White Americans have a lot to atone for in their violent racist oppression of blacks

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
That in no way approves of their message, but instead, it shows respect for our Bill of Rights. The freedom of speech must include speech that the majority deems to be offensive or ignorant. When we start approving of violence to be used against thought or speech, we jump onto a slippery slope that we should not get on. When we protect the freedom of speech of the stupid and ignorant and unpopular, we are protecting the freedom of speech of all of us. (Incidentally, this point of view illustrates a difference between American culture and the culture of the UK or Australia.)
Hang about Seth, are you saying that people should be allowed to demonstrate for their right to fuck children?
 

Texan

Active member
No. i mean the term mixed race is odious. Granddaughter would have sufficed.
I used it to make a point. That point is that calling me a racist because I am white and conservative is dishonest, political, and lazy. That's the claim of the American left these days.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
I used it to make a point. That point is that calling me a racist because I am white and conservative is dishonest, political, and lazy. That's the claim of the American left these days.

I hope that was all it was. Please, never let her hear you call her that. Or her mother.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Try not labeling people using colors. It is your African American or Black American daughter in law. Not your "black" daughter in law. Do you identify the Chinese as "yellow", or the American Indians as "red"? Do you identify your wife as your "white" wife? Your grand daughter is your granddaughter. Not your "mixed race" granddaughter. She is your granddaughter, regardless of the ethnicity of her parents.

If need be, people should be identified by their ethnic origins(race) or nationality(country). But, never by their color. It is offensive and bigoted. Although, I understand what you are saying, I was offended by how you said it. Labeling is NOT quantifying.
Oh good lord!

Black Americans refer to themselves as "black people" or speak of the "black population" or the "black community" all ... the ... time. About equally, they use the term "African American".

In the U.S. these terms are used by everybody, black, white, liberal, conservative.

Sorry dude but "mixed race" is just odious.
Mothra, sometimes my eyes glaze over when someone can't just say what they mean, and, instead, refer me to a link. But I hope you will take the time to read through this one. Her mother is white, and her father is black, and her article takes us through her thoughts and research and ultimately her conclusions to answer the question of what she wants to call herself - mixed race? multiracial?

It's a fairly long article, but in the end she says two things: Context matters, and maybe it doesn't matter.

 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Mothra, sometimes my eyes glaze over when someone can't just say what they mean, and, instead, refer me to a link. But I hope you will take the time to read through this one. Her mother is white, and her father is black, and her article takes us through her thoughts and research and ultimately her conclusions to answer the question of what she wants to call herself - mixed race? multiracial?

It's a fairly long article, but in the end she says two things: Context matters, and maybe it doesn't matter.

We're all the human race, Seth. I'm Irish Australian. My guy is Polish/Scottish Australian. Do we call our kids mixed race?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
We're all the human race, Seth. I'm Irish Australian. My guy is Polish/Scottish Australian. Do we call our kids mixed race?
I agree with you. My heritage is Dutch and English. I don't call myself a Dutch-English-American, just an American. I will not question the prerogative of people to call themselves what they want to call themselves, but I would not choose to call myself an African American. I don't care what race a person is. If they were born in America, they are an American. If they were born in Africa, but became an American citizen, they're an American. Although, if they want to refer to themselves using some other words, that's fine with me.

But as long as words are not automatically offensive, like the n-word, or if they are not used to insult, I don't think we should get too twisted up about this. I hope you'll read the article I linked you to.
 
Last edited:

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
I agree with you. My heritage is Dutch and English. I don't call myself a Dutch-English-American, just an American. I will not question the prerogative of people to call themselves what they want to call themselves, but I would not choose to call myself an African American. I don't care what race a person is. If they were born in America, they are an American. If they were born in Africa, but became an American citizen, they're an American. Although, if they want to refer to themselves using some other words, that's fine with me.

But as long as words are not automatically offensive, like the n-word, or if they are not used to insult, I don't think we should get to twisted up about this. I hope you'll read the article I linked you to.

I hope to get round to it, Seth. I can't say without reading it but i'm pretty sure i've read the gist before, that intent is worth more than phraseology. This, obviously, gives a hall-pass to the boomers, wo just keep sticking their foot in it. And they chuckle about how they may have caused offence and go on talk back radio and complain about how they can't say anything without being offensive anymore ... and you know what? It's 2021. Absolutely none of this is new. Not a bit of it. It has just seemed to take an age to get it into the collective unconscious. Stop making excuses for it not to be there already.

And anyway, intent is allllllll of it. Through he words we choose, our intentions and thoughts are known ... unless we a re particularly devious and particularly clever.

I choose not to use words that i know to be offensive. I have decided that i do not need to agree or not that these words are offensive to other people for good reason, it is simply enough for me that they are considered offensive, so i don't use them.

