Can't believe how many times I heard this song as a kid and didn't catch the racism. A guy named Leroy, from the south side of Chicago, who drives an El Dorado, carries a gun and razor, and likes to shoot dice. Sterotypical pimp.

I believe you and spank are making the exact same mistake, only at opposite spectrums. The statistics don't prove any conclusions, they only state there is a positive correlation. That does not prove one way or another if this correlation is due to race or not, only that there is a correlation between them.

If you have not read "Freakonomics", you should, or at least watch the documentary based on the book.

You're purporting that he didn't experience racism? You're really going to have to explain yourself on this one.

I think you might want to try to explain how he has experienced racism by being called racist

Oh, gotcha. You are saying that Howard was racist and she was justified in her accusations. Sorry, I wasn't familiar with the back story.

Hint: It has nothing to do with whether or not she was justified in her remark.

Howard's Jewish. Can they be racist? I know blacks can't be but with jews I'm unclear on the rules.

Oh, I gotcha. So she would have made the same accusations if Howard was black and her accusations were not racially motivated. Got it.

Howard, someone thinking you're racist doesn't make you a victim of racism.

Unless they think he is racist because of his skin color.

Specific groups of people being racist has become a stereotype, so I can conceive of situations where you could be a victim of racism by being called racist.

Or if they are accusing him of being racist because of his skin color. (I.e. It's quite conceivable the woman didn't believe that he was actually racist).

I have no idea why she thought Howard was racist. Maybe it had to do with the same reasons others ITF think he's racist, maybe it didn't.

Regardless, her basing her opinion strictly on Howard being not Black is like the only way he would have experienced racism. You jumping to this conclusion, however...

lolwat

I thought we were talking about the howarde is racist poll thread.

Guess not, my mistake

Make no mistake, I have no problem with people being racist against white people (they've certainly earned their fair share over the years). I just felt this was a clear cut example of racism. Perhaps I was wrong but regardless it wasn't the bad variety either way so it probably doesn't warrant further discussion.

How do you know she was referring to Howard being white as opposed to any other possible tell he could have given off (some posters itf hold him to display many tells). ?

Is this a level of some sort?

I did mention the 30 years because I'm aware that things can change quite a bit over 3 decades. And its probably worth noting that I wasn't in the middle of a big city. It was some random motel right off a highway.

I'm sure there's a lot of nice people and its a big place and probably has a lot of geographical variations. That being said, I've met a few people from there and definitely have met a few others who were arguably racists. On top of that, I find myself at odds a lot with Texas politically which doesn't help me improve my impression of Texans.

That being said, I would like to see Austin and maybe take a journey to photograph Texas.

Your conclusion here is problematic at several levels.

First off, the conclusion that the banned guy was getting at is not shown by the empirical data. His conclusion was that there's something wrong with blacks.

People can and do present data (on or off the forum) all the time. The data that shows that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of killings is not controversial. But the racists automatically conclude that they are killing more by virtue of the fact that there skin is black while ignoring all other factors.

Its also a fact that this stuff has been well studied and, outside of racists, its fairly understood that skin color is only indirectly related (ie- blacks are treated differently in society then whites which has other effects)

An easy example of this is looking at arrests for possession of pot. Studies have repeatedly shown that races use pot at about the same rate.



Yet arrests rates are radically different-


If someone like mack presented data that just showed arrest rates for pot, he would conclude that blacks are big drug users. While in reality, they are no different (they may even use it less then whites), but the justice system is NOT race blind as has been shown in studies over and over again.

You conclude that spank doesn't like the data. This is not true. But we've all seen enough "macks" to know what his argument is.

And for what its worth, we've had these debates on this forum before. We know exactly where they go. And the owners of this forum aren't interested in continually giving a voice to racists who want to defend their racism. Not because people are afraid of the data... we've already seen that the 'macks' of this world aren't interested in evaluating all the revelent data.

kurto,

This is a guy who just basically claimed that black people are a different species based off their skeletons. I don't think engaging logically is the correct response in this case.

Subtle, but FYP

6 possible correct response. 3 have been executed.

agreed... I was reading through the posts quickly and had one of those "did he say what I thought he just said" moments but wanted to read through the end before I went back. Then I got distracted by the post I responded to....

It even crossed my mind that this could be the guy who was just banned.

The deceptive racist returns under a sock puppet and attempt appeals to emotions using his other screennames' ban to try and gain a specific 'wedge' kind of popular support.

And then gets banned. Another sign the individual has a racist compulsion.

*cough*