Page 6 of 23
Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:58 am
by PLAYER57832
BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, Greek-Americans tend to be very shut off from other cultures.
In New Orleans, I find that hard to believe (which is why I brought up the example of the Greek Fest and so on and so forth). In other cities of America, how differently are Greek-Americans treated? And if you can't speak for all of them, or even most of them, then cite an example that you'd be well-versed on, and we can reasonably go from there.
Also, next time: if you don't understand what exactly I'm contending (which I failed to precisely point out), then you can simply ask me instead of stressing out.
A much fairer statement would be to say that first generation groups of ANY culture tend to "hand together" and rather be "shut off" from other cultures. IN fact, Greeks are pretty well emersed and spread in many cities including a couple I know pretty well -- Pittsburgh and San Francisco.
San Francisco brings up the one big exception, and back on topic .. namely China town. Chinese were historically heavily discriminated against. In addition, it is harder to transition from a culture as different as China has been (now getting more westernized, of course, but it will be a long time, if ever, before China is ever truly "western"). Add in the historical and (for lack of better terms) "tourist" attractions and China town remains Chinatown, whilst Italien sections are only barely Italien any longer, even though Italien descendents still claim ties to the heritage.
I am far less familiar with Greek culture/assimilation, but from what I can see, it is roughly the same. First generations stick more or less together, then other generations migrate out into the "mainstream", holding to some traditions ("artwork", food, basic customs and celebrations) and such, but mostly living in ways indistinguishable from any other American.
Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:18 am
by thegreekdog
In my experience (with my Greek relatives and their Greek friends), it is fairly common for second generation Greeks to stick to other Greeks. Is this a product of my particular family and geographic region (New Jersey)? Maybe.
Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:10 am
by BigBallinStalin
thegreekdog wrote:In my experience (with my Greek relatives and their Greek friends), it is fairly common for second generation Greeks to stick to other Greeks. Is this a product of my particular family and geographic region (New Jersey)? Maybe.
Sounds like your parents have issues.
Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:59 am
by thegreekdog
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:In my experience (with my Greek relatives and their Greek friends), it is fairly common for second generation Greeks to stick to other Greeks. Is this a product of my particular family and geographic region (New Jersey)? Maybe.
Sounds like your parents have issues.
Not my parents having issues with each other so much as my grandparents had issues with my mother. And by "had" I mean 30 years ago. At this point, there really are no issues to speak of.
Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:08 am
by Phatscotty
greeks have it the worst in America
Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:04 am
by Gillipig
GabonX wrote:I wanna know who voted "no".
Neoteny wrote:That's probably actually a deeper question than you can fathom.
No, it's actually pretty damn simple. It's as black and white as a question can be...
To the person who voted no: Presuming that I'm white, if I only vote for white people because they are white, is that racist or is it only racist for white people to do this while it's not racist for people of other races?
I know that's a tung twister run on, but the message is there.
As much as I agree with you I feel like I need to say that this really has got nothing to do with race. It's always okey to favor the minorities in a society. That's why black people can say they voted for Obama because he's black but white people can't say they voted for McCain because he's white! It has got nothing to do with their actual skin colour but with the fact that their skin colour is a minority! At the same time when you say you vote for someone because of their skin colour you lower yourself into second class citizens!
Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:19 am
by Phatscotty
Gillipig wrote:GabonX wrote:I wanna know who voted "no".
Neoteny wrote:That's probably actually a deeper question than you can fathom.
No, it's actually pretty damn simple. It's as black and white as a question can be...
To the person who voted no: Presuming that I'm white, if I only vote for white people because they are white, is that racist or is it only racist for white people to do this while it's not racist for people of other races?
I know that's a tung twister run on, but the message is there.
As much as I agree with you I feel like I need to say that this really has got nothing to do with race. It's always okey to favor the minorities in a society. That's why black people can say they voted for Obama because he's black but white people can't say they voted for McCain because he's white! It has got nothing to do with their actual skin colour but with the fact that their skin colour is a minority! At the same time when you say you vote for someone because of their skin colour you lower yourself into second class citizens!
Wow, where to begin. ok, so you go AGAINST MLK's dream of judging people by the content of their character, and jump right INTO judging by the color of their skin. You think a Minority want's favortism? how insulting....and you are AGAINST fredom of speech? White people and black people can say WHATEVER the F we want to. "black people can say this, but white people can't????? You are one of the most racist SOB's in this thread, and worse you don't even know it. YOU SIR are racially brainwashed and have it 180 degrees from the way MLK saw it
Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:52 pm
by PLAYER57832
Gillipig wrote:As much as I agree with you I feel like I need to say that this really has got nothing to do with race. It's always okey to favor the minorities in a society.
