Yeah, we should definitely have different rules for people based entirely on the color of their skin.
Seriously. I've had it with your loser instigations. For someone who just came onto this board, you've got a lot of gall. Be a man and say it to my face. I'm easily found.
Unless you pay them off...like...oh I don't know...giving Jackson's son an exclusive Budweiser distributorship in Chicago. That wouldn't be lucrative at all. Money drives the bus when it comes to Jackson. It seems less so with Sharpton, but he is never lacking cash either.
So...you are saying that it is ok to be a racist if your group is the one that had been oppressed. So if a black man owns a business and refuses to hire a white guy because he refuses to have a honky on his staff....it is ok? Is this really what you are saying here?
I still think Dog's statements might have been "tooken outta contents," but I still try "to love people for da mind, not their skin ..... tone."
I don't care what celebrities do or say in their private life as long as it's not illegal. This isn't a Richard Harris situation where he did it publicly on a stage in front of an audience, and it wasn't in front of a camera intended for tv. It's kind of silly that this is that big of a deal. I'm probably going to get flamed for saying that, but that's how I feel. The more our country's morals fall apart, the bigger trouble you can get into for not being politically correct. It's kind of amusing.
Part of a celebrity's product is their personality and character: they wouldn't employ publicists; or give interviews in magazine, newspapers or on talk shows otherwise. A free press in a free market is therefore probably justified in exposing a celebrity's personal behavior, because it allows fans/customers to make slightly more informed product decisions. Issues may arise when the collection of this information directly impacts or impedes a celebrity's life, but the First Amendment probably means that's more of an ethical and moral dilemma, for media and consumers, than a legal one.
Yes it has: by the NAACP, I believe. I wonder how many Image Awards they withheld or rescinded over the years from black artists, writers and entertainers who used the word. Too little, too late.
Middle and upper-middle class people of all races against lower class whites. No: discriminatory laws and quasi-official racially-based physical intimidation, neither of which exist anymore, did that.
Unfortunately, that's probably an inherent implication of what Dog said. If he won't retain one employee because they're dating a black person, it's probably fair to assume he wouldn't hire a black person outright.
Do you have a problem with people using the N word with the A-ending towards eachother that are not black? A lot of my Asian friends do this with eachother and there is definitely no racist intent. I don't think any of them even think of a black person when they say the word. The way I see it, the word has gotten so integrated into people's everyday language that it has lost its racial meaning in the mainstream. I could be wrong. Lets take a look at this next clip. How many of you here take offense to this? NSFW (language) <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HXtjt5ZrG5o&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HXtjt5ZrG5o&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
You need to study history more. It wasn't just the laws and physical intimidation. That might oppress someone but certainly doesn't dehumanize them to the extent that labels like the 'N' word does. The public would never support that kind of oppression unless there was dehumanization that had been taking place over a long period of time. Part of that was the use of the 'N' word. Middle to upper-middle class people against lower class whites never conspired to keep them out of anything. In fact lower class whites had opportunities and chances that African-Americans never had. It is nowhere near the same.
I'm not saying that's ok, I'm saying that almost never happens, and certainly hasn't been common place like the reverse has been. A black business owner not hiring a white guy because of his skin color has been more of a rare situational problem rather than a larger scale societal problem. Where as whites keeping blacks out of schools, businesses, etc. has been a huge larger scale societal problem.
I hear Mexicans call each other wet backs and spics all the time like black use the term n****r and I don't have a problem with it, I just know I wouldn't use a derogatory term for a hispanic/latino. what's the big deal?
It's all about the money for them right which might be true but when they speak on thie subject people seem to listen.
if there is someone willing to step up and speak out for that group what's wrong with that yeah there media pros but there some how affective in what they are doing. thanks for the correction
Racism is alive and strong as ever. People just hide it now. Unlike before when folks were openly racist. At least at that time, you knew who you were dealing with. Now, you are probably dealing with some closet racist that seem cool around you but when you are gone, the racist in them comes out.
I'm not shocked by the language, since most people harbor some sort of racist thought from time to time, but I am shocked about how a son could sell out his father.
How the hell did you get that out of that post. He was simply saying that the term "white trash" has never held the same kind of stigma as the "N-word."
