Taking the meaning of racism too far.

First topic message reminder :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3454987/Two-college-students-cause-racism-furore-posing-blacked-selfie-undergoing-facial-treatment.html

OMG....talk about over reacting.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Ignorance again

Biologically there is only one human race, as a social construct, there are many invented classifications to define humans with races
Can you understand the difference or would you like me to dumb this down into a capacity of a 4 year old, in order that you understand why yet again, bitterness is driving you to ensure you look like a dick

You missed the list of microaggressions then.

Did I Rags, can you point them out or did I even say all of them?

No?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

So now girls are supposed to use only non-black face masks just in case it offends someone?

Only white girls. Black girls can use black face packs. Perhaps black girls shouldn't use white face packs though - just in case someone thinks they're being racist.

A true sign of complete ignorance.
Someone white who of course claims not to be racism, making fun of where b;ack girls have been victims of racism.
What can I say, people easily expose their ignorance

Raggamuffin wrote:I find this business about not asking people where they're from hilarious. I think it's common in the UK to ask people where they're from - based on accents. We have a wide variety of accents in the UK. It's absurd that I can ask a white person where they're from, but that I should have to think twice before I ask a black or Asian person with a "northern" accent where they're from in case they think it's microaggressive behaviour. Perhaps if I ever do ask a black or Asian person that question, I should say "where are you from in the UK".

Do you find it hilarious?
I would question why you think you need to think twice asking where a black or Asian person comes from.
I understand you just invent things when desperate Rags, but hey, you could actually learn something valuable here and go away educated for once

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I find this business about not asking people where they're from hilarious. I think it's common in the UK to ask people where they're from - based on accents. We have a wide variety of accents in the UK. It's absurd that I can ask a white person where they're from, but that I should have to think twice before I ask a black or Asian person with a "northern" accent where they're from in case they think it's microaggressive behaviour. Perhaps if I ever do ask a black or Asian person that question, I should say "where are you from in the UK".

Do you find it hilarious?
I would question why you think you need to think twice asking where a black or Asian person comes from.
I understand you just invent things when desperate Rags, but hey, you could actually learn something valuable here and go away educated for once

Yes I do find it hilarious.

I think you missed the point. According to the list of microaggressions, white Americans should think twice before they ask an Asian person where they're from because such a question is implying that they're foreigners. I think you need to read that list in order to understand some of the points in this thread, and you need to understand when someone is not being completely serious.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You missed the list of microaggressions then.

Did I Rags, can you point them out or did I even say all of them?

No?

I'm happy to explain because I think you misunderstood Victor's post.

In the list of microaggressions, it says that if you say "there is only one race, the human race", you are "denying the individual as a racial/cultural being", and you are therefore displaying microaggressive racial behaviour. Victor pointed out that you say that kind of thing yourself. He also said that he thought the microaggression list was crazy, and therefore, he was not actually accusing you of being racist - he was being sarcastic.

http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/race-terms-uw.jpg

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:



Do you find it hilarious?
I would question why you think you need to think twice asking where a black or Asian person comes from.
I understand you just invent things when desperate Rags, but hey, you could actually learn something valuable here and go away educated for once

Yes I do find it hilarious.

I think you missed the point. According to the list of microaggressions, white Americans should think twice before they ask an Asian person where they're from because such a question is implying that they're foreigners. I think you need to read that list in order to understand some of the points in this thread, and you need to understand when someone is not being completely serious.

Its one point of view based on their reasoning.
Does that mean I now have to subscribe to ever comment they have made, if I do not agree with them on some points?
lol I did not even post the thing, but this is what is amusing that you and other look to stick on inane points as if this excxuses your ignorance on the social issues in the United States.
I can categorically say, at every turn you look to defend discrimination racially.
Now that is a fact.
Of course you could be as ignorant as Victor and go off something I have stated correctly that "biologically" races do not exist in humans, but they do as social constructs. Of course an imbecilic as Victor is poorly then tries to deceive off this, which you jumped in on and joined him, knowing full well he was telling porkies.

