Discrimination against white males will soon be encouraged

why cant people see a human being.. not their coulour..?? white black or wahtever we still carr a pound of # inside us......ffs people this needs to end

Originally posted by Yoda411
I'm so sick of the Equal Opportunity Act.

Word. Women had their chance and Hillary lost.

I am so tired of non-white male land owners trying to be equal.

It's called Democracy biotches.

Originally posted by melaena

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by dntwastetime

 

I am so tired of white men being portrayed as stupid, insensitive and unintellegent.

unintelligent

So instead of listening you choose to point faults out. Listen to the hole message instead of picking on one thing. Maturity at its best people.

Typos are extremely common when you are typing your thoughts as fast as you can so you do not loose track. Be respectful.

Listen to the hole message instead of picking on one thing. Maturity at its best people.

I do

reply to post by 4NspliceR


Funny, I thought it was because women were equal to men and deserved the same rights/recognitions. How stupid of me.

how prophetic that women (hi meleana) should dominate the males on this discussion concerning males and dictate their role in society.i live in a country that has seen these trends escalate for years,and believe me america will regret its choices.the bible does clearly state that by the time we wake up there will be seven females born where only one male is born,and that women will rule over men,a real calamity in the eyes of the jewish people!

reply to post by slymattb


ACtually that is a myth. There are black serial killers. There just not advertised as much.
Go ahead and search it, you will find there have been quite a few.

reply to post by ofhumandescent


But if you think about it, white males have been the destructors of the past. They enslaved the african race, they nerly killed all the Indians, they eslaved thier wives to doing work around the house and sex, and don't forget about the halocost wich anyone who didn't have blond hair and blue eyes were killed.

reply to post by anonymousATS


its the united states, people dont stand up for anything there, theyd rather someone else do it for them. take an observational stand point the next time your in public. All i do is watch when I am out in public, im not confined to my own little world.

do something in france -- - - 25,000 person protest
do it in the US - - - 3 letters are mailed to incorrect departments.

I am a white male in the u.k and have a black stepmother with bi racial sisters and a brother and have been around indians all my life im not racist but hey thats not enough for some critics.
Truth is they can use certain words we cant because of our skin colour (we know the name of that by definition) and i dont feel guilty for being white theres nothing wrong in it just my personality is the most important thing but we always seperate people by colour.
I dont feel guilty about the slave trade because it had nothing to do with me and black people today did not suffer because it werent them being enslaved, i wont be held responsible for actions that i didnt make but im expected to.
Open your eyes and start to notice it all around you all sides are being played here to start problems where there are none, and while many cancer cells that walk this earth hate each other for being black,white,woman,man,american,asian etc etc the truth is hate anger prejudice intolerence corruption evil do not have colours nationalities genders they exist in almost everyone.
If your going to hate humans do it right.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Grand Puba

 

White men are on top because of their history of violence!

WRONG Whites are on top because we developed more advanced technology, better boats, better weapons, and far superior social organizations which rewarded individuals for their efforts. There are vast numbers of reasons why whites are on top, and none of them have anything to do with violent tendencies. You belief in this is based on nothing but your racist point of view.

I take my position from a book written by a white man named Michael Bradley!! The book is called "The Iceman Inheritance" Give it a read...

Peace!!

Originally posted by Chaoticar

Originally posted by Grand Puba
First you gotta prove that the white doctor got in purely through merit and not that his family is powerful (I.e. BUSH) or due to some other unmeritful reason!

Well duh, all white males have "connections".

Seriously, Bush - and his family - represent "white males" as much as O.J. Simpson represents black males.
Or are you part of the Idiot's Club that believe there's some "Old Boys Network" for whatever job, because white males get employed over non-whites/females because they have better skills?

Originally posted by Grand Puba
B)Whites do commit more violent crime than blacks!! (Gross numbers, not percentages)

Correct, but while "white" (includes North Africans, Egyptians etc) Americans form 60% of the U.S. population, "African-Americans" form 13% of the U.S. population blacks commit 46.9% of crime, while "whites" (I'm assuming this - as with most Bureau of Justice Statistics - defines hispanics as white too) commit 50.9% of homicidal crimes.

Originally posted by Grand Puba
And blacks are CONVICTED more for their violent crimes!! (That's called racism)

Like O.J. Simpson?

My point was your example was a straw man that you built, so I built one too!!

And yes OJ has been convicted of a crime in case you've been missing the news lately!!


Also to begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department's victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many "white" victims of "black crime" are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites!!

As sociologist Robert O'Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent, meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes. If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year. Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance!!

Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected!!


Peace!!

Originally posted by xmotex
Well actually, whites are largely on top by accident of history - the Plagues led to a massive loss of population, which led to a situation where Europe had to get more former serfs into skilled trades, which led to a large middle class for the first time in history and a huge scientific and technological leap forward.

