Can we agree, moving forward, to stop mixing personal attacks with the points we wanna make on here. I know it would take away some of the drama, but there is TNT for that.

Seriously Whip, it doesn't make you anymore convincing when you call someone or their point "weak and whiny".

Also the racial slurs on here, by Moderateman, isn't that against the Terms of Use or did I miss a section that skipped racial slurs?

I'm not against people debating or discussing, just the idea that making it personal strengthens a position which it does not.

"And before you try to pretend Appleton ain't racist by nature: I LIVED in Oshkosh for 12 years, Danny Boy. Plenty of racism in Wisconsin to go around."

I think I was a little too forgiving of your commentary here Gid. In your 12 years of living in Wisconsin, you can take the time here on JU, to smear the Great state of Wisconsin, motto "Forward" and not provide a SINGLE EXAMPLE of the racism you experienced living in Oshkosh.

I'm calling you out, provide one, provide two, tell us why you think my state and my community is "racist by nature"

What decade did you live in Oshkosh by the way, I'm curious?

[[Sorry for just posting one after another, I can't seem to edit my own last post LOL.]]

"It's very easy to consider yourself 100% NON-racist when you live in an upscale, lily-white suburb of a predominantly WHITE state, Dan."

I consider myself non-racist because I am non-racist. I don't live in an upscale area. I live in a nice area now but I used to live in a not so nice area, instead of living next to a railroad line, I live on a busy street, instead of hearing an ambulance at the odd time of day, I hear firetrucks even more frequently.

The state of Wisconsin is predominantly white but that doesn't make it racist, nor does it make it not racist I don't think I asserted that the entire state is one or the other.

In no particular order, here are the usages of the word "racist" in regards to you and I Whip.

You

"You call me a racist as if that's the worst thing in the world to be, Dan, and that's simply not the case. There are far worse things to be. Far worse."

I don't think I called you directly "a racist", but you do write like one, because you used the "N" word in previous discussions.

Using the word "racist" on the thread thus far.
You

"I know you think I'm a racist, Dan,"

"I'm a racist. If you say so. And?"

"...word 'negro' racist, it must only reflect your own notions that negroes are somehow inferior to whites, and to be referred to as a negro is an insult along those lines."

Me

"You win Whip I'm not spending my Saturday teaching you to be polite or not a racist."

"Did you also see it when she talked about how "Black people have it coming" in her response on the racist rant Michael Richards delivered that was caught on a cell phone and broad casted to the universe. Did you read her thoughts on how it is typical of black people always cause a disruption of public life."

"However I really don't appreciate racist dogma and you telling me I have a double standard without specifying what it is.

"That's fine, but lets have a conversation of some substance and not one of stereotyping, prejudice, and racist characterization of a person rather than their actions."

"She's a racist, and full of herself yeah, and hypocritical even when confronted with it, as for getting people banned, in all honesty I could care less though."

"You have done your best to defame me in as many ways as you can, yet you don't win arguments or make good points doing that, you only make yourself look like a racist, hypocritical, contradictory ass."

Your first statement about Vick on here where you ranted and defamed him,

"semi-retarded, vicious, greedy and violent ghetto negro"

I'm not going to explain sentence structure in the English language or how when you say a word at the end of a sentence or string it is reinforced by the previous words, when they are all nouns. However, the connotation and connection of negro (which isn't a racial slur and I never said it was) to vicious, greedy, violent, ghetto, and semi-retarded was as if all negro's posess those characteristics.

You further reinforced that "social stereotype by reinforcing the idea of quantity when you said. "They're a dime a dozen in any inner city, and more easily replaced than many sports fanatics want to admit."

I'm not twisting your words, I'm presenting them exactly as you did, in exactly the same context in exactly the same order, your defense of them has been typical, first it's not racist, then it is but only when I say it is because I say it is, now your defense is that being racist is not the worst thing in the world, and later if we follow this progression in linear fashion, we'll learn that racism is not a crime or vice or misdemeanor of any kind.

Right, no actually that's wrong.

Vick's race does not determine his actions good or bad. Nor does it determine his character good or bad. You are assigning racial stereotyping to him, as well as me, when you say

"...consider yourself 100% NON-racist when you live in an upscale, lily-white suburb of a predominantly WHITE state, Dan."

It is a form of co native prejudice, because you don't know that my family is of German ancestry, or that I was adopted by a black family, or even if I'm American, versus Canadian.

Your very statement, "live in an upscale" is both false, and a precognitive notion reinforced by cognitive prejudice. Just because I implied that Appleton, has half a million dollar homes, does not in fact mean that I live in them. Appleton also has fifty thousand dollar homes. The fact that I mention them does not mean, I live in a "ghetto" either. For all you know, I live in a car.

Here again "Of course, I don't expect you to see that, ensconced in your safe, white, suburban paradise. I never saw it either."