You see those led by prejudice easily expose how poor their reasoning is

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Did I Rags, can you point them out or did I even say all of them?

No?

I'm happy to explain because I think you misunderstood Victor's post.

In the list of microaggressions, it says that if you say "there is only one race, the human race", you are "denying the individual as a racial/cultural being", and you are therefore displaying microaggressive racial behaviour. Victor pointed out that you say that kind of thing yourself. He also said that he thought the microaggression list was crazy, and therefore, he was not actually accusing you of being racist - he was being sarcastic.

http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/race-terms-uw.jpg

Its a view held by some of the left which of yet I had made no view on, which you both automatically attributed to my views.
Again that reeks of desperation, when I am just easily exposing how this is all you have to reason with, dishonesty

I will repeat again for the slow witted
"Biologically" in humans there is only one human race. This is a fact
At no point have I or do I deny a person the social construct race classification that they have.

Hence why the two of you as seen reek of desperation

Victor completely lied as that is what happens when bitterness is propelling his view to answer

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes I do find it hilarious.

I think you missed the point. According to the list of microaggressions, white Americans should think twice before they ask an Asian person where they're from because such a question is implying that they're foreigners. I think you need to read that list in order to understand some of the points in this thread, and you need to understand when someone is not being completely serious.

Its one point of view based on their reasoning.
Does that mean I now have to subscribe to ever comment they have made, if I do not agree with them on some points?
lol I did not even post the thing, but this is what is amusing that you and other look to stick on inane points as if this excxuses your ignorance on the social issues in the United States.
I can categorically say, at every turn you look to defend discrimination racially.
Now that is a fact.
Of course you could be as ignorant as Victor and go off something I have stated correctly that "biologically" races do not exist in humans, but they do as social constructs. Of course an imbecilic as Victor is poorly then tries to deceive off this, which you jumped in on and joined him, knowing full well he was telling porkies.

You see those led by prejudice easily expose how poor their reasoning is

The point is that Victor and I are taking the piss out of some of the things on that list. You chose to take umbrage at his example of the kind of thing you say even though he was clearly being sarcastic, and you got abusive - as usual.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm happy to explain because I think you misunderstood Victor's post.

In the list of microaggressions, it says that if you say "there is only one race, the human race", you are "denying the individual as a racial/cultural being", and you are therefore displaying microaggressive racial behaviour. Victor pointed out that you say that kind of thing yourself. He also said that he thought the microaggression list was crazy, and therefore, he was not actually accusing you of being racist - he was being sarcastic.

http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/race-terms-uw.jpg

Its a view held by some of the left which of yet I had made no view on, which you both automatically attributed to my views.
Again that reeks of desperation, when I am just easily exposing how this is all you have to reason with, dishonesty

I will repeat again for the slow witted
"Biologically" in humans there is only one human race. This is a fact
At no point have I or do I deny a person the social construct race classification that they have.

Hence why the two of you as seen reek of desperation

Victor completely lied as that is what happens when bitterness is propelling his view to answer

Well then you should accuse whoever made that list of being "slow witted", not me or Victor.

Now you're getting abusive towards me, even though I've patiently explained to you what Victor meant out of the kindness of my heart. Therefore, I will not reply to any more posts where you are even slightly insulting - as I've told you before.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its one point of view based on their reasoning.
Does that mean I now have to subscribe to ever comment they have made, if I do not agree with them on some points?
lol I did not even post the thing, but this is what is amusing that you and other look to stick on inane points as if this excxuses your ignorance on the social issues in the United States.
I can categorically say, at every turn you look to defend discrimination racially.
Now that is a fact.
Of course you could be as ignorant as Victor and go off something I have stated correctly that "biologically" races do not exist in humans, but they do as social constructs. Of course an imbecilic as Victor is poorly then tries to deceive off this, which you jumped in on and joined him, knowing full well he was telling porkies.

