Racism

[jiminski]

No, believe it or not, I came to the judgement that armchair leftists allowing themselves to magestierally pass comments on war heroes like McCain whilst munching on fair trade tofu in front of BBC world news were pathetic, sorry excuses for human beings all by my self...now how about that?

So Nipper, Picture this: a Presidential candidate (highly decorated in Desert Storm incidentally) had a family member who was raped and murdered by a group of black, gang members while he was serving in country in Iraq!
In an interview, nearly 20 years later, the candidate (let's call him Senator X) announces to a journalist (who he knows to work for a national newspaper) that 'He hated the Niggers who did it, and he will always hate those Niggers as long as he lives"

Now tell me, is this individual:
A) likely to be elected
and
B) suitable material to be the Leader of the multicultural, United States of America?

[Napoleon Ier]

No, believe it or not, I came to the judgement that armchair leftists allowing themselves to magestierally pass comments on war heroes like McCain whilst munching on fair trade tofu in front of BBC world news were pathetic, sorry excuses for human beings all by my self...now how about that?

So Nipper, Picture this: a Presidential candidate (highly decorated in Desert Storm incidentally) had a family member who was raped and murdered by a group of black, gang members while he was serving in country in Iraq!
In an interview only 20 years later the candidate, let's call him Senator X, announces to a journalist (who he knows to work for a national newspaper) that 'He hated the Niggers who did it, and he will always hate those Niggers as long as he lives"

Now tell me, is this individual:
A) likely to be elected
and
B) suitable material to be the Leader of the multicultural, United States of America?

No, and abso-fucking-lutely yes.

If they get offended by "nigger", they're cretins unworthy of the privelidge of voting. I get funny abuse for being french all the time. Do I have right to squeal "wacist1!!!11" if I get called a continental wog, or a froggy? Of course not.

Besdies, semantically, "gooks" referred specifically to the NVA and VC for veterans of that conflict. Frankly, I've never heard "gooks" used in anything but war-films referencing the Indochinese war. It's nothing like "nigger".

[jiminski]

You know, I wonder how these pansy little leftists squealing like stuck pigs because McCain insulted their favoritest Communist Vietnamese ladyboys would react if they were to find themselves on Isabelle in May 1954.

see, when you write stuff like that, I just KNOW it's coming from your dad or your grandpa, or Rush Limbaugh or something.

you'll outgrow all of this kid, don't worry.

sheese Remi, you let him off the hook with your facile attempts at superiority... can you change sides please

Jiminski, you planning on making any sense anytime soon, or...?

hmm well i will translate for you this once Nipper: I was saying that Remi constantly proves himself inept in debates. He therefore gives you lifelines to enable you to wriggle from the burning wreck, which is your argument. By allowing you to beat him up verbally but with very little content.

As such he detracts from the sum of the debate and distracts from your underlying message.

[jiminski]

No, and abso-fucking-lutely yes.

If they get offended by "nigger", they're cretins unworthy of the privelidge of voting. I get funny abuse for being french all the time. Do I have right to squeal "wacist1!!!11" if I get called a continental wog, or a froggy? Of course not.

Besdies, semantically, "gooks" referred specifically to the NVA and VC for veterans of that conflict. Frankly, I've never heard "gooks" used in anything but war-films referencing the Indochinese war. It's nothing like "nigger".

Again you miss the point... completely; are you truly so naive Nappy? do you wish to be educated or will you remain obtuse to serve the purpose of your argument?

[PLAYER57832]

well fair enough. its somewhere in there somewhere basically i just called them not real scientists and made a few semantic arguments. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Oh, OK...fair enough. I think I must point you to the excellent GabonX's commentary on the matter: we don't know what each race's qualities are or what they mean, but each race is certainly more different than the PC Academic fascists would have us think.

The real truth is that even what constitutes a "race" varies with culture. In the US, it is common to refer to 4 basic races. I am old enough to remember learning in school about the white, black, red and yellow groups. I also remember the look on my teacher's face when I (and a couple of other girls) exclaimed how pretty mixing white and red were ... not precisely the "lesson" our teacher was trying to pass on. Thankfully, the best lesson I learned was at home and in my church, where even back then, in a small rural community, we had people of different races.

Any way, I got a natural history type atlas from another country and they laid out not just white/black/yellow/red, but distinguished about 12-15 different groups, including Irish as a distinct Europeann group.