With those skills and technology, Europeans then perfected the art of seafaring piracy and expropriatory colonialism, and the rest, as they say, is history...

There is an excellent book that examines the phenomenon: Guns, Germs, And Steel by Jared Diamond.

European civilization wasn't dominant because whites have some kind of inherent biological superiority or because whites are "more violent" than anyone else - Europeans just got "lucky" - by being mostly wiped out at one point.

Had history gone a little differently, had dopey medieval Europeans not killed off half the continent's cats for weird religious reasons, thus leading to an explosion of the rat population that spread the plague everywhere, history could have gone completely differently, and now we would be complaining about Arab or Mongol or Chinese domination...

Well the book clearly puts "GUNS" 1st for a reason!! I don't think my "whites are more violent" thing is really all that much off from what Dr. diamond is expousing!!

Peace!!

Where do we go from here? This is probably the most important question that we can ask for the next couple of decades. Where do we want to go? Then we can decide how to get there.

One of the things that I would like to see, is the absolute abolishment of the "Bureau of Indian Affairs". Can you imagine the outcry if we had a "Bureau of Black Affairs"? Come on, this is the 21st century, how can we move forward like this?

What I would do, is eliminate the Bureau, and award each tribe the deed to its reservation land, even the parts that are National Parks, State Parks, Wilderness areas, etc. Then I would grant full US citizenship to each and every tribe member and end the ridiculous notion that they are citizens of "Indian Nations", blah, blah, blah. They are US citizens, let's treat them as such.

I think that this would be a good start on the road to where we want to go.

Originally posted by Grand Puba
Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected!!
Peace!!

Compare this to:

Originally posted by Grand Puba
Also to begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department's victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many "white" victims of "black crime" are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites!!

So let me get this straight:
* When black Americans victimise "white" Americans, they're more likely to be "Latino", therefore actual white people aren't that much affected.
* When "white" Americans victimise black Americans, they are European-white, and not "Latino".

(Y'know, this situation reminds me how the Justice Department has a "Hispanic" group for hate crime victims, yet "Hispanics" are magically transmogrified into "whites" as hate crime offenders - so the SPLC gets to whine about "raciss YT" some more! :@@

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

(Oh, and by-the-by here's some info on the "love-hate" relationship between blacks and Hispanics )

However, his anti-white prejudice comes into the equation here:

Originally posted by Grand Puba
Well the book clearly puts "GUNS" 1st for a reason!! I don't think my "whites are more violent" thing is really all that much off from what Dr. diamond is expousing!!

Whites more violent?
Is this like the whole black men are better than white men at basketball/football/dancing, yet whenever anyone mentions the considerable dearth of black Olympic swimmers that's racist! We're all equal - the blacks just didn't have swimming pools growing up! statement gets thrown out by the same people?

Originally posted by Grand Puba
I take my position from a book written by a white man named Michael Bradley!! The book is called "The Iceman Inheritance" Give it a read...

Clarke also wrote an introductions to Michael Bradley's The Iceman Inheritance, a kind of Protocols for the white race. Bradley states his thesis simply enough: 'This is a racist book.' Racism is the 'predisposition of but one race... the white race.' According to Bradley 'the problem with the world is white men' and the problem with white men is biological. Clarke praises Bradley for his 'bold admissions and revelations' about the European's attempts to dominate the world through racism. The book is a cornerstone of the thesis repeated by many of the extremist that the problem with the world is white men. The solution to the problem is a world without white men.

- African-American racism in the Academic Community

Silly fool - whites are the only racists!

The premise of the "Iceman Inheritance" is that whites are descended from Neanderthals - which explains white racism, supremacy etc.

However, Neanderthals are not the ancestors of modern humans

Someone needs to hit the books again, and try not to pass such anti-white racist drivel as "non-fiction".

Originally posted by Chaoticar

Originally posted by Grand Puba
Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected!!
Peace!!

Compare this to:

Originally posted by Grand Puba
Also to begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department's victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many "white" victims of "black crime" are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites!!

So let me get this straight:
* When black Americans victimise "white" Americans, they're more likely to be "Latino", therefore actual white people aren't that much affected.

