ThE "N" Word!

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: ByaKya Oh and remove the word "think' the next time you make a post like this, since if you had done any actual thinking, you wouldn't have made a comment like this

I KNOW why I said the word "THINK". Its because I am not black, so I cant claim to KNOW what they are THINKing. Correct me if I am wrong, but not when I am making an educated guess.
I can admit when I am wrong. Can you prove me wrong?

[ByaKya]

What a suprise, when faced with facts, figures, and statistics, otherwise known as proof, chancellor dismisses them as "lies' ?
Well then, I'm not sure what other kind of proof you are looking for, but I get he feeling no amount of proof will suffice, you have your borderline racist opinions and you're going to keep with them.
Its unfortunate becuase you showed some semblence of being human in the imams thread

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Chancellor I would take the one with good form: it's a false assumption that because he has good form he cannot improve his time.

I was explaining the rationale behind affirmative action as I understood it; I was not saying what the correct choice would be. That was simply the argument.
I will say though, that if you do have a guy who runs just as fast or almost as fast with bad form, he's a much better athlete than the one with good form. I would think that teaching proper form would make a difference, and anything else you can teach the trained runner can also be taught to the untrained runner. You have made the wrong choice in that instance.
Now: does the analogy hold in every case when it comes to academics? Absolutely not. That's why I was not agreeing with affirmative action.

Quote by: Chancellor It doesn't matter what was "intended," the fact of the matter is that it communicates a wrong message to blacks: that you are inherently inferior and, therefore, need special help. It is also a false assumption that the person with the lower SAT scores is necessarily going to be the better choice. By the way, I was one of those kids who grew up in one of those poorer learning environments and I still managed to graduate in the top 10 percent of my high school class without really having to put much effort into it. Maybe some of these kids would have to work harder at it but they're just as capable of success. That you're raising the issue of poorer learning environment has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity, it has to do with economic status and you cannot prove that merely being poor is going to so negatively impact a student's potential that he needs special help in the form of lower test scores or otherwise lower qualifications to succeed. You most certainly can't prove that so-called "minorities" are so negatively impacted by being a minority (meaning their inherent characteristics, not how the majority population has treated them) that they need special help in the form of lower test scores or otherwise lower qualifications to succeed.

Which is why affirmative action has not worked as it was intended. As I said, the admissions officers should be allowed to make their own decision about which student would make the best candidate for acceptance.

Quote by: Chancellor So-called "poor education environment" is an economic issue, not a racial one. But why should an admissions officer have to take that into account? If you have the grades, if you have the test scores, that should be sufficient. So what if a poorer school district didn't have the computers or the brand new textbooks that the wealthier school district might have. Students were able to learn quite adequately before there even were such things.

And now that the world is computerized, they cannot learn quite adequately without modern technology. And when you are speaking of knowledge that changes month to month, let alone year to year or decade to decade, new textbooks most certainly do make a difference -- in subjects such as biology, or physics, or history, trying to learn out of a 30-year-old book does much more harm than good.
And an admissions officer doesn't have to take learning environment into account, but if he's not a moron, he really should. It makes quite a large difference -- as you yourself are arguing when you speak of Catholic schools and their superiority to us indoctrinators. Or are you making the argument that Catholics are smarter than other people?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Chancellor So, why do these government indoctrination centers (public schools) have all these "bureaucratic restrictions and obligations"? Is it not at least in part because of the Democrats and Republicans the sheeple keep voting into office? Is it not at least in part because of leftist labor unions? As for parents getting involved in their children's education, what is it about public schools that make parents less inclined to get involved?

Of course the obligations and restrictions are at least partly due to politicians. What's your point? I thought we were talking about public and private schools, not Dems and Reps. Leftist labor unions? Probably. Again, what's your point?
When it comes to uninvolved parents, it has nothing to do with the schools driving the parents away. Parents are not involved with their children's lives, and are not involved with their children's education. Parents who choose to send their children to private schools are, of course, more interested in their children's lives and educations. Some parents who send their kids to public school are just as involved, but many are not; in neither case is that caused by the school.

Quote by: Chancellor So, it really has to do with economic status and not race. It has to do with wealthier school districts vs. poorer school districts. Well, isn't that simply because schools are primarily funded locally through property taxes? Yet, the leftists keep wanting us to believe it's a race issue.

Of course it has to do with economics. And race, in this country, is a pretty damn good indicator of economic status. The fact that it isn't perfect, and that economics is not the only influence on educational achievement, is why affirmative action does not work -- which is why I'm not arguing for it. Did I not make that clear enough? We're not on opposite sides here, not when it comes to the thread topic. I do not think affirmative action is a useful tool. I just think it has reasonable goals.
I will note, however, that several hundred years of systematic, institutionalized racism does also influence educational achievement -- and that is a race issue, and does not depend on economic status. It still isn't enough to make affirmative action effective, but it isn't totally off-base, as you seem to be arguing it is.