I know the term 'mixed race' is considered to be offensive. I have outlined why. I do not consider brown skinned people to be of a different race to me. Different ethnicity, sure, but different race, nah. I'm not having that.

And you know why? Because words signify intent. They represent thought. Thought processes. A great many of these are as dodgy as all hell.

It's not political correctness. It's cultural and social sensitivity. And sure at times it's idiotic .. but that doesn't invalidate that most of the damn time, it's about not making people feel like shit for being them.

I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
 
Last edited:

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Hang about Seth, are you saying that people should be allowed to demonstrate for their right to fuck children?
In a word, yes.

In this country, they may talk about legalizing pedophilia. They may writes books and articles about legalizing it. They may write articles trying to justify pedophilia in different ways. They already do. I have never heard of a pro-pedophilia demonstration, but if there was one, it would be legal.

But they cannot engage in sex with children. They cannot depict it in pictures or drawings. Not only may they not create pictures and drawings, they may not even possess them.

In this country, you may use your freedom of speech to object to any law, including laws against pedophilia. That is protected political speech.

I'm going to make a point now, but don't misconstrue the point with putting pedophilia on the same moral plane as the examples I'm going to give. Here it is ...

Without that legal protection given by the 1st Amendment, governments could have banned speech that sought to allow abortions, to allow mixed race marriages, to end Jim Crow laws, to decriminalize fornication or adultery, to decriminalize gay/lesbian relationships, or to decriminalize marijuana. That right of free speech made those things possible.

Other things that are brought up using free speech may be dismissed by society. You may talk about legalizing polygamy, but it remains illegal. Same with pedophilia, as it should.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
In a word, yes.

In this country, they may talk about legalizing pedophilia. They may writes books and articles about legalizing it. They may write articles trying to justify pedophilia in different ways. They already do. I have never heard of a pro-pedophilia demonstration, but if there was one, it would be legal.

But they cannot engage in sex with children. They cannot depict it in pictures or drawings. Not only may they not create pictures and drawings, they may not even possess them.

In this country, you may use your freedom of speech to object to any law, including laws against pedophilia. That is protected political speech.

I'm going to make a point now, but don't misconstrue the point with putting pedophilia on the same moral plane as the examples I'm going to give. Here it is ...

Without that legal protection given by the 1st Amendment, governments could have banned speech that sought to allow abortions, to allow mixed race marriages, to end Jim Crow laws, to decriminalize fornication or adultery, to decriminalize gay/lesbian relationships, or to decriminalize marijuana. That right of free speech made those things possible.

Other things that are brought up using free speech may be dismissed by society. You may talk about legalizing polygamy, but it remains illegal. Same with pedophilia, as it should.

How do you think children would feel seeing a public demonstration demanding the rights to root them?

How do you think the parents would feel having to explain that to their children? School teachers?

Republican America?
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Without that legal protection given by the 1st Amendment, governments could have banned speech that sought to allow abortions, to allow mixed race marriages, to end Jim Crow laws, to decriminalize fornication or adultery, to decriminalize gay/lesbian relationships, or to decriminalize marijuana. That right of free speech made those things possible.


We have achieved similar with no right of free speech. So that's not the determinant.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Seth, i just finished reading the article you linked in. It was hugely informative. Apologies to @Texan. We're a bit behind over here in Australia. It seems that "mixed" has been successfully reclaimed.

I still stand behind my sentiments, referring to my children being no significantly less "mixed" to me than if they were brown. Perhaps i am waxing ideological again.

I don't mean to sound like on of those fatuous twits who claim they don't see colour. I certainly do, and know it's significance ... just i don't see the big deal. And the term mixed race was out of fashion by a long way last time i checked. Glad to see it's no longer the case.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Seth, i just finished reading the article you linked in. It was hugely informative. Apologies to @Texan. We're a bit behind over here in Australia. It seems that "mixed" has been successfully reclaimed.

I still stand behind my sentiments, referring to my children being no significantly less "mixed" to me than if they were brown. Perhaps i am waxing ideological again.

I don't mean to sound like on of those fatuous twits who claim they don't see colour. I certainly do, and know it's significance ... just i don't see the big deal. And the term mixed race was out of fashion by a long way last time i checked. Glad to see it's no longer the case.
Thanks for taking the time to read it. :thumb
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
We have achieved similar with no right of free speech. So that's not the determinant.
That's true, but on the other hand, your authorities went into the home of a pregnant woman and arrested her for trying to organize a demonstration during the Covid restrictions. In the U.S. this would not have happened. It couldn't happen.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
How do you think children would feel seeing a public demonstration demanding the rights to root them?

How do you think the parents would feel having to explain that to their children? School teachers?
At a young age, children should be taught about "bad touches" and "good touches". As they grow older, for their own safety, they can be taught about sexual abuse in a more grown-up way. If I had to explain it to them, I would tell them these are bad people. I would use them to demonstrate why I taught them about bad touches, not going anywhere with a stranger, running away, etc.

