|
Post by sayne on Jul 20, 2013 14:28:15 GMT -5
. . . I am trying to work with you and am meeting you halfway on things in different discussions, but man, you really don't want to make the effort back. By calling me a "troll" and accusing me of being "anti-white"? If that's "half-way," . . .
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 20, 2013 14:30:09 GMT -5
. . . I still have to live in the same world with them, as it all deteriorates due to these garbage things, ruining the masses around me and turning them into deviates . . . Is this "half-way," too?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 20, 2013 14:37:16 GMT -5
I don't quite get this. You buy it or you don't. Boycotting it says your not going to buy it but you are going to make sure people know you are not going to buy it. And I guess you're saying you are not going to buy the magazine again. I don't think I ever bought one so I may have a problem boycotting it. I never went for the "if you don't like the show, just change the channel" (or "just boycott the magazine") thing. Why? Because me not buying the mag or ignoring the TV program is not the problem. The problem is the easily-influenced people out there who may get inspired by said TV show/movie/magazine. I still have to live in the same world with them, as it all deteriorates due to these garbage things, ruining the masses around me and turning them into deviates. Whether I watch it/read it, is irrelevant to that outcome that is beyond my control. If it's the masses that change, they are not the deviates. It's the people who do not change who are the deviates.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 20, 2013 14:52:00 GMT -5
If it's the masses that change, they are not the deviates. It's the people who do not change who are the deviates. I used the wrong word, But you get the idea . As for me, here is a quote I have always liked: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 20, 2013 15:04:01 GMT -5
[Personally I don't see sayne as the "collector" type and instantly picked up on the jist of his post. I got that. It's just that I don't feel it's a laughing matter. My reply to him was in kind. And it isn't a laughing matter Joe, I agree with you.. Do you ever feel like your "friend" on this board baits you with his comments?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 20, 2013 15:10:00 GMT -5
. . . I still have to live in the same world with them, as it all deteriorates due to these garbage things, ruining the masses around me and turning them into deviates . . . Is this "half-way," too? No, that one is not me meeting anyone half-way....I will not be a part of this 'dumb phone'-obsessed, texting-addicted, Boston Bomber-sympathizing, politically-correct-controlling world. That's your baby. You know what I'm referring to. I have met you half-way in some of our Zimmerman/Martin talks. You, on the other hand, refuse to do so. Even in spite of overwhelming evidence proving you incorrect. (And yes, you are a troll and anti-white ) .
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 20, 2013 15:22:15 GMT -5
If it's the masses that change, they are not the deviates. It's the people who do not change who are the deviates. I used the wrong word, But you get the idea . As for me, here is a quote I have always liked: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti I don't think the worlds health is at risk by a Rolling Stone magazine cover. If it is, we SHOULD go down. And maybe it should. The majority of faith in today's world is based on Abrahamic belief. Islam is growing to be the largest of the Abrahamic beliefs. What part of exposing these beliefs and the damage to society and the individual is bad? Again, that's what the article is about.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 20, 2013 15:27:46 GMT -5
I don't think the worlds health is at risk by a Rolling Stone magazine cover. If it is, we SHOULD go down. Of course it's not just this one magazine cover. This is just one more ingredient in a tremendous stew that gets worse every year. Every time something like this is permitted and pooh-poohed, people say "oh the world isn't gonna be ruined just by this one thing...?", and then next thing you know it's a million things. The fact of having this piece of shit on the cover as a star is enough, never mind what the article is or is not about.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 20, 2013 16:38:08 GMT -5
If it's the masses that change, they are not the deviates. It's the people who do not change who are the deviates. I used the wrong word, But you get the idea . As for me, here is a quote I have always liked: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti Or in other words, "Insanity is the only sayne reaction to an insane society."
