your brother's friend's fiance's hairdresser has a cousin who was a shoe-in for Harvard Law and a million dollar career as a defense attorney, but he was pushed out by a lazy darkie named K-DAWG with a 2.0 GPA and a clock hanging from a gold chain around his neck because of affirmative action blah blah blah.

If making the observation that white males are generally not discriminated against appears racist to you then I would hate to be around you if someone used the word nigger or spic, because you would probably go on a killing spree. I can't think of a larger over-reaction than calling that statement racist.

Racism is a negative opinion or downright hatred towards a certain race of people, not an observation. It is no more racist than pointing out that black people are generally better at basketball than white people are.

So, you can stop playing hte racist card, because you aren't going to trick anyone into making them think I am racist, even if you repeat it on every thread. Although Cartalas' "takes one to know one" offense is probably pretty convincing to his fellow retards.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 12, 2003, 12:17 am

Raistin wrote: Im just tired. Is this meaning you think the world would be better off without Hamas, or Jews?

Hamas.

If there were no jews who would I let handle my investment portfolio

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » June 12, 2003, 1:13 am

Was just wondering. Just had gotten off work and it looked odd to me. Reading comp is normaly my strongest,followed by being a asshole,and a non spelling dumbass.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » June 12, 2003, 2:26 am

Personally, I think you and others are reading far too much into Kyoukan's posts if you think she's racist toward the middle-class white male, but to each his own. It's far more likely that she was exagerrating to make a point. Perhaps my sensitivity level is too low, but given that I'm a middle-class white male, and I've never felt she was hateful toward my socio-economic label, perhaps you'd post some of the more obvious examples?

I hope this was not directed towards me, as I have stated in the *edit* that I do not hold the opinion that she is racist, as I am not qualified to make that judgement. My only statement was that the appearances are there, based upon several of her posts. You say you know her, and I believe you in that respect. I myself tend to read most of her posts with a leary eye, so to speak. As you said, she is often trying to get a reaction from people, and this is what I se as well.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 12, 2003, 2:45 am

No you have it right. I agree she's made some statements I would consider racist, but I believe it's just to get a reaction, and I do not believe her to be in any way a racist.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 12, 2003, 8:34 am

What the hell? She can make racist remarks all day long, but you still don't see her as a racist? Let me ask you this, would yo be so flexible if she were a white chick making racist statements about blacks? DId you see the way she blasted Cartalas (I blasted him as well, called him a piece of garbage if I recall correctly) about being a racist when he made even a hint of a racist remark about her black boyfriend? Honestly answer that one then get back to me. Making racist remarks *only to get a reaction from people* is the most rediculous thing I have ever seen typed. If it walks and quacks like a duck, it usually is.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 12, 2003, 9:01 am

kyoukan wrote:
Raistin wrote: Im just tired. Is this meaning you think the world would be better off without Hamas, or Jews?
Hamas.

If there were no jews who would I let handle my investment portfolio

I resemble that remark

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 12, 2003, 9:13 am

when did I say anything racist?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 12, 2003, 9:47 am

I did not think of you as such until the driving miss daisy comment, I would never let a white chick get away with that so why should I let you. Your comments about white males in the *sigh* thread were pretty much on point and I agreed with, some saw it as racist or descriminatory, to each his own.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » June 12, 2003, 3:52 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:I did not think of you as such until the driving miss daisy comment, I would never let a white chick get away with that so why should I let you. Your comments about white males in the *sigh* thread were pretty much on point and I agreed with, some saw it as racist or descriminatory, to each his own.

So let me get this straight...

If you are a white, middle-aged, North American male you are ABSOLUTELY not allowed any comment, thought, or idea which might be considered offensive or racially insensitive to any other class of individual, animal, or plant life anywhere on Earth... ever.

But, if you are some other race, class, genger, age or whatever... then you can get a PASS of varying degrees to spout whatever crap decides to pass your lips?

Boys and girls can we all say HYPOCRISY?

PS - I'm truly not trying to pick on you Krimson, your post just happened to be the last one here. Aranuil is almost comical - in one post he says that Kooky is not racist at all, but then a few posts later he's 'fessin up that she just might have posted a few racists remarks... but it's OK because it was just to get a reaction!

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 12, 2003, 3:57 pm

No no no. What I agreed with Kyoukan on concerning white males was that it's almost impossible for them to sympathize with the plight of a minority concerning descrimination on a large scale. THAT'S what I agreed with her on, nothing else.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 12, 2003, 3:58 pm

I think there's a very simple test that can be applied to any statement to determine whether or not it's racist. Simply reverse it.

For example, several people on the other thread have stated:
The modern day white-middle class american will never understand what the african-american man has gone through.

If we reverse that, and say:
The modern day african-american will never understand what the white-middle class man has gone through.