In the US, everything gets more complicated because we are all pretty mixed. A couple of famous "black" personalities, for example recently took part in genetic studies and found that over 50% of their genetic makeup was northern European.

But here is the thing Genetics, biology and the way folks are raised each have so many varied impacts that it is very, very, very difficult to pick out how any one particular factor contributes to what a person becomes. For any example, there are thousands of exceptions. Take even something as Mental Retardation. I doubt anyone would suggest but that those individuals have a rougher road than the rest of us. Yet, there are a couple of well known TV stars who each have Downs, each have a relatively low IQ, yet they managed to obtain High School diplomas. Contrat that with the many geniuses or near geniuses who end up in Juvenile Detention and never do complete a degree... or anything else of note. (and I do not speak lightly... a high percentage of incarcerated juveniles ARE kids with relatively high IQs)

Two things you said are true.

1. Talking about race and racial genetics is touchy ... but something we perhaps should be able to analyze and discuss just like anything else.

2. Each individual has control over what they become, regardless of what attributes they have or don't have.

[Napoleon Ier]

No, and abso-fucking-lutely yes.

If they get offended by "nigger", they're cretins unworthy of the privelidge of voting. I get funny abuse for being french all the time. Do I have right to squeal "wacist1!!!11" if I get called a continental wog, or a froggy? Of course not.

Besdies, semantically, "gooks" referred specifically to the NVA and VC for veterans of that conflict. Frankly, I've never heard "gooks" used in anything but war-films referencing the Indochinese war. It's nothing like "nigger".

Again you miss the point... completely; are you truly so naive Nappy? do you wish to be educated or will you remain obtuse to serve the purpose of your argument?

Again you refuse to address the point...completely. Are you truly so naive Jiminsky? Do you want to grow up to be a cowboy like me?

[Napoleon Ier]

well fair enough. its somewhere in there somewhere basically i just called them not real scientists and made a few semantic arguments. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Oh, OK...fair enough. I think I must point you to the excellent GabonX's commentary on the matter: we don't know what each race's qualities are or what they mean, but each race is certainly more different than the PC Academic fascists would have us think.

I also remember the look on my teacher's face when I (and a couple of other girls) exclaimed how pretty mixing white and red were ... not precisely the "lesson" our teacher was trying to pass on. Thankfully, the best lesson I learned was at home and in my church, where even back then, in a small rural community, we had people of different races.

Very touching. I'm sure you were a hero of the Civil Rights Movement. Yays for you.

[Joodoo]

Somehow I think this thread has turned from a discussion/debate to a flame. I refuse to post here (to stay out of trouble) until it changes back to what it's suppose to be.

[jiminski]

1. Talking about race and racial genetics is touchy ... but something we perhaps should be able to analyze and discuss just like anything else.

Of course, i agree wholeheartedly! however what are we talking about.... Are we talking about whether the comments on the front page were racist, elitist or just plain stupid?

Somehow we have been wildly steered towards eugenics, punctuated by the concept that war heroes should be allowed to say what they like and still be elected to one of the most difficult, measured and diplomatically demanding jobs in the world .. Christ did we learn nothing from putting a fatally flawed mind on the Washington throne?

fine Nipper, we should be able to say what we like... in many ways i agree; words are just words. But the whole basis of being the American President is about communication and prudence in action.
Whether or not we judge what McCain said to be Racist or just the words of a hurt and angry man... the way he communicated was second rate at best. And as a man of political ambition; imprudence of the highest order.

the Term 'Gook' became a generic term used for all peoples of indeterminate 'Slanty-eyed' Asian origin. It is the language of the Red-neck. Therefore the specific connotation of intent from McCain or 'Senator X', is largely irrelevant when we are judging a suitable candidate for Presidency.



Further, if we are to seriously discuss propensity to a divergence in racial intelligence, based upon the impact of habitat upon genetic necessity? then fine let us do so... but Nippers opening gambit was to firstly pretend to be devils advocate and then to be trying to ensnare blind liberals in their own net... Well in doing so, he caught himself in the net of his own cowardice.

If you want to say it, say it! just do so with good reasoning and an open mind! Then i am happy to enter the debate on level ground.

[jiminski]

Somehow I think this thread has turned from a discussion/debate to a flame. I refuse to post here (to stay out of trouble) until it changes back to what it's suppose to be.

