Why Race?

perception can become reality. I have some close hispanic (mexican/america) friends here in New Mexico. They are 4th generation US citizens. They have family in California whom they planned to visit this summer. The route to L.A. from Albuquerque takes them through Arizona. They have canceled their vacation this year. They are not afraid they would be deported while driving through arizona but they are afraid they would be harassed. Their fear is very real whether the facts/reality of the arizona law support their fear. the public street info here in New Mexio is that Arizona will not accept New Mexico drivers licenses as valid ID.

0 Replies

@aidan,

The problem I see with Snood though aidan is that he only seems to bypass the threads where racism is overblown or never actually happened. If you read the thread I linked to, most people agree that there was NO racism. Snood has never posted (that I've seen, and I have been looking) a comment where he took the side of the person wrongly accused of racism. He posts in most race-related threads where there is really racism occuring; he just happens to coincenditally run out of things to say when the racism smear is applied incorrectly.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

I only bring this up now because snood brought up this thread which contains a reference to a post I made. He brought me into this, not the other way around. And it has NOTHING to do with his race, but has very much to do with his posts and opinions on matters.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

I can't comment on that because I haven't really payed that close attention to it, but the other things you might want to take into account are that:

a) Snood is not around here every day as some posters are and so he might not have even SEEN the threads you think he's chosen not to comment on.

b) Maybe everyone's already said what he'd have said on a thread. I don't comment on a lot of threads because that truly is the case-and if I don't have anything to add, it's not really my style to say -'Yeah - I agree - you go girl' or whatever - I just figure that the information was expressed by someone else and I leave it be. Maybe he's the same way.

Finally - you know people can get tired of being 'the voice' for a specific group. I can only tell you about myself as the lone American where I work - it's gotten to where my stock answer to 'What do the Americans think about this?' is 'I don't know - I don't read American newspapers anymore...'

I think you're sensitive on this subject because you've been unfairly accused of being racist. I have seen it myself. I don't think you're racist-maybe unexposed as a lot of white people are - I was until I lived with a black person - I learned a HELL OF A LOT through that experience.
**** I couldn't believe and never, ever would have known otherwise.
But no - I don't think you're racist.

But yeah, it's no good looking for racism where it doesn't exist. And I truly don't think Snood does that.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

The problem I see with Snood though aidan is that he only seems to bypass the threads where racism is overblown or never actually happened. If you read the thread I linked to, most people agree that there was NO racism. Snood has never posted (that I've seen, and I have been looking) a comment where he took the side of the person wrongly accused of racism. He posts in most race-related threads where there is really racism occuring; he just happens to coincenditally run out of things to say when the racism smear is applied incorrectly.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

I only bring this up now because snood brought up this thread which contains a reference to a post I made. He brought me into this, not the other way around. And it has NOTHING to do with his race, but has very much to do with his posts and opinions on matters.

Whatever problem you see with Snood is entirely your perception and opinion. Nothing to do with the reality of the man or his posts. You are not the Post Police. He, or anyone else, can bypass anything they want to bypass; they can post on anything they want to post on; they, like you, are not under any obligation to any other poster to say what that poster wants to hear.

Whether Snood or anybody else takes any particular side or not is none of your business as it is none of mine or anybody else.

You are wrong in your premise as a whole.

It was not clearly evident that Snood, in any way, brought you into this thread. You came into this thead not knowing what was written. You then see something that you think you said a couple years ago (without being attributed to your name - thus nobody else would ever have linked you to said comment) and jump all over Snood for it. You then expect us to believe that it has nothing to do with the colour of Snood's skin.

The fact that you disagree with him (Hell, you disagree with most people) does not give you licence to personally malign the man.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

It was not clearly evident that Snood, in any way, brought you into this thread.

Nonsense, I knew exactly who snood was talking about when he started the thread because it quotes maporsche's post from a few days ago.

Quote:

You are not the Post Police. He, or anyone else, can bypass anything they want to bypass; they can post on anything they want to post on; they, like you, are not under any obligation to any other poster to say what that poster wants to hear.

Couldn't the same be said to you for exactly what you are doing?

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

And to tell those who don’t bother to post on the majority of my threads that have nothing to do with race, and only show up on the ones that do to whine “here we go again” – you are truly irrelevant, in the purest sense of the word, to me.

Me, recently (here's the link, http://able2know.org/topic/153736-2#post-4193383 )

maporsche wrote:

oh here we go again.

He was talking to me, and if he wasn't I'd like to hear him say so.