You mock Appleton, calling it a "paradise". Appleton which is a community which is proud of its diversity, struggles with it and yet reaches out, yet you can't escape connecting "white" with "safe" "suburban" though it is a city. You describe it as if you know it but you don't know Appleton any better then you know the dark side of the moon, well perhaps a little better. But you've been to neither place.

I have tried to make this as clear and transparent as I possibly can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice

"Some would argue that these problems are caused more by poverty than race, and I'm sure that this is a big part of the problem, but I've also come to learn that many (not all, there's your disclaimer) blacks (is that your preferred term?) have a completely different outlook on life, (full of resentment, blame, self-pity and a sense of entitlement) an outlook that makes little sense to me in light of the current mood in this country which makes racism a cardinal sin, and one that I personally feel is the root cause of many of the problems facing the black community today."

Which problem are we discussing here? Michael Vick and dogfighting? If you are asserting that the cause of black poverty or racial issues is that some black people
are "full of resentment, blame, and self-pity, and a sense of entitlement" where and why does that differ from some white people?

Michael Vick's race didn't cause him to chose to participate in Dogfighting. His star status and above the law attitude, carelessness and lack of ethical decision making did. Being black also doesn't make you more predisposed to be violent, or to be greedy, or to be retarded, semi or otherwise, nor does it allow you to excel in sports. Talent and the development of it, allows you to excel. Reinforcement of your aspirations, either internally instilled or externally make you greedy for more success.

You tell me that people like Barack Obama, Colin Powell, Tiger Woods, Condoleeza Rice, are living the lives of a person full of self-resentment, blame, self-pity, and a sense of entitlement? Wrong. How about the guy who Sammy, who took over my job at the gas station, or Darnell, the guy I worked with when I was working local Burger King, is living the life of a person full of resentment, and blame, self pity, and a sense of entitlement. I think they have you fooled whip, not that it would take much considering your preconceptions about a lot of things. I think your "learned" preconceptions come through as "racist" even if they not intended to be. But I certainly don't think the majority of minorities in this country have any more or less sense of entitlement than the rest of us do.

Don't tell me that as a salesperson you never cut an ethical corner because of greed or competition, need to be the best, or we can add liar to your self proclaimed "racist" status. That was one of the things I could never get by when I was a short lived salesman, trading in my ethics scorecard at the end of the week in exchange for success.

Michael Vick, allowed himself to be seduced by the dark side of greed, competition and unlimited success, the fact that he is black has no more to do with it than the fact that is a man versus a woman. I don't see you pointing out that fact yet it is just as true and as much fact, as his race.

If it had been a woman caught, would we be chauvinists to prosecute her? To despise her for what she had done? What if we said, "semi-retarded, vicious, greedy and violent ghetto woman"? Is that now speaking badly of all women? I don't think so.

"I'm not going to explain sentence structure in the English language or how when you say a word at the end of a sentence or string it is reinforced by the previous words, when they are all nouns."

semi-retarded (adj), vicious (adj), greedy (adj), violent (adj) ghetto (n used as an adj)... hmm.

Also, when you say a word at the end of a sentence it is MODIFIED by the previous words. Hence, if I say "That's a blue car" I'm not saying that all cars are blue. I'm saying there's a blue car right there, end of story. When one says "Michael Vick is a semi-retarded, vicious, greedy and violent ghetto negro," they are referring to one negro in particular and applying those adjectives to one negro, not ALL negroes. That is English.

I was trying to edit the page but it must be locked. I think maybe cause you posted Jythier.

My point is, that adding the race connotation where it is not needed, because it is obvious reinforces what is clearly Whips own preconception about black people.

In the first sentence she provided the adjectives, (that's right adjectives thank you ) In the second sentence she provided that all those things applied to the noun in the previous sentence, were in fact akin to lots of people in that minority.

When in fact she has no basis for that but personal experience. No facts, no study, no supporting evidence.

Thanks for the clarification between a noun and adjective, it's been a few decades since grade school.

No problem. Just remember - if it's describing another word, it starts with 'ad' because it's 'adding' something to the other word.   

"starts with 'ad' because it's 'adding' something to the other word."

That's an easy way to remember it.

Thanks Jythier.

Well, as long as you don't have to separate adverbs and adjectives, you should be okay! Glad we could have this English lesson.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled mud-slinging.

Yea, I'm glad you don't feel the need because I really don't either anymore. Still there is little question that you do stereotype, prejudge people, and use race to amplify your argument.

You're welcome, little-whip. You should use this additional time wisely, because you only get it so often.

Just like a Panasonic. Samsung-power!

(laaaaame)

lol

RIIIIGGGGHHTT, Dan. IN twelve years, I never went to the city of Appleton. I don't know nutthin about that high falutin' town!

most of the 90's and a good chunk of the 2000's

Dan,

If you imply Wisconsin is not a racist state, you are either a liar or blind. Open persecution of Hmongs is practically a statewide sport! And NEVER did I see the violent acts of racism I witnessed in Wisconsin.

And how conveniently you miss the KKK rallies in Madison.