You see those led by prejudice easily expose how poor their reasoning is

The point is that Victor and I are taking the piss out of some of the things on that list. You chose to take umbrage at his example of the kind of thing you say even though he was clearly being sarcastic, and you got abusive - as usual.

Which again proves both your ignorance here where the pair of you have utterly no comprehension of racial discrimination.
Its the only explanation that applies when two poster both first lie based off nothing I posted, lie again by claiming things I have not said, missing what I have said. Then miss where it actually does have many valid points and where again Victor has not got a clue on racial discrimination and to top this off and prove why each of you are clueless on this. You both sought to deflect and take the piss, rendering your stance here completely born from ignorance

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its a view held by some of the left which of yet I had made no view on, which you both automatically attributed to my views.
Again that reeks of desperation, when I am just easily exposing how this is all you have to reason with, dishonesty

I will repeat again for the slow witted
"Biologically" in humans there is only one human race. This is a fact
At no point have I or do I deny a person the social construct race classification that they have.

Hence why the two of you as seen reek of desperation

Victor completely lied as that is what happens when bitterness is propelling his view to answer

Well then you should accuse whoever made that list of being "slow witted", not me or Victor.

Now you're getting abusive towards me, even though I've patiently explained to you what Victor meant out of the kindness of my heart. Therefore, I will not reply to any more posts where you are even slightly insulting - as I've told you before.

They had some very valid points

Victor is a hypocrite and can only argue off fear, hence his limited capacities to debate

Not being abusive Rags, but simply stating a fact

I'll wait until someone who knows how to conduct themselves properly posts in this thread - if anyone else is still interested of course.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'll wait until someone who knows how to conduct themselves properly posts in this thread - if anyone else is still interested of course.

Well by that stance I think you will never reach your target, because you fail to judge how poor you are in regards to how you treat people

When you grow up by a few decades I made then consider treating you then with at least some respect.

That respect has to be earnt, and jumping on thinking its fine to laugh about racially discrimination clearly indicates an utter ignorance on your part on this topic

Raggamuffin wrote:What's funny about these "microaggressions" is that the people who came up with the list are assuming that all black people are loud - because they're black.  

lol so it was you posting up the Universities guidelines



You can tell the article around this is by a useful idiot by their views as seen here.


It’s hard to believe Wisconsin college students are almost halfway through their first semester. Unfortunately, when the school year started, instead of orientation, our kids got a head full of indoctrination.

The University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point published a list of “Examples of Racial Microaggressions” on its official website. According to UWSP, a microaggression is described as “daily slights visited upon people of color, women, LGBT persons and other historically oppressed communities.” After some unfavorable national media attention this summer, UWSP clarified that the material is used in new faculty seminars and that the university is not banning the words but rather “building awareness” for a safe and inclusive environment on campus. Intentional or not, this list has a chilling effect on speech for new staff and especially young students who are still forming their own beliefs or worry that straying from the school sanctioned list of words and opinions could result in social repercussions or a lower grade in class.



Indoctrination to teach equality now is it Rags and teach also prejudice against minorities is wrong lol?
Its not denying any speech but instead offering up a set of guidelines, subjective based on their views
I do not think they are going about this the right way, but again it shows how Victor jumps off what you posted and the Uni;s guidelines on this
She then goes off what you all said, that the best person for the role gets the job, but that does not always happen because some people are discriminated against. It shows how far removed some of these clowns are that countless evidence shows to this discrimination.

She is only concerned on money being used to defend free speech, not tackle hate speech

That says it all about how far removed this person is from understand racial discrimination suffered by African Americans.

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/10/28/campos-duffy-uwsp-chills-free-speech/74694770/

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not a different understanding.  Just less of an understanding.

Why should you?  In Britain they have never experienced what goes on every day, decade after decade, century after century, in Alabama, Florida or South Carolina.  You can't get it from a textbook.  You may see a cell phone video clip of a cop murdering a black man in Columbia, and still not get the sense of the depth and breadth of the situation.  You've gotta feel what it's like when it goes on every day, and it has gone on that way for the past 400 years.

