LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)
-   -   White males... (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=124051)

Hiroki 02-29-2004 04:12 AM

White males...
 
As always, please forgive my spelling. I know, its bad.

Hello, I myself, am a white male. And I wanted to see if other White Males agreed with me on this subject.

No, I do not hate other races, I beleave all races should be treated equelly. EQUELLY. Yes, now you know where I'm going I bet. White Males today, we are treated, when we go to aply for a job, like second class citizens. Why should someone less qualified than us be chosen simply becouse they are another colour?

I understand that it use to the opiset. Back in the 50's and 60's, other races, escpecially blacks, where treated horribley. And that was, and still is wrong. Its sad when people are beaten for entering a resturaunt or bar so arogantly labeled: "No coloreds."

But, after everything that happened in the 60's, the protests, and such, you would think people would have seen the light. You would think they would have decided to make it right, by makeing it fair. But no, humans are stupid. They simply reversed it. Whats worse is that this was done mostly by other white males at the top of the government.

Not that the other races complained, oh no. None of them said how unfair it was to us, becouse hey, they had to go thru it, they wanted revenge! They wanted to see us suffer, instead of chooseing to try and get along, they decided they would just treat us the same as we had them.

Now I'm not saying we are treated as badly as they where. Not hardly, I have yet to see a "No whites" bar. But I still think we can be considered on the low end of the job pool.

There...I think thats enough ranting on that for now. Comment as you will, I'll probably think up other stuff to say. Also, this post mainly concentrated on how blacks are favored over whites today. I've got no problem with them, or other races however. Hey, look at my name! Go go Japan! :)

Druid Bremen 02-29-2004 04:26 AM

Lol. When I started reading this, I thought the "whites" referred to Americans and such. And, no. I do not hate blacks. I treat them equally. I do not hate Japanese, even though its Emperor attacked my country ( not America). Anyway, I wholly agree with you. Do your best to.... Errr.... Root out racists in.... This forum! :xp:

SkinWalker 02-29-2004 05:04 AM

While I disagree with how initiatives such as Affirmative Action are managed in a large degree, I feel I have to point out that the "white male" is in no jeopardy of losing jobs to blacks in the United States.

As of Jan. 2004, the Unemployment rate for whites was 4.9 whereas the Unemployment Rate for blacks was 10.5 (BLS, 2004). You also have to take into account the number of people who are not eligible for unemployment benefits and therefore aren't included in the "unemployment rate" as they apparently count those who are receiving some sort of benefits...

There is a huge disparity between whites and blacks in that regard, therefore, one could say that whites are far from the low end of the "job pool" and certainly not favored over whites, generally speaking (it is likely that specific instances of favoratism exists, though this is not the general rule as born out through the numbers).

I think that affirmative action type initiatives can have their place if managed well, but one should be hired on the basis of meritt and not the color of their skin.

One way that affirmative action could be effective is if incentives are given to employers to find/train minority employees to fullfil positions, but, again, this would be a meritt based incentive. In the end, if a minority didn't arrive at the same qualifications as the "white male," then obviously the position should go to the person that will bring the most qualifications to the job. However, I certainly wouldn't rule out the value of cultural diversity within a workplace, so if the two were closely matched and the white person only just edging out the minority, then perhaps consideration should be given to non-skill level traits that can be a benefit to the workplace.

That having been said, one must also consider that blacks are not the only minority that falls into the affirmative action concept. Women also have disparities with their white-male counterparts, particularly with salaries and particularly in England.

I think the real place to begin making opportunities happen for the minorities of the country is within primary and secondary education. Our inner city and rural school districts get increasingly little foci in funding, professional improvement of faculty, innovations in education, etc. The suburban school districts get increasingly higher attention to each... This is understandable on many levels, since the suburbs is where the revenue is to distribute back to the school districts.

Another issue is the so-called glass ceiling, which I personally think is largely non-existant. This is the "invisible" barrier that minorities (particularly women and blacks) hit when climbing corporate ladders. My belief on this is that the glass ceiling is simply a result of the city-bus effect: the bus rolls through two white neighborhoods, picks up a nearly full load of people who get all the good seats.. then rolls through primarily Hispanic then black neighborhoods... they have to wait for the seats to become unoccupied before being able to get them.. perhaps other whites are already better positioned to get them first. It doesn't mean that the bus is racist, but rather it has an established route.

