geez, the mere thought of banning books makes my hair stand on end. Well, such hair as I have, anyway.

Can you clarify this? I'm not entirely certain what your point is. Perhaps it's simply that I'm not sufficiently familiar with the writings of your founding fathers. If your point is that Malcolm X is somehow excused by having said these things in the time he said them, I would point out that the specific reason I chose to contrast him with Martin Luther King is because they were contemporaries who had completely opposite opinions on how best to achieve equal status for black Americans. Context is crucial, but holding up Malcolm X as an example of a man who promoted peace and understanding amongst all races is a bit flawed. Some people seem to be under the impression that when he left Islam he gave up his militant beliefs, but as far as I've ever been able to determine this is simply untrue.

This is a valid point; really, my only intention here was to highlight what I view as a flawed argument. Malcolm X was many things, but peaceful was rarely one of them.

......

I forgot you are in Canada. :shy:

I understand now that you were referring to Malcolm X as a man of 'peace' and not for his political activity as a whole. I misunderstood, I'm sorry.

My reasoning for comparing Malcolm X's statement in the context of the years of the civil rights movement to the American Revolution, was that, if you were to read the statements that incited the Revolution to take this country from the British, you would find them full of revolutionary rhetoric that is seen as not only justifiable, but admirable to this day. Therefore, I don't think the sentiment, whether it be that of peaceful or forceful revolution, inspired by the realities of segregation and cultural and systemic racism can ever be construed as out of line, inappropriate or (importantly) unexpected. It is the way people have reacted to oppression throughout all of history.

And it also bears to be mentioned that Malcolm X wasn't even a year out of his association with the Nation of Islam when he was assassinated and he was in the process of moderating his stance on revolution and black nationalism. Of course, we will never know who he might have evolved into and what he might have been able to achieve.

I think it is very prejudicial. Racist... the action did separate a race and if this was a speech to "shape up these men", it could have been done elsewhere or to all races, I see this as race based discrimination so an argument on whether the judge was being racist here is debatable. Hateful is a strong word and should not have been used. You make a very good point here.

If you preach prejudice and blame others for your problems or lack of success it is usually in a very hateful way.

This would be a good point in which to cover, if we were truly having a discussion on how to better relations. We would have to achieve a common definition of what promotes hatred.

I have stated had he done this outside his role as a judge and outside of the courthouse, it would be a civilian talking and expressing his opinion and advice to help those he wanted to help. I would have no problem with that whatsoever.

But in a courtroom, while in session or not, in the role of judge, this was prejudicial, in the very arena we should not be having any separation between groups of people.

But then are you saying we should look at the courts as "parents" and the defendants as "children". I know it' just an analogy.... but it's a stretch. Government is not our parent, government is there to protect us and to serve us in various ways without discrimination, without separation.

It took how long to get the government to look at the black man equally and now, now, you feel it is ok for an agent of the court to separate them.

It truly makes no sense to me.

Again, I have no problem if he goes into the community and works and speaks out to help those in that community with positive messages.... I would heavily applaud the man.

But in the setting it was held in.... I have serious issues with.

I am quick with the word hate, I am very passionate about 5 issues in politics... trying to get America back to recognizing its greatness and the wonderment of our freedoms not have them taken away because select groups find problems with those freedoms (rights), race relations, illegal immigration, education, finding economic stability and ways to distribute prosperity more fairly. But I also realize why I am not a politician. I find, especially in this medium but in all aspects of my life to some degree, I am easily flustered in trying to get across my point. My passion for these

Perhaps, this judge has done great things to help race relations, this was not one. It is true, I should not base my judgment on this man for one negative action he made.

They have millions of followers that believe what they sell. Again, it is easier to blame the white man and the government for your failures than it is to work and get out of the negative area in which you live.


I disagree here. Just because one is not racist nor discriminatory, does not mean that they are blind. There are problems here and we do need to work on finding positive solutions. It just seems that many who believe they have solutions end up taking it to far the other way and becoming hypocritical, which leads to more problems and not solutions.


This is a very complex issue.... on one hand we have is this an abuse of power, but then the deeper issue becomes the racial underbelly, that people don't want to talk about. How can you allow one judge of one background to do this, while condemning and saying a judge of a different background can't nor should be allowed to do this.

I have problems with both, because as shown here they tend to overlap.

Any judge doing this would have been wrong on the superficial level.

The double standard that says this judge can but others can't is wrong on a different underbelly level.


===================================================


Again, if you find it ok for a judge to separate groups in a court room and do this, I can understand. I don't agree with it but I can truly comprehend the argument.

But when one says.... this judge can do that and I'll praise him.... that a white judge can't and I'll call him a racist and demand his job.

Do you see the hypocrisy?

Towards Malcolm's end, he was changing very much. I provided quotes that demonstrated this above.

http://www.malcolm-x.org/quotes.htm

............

pan, do you suspect, at all, that the Bush admin. risked gutting the Voting Rights Enforcement section of the Civil Rights Enforcement Division of the DOJ, and actually reversing what it did, investigate and prosecute those who intended to make it more difficult for minorities to vote "as easily as everybody else can", to what it does now, investigate and prosecute minorities on contrived "vote fraud charges", because of mindsets like.....yours?

I do!

You know, you've been saying that this is "prejudicial" since the beginning. I'm still not clear what you mean.

Did he discriminate against the non-blacks by having them leave the courtroom? Did he discriminate against blacks by singling them out for a "come to Jesus" lecture? Something can't just BE prejudicial in the abstract, just because something happened that acknowledged the existence of race in a public building--it has to actually put somebody up and somebody else down. My question is: against whom exactly is it prejudicial? Because I'm not clear at all about that.

Let's see, a definition might give some focus to the question I'm asking here.

prejudicial, adj.

1. Detrimental; injurious.
2. Causing or tending to preconceived judgment or convictions

How EXACTLY is this detrimental, injurious, or causing or tending to preconceived judgment or convictions? I'm not saying it's NOT. It might be. I guess I'm saying that I'm no longer willing to take your assertion that it's prejudicial at face value. So supply us with some more of the logic that underlies your assertion, please. I can actually see how I would answer, if I were back in high school debate and assigned to argue your side, but I'm much more interested in your answer.

I think you have a bone to pick somewhere about something eating inside you but are using this thread as a vehicle. No offence but that is the impression I get.

I don't know how this comes back to some white judge but I'll give it a go. If a white judge did what this judge did,.. kick everyone and lecture black people, then is he a racist?

Again it all depends. If a white judge is stationed in a predominantly black area, has predominantly black people charged in front of him, and decides to take it upon himself to lecture only the blacks? Maybe so, maybe not.

If a white judge does the above in Vermont, a predominantly white state,...maybe yes, maybe not.

Pan one thing I think you fail to realize about this supposed notion of rampant racism, is that it isn't cultural, it's individualistic. Racism is a core belief that dominates a person's being and is unfliching regardless of company or consequence.

But I see your point. In todays world if a white judge did what this black judge did, he would be labelled a racist, regardless, and only for trying to instill values in people who may or may not get it.

Unfortunately he would be labelled a racist by an ignorant society.

Good thing oranges aren't green, or someone would accuse them of being apples

Not really, but perhaps. What eats at me is the hypocrisy. I once would have been one praising this black judge. But as I work in the inner city and become more exposed to areas I had never been exposed to and people I'd never been exposed to.... the view changes. You see white and black street people and they are just trying to survive. They all deserve the chance to better themselves and to get out of where they are.