Sorry if my posting offends you officer. This stuff goes far back between snood and I, he's a tough guy and can stick up for himself (I've seen it).

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

The worst, most blatant and most vitriolic racism right now, is directed toward Muslims. They are followed by Hispanics. Does anyone care to try to dispute this?

Your question hurts my feelings because I feel left out as an atheist. Atheists are a race as much as Muslims are. And Americans are even less likely to vote for an atheist than for a Muslim.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

because I feel left out as an atheist.

In that you regard, you can get your 'fix' of belonging here at a2k. Laughing

Joke, joke, joke...that's a joke.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Point taken Thomas. As you know full well, I think prejudice against any religion should be challenged Wink

.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

You then see something that you think you said a couple years ago (without being attributed to your name - thus nobody else would ever have linked you to said comment) and jump all over Snood for it. You then expect us to believe that it has nothing to do with the colour of Snood's skin.

Besides you completly misreading my post to snood (where I made mention of why I brought up the 2 year old thread) you accuse me of being a racist. Very insipid, intrepid.

I brought up the 2 year old post because Snood asked Robert for examples of previous posts where he did what Robert 'accused' (bad word) him of. I thought I'd beat him to the punch.

I believe (correctly) that Snood chooses not to comment on threads where racism charges are overblown. I posted a thread where he refused to do this (and it was an easy one). I know he read the thread because he responded several time, one of them telling me to kiss his black ass.

I'd like to see one post where Snood defends those wrongly accused of racism. Just one.

Since he likely never has, any post where he talks about finding racism in something is immediately suspect in my eyes. He's not objective on the matter and does not appear to look at things related to racism objectively.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

In all seriousness... I agree with you that there is prejudice against people who don't believe in God. This is particularly felt in politics.

The difference is that no one looks atheist. This is why Atheists aren't followed around in stores or given special attention at airports. You can't even tell if your employees are Atheists.

Which of these two people would you guess is an Atheist: Hernando Garcia or Farhana Khamzi?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

He's not objective on the matter and does not appear to look at things related to racism objectively.

"objective" on racism seems to me a non sequitur. Over the years I've known snood we have had our disagreements, It's my assumption we have walked in different shoes.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

I think objectivism should always be the goal in debate, logic, and forming opinions.

Everyone walks in different shoes, which is why striving for objectiveness should be the standard on which any opinion is held.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

The difference is that no one looks atheist.

I suppose you haven't seen me in my "blasphemy is a victimless crime" T-Shirt.

ebrown p wrote:

Which of these two people would you guess is an Atheist: Hernando Garcia or Farhana Khamzi?

You tell me. I'm pretty sure you've made these people up.

Seriously though: point taken.

0 Replies

You'll have to ask all those NASCAR idiots and the folks who watch them.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

striving for objectiveness

certainly a goal no less than "striving for truth" a very pleasant process, not unlike using the north star for striving for direction, keeping in mind the north star is not the destination but rather a process requiring subjective qualities (experience, intuition, personality, perception, education among many others) all too often "being objective" means "being in agreement" which brings us back to a social construction of reality. Perhaps "striving for objectivity" amounts to little more than a tautological mobius loop. However, I can't really say, my objectivity is limited by my humanness which is somewhat lacking in objectivity. As a great man once said "I am not a number."

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

Quote:

However, I can't really say, my objectivity is limited by my humanness which is somewhat lacking in objectivity

Substantively irrational beings in all seriousness busting their buns to be completely objective is quite the hoot...trying to be objective has a purpose but lets not get carried away and forget who we are.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
It was not clearly evident that Snood, in any way, brought you into this thread.

Nonsense, I knew exactly who snood was talking about when he started the thread because it quotes maporsche's post from a few days ago.

Quote:
You are not the Post Police. He, or anyone else, can bypass anything they want to bypass; they can post on anything they want to post on; they, like you, are not under any obligation to any other poster to say what that poster wants to hear.

Couldn't the same be said to you for exactly what you are doing?

Perhaps YOU knew, but I did not as I am sure a number of others would not.

As to your second comment. Good point! Sometimes we need someone to point out what should be obvious to us. Thank you.

I still, however, disagree with maporche.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

I responded to Snood (not Intrepid, or 'others'), who did know who he was referring to.

YOU chose to jump into something you obviously did not fully understand.

You still think I'm a racist too?

2 Replies

@maporsche,

Haven't quite decided yet. My opinion, however, is of little consequence.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know