That's an oversimplification, since the whites on the bus don't have pension plans and corporate bonuses/stock options to motivate them to ride it all day, but perhaps it still conveys the idea.

BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004) Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age. United States Department of Labor.

Druid Allanon 02-29-2004 12:04 PM

Good for you, Hiroki. I, too, do not see what's wrong with black people. The difference between them and us whites is only the skin colour. I have no problems against black people. In fact, I admire some of them and think they're hilarious(Samuel L. Jackson's cool). This racism is childish. It's basically the same as prejudice against gay people.

Kain 02-29-2004 05:49 PM

If a black man can't get a job, whos fault is it? The white man.
If a latino man can't get a job, whos fault is it? The white man.
If a japanese man can't get a job, whos fault is it? The white man.
If a white man can't get a job, whos fault is it? The black man, the latino man, and the japanese man.
Its not so much who can and cant get a job, its all about who tries the hardest for the job.

...of course, its always been said to me its not WHAT you know, its WHO you know when applying for a job.

obi 02-29-2004 05:54 PM

I don't get why blacks/latinos/everyone else can make fun of white people, but if we make fun of them, we're racist.

I usually ignore that rule and speak whats on my mind anyway. I'm not a very politically correct person.

Another thing I don't get, is why Blacks in my area do not have to work. They get money every month for food/cloths/raise their children. What do they spend it on? New cars and beer. That makes me MAD. They shouldn't even be getting that money in the first place. They should get a job like the rest of us.

And don't hand me the "Well, they might not be able to work" speach, because I've seen these people, and there is nothing wrong with them.

Tyrion 02-29-2004 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kain
If a black man can't get a job, whos fault is it? The white man.
If a latino man can't get a job, whos fault is it? The white man.
If a japanese man can't get a job, whos fault is it? The white man.
If a white man can't get a job, whos fault is it? The black man, the latino man, and the japanese man.

I am a latino that looks jewish, so either way I'm screwed.

Hiroki 02-29-2004 07:42 PM

Obi-wan 13, That is EXACTLY what I have a problem with. Perfectly healthy blacks getting free money off the government so they can have an easy, work free, care free life, while we're out slaveing for our money every day.

Not to mention, that doing such a thing is very foolish. You do know that blacks won't always be considered a minority, right? Well what then? They will have been pampered so much, that alot of them will be haveing harder than any man should when it all stops. They won't have any will power, and they won't know how to make it on there own.

Doing all of that in the end, is hurting them more than helping them...

El Sitherino 03-01-2004 06:30 AM

The white man isn't being kept down. That is all.

SkinWalker 03-01-2004 06:33 AM

Let's not forget the Indian. Look at the free ride those guys get. Their own casinos and bingo parlors, federal funding, their own land... their own NATIONS! (Zuni Nation, Hopi Nation, etc.).

It's crazy... you think they'd just accept their defeat and get real jobs and stop all that "live off the land" crap.



In case anyone didn't notice, I was being facetious.

Jared 03-01-2004 06:43 AM

I am a white male.

my ancestors were whores.

So i'm probably black and asian too, as well as mexican and definatly american indian.....

so....my ancestors stole this land from my other ancestors damn it.....

....i'm being held down...I cant get a job....I am beat up by black men on the street...and....
























































no.



*shuts thead*

Druid Allanon 03-01-2004 08:20 AM

Quote:

Perfectly healthy blacks getting free money off the government so they can have an easy, work free, care free life, while we're out slaveing for our money every day.
Perhaps, but even so, that's no reason to be racist towards black people. But yeah, some people do get treated better because of their skin colour. In Malaysia, the Malays have special rights which the other races don't, such as the requirements for admission to universities for Malays are lower than that for other races.

Hiroki 03-01-2004 01:57 PM

Well, we DID defete the American Indians in a war. And as far as I know, winning a war gives you the right to invade and take over.

Ray Jones 03-01-2004 02:06 PM

so shooting you in the head and winning this war, would give me the right to take your money?

Hiroki 03-01-2004 02:08 PM

Huh? We're only two people. It takes a nation to make a real war. Otherwise you're just a thug...

Ray Jones 03-01-2004 02:23 PM

"real" war?


i think it depends to the definition of a war.

but basically, i think, you got my idea.

Hiroki 03-01-2004 02:29 PM

Yes, yes. But lets not turn this into a "War, right or not?" Thread. Back on topic. :)

Jared 03-01-2004 03:06 PM

I would like to inform the people that in reading this thread, it has made my day.



