quote Originally posted by heybjorn: Doni, there are no black smilies or drummer smilies in any of that. Shouldn't you call Eric Holder?

I dunno what they are, we gots.. purple and yellow... greenish , blue , and of course red means mad or embarassed.

Not sure if this was really obvious, but there was actually an article that was written "Rules Black People Should Tell Their Kids About White People"

For the life of me, I can't find it now... but it does exist as I've seen it quite a few times.

The article in question that is the subject of this thread was meant as a satire... well... not really a satire, but sort of to test the double-standard (if you will) on what the perception would be for this article if it was written about white people having the talk about black people.

I guess the author made his point... since it clearly was not well liked. Kind of a dumb decision on his part since he lost his part-time job (which was really important to him)... but that's how it goes.


If you look at this article in THAT context... that it was meant as a "challenge" if you will to the original "talk" article that's been written a few times (I think even Doni posted a reference to the original one in the Trayvon thread), then it puts it into a different perspective. The author didn't intend for it to be an out-right racist post, it was meant as a counter to the other talk. Certainly wasn't meant in good taste, but never the less...

EDIT: Here's an example of what I'm talking about: http://articles.baltimoresu...k-parents-wrong-word

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 04-11-2012).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: I dunno what they are, we gots.. purple and yellow... greenish , blue , and of course red means mad or embarassed.

Uhhhh....Yheah .....but all those coulors are usual to a drummer...every time a stick bounces back and hits him in the head, he gets a new color !!!!!

<teasing Donni>...and thanks for some of your early work, man...I been listening to some stuff...now if you and Lou Ruwls ever got together..

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: Doni, there are no black smilies or drummer smilies in any of that. Shouldn't you call Eric Holder?

Knave....

You are not allowed to address a "luxury good" in that manner.

We are not amused.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Not sure if this was really obvious, but there was actually an article that was written "Rules Black People Should Tell Their Kids About White People" For the life of me, I can't find it now... but it does exist as I've seen it quite a few times. The article in question that is the subject of this thread was meant as a satire... well... not really a satire, but sort of to test the double-standard (if you will) on what the perception would be for this article if it was written about white people having the talk about black people. I guess the author made his point... since it clearly was not well liked. Kind of a dumb decision on his part since he lost his part-time job (which was really important to him)... but that's how it goes. If you look at this article in THAT context... that it was meant as a "challenge" if you will to the original "talk" article that's been written a few times (I think even Doni posted a reference to the original one in the Trayvon thread), then it puts it into a different perspective. The author didn't intend for it to be an out-right racist post, it was meant as a counter to the other talk. Certainly wasn't meant in good taste, but never the less... EDIT: Here's an example of what I'm talking about: http://articles.baltimoresu...k-parents-wrong-word

I disagree. It was a response, but was not testing a double standard. I also read the original, but it is hard to find online and I'm not up for digging right now. The original was more about continuing to be respectful no matter how you are viewed by others.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I disagree. It was a response, but was not testing a double standard. I also read the original, but it is hard to find online and I'm not up for digging right now. The original was more about continuing to be respectful no matter how you are viewed by others.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying... but I wasn't giving an opinion, I was simply stating what the point of his article was.

He definitely took it over-the-top... and honestly, I'm quite sure there are a LOT of people who feel that way, right or wrong.

EDIT: I just wanted to point out that I've been getting the National Review for like... probably 10+ years, and I've read most of the blogs on their online website. The National Review is always... I mean ALWAYS talking about a double-standard in everything... whether it's "left media" vs "non-left media"... that's like the biggest thing... they're always talking about how Democrats get away with stuff and how when a Republican does something similar, it becomes huge news and they get villified. The whole first few pages of the weekly magazine have "shorts" where they cover pretty much every indiscretion that a Democrat (or a crappy Conservative) does.

So I /KNOW/ the point of the blog post was a call-out on the double-standard.

That said... he did really take it over the top, and paid the price for it.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 04-11-2012).]

Lets put this rule a different way....

When I was 20-thousand feet in the air, wondering what would put my feet on the earth,,,,I didnt ask if it was a he or she, a jew or a muslum....just can you fly this thing, and no jumping out of it is not an option,,,

Ya want a stairway to heaven?...fly with a medivac pilot

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 04-11-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: How can a thread like this be good or productive? Seems like it just stirs up discontent?

I think It brings it out of the shadows and into the light and gets people thinking and talking about it.
Keeping it hidden and pretending it don't exsist ain't ever worked.
Maybe it's the same reason they keep places like Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, and Dachau still standing.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Yeah, I understand what you're saying... but I wasn't giving an opinion, I was simply stating what the point of his article was. He definitely took it over-the-top... and honestly, I'm quite sure there are a LOT of people who feel that way, right or wrong. EDIT: I just wanted to point out that I've been getting the National Review for like... probably 10+ years, and I've read most of the blogs on their online website. The National Review is always... I mean ALWAYS talking about a double-standard in everything... whether it's "left media" vs "non-left media"... that's like the biggest thing... they're always talking about how Democrats get away with stuff and how when a Republican does something similar, it becomes huge news and they get villified. The whole first few pages of the weekly magazine have "shorts" where they cover pretty much every indiscretion that a Democrat (or a crappy Conservative) does. So I /KNOW/ the point of the blog post was a call-out on the double-standard. That said... he did really take it over the top, and paid the price for it.