Many look for excuses as to why they are where they are. Some of them are racist, some are conspiratorial, some are just out there. But the ones that don't look for excuses and believe in themselves make it.

I have seen neighborhood kids fighting gangs to keep out of them and go to college. I have seen men and women in their 20's get out of the negative mindset, that have stopped buying into it and have moved on.

But the ones that have stayed seem to live their lives in their excuse filled world.

It changes one's views and core beliefs when you spend the time and see what truly happens with people living in the inner city, high crime areas.

It comes down to the belief that some have that it's ok for a black judge to do this but not a white judge.

Like I said, this is a 2 pronged argument.

On the very top layer, the superficial we have should a judge be allowed to do this?

The deeper layer comes when those who say, sure he can do that... then say, but a white judge can't.

If this had been a white judge kicking non whites out, racism, prejudice and demands for his job would have been heard from Farrakhan/Sharpton to people in this very forum.

So that becomes a sign and symptom of a more serious problem that needs addressed, because it affects race relations and the continuing forward movement of our nation as a whole.

Double standards promoting racism/prejudice no matter how you look at it or what excuse you want to use still in the end are nothing more than hypocritical standards promoting racism/prejudice.

A female judge let's say does it. there would be some who would be ok with that but find it wrong if a male judge did it..... and so on.


Racism maybe a harsh word. I am not the most eloquent and right chooser of words. But I do see it as racist. Just as if a female had done it... it'd be sexist in my eyes. It's definitively prejudicial in my eyes.

That judge has no right to segregate and separate and decide who he needs to give "special lectures" to from the bench. ALL people may have benefited and some in that select group may not have even wanted to be there and felt singled out themselves.

This judge said it was ok to separate races.... and he did it from the bench.

THAT IS WRONG.... there is no excuse for it at all.

Now, we have some that will argue a judge can do anything and ANY judge can do this and they'd be ok with it. OK. There's the superficial argument. It's plain and simple and I can grasp that argument and in the end be ok with that opinion.

Then we have those who make the excuses, "Blacks can do it because.... but no white judge can because....." and we have seen those arguments here on this board. They will come up with "well the black culture.... but the white culture...." and so on.

So then the argument becomes why would you promote a racist way of thinking? A very divisive, very unhealthy way of thinking?

And that my friend is the problem I am having. Not so much the superficial because if you say you would allow all judges to do it.... I still would argue vehemently but I would see the merit in that side.

To say one can and one can't and he'd be racist.... boggles my mind I cannot grasp that idea being logical to anyone truly wanting racial harmony. This is something that I truly cannot let go. It's just so hypocritical and damaging to the country I love and am proud to have served and live in.

The country will never get better if we continue to allow this thinking to prevail and run cities, states and even the federal governments. We will eventually destroy all we have accomplished and this great nation with this thinking.

Ahhhh but oranges are green until they become orange. :thumbsup:

PS I know I repeated myself in this but..... I answered it as honestly and as heartfelt as I could through this medium.


The judge obviously believed that whites could not benefit or were somehow not worth his speech.

A judge should show no favoritism nor bias of any sort towards anyone or group. This judge did. Most people respect judges because they are level headed and don't show bias from the bench. This judge did. If I were a white defendant and he had kicked me out simply because of my skin color, I'd have my attorney looking to sue in a heartbeat.

pan, I think you're starting to believe your own BS.....

Thank you for sharing your pessimism and hate Host.

But really what does that have to do with the OP or what I have seen in the area I work?

People can make it without becoming fortune 500 CEO's or is that all that matters to you Host?

Yep, nothing.

I knew I shouldn't have looked in the ignore..... I won't make that mistake again.

Actually, this is the one thing you've said in this thread that I get.

However, the ones that are racist and conspiratorial and angry have not been educated (yes, ignorant, much like any other racist) and exposed to their own potential. I'm around that same element at work every day, too. Everyone knows that it's easy to tell someone they can be anything and that they can succeed. But some people can't believe that based on what they see daily. True education, not schooling, is what's needed here.

The Judge was reaching out to these very people. He wanted to believe he could reach out and educate.

The problem is, you call it "excuses". I call it exposure. The ones that believe in themselves are unbelievably brilliant and strong. Those that don't probably have the potential to be average. Not quite strong enough to see beyond the four walls of their day.

The Judge is tired of seeing his community appear before him. This is a private matter. They are his family, in a sense. True that the Judge could probably help educate by getting out in his community but was doing what he could do from his official pulpit.

Let him slide, pan. Intent is what it's all about.

.......

Because pan, I quoted you:
Then I showed you that there are only 4 black CEOs at forturne 500 Corps. An equal opportunity to "make it", pan, would be demonstrated if there were 40 or 50 black CEOs at fortune 500 Corps....but there are 4, pan....

Why stop at "fortune 500 CEO", pan....since "making it" is whatever the fuck YOU define it as.....

We're not talking about "people", pan. We're talking about black people. They are, except in extremely rare cases, excluded from "making it" to the top positions, the positions of true power and influence in the US. It's a fact. I showed you, and I EARNED your label of "hater".

Watching you post , is such a relief, because I was concerned about the lack of equal opportunity for all but "white men", but, if you say it's okay.....well....then it must be okay!

Define 'make it', and will this definition change throughout the thread?

"make it", is whatever pan sez it is, silent_jay, and obviously..... to "make it", begins somewhere around "shine, mistah?", and it stops shy of "fortune 500 CEO"..... and you look like a "hater", too....for asking!

Off topic, what do you think of the OP?

I don't think that's at all obvious. Though I get that from your view of the world, it is.

I'm going to give you my interpretation of what happened, and I request you interact with it as as likely a candidate for The Truth as yours is.

Let's say I'm having a party, and there's something my wife does that irks me and I need to straighten it out with her. I'm going to take her in private to do that. It's not appropriate to do that in front of everybody--not everybody needs to hear it, and it could damage how she's thought of with others, and I'm not going to do that to her.

That's what happened here. He wanted to straighten something out with the black defendants in his courtroom. As a successful black man, he wanted to inspire them toward something, and tell the truth about how things are for black people--not in America at large, but RIGHT THERE in front of him. And he didn't think it was appropriate to have what was basically a private conversation out in front of everybody. So he asked the ones who it didn't concern to leave. Not because he hated them or he thought they didn't deserve or couldn't benefit from something, but because it just didn't concern them.

Can you consider that interpretation--MY interpretation--to be as likely to be The Truth About What Happened as YOUR interpretation is?

To start with, you'd have to give up that your interpretation IS the truth. You'd have to come to grips with your interpretation being just one of many possible interpretations. You know, it's not that your interpretation isn't valid--it's logically consistent with itself, you've got evidence to support it, etc, etc. What I'm asking for, though, would require you to acknowledge that other interpretations are equally valid, and that they're all interpretations.

If you can do that, then we're having your "sit down and look for common ground" conversation. If not, there's no conversation going on here, and none possible.

So you'd want the same lecture the black people got? You're sorry you missed out on being told to shape up? It's racist for him not to tell you that you're in sorry shape too? In my interpretation (which, again, if it's not as likely to be The Truth as yours is, we can't really talk), his excusing you means that he doesn't think you need this talk. See, I think if anybody is to be offended, it's the black people who he singled out as failures. But that's not how you see it. You see it the way that leaves you the wounded party. Which I find interesting. Not surprising--you are a human being, after all, and we human beings LOVE our victimhood--but interesting.

And I understand and can respect that.... don't agree with it, I believe it was the wrong venue and exclusionary, but I can accept that.