I havn't laughed this hard...in...a long...time.

Hiroki 03-01-2004 07:06 PM

Yeah, maybe the last few posts where immature...when did this even become about indians and there land? I haven't even seen an American Indian in an office.

Look. There a more of us here, whites that is. We are the majority. But that doesn't mean, simply becouse there are more of us, that the minoritys need an advantige. More of us, means more mouths to feed, correct? Besides, what happens when the minoritys become the majority?

Ray Jones 03-01-2004 08:06 PM

if we talk white and black humans we ALWAYS will have a minority and a majority. if we talk about humans there is none of both. these "differences" must be put aside not "equalized". there's a difference if "those" people have the same rights as "those". people have rights. that's it. (or more: should it be..)

rccar328 03-01-2004 08:15 PM

Quote:

if we talk white and black humans we ALWAYS will have a minority and a majority. if we talk about humans there is none of both. these "differences" must be put aside not "equalized".
I totally agree.

I found this report...
Read it, and then imagine how ticked off people would be if it had been Trent Lott slamming "a bunch of black men."
(Or if Noriega had said, "I resent being branded a black man.")

Kain 03-01-2004 09:20 PM

So you agree, rccar, that seperation of races is bad. But you'll say that seperating gays and heteros is good? Kinda contradicting eh?

Sorry to bring that gay marriage issue here, but it does bring up an important factor: If we shouldn't be seperated by race, why should we be seperated by sexual preference? Theres always someone who wants something (race or sexual preferece) seperated and treated better than others.

Hiroki 03-01-2004 09:21 PM

Maybe so, but I doubt people will ever put them aside. Atleast equalizeing it has something of a chance. It would be great, if one day we would not even notice a persons race or color when we see them, but I just don't think its ever going to happen, not while we're still human.

Hiroki 03-01-2004 09:23 PM

You are BORN the race that you are. You can not help that. Now you can claim you are born gay, but...well, its just a claim, non the less. You can't compare it.

Ray Jones 03-01-2004 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hiroki
Maybe so, but I doubt people will ever put them aside. Atleast equalizeing it has something of a chance. It would be great, if one day we would not even notice a persons race or color when we see them, but I just don't think its ever going to happen, not while we're still human.
of course we "see" a black, yellow what ever colored man/ woman.. but we also "see" redhaired, blondes, blackhaired whatever. there may have been a time where this made a "difference", but nowadays not. there is only a difference in personality between humans. (ok, in the genes too, but .. .. .. you know? :))

Hiroki 03-01-2004 09:54 PM

You might like to think that it doesn't make a differance today, but among many it does. There are many raceists and bigots out there, of all races. And thinking its all going to go away, in my opinion is over-optomistic and foolhardy. No offince or anything of course. I just don't beleave people will ever put aside there hatred.

El Sitherino 03-01-2004 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hiroki
Yeah, maybe the last few posts where immature...when did this even become about indians and there land? I haven't even seen an American Indian in an office.

Look. There a more of us here, whites that is. We are the majority. But that doesn't mean, simply becouse there are more of us, that the minoritys need an advantige. More of us, means more mouths to feed, correct? Besides, what happens when the minoritys become the majority?

uhhhh... when it's a minority they have a handicap, yes they need more of an advantage because there are less of them. I chop off your arm, now you need more of an advantage over me since I have 2 and you only have 1.

And when they become the majority, they are no longer a minority :xp:

rccar328 03-01-2004 10:30 PM

Quote:

You are BORN the race that you are. You can not help that. Now you can claim you are born gay, but...well, its just a claim, non the less. You can't compare it.
Ditto.

If it is ever scientifically proven that homosexuality is genetic, I'll have to seriously reconsider my stance.

Kain 03-02-2004 02:12 AM

But the heart wants what the heart wants, its as simple as that. It MAY NOT be genetic to be homosexual, but somethings you see before puberty may sway your sexual prefernce one way or the other, and THAT is proven.

Obviously being raped by a Catholic priest as a young boy will probably make you shun the same sex sexually. [One insulting sentance deleted]?


*** Let's try to avoid ad hominem remarks please. -- SkinWalker

ET Warrior 03-02-2004 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hiroki
Well, we DID defete the American Indians in a war. And as far as I know, winning a war gives you the right to invade and take over.
What the...who the......are you joking? I'm going to equate this with saying if Germany would have won WWII then Hitler would have been in the right.