As didge correctly gets, only the experience of history can give you a sense of it.

Well we have a lot more history than you do...maybe we just get on with life as it is now and don't persecute the people of today for the atrocities of the past.

Nobody has any different history than anyone else.  Mine is American history, and before that Scottish history, and then before that Celtic history, etc., etc., etc.  It goes back forever as does yours.  You are confusing geographic borders with chronological discontinuity, looking for breaks where there are none.

I find interesting your distinction between being the being the black person and standing outside, seeing the situation of the black person.  It reminds me of the distinction that anthropologists make between structuralism and functionalism.  The structuralist stands outside the culture he is studying, and with detached objectivity records what he sees; but it is argued he can develop no 'feel' for what it's like to be inside the culture.  The functionalist lives within the culture and becomes intimate with every detail of it, but he loses the detached objectivity of being an independent observer.  Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, 2 vols. (1958, 1976).

The problem with arguing the pure functionalist method, is you are locked inside the culture, unable to objectively describe it, or even understand it--least of all, to describe it to other cultures.  I think as a white American I can get close enough to black culture, without being swept into it, it's myths, values and perspectives.  And yes, I do feel with blacks, but not so much that I cannot engage my highly white, Scottish/Massachusetts objectivity, and deal with it that way.

It's a matter of exposure, not clear lines--well, history--that describes life.  The British don't have that closeness to the functional reality of post-slavery, black culture.  They've not been raised by a black nanny, or built a fence with an old black man.  They have not driven down a Louisiana highway and seen the blacks have to drive 5-mph under the speed limits, for fear of being pulled over and beaten by the white cop.  They have no feeling for--as didge puts it--the history of it all.

Consequently, the Brits rather cavalierly say, What's the problem?  White equals black...so of course there can be white racism!   For them, that life is all clear lines. But where's the nanny?  Where's the white cop?  Where's the beating?  The Brits have not experienced the...well, the history of it all.

It's my opinion that this kind of silly "microaggression" business is doing exactly the opposite to what it's supposed to do.

You want people to be equal? Of course you do. Why then would you tell a white person that they should talk to a black person in a different way?

You want black people to not be victims? Of course you do. Why then do you keep on telling them that they're victims, and why do you keep telling white people to treat them like victims?

can anyone tell me...did didge reply to any of my posts with anything EXCEPT his usual condescending blather....?????

Lord Foul wrote:can anyone tell me...did didge reply to any of my posts with anything EXCEPT his usual condescending blather....?????

There was some abuse as a result of him misunderstanding one of your posts.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well we have a lot more history than you do...maybe we just get on with life as it is now and don't persecute the people of today for the atrocities of the past.

Nobody has any different history than anyone else.  Mine is American history, and before that Scottish history, and then before that Celtic history, etc., etc., etc.  It goes back forever as does yours.  You are confusing geographic borders with chronological discontinuity, looking for breaks where there are none.

I find interesting your distinction between being the being the black person and standing outside, seeing the situation of the black person.  It reminds me of the distinction that anthropologists make between structuralism and functionalism.  The structuralist stands outside the culture he is studying, and with detached objectivity records what he sees; but it is argued he can develop no 'feel' for what it's like to be inside the culture.  The functionalist lives within the culture and becomes intimate with every detail of it, but he loses the detached objectivity of being an independent observer.  Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, 2 vols. (1958, 1976).

The problem with arguing the pure functionalist method, is you are locked inside the culture, unable to objectively describe it, or even understand it--least of all, to describe it to other cultures.  I think as a white American I can get close enough to black culture, without being swept into it, it's myths, values and perspectives.  And yes, I do feel with blacks, but not so much that I cannot engage my highly white, Scottish/Massachusetts objectivity, and deal with it that way.

It's a matter of exposure, not clear lines--well, history--that describes life.  The British don't have that closeness to the functional reality of post-slavery, black culture.  They've not been raised by a black nanny, or built a fence with an old black man.  They have not driven down a Louisiana highway and seen the blacks have to drive 5-mph under the speed limits, for fear of being pulled over and beaten by the white cop.  They have no feeling for--as didge puts it--the history of it all.