We're all human, we all have lapses in... well judgments. I can respect the reasoning of the judge wanting to help and his intent.

In the end we don't have to like someone's intent, the venue they chose or how they went about something, but if the results are positive, something worked and in a way he will have done his job.

............

Comparing a party at home to this setting is a stretch I can't make.

As I stated in my last post to Jewels......I don't agree with the venue or how it was done but I can respect the intent.

I can.


I have just answered his. I have no problem with this.

Let's have at it.

I still believe that in that venue, all could possibly have benefited.

I think that judge picked the wrong venue. I think the intention may have been truly a wonderful and inspiring one.

I disagree the bench or using his position to achieve this was the right venue.

I think he may have had a bad day, saw too many cases and in a way snapped. I do not believe this was a planned event, that this in fact was a spontaneous event and done out of emotion, possibly a combination, anger, hurt, embarrassment, for what he sees young men in he community doing.

I can find acceptance and true understanding in all that. I may even respect what he did just not the action and venue.

So we can find some ground on the superficial level.

Now what about the dark underbelly double standard this event brings up. To say it is not an issue, is wrong. To ignore it makes it worse.. We as a country must face it eventually and work through it.

I'm guessing by pan not answering why he continues to change the meaning of this thread he's got me on ignore as well, oh darn, I don't doubt I'm a 'hater' to pan, he already figures I have it in for him simply because I use his own words against him when he tries to use portions of arguments to suit his needs.

but i really don't see the "double standard" in this.

that's one of the main arguments that's run through the thread--you maintain it is, others disagree, you ignore the criticisms and act as though the characterization makes sense.
i don't think it does make sense and the post i put up a few days ago about the different weights attached to "african-american" and "white" in the states was *about* this characterization and it's logic.

that this judge cleared the court of all but african-americans ENACTS the particular ways in which the category african-american (or a substitute) functions culturally in the states.
that's it.

"white" (or a substitute) simply doesn't have the same range of possible uses.

its not a double standard--it's a use of language that reflects differing historical experiences in the states.

you might not like it--hell, who really likes the fact that the present is shaped by the past when that past is as ugly as that of the history of racism in america?---but that doesn't change what this is.


you'd prefer, it seems, to see in the rejection of your characterization of this as an example of a double standard something more or other than what it is--that i don't understand, but i suppose it's your prerogative--you seem to think, though, that rejecting your characterization is a defense of double-standards or "division" or "hatred" of "negativity" or whatever--and that makes no sense to me.

you just picked a bad example: it's a mistake.
everyone does something similar at one point or another.

Why is this a stretch? I think it's a perfect analogy. Unless the judge is making an official ruling, he's a private citizen, just like the rest of us. Just because he's wearing robes and sitting up on the bench doesn't make him any more or less right, any more or less authoritative. He was not making a ruling. HE IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, TOO. I've had police officers give me their personal opinion as a private citizen, and it does not reflect as an "official police action" or "official police position" in the least.

QFT. And bolded portion that I believe is essential to understanding the point of departure for all black/white racial issues in this country. To do otherwise is blind denial.

Not in my opinion. I never owned a slave, or had anything to do with perpetuating slavery. I approach racial issues under the asumption that blacks are equal to whites are equal to asians are equal to mexicans are equal to tongans and even the french: nobody is "owed" anything.

I am still waiting for you or seaver to cite the law the judge broke... or on what legal basis you would sue.

I am not an attorney, but if I were, I would advise you to grown up and stop whining.

I would also advise you that if you believe in judging others based on the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin.....learn more about the person's character than what you see (with no context) in a one-minute video.

Powerclown: There's an essential difference between equal and equal treatment. I, too, approach it with the understanding that they are 'equal'. But am I naive enough to think that just because I haven't owned slaves that everyone is being given equal treatment in society? Certainly not.

Everyone is owed the acknowledgment of the real world that they live in.

I judge people how they dress, sorry I can't help myself.

I walked to work this morning, there was a black male walking in front of me in a suit, there was a black male sitting on the bench in the bus stop wearing baggy pants, with one pulled up to his knee, a 'do' rag and a hoodie, there is a black male sitting next to me wearing jeans and a tshirt.

Yeah, the one dressed like a thug, him, he's the one I judged.

I don't feel racist for doing so either, I seriously hate the "thug" hip-hop culture and everything it stands for. It's the embodiment of a racial crybaby fest, it's the republican method of dealing with human differences, it's conflict, it's encouraging conflict.

truth be told, the skin could be any color, I dislike anyone instantly if they dress like a thug and they walk around like half retarded mouth breathers who have never owned a belt.

SORT of off topic but hey, lets turn what I said into a thread about "abuse of power" cuz apparently, the judge, who wanted to convey the same message I would have wanted to, isn't a racist, he just had no reason to tell people who were "doing it right" already, to "do it right" again

You go to far sir!

Given you'd be the one doing the owing, doesn't that strike you as a tad convenient?

If it were a white judge and he had done this would you support a black man suing him? YES OR NO.... no bullshit excuses, no "depends" given what we know happened and instead of the judge being black he was white... and now a black man is suing.... Would you support or find merit in that lawsuit?

Ummmmm did the judge base his speech on people's skin color (think hard who did he kick out and who did he keep in)? YES OR NO.

Sooooo who's judging by skin color and whom is judging by character?

Here's a clue: I'm judging by the actions of the judge.... HE judged by skin color.


So if a white judge had done this, it would have been ok with you?

YES OR NO.

I don't want any more excuses, any more bullshit, I want a simple yes or no.

We are all human and we are all equal under the law. If there are problems, bring them out, let's fight them together instead of allowing it.

To allow one to do a wrong and then complain that someone else did the exact same thing but wasn't of he right race/background is just as wrong as allowing the action the first time.

To excuse someone for a wrong because someone in the past of the same culture was wronged..... IS WRONG.

If a Wiccan Judge in Salem, Massachusetts had done this would it have been ok?

Remember, the they tried and burned witches in Salem, so they went after witches.

Neo-Pagans and Wiccans have their own cultures and beliefs and some talk in their circles. So it could be just a cultural thing. Is that ok?

I'm Wiccan/Pagan. I think if it's ok for this black judge to do this because of the history of black people.... then it has to be ok for my people to do this.

Fuck right or wrong .... I was wronged by those people in Salem. They tried and burned my ancestors.

What's that you say.... I'm going to far now. But my people.... but my heritage..... but my beliefs and values and culture....

I see doesn't matter to you. Ok. But if I were black it would?

Do you not see the hypocrisy you support?????????

If it were a white judge and he had done this would you support a black man suing him? NO

Ummmmm did the judge base his speech on people's skin color (think hard who did he kick out and who did he keep in)? YES


You are judging a person based on ONE ACT and WITHOUT CONTEXT...and making erroneous claims about the legality of that ACT.

Now for important related questions that reasonable people should consider before jumping to conclusions based on an emotional reaction to a one minute video.

Did he violate any rights of those persons he tossed out? NO.

Did he question the character of those he tossed out...or disparage them in any manner? NO

Was there harmful intent in what you describe as an "act of discrimination" towards those persons he tossed out. NO

Even without knowing intent, were the persons tossed out harmed in any way. NO

And YOU havent answered the question....what law was broken....what legal claims would you have to sue the judge?

