StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Trytostaydead wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Trytostaydead wrote:Racism runs everywhere.

I don't think you understand some basic principles of logic. There is no place on Earth which is completely free of racism, but this does not mean that every place has equal levels of racism. Does the term "black/white fallacy" mean anything to you?

No, not when it pertains to where this thread started from. I believe someone decided to bring up the issue of slavery in the Civil War and the moral standings of the North and South. Then it kind of spiraled into modern day racism.

And you honestly don't see how it's a black/white fallacy to refute "one place is more racist than another" by saying "racism is everywhere?" Should we change your username to "trytostayclueless?"

Wicked Pilot wrote:Mapping of active hate groups during 2001



White symbols=Klan
Blue=Neo Nazi
Black=Racist Skinhead
Yellow=Christian Identity
Red=New Confederate
Light Blue=Black Seperatist
Green=Other

Somewhat surprising actually, I wouldn't have suspected Florida and California, of all places, to have the highest concentrations of hate groups in the country. And a Neo-Confederate group in Montana, what the hell?

Neo-Confederates in San Francisco? Talk about confused...

Durran Korr wrote:Somewhat surprising actually, I wouldn't have suspected Florida, of all places, to have one of the highest concentrations of hate groups in the country.

I would. One of my friends lived down there for years (I only visited), and the stories he told were chilling. More to the point, he noticed that nobody there seemed to think that any of what WE saw as racist was actually racist; it's easy to say you're not racist when you simply redefine racism to suit your purposes. Although I do put more stock in items like that vote I mentioned, given the huge number of people involved.

And a Neo-Confederate group in Montana, what the hell?

Montana is a favourite destination for loonies of all stripes. That's no secret.

Darth Wong wrote:

Trytostaydead wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: I don't think you understand some basic principles of logic. There is no place on Earth which is completely free of racism, but this does not mean that every place has equal levels of racism. Does the term "black/white fallacy" mean anything to you?

No, not when it pertains to where this thread started from. I believe someone decided to bring up the issue of slavery in the Civil War and the moral standings of the North and South. Then it kind of spiraled into modern day racism.

And you honestly don't see how it's a black/white fallacy to refute "one place is more racist than another" by saying "racism is everywhere?" Should we change your username to "trytostayclueless?"

No, I like TryToStayDead. You're picking and choosing. As several people have said, the North hated blacks just about as bad as the South did. The argument was how could anyone glorify the South in the movie. And if you get passed the fact that not everyone in the South hated blacks or even fought in the war just to keep slaves, that's the purest tripe I've ever heard.

People like Lee fought for their homes, not slaves, not state rights.. their homes. They chose the Confederacy because it was their home, they might not have agreed with some of its laws, but they believed they could change it, they just didn't believe in leading troops against their homes.

Darth Wong wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:Somewhat surprising actually, I wouldn't have suspected Florida, of all places, to have one of the highest concentrations of hate groups in the country.

I would. One of my friends lived down there for years (I only visited), and the stories he told were chilling. More to the point, he noticed that nobody there seemed to think that any of what WE saw as racist was actually racist; it's easy to say you're not racist when you simply redefine racism to suit your purposes. Although I do put more stock in items like that vote I mentioned, given the huge number of people involved.

And a Neo-Confederate group in Montana, what the hell?

Montana is a favourite destination for loonies of all stripes. That's no secret.

Well, obviously, but you wouldn't expect to find a neo-Confederate group so far removed from the South.

Trytostaydead wrote:No, I like TryToStayDead. You're picking and choosing. As several people have said, the North hated blacks just about as bad as the South did.

Your arguments pertained to the present day. Don't change the subject. You talked about present-day racism and now you're just trying to make excuses for your fallacies and unsupported claims. Moreover, you have provided no more support for this than anyone else has.

Since there were fewer states supporting slavery in the North at the time, you can concoct whatever reasoning you like but there is a numerical basis for the argument that the problem wasn't as severe. You can't refute that by simply stating your contrary opinion as evidence. I'm willing to entertain evidence but no one has seen fit to provide any.

The argument was how could anyone glorify the South in the movie. And if you get passed the fact that not everyone in the South hated blacks or even fought in the war just to keep slaves, that's the purest tripe I've ever heard.

Again, your opinion.

People like Lee fought for their homes, not slaves, not state rights.. their homes. They chose the Confederacy because it was their home, they might not have agreed with some of its laws, but they believed they could change it, they just didn't believe in leading troops against their homes.

And how does any of this relate to your attempt to refute "one place is more racist than another TODAY" with "racism runs everywhere?" Smells like a subject change to me.

You know, I got to looking over our threads, Mike, and, really, we are saying the same thing, albeight from a different point of view. You are saying racism exists more in the south, and all I am saying is that it does, although not in the great quantities it is sometimes shown to be...

Although I DO still resent the statement made by Durandal about the south being childish...