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 20, 2013 17:16:12 GMT -5
If it's the masses that change, they are not the deviates. It's the people who do not change who are the deviates. I used the wrong word, But you get the idea . As for me, here is a quote I have always liked: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti Do you really know who Krishnamurti was or did you get the quote off of some poster in your doctor's office? I do know a little bit about him, since he lived in the Ojai Valley, about a 90 minute drive from where I currently live. There is even a restaurant there called the Ranch House where John and Yoko actually ate. Although I am no expert, I do know that he taught that we need to free ourselves from internal fear, anger, hurt, and sorrow. THAT is where I believe implicit negative attitudes, racism, and profiling come from. Everyone has been hurt in some manner. When you were singled out by the INS, you were hurt. When Acebackwards was profiled because of how he dressed, he was hurt. You fear big guys in motorcycle garb. You got beat up for not being quiet. Krishnamurti would say that it isn't about letting those experiences own us or we owning them. It's about letting them go. I do think that if you were really able to let go of all the bad things that have happened to you, you might start seeing the world in a different way and things might change in your life for the better.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 20, 2013 17:17:19 GMT -5
I used the wrong word, But you get the idea . As for me, here is a quote I have always liked: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti Or in other words, "Insanity is the only sayne reaction to an insane society."
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 20, 2013 18:53:07 GMT -5
I got that. It's just that I don't feel it's a laughing matter. My reply to him was in kind. And it isn't a laughing matter Joe, I agree with you.. Do you ever feel like your "friend" on this board baits you with his comments? My uncle (father's brother) is a retired Master Sgt. in the Marines, and e-mails propaganda type stuff all the time. Anyway, I made the mistake of opening one that had graphic photos of the carnage. I do not think any of it is funny. Except...what happened to the author of the thread?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 20, 2013 18:55:16 GMT -5
I used to read Krishnamurti's books all the time back in the day when i was into Alan Watts and D T Suzuki and all that crap. In retrospect i concluded he was a little on the, ahem, long winded side, endlessly talking around in circles. But i like that he raged against Watts and Huxley and blamed them for the 69s drug epidemic.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 21, 2013 7:22:05 GMT -5
Do you really know who Krishnamurti was or did you get the quote off of some poster in your doctor's office? I do know a little bit about him, since he lived in the Ojai Valley, about a 90 minute drive from where I currently live. There is even a restaurant there called the Ranch House where John and Yoko actually ate. Although I am no expert, I do know that he taught that we need to free ourselves from internal fear, anger, hurt, and sorrow. THAT is where I believe implicit negative attitudes, racism, and profiling come from. It is a natural instinct of self-preservation to steel or guard oneself against any perceived "threat". It is an inherent and natural reaction of your senses and I don't try to stifle them, nor feel guilty for having them naturally. As I have written elsewhere a few times now - and which you still turn a blind eye and ear to and do not even consider - is that profiling is important to maintaining safety , and sometimes innocent people have to be inconvenienced. I have given you several examples of this, well thought out and detailed, and as usual you've glossed right over them. We cannot allow the REAL criminals to get the idea that they are free to drive about unchecked, because they know there is now a stigma about law enforcement not risking the displeasure of any civilian who felt violated when he was not actually committing any crime. If you want to talk about "fear", the downfall of our society would surely come when law officials are afraid to do their jobs for fear that someone like you would get in their faces and try to sue them, or wave protest signs of "racism" in their faces. As to the history of this Krishnamurti, I don't know - but the quote standing alone it itself to me is a good one. I have also said I understand perfectly why the INS had to question me because I appeared Mexican at the border. I understand why I was always approached by a cop when sitting in my car outside the house. This is how you enforce law, and weed out the wheat from the chaff. What do you mean by "all the bad things that have happened to me"? I do not harbor any resentment in my life, and have overall been blessed with a rather good life. I can handle whatever negatives have come my way, as we are all human and it is not a perfect road paved with gold for any of us. I am able to understand the bad things that have happened from an intelligent and reasoned POV. As for the "big guys in motorcycle garb" (and doo rags and pants halfway down the ass) my instincts know when to tense myself against a perceived threat to my own safety, based on a person's rough and scary-looking exterior. It is a natural response that helps us as humans, and I do not believe it is to be stifled or denied. It has served me well so far in my 51 years, knock on wood.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 21, 2013 10:48:57 GMT -5