I don't want any more excuses, any more bullshit, I want a simple answer.

pan why does it take 6 pages of no one agreeing with you to make you feel special?

just what the fuck is this thread even about anymore, i'm tired of seeing it bumped with "new posts" when the posts that are "new" are simply reworded paragraphs from page one.

what do you want? his head on a stick? is this really "injustice"? is this really an issue which is threatening the way of our lives? is this really close to harmful discrimination against whites? is this really close to censorship?

So we're down to: see it my way or admit that you are wrong. :lol:

The tunnel vision of the dictatorial.

Good words go flying by in all directions - swoosh, swoosh, swoosh - still, nothing compares to beating one's fist on a desk and demanding intellectual obedience.

un-fucking-believable.

We were making such progress there for a page or two, too...

......

Which was a greater trial for the white man....

White mans burden.

or

What mans guilt.

Tell me ratbastid as the great, great, grandchild of Irish immigrants who came to this country after the civil war, what do I owe?

You owe it to all Americans to provide them with equal opportunity. And that has NOTHING to do with your heritage or ancestors' provenance as Americans.

You're going to scream Socialism. But anything else has people cutting each other's throats on the streets.

Yes thats why I carry my shiv with me on my way home from work.

But what is equal opportunity?

Its a meaningless catch phrase until you define it.

Why do I get the sense I'm being baited?

I guess we may not know what it looks like until we get there. For now, it means putting more resources into those who are getting less. Inner-city schools are one good example. Under-funded, under-staffed failure-factories. Those Americans deserve better. Go on, tell me they don't.

You owe it to yourself to understand that unlike your great, great grandparents who came here by choice, ancestors of most blacks were brought here in chains and treated as 3/4 person for 200+ years.

You owe it to yourself to understand that even with the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution after the Civil War, blacks were still denied equal rights....to jobs, to housing, to public facilities, to voting, to equal justice in the courts......You were alive when there were "whites only" signs across American and poll taxes in the South.

You owe to yourself to understand that it took another 100 years and additional laws, Civil Rights Act/Voting Rights Act in the 1960s, to address the unmet promises made by the US with the passage of those 19th century amendments. You were alive when there were "whites only" signs across America and poll taxes in the South. This is not ancient history

And you owe to yourself to understand why this history still touches blacks in America today AND that blacks in America today still face discrimination and racism based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character.

But I honestly believe Pan is the one who needs this understanding.

Pan......are you planning to answer my questions:

Did the judge violate any rights of those persons he tossed out?

Did he question the character of those he tossed out...or disparage them in any manner?

Was there harmful intent in what you describe as an "act of discrimination" towards those persons he tossed out?

Even without knowing intent, were the persons tossed out harmed in any way?

And what law was broken....what legal claims would you have to sue the judge?

I don't want any more excuses, any more bullshit, I want simple YES or NO (or the name of a law for the last question) answers.

YES. And not just to Blacks. Anyone he or she see fit to single out and say it to in the courtroom. And if you think I am a racist because of it, then it is you with the problem.

I know what I am and who I am and I am not a racist. Do you know who you are? Maybe you don't and that is the problem.

You feel that way because of the following..

You might as well say we need prayer. There is no end goal to be defined until we get there, than we know we are there, because well we are there? Equal opportunity could be interpreted in so many ways and to such extremes its utterly meaningless. With equal opportunity there will still be rich and poor, still be lifes winners and losers, odds are you wouldn't know you were there when you were there because things would look the same.

Underfunded or poorly run? Failure factories due to teaching or failure factories due to the culture that surrounds them? When parents in these "failure factories" were to be offered vouchers to send their children to better schools who shot that down?

I am, of course, in an area with what are considered good public schools. I have told my wife when the time comes our children will be attending private schools, as I find even highly funded public schools to be inadequate mediocrity factories. My children will have a better opportunity than those students in their government run union controlled school, as 'good' as it is. Should that no longer be allowed? Should I as a parent not be allowed to spend more on my child?

I had to stop writing this to work, interestingly it involved this subject in conversation with a pro-union police officer. She is paying for her son to attend a Catholic school. She said it hurts every month they have to write the cheque but its worth it because he was so far behind in school and unused to discipline and homework. I said, isn't it funny that the Catholic schools do so much better than the public schools even on less money, she said 'well its because the teachers don't care'. Now I think thats being a little harsh, but it does illustrate the point that money isn't always the answer.

I think I'd know equal educational opportunity when I see it. And I think you're trying like crazy not to deal with the meat of the question.

Poor black people don't deserve your help, right? It wasn't your ancestors who made them that way. You happen to be a benefiting from a centuries-old culture of institutional racism, but that's pure coincidence. Nothing needs to change.

Is that REALLY what you're saying? I'm putting it like that because I don't actually think you're that heartless and selfish, and I want you to have the opportunity to see what it is you've said here, and comment on if that's really what you mean to say.

this thread is still alive?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...dead-horse.gif

You can't even answer what equal opportunity is and you ignore that and basically attack me for not dealing with the meat of the question?

I fail to see how I am befitting from past racism in the least. I'm white, how did it help me? Was I better off than if I were born into a poor black family? Hell ya, I'm also better off than if I were born into a poor white family. My family has worked hard and stayed out of trouble for several generations, how they managed to benifit from racism is beyond me at this point. Did it help them somehow make it through the great depression? Did it help my grandfather on Iwo Jima? Did it help me get into schools where I needed higher grades than a minority to attend?

And further, despite your tone what you have basically said is the age old joke 'Did you stop beating your wife?' If I disagree with you, I must be a racist. Sorry but thats bullcrap.

The good intentions of the great society have led to greater poverty and failure than the racist policies that came before it. How much more good money do you think needs to be thrown after bad before you are willing to admit 'Ok money isn't helping'. Do you really think more black fathers will stay with their families if you increase funding to social programs and schools? That crime will go down if you give more 'help'? This has gotten worse and worse despite ever increasing spending, and I think that spending is to blame for much of it. I'm all for adequately funding schools, seeing that people get a chance, but where do you draw the line, how much will you let your guilt over the sins of long dead white men to haunt you enough to continue to destroy the black family to assuage your conscience? I'm putting it like that because I don't actually think you're that heartless and selfish, and I want you to have the opportunity to see what it is you've said here, and comment on if that's really what you mean to say.

I dont doubt that you honestly believe this....of course, you dont have the facts to back it up.

I dont doubt that you equate a recognition of the gross injustices towards blacks in America for 200+ years as "white guilt"....of course, thats a cop-out.

I know exactly who I am and I like myself. And no I am not a racist.

You don't fall into the category 2 part, you believe all judges have the right to do this..

As I have stated over and over .... double edged issue.

Is the scenario ok? And is it just a black judge doing this that's ok or would you be ok with a white judge doing it? What about a Jewish or Pagan judge?

And if you say only the black judge.... how is that not as discriminatory as someone saying only Pagan judges?

To me when you say one group can and others can't and make excuses why it is ok then it is hypocritical

I would argue many here see the double issue but refuse to acknowledge it.

You did, I respect that.

People want add more into all this, call me a tool (Yes, I saw that before ya (Roachboy) changed it.... nice personal attack for a mod.)

Judging by your behavior as of late, you're in no position to pass judgment about personal attacks.

So Pan, plenty of people—myself included—have said that it would be okay if it were a white judge. What do you say to us? It seems that we don't view the judge as racist, nor do we fall under your label as being hypocritical.