Consequently, the Brits rather cavalierly say, What's the problem?  White equals black...so of course there can be white racism!   For them, that life is all clear lines.  But where's the nanny?  Where's the white cop?  Where's the beating?  The Brits have not experienced the...well, the history of it all.

Excellent post

Sadly some have a very long way to understanding discrimination in the US

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:can anyone tell me...did didge reply to any of my posts with anything EXCEPT his usual condescending blather....?????

There was some abuse as a result of him misunderstanding one of your posts.

No just your misunderstanding Rags

Telling lies again Rags, you will have to wash your mouth out again with soap.
Never mind there is no misunderstanding on my part, just you again proving how little worth you are by doing what you do everyday.
Stirring

As to Victor, he will have to accept I will post answers where he made the poorest arguments

Anyway, be a good girl and act your age for once

Thanks

I could of course quote the abuse as a result of the misunderstanding - if I could be bothered.

Raggamuffin wrote:I could of course quote the abuse as a result of the misunderstanding - if I could be bothered.

Be far better to quote every single point I made if you want to be mine and Victors personal slave of course

I know he is reading them anyway, he has made some errors, which based off he going off them, clearly shows he did read my posts

Talking about slaves in a thread about racism isn't very PC.

Raggamuffin wrote:Talking about slaves in a thread about racism isn't very PC.

Its metaphorical, or is your lack of intelligence as poor as I thought.
Never mind my child, you will catch on eventually

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well we have a lot more history than you do...maybe we just get on with life as it is now and don't persecute the people of today for the atrocities of the past.

Nobody has any different history than anyone else.  Mine is American history, and before that Scottish history, and then before that Celtic history, etc., etc., etc.  It goes back forever as does yours.  You are confusing geographic borders with chronological discontinuity, looking for breaks where there are none.

I find interesting your distinction between being the being the black person and standing outside, seeing the situation of the black person.  It reminds me of the distinction that anthropologists make between structuralism and functionalism.  The structuralist stands outside the culture he is studying, and with detached objectivity records what he sees; but it is argued he can develop no 'feel' for what it's like to be inside the culture.  The functionalist lives within the culture and becomes intimate with every detail of it, but he loses the detached objectivity of being an independent observer.  Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, 2 vols. (1958, 1976).

The problem with arguing the pure functionalist method, is you are locked inside the culture, unable to objectively describe it, or even understand it--least of all, to describe it to other cultures.  I think as a white American I can get close enough to black culture, without being swept into it, it's myths, values and perspectives.  And yes, I do feel with blacks, but not so much that I cannot engage my highly white, Scottish/Massachusetts objectivity, and deal with it that way.

It's a matter of exposure, not clear lines--well, history--that describes life.  The British don't have that closeness to the functional reality of post-slavery, black culture.  They've not been raised by a black nanny, or built a fence with an old black man.  They have not driven down a Louisiana highway and seen the blacks have to drive 5-mph under the speed limits, for fear of being pulled over and beaten by the white cop.  They have no feeling for--as didge puts it--the history of it all.

Consequently, the Brits rather cavalierly say, What's the problem?  White equals black...so of course there can be white racism!   For them, that life is all clear lines.  But where's the nanny?  Where's the white cop?  Where's the beating?  The Brits have not experienced the...well, the history of it all.

