kanye west

[Guest]

guess it takes a politically motivated thread like this to show the true colors of most of the members to this site. those true colors are that of right wing conservative white people!everyone complaining or rippin on kanye west's comments are all white people that feel somehow offended themselves when someone disrespects there great white leader Bush.its almost comical how censored this country still is.as for the guy who said how can Bush be a censored if he has colon powell and condelizza rice on his cabnit is the funnist thing ive ever heard. i dont even know if he was joking or serious. if hes serious he must be white for sure. i wonder how many black minorities really support either of those two uncle toms?i cant wait for the reponses to this post from all the 'know it all' whities![/quote0What exactly makes them uncle toms? There 1st rate educations, leadership abilities, love of family, what is your ****ing point? You would have to ambush someone you disagree with, you certainly don't have the intellect to make a rational point in this post.

[Guest]

sociology lesson #1minorities can't be ra cist tard.they can be prejudice but not censored.since when can a minority group oppess a majority race?and since ur obviously white or if not' date=' a minority that has tried hard to assimilate with white society you would never understand what it is to be a sell out or to stay true to who you are.[/quote']ohmygod.Now you are really scaring me.Basic definitions of words Lesson #1:ra-cist prejudiced against all people who belong to other racesbased on prejudices and stereotypes related to racesomebody who hates others who are not of his or her own raceSomeone white calling someone black a derogatory name = Someone black calling someone white a derogatory name. It's the same thing....omfg I can't believe I have to explain this.

Actually he is not wrong. Sociology classes often adopt different definitions of racism' date=' often based on claims that traditional dictionaries themselves have rac[b'][/b]ist roots.Back in the day, the definition of racism offered in my class was:racism= a system of advantage based on race.If you accept this definition, it must follow (thru laws of logic) that only people belonging to the advantaged race can be racist.It just depends on what your working definition of racism is.[/quote} So the dictionary is has racist roots, but your sociology prof, didn't bring any ideological bias to your sociology class?

[Guest]

I would lay 5 to 1 odds bong is a white person's dupe account.

It took me three pages but you are correct. LOL.

[sks13 0]

well i guess the mod finnaly booted me when i said him and his honky friends should be shot on site.doesnt matter cause this will be my last post via another account.its kinda sad that such racist f uks proliferate daniel n.'s site.makes me wonder with the kind moderators that he has what his own personal values are. even more with his new asain wife.maybe if he read this thread and saw so many of his fans are in the closet skinhead neo nazis he would do sumthin but i highly doubt it.everything i said is real and what many minorites believe whether they are open about it or not.and everything that these crackers said are what most white people believe whether they are open or not about it too.its pretty obvious that this country is divided when white people honestly believe, after the history of how this country came to be, think that minorities have some sort of power to be racist against the white majority.they bitch and moan that its the same thing when blacks hate whites and whites hate blacks, its all racism.blacks have a damn good reason to hate you white people as well as many other minorities.but the struggle continues. one day it will blow up in this country. hopefully im alive to take part in it.as for daniel n, again i say if he knows the type of crowd that his site brings together and the people that moderate his site, he is just like all those other racist crackers.too bad.and for the moderator jasyon that gave me the boot....just another example of how the racist white majority oppesses the voices of the supressed minority on a smaller scale i guess.doesnt matter though, i live in a big city where minority groups are the majority and we be punkin white boys everyday. matter of fact imma go outside and punk some now to make me feel better. il be thinkin of you jayson when i beat the poor white boys ass later.

[devilsslide 0]

sociology lesson #1minorities can't be ra cist tard.they can be prejudice but not censored.since when can a minority group oppess a majority race?and since ur obviously white or if not, a minority that has tried hard to assimilate with white society you would never understand what it is to be a sell out or to stay true to who you are.

ohmygod.Now you are really scaring me.Basic definitions of words Lesson #1:ra-cist prejudiced against all people who belong to other racesbased on prejudices and stereotypes related to racesomebody who hates others who are not of his or her own raceSomeone white calling someone black a derogatory name = Someone black calling someone white a derogatory name. It's the same thing....omfg I can't believe I have to explain this.

Actually he is not wrong. Sociology classes often adopt different definitions of racism, often based on claims that traditional dictionaries themselves have racist roots.Back in the day, the definition of racism offered in my class was:racism= a system of advantage based on race.If you accept this definition, it must follow (thru laws of logic) that only people belonging to the advantaged race can be racist.It just depends on what your working definition of racism is.