Why not PM another mod if you have a problem with something a mod said to you? Seems the 'smart' thing to do. Makes more sense at least than pissing and moaning about and acting like a victim. Then again if you did that, you wouldn't be the center of attention, and you wouldn't get to martyr yourself in each and every thread you start. See pan that isn't a personal attack, that's a fact, go back and read your posts for the last few weeks and prove you haven't been seeing yourself as a martyr in every thread, I guarantee you can't prove it.

pan, darling, i used the word "fool."

i took it down not because i am a mod and not because i care what you think at this point, but because i decided the response was stronger without it.

It's a non-sequitur, as I've never - and will never - own a slave.

Most whites are not even guilty of any real crime against Blacks. My ancestors didnt do squat against Blacks. While they were working on plantations, my ancestors were poor peasants in Ukraine. Then when they got here, they had to work under terrible conditions in the coal mines of Pennsylvania; and my great-grandfather was even killed in an industrial accident.

So, what exactly do I have to be guilty of? Im proud of my ancestors, as any decent person should be. They were hard-working and didn't own slaves.

To attack an entire race and its heritage over the actions of a few is the epitome of bigotry. Liberals would never tolerate the same kinds of accusations and slanders if directed at anyother race. Please note the irony.

In fact if any group has suffered more in America is recent times, it's working class whites, or as Ruy A. Teixeira calls them, "America's Forgotten Majority".

I havent seen any attacks on your ancestors or anyone elses.

What has been attacked (I would prefer to say addressed) is the 200+ years (heritage?) of systemic institutional discrimination and racism....that still have carry-over effects.

Why is that so hard to understand?

hat's true and we had a decent discussion.

But if you go back and read through there were those that stated no a white judge can't do this..... that is the underbelly no one wants to acknowledge is racism, well at least those who support that belief.

So if I over and over again state if you say all judges can, I have issues with it but I can respect your opinion..... and you and I, and others and I, had a good debate on that aspect. Where I stated I just feel it's the wrong venue, an abuse of power, I feel it was prejudiced and that all could have benefitted and so on.... but that is MY OPINION and I am allowed to have it and to speak on it, last time I looked.

That's the easy part, the superficial part, that everyone wants to focus on.

It's the underbellied second part that is the problem no ne truly wants to discuss.

That is how can you say one group can do this but another can't? That promotes racism/sexism/discrimination in and of itself.

There are people who have posted that they wouldn't approve of a white judge in this situation but it is ok for a black judge. Then they come up with bullshit reasons why this hypocrisy is ok and should be ok.

It's not ok. My argument is if you say it is ok for one group then support any group that does this. We cannot pick and choose who we allow to do what, especially in court, especially with judges.

Now, why would the second part offend you so much that you feel the need to keep attacking me (1st paragraph is a lecture aimed at me not the topic.)

So no, if that doesn't make sense and what I have spent 6 pages arguing doesn't make sense then this country is in serious trouble. Because in the end, you allow one group to do it and not another.... then you build up barriers, resentments and prejudices and that will never allow races/religions/sex/etc to become equal.

But people will read into it what they want to get out of it, twist meanings to get what they want, call me a "fuckin tool" (I saw what I saw RB, Mr. Mod), tell me to shut the fuck up and whatever..... but they refuse to truly acknowledge what they approve of is just as wrong and as detrimental to society as anything.

But that is my opinion and I am allowed to have it.

Pan.....does all that BS mean you arent planning to answer my questions?

Did the judge violate any rights of those persons he tossed out?

Did he question the character of those he tossed out...or disparage them in any manner?

Was there harmful intent in what you describe as an "act of discrimination" towards those persons he tossed out?

Even without knowing intent, were the persons tossed out harmed in any way?

And what law was broken....what legal claims would you have to sue the judge?

I have answered those a few times.

Did he break a law? I don't know what laws there are for cases like these. But I do believe that it was unethical,

Did he do this with malicious intent? Don't truly know the intent. But the action IMHO was prejudicial, court is not the place, being a judge in court is an abuse of power.

Did he hurt anyone? I don't know an one that was in that court, but personally I would have felt discriminated against. If I had been one that stayed, I would have felt singled out, especially if it were my first time and my crime was a low misdemeanor that I challenged.

We need to ask ourselves, could everyone have benefited from his "lecture"? I would think so.

What grounds do I have to sue? I'd sue on the grounds of discrimination. Would I win? doubtful, but perhaps laws that would make this illegal would be passed.... maybe not.

This goes for ANY group. That is my belief. This is the superficial argument.

What do you think about the underbelly argument? Why do some believe it is ok for one group but not another to do things like this, when it is just as prejudicial as anything? If you are truly fighting racism, how can you support a black judge doing this but not a white judge?


In the end, people can be pro this action for ALL. That's one argument.... I am against the action period. But I can see both sides.

But when people say one group can and one can't and give some bullshit excuse..... then I can't see anything there but a prejudiced wolf in sheep's clothing. That person may truly believe it is ok..... but to me it's the worst form of prejudice.

There I answered your questions.... even tho, I have been saying the same basic things for the past 5 pages..... but that's ok.

BTW you didn't read any of the post above you did you.... because looking this one over and comparing my post above you...... they are almost identical.

So you "DONT truly KNOW the intent"

You "DONT KNOW anyone that was in that court" so you DONT KNOW if his actions hurt anyone.

Since you DONT KNOW who he tossed out...you DONT KNOW if they would have benefited from his lectures.

And you DONT KNOW if any laws were broken or laws under which you could sue for discrimination.

But YOU KNOW the judge is a racist.

Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Beluga whale! awwwww....

What?

Well, I'm not going to call the judge a liar, so I must defer to what he states was his intent.

No, I don't know anyone personally, but I know and have been going by the report (and as far as I can tell it is a true report).

Again, the report made it very clear who he tossed out and whom he though would benefit.... This came from the judge himself.

Laws don't have to be broken in order to sue. One can sue just about anyone in this country, it's all a matter of finding the right attorney who will take your case.

Ethics aren't laws in most cases, they are rules governing your profession. You get punished for ethical violations from the board of your profession (like mine would be the chemical dependency board).... those penalties can be minor from fines to major like losing licenses. Judges, I am sure have ethics that govern them and I'm sure a judicial review that watches them. Just as lawyers do.

If judges do not, may I recommend that maybe we get some in place.... it may also cut down on he discriminatory sentencing we hear about.

But you focus on the 1st argument.... not the second. So I assume, you believe, it is ok for ANY judge to throw out anyone and keep a select group only in his courtroom?

You do right?

If a white/Hispanic/gay/Jewish/Pagan/etc judge did this it would be ok with you????? Right? You're not just saying this is acceptable because this judge is black right?

I mean if the OP had been a white judge doing this and I ranted how racist and wrong I believed it to be (which I would have)...... you'd still hound me for 6 pages telling me it was ok?

Right?

Now, then we're clear on the superficial argument. And there is no underbellied argument because ALL judges have the right to select groups to have "talks" with in their courtroom and can kick everyone else out, in your opinion.

Cool. That was easy.

I have my opinion you have yours. That didn't really need to go 6 pages.

Unless you truly believe that one group is allowed to do this and the other can't. then you need to defend that with more than "It's a culture thing and blacks understand and can do this but whites can't." Then we have that issue to deal with.... the one no one wants to deal with.

I guess I was truly pwned there..... how dare I have standards and expect my government and judges to act in ethical ways.

pan, have you ever personally heard a judge voice his or her personal opinion after rendering an official judgment?

Do you have a problem with a judge doing that, if they don't ask anyone to leave first?