Do you really know who Krishnamurti was or did you get the quote off of some poster in your doctor's office? I do know a little bit about him, since he lived in the Ojai Valley, about a 90 minute drive from where I currently live. There is even a restaurant there called the Ranch House where John and Yoko actually ate. Although I am no expert, I do know that he taught that we need to free ourselves from internal fear, anger, hurt, and sorrow. THAT is where I believe implicit negative attitudes, racism, and profiling come from. It is a natural instinct of self-preservation to steel or guard oneself against any perceived "threat". It is an inherent and natural reaction of your senses and I don't try to stifle them, nor feel guilty for having them naturally. As I have written elsewhere a few times now - and which you still turn a blind eye and ear to and do not even consider - is that profiling is important to maintaining safety , and sometimes innocent people have to be inconvenienced. I have given you several examples of this, well thought out and detailed, and as usual you've glossed right over them. We cannot allow the REAL criminals to get the idea that they are free to drive about unchecked, because they know there is now a stigma about law enforcement not risking the displeasure of any civilian who felt violated when he was not actually committing any crime. If you want to talk about "fear", the downfall of our society would surely come when law officials are afraid to do their jobs for fear that someone like you would get in their faces and try to sue them, or wave protest signs of "racism" in their faces. As to the history of this Krishnamurti, I don't know - but the quote standing alone it itself to me is a good one. I have also said I understand perfectly why the INS had to question me because I appeared Mexican at the border. I understand why I was always approached by a cop when sitting in my car outside the house. This is how you enforce law, and weed out the wheat from the chaff. What do you mean by "all the bad things that have happened to me"? I do not harbor any resentment in my life, and have overall been blessed with a rather good life. I can handle whatever negatives have come my way, as we are all human and it is not a perfect road paved with gold for any of us. I am able to understand the bad things that have happened from an intelligent and reasoned POV. As for the "big guys in motorcycle garb" (and doo rags and pants halfway down the ass) my instincts know when to tense myself against a perceived threat to my own safety, based on a person's rough and scary-looking exterior. It is a natural response that helps us as humans, and I do not believe it is to be stifled or denied. It has served me well so far in my 51 years, knock on wood. Word. (Does everyone remember what that meant?)
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 21, 2013 16:28:22 GMT -5
Everyone has been hurt in some manner. When you were singled out by the INS, you were hurt. When Acebackwards was profiled because of how he dressed, he was hurt. . I wouldn't necessarily say I feel "hurt" by this. I understand and accept the situation. When you're part of the demographic that is committing a disproportionate percentage of crimes (in my case, the homeless weirdo demographic) you are going to arrouse a disproportionate percentage of suspicion. (Though, yeah, sometimes it does get annoying and I feel like screaming at the cop: "HEY, WHY DO YOU KEEP TREATING ME LIKE A CRIMINAL?? WHAT HAVE I DONE??") The elephant in the room that never gets mentioned by liberals when it comes to why, in fact, blacks are looked at with more suspicion than the general population, is the fact that blacks are committing violent crimes at FOUR TIMES the rate of the rest of society. They make up about 12% of the US population but are committing about 50% of the murders. If a certain group is committing violent crimes at 4 times the rate of the rest of society is it really "racist" if they are looked at with 4 times as much suspicion? Is that racism? Or just common sense? Here's a question I'd love all the Politically Correct types on this board to answer for me. You're walking down a dark city street alone late at night in a bad neighborhood. Suddenly a couple of young black male are walking towards you. Tell me honestly how you would react. Would you react the same way if it happened to be a couple of old, asian women? I DOUBT THAT VERY MUCH. And now answer me this. If you acted with more suspicion, fear and apprehension to the young, black men than the old, asian women, does that mean you're acting out of racism, age-ism, and sexism?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 21, 2013 18:20:38 GMT -5
Everyone has been hurt in some manner. When you were singled out by the INS, you were hurt. When Acebackwards was profiled because of how he dressed, he was hurt. . I wouldn't necessarily say I feel "hurt" by this. I understand and accept the situation. When you're part of the demographic that is committing a disproportionate percentage of crimes (in my case, the homeless weirdo demographic) you are going to arrouse a disproportionate percentage of suspicion. (Though, yeah, sometimes it does get annoying and I feel like screaming at the cop: "HEY, WHY DO YOU KEEP TREATING ME LIKE A CRIMINAL?? WHAT HAVE I DONE??") The elephant in the room that never gets mentioned by liberals when it comes to why, in fact, blacks are looked at with more suspicion than the general population, is the fact that blacks are committing violent crimes at FOUR TIMES the rate of the rest of society. They make up about 12% of the US population but are committing about 50% of the murders. If a certain group is committing violent crimes at 4 times the rate of the rest of society is it really "racist" if they are looked at with 4 times as much suspicion? Is that racism? Or just common sense? Here's a question I'd love all the Politically Correct types on this board to answer for me. You're walking down a dark city street alone late at night in a bad neighborhood. Suddenly a couple of young black male are walking towards you. Tell me honestly how you would react. Would you react the same way if it happened to be a couple of old, asian women? I DOUBT THAT VERY MUCH. And now answer me this. If you acted with more suspicion, fear and apprehension to the young, black men than the old, asian women, does that mean you're acting out of racism, age-ism, and sexism? You are new to this board, relatively, so once again I say "word." Old-timers here know what that means. Can I have a "word" from one of you so we can move on?