[Scribbler1]

I wonder how many threads have been devoted to affirmative action in the past year or so, and none of them named "the "N" word!" either.
But, that's the nature of topic drift.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Chancellor No, government indoctrination centers were originally set up in large part to promote some notion of citizenship. Education is the responsibility of parents, not government.

Which would be nice if most parents actually gave a damn, but they don't. Some parents have trouble even getting their kids up and on the bus in the morning, do you honestly think that they care at all if their kids get an education?

Hell, most of them have no business being parents in the first place.

So what? Where does it say in the Constitution that the government is responsible for educating someone's children? Many of these kids who supposedly didn't get an "education" learned a trade.

An educated populace is good for society. The uneducated and unskilled are a drain on society and swell the welfare rolls. You know as well as I do that if these kids were not forced to go to school, they'd be home playing video games and doing drugs and running with gangs and turning to crime, their parents functionally don't exist. Hell, for a lot of them, their mother has no clue who the father is and their 6 brothers and sisters each have different fathers and their mother is so strung out on drugs that she hasn't got a clue what day it is, much less care about her kids education. As much as it might be the parent's responsibility, the unfortunate reality is that most parents cannot and will not actually carry through on their responsibilities.

[brien]

Quote by: ByaKya The melting pot is now boiling over and some is getting right into the fire, the dream is dead Look up the labor statistics, blacks on average earn something like half of what an average white person does overall not specific jobs. But for women, they do indeed earn less for the same job, something like 75 cents where a guy is paid the full dollar. I am stating known facts, you can go ahead and try to disproove it though. You're the one making extraordinary claims about how america is all just and equal, you go search for the proof, should be easy enough

Since you are "stating facts" why don't you support those "facts" with proof they are valid? We don't need to look up anything to prove your points. YOU need to provide us with statistics to back up your claims. People who make preposterous claims around here, with no proof to support them, are merely ranting and raving sounding like the empty barrels that make the most noise.

Amazing that in this day in age, with information readily available, people STILL are ignorant, STILL in the dark about the reality of our country and the planet as a whole

.:rolleyes:

Lots of ignorance the last couple posts,

:rolleyes:

The root word of ignorance is to ignore Hmmmmmmmmmmm

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ByaKya What a suprise, when faced with facts, figures, and statistics, otherwise known as proof, chancellor dismisses them as "lies' ? Well then, I'm not sure what other kind of proof you are looking for, but I get he feeling no amount of proof will suffice, you have your borderline racist opinions and you're going to keep with them. Its unfortunate becuase you showed some semblence of being human in the imams thread

I didn't dismiss them as lies, I used the quote attributed to Mark Twain ("There are lies, damned lies and statistics.") to suggest that these statistics are pretty much meaningless. As I said, the only valid comparison is two people of different skin colors doing the same job for the same company.

Again, here's something I noticed in your so-called facts and figures:

"In the case of single men and single women, for example, we
can explain the entire race gap in the level of wealth with income and demographics provided that we estimate the wealth equation on the white sample. In contrast, we typically explain only a small fraction when we estimate the wealth model on a sample of blacks. In the case of couples, income and demographics account for 79% of the wealth gap when we use the wealth mean regression model for whites. We explain only 25% when we use the wealth model for blacks."

Why is that? Why do you have to use different measurements for whites than for blacks? Why is it that one has to "estimate" (meaning to guess at it) the wealth equation on the white sample to explain "the entire race gap" but "typically explain only a small fraction when we estimate the wealth model on a sample of blacks"?

Statistics can be made to say whatever you want just by how you ask the questions. Imagine how you can manipulate the statistics by using different measures for different groups.

[alexGERMAN]

Quote by: ByaKya If you still dont understand after re-reading my post, then i urge you to test out your theory in downtown los angeles, you are already in CA, road trip! before you say the n word to a black person, let them them know its for their own good and you dont agree that its bad for you to say it ok? the other two posters that seem to be getting uppity in this thread are invited to do the same.

This is alot of ignorant people say "try saying the 'N word' in NY, LA, Detroit" etc, and see what happens. What will happen? Some bum who doest want to work for a living will kill you or beat you. Because you said a word that seriously offends him because of what it implies to him and his ancestors who were slaves? No, he accually doesnt care about his ancestors or he would respexct there memory by not beinga degenerate. Nope, all he wants is an excuse to use his gun or baseball bat on someone because life in the hood is really boring.No job means endless hours of sitting in [mammas] house watching MTV waiting for the local croud to get together to rob the local 7/11 of a few pepsis. A feature of thug life that grand theft auto san adreas doest bring to light.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: alexGERMAN This is alot of ignorant people say "try saying the 'N word' in NY, LA, Detroit" etc, and see what happens. What will happen? Some bum who doest want to work for a living will kill you or beat you. Because you said a word that seriously offends him because of what it implies to him and his ancestors who were slaves? No, he accually doesnt care about his ancestors or he would respexct there memory by not beinga degenerate. Nope, all he wants is an excuse to use his gun or baseball bat on someone because life in the hood is really boring.No job means endless hours of sitting in [mammas] house watching MTV waiting for the local croud to get together to rob the local 7/11 of a few pepsis. A feature of thug life that grand theft auto san adreas doest bring to light.