As a perfect example, I had a judge say the following to me:

"In light of your agreement with the district attorney, this court finds that you are guilty of XXXX, and sentences you to 24 hours of community service and a XXXX class. "

"And personally, I think you've gotten off very easy here. You could've been charged with far more serious things, and I think you owe the officers here an apology at the very least. I think you've got a lot of maturing to do, and I hope that you do it quickly because I don't want to see your face in here again."

The second half wasn't his "official" ruling, it was his personal opinion. It was embarrassing, and if he had said it to me in private, I would've preferred it.

I find no problem with what he did, and I would've think that anyone should be offended if he asked them to leave so he could deliver his "personal opinion" to me in private.

It is because of this personal memory that I find it hard to see this story in any other light.

I have no problem with your scenario. I believe it can be very helpful, as you demonstrate. He does it in front of everyone, shows no prejudice (especially if he has a history of this) and perhaps the embarrassment of everyone else in court seeing it may have done more to challenge the behavior than if he would have done it one on one with you (which needless to say, I would have disagreed with.)

I don't think clearing out everyone is necessary or is within his scope to do so.

I do however, as I have said over and over, believe kicking everyone out except a certain group is unethical, should be illegal, prejudicial and racist (in this case), had it been a male/female it would have been sexist and so on.

What people here don't seem to understand is that in this part, of the argument, race/sex/ethnicity/etc doesn't matter to me. Wrong is wrong.

When it becomes ok for a judge to separate and kick people out except of one persuasion but other judges of other types, they argue cannot

Then it becomes another issue.

I think people are either not wanting to argue the dark underbelly argument.. because it is hypocritical or they are somehow wanting to combine the 2 issues.

Seeings how I have separated the issues over and over..... I don't see how they could combine the 2.

When I think of prejudice, racism and sexism I think of things that cause actual harm to the effected individual. I guess I don't see how someone is harmed by being asked to leave a courtroom so that the judge can address a defendant or defendants personally. Courtrooms regularly ask the media to leave for certain parts, and I don't think they're being discriminated against.

It's not like he was giving something of tangible value that the excused parties were missing out on. I don't think I'm discriminating when I decide who I will and will not give advice to?

What is the tangible harm to those who left? How were they hurt?

See to me, prejudice/racism/sexism etc.... aren't just physical harm but mental and in cases like the OP, are treated differently.

What was the harm it making someone sit in the back of the bus or drink from a different fountain etc? but it was WRONG and we made laws, rightfully so, to make sure that doesn't happen anymore.

No physical harm at all, but it comes down to the mental harm and the harm that you are being treated differently.

Now in this case, where the judge is basically saying the whites and everyone except blacks won't get anything out of what he is saying.... is to me no different than asking someone to sit in the back of the bus or drink from a different fountain.

He prejudged that only a certain group would benefit. Plain and simple. Again to me that is WRONG, in the courtroom and in that position.

Again, if he wants to do that outside of his courtroom and position and as a private citizen in a townhall somewhere.... that is his freedom to do so.

But people here want to make it something more and try to pwn me and try to make me something, or read into this as something that it is not. This is superficial argument

If I say I hate all pink polka dotted people, but I have never hurt one physically.... it doesn't make me less prejudiced or racist does it?

The media is different.... people have the right to privacy, rape victims have the right to anonymity, and so on.

That's where I disagree. I don't think there's anything wrong with prejudice.

There's a big difference between prejudice, which is pre-judging someone or something based on an arbitrary characteristic, and discrimination, which actually disadvantages those being prejudged. These words are used so interchangeably tbat you could likely find definitions for each that overlapped each other, but there is a distinction for me between believing certain types of things and people will follow predictable patterns based on previous experiences with those types of things or people (natural human behavior), and discrimination, which is using that belief in such a way that it hurts someone else.

To build a case that this is not just prejudice (which I think is okay) and actual discrimination, you'd have to demonstrate disadvantage.

And that is probably why we disagree n the superficial argument.

We look at what prejudice is in differing ways.

One can prejudge someone or something based on an arbitrary characteristic and give more rights/liberties/leeway/etc to the group they favor and not think it derogatory or wrong. But in the end it is.

That can lead to the underbelly argument.

How can one say it is ok for the black judge to do this but not a white judge?

What would the difference be?

Why are you giving one group a pass but not another?

It may seem trivial, but if you do not stop it in the trivial stages.... it can grow to be a huge problem.

I believe this is a huge problem in this country right now. That we are allowing groups to do things we wouldn't allow others to do because we don't want to look like we're prejudiced.

We are on the road from one extreme and seem to be passing the point where positive solutions can be had to another extreme that is just as wrong and as detrimental and evil as the one we came from.

How can you even say this with a straight face? You know, I'm trying to stay out of these threads because of my 'personal involvement' with your 'damage'...but how the fuck can you say something like this with a straight face?

I am all too ready to discuss the gradations in what I will call 'present day reality vs. collateral damage & associated gripes' in dealing with race relations, but how can you even start with a mindset like this??

Total denial, total negation of what are the very real, present, effective after-effects of our own history. That history that is just as much our own as the progression of democracy, independence, women's rights, minority rights - every good thing we have done. Those things do not wipe out the reality for millions of Americans who are telling you differently. Get over yourself and YOUR white guilt. All they want is fucking acknowledgment. Is that really, really so hard to give??

We still have a lot of work left to do. Are you prepared for it, pan? Or are you only willing to fork out your declaration that 'all is well'?

And do me a favor, try to answer me without bringing up white people and pagans, okay? Thanks.

We do have an extreme amount of work to do. BUT IMHO we cannot do that as long as we treat one group different than another.

How long do we pay for the past before we have paid too much?

Why not look to the past, understand that it is over and find ways to positively move forward TOGETHER and not in a state of guilt or anger or hate.... but move forward in ways of understanding, love and compassion FOR ALL?

Again, to ME there is no difference in different drinking fountains and the back of the bus as there is in what this judge did.

He separated groups. Whatever the reason in his position and in the courthouse he had no right to...IMHO. IT was no different than different drinking fountains and the back of the bus. BOTH CASES ARE SERIOUSLY WRONG.

But like I keep saying, I can understand the arguments "for" and I can respect those.

It's the dark underbelly (which is a different but tied to this argument). I can't agree with, respect or understand in anyway shape or form.

I'm sorry, this will be the last thing I address to you on this thread, but this sounds like a whole bunch of nothing.

Whether we like it or not, we do not have the say in where the damage begins and ends. We are dealt the lot of dealing with it. In my opinion, if we are not up to dealing with it - with acceptance, tolerance, understanding...we will never get past the point where a judge feels it is necessary to single out his own race for curative reprimands. It's like we don't want to address the very real impulses that led this judge to act the way he did. It just seems like total denial of what we all know is going on.

And to judge him for it, is just...on the internet, nitpicking - but in the bigger picture, irrational - to insert a self-preservative statement where none deserves to be. This is how it seems to me. And, it seems, to a lot of other people, as well.

The real issue is so much bigger than whether you feel like you are getting the significant attention you feel you deserve as a white person. I mean, think about it. What particular hardship in regards to your race have you faced in trying to go about your daily life? What psychological deterrents have prevented you from pursuing whatever you want based on your race, not to mention all the other anxieties we face simply by being human?

I think you diminish the after-affects of centuries of discrimination because you simply don't want to deal with it. But 'dealing with it' is the most significant step to countering it. Because once you do that, you can just concentrate on reality and how you, as an individual, can contribute to countering that ongoing anxiety. Forget guilt, forget resentment, forget your own exculpation. Once you just accept the reality, then and only then can you truly start forgetting the past. I'm absolutely convinced that acceptance is the only way we will get past this. There is no denying the collective experience of millions of Americans. Just get over it.