Nah get stuck in ya limp-wristed jessie all welcome..
you will find that after a small veering towards name calling, we will have a reasoned debate! .. hey you can even steer it to where you think we should be if you join in! no help in remaining silent.

[jiminski]

.... Are you truly so naive Jiminsky? Do you wish to gain an IQ or will you remain to appear retarded because you can't construct an argument?

ahhh now we are getting somewhere! so you admit that with training in the nuances of IQ testing and assistance in linguistic structure; IQ can be increased!

not so naive after all Nipper...



I agree, therefore it can not be judged to be a reliable test of intelligence between individuals of varying exposure to complex language or the overall methodology of the IQ test.

[Napoleon Ier]

fine Nipper, we should be able to say what we like... in many ways i agree; words are just words. But the whole basis of being the American President is about communication and prudence in action.
Whether or not we judge what McCain said to be Racist or just the words of a hurt and angry man... the way he communicated was second rate at best. And as a man of political ambition; imprudence of the highest order.

the Term 'Gook' became a generic term used for all peoples of indeterminate 'Slanty-eyed' Asian origin. It is the language of the Red-neck. Therefore the specific connotation of intent from McCain or 'Senator X', is largely irrelevant when we are judging a suitable candidate for Presidency.

I see. So Sen. McCain is therefore going to...call Asian diplomats gooks to their faces? Such is your fear? Or he's going to be interpreted by intelligent people who matter as referring to anyone more than his NVA captors, and cause offence? No? What is he going to do that you're afraid of, jiminski...

..Re-invade Vietnam?

Start a nuclear war with China?

What exactly are you insinuating here?

It just seems very strange to me, that a poor man who's been through hell in a concentration camp and doesn't have too many kind words going spare to describe the inhuman brutes, who tormented him and other young men fighting for the freedom of future generations against a cruel, totalitarian, heartless foe, should therefore be condemned for this on an extremely tenuous semantical technicality.

In fact what it comes down to, simply, in reductionnist terms, is that you, rather embarrasingly, having no real substantive arguments against McCain's concrete proposals, need to resort to vile, slanderous twisting of words. It's cowardly, it's a demagogic tactic, and unfortunately, it's probably going to work. But those people who manipulate a simple mark of contempt for concentration camp torturers by one of their victims into a racist slur, quite frankly, deserve no respect, and have crossed a moral line, debasing themselves to the level of scavenging, criminal swine.

[Napoleon Ier]

.... Are you truly so naive Jiminsky? Do you wish to gain an IQ or will you remain to appear retarded because you can't construct an argument?

ahhh now we are getting somewhere! so you admit that with training in the nuances of IQ testing and assistance in linguistic structure; IQ can be increased!

not so naive after all Nipper...



I agree, therefore it can not be judged to be a reliable test of intelligence between individuals of varying exposure to complex language or the overall methodology of the IQ test.

Hmmm...possibly. It is 80% genetically determined, however. Clearly, you dont know what you're talking about, but that doesn't reallymatter, I just want to see what you have to say for yourself on the McCain issue, because that is frankly too far.

[jiminski]

I see. So Sen. McCain is therefore going to...call Asian diplomats gooks to their faces? Such is your fear? Or he's going to be interpreted by intelligent people who matter as referring to anyone more than his NVA captors, and cause offence? No? What is he going to do that you're afraid of, jiminski...

..Re-invade Vietnam?

Start a nuclear war with China?

What exactly are you insinuating here?

It just seems very strange to me, that a poor man who's been through hell in a concentration camp and doesn't have too many kind words going spare to describe the inhuman brutes, who tormented him and other young men fighting for the freedom of future generations against a cruel, totalitarian, heartless foe, should therefore be condemned for this on an extremely tenuous semantical technicality.

In fact what it comes down to, simply, in reductionnist terms, is that you, rather embarrasingly, having no real substantive arguments against McCain's concrete proposals, need to resort to vile, slanderous twisting of words. It's cowardly, it's a demagogic tactic, and unfortunately, it's probably going to work. But those people who manipulate a simple mark of contempt for concentration camp torturers by one of their victims into a racist slur, quite frankly, deserve no respect, and have crossed a moral line, debasing themselves to the level of scavenging, criminal swine.