*******IT SAYS MANY, NOT MORE!!!*********

When "white" Americans victimise black Americans, they are European-white, and not "Latino"

******I DIDN'T SAY THAT!!! KEEP BUILDING STRAWMEN*****

(Y'know, this situation reminds me how the Justice Department has a "Hispanic" group for hate crime victims, yet "Hispanics" are magically transmogrified into "whites" as hate crime offenders - so the SPLC gets to whine about "raciss YT" some more! :@@

*****WITH LATINOS INCLUDED THE INCIDENTS OF WHITE ON BLACK CRIME IS WAY OVER THE RATE OF PROBABILITY, WHILE BLACK ON WHITE CRIME IS LOWER THAN THE RATE OF PROBABLITY!! PROVING ME POINT ABOUT WHITES BEING MORE VIOLENT!!!*******

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

****AND YOU CAN'T KEEP CREATING STRAWMEN FOREVER***

(Oh, and by-the-by here's some info on the "love-hate" relationship between blacks and Hispanics )

****STRAW MAN*****

However, his anti-white prejudice comes into the equation here:

Originally posted by Grand Puba
Well the book clearly puts "GUNS" 1st for a reason!! I don't think my "whites are more violent" thing is really all that much off from what Dr. diamond is expousing!!

Whites more violent?
Is this like the whole black men are better than white men at basketball/football/dancing, yet whenever anyone mentions the considerable dearth of black Olympic swimmers that's racist! We're all equal - the blacks just didn't have swimming pools growing up! statement gets thrown out by the same people?

****STRAW MAN****

Originally posted by Grand Puba
I take my position from a book written by a white man named Michael Bradley!! The book is called "The Iceman Inheritance" Give it a read...

Clarke also wrote an introductions to Michael Bradley's The Iceman Inheritance, a kind of Protocols for the white race. Bradley states his thesis simply enough: 'This is a racist book.' Racism is the 'predisposition of but one race... the white race.' According to Bradley 'the problem with the world is white men' and the problem with white men is biological. Clarke praises Bradley for his 'bold admissions and revelations' about the European's attempts to dominate the world through racism. The book is a cornerstone of the thesis repeated by many of the extremist that the problem with the world is white men. The solution to the problem is a world without white men.

- African-American racism in the Academic Community

****THE AUTHORS OF "GUNS GERMS AND STEEL" and "THE ICEMAN'S INHERITANCE" are WHITE MEN!!!****

Silly fool - whites are the only racists!

LOL!!!



Peace!!

Discriminating against white guys because their skin is white is just as bad as prejudice against blacks because of skin color. Prejudice against white guys because of gender is also wrong.

It is a culture clash thing. I don't like the hip hop culture in which it is uncool to be "too anglo" in attitude, speech, attire, hygiene, education, behavior, and so on. The hip hop culture has developed their own stereotypes. I see lots of copycats in the hip hop culture. To me, what they are copying seems ridiculous and unoriginal.

I don't object to the color of anyone's skin, but I do find some behaviors of some cultures and some subcultures to be offensive.

It would be nice if women would be feminine in society and not march around in male clothes behaving like they are "one of the guys". Hillary and Condi wear nothing but pantsuits because they want some kind of manly image. It would be refreshing if they would wear dresses and not put on macho airs. It isn't their gender I object to, but the subcultures and behaviors.

Like I said before, it's wrong to generalize and I try not to, but I see so much of these subcultures that it's hard not to laugh sometimes and it is irritating when it is so in-your-face.

Discriminate against white guys? I've seen it in society for several decades now. White guys are not slave masters keeping blacks from succeeding in life, but that has been one of the themes out there for a long time well after civil rights and desegregation, equal employment/housing, etc. I really don't think color of skin holds anyone back here in 2008. White guys are chauvinist pigs? That theme has also been in the popular culture for many years and they still talk of the glass ceiling. I work for a company whose CEO is an extremely highly paid female. There's no glass ceiling that I know of.

Clash of cultures, generalizations, perceptions.

Although I've seen and experienced reverse discrimination against white guys, I don't think it hampers the white guy's chances for success and happiness in this world, just as I don't buy it that other races and the female gender are being held back. If a guy or a woman of any color wants to acquire education and success in life, there are perfectly legal and ethical ways to get there and even those in poverty can rise above it if they keep seeking assistance and above all, keep working at it. Many of those I see in the hip hop culture seem to think there is a shortcut by trying to appear "cool" and women who put on a macho thing don't impress me, either.

reply to post by DarkPassenger


If you think women are equal to men, then someone sold you a line of bull droppings.

I'll acknowledge the first woman as my equal who can whizz up a wall as high as I can with both feet flat on the ground.

Most of the women I know are complimentarily brilliant - in other words - differently, but they are much more intuitively brilliant than me.

They have perspectives that are often greatly different than mine, but together, we both obtain a more complete knowledge.

Women can't physically do what I can, but they have a physical endurance that would whip my ass.

Women have the innate ability to show me those more sensitive, precious elements of life that I would normally overlook.

Discrimination against white males?

Hell, I can take it. I have strong women who like a man to be a man, and in the process make me an even stronger man.

oooohrah!

Originally posted by CrashGecko
Listen to the hole message instead of picking on one thing.

I still think your hole message has lots of wholes.