That's your belief and opinion. Mine is that the time to come together and find out why a judge feels that separating is ok.

We need to find solutions not just let bullshit build up and go to another extreme.

I truly do not care what you "think" my motivation is.

My motivation is that I am tired of race/sex/religion/sex orientation/etc being a problem, but every time I turn around there are stories like this that separates a group again.

It's time we figure it out and stop the pussy footing around. We are all on this planet for a reason, we do not need to be separated into groups and treated differently by the group we are in.

We need to grow up, accept the past, learn from the past and find ways to make a better tomorrow FOR ALL... not just select groups while others can get off freely or be excused because of something that happened in the past.

Keep reliving the past opening the wounds and not letting them heal.... they'll keep festering with infection and disease.

But I guess that's too racist to understand.... to small minded to understand.... I guess I just don't get it.

Also, let's just give up the illusion that this man, this judge, was discriminating against white people and not instead just giving forgiving these young men, criminals, from humilation in front of everyone in the courtroom that day. Facts. Reality. They are our friends.

What you're 'tired of' couldn't be more irrelevant.

I already went back on my own word and addressed you again, but unless you can talk to me with real words, ideas, heart...don't bother. Wait till the next person comes along.

I'll have my opinion you have yours..... neither will change the world... only accomplishment and we end up disliking each other because of the other's IDEAS and OPINIONS.... aw well. If you're so small minded to not look at what I am saying and instead put some other meaning into it.... so be it.

IMHO, it was a racist, prejudicial move by the judge.

BTW, I don't tell you how to do anything YOU don't tell me what I need to do, dictate to me ANYTHING, unless I screw up here and it is as a mod.

BTW... do you think this action is OK for ALL judges or just select groups of judges?

Back when I was in high school, I used to think that the mere fact some tests asked about my sex and race was a bad idea, and I thought merely acknowledging those things in such a manner reinforced the idea that there were differences between the sexes and races. I believed that one of the first steps toward ending sexism and racism was to stop focusing on and acknowledging these things as identities. Basically, I thought that we needed to start ignoring the fact that some people are black and some are white and some are asian and some are women and some are men, because it was only when we learned to lump everyone together into being "people" that anyone will be truly equal.

Then I grew up.

Aside for being utopian, that viewpoint also ignores the reality that the past informs the future. Which is why, as many have tried to point out in this and other threads, equal and fair are often two different things. Personally, I'm more interested in having a fair country than an equal country.

That's about all I intend on saying right now though. As I said in my one other post in this thread, I think it's a waste of time to participate in these threads. I think pan (and others, but especially pan) is literally incapable of comprehending my, and others, point of view. So, it's not worth the energy to try.

(Incidentally, research is increasingly showing a biological component to political inclinations and worldviews. I'm not interested in fighting with biology over the internet. Not when it's been shown over and over again that the words aren't even being comprehended, let alone doing any convincing.)

One other side note: the "I'm entitled to my opinion defense" is extremely tired. People have opinions about whether or not Britney Spears makes good music. Whether or not black people in America have the same opportunities as white people, and whether or not there are aspects of our society that prevent black people from being as successful as other races in America are not matters of opinion. Nor is the definition of prejudice (as dc_dux so kindly provided).

It's extremely graphic, in some of the other pics, they display what happened to the driver. DO NOT LOOK!

<img src="http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/graphics/drunkdrive3.jpg">

Really....I mean it!!! Don't click on this link, capisci ?
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=9959&page=2

pan, your underbelly was SOUNDLY addressed by roachboy pages and pages and pages ago, and despite many requests to do so, you never replied to it. You're still stomping around as if nobody's responded to you.

In high school debate, roachboy would ask the judge to "carry across" that argument, which means basically that you'd ceded that point.

I've said it before, and I mean it this time: I'm DONE HERE. Far as I'm concerned, this conversation is OVER.

Let me ask a few somethings....

Have I told 1 person to shut the fuck up here?

Have I replied to a poster by calling them a name (fucking tool being an example)?

Have I talked down to, disrespected ANYONE in my replies unless it was a comeback to their attack?

Have I told anyone they wouldn't understand what I am saying?

Have I not answered most if not all posts I responded to with respect for their view and opinion, did I ever belittle 1 person?

Then why am I not entitled the same for mine? Just because you disagree with what I am saying does not mean I need to be told to shut he fuck up, does not mean I need to be called names, treat with disrespect and so on.

As far as high school debate, this would have been over as soon as Host told me to shut the fuck up, and so on.


Just asking because it seems to me, that you all tried very hard to silence my opinion outright, make me lose my temper and say something that would get me into trouble, or to make me look like something I'm not, so people wouldn't pay attention to the "dark underbelly" question I asked.

I would argue that as much as people stated they detested the idea they tried for 6 pages to silence my opinion, my views and my questions.

If true outrage had existed, if everything needing to be said had been said long ago, then why push it 6 pages? Why not let the old fucking tool (to use a MOD's name for me) talk to himself and let the thread die?

Yeah...... this isn't relevant at all and I'm a fuckin tool, and I'm slow and can't get your view and meanings.....

I'm not playing martyr just pointing the fact that when given the chance to let this die...... some couldn't... instead they had to keep trying to "catch me up in something" so they could validate their views of me thus the message and opinion wouldn't be worth hearing.... they didn't do it.

Followed by...
:confused:

You're seriously calling someone else small minded? You who hasn't looked at one fuckin thing we've said for what is it 4 or 5 threads now. Pot meet kettle, kettle this is pot.
Well why not sat that in the OP then, there you stated race had no part of this, nothing the fuck at all, you said it was an abuse of power, now suddenly it's just racist, so which is it?
You see pan, you don't even know why you're starting these threads, racism, abuse of power, who the fuck knows, I doubt even you.
Really? You're threads haven't shown it, all I've seen is a hard on for the black man coming from you, nothing about sexual discrimination, nothing about sexual orientation, nothing about religion, but I have seen 4 or 5 threads about race from you, and that seems to be the only one you care about. I know you won't respond because you ignore me, oh well, probably for the best
The post said 'FOOL', you've already been told that so quit lying.

That's pan for you, makes a big death row speach and then says I'm not martyring myself, fuckin hilarious.

Did anybody look? Pretty graphic, (gruesome) huh?

perfect example here pan: it's a very simple thing to comprehend that roachboy wrote fool, and not tool, and that he removed it from his post. He was very forthright about those facts. Yet, for some reason, even simple things like that seem unable to reach you, and you continue to say, repeatedly, that he called you a tool.

If people here can't even get through to you on something so simple as what word was written, then how can anyone expect to have any productive discussion with you on more complex issues such as race?

And incidentally, by repeatedly ignoring almost everything that has been written as a counterpoint to your posts, you are disrespecting the posters who have taken a lot of time to reply to you. That's where their frustration and anger comes from. I'd rather imagine that you're brain simply doesn't work in the same way as the people with opposing views, and that you're not ignoring their points, but simply not comprehending them in the same way. Trust me, that's a much more positive view than thinking you're simply ignoring everyone here. It's also not an insult, despite the fact you seem to take it as such. Like I wrote in my previous post: more and more studies are showing that there are fundamental differences in the psychological and biological workings of people's brains with respect to political inclinations. Just recently, I read an article about the correlation between dopamine levels and the tendancy to view the world in more black and white, leading to a tendancy toward conservative viewpoints. It doesn't make you any less of a person to be incapable of comprehending the words in the way they were intended, it just means it's a waste of time for people to continue writing those words when you've shown over and over that somewhere between their brain and yours, the meanings of the words change or get lost almost entirely.