So the dictionary is has censored roots, but your sociology prof, didn't bring any ideological bias to your sociology class?

Um... lets see, orginal poster said that in sociology #1you learn that minorities can't be racist. Poster 2 said this is wrong and as evidence gave his own defintion of racism. I pointed out that poster 2's definition of racism had no relevance whatsoever as to whether or not sociologist classes teach this. That was the entirety of my post.To answer your question though, I would say that sociology profs do bring a personal bias to discussion. I would even go as far as to say, from a philosophical standpoint, it might be impossible for someone to be unbiased. I never said anythything to the contrary in my post.In conclusion:Learn to read dipshit

[sks13 0]

What exactly makes them uncle toms? There 1st rate educations, leadership abilities, love of family, what is your censored point? You would have to ambush someone you disagree with, you certainly don't have the intellect to make a rational point in this post.Zealous Donkey.seems like you and your white friends cant understand a simple point.THey are uncle toms because they support George Bush !!!!!!!!!and that is the sole reason. no other.simple.

[Allie 0]

sociology lesson #1minorities can't be ra cist tard.they can be prejudice but not censored.since when can a minority group oppess a majority race?and since ur obviously white or if not, a minority that has tried hard to assimilate with white society you would never understand what it is to be a sell out or to stay true to who you are.

ohmygod.Now you are really scaring me.Basic definitions of words Lesson #1:ra-cist prejudiced against all people who belong to other racesbased on prejudices and stereotypes related to racesomebody who hates others who are not of his or her own raceSomeone white calling someone black a derogatory name = Someone black calling someone white a derogatory name. It's the same thing....omfg I can't believe I have to explain this.

Actually he is not wrong. Sociology classes often adopt different definitions of racism, often based on claims that traditional dictionaries themselves have racist roots.Back in the day, the definition of racism offered in my class was:racism= a system of advantage based on race.If you accept this definition, it must follow (thru laws of logic) that only people belonging to the advantaged race can be racist.It just depends on what your working definition of racism is.

So the dictionary is has censored roots, but your sociology prof, didn't bring any ideological bias to your sociology class?

Um... lets see, orginal poster said that in sociology #1you learn that minorities can't be censored. Poster 2 said this is wrong and as evidence gave his own defintion of racism. I pointed out that poster 2's definition of racism had no relevance whatsoever as to whether or not sociologist classes teach this. That was the entirety of my post.To answer your question though, I would say that sociology profs do bring a personal bias to discussion. I would even go as far as to say, from a philosophical standpoint, it might be impossible for someone to be unbiased. I never said anythything to the contrary in my post.In conclusion:Learn to read dipshit

Just to clarify....Poster #2 is a her, not a him (you're proving my avatar quite accurate).....and I did not give my own definition of racism....I gave the standard dictionary def, which most consider to be the actual definition....except for a few radical sociology profs apparently. When I took Soc at university, we were not subjected to this mangled definition, and I was frankly unaware of it. The "change" of the definition from the commonly held one of racism as being bias or prejudice towards those of another race....to "a system of advantage based on race"....is such a perversion of the intent of the word, it's stunning. I guess kids going to university these days need to really possess a healthy dose of common sense to wade through this muck they are being taught.

[devilsslide 0]

Just to clarify....Poster #2 is a her' date=' not a him (you're proving my avatar quite accurate).....and I did not give my own definition of racism....I gave the standard dictionary def, which most consider to be the actual definition....except for a few radical sociology profs apparently. When I took Soc at university, we were not subjected to this mangled definition, and I was frankly unaware of it. The "change" of the definition from the commonly held one of racism as being bias or prejudice towards those of another race....to "a system of advantage based on race"....is such a perversion of the intent of the word, it's stunning. I guess kids going to university these days need to really possess a healthy dose of common sense to wade through this muck they are being taught.[/quote']Allie,I apologize for calling you a him. I do not deny your avatar."...and I did not give my own definition of racism... I gave the standard ditionary def..."Regardless of where the definition comes from, you providing it in no way discounts the fact that alternative definitions are offered in sociology classes. That's all my post was saying. I did not make any reference as to which definition I hold as my own."...I gave the standard dictionary def, which most consider to be the actual definition...."Nothing is ever true simply because any number of people believe it (e.g. the number of people that once believed the world is flat, the earth is the center of the universe etc.). This holds true regardless of which definition I personally accept."The 'change' of the definition from the commonly held one of racism as being bias or prejudice towards those of another race....to "a system of advantage based on race"....is such a perversion of the intent of the word, it's stunning."If I'm not mistaken, that is the point of redefinition. It was redefined because of the belief that racism cannot be fully explained as an expression of prejudice alone. Again, realize that I did not say that this was my belief."except for a few radical sociology profs apparently"You've used the word "random" to describe them as well. It was first introduced by David Wellman in Portraits of White Racism, Professor of Community Studies Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley and later reiterated by Beverly Daniel Tatum, PH.D., Professor of Psychology and Dean of Mount Holyoke College, in "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?". I'll grant you radical, but random no.What I find funny about all of this is that I not once expressed my own views. The entirety of my post pointed out that sociology classes offer a different definition. I'll even say that not all sociology classes teach this, but some do. That was it. To challenge my post is to challenge merely the statement, "Some sociology classes teach a different definition of racism."Thank you.