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jul 21, 2013 20:45:39 GMT -5
Word.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jul 21, 2013 21:38:32 GMT -5
I will admit with humility that I have been interested in learning more about John Lennon's killer over the decades. But for me this is only because i am such a fan of lennon's and want to try and unravel it. However, I still would condemn putting Lennon's killer on a magazine cover like a glorified star. Stories on Lennon's killer outrage me more than this one does. The motive was obvious for killing Lennon. It's more complicated here and I think the story is warranted. That said, I think sayne's comment about not making it the cover story was a good thought.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jul 21, 2013 21:44:28 GMT -5
And let's get back to talking about Rolling Stone. The talk is starting to get slightly personal. Just trying to keep things peaceful. Don't want you guys screaming at each other.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 21, 2013 22:25:32 GMT -5
On the Rolling Stone cover I might have been offended if they had played it like the Jim Morrison cover. "He's Hot! He's,Sexy! He's a Murderer!" But they call him a monster so what the heck. Sure its sensationalism. Jan Wenner is basically a groupie and a fanboy. He knows what the public wants.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 21, 2013 22:28:35 GMT -5
PS. I've enjoyed all the posts on this board. I hope nobody thinks I'm screaming at them. I just like to gas off a little for own amusement.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 22, 2013 1:38:08 GMT -5
PS. I've enjoyed all the posts on this board. I hope nobody thinks I'm screaming at that. I just like to gas off a little for own amusement.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 23, 2013 8:39:00 GMT -5
The elephant in the room that never gets mentioned by liberals when it comes to why, in fact, blacks are looked at with more suspicion than the general population, is the fact that blacks are committing violent crimes at FOUR TIMES the rate of the rest of society. (I haven't looked up any statistics, but I'll assume you're correct. I also assume these statistics apply to the USA, only.) Now, has it ever occurred to you to ask, ' why do blacks commit four times the rate of the rest of society?' Is it because more pigmentation in the skin inherently causes people to do more bad things? If we, in fact, injected pigmentation into Acebackward's skin, and made him look 'black', would he suddenly be 4 times more likely to commit crimes? The answer is 'no'. The reason blacks may commit more crimes (per capita) is because blacks are the most discriminated-against people in the history of the USA. Institutionalized racism takes centuries to be cured -- if it ever can be -- and leaves centuries'-long legacies of poverty, anger, and psychological harm. Needless to say, poverty itself is almost universally the #1 determiner of crime. People in poverty will commit more crimes. People with enough money commit less. Doesn't take a Ph.D. sociologist to figure that out. If a certain group is committing violent crimes at 4 times the rate of the rest of society is it really "racist" if they are looked at with 4 times as much suspicion? Is that racism? Or just common sense? Any kind of 'racial' (I don't use this word, personally) profiling is clearly "racism". So, if you have any kind of reaction -- good or bad -- to anyone, simply based on the person's skin color or appearance based on a particular gene-pool, AND NOT BASED ON ANY OTHER FACTORS (like, what kind of neighborhood you're in), then YES it's racism. As to whether it's justified racism or not, the answer is: it depends what you mean, in your example, by "looked at". If, by "looked at", you mean, shot on sight because of vague suspicion, then it's clearly unjust. But if you mean taking caution to protect yourself -- like, running away from someone you know is statistically 4 times more likely to kill you, in a dangerous neighborhood -- then it might be justifiable. However, this weird example leads us into a more important matter, which your last question brings up... Here's a question I'd love all the Politically Correct types on this board to answer for me. You're walking down a dark city street alone late at night in a bad neighborhood. Suddenly a couple of young black male are walking towards you. Tell me honestly how you would react. Would you react the same way if it happened to be a couple of old, asian women? It seems to me the key point in this example is "a bad neighborhood". Blacks may commit 4 times more crimes in the USA per capita, but they probably are 10 times more likely to live in "bad neighborhoods" (itself a highly subjective term). Therefore, if you are in the 'bad neighborhood', you are inevitably going to see many more blacks than you do in 'nice neighborhoods'. Regardless of how much pigmentation is in people's skin, I'm going to feel more threatened in a bad neighborhood than a good one. The issue -- or, the 'choice' -- you face, then, as a (presumably) white person in the USA is: do you choose to be 'racist', and profile everyone you see who is black, because blacks commit 4 times more crimes? Or, do you choose not to be racist, and to 'think locally' by treating everyone around you -- regardless of how they look -- with respect and the dignity they deserve? This of course doesn't mean you shouldn't run from black (or other) scary looking people in a dark alley at night, in a bad neighborhood. Which way is better for the USA as a whole?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 23, 2013 9:06:46 GMT -5
Anyway, back on the topic (that I started), I guess I have no strong feeling one way or the other about the Tsarnaev Rolling Stone cover.
Needless to say, RS has a bottom-line to make money from sales and advertising, and I suspect this kind of cover, and the talk it's generating, is good for that, despite some protests in New England. So, from the purely materialistic perspective, they did an okay thing.
From the perspective of journalistic standards, I also think RS is safe. It has a long history of covering politics and nationwide news stories, so this is really no different. I only read the first page or so of the article, but it seemed fair and clear and objective. There doesn't seem to be any controversy about the actual article itself.
From the perspective of content-appropriateness for Rolling Stone magazine... here is where I question them. Not that the subject matter isn't appropriate (as above, their entire magazine was founded on 'music and politics', so that's quite normal for them), but rather the point of putting Tsarnaev on the cover. I'm not sure that is standard procedure -- true, RS had Charles Manson on the cover before, but Charles Manson was deep into the fabric of the L.A. music scene -- he was a rock'n'roll guy. This is not the case with a random terrorist in Massachusetts. So, I'm not sure putting "The Bomber" on the cover is consistent with RS's history, and isn't a desperate plea for controversy (check!) and sales.
Finally, from the perspective of 'good taste': I think, esp. so soon after the tragedy, it was in somewhat poor taste to put him on the cover. In fairness, the New York Times did exactly the same thing (with the same photo of the guy), but again that's standard for a newspaper, not for Rolling Stone. So, maybe this was in bad taste.