I meant we as a country have survived for thousands of years you have survived for 100's....therefore we obviously have more history. Personal history differs from person to person, I would not comment on anyone elses history here because I don't live in their shoes.
I'm not sure why you think I have no empathy for black people...I do. I live amongst Asians and have black people in my family, I am not ignorant to any racism (real not imagined) they have suffered.
I just think and continue to do so, that so many red herrings have brought into this thread to try to prove that the girls in the OP were acting in a racist at worse....stupid at best manner, and I just disagree.

what I want to know is ....given that ridiculous list of "micro aggressions"


what in fact could Mr white gut actually say and converse with mr "not white guy"?

you cant ask him where hes from
you cant ask him to give you a hand with your work
in fact you cant ask or speak to him much about anything it seems


and YET if you were to NOT talk to him...you would ALSO be wrong


pure idiocy ....

anyone else see the fawlty tower-esque grotesqueness of the "denial of individual racism" gumph?

firstly you are not even allowed to denty racism...so one can only presume that as "mr white guy" it is automatically assumed you are racist....just like didge does to ANYONE who disagrees with him....and cannot deny that since by doing so you are "micro aggressive"

just like fawlty towers

Lord Foul wrote:anyone else see the fawlty tower-esque grotesqueness of the "denial of individual racism" gumph?

firstly you are not even allowed to denty racism...so one can only presume that as "mr white guy" it is automatically assumed you are racist....just like didge does to ANYONE who disagrees with him....and cannot deny that since by doing so you are "micro aggressive"

just like fawlty towers

I love FT...still watch the repeats and laugh just as much.

I cannot remember much UK racism until the sob sisters/pc brigade came on the scene

I was watching the Don't mention the war clip just the other day!

Stormee wrote:I cannot remember much UK racism until the sob sisters/pc brigade came on the scene

Well that was Quills point earlier on, but I disagree.
I think there has been racism here (and still is) not to the extent as in the USA, and not specifically to Black people, but Asians especially are definitely still discriminated against.....and in turn they discriminate against not only Whites but people who are from a different background, creed, culture to themselves.

The worst racist incidents I have personally seen have been between Pakistanis and Indians in my area.

Raggamuffin wrote:I was watching the Don't mention the war clip just the other day!

Brilliant....pity they only made so few episodes.

Lord Foul wrote:what I want to know is ....given  that ridiculous list of "micro aggressions"


what in fact could Mr white gut actually say and converse with mr "not white guy"?

you cant ask him where hes from
you cant ask him to give you a hand with your work
in fact you cant ask or speak to him much about anything it seems


and YET if you were to NOT talk to him...you would ALSO be wrong


pure idiocy ....

It seems to me that they don't want you to mention someone's colour, but on the other hand they want you to be constantly mentioning someone's colour. They need to make up their minds.

Why do these bossy people think they can tell others what they should or shouldn't say? If I want to ask an Asian person about science, I will, and if I want to ask someone where they're from, I will. If I think that the best qualified person should get the job, I'll say so. If someone has an issue with me not acknowledging that they're a different colour to me, that's their problem. Thank goodness we don't have so much of this nonsense in the UK, although I think some people would like it if we did. I really don't know why Americans put up with this nonsense.

Syl wrote:

Stormee wrote:I cannot remember much UK racism until the sob sisters/pc brigade came on the scene

Well that was Quills point earlier on, but I disagree.
I think there has been racism here (and still is) not to the extent as in the USA, and not specifically  to Black people, but Asians especially are definitely still discriminated against.....and in turn they discriminate against not only Whites but people who are from a different background, creed, culture to themselves.

The worst racist incidents I have personally  seen have been between Pakistanis and Indians in my area.

I posted something a while back, forget where.
Indians were saying that those lovely Pakistani people were hated by more people worldwide than any other race.

When I was a whippersnapper there was hardly any racism around UK specially when you compare it to today. I maintain that certain nationalities have brought it upon them selves.

Rags..Guilt probably...but you cant make up for the sins of the fathers by constantly dwelling on what happened then.
Just make sure it isn't happening now, and if it is...STOP IT .

Stormee wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well that was Quills point earlier on, but I disagree.
I think there has been racism here (and still is) not to the extent as in the USA, and not specifically  to Black people, but Asians especially are definitely still discriminated against.....and in turn they discriminate against not only Whites but people who are from a different background, creed, culture to themselves.

The worst racist incidents I have personally  seen have been between Pakistanis and Indians in my area.

