(March 27, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I didn't see anyone objecting when Homeless nutter made his racist comments, everyone seem cool with it.
You guys tend to hold double standards when it comes to your fellow atheist.

You should be against bigotry in ALL cases.

How was he or she racist?

(March 27, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I didn't see anyone objecting when Homeless nutter made his racist comments, everyone seem cool with it.
You guys tend to hold double standards when it comes to your fellow atheist.

You should be against bigotry in ALL cases.

Considering that his comments were far more generalized than just speaking about you personally, I don't see the racism there. But you could always ask him about it. You know, instead of just assuming you know more about his intentions than he does; if he's actually a racist it's hardly going to be like he'll see anything wrong with saying so, after all.

But then, doing any of that or having an eye for nuance would keep you from your desperate scrabbling, so...

(March 27, 2015 at 1:59 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I didn't see anyone objecting when Homeless nutter made his racist comments, everyone seem cool with it.
You guys tend to hold double standards when it comes to your fellow atheist.

You should be against bigotry in ALL cases.

Considering that his comments were far more generalized than just speaking about you personally, I don't see the racism there. But you could always ask him about it. You know, instead of just assuming you know more about his intentions than he does; if he's actually a racist it's hardly going to be like he'll see anything wrong with saying so, after all.

But then, doing any of that or having an eye for nuance would keep you from your desperate scrabbling, so...

The generalization is what makes it racist.....
If he was speaking about someone specifically that exhibited such behavior, then i wouldn't consider it racist.

(March 22, 2015 at 10:57 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(March 22, 2015 at 9:29 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: ...Huggy is one of those "We need to return to the gold standard!" nitwits, isn't he?

I think he just likes his "bling-bling". It's quite common for simple people to judge things on the basis of how shiny they are. If it were up to them - all the financial transactions would be conducted using golden chains and rims for currency...

To be clear, I didn't care that he made the comment, it's just odd that no one batted an eye, but my sig drew all kinds of ire.

(March 27, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The generalization is what makes it racist.....
If he was speaking about someone specifically that exhibited such behavior, then it would be truth.

(March 22, 2015 at 10:57 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote: I think he just likes his "bling-bling". It's quite common for simple people to judge things on the basis of how shiny they are. If it were up to them - all the financial transactions would be conducted using golden chains and rims for currency...

To be clear, I didn't care that he made the comment, it's just odd that no one batted an eye, but my sig drew all kinds of ire.

What does that have to do with race? The only sort of people mentioned there is "simple people".

(March 27, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: What does that have to do with race? The only sort of people mentioned there is "simple people".

that would be the gold chains and rims part...

(March 27, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The generalization is what makes it racist.....

The generalization had a very clear subject attribution that pointed to a group of people that are not a race. By definition, this makes it not racist, as the group under discussion was, in no way, a reference to your race, or anyone's, in fact.

Quote:

(March 22, 2015 at 10:57 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote: I think he just likes his "bling-bling". It's quite common for simple people to judge things on the basis of how shiny they are. If it were up to them - all the financial transactions would be conducted using golden chains and rims for currency...

To be clear, I didn't care that he made the comment, it's just odd that no one batted an eye, but my sig drew all kinds of ire.

Who is he talking about, in that post? What's the literal, directly referenced subject? "Simple people." Are you saying that simple people are a race? And that you belong to that race?

We didn't bat an eye because your accusations are entirely baseless and directly refuted by the quote itself, and your insistence that it is otherwise goes against the clarity of the language and speaks more to your desperate need to plump up your own sense of persecution and slander us, than anything actually racist.

The one non ignorant christian who responded to that article actually seen how bullshit that bill is.

(March 27, 2015 at 2:18 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The generalization is what makes it racist.....

The generalization had a very clear subject attribution that pointed to a group of people that are not a race. By definition, this makes it not racist, as the group under discussion was, in no way, a reference to your race, or anyone's, in fact.

Quote:To be clear, I didn't care that he made the comment, it's just odd that no one batted an eye, but my sig drew all kinds of ire.

Who is he talking about, in that post? What's the literal, directly referenced subject? "Simple people." Are you saying that simple people are a race? And that you belong to that race?

We didn't bat an eye because your accusations are entirely baseless and directly refuted by the quote itself, and your insistence that it is otherwise goes against the clarity of the language and speaks more to your desperate need to plump up your own sense of persecution and slander us, than anything actually racist.

Fist of all, he states "I think HE (referring to me) likes HIS Bling-Bling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bling-bling

Quote:Bling (or bling-bling) is a slang term popularized in hip hop culture, referring to flashy, ostentatious, or elaborate jewelry and ornamented accessories that are carried, worn, or installed, such as cell phones or tooth caps.