No, but i do commend you on just how many words you can use to miss the point with.

[Napoleon Ier]

I see. So Sen. McCain is therefore going to...call Asian diplomats gooks to their faces? Such is your fear? Or he's going to be interpreted by intelligent people who matter as referring to anyone more than his NVA captors, and cause offence? No? What is he going to do that you're afraid of, jiminski...

..Re-invade Vietnam?

Start a nuclear war with China?

What exactly are you insinuating here?

It just seems very strange to me, that a poor man who's been through hell in a concentration camp and doesn't have too many kind words going spare to describe the inhuman brutes, who tormented him and other young men fighting for the freedom of future generations against a cruel, totalitarian, heartless foe, should therefore be condemned for this on an extremely tenuous semantical technicality.

In fact what it comes down to, simply, in reductionnist terms, is that you, rather embarrasingly, having no real substantive arguments against McCain's concrete proposals, need to resort to vile, slanderous twisting of words. It's cowardly, it's a demagogic tactic, and unfortunately, it's probably going to work. But those people who manipulate a simple mark of contempt for concentration camp torturers by one of their victims into a racist slur, quite frankly, deserve no respect, and have crossed a moral line, debasing themselves to the level of scavenging, criminal swine.

No, but i do commend you on just how many words you can use to miss the point with.

I'm not missing the point, because you have no point. Only an IQ smaller than your shoe size and a rather nasty method of diffamating people which, hopefully, will backfire for you someday.

[jiminski]

.... Are you truly so naive Jiminsky? Do you wish to gain an IQ or will you remain to appear retarded because you can't construct an argument?

ahhh now we are getting somewhere! so you admit that with training in the nuances of IQ testing and assistance in linguistic structure; IQ can be increased!

not so naive after all Nipper...



I agree, therefore it can not be judged to be a reliable test of intelligence between individuals of varying exposure to complex language or the overall methodology of the IQ test.

Hmmm...possibly. It is 80% genetically determined, however. Clearly, you dont know what you're talking about, but that doesn't reallymatter, I just want to see what you have to say for yourself on the McCain issue, because that is frankly too far.

heheh excellent! so a French person who speaks no English and sits an IQ test constructed in English, will score 80% of their potential score, had the test been in French? *

damn! i had no idea they could be so precise! you should not be wasting your time here Nipper.. take it out into the world man!

* or am i being purposefully obtuse?

[jiminski]

I'm not missing the point, because you have no point. Only an IQ smaller than your shoe size and a rather nasty method of diffamating people which, hopefully, will backfire for you someday.

heheh is that your strategy Nipper? when all else fails, rely upon you being part of the Master race and tell your detractors that they have an inferior IQ!

I like it it man ... : simple yet defective!

[Napoleon Ier]

My God...just when I thought Penos_ridan had been a trough in the intellectual level I'd encounter on this forum, what should crawl from underneath retarded rock but Jiminski and his extra chromosome...

Tell me Jiminski, are you a qualified psychometrist? And did you know that the mainstream view amongst qualified people, who've been and studied this area of psychlogy, is that it s 80% genetically determined, as an overall percentage? You do understand the concept behind taking averages, and behind using statistics? I mean, just to take basic example, so as not to be responsible for your cerebral meltdown, when a study says that a societal certain group earns 5% more than others, you do understand that's an average, a central tendancy, or expected value, for a given statistical set? That not every single member of said group (say, college graduates) earns 5% more than the rest of the general population? Jah? Verstehen wir?

[Snorri1234]

I see. So Sen. McCain is therefore going to...call Asian diplomats gooks to their faces?

Well he had no problems saying it to the press, so why couldn't he tell it to diplomats?

Or he's going to be interpreted by intelligent people who matter as referring to anyone more than his NVA captors, and cause offence? No?

You're pretty fucking naive if you think noone is going to be offended because they're all reasonable and intelligent people and would never fall out over sensitive issues....I'm pretty sure insults are always welcomed and laughed at.

It just seems very strange to me, that a poor man who's been through hell in a concentration camp and doesn't have too many kind words going spare to describe the inhuman brutes, who tormented him and other young men fighting for the freedom of future generations against a cruel, totalitarian, heartless foe, should therefore be condemned for this on an extremely tenuous semantical technicality.

Brilliant! You could just have said: "the guy was tortured so I think it's okay.'