This is one of the BIGGEST MISCONCEPTIONS out there and leads to the whole idea that "some prejudice is OK".
The "song" is that minorities are always oppressed by the majority and therefore, giving them a "leg up" is OK, to equalize the "natural imbalance". The problem? MANY, however the primary one is that you just have it backwards.
The absolute worst oppression is NOT the majority opressing the minorities. It is MINORITIES that have to subjugate the MAJORITY in order to stay in power. They use nefarious means to do so, because they cannot "afford" equality. When a group is in power, it can afford to be "magnanimous", can afford to "be nice". This is, ironically enough, one reason why civil rights began up north and not down south. Too many southerners were plain and simply afraid of the idea of "all those black overrunning their society".
The
second issue (well, third and fourth, too because it all gets intertwined) are the difference between individual abilities and achievements, group abilities and achievements and definitions of groups. It is not cooincidence that Obama got to be a strong black man by being raised partially outside the US. That does not mean, as many wish to insinuate, he "has muslim leanings" or any such thing. It means that he escaped some of the unconscious, institutional racism that was (and probably still is in many places) prevalent here in the US. He was allowed to gain a "pride of self" .. and "sense of self worth" outside of and apart from the American "black community". That said, he is also very much a part of white America, through his mother. So, while he absolutely is black and in many regards fully represents "Black America", in another regard, he does not .. BUT, in truth, no one person can truly represent a whole group anyway.
So, you have multiple questions .. how "black is Obama?", "how important is color to Obama's experience?", "how significant was Obama's color to most of the US?"
The real truth is that groups change and meld over time. Some traditions stay, some traditions die. Some culture leave and are replaced by others. This is now happening much faster than in the past, due to TV, radio, etc. The sheer speed frightens many and is a not of caution for others. The real truth is that who is oppressed and who is in control shifts contstantly through time and that is why most "give this group a favor" programs wind up being more harmful than good, in the long run. The exceptions are very careful programs targeted not at promoting one group, but at simply allowing a group to exist. (i.e. the Amish, etc.)
In the end, the truly remarkable part about Obama is not that some blacks voted for him because he is black and some whites voted against him because he is black, its that most people voted for him for purely political reasons, at least as best they can determine in their own minds. Beyond that gets into complicated psycological stuff that is about as significant as asking if someone wearing blue is more likely to be elected than someone wearing green. That is, something you might want to know if you are running, but not really indicative of how people think about politics.
That's why black people can say they voted for Obama because he's black but white people can't say they voted for McCain because he's white! It has got nothing to do with their actual skin colour but with the fact that their skin colour is a minority! At the same time when you say you vote for someone because of their skin colour you lower yourself into second class citizens!
Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:59 pm
by Phatscotty
PLAYER57832 wrote:Gillipig wrote:As much as I agree with you I feel like I need to say that this really has got nothing to do with race. It's always okey to favor the minorities in a society.
This is one of the BIGGEST MISCONCEPTIONS out there and leads to the whole idea that "some prejudice is OK".
The "song" is that minorities are always oppressed by the majority and therefore, giving them a "leg up" is OK, to equalize the "natural imbalance". The problem? MANY, however the primary one is that you just have it backwards.
The absolute worst oppression is NOT the majority opressing the minorities. It is MINORITIES that have to subjugate the MAJORITY in order to stay in power. They use nefarious means to do so, because they cannot "afford" equality. When a group is in power, it can afford to be "magnanimous", can afford to "be nice". This is, ironically enough, one reason why civil rights began up north and not down south. Too many southerners were plain and simply afraid of the idea of "all those black overrunning their society".
The
second issue (well, third and fourth, too because it all gets intertwined) are the difference between individual abilities and achievements, group abilities and achievements and definitions of groups. It is not cooincidence that Obama got to be a strong black man by being raised partially outside the US. That does not mean, as many wish to insinuate, he "has muslim leanings" or any such thing. It means that he escaped some of the unconscious, institutional racism that was (and probably still is in many places) prevalent here in the US. He was allowed to gain a "pride of self" .. and "sense of self worth" outside of and apart from the American "black community". That said, he is also very much a part of white America, through his mother. So, while he absolutely is black and in many regards fully represents "Black America", in another regard, he does not .. BUT, in truth, no one person can truly represent a whole group anyway.
