Angry_Dragon wrote:
You're wrong! American Indians were peaceful and nature freaks and then we come along and give them smallpox. Now they run casinos and seel cigarettes online from their reservations. Fuck white people and fuck me.

There was (is?) this tribe in the Amazon called the Shuar

Around the in the 16th century when all those greedy spaniard conquerors were trying to squeeze south america, they never went into the Shuar territory cos they (the Shuar) would just kill them on sight. No questions asked. Finally some fancy pants Governor demanded that they let him in to get all the gold. The Shuar reluctantly agreed. But at the treaty signing ceremony, The Shuar went balls out and killed everybody there except for the governor and a record keeper. They took the governor and poured molten gold down his throught saying "Suck it! Suck it!"..

Pretty wild huh?

Oh yeah, they were total bad-ass head hunter types too.

http://www.head-hunter.com/

I dunno Messr. Weissenberger,

I laughed my ass of when I saw the title this morning. Stupid? yes. Asinine? Sure. But it did make me laugh with the sheer ridiculous magnitude of it.

ha!



Faiz

n.c. wrote:oh fucking c'mon stupidest poll ever? harldy.

Let me reiterate:

The most stupid poll in the history of a forum filled with stupid polls.

n.c. wrote:we're talking about the relevence of race

No, we're not talking about the relevance of race. Not even close.

We're talking about the stupid prattlings of some kid who moved into a new neighborhood with his "freinds".

We're talking about a kid who finds it offensive that his new neighbors do not hang out in their backyards, as if the lack of hanging out in one's backyard has anything to do with one's "VERY white" nature.

We're talking about a kid who believes that his neighbors look down their noses at him and his friends for having beers on the stoop/porch.

Boo fucking hoo. Your cry of being judged is an empty cry. You moved into a new neighborhood. You think that your neighbors dislike you.

This has absolutely nothing to do with race. You see, you live in a very small world. Most importantly, and despite your lame arguments to the contrary, you are not "respectful" -- because being respectful means not judging anyone for the bullshit reasons that your flailings have failed to validate. Being "respectful" especially means not judging any person on the basis of his or her physical or social attributes, however black, brown, white, male, female, gay, straight, rich or poor they might be.

You want to call someone an asshole? Fine. You want to call someone a lame-o? Fine? Pre-judge someone on the basis of skin color? Never ever ever ever fine. Ever.

Hey, you fucked up. You thought you had a funny poll. You tried to be funny, but you weren't funny.

You will grow. You will change. And you will do better next time.

kerble wrote:Idi Amin-Not White

Mother Teresa-White



Faiz

On the other hand... http://slate.msn.com/id/2090083/

Bradley - Just when I think I can open my heart to the white race again, an asshole like you comes along all full of presumptions, with a huge stick up their ass. Fuck off.
-n

n.c. wrote:Bradley - Just when I think I can open my heart to the white race again, an asshole like you comes along all full of presumptions, with a huge stick up their ass. Fuck off.

I'm not sure where the "presumptions" part comes in since I did nothing more than quote your posts.

And if my comments can singlehandedly spoil your perception of an entire race (a race!) of people, then your worldview is more screwed than I could ever imagine.

But I will say this: "Yo, Coach Bowden! My baby's mama need a waist bracelet!"

Dissect that one, O master social commentator.

LAD wrote:
Sorry, Teresa is part of the problem,not solution.

Shitty (yet telling) example.

Your white friend,

LAD

I'm sorry, I just can't take seriously anything written by someone who considers the "fragrant" name recognition an issue.

I wonder how fragrant my name is?

A cline, as defined by anthropologists, means a gradual change of a trait and its frequency from one place to another within a species or population. The change usually corresponds to some transition in environment across the geographic range of a species. Any boundary line drawn along the continuum is therefore arbitrary. So, the idea of distinct races defined by hard-and-fast differences has fallen apart as anthropologists have studied the genetic and physical characteristics of human populations.

full text

categorically, objectively, anthropologically, there is no 'race'

there are, however, the phenomena of $$ and power, but that's a different story.

I believe in goodness.

-g

gio wrote:

. . . smarty talk. . .

full text

categorically, objectively, anthropologically, there is no 'race'

there are, however, the phenomena of $$ and power, but that's a different story.

I believe in goodness.

-g

So you believe in words then?

Categorically, objectively, anthropologically, there is no such thing as ‘goodness’ either, right?

Nor ‘justice’, ‘compassion’, or ‘truth.’ Or ‘love’ for that matter. Very little that matters in people’s lives is validated in categorical, objective, or anthropological terms.

Just saying. . .

Can't you all see that this board is tearing us apart?!!?