Instead, you decided to throw in a bunch of biased rhetoric to make it seem anyone disagreeing with you is an evil (and therefore socialist) monster who probably doesn't even believe in god or something. In doing that you 've managed to to make yourself seem like a propaganda-machine that would be admired by America in the '50s.

In fact what it comes down to, simply, in reductionnist terms, is that you, rather embarrasingly, having no real substantive arguments against McCain's concrete proposals, need to resort to vile, slanderous twisting of words. It's cowardly, it's a demagogic tactic, and unfortunately, it's probably going to work.

Well good thing the right-wing never resorts to such things, right?

But those people who manipulate a simple mark of contempt for concentration camp torturers by one of their victims into a racist slur,

Yeah uhm...naps. It is a racist slur. Intent is completely irrelevant here.

[Napoleon Ier]

heheh is that your strategy Nipper? when all else fails, rely upon you being part of the Master race and tell your detractors that they have an inferior IQ!

I like it it man ... : simple yet defective![/quote]

No, but i do commend you on just how many words you can use to miss the point with.

heheh is that your strategy jiminski? when all else fails, resort to a non-existant,mythical point you never made and claim the opposition missed it?

I like it...: It makes you look like a fooking clown, and allows me to enjoy a gratifyng feeling of superiority to you. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go discuss a rational subject with someone serious. More of your conversation would, I fear, infect my brain.

[Snorri1234]

If they get offended by "nigger", they're cretins unworthy of the privelidge of voting. I get funny abuse for being french all the time. Do I have right to squeal "wacist1!!!11" if I get called a continental wog, or a froggy? Of course not.

Of course you have the right to squal whatever you want. However, we're not running for president of one of the most powerfull countries in the entire world which would mean what we do and say actually matters a rather great deal...

Also, we are joking. If a person running for President said he hates the french and always will while being dead-serious, I'd say I have to think about it too....

Besdies, semantically, "gooks" referred specifically to the NVA and VC for veterans of that conflict. Frankly, I've never heard "gooks" used in anything but war-films referencing the Indochinese war. It's nothing like "nigger".

Yes whatever. I'm sure you're the expert on this because of you living in the US and stuff like that.

[Napoleon Ier]

I see. So Sen. McCain is therefore going to...call Asian diplomats gooks to their faces?

Well he had no problems saying it to the press, so why couldn't he tell it to diplomats?

Because, quite clearly, he only applied the term to the more distasteful elements of the NVA circa, 1970, not to all Asian people across the globe.

Or he's going to be interpreted by intelligent people who matter as referring to anyone more than his NVA captors, and cause offence? No?

You're pretty fucking naive if you think noone is going to be offended because they're all reasonable and intelligent people and would never fall out over sensitive issues....I'm pretty sure insults are always welcomed and laughed at.

Anyone intelligent knows full well the intent and extent of "gooks" as used in McCain's, or any other veteran of the second Indochinese conflict's, vocabulary, that is, to denigrate the Communist enemy of US forces.

It just seems very strange to me, that a poor man who's been through hell in a concentration camp and doesn't have too many kind words going spare to describe the inhuman brutes, who tormented him and other young men fighting for the freedom of future generations against a cruel, totalitarian, heartless foe, should therefore be condemned for this on an extremely tenuous semantical technicality.

Brilliant! You could just have said: "the guy was tortured so I think it's okay.'

Instead, you decided to throw in a bunch of biased rhetoric to make it seem anyone disagreeing with you is an evil (and therefore socialist) monster who probably doesn't even believe in god or something. In doing that you 've managed to to make yourself seem like a propaganda-machine that would be admired by America in the '50s.

No, I'm trying to make clear to the ignorami who inhabit the intellectually sterile waters of this accusation, that McCain went through hell to help them. Ingrate little welfare leeching brats.

In fact what it comes down to, simply, in reductionnist terms, is that you, rather embarrasingly, having no real substantive arguments against McCain's concrete proposals, need to resort to vile, slanderous twisting of words. It's cowardly, it's a demagogic tactic, and unfortunately, it's probably going to work.

Well good thing the right-wing never resorts to such things, right?

Some people do, and wherever they are, they need to be condemned.