So, you have multiple questions .. how "black is Obama?", "how important is color to Obama's experience?", "how significant was Obama's color to most of the US?"
The real truth is that groups change and meld over time. Some traditions stay, some traditions die. Some culture leave and are replaced by others. This is now happening much faster than in the past, due to TV, radio, etc. The sheer speed frightens many and is a not of caution for others. The real truth is that who is oppressed and who is in control shifts contstantly through time and that is why most "give this group a favor" programs wind up being more harmful than good, in the long run. The exceptions are very careful programs targeted not at promoting one group, but at simply allowing a group to exist. (i.e. the Amish, etc.)
In the end, the truly remarkable part about Obama is not that some blacks voted for him because he is black and some whites voted against him because he is black, its that most people voted for him for purely political reasons, at least as best they can determine in their own minds. Beyond that gets into complicated psycological stuff that is about as significant as asking if someone wearing blue is more likely to be elected than someone wearing green. That is, something you might want to know if you are running, but not really indicative of how people think about politics.
That's why black people can say they voted for Obama because he's black but white people can't say they voted for McCain because he's white! It has got nothing to do with their actual skin colour but with the fact that their skin colour is a minority! At the same time when you say you vote for someone because of their skin colour you lower yourself into second class citizens!
So....then.....eventually one day the majority becomes the minority.....and the old minority/new majority will do what? immediately start taking the hits because of the "new minority"? I dont think so. Your ideas also rob the legitimacy of majority rules and democracy for that matter.
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:02 pm
by Phatscotty
Media isn't talking about race anymore. guess it isn't an issue then, until they remind us....
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:37 pm
by Timminz
Your dedication to dead threads is commendable.
Troll on!
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:07 pm
by Phatscotty
Timminz wrote:Your dedication to dead threads is commendable.
Troll on!
like a fresh smack in the face every now and then eh?
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:10 pm
by notyou2
Scotty, Obama's skin colour aside, what else bothers you about him?
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:37 pm
by Phatscotty
notyou2 wrote:Scotty, Obama's skin colour aside, what else bothers you about him?
you know, your walking down the sidewalk right.....and you notice....there is a steaming pile of shit....right there in the middle of the sidewalk. If you really want to be kicked, you shouldnt start out with a pile of shit. what are you really asking me. because I am just walking right around such ignorance
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:41 pm
by notyou2
Good job side stepping the pile of shit Scotty. Keep your eyes open and your nostrils flared and you'll be alright.
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:09 am
by Phatscotty
notyou2 wrote:Good job side stepping the pile of shit Scotty. Keep your eyes open and your nostrils flared and you'll be alright.
I had more hope for Obama than I did for Bush. I give him props when he deserves it.
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:51 pm
by notyou2
Is that a crack in the wall?
Where's a Dutchman with a finger when you need him?
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:42 pm
by Phatscotty
notyou2 wrote:Is that a crack in the wall?
Where's a Dutchman with a finger when you need him?
maybe...
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:44 pm
by Phatscotty
Timminz wrote:Your dedication to dead threads is commendable.
Troll on!

Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:55 pm
by Army of GOD
I just took a poop.
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:51 am
by hahaha3hahaha
-deleted-
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:31 pm
by Phatscotty
hahaha3hahaha wrote:Hey phatty why don't people like you? I enjoy your little political threads

sometime i express
too much of my opinion, usually about my individualism and individuality. either way, I only understand a couple of pure socialists and a couple others to feel that way. however, the polls subject was intended to address a racial question, however it is unavoidably political as well.
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:08 pm
by notyou2
The polls intent was to get people to express their racism eh Scotty. Tell the trolluth
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:11 pm
by khazalid
i'm really quite amazed there's an 80% yes vote.
isn't this just the same question as that of positive discrimination? if there is a racial bias within an institution, especially one so central as government, then it needs redress in one form or another.
Re: Poll on Racism
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:45 pm
by Phatscotty
notyou2 wrote:The polls intent was to get people to express their racism eh Scotty. Tell the trolluth
I think
Identifies racism is an accurate description. It is based on a given that, If you oppose someone based on the persons race, that is blatant racism. I wanted to know if the opposite was true. 4 out of 5. only poll I've made comes close to this kind of majority is the Poll on Unity, in which almost 4 out of 5 agree that Obama is cementing the division.