Republican America?
Huh? This isn't a partisan issue. Neither major party favors pedophilia legalization.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
That's true, but on the other hand, your authorities went into the home of a pregnant woman and arrested her for trying to organize a demonstration during the Covid restrictions. In the U.S. this would not have happened. It couldn't happen.

Seth, in your country, the state kills people. In Australia, that couldn't happen.

Also, it sends 17 year old boys to jail for life for stealing bicycles.


Also. it imprisons single mothers for the deaths by house fire ofd her 5 children she was unable to attend to because she was forced bt the state to travel 2 hours each way to work minimum wage to qualify for her housing?

Or the young woman who was convicted of murder because she was pregnant when she was stabbed in a fight she was considered to be an active party in?

None of this would happen in Australia, Don't let's embark down the murky path of which country holds it's citizens rights more sacrosanct.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
At a young age, children should be taught about "bad touches" and "good touches". As they grow older, for their own safety, they can be taught about sexual abuse in a more grown-up way. If I had to explain it to them, I would tell them these are bad people. I would use them to demonstrate why I taught them about bad touches, not going anywhere with a stranger, running away, etc.
Sorry Seth, but that sounds incredibly perverse ... not to mention utterly and precariously dependant on a cultured and civilised society filled with well informed and rational adults.

Do you think you have that over there?
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Huh? This isn't a partisan issue. Neither major party favors pedophilia legalization.

That's not what i mean. I mean, how do you think that demonstrations for the rights to root children would go down with the GOP? And all of it's fan base?

Fox news?

Free speech then you reckon? No aggression in response?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
That's not what i mean. I mean, how do you think that demonstrations for the rights to root children would go down with the GOP? And all of it's fan base?

Fox news?

Free speech then you reckon? No aggression in response?
I would expect a demonstration like that would be universally condemned, and it would need plenty of police protection.

One of the most disgusting groups that I had the displeasure to provide protection for was the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't know if you know about them over there in Australia. They were an inbred bunch from the midwest who would demonstrate all over the country. "God hates fags" was a typical sign. "God bless IEDs" was another, explaining that our casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan were God's wrath on the USA for tolerating homosexuality. (Google them if you want. Plenty of images.)

Their message and signs were infuriating, but they were peaceful, and they always notified proper authority in advance of their demonstrations and requested police protection. Their demonstration was fairly short, maybe 45 minutes or so. When it was over, they literally ran to their rented van a few blocks away. I ran behind them as a shield against the angry crowd that gave chase. They got away safely, and the crowd didn't take it out on me or my fellow officers.

I grew to hate them even more later. My son became a Marine, fought, was wounded, so it was personal to me.

But if I had to do it all over again, I would. As much as I can't stand them, I will defend their right to say what they want because, by defending their right, I defend the rights of all Americans.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Sorry Seth, but that sounds incredibly perverse ... not to mention utterly and precariously dependant on a cultured and civilised society filled with well informed and rational adults.

Do you think you have that over there?
Teaching little children about good touches and bad touches is perverse? I don't think so. At the same time, you can teach them not to talk to strangers, not to go with a stranger, what to do if a stranger talks to them (run away and tell a parent), as well as other general safety teaching.

Yes, all adults in the USA are well informed and rational ...

Just kidding.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
I would expect a demonstration like that would be universally condemned, and it would need plenty of police protection.

One of the most disgusting groups that I had the displeasure to provide protection for was the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't know if you know about them over there in Australia. They were an inbred bunch from the midwest who would demonstrate all over the country. "God hates fags" was a typical sign. "God bless IEDs" was another, explaining that our casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan were God's wrath on the USA for tolerating homosexuality. (Google them if you want. Plenty of images.)

Their message and signs were infuriating, but they were peaceful, and they always notified proper authority in advance of their demonstrations and requested police protection. Their demonstration was fairly short, maybe 45 minutes or so. When it was over, they literally ran to their rented van a few blocks away. I ran behind them as a shield against the angry crowd that gave chase. They got away safely, and the crowd didn't take it out on me or my fellow officers.

I grew to hate them even more later. My son became a Marine, fought, was wounded, so it was personal to me.

But if I had to do it all over again, I would. As much as I can't stand them, I will defend their right to say what they want because, by defending their right, I defend the rights of all Americans.

Oh god yes i know of those hideous creatures. I've long railed against them. Lois Theroux did a fabulous couple of docos with them. I've no idea outside of some collective fungus they are all eating as to how they got like that.

My heart goes out to you that you had to defend that. I swear, i would throw my badge down in disgust, and live to regret it.

See over here, you just can't say that kind of stuff in public. We have anti-vilification laws. It stops people being heartbroken or traumatised unnecessarily.

I think i prefer our way.
 
Top