[Allie 0]

Devilsslide - No problem about the gender mix up - I was just being persnickety (god I love that word LOL). I understand that you were not necessarily stating your own opinion of the definition....you were just imparting information. I learned something new for sure. Can't say that I agree with the "sociological definition".....to me, the sentiment that they are conveying with the "alternate" definition is more suited to words like "elitism" or "persecution".Anyway, this all started because I called the poster a ra-cist....the guy who was claiming racism by white folks, while throwing around words like cracker and honky and whitie. So if I can't call him a ra-cist....I shall call him a bigot and a hypocrite. :shock:

[sks13 0]

allie,a bigot and a hypocrite?now we're gettin somewhere.i would have to say that is more accurate than calling me a ra-cist.ra-cist is a word derived from the word ra-cism.and since a key part of the definition of ra-cism is not only beign prejudice against other races, but thinking your own race is superior over another, i dont see how having a prejudice for a particular race is same as rac-sit.if you think when white people call blacks, niggxxx and when blacks call white people crackers are both examples of racism, your as ignorant as the boys on ur avatar states.if you have any doubt maybe you should try learning the history of this country. if you think words like niggxx and other various institutions are not set up to place superiority on the white race over the minority race, your just an ignorant ra-cist. if your gonna be somthin be a good one at least.

[avsfan 0]

You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it. - Malcolm X

[JaysonWeber 0]

Jay Webb had the best post in the thread...end of story...he should lock the thread with him having the last word....that would make my day.

About it all being annoying and what not, maybe.But the statement "they get into college easier" is utterly absurd, for a great many reasons.

It is absurd. But so is the rest of this Thread, I added that for Flavor.One of my best friends plays basketball at Columbia (A pretty respected school IMHO) his name is Colin Davis check for yourself if you don't believe me.He is also black.. This is what he said during a class discussion on the U of Mich Controversy regarding giving minorities extra "points" to get into college.He raised his hand and obviously the class has one black person him... He said simply that he hated it.The Prof. Obviously asked why he hated it, I remember this quote.Colin - "Because what about people like me? I have a 3.8 at a Private College Prepratory School, but that doesn't matter. You can easily assume that I got into Columbia so that they hit a quota. It will always be something that makes you wonder, Did he deserve to be here? Or did he edge someone else out because he is black? It isn't fair unless we have a level playing field."There you go, I think it's unconstitutional to have quotas hit on schools. But in some states (Mississippi) they still don't allow blacks in some schools. If you don't believe that I could call my friend Natalie who goes to an all white school, where blacks are not allowed in the front door.Just Get Over the Damn Racism people, It pisses me off, quit feeling bad for each other and do something about it, pestering and bitching never gets anything done. As much as Ted Kennedy wishes it did.

[JaysonWeber 0]

Is that Racist Bong Freak not gonna respond?

[jtwoms 0]

JayWeb, just a claryfying question. Are you saying you think quotas should be unconstitutional? If so, it is. In 1978, the case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke came up. Bakke wanted to get into the Med School, but was denied even though he had better grades than some minority applicants. Of the 100 slots of enrolement, the University had made a quota for 16 minorities a year.The Supreme Court Decreed that race was indeed a component of admission, but that quotas were unconstitutional.Sorry if you already knew this, but it's good background knowledge for all that care.