No one is trying to "silence" you. If people wanted to silence you, they'd completely ignore you and let your threads quickly fall off the front page. Instead, people have been trying to have discussions with you. I'm not sure why, because they've gone nowhere, but they're still trying. For at least a month, and over more than a couple threads, people have repeatedly explained to you that you are not responding in any way whatsoever to the things they post in response to you. But they're certainly not trying to silence you.

As for whether or not you have a victim complex, the fact these threads keep coming back to you is a strong indication, and you ought to recognize that anyone who is truly acting in such a manner is generally incapable of recognizing it in themselves, so you ought to listen to the fact that so many people are saying it, including people who had previously had respect for you. Nonetheless, no one is trying to catch you or silence you. They're trying to provide counterpoints to your statements, which you summarily ignore. And it's certainly inappropriate to go around claiming victory that "they didn't do it," as if the fact you're still wasting your own and our time posting in these threads is some indication that your statements are valid. Being strong-willed has nothing to do with validity - just ask George Bush.

I took a look host, and fuck me that was crazy. I like Smart cars too, I wonder what they hit, must have been a tractor trailer to do that damage. Hey I just figured something out, those pics are more interesting than the topic of the thread, we should discuss the pics instead of this dribble.

The point is, silent_jay....this thread became, by about the second page, very similar to the "head on" traffic accident I linked to.

You experienced it, yourself. You are going by.....you don't want to look....but you end up looking...(posting), anyway.....

I'm just as confused also.

I thought you and I and some others had some very good debates.... yet I find I'm told to shut the fuck up, pwned, a mod feels the need to call me a fucking tool, another mod tells me he doubts I will ever understand what he says....and so on.

I have shown nothing but respect for others opinions and have not degraded anyone's differing viewpoint and I sure as Hell didn't attack anyone personally now did I?

So why was it ok to attack my viewpoint and attack me personally. None of you know me personally, just my posts.... none of you have ever talked to me in person, sent me IM's back and forth to talk personally to me.... but you can attack me.

Even I pointed out when that I was wrong calling the judge racist and prejudiced, but his action to me was.

A lot has been made over the definition of prejudice..... only one definition was given here's the whole definition....


I would say that this judge's actions met some of those criteria.

Aw well..... I guess some truly just do not want to debate ideas and views and would rather come up with personal attacks and name calling.

It also says a lot on where TFP is headed. Not so long ago when someone attacked a person by telling the to shut the fuck up, or calling them a fucking tool.... would lead to warnings and such.

Instead, now it seems to be acceptable behavior as long as you are a mod or have a couple other mods doing it also.

Ok let's say he wrote fuckin fool.... that is different than tool how? Is it still not an attack?

And we're back to this train wreck being all about pan again. You have an issue with a mod, PM a fuckin Admin and talk to them, or another mod, do you not get that pissing and moaning about it and using the 'pity me' attitude is getting you nowhere? The word was FOOL you fucking fool, you were called a FOOL. You are acting like a fool, so no I don't see that as an insult at all, you've ignored so many people, myself included, it's a waste of time and you're thread is a waste of space.

Here pan, I'll make it easy, this is how you see yourself as a martyr:
http://www.deaconlaz.org/images/max_...r_St_Julia.jpg

I agree host, this is a train wreck, and I can't look away, it's better than the telly that's for sure, better than most comedies on telly as well.

Here we go again.

Incidentally, when they're not writing in yellow, they're not speaking as mods. Mods get to have opinions. One thing I've noticed in the past is that people who have been unable to understand that distinction, end their tenure at TFP shortly thereafter. Sometimes they end it and sometimes they have it ended for them, but there's a strong correlation I've noticed with the act of conflating a mod's "non-mod" speech with a mod's "mod" speech. You could hear this like a threat (and that would be consistent with the victimization you're spewing). It's not a threat--I just want you to see the path you're walking here.

Awww host, do you feel no one is paying attention to your daily rants?

You and I go way back....we've been here a long while.

Since when has "shut the fuck up" posts been acceptable?

Since when has calling someone a "fucking tool (fool)" been acceptable?

Since when have the attacks on me personally been acceptable.

Show me others where someone posted "shut the fuck up" and nothing happened.

Show me others where someone is called a "fucking tool (fool)" and nothing has happened. I know what I read and I can tell the difference between t and f ... but being called or calling one either is wrong and used to be punishable here. But who am I to tell someone he called me a fucking tool when he wants to say he called me a fucking fool?

Why has this become acceptable?

No, I'll have to be thrown out..... and as you see after 6 pages of trying disparately.... ya can't get me into the personal attack games nor shut me up.

This is way to far off the OP and I refuse to answer anymore unless someone wants to talk more about the OP and only the OP in this thread.....

Don't worry Ustwo, we'll still pay attention to your rants as well

THE WORLD'S SMALLEST VIOLIN:
<img src="http://www.buzzlife.com/forums/images/smilies/pityparty.gif">

The funny part is, you saying this shows you don't know the difference between an 'f' and a 't', you think you saw a 't' because that fits your victim complex much better that seeing an 'f', but in reality, the word was fool.
Oh pity me, I was attacked, pity me, please pity me, fuckin pity me I was attacked.
No one has it in for you as you see it like we're tryin g to get you banned or something, why is it always about you?

The OP in this thread was unclear from the time you started it, you said it wasn't about race, then made it about race while continuing to say it wasn't.

The pwned thing was simply about trying to lighten up what I feel has become way too serious. It wasn't intended as an attack or anything of the sort. I was trying to calm things down. Perhaps I've failed in that. Still, I do think that EVERYONE should take a break from this thread, maybe go read a book or exercise and get their minds off it, and come back fresh. Clearly this thread is way too intense.

As for respecting others, a part of showing respect is listening. Speaking only for myself I feel that you've ignored quite a bit in this thread. Not only that, but you really, honestly are acting as a martyr in many of your posts in this thread which is what I was trying to get at in my post above.

You noticed that too? In the old days, no one would read much of what roachboy wrote and you had to point out to the mods when he did something like that, now no one gives a shit, not sure if anyone reads it though.

I think the 'unmoderated' politics board experiment has failed, but with Bill O'Rights quitting I can't say who I would trust to be a proper moderator at this point.

But interestingly while they call you are martyr sarcastically, I think you need to be aware, if you are not already what they really view as, and thats a Judas.

You were one of them and you betrayed them. You dared question the group think. For me they expect it and I've been called far worse here then you, but I've never been part of their religion, I was always an infidel.

Well I think you can consider yourself to be officially excommunicated from the TFP left, and you need to get out of the village before they get closer with the pitch forks and torches.

Don't worry to much, some of them can be quite reasonable once they leave the church here and head out into the other forums.

So pan my advice for what its worth, is let it pass, ignore the more trollish, focus on the reasonable and post more in sexuality where people forget their political affiliation

....and the band played on....
<img src="http://www.buzzlife.com/forums/images/smilies/pityparty.gif">

Calm down with the "group think", Dr. Phil. You're acting like liberals and conservatives never agree on TFP. We do all the time, but those instances are less memorable because there's no ginormous debate with mud slinging and eventual bannings. You and I, seeming polar opposites, agree on things ranging from religion to abortion. We probably also agree on things not brought up in TFPolitics, too.

I find this amusing coming from you.