The problem most people have with affirmative action and the like, is we look at it and say, HEY! I didn't enslave their ancestors, it's not MY fault they're poverty stricken, why must I pay for it?

Well we have to do SOMETHING to right the wrongs of our past. Just ignoring them and pretending everything is okay now sure as hell isn't going to do it.

rccar328 03-02-2004 02:36 AM

Quote:

Deleted one insulting sentance.?
I don't see how a stupid, baseless insult like this is appropriate in any way, or applicable to this debate.

Kain 03-02-2004 05:13 AM

It wasn't so much an insult as a statement. My humblest apologies if you, or if anyone else, was offended.

(Not trying to get myself out any trouble I'm in here, but I just worked 10 hours before posting that so my mind isn't exactly in a 'try not to offend people' mode)

ET Warrior 03-02-2004 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hiroki
You are BORN the race that you are. You can not help that. Now you can claim you are born gay, but...well, its just a claim, non the less. You can't compare it.
Okay, so lets say you CHOOSE to be gay. I don't believe it, but we'll just pretend. You CHOOSE to be anti-homosexual, should everyone shun you because of your decision? Some people choose to be vegetarians, are they in the wrong? Our lives are defined by our choices. Why is their choice the wrong one?

Hiroki 03-02-2004 07:04 AM

When somebody gets aids from eating a carrot, then I'll be againts vegetarians... *cough* About the war thing. Well, I wouldn't say Hittler would be right, as in good. But he would have won it, and it would be his. If we won it back one day, then it would be ours again.

I'm not saying that winning the Indians land in war was the right, or noble thing to do, it wasen't, but we did win it, and it is ours.

Kain 03-02-2004 07:14 AM

So you're against gays(I'm talking to Hiroki) because of the AIDS virus? I suppose thats a good reason. Of course, it isn't the gay people's fault, its actually the BI-sexual peoples fault. And since EVERYONE back then (the '70's) was a swinger, its the swingers faults too. If 2 gay guys(or gals) wanna get married, good on them. You would think that Christian's(what with their anti-gay mindsets) would be happy to watch AIDs jump from homosexual to homosexual and watch the entire mess of em die off in an agonizing manner(well, maybe not ALL Christians, but fundamentalists for sure). Way to love your fellow man.

OMG, this is turning into the gay marriage issue here...SkinWalker, methinks its time to merge the 2?

Ray Jones 03-02-2004 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hiroki
When somebody gets aids from eating a carrot, then I'll be againts vegetarians... *cough* About the war thing. Well, I wouldn't say Hittler would be right, as in good. But he would have won it, and it would be his. If we won it back one day, then it would be ours again.

I'm not saying that winning the Indians land in war was the right, or noble thing to do, it wasen't, but we did win it, and it is ours.
but you do realize that the earth is not "human property"?

Hiroki 03-02-2004 07:51 AM

Well, do you know any animal that can stand up to man? We're getting to a point where we'll even be imune to natures greatest affects. When that happens, it will be mans property. You arn't going tell me now, that non-sentiant animals have just as much right to call the planet 'theres' as we do, are you? They're food, or sport for us. Becouse we where made to be superior. If thats by God, or Nature, it doesn't matter. We're here now.

Edit: I was speaking of the entire human race, as in every color or nation. Not just whites or anything like that.

Ray Jones 03-02-2004 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hiroki
Well, do you know any animal that can stand up to man? We're getting to a point where we'll even be imune to natures greatest affects.
we may dont even KNOW of natures "greatest effects" (whatever that is.)
i mean we are here on earth, a very small planet somewhere in a universe and so on. we are NOTHING but part of life. an animal that can stand up to man? hmm. with or without "technical equipment"? you know that we cannot fly or breathe under water. we arent as fast and strong as other animals. we cannot see so fast and sharp or in the dark as other animals. we cannot hear as good as animals. you know that without microorganisms we would not be able to live one day? the only thing that makes us different is our more powerful brain. that is the only reason WHY we are able to do things without that our body is able to it "himself".


Quote:

When that happens, it will be mans property. You arn't going tell me now, that non-sentiant animals have just as much right to call the planet 'theres' as we do, are you? They're food, or sport for us.
i have to disagree. without animal we would hardly exist. also microorganisms inhabit our whole body. do they OWN our bodies therefore?

we may be on top of the food chain, but that does not mean we own anything.

we may have been the best in surviving from a certain point of view, but it's never sure we will not fail one day.