[JaysonWeber 0]

JayWeb, just a claryfying question. Are you saying you think quotas should be unconstitutional? If so, it is. In 1978, the case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke came up. Bakke wanted to get into the Med School, but was denied even though he had better grades than some minority applicants. Of the 100 slots of enrolement, the University had made a quota for 16 minorities a year.The Supreme Court Decreed that race was indeed a component of admission, but that quotas were unconstitutional.Sorry if you already knew this, but it's good background knowledge for all that care.

I was gonna bring this up if this druged along any further... Race being a component of admission is completely unfair regardless of which way you decide to look at it.And decidion the quotas are unconstitutional, well they found a loophole around that one.. a points system.

[jtwoms 0]

JayWeb, just a claryfying question. Are you saying you think quotas should be unconstitutional? If so, it is. In 1978, the case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke came up. Bakke wanted to get into the Med School, but was denied even though he had better grades than some minority applicants. Of the 100 slots of enrolement, the University had made a quota for 16 minorities a year.The Supreme Court Decreed that race was indeed a component of admission, but that quotas were unconstitutional.Sorry if you already knew this, but it's good background knowledge for all that care.

I was gonna bring this up if this druged along any further... Race being a component of admission is completely unfair regardless of which way you decide to look at it.And decidion the quotas are unconstitutional, well they found a loophole around that one.. a points system.

A points system? Damn, care to exlpain?

[Allie 0]

Is that censored Bong Freak not gonna respond?

Jayson....bong dude has morphed into sks13 since he was apparently banned (??)

[JaysonWeber 0]

Sure they call the point system "Affirmative Action"http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazin...es/against.htmlhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98263,00.htmlthat second one is a funny story about an "anti-affirmative action" bakesale. Funny Story.Just Google Affirmative Action and Racism or something along those lines... It's all there for ya. I can get more links but the first one is really all you need for a basic idea.

[Allie 0]

allie,a bigot and a hypocrite?now we're gettin somewhere.i would have to say that is more accurate than calling me a ra-cist.ra-cist is a word derived from the word ra-cism.and since a key part of the definition of ra-cism is not only beign prejudice against other races, but thinking your own race is superior over another, i dont see how having a prejudice for a particular race is same as rac-sit.if you think when white people call blacks, niggxxx and when blacks call white people crackers are both examples of racism, your as ignorant as the boys on ur avatar states.if you have any doubt maybe you should try learning the history of this country. if you think words like niggxx and other various institutions are not set up to place superiority on the white race over the minority race, your just an ignorant ra-cist. if your gonna be somthin be a good one at least.

So, when the "minority" race uses insulting or imflammatory or derogetory words/names towards the "majority" race....what is your special word for that? Do the left extremist psychobabble spewing sociology profs have a term for that? Probably something like "justified" or "vindicated" or something along those lines. Has there been prejudice and unjust treatment of blacks in the past and still at times in the present? Of course. Is it wrong? Of course. What I've been trying to say to you...is that you are no better than those you accuse of "ra-cism". You're the epitome of a hypocrite. In the words of Dr. King....a man should be judged, not on the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. Your character is sorely lacking. And that's the last I have to say on this to you.

[jtwoms 0]

I know about Affirmative Action I just thought there was something new that I didn't know. Regardless, there is a lot of stuff in that article I didn't know about why AA is wrong. Thanks

[sks13 0]

hey trailer trash, allie white people created racism! kunt face!ul never change my mind or the mind of millions of other minorities and i dont expect u change yours, so go hang out at ur local walmart and stop posting nonsense.

[avsfan 0]

hey trailer trash, allie white people created racism! kunt face!ul never change my mind or the mind of millions of other minorities and i dont expect u change yours, so go hang out at ur local walmart and stop posting nonsense.

Your a moron idiot and most of all a flamming fake. You should actualy go learn about history.

[JaysonWeber 0]

I know about Affirmative Action I just thought there was something new that I didn't know. Regardless, there is a lot of stuff in that article I didn't know about why AA is wrong. Thanks

Yeah Affirmative Action is not what the NEA would like you to think, It's just a way around creating quotas.

[JaysonWeber 0]

white people created racism! kunt face!

You're Right. White people also Created Slavery.You never graduated highschool did you?

[avsfan 0]

white people created racism! kunt face!

You're Right. White people also Created Slavery.You never graduated highschool did you?

sks13 when you learn where Western Europeans learned about slavery your gonna be a real confused indvidual.