But those people who manipulate a simple mark of contempt for concentration camp torturers by one of their victims into a racist slur,

Yeah uhm...naps. It is a racist slur. Intent is completely irrelevant here

Intent is clearly not irrelevant. But here comes the old "words have absolute immutable meanings" twaddle again...how many times does need to be made clear to you that words do not have objective, set definitions, but exist in a seperate plane of semantical flux?

[jiminski]

My God...just when I thought Penos_ridan had been a trough in the intellectual level I'd encounter on this forum, what should crawl from underneath retarded rock but Jiminski and his extra chromosome...

Tell me Jiminski, are you a qualified psychometrist? And did you know that the mainstream view amongst qualified people, who've been and studied this area of psychlogy, is that it s 80% genetically determined, as an overall percentage? You do understand the concept behind taking averages, and behind using statistics? I mean, just to take basic example, so as not to be responsible for your cerebral meltdown, when a study says that a societal certain group earns 5% more than others, you do understand that's an average, a central tendancy, or expected value, for a given statistical set? That not every single member of said group (say, college graduates) earns 5% more than the rest of the general population? Jah? Verstehen wir?

come on Nipper... resorting to the 'IQ tool' is just a basic and blunt weapon. It is not the incise panacea which you seem to think it is.

Whether there is a generally held standard, average percentage of probable affect is not the point nor is it relevant. If an individual does not possess the repertoire of comprehension it is not a valid test. The fundamental influence which the 'average' arbitrary percentage misses is the very nature of learning. It is quite obvious that humans learn to learn and neurological pathways are formed in the mind which directly influence the manner in which we problem and think.
Language is one of the cornerstones of neurological expansion which is the basis of higher understanding... but of course you know this already.... yes?

no matter how you brush it up the "you are stupider than me, i win argument' does not always work... sometimes yes! but not always.


McCain is a Nazi.

[PLAYER57832]

I think you are rather missing a couple of points.

When I mentioined some excuse for McCain, I was primarily saying that we have this tendency to excuse stupidity and poor taste comments EXCEPT when it comes to race. For some reason, everybody has to be "perfect" in their speech.

The irony? Many times those very attempts at AVOIDING racism are themselves racist.

But to get back to McCain. The real truth is that everyone has a few thorns. Its called being human. We don't elect leaders because they are perfect, but because they represent the best choice amongst other imperfections. Some people get caught up in labels. But, look what labels got us in the last election. One of the prime reasons George W. Bush was elected was his claim to Christianity.

Never mind that he probably is a Christian. Never mind that the other candidates claimed to be (and probably are) as well. Bush capitolized on a particular set of beliefs and got those who agreed with is STATED views on those issues to vote for him. The result? I would not consider his PUBLIC actions particularly great examples of Christianity.

Now, I don't like McCain for a lot of reasons. BUT, to refuse to elect him based on one comment made in a tired moment .. is a bit much.

Was it a wonderful comment? Of course not. But, to call it "equivalent to" the word
"nigger" is not correct. The term "gook" was used during the Vietnahm era to denote the ENEMY. McCain was tortured by that enemy. Those terms no doubt solidified in his brain in ways they would not have in the regular population. That he, when tired, forgot himself and spouted off an unwise term is, if not completely excusable, not te same as someone using the term "nigger" which has NEVER had any sort of reasonable connotation EVER.


Furthermore, why is that comment so much more significant than, say, offhand comments he made about troop deployments, the economy, etc.

Maybe he is a racist, maybe not. The IMPORTANT thing is is voting record, his political record, his actions. In those ACTIONS, I don't see evidence of racism.

You have a choice .. you can vote for the person who sound the best, forgetting his actual record. OR, you can look at a person's record and look around the foibles.

[Napoleon Ier]

Further, if we are to seriously discuss propensity to a divergence in racial intelligence, based upon the impact of habitat upon genetic necessity? then fine let us do so... but Nippers opening gambit was to firstly pretend to be devils advocate and then to be trying to ensnare blind liberals in their own net... Well in doing so, he caught himself in the net of his own cowardice.

If you want to say it, say it! just do so with good reasoning and an open mind! Then i am happy to enter the debate on level ground.

I certainly don't. I simply believe that every human being is equal in the objective standard that is the eyes of God, but am open to possibilities of variations in abilities amongst ethnic groups. If you're suggesting I'm a "closet-racist" of some sort inorder to decredibilize my arguments to your profit, then frankly, it's rather pathetic.