Quote:

Becouse we where made to be superior. If thats by God, or Nature, it doesn't matter. We're here now.
made superior? we arent "made" and superior, we are weak and vulnerable. we are able to fly to space but also can be easily killed by a small bacterium. or simply by radiation in space.


[edit]

of course, it is "our" earth, seen from the point that we live on it. but from this point it is also the earth of all lifeforms on it and of all future lifeforms.
(and of course of all past lifeforms.)

also, if some superior alien species would come here, and claim the earth to be theirs, would you agree?

Hiroki 03-02-2004 09:45 AM

Yes, we are weak without our tech. But it is OUR tech. And it was made with our brain, wich is a part of us. You know its funny, when an animal does something, it is considered an act of nature. If it destroys whole crops with infestation, its an act of nature, but if WE do anything with our oh so demonic tech, its a crime againts nature... -_-;

Tech is part of nature becouse it was made by us useing the brain that nature gave us. It may not be the standered type of nature that you are use to seeing, but that doesn't really make it any differant. Arn't humans just smart animals after all? Why should we recieve a guilt trip when we destroy some natural land formation? I'm sure other animals have soiled and destroyed there fiar share before.

Its our planet becouse nothing can stop us from takeing it right now, if they could, then it wouldn't be ours. Yes, we can't live without animals. Thats why they're still here probably. We've come an awful long way from the hunter/forager we once where. However, even then, we used tech. A spear is a invention of man, isn't it?

If some

Also, if some alien race that was so much more powerful than us ( Its not gonna happen anyway, since lightspeed can't be reached, much less exeeded. ) came and whiped us out, and claimed the planet as there own, then it would be theres. Fair and squaire, yes.

Ray Jones 03-02-2004 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hiroki
Yes, we are weak without our tech. But it is OUR tech. And it was made with our brain, wich is a part of us. You know its funny, when an animal does something, it is considered an act of nature. If it destroys whole crops with infestation, its an act of nature, but if WE do anything with our oh so demonic tech, its a crime againts nature... -_-;
i wasnt talking against "demonic" technologies, i just wanted to point out, that, as you've stated, we are "nothing" without our technologies, except that we have the ability to invent those we need (and want?). but there are animals (primates) with the same ability, and therefore there's nothing very special about us.

in fact our "crimes" against nature are after all just another "happenings" in the chain of events of life.

Quote:

Tech is part of nature becouse it was made by us useing the brain that nature gave us. It may not be the standered type of nature that you are use to seeing, but that doesn't really make it any differant. Arn't humans just smart animals after all? Why should we recieve a guilt trip when we destroy some natural land formation? I'm sure other animals have soiled and destroyed there fiar share before.
i dont have much different views here. i'd only like to point out that animals do such things for surviving. we as "clever animals" have also other reasons for doing such things. because it's our human nature to find such other, non-survival reasons it still can be considered as natural behaviour, but that doesnt necessarily means i support them.
also one never could prove if, whatever species we "let die out", it wouldnt had died out sooner or later, anyways.
but we must not provoke such things, nor should we ignore the fact that nature is still our living room and that we still are depended to nature, for instance to the rain forrest, or plants in general, because they produce the oxygene we breathe. of course, we are up to the point where we basically know how to get independend from that, but we're far from "replacing" plants through a technic or "machine".

Quote:

Its our planet becouse nothing can stop us from takeing it right now, if they could, then it wouldn't be ours. Yes, we can't live without animals. Thats why they're still here probably. We've come an awful long way from the hunter/forager we once where. However, even then, we used tech. A spear is a invention of man, isn't it?
it is, sure, and we dont know where we will "go" someday and what we will invent.

no technology is bad, only its certain appliance could be considered so.

Quote:

Also, if some alien race that was so much more powerful than us ( Its not gonna happen anyway, since lightspeed can't be reached, much less exeeded. ) came and whiped us out, and claimed the planet as there own, then it would be theres. Fair and squaire, yes.
we would have no choice anyway, assuming a MUCH higher level of technology. also traveling space is not dependend to LIGHTSPEED.

a thought: we humans are traveling through space, too. and we're using this big spaceship "earth" for it. (and the time on earth is DEFINITLY limited!)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.