In conclusion, I guess Rolling Stone was justified, but putting Tsarnaev on the cover was probably in bad taste. I think this article -- good as it seems to be -- should have been published with less advertising, and without a cover.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 23, 2013 9:13:06 GMT -5
In conclusion, I guess Rolling Stone was justified, but putting Tsarnaev on the cover was probably in bad taste. I think this article -- good as it seems to be -- should have been published with less advertising, and without a cover. I think your post was well-stated. And I may have considered reading RS's article itself if they hadn't ticked me off by glamourizing the subject on the cover.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 23, 2013 9:27:20 GMT -5
People in poverty will commit more crimes. People with enough money commit less. Doesn't take a Ph.D. sociologist to figure that out. There still needs to be some degree of civility in such cases. Right at this second, I am jobless and it's because something unfair was done to me at my work, and presently my union is fighting the wrongful dismissal. But moreover, my girlfriend and I are really broke, and are struggling financially until this craziness gets sorted out. I have never been this close to poverty in my 51 years, and the gal and I are both feeling it. But the thing is, we aren't going to go out and commit any crime, no matter how desperate we may become. You have to have some degree of composure and civility, and respect for the law - and for other people. I would say of course it's better to judge any person on the strength of his character as a person, not by his skin color or appearance. But you do have to exercise some sort of inherent common sense and instinctive gut judgement. When it comes to law enforcement profiling people, I agree with Acebackwards' theory completely. Unfortunately, the good and decent people fitting the stereotypical profile may occasionally be inconvenienced or insulted; but if it saves others' lives, it is a good thing to strive for. The last thing any of us should ever want is some law which says cops should not stop anyone just on the basis of a suspicious appearance. Think of all the suspicious-looking people who ARE criminals, who would pass right by and commit their atrocities. Not a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 23, 2013 10:23:05 GMT -5
Thanks for the well-reasoned response, Joe. ...moreover, my girlfriend and I are really broke, and are struggling financially until this craziness gets sorted out. I have never been this close to poverty in my 51 years, and the gal and I are both feeling it. But the thing is, we aren't going to go out and commit any crime, no matter how desperate we may become. Okay, that's admirable... I guess. But if you were starving, and you and your girlfriend went out into my store, and stole some bread and milk, and got caught, I wouldn't press charges. I have a lot of sympathy for people stealing, or breaking the law (without directly harming others, of course), and the more so if you were indeed wrongly dismissed. On the other hand, if Donald Trump came into my store and stole some bread, I WOULD press charges. He has no excuse. Unfortunately, the good and decent people fitting the stereotypical profile may occasionally be inconvenienced or insulted; but if it saves others' lives, it is a good thing to strive for. The last thing any of us should ever want is some law which says cops should not stop anyone just on the basis of a suspicious appearance. Think of all the suspicious-looking people who ARE criminals, who would pass right by and commit their atrocities. Not a good thing. I understand your position, but I don't see how avoiding profiling and allowing police to question appropriate suspects are mutually incompatible. I think what causes concern is when people are profiled without just reason, as in when a black driver is pulled over by police more often than white drivers. I can't see any justification for that. But if the police are looking for someone they know is black, then of course blacks should be questioned more. That's obvious. The problem I have with your proposal is that it means we INTENTIONALLY create an unfair society. We actively choose to treat minority people in a different way, because... well, why? Because they look different? This seems to me to be against the human rights principles established by international bodies, and also against the edict of the Declaration of Independence (not that the US has ever lived up to that!). Would you feel differently, Joe, if you were (like me) a visible minority living in a foreign country? I live in Japan, which of course is a prosperous country with a very high living standard. But it's also by far the most 'racially' (which really means lack of genetic diversity) homogeneous country of all highly developed nations. Add to this Japan's long history of isolation and avoiding foreign influences, and you have a curious nation of people who recognize the need for foreign influence, but who are also kind of scared of it and are generally unaccustomed to being in the presence of non-Japanese. Making matters worse is Japan's stunning conservatism in all political/legal/business matters (probably because because the entire nation is run by 80-year-old males). What results, for people like me, is a wonderful lifestyle in a wonderful country where we're generally treated very well... but with regular -- small, but repeated -- racial discriminations, which would never be tolerated by even the locals in any other developed country (except maybe Korea). As random examples, many Japanese realtors have a policy of not renting apartments to foreigners. If they see a foreign name, they simply deny the application (and face no recourse for their decision). Likewise, when we move home, even within Tokyo, we face an endless morass of paperwork that is basically set up to make us fail, and give the government