I posted something a while back, forget where.
Indians were saying that those lovely Pakistani people were hated by more people worldwide than any other race.

When I was a whippersnapper there was hardly any racism around UK specially when you compare it to today. I maintain that certain nationalities have brought it upon them selves.  

In my area there was something of an Indian/Pakistan hate thing going on for a few years....I think they detested each other equally.

Syl wrote:Rags..Guilt probably...but you cant make up for the sins of the fathers by constantly dwelling on what happened then.
Just make sure it isn't happening now, and if it is...STOP IT .

I think it's actually making the problem worse - it's creating a group of "victims", a group of guilt-ridden wet wimps, and another group who probably resent being told that they're "racist" just because they don't say what some "expert" thinks they should say.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Rags..Guilt probably...but you cant make up for the sins of the fathers by constantly dwelling on what happened then.
Just make sure it isn't happening now, and if it is...STOP IT .

I think it's actually making the problem worse - it's creating a group of "victims", a group of guilt-ridden wet wimps, and another group who probably resent being told that they're "racist" just because they don't say what some "expert" thinks they should say.

Well if this one thread is anything to go by, to me it proves that people make problems where none exist.
Wisconsin uni for starting the whole thing, only to have to backtrack after everything had been stirred up, and then some of the comments here that agreed with the issue in the first place.
It's been interesting though.

Lord Foul wrote:what I want to know is ....given  that ridiculous list of "micro aggressions"


what in fact could Mr white gut actually say and converse with mr "not white guy"?

you cant ask him where hes from
you cant ask him to give you a hand with your work
in fact you cant ask or speak to him much about anything it seems


and YET if you were to NOT talk to him...you would ALSO be wrong


pure idiocy ....

Completely failing to grasp what has been stated and now going off guide lines from a University, which without prejudice and discrimination, would not need to exist.
As to your conclusion claiming they are aggressive, further concludes what a fragile little flower that you are, make the most dumbest possible claims, when you have never actually raced and suffered racial discrimination
As to how each converse with each other in the University, it may help if you bothered to read the pro republican article, is that again no words were banned, but this was just as guideline


The University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point published a list of “Examples of Racial Microaggressions” on its official website. According to UWSP, a microaggression is described as “daily slights visited upon people of color, women, LGBT persons and other historically oppressed communities.” After some unfavorable national media attention this summer, UWSP clarified that the material is used in new faculty seminars and that the university is not banning the words but rather “building awareness” for a safe and inclusive environment on campus. 




I mean this has been pointed out once already and you are still wrongly assuming he would not be able to say what he likes as its still fundamentally free speech, rendering your comments on the thread to be the views of an utter simpleton further distracting from the point at hand. Plus the Uni's views are subjective  , but next time read up on what you are debating acout
Move along chap, there is only so many times I can watch you continue to make the same error


Try reading the article of which you went off, as it will save you any embarrassment you are now suffering

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:what I want to know is ....given  that ridiculous list of "micro aggressions"


what in fact could Mr white gut actually say and converse with mr "not white guy"?

you cant ask him where hes from
you cant ask him to give you a hand with your work
in fact you cant ask or speak to him much about anything it seems


and YET if you were to NOT talk to him...you would ALSO be wrong


pure idiocy ....

It seems to me that they don't want you to mention someone's colour, but on the other hand they want you to be constantly mentioning someone's colour. They need to make up their minds.

Why do these bossy people think they can tell others what they should or shouldn't say? If I want to ask an Asian person about science, I will, and if I want to ask someone where they're from, I will. If I think that the best qualified person should get the job, I'll say so. If someone has an issue with me not acknowledging that they're a different colour to me, that's their problem.  Thank goodness we don't have so much of this nonsense in the UK, although I think some people would like it if we did. I really don't know why Americans put up with this nonsense.

If at first you do not succeed Syl it seems your motto, is fabricate lies now onto both myself and Quill, because again you simply have a very poor understanding of social issue in the US
As to your false lie above, in countless posts nobody has shied away from anything and have stated clearly the if they are black or white.
This just further proves when someone has no reasoned view points, they just continue to cease talking about the actualo debate, but the other posters.