Stop rambling. it fills up the thread with nonesense like this that no one wants to read

A feature of thug life that grand theft auto san adreas doest bring to light

ROFL, thanks for your expert opinion

[bishop]

i suggest we either get back on topic, or infractions will occur.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE.
Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[alexGERMAN]

it was a large generalization. But what im trying to say is, so many people base there oppinions of black people off 2 things.
#1 rap
#2and games like get rich or die trying/ GTA san andreas.

[Scribbler1]

Since this thread might actually be about the N word again, I'll make a point I wanted to make four pages back.

The bottom line is, if a society wants to stop using a word they eventually will. For some (and by no means ALL or even most) blacks to say they want to "reclaim" the word is ridiculous on its face.
The fact is no one group "owns" the English language so no one group can "claim" a word. When you keep an offensive word from fading out of use you keep it in play and that means ANYONE can use it and you might not like the way some people say it.
In other words, when people of all races are willing to stop using the word nigger, blacks will stop HEARING it. I see no reason for anyone to be offended by a work they refuse refuse to let die.

It's just plain moronic and it smacks of black racism.

[bishop]

that'd definitely the truth.. i personally believe that blacks are largely the reason why the word is still used. they seem to toss that word around way more often than any other race.


on another note, there's more hypocrisy amongst blacks.. they say that nobody should say nigger, but they themselves use it. they are supposedly all against discrimination, yet blacks (as a generalization) are much more opposed to gay rights than whites are...

[ByaKya]

Sorry no, blacks can keep useing the word till the cow come home. They can ay it to each other all they want. And Whites can't use it ever. That's how it is, its not up to some white guy sitting on his computer to determine if its ok or not, and then gets angry that he can't say it.
You CAN say it, just make sure you are still behind a computer when you do, becuase it won't ever be ok for you to say it, its a double standard white people will have to live with.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: ByaKya Sorry no, blacks can keep useing the word till the cow come home. They can ay it to each other all they want. And Whites can't use it ever. That's how it is, its not up to some white guy sitting on his computer to determine if its ok or not, and then gets angry that he can't say it. You CAN say it, just make sure you are still behind a computer when you do, becuase it won't ever be ok for you to say it, its a double standard white people will have to live with.

Why is that a better solution than eliminating the word entirely? IS it necessary within the black culture to maintain the word, and this double standard? Or could the word be done away with? Because Scribbler is entirely right: as long as it is kept alive within the black culture, it will be used by white people; all the outrage in the world isn't going to prevent it. A choice has to be made: is the word worth keeping? Or not?

[Osborn F Enready]

ByaKya said: Sorry no, blacks can keep useing the word till the cow come home.

I say:
As long as they don't mind keeping it alive, so they can hear it directed back at them, right?

ByaKya said: They can ay it to each other all they want. And Whites can't use it ever.

I say:
Try to enforce that on me, youll have a rude awakening. Oops, just said it while I was typing this, and I am white.

ByaKya said: That's how it is, its not up to some white guy sitting on his computer to determine if its ok or not, and then gets angry that he can't say it.

I say:
Yes, much better for racist folks like you to think it is a BLACK man sitting at a computer, deciding that, right?

Your as racist as any other I have seen ByaKya, just toward whites.
The funniest thing is you admitted it, and support it, while railing against it for everyone else. Talk about thinking you are superior......

ByaKya said: You CAN say it, just make sure you are still behind a computer when you do, becuase it won't ever be ok for you to say it, its a double standard white people will have to live with.

I say:
Is that some kind of veiled threat, that passes off a right to violence if this word is said to you?

LOL

Dreamer.

[Cephus]

Quote by: bishop on another note, there's more hypocrisy amongst blacks.. they say that nobody should say nigger, but they themselves use it. they are supposedly all against discrimination, yet blacks (as a generalization) are much more opposed to gay rights than whites are...

I don't know that I'd go that far on the gay rights thing, it's more a matter of more blacks tend to be part of uptight Christian churches than it is that more blacks, regardless of religious belief, oppose gay rights.

But you're right, you can't have it both ways. If you don't want people using nigger, don't use it yourself. If you don't want discrimination, don't be discriminatory yourself. This isn't rocket science.

[Fonceai]

The problem always lies with those who aren't a part of the word.

If you aren't black, you will never ever ever be qualified to understand how it feels to be called a "nigger".

Just as I'll never ever ever understand how insulting it could be to be called a "bitch" or "c**t".

If a black chooses to respond with violence they shouldn't be criticized for letting a word bother them. That word means something different to everyone, and the last person to be devaluing it is a white person.

[Jack]

I think a lot of good points have been raised here.
Considering the dynamics of the language, the point I most agree with is that if any segment of society uses a word, it keeps that word alive. If we want such terms to die a natural death, then everyone needs to agree that their usage is unacceptable.