excuses to limit our rights (Japanese nationals don't have to do this). The result of the lack of information in the popular media about the foreign community is -- as in most countries -- an extremely uninformed citizenship. There's a prevalent belief by Japanese that foreigners contribute greatly to the crime of Japan, but in fact crime rates amongst the foreign community are far lower than for Japanese. Even these small occasional slights limit my enjoyment of life here, despite the high living standard and other privileges I enjoy. So, imagine, if you will, a black or hispanic immigrant, say, or first-generation American, living in your neighborhood. In addition to all the disadvantages they ALREADY face by not having money (not unlike you, now), not speaking the more powerful language/dialect/accent, not being the majority people, and facing all kinds of daily prejudices which they know will be inherited by their children, and on and on, you then want to INTENTIONALLY make the life yet more unfair against them, by justifying racial discrimination?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 23, 2013 13:26:05 GMT -5
Would you feel differently, Joe, if you were (like me) a visible minority living in a foreign country? I live in Japan, which of course is a prosperous country with a very high living standard. But it's also by far the most 'racially' (which really means lack of genetic diversity) homogeneous country of all highly developed nations. Add to this Japan's long history of isolation and avoiding foreign influences, and you have a curious nation of people who recognize the need for foreign influence, but who are also kind of scared of it and are generally unaccustomed to being in the presence of non-Japanese. See? So it's natural, I think. I don't think there is anything evil, bad, intolerable, racist, etc, about just basically being comfortable with one's own kind. I would not feel comfortable, I don't think, being the one caucasian man in a city of Asian people, for example -- or black, or muslim, or whatever. And I think a black couple going into a club where they are the only black couple amidst hundreds of other white couple would feel ill at ease. I just think that's normal. I told the story of when I was in Arizona and went over the border into Mexico, and had a difficult time being singled out amongst my party, because I appeared a certain way. It was rather annoying and humiliating at the time, I will admit... but I did understand too that it was better for them to be safe rather than sorry. If the crimes, for example, are disproportionately committed by blacks and hispanics in New York, then I would expect more cops to pull over black and hispanic drivers than whites -- and even pulling ME over because I APPEAR hispanic. The gal and I were just talking about how expensive it is to live in New York. Anyone there will tell you the same thing, that it is virtually impossible to afford living in new York, and so many people are moving out. So, we wondered, how is it that these immigrants you speak of, are seemingly taking over? if WE cannot afford to live in NY, how can THEY? Well, it's because they get special privileges. It's a kind of "reverse discrimination", as it's called (though I feel discrimination of any kind is plain old discrimination). It is a real oxymoron, this idea that NY is one of the world's most expensive places to live in, and yet it is becoming more populated my black, hispanic, muslim, etc, people. How does that work? Oh, don't even get me started on the language thing. They do get catered to ... I am so tired of bilingual stuff going on, like every time I make a phone call to a machine I get the spanish interpretation also. (Learn to understand and speak English!). In some places, you feel like a foreigner in your own country with all the spanish being spoken in certain places. If you consider profiling "racial discrimination", then we aren't going to agree. I mean, I guess technically it could be called that, but it is born out of a necessity. I don't mean to repeat myself, but you cannot just lay off pulling people over who fit the profile of the most crimes, just because you might "offend" someone. It's as much for their own good, too. By the way - I find it fascinating that you live in Japan. I always wanted to visit, but I suppose I wouldn't know how to handle it not being able to speak Japanese. And also, I would be concerned that I would be looked at with suspicious eyes, just to stay on topic! But I also have visions of being able to buy a lot of great vinyl Japanese albums.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 23, 2013 14:00:21 GMT -5
The elephant in the room that never gets mentioned by liberals when it comes to why, in fact, blacks are looked at with more suspicion than the general population, is the fact that blacks are committing violent crimes at FOUR TIMES the rate of the rest of society. (I haven't looked up any statistics, but I'll assume you're correct. I also assume these statistics apply to the USA, only.) Now, has it ever occurred to you to ask, ' why do blacks commit four times the rate of the rest of society?' Is it because more pigmentation in the skin inherently causes people to do more bad things? If we, in fact, injected pigmentation into Acebackward's skin, and made him look 'black', would he suddenly be 4 times more likely to commit crimes? ? Yes, it has occurred to me. Many, many times. And I would say, as someone who has lived in black neighborhoods for a good portion of my life, that the number one factor is that 75% of US blacks are raised in households without fathers. Sure, I'd agree that society in general has to take some of the responsibility for this. But just curious, Panther, because this generallly seems absent from your narrative, do you feel blacks also might need to take responsibility for the state of the black community? Rather than continue to blame white people and white racism for all their woes?
|
|