but aren't we? The U.N. creates legislation that it's "sub-parts" consider legitimate and binding, doesn't it? All sub-parts have representation in the U.N. just as southern states had in Congress.

Also, saying that the U.N.=the U.N. building is like saying the USA=the White House. If that were the case, the White House burning paintings posted all over this subforum by some of our Brit counterparts would be proof that Britain won the war of 1812, by "destroying" America.

No. LOL. Proportions do not make a drug a black or white drug. If only African-Americans smoked crack... perhaps then you could make that argument. The drug doesn't discriminate by the color of the user.

so, according to your above statement, when major league baseball had *one* black player (Jackie Robinson, Brooklyn Dodgers 1947 season), it wasn't a "white" sport?

Ever heard of the Negro League?

of course.

to rephrase; "When the MLB had only *one* black player, was it or was it not a "white" league?


also, you are just playing semantics with me now, and it just proves that you can't justify your knee-jerk racism claims.

No. You are playing games with red herrings. The media portrayed crack as a black drug when it was a drug used by all races. If you want to say anything it was a drug that affected impoverished communities, which do include white people and non-blacks.

no, I am saying that it might not be a misnomer to label Methamphetamine a "white" drug, since it is primarily used by whites, and furthermore that it wouldn't count as racism since the latter happens to be a fact.

You on the other hand are implying that if even *one* white person used crack, ever, it wasn't a "black" drug. And by that logic, slavery was not a "black" condition, since there were (very very few) white slaves (but there were some) in America.

Anyway, the entire point was to emphasize how brainwashed you have been by the current PC trends in America. Pointing out things like "subtle racism" that may or may not even be racism to begin with (such as stating a fact about the black/white/brown/whatever population of a country).

Nice generalization.

Except you seem to not notice that it wasn't like one white guy smoking crack. Nor is it like one non-white person smoking meth.

Do you think it is fair that poor whites from the South often get targeted as dumb, inbred hicks? It is not like
I do not understand racism can be a two or three way street.

Differentiating between someone's skin tone is racism in a subtle form of racism. The differences between varying races are culturally based, not skin based.

now we're making progress. I agree that generalization is generally bad, but you have to admit it can be useful in some situations. If I am describing a poker opponent to you, and I say he is LAG, is that a generalization? Is that useful? Answer is yes to both.

The only disagreement (and it's a very big disagreement, lol) I still have is with the part in bold. You seem to be implying that the mere mention of somebody's skin color is racism. It is not. If we, as a society, accept that it is racist just to acknowledge an individual's skin tone, where do we draw the line on everything else? Is it then sexist to mention that my coworker Shawn happens to be female? Is it anti-semitic to mention that I won't be serving hot dogs at my BBQ because my neighbor is Jewish?

It is not the mere mention of skin tone. It is when you start automatically attributing negative stereotypes onto people because depictions in the media that people buy into.

For instance:

Hip hop is branded misogynistic, sometimes reverse-racist, and a whole slough of other things. And people avoid guys who dress up in that style fearing the worst.

Meanwhile I have heard some metal bands that are misogynistic, racist, etc. Yet people aren't as uncomfortable with metalheads.

I do not blame people for this. Or think poorly of people because of it. I just think of it as a divide people have not climbed over yet.

Thanks for the link. I pulled this out of the article Assuming this is true (I have never read the Articles of Confederation) it would appear that the succession was illegal.

The UN is not like that all. it's a loose agreement amongst states to steal with minor ****. It basically has no power or authority over large states if they don't want it to. The united states is one of the worst players in the international game. We constantly thumb our noses at the whole thing. Most **** the UN does is only binding if we actually want it to be binding.

Do you live on some other plane of existence where this isn't the single worst analogy ever created?

I call.

lolwut

INAR's is top five analogies ITF OAT.

It's easy to kill millions when you got billions of these puppies at your disposal, just like the UN does...

so I think it got lost in the discussion of the yankeedouche dot gif

did anyone dig up the obviously racist neoconfederate posts from mjkidd?

wow mjkidd, that goatee sux

Fly's always like that.

That's what you got out of his post? Really?

Right. The subtler form is the kind where you can just call someone racist despite them not having said anything racist and win the argument.

been over this already with someone herpderp