A little exchange between your emissary, Stinkberry, and yours truly.

Re: the line of racism is ill defined
by JackDallas
10/28/2009, 10:23 AM #

Favorites Reply

Problem with letting blacks define racism is that many of them define it as anything a white person does that just doesn't set well with them.

I fired a black man once because he was continually late for work, would not stay at his work station, and would not wear his tools when working. He claimed he was let go because of his color. I had done all the paperwork beforehand, verbal warnings, written warnings, several times talking to him about it, but he just would not change his ways. I'd probably fired 20 white men before that particular incident for pretty much the same violations.

The charge went nowhere but the fact remains that equality in the mind of some black men means special treatment. They are not all like this, of course, but many are. And since Liberals and Unions and racial tension whores like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton keep telling them that whitey is going to screw them, it's hard to break that mindset.

I knew that I did not fire the man because he was black. In fact I waited longer to cut him loose than I would have waited, had he been white.

If the definition of racism is, using the N word, discriminating against minorities in the workplace or anywhere else, paying them less money for doing the same work, or seeking to harm them in any way through the use of the power structure then I will agree that this behavior should be avoided.

If the definition of racism means that I cannot call Jesse Jackson or Barack Obama, or whomever, an incompetent, corrupt piece of shit....then they can go to hell and I will define racism for myself.

Jack

Report abuse

Quick Reply

Easy there, big fella. No need to overcomplicate matters.
by Inkberrow
10/28/2009, 10:50 AM #

Favorites Reply

JackDallas:

Problem with letting blacks define racism is that many of them define it as anything a white person does that just doesn't set well with them.

If the definition of racism is, using the N word, discriminating against minorities in the workplace or anywhere else, paying them less money for doing the same work, or seeking to harm them in any way through the use of the power structure then I will agree that this behavior should be avoided.

If the definition of racism means that I cannot call Jesse Jackson or Barack Obama, or whomever, an incompetent, corrupt piece of shit....then they can go to hell and I will define racism for myself.

We all realize you're a sensitive and complex man, JackOaf, but there's really no need to get all cerebral about the definitions and penumbras of Racism, not at this stage in your development anyway. Nor need you cede to African-Americans sole interpretive authority on the subject.

Why don't you just hunker down to basics---baby steps, if you will---and stop routinely referring to African-Americans as porch monkeys, lawn jockeys, apes, shoeshiners, or other patently racist epithets? You may even find that many of the challenging gray areas you powerfully describe will take care of themselves!

Report abuse

Quick Reply

Re: Easy there, big fella. No need to overcomplicate matters.
by JackDallas
10/28/2009, 11:10 AM #

Delete Favorites Reply

I considered that but the problem is that I would lose that tool and the outrage value it inherently gives me. I use the slurs on those minorities I do not like. The individuals for whom I have absolutely no respect (who are, most often the very ones most admired by you and your ilk). I never use racial slurs on blacks as a group, only on the ones who I feel deserve to be maligned.

Furthermore, to refrain from using the derogatory terms might possibly stop, or reduce, the fevered and frothy-mouthed attacks I receive from fuckheads like you; and I am simply not willing to take that chance.

I would rather continue the Fray interaction than risk falling into your good graces.

Jack

marked for the nose of the camel

Jack, you belong here. You know you do.

I'm not kidding.

Which minorities don't you like, Ron, and why?

Now do it for Jack.

Jack knows his sin and is uncomfortable with it (hence the title), wants plausible deniability.

I live in the South, where there are lots of racists. The odd thing to me is that many of them are aware of their racism, and are uncomfortable with it, and yet seem unable to stop being racist.

Based on what you've written on the Fray, both you and Inkberrow dislike entire groups of people defined by ethno-religious charateristics. To me that's racism, or close enough for government work.

Everyone's probably a little bit racist. Many people like other people more or less based on their perception of the other person's ethnicity.

Which minorities don't you like, Ron, and why?

Lawyers. Because they are generally pompous assholes.

And Swedes. I don't know, it's just a thing.

I don't agree with Jack on politics, I'm agnostic on his racism, and I think he has good insights sometimes on human nature. I'd give his poetry a "B." He pretends to be confrontational but it is an entirely different thing from the unhealthy stuff that I (at any rate) came here to be able to stop looking at.

I think Jack would be a valuable addition here and I wish he would stay. Inkberrow is altogether too moderate a Republican.

I've never said anything remotely close on the Fray or in real life to what Jack Oaf says here as a matter of course, repeatedly.

Tell me, is "Obama is a Muslim porch-monkey" also "close enough for government work"?

...the definition of racism is, using the N word, discriminating against minorities in the workplace or anywhere else, paying them less money for doing the same work, or seeking to harm them in any way through the use of the power structure ...

That isn't the definition of racism, those are the symptoms of racism. Those are the tangible actions that one can easily point to, but it's not what racism is. Racism occurs in the mind and is far subtler...it's the very idea that "they" are different by virtue of their skin color. "They are all alike," is racist, and using racial slurs implies that "they are all alike."

You don't get to use a racial slur and then pretend it isn't a racial slur or that you've got a legitimate reason for using a racial slur. Even when directed at an individual you happen to not like, you're maligning that individual's entire race. You CAN call him and incompetent, corrupt piece of shit, but you're not content to leave it there. You insist on bringing a racial element into it, which (by definition) makes your attacks racist. When you call Barack Obama a porch monkey, you malign Clarence Thomas and JC Watts.

the Daveto post, along with your subsequent BOTF top-post, boasting that there was no tangible evidence here of your racism. I quuickly produced several patent instances.

If you are going to pollute here, as Ron wishes (Ron!), at least be good enough to nest your drubbings.

I like JackDallas, I like you, I liked Predicto when he wasn't being boring.

fucking typos

malignant harridans, but you didn't answer my question.

You just lumped me in with the likes of the Oaf because I make negative, group-based assessments as does he. Fair enough. Will you not distinguish nevertheless between that societal commentary which may well give rise to offense, or maybe an inference of invidious racist intent, and the patently abusive racist epithets the Oaf favors, as briefly outlined on the BOTF thread, like "towel-head", "shine", and "lawn-jockey"? I'm the KKK guy you can really talk to.

marked for taking leave of your senses and for a complete lack of historical context. we moved here, among other reasons, to expressly leave him behind. you can check the constitution.