Roger that. Thanks for that piece of info. I didn't realize that.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I think It brings it out of the shadows and into the light and gets people thinking and talking about it. Keeping it hidden and pretending it don't exsist ain't ever worked. Maybe it's the same reason they keep places like Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, and Dachau still standing.

Because swing-wing pilots are appreciated for what they do... those guys in a bell are on-site before a mix-master even gets gears up...

Want to have some fun with bulldust like this? Just do as suggested by a psychologist friend of mine ... substitute the word "bigot" for "black" and see how it works:

quote (Heavily edited for irony) (1) Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as bigot, and whom I shall refer to as bigot. The cumbersome ... term “Bigot-American” seems to be in decline, thank goodness. ... What you must call “the ‘B’ word” is used freely among bigots but is taboo to non-bigots. (2) American bigots are descended from ...[various] Bigot populations, with some non-bigot and aboriginal admixture. The overall average of non-Bigot admixture is 20-25 percent. The admixture distribution is nonlinear, though: “It seems that around 10 percent of the Bigot American population is more than half non-Bigot in ancestry.” (3) Your own ancestry is mixed ..., but bigots will take you to be non-bigot. (4) The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual bigot is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonbigot citizen. That is basic good manners and good citizenship. In some unusual circumstances, however—e.g., paragraph (10h) below—this default principle should be overridden by considerations of personal safety. (5) As with any population of such a size, there is great variation among bigots in every human trait (except, obviously, the trait of identifying oneself as bigot). They come fat, thin, tall, short, dumb, smart, introverted, extroverted, honest, crooked, athletic, sedentary, fastidious, sloppy, amiable, and obnoxious. There are bigot geniuses and bigot morons. There are bigot saints and bigot psychopaths. In a population of forty million, you will find almost any human type. Only at the far, far extremes of certain traits are there absences. There are, for example, no bigot Fields Medal winners. While this is civilizationally consequential, it will not likely ever be important to you personally. Most people live and die without ever meeting (or wishing to meet) a Fields Medal winner. (6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with Bigot Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to bigot convicted murderers or to bigot investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for bigot and non-bigot Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences. (7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions. (8) These differences are magnified by the hostility many bigots feel toward non-bigots. Thus, while bigot-on-bigot behavior is more antisocial in the average than is non-bigot-on-non-bigot behavior, average bigot-on-non-bigot behavior is a degree more antisocial yet. (9) A small cohort of bigots—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to non-bigots and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of bigots—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of bigot solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that non-bigots have it coming.(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense: (10a) Avoid concentrations of bigots not all known to you personally. (10b) Stay out of heavily bigot neighborhoods. (10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with bigots on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot). (10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of bigots. (10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of bigots suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible. (10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by bigot politicians. (10g) Before voting for a bigot politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a non-bigot. (10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to bigots in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway. (10i) If accosted by a strange bigot in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving. (11) The mean intelligence of bigots is much lower than for non-bigots. The least intelligent ten percent of non-bigots have IQs below 81; forty percent of bigots have IQs that low. Only one bigot in six is more intelligent than the average non-bigot; five non-bigots out of six are more intelligent than the average bigot. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.” (12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of bigots in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the bigot stranger will be less intelligent than the non-bigot. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a non-bigot than by a bigot. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth. (13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized bigots. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice. (14) Be aware, however, that there is an issue of supply and demand here. Demand comes from organizations and businesses keen to display racial propriety by employing IWSBs, especially in positions at the interface with the general public—corporate sales reps, TV news presenters, press officers for government agencies, etc.—with corresponding depletion in less visible positions. There is also strong private demand from middle- and upper-class non-bigots for personal bonds with IWSBs, for reasons given in the previous paragraph and also (next paragraph) as status markers. (15) Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class non-bigots and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous. To be an IWSB in present-day US society is a height of felicity rarely before attained by any group of human beings in history. Try to curb your envy: it will be taken as prejudice (see paragraph 13).

This technique also works especially well with offensive racial, ethnic, or gender based jokes. Just substitute the word "bigot" for the offensive label ("black," "Pollack," "Mexican," "Chinese," "Arab," "Jew," "Muslim," "blonde," "queer," "lesbian," etc.). Example:

Q: How do you get a one-armed bigot down from a tree?
A: Just wave to him.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 04-12-2012).]

Post for future reference, when I have time to indulge in this interesting topic, ... using PFF's "most recent posts" feature.

Whatever on the "rules". I was in East Palo Alto with my son when a guy "mad dogged" me. My son asked, what was that about? I explained that some people are stupid, told him to watch and see as we leave. As we left, the guy suddenly gets up within in inches of me, closed fists. I pretty much ignored him. When we were in the car I explained that I bet he would not do that if I was black, and he did not scare me because I know that he knows I could kill him. The ones I worry about are young people between 14 and 25 that are dressed to intimidate. No matter the race, they are feeling their hormones and are stupid. "The talk" was handled by opportunity.
I am never scared of the black gang in Polo shirts and slacks no matter the age.