I would. One of my friends lived down there for years (I only visited), and the stories he told were chilling. More to the point, he noticed that nobody there seemed to think that any of what WE saw as racist was actually racist; it's easy to say you're not racist when you simply redefine racism to suit your purposes. Although I do put more stock in items like that vote I mentioned, given the huge number of people involved.

Maybe we're having a miscommunication here. But you just said what I've been trying to say for some time. There's plenty of racists out there, they just call it a different name or feel good about themselves because they support one minority while striking another.

In the US we have a law that keeps going in and out called Affirmative Action, perhaps one of THE most racist laws out there. It's essentially a quota for businesses and universities to accept a number 'minorities.' Minorities of course being hispanic and black. Asians aren't considered a minority because they make up a large portion of the University population.

The law claims it is to help underprivelaged groups to gain acceptance, why not Asians then? They were woefully mistreated when they first came to the States and were treated like dogs, my grandparents came over as strawberry pickers. Most parents, mine included, had to work 7 days a week to give me my opportunities, maybe yours did too? So what does that say about that law.. who ARE the underprivelaged?

To say the South is just a breeding ground of racists, while might be true is just singling out one group of MANY. Then trying to draw the line between the North and South blurs drastically in the face of history. The South only gets one up because it still had slavery when the war started.

As for facts, look at the anti-draft riots of the North and who they quickly targeted instead of the government.

Doesn't surprise me, Durran: the east coast overall accounts for a good portion of the US population. California, Floriduh, and Texas likewise have huge populations. Montana and Idaho both attract that crowd because of the comparative isolation: hate groups tend to set up shop out in the middle of nowhere because they tend to be anti-government loonies as well.

NF_Utvol wrote:You know, I got to looking over our threads, Mike, and, really, we are saying the same thing, albeight from a different point of view. You are saying racism exists more in the south, and all I am saying is that it does, although not in the great quantities it is sometimes shown to be...

Yay! Consensus!!!

Although I DO still resent the statement made by Durandal about the south being childish...

Durandal can be quite blunt. He IS named after a ground-penetrating warhead, you know.

Darth Wong wrote:

NF_Utvol wrote:You know, I got to looking over our threads, Mike, and, really, we are saying the same thing, albeight from a different point of view. You are saying racism exists more in the south, and all I am saying is that it does, although not in the great quantities it is sometimes shown to be...

Yay! Consensus!!!

Although I DO still resent the statement made by Durandal about the south being childish...

Durandal can be quite blunt. He IS named after a ground-penetrating warhead, you know.

To use the terms, we agree to disagree

*shakes hands with Mike*

Good Debate, maybe we both learned something.

NF_Utvol wrote:Although I DO still resent the statement made by Durandal about the south being childish...

Fine, resent it all you like.

Trytosaydead wrote:Maybe we're having a miscommunication here. But you just said what I've been trying to say for some time. There's plenty of racists out there, they just call it a different name or feel good about themselves because they support one minority while striking another.

In the US we have a law that keeps going in and out called Affirmative Action, perhaps one of THE most racist laws out there. It's essentially a quota for businesses and universities to accept a number 'minorities.' Minorities of course being hispanic and black. Asians aren't considered a minority because they make up a large portion of the University population.

This is fucking hilarious. Since when are white people a minority?

The law claims it is to help underprivelaged groups to gain acceptance, why not Asians then? They were woefully mistreated when they first came to the States and were treated like dogs, my grandparents came over as strawberry pickers. Most parents, mine included, had to work 7 days a week to give me my opportunities, maybe yours did too? So what does that say about that law.. who ARE the underprivelaged?

I'd say it's a safe bet to call blacks and hispanics underprivileged because they have the burden of a negative stereotype to deal with. Asians have a stereotype of being straight-A students, so it's not like we need to convince anyone to employ or accept Asians.

To say the South is just a breeding ground of racists, while might be true is just singling out one group of MANY. Then trying to draw the line between the North and South blurs drastically in the face of history. The South only gets one up because it still had slavery when the war started.

No, it gets one up because it perpetuates racist attitudes through legislation and social conditions to this day. See Mike's 40% figure in Alabama; it's hardly an atypical example. Try visiting St. Louis sometime, too. I'm not saying that the South is irredeemably racist, but it does have a long way to go.

As for facts, look at the anti-draft riots of the North and who they quickly targeted instead of the government.

Please elaborate. I wasn't aware that hippies protesting the draft were targeting black people or some other minority.

He was referring to the anti-draft riots of 1863, I think. Blacks were hung savagely beaten, hung from poles, and burned in the streets. Gangs of New York portrays it quite vividly.

Durran Korr wrote:He was referring to the anti-draft riots of 1863, I think. Blacks were hung savagely beaten, hung from poles, and burned in the streets. Gangs of New York portrays it quite vividly.

In that case, maybe he should pick a time period and stick with it. We're discussing current states, here.