Clearly it's a racist statement. Is it particularly hurtful? No, but it operates on the assumption that because of the color of a white person's skin, he's unable to understand, even if intimately explained to him by an African-American, what it's like to be a black man in the US today. It would be far more accurate to state that the average white-middle class american is apathetic and has no awareness of what the african-americans have gone through. But to state that the in depth conversations that I've had with some of my close african-american friends have not given me the insight to understand what it was like growing up black in a suburb of Ohio, an underpriveledged neighborhood in Southern California, and Southern Florida, you imply that either they lack the intellectual capacity to impart their plight, or I lack the intellectual capacity to empathize.

Will I ever have to live through it? Absolutely not. Does that mean I can't understand it? No less than they can understand what it was like for me. Apparently white people understood it well enough to join in and support the Civil rights movement in the 60s, so perhaps at one time at least one white person understood it.

If the white-Americans can never understand the plight of the black-Americans, or any other minority for that matter, then what's the point in even discussing it, since people like myself will never understand it anyway? Do I have the capacity to understand what it's like to be a modern German man? Japanese? Iranian? Could I find out? The answer to all of these questions is yes. To keep the attitude that any one racial group will never understand another is to further segregate, and create an unecessary barrier between the two races in question.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 12, 2003, 4:08 pm

Touche Aranuil. I have indeed faced racism in my life, but not a systematic descrimination policy. I will never experience what my father or grandfather had to go through, I am at the tip of the iceburg on the issue. So in essence, you are correct.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 12, 2003, 4:10 pm

I swear to god, Krims, I am not trying to get over on ANYONE here.

I'm trying to explain that the attitude that, 'the white man can never understand/sympathize...' is hurtful for both sides, and helps no one.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 13, 2003, 6:24 am

For example, several people on the other thread have stated:
The modern day white-middle class american will never understand what the african-american man has gone through.

If we reverse that, and say:
The modern day african-american will never understand what the white-middle class man has gone through.

Clearly it's a racist statement

I don't see anything racist here just a simple statement of the obvious.
People are different for lots of reasons. Remarking on those differences isn't an -ism.
Women will never understand the way a man's mind works and vice versa. Nothing sexist there either.
That there are differences cannot be denied and we shouldn't be afraid to discuss them. It's when these differences are expressed in terms of differing intrinsic worth that we have a problem.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 13, 2003, 5:15 pm

I respectfully disagree.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 13, 2003, 5:18 pm

So merely pointing out different characteristics of a certain race is racist?

noel · Post by **noel** » June 13, 2003, 5:27 pm

That's not what I said. I said that saying that race A can never understand or sympathize with race B is a racist and naive statement.

That's not pointing out a different characteristic, that's prejudging that either race A is incapable of explaining their situation, or that race B is incapable of understanding it. In either case, you're prejudging a given race's intellect, and that's generalization and prejudice. Because in the above statment that prejudice is based on race it is, though not particularly hurtful, a racist statement.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 13, 2003, 6:15 pm

That's not what I said. I said that saying that race A can never understand or sympathize with race B is a racist and naive statement.

I guess I see the use of the word racism in that context as overkill. Its a generalization and stereotypical, but not filled with the true bigotry, malevolence and hatred that I associate with "true" racism. I personally dislike the use of the word "racism" in the above because I feel (fear?) it trivializes the disease by defining something so minor as part of it.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 13, 2003, 7:23 pm

Wulfran wrote:
That's not what I said. I said that saying that race A can never understand or sympathize with race B is a racist and naive statement.
I guess I see the use of the word racism in that context as overkill. Its a generalization and stereotypical, but not filled with the true bigotry, malevolence and hatred that I associate with "true" racism. I personally dislike the use of the word "racism" in the above because I feel (fear?) it trivializes the disease by defining something so minor as part of it.

The problem I see is that if an individual uses that as a premise and then follows it to it's logical conclusions, it puts up an automatic wall between races that (in my opinion) further segregates. Why should a black person even take the time to talk to a white person if said white person can never understand him anyway?

If you say, Aranuil will never understand Krimson because Aranuil is stupid. That's your opinion of me as an individual.

If you say Aranuil will never understand Krimson because he's white. That's a racist statement.

(just an example Krims)

I think the hurdle here is that most of you equate racism to hate, violence, fear, and anger, when in fact the root of racism is prejudice based on race. Prejudice is pre-judging. When you say white americans can't understand/sympathize the plight of black americans, it's a logical fallacy unless you've personally spoken to every white American.

If I can never understand a black person's life/plight/etc. what's the point in trying, or caring since you all think that I (white americans) are doomed to fail in the first place. The fact is that I DO care, which perhaps means somewhere along the way in my life, I've come to understand at least some of the problems facing minorities (in this case blacks) in the US, and I've considered solutions which I would support.