Obviously he assumes all black people wear a bunch of Jewlery.

Then he goes on the state....
It's quite common for simple people (Black people, since we already established what group hes referring to) to judge things on the basis of how shiny they are (probably a reference to monkeys). If it were up to them (black people) - all the financial transactions would be conducted using golden chains and rims (bling bling) for currency...

(March 27, 2015 at 2:26 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Fist of all, he states "I think HE (referring to me) likes HIS Bling-Bling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bling-bling

Quote:Bling (or bling-bling) is a slang term popularized in hip hop culture, referring to flashy, ostentatious, or elaborate jewelry and ornamented accessories that are carried, worn, or installed, such as cell phones or tooth caps.

Obviously he assumes all black people wear a bunch of Jewlery.

Then he goes on the state....
It's quite common for simple people (Black people, since we already established what group hes referring to) to judge things on the basis of how shiny they are (probably a reference to monkeys). If it were up to them (black people) - all the financial transactions would be conducted using golden chains and rims (bling bling) for currency...

I did say to ask him, did I not? I mean, I think he'd know more about his own intentions than you or I; I can see, easily, how you could spin that to be racist, but I also haven't missed the fact that in order to do so you had to add a lot of things that weren't in the original text, to the point where it's equally probable that you're misinterpreting it. If you have to make as many assumptions as you have here in order to find the racism, it's probably not there.

When I read things like that I read the second attribution as an implication that you are a member of the group "simple people," whereas you, because you want there to be some hypocrisy, decide that this should go precisely in the reverse for no reason, in addition to linking those attributions to a group of people that were never listed anywhere in the text. If you're hanging your entire case here on the fact that he first used "bling-bling" to describe gold, then I have to tell you that that term is no longer an explicit cultural marker, in that it has mainstream penetration; I occasionally use the term to refer to shiny things too, though rarely seriously, and never in reference to race.

That's why I counseled to ask, rather than assume; the water is muddier than you think. Yes, one could take that as racism, but you have to want to see it... and it's a relatively easy situation to resolve, without jumping to self serving conclusions.

PS: Since I have a feeling you'd rather trundle along with your assumptions rather than even entertain the possibility of being wrong, I should tell you that the post you're talking about has come up in a few reports in the staff section, the response unanimously being that if the intent was to make light of your race, it's a dickish thing to do. So your initial point is just wrong, even if I've got the wrong end of the stick on Nutter's meaning.

(March 27, 2015 at 2:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 2:26 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Fist of all, he states "I think HE (referring to me) likes HIS Bling-Bling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bling-bling
Obviously he assumes all black people wear a bunch of Jewlery.

Then he goes on the state....
It's quite common for simple people (Black people, since we already established what group hes referring to) to judge things on the basis of how shiny they are (probably a reference to monkeys). If it were up to them (black people) - all the financial transactions would be conducted using golden chains and rims (bling bling) for currency...

I did say to ask him, did I not? I mean, I think he'd know more about his own intentions than you or I; I can see, easily, how you could spin that to be racist, but I also haven't missed the fact that in order to do so you had to add a lot of things that weren't in the original text, to the point where it's equally probable that you're misinterpreting it. If you have to make as many assumptions as you have here in order to find the racism, it's probably not there.

When I read things like that I read the second attribution as an implication that you are a member of the group "simple people," whereas you, because you want there to be some hypocrisy, decide that this should go precisely in the reverse for no reason, in addition to linking those attributions to a group of people that were never listed anywhere in the text. If you're hanging your entire case here on the fact that he first used "bling-bling" to describe gold, then I have to tell you that that term is no longer an explicit cultural marker, in that it has mainstream penetration; I occasionally use the term to refer to shiny things too, though rarely seriously, and never in reference to race.

That's why I counseled to ask, rather than assume; the water is muddier than you think. Yes, one could take that as racism, but you have to want to see it... and it's a relatively easy situation to resolve, without jumping to self serving conclusions.

PS: Since I have a feeling you'd rather trundle along with your assumptions rather than even entertain the possibility of being wrong, I should tell you that the post you're talking about has come up in a few reports in the staff section, the response unanimously being that if the intent was to make light of your race, it's a dickish thing to do. So your initial point is just wrong, even if I've got the wrong end of the stick on Nutter's meaning.

I'm giving you a pass because you're Australian...

Out of curiosity, If he said used "fried chicken" instead of "bling bling" and "using watermelon for currency" would you see that as racist?