That is called regressive leftism that trait

Tommy Monk wrote:

So in one go Tommy has managed to achieve what Muslims have failed to do for the last 1400 years.
Disassociate Christianity from the Middle East, as well as the oldest Christian communities in the world

demographics constantly change Tommy, even your ancestors once moved out of Africa
Oh and they were what wee classify through the social construct of race, as black

...missing the point entirely...!

Tommy Monk wrote:...missing the point entirely...!

You never had one to start with

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It seems to me that they don't want you to mention someone's colour, but on the other hand they want you to be constantly mentioning someone's colour. They need to make up their minds.

Why do these bossy people think they can tell others what they should or shouldn't say? If I want to ask an Asian person about science, I will, and if I want to ask someone where they're from, I will. If I think that the best qualified person should get the job, I'll say so. If someone has an issue with me not acknowledging that they're a different colour to me, that's their problem.  Thank goodness we don't have so much of this nonsense in the UK, although I think some people would like it if we did. I really don't know why Americans put up with this nonsense.

If at first you do not succeed Syl it seems your motto, is fabricate lies now onto both myself and Quill, because again you simply have a very poor understanding of social issue in the US
As to your false lie above, in countless posts nobody has shied away from anything and have stated clearly the if they are black or white.
This just further proves when someone has no reasoned view points, they just continue to cease talking about the actualo debate, but the other posters.

That is called regressive leftism that trait

I'm not Syl, and I didn't mention you or Quill - stop lying.

You have consistently missed the whole point in this entire discussion.

Tommy Monk wrote:...missing the point entirely...!

Nothing new there ... he's been missing the point throughout the whole thread.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:...missing the point entirely...!

Nothing new there ... he's been missing the point throughout the whole thread.

So you keep wrongly claiming Rags, when you have next to zero understanding of social issues in the US
The more you act infantile talking around me, the more I will completely then treat as a child
When you can reason your points with intelligence give myself, Ben or Quill a shout and we will se if we can help educate you.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nothing new there ... he's been missing the point throughout the whole thread.

So you keep wrongly claiming Rags, when you have next to zero understanding of social issues in the US
The more you act infantile talking around me, the more I will completely then treat as a child
When you can reason your points with intelligence give myself, Ben or Quill a shout and we will se if we can help educate you.

You really are retarded ...

You don't read posts, and you don't even know who's posting what.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you keep wrongly claiming Rags, when you have next to zero understanding of social issues in the US
The more you act infantile talking around me, the more I will completely then treat as a child
When you can reason your points with intelligence give myself, Ben or Quill a shout and we will se if we can help educate you.

You really are retarded ...You don't read posts, and you don't even know who's posting what.

First of post reported for abuse

Second, you do not have anywhere near enough intelligence to classify people medically, showing what an incompetent child that you are

Them we have the same lame claims made that two Americans supposedly do not know what they are talking bout and myself also based on  a false accusation not backed up by anything.

Conclusion:

You got weighed, you got measured and you completely got left found wanting

Now i suggest you learn to sort out your potty mouth

Then once you have done that, learn to acknowledge when wrong.

Then after that, actually grow up

Good luck

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You really are retarded ...You don't read posts, and you don't even know who's posting what.

First of post reported for abuse

Second, you do not have anywhere near enough intelligence to classify people medically, showing what an incompetent child that you are

Them we have the same lame claims made that two Americans supposedly do not know what they are talking bout and myself also based on  a false accusation not backed up by anything.

Conclusion:

You got weighed, you got measured and you completely got left found wanting

Now i suggest you learn to sort out your potty mouth

Then once you have done that, learn to acknowledge when wrong.

Then after that, actually grow up

Good luck

I don't give a stuff what you report. I've had enough of your revolting personality and arrogant manner. I have no further interest in discussing anything with you. You're retarded, completely ignorant, bigoted, and pathetic. You lie all the time too.