"Being black means never having to apologize" ??

[truethat]

Well, that, and the fact that the president treated the FEMA directorship as a sinecure. But what does any of this have to do with your original thesis that black people were absolved of any responsibility for bad behavior?

That's another thread. Lets just agree to disagree.

This isn't about whether people were behaving badly in the aftermath of Katrina. It's about whether they were absolved of any responsibility for their bad actions because they were black.

In my opinion, their behavior was excused because they were black. It wasn't publically declared or anything like that but I think that the media slant portrayed them as victims who had a reason to act this way.

And you don't recall any New Yorkers screaming or freaking out in reaction to terror attacks? Let's leave that one alone.

Let's not. Because NO I don't. I walked into Manhattan that day and we have video of people and even the people jumping out of the god damned buildings didn't behave the way some of these people behaved. And in case you forgot, black people live in NYC too. So its not as though I'm saying black people behave this way. I just think that they were excused because they were black and poor. That is my impression.



Do people deserve "blame" for
"screaming and freaking out" when huge sections of their city are going underwater? Maybe I'm just an old softie, but I'm going to go with "no."

Well I'm the old hardie that things these type of people need a slap across the face to stop their hysteria which is only making matters worse. Especially since they were told to leave the city and given fair warning and chose to stay and then played victim. Especially since they put people's lives in danger (not the least of which being their children) and then acted like someone else had done this to them.

(Can't wait for the excuses about how its not their fault they didn't leave to start)



No doubt there were New Orleanians who were behaving badly post-Katrina. No doubt most of them were black (because most affected New Orleanians were black). I still don't see the evidence for anyone absolving these people for their actions.

[/SIZE]

Well I do. So I guess we disagree. That's fine.

 

[linusrichard]

People don't have to say it. Its accepted. Its taboo to say it.

Taboo to say what? That black looters, murderers, et al. deserve blame for looting, murdering, etc., post-Katrina? I don't mind saying it. Look at me, I'm a PC left-liberal, and here I go: People who looted, robbed, murdered, raped, or committed other crimes in the aftermath of Katrina, including black people, deserve blame and condemnation for those actions. Oh no, did I just violate a taboo? Oh, no, I didn't.

I see many people who will assume that the reason someone did something is that they can't help themselves because they are a victim.

Many people, but none of whom you can name.

Other people don't buy excuses.

See if you can wrap your mind around this one: I believe the people who committed crimes in the aftermath of Katrina were victims and deserve blame for what they did. False dichotomy: Busted.

You can go on to try to justify why they behaved the way they did,

But no one is.

however as I've said, I've never seen this kind of behavior anywhere before. Not even the day of the Tsunami in Indonesia did people act like this. I was in NYC on 911 and people didn't act like this. So why did they act like this there? To me it was because it was acceptable to behave this way because there are excuses made.

Again with the passive voice. "There are excuses made." Very easy sentence to write. Now, how would this be converted to the active voice? "_____ made excuses." Fill in the blank, if you please.

As is quite typical.

Oh, quite typical, as we see from all these examples:





(?)

Really its a matter of what you deem "excusable" or "reasonable." I see no reason why anyone should conduct themselves in such a manner. Obviously others disagree.

Obviously others disagree, but you still won't show us one of these "others."

There's a question I use to sometimes start conversations with people in groups.

A poor and desperate mother walks into a store and steals a can of formula off the shelf. She gets caught and immediately relinquishes herself to the shop keeper who calls the police. She explains her baby was hungry and that she didn't have any money. She's arrested and booked and taken before the judge.

Now you are the judge.

Is she guilty of stealing the formula.

Some types of people will say "Not really because she was stealing it for her child" "She was desperate" Etc.

For me I say "guilty" She stole it and she admitted it and we know the motive. She's guilty.

You'd be surprised how different people will see this.

For me it depends on if she's black or white. If she's black, then as a card-carrying left-liberal Obamaniac, I am strictly forbidden from blaming her for any of her actions, and must not utter the taboo word "guilty" when talking about her. If she's white, lock her up and throw away the key.

Oh, wait, no.

She's guilty either way, obviously. If you want to ask an interesting question, you won't ask about her guilt (legal culpability) but about her moral culpability, and the moral culpability of a nation that despite its great wealth is willing to allow a mother to reach the point where she feels forced to choose between breaking the law and allowing her child to starve.

(Also, she should have asked for a jury trial.)

 

[truethat]

Actually you seem a little pent up here buddy. Its just a message board. You want applause for your opinion? You want evidence? I'm not trawling through google to give you evidence.

Real indication here that people have become so expectant of the inevitable "evidence link" that people don't want to engage their brains any more.

I saw what you saw. I interpreted it the way I did and many other people I know agree with me. Others do not. That's the nature of interpretation. Deal with it.

 

[linusrichard]

Actually you seem a little pent up here buddy. Its just a message board. You want applause for your opinion?

Ah yes, you have tired of attacking the argument, and prefer the easier task of attacking the arguer. Fine by me, but that sort of thing is heavily discouraged on this forum.

You can provide evidence or not provide evidence, but you'll have to excuse the rest of us if we don't accept your unsupported assertions as the truth.

 

[truethat]

Well if the OP and I both interpreted it the same way and we both know people who see the same thing, then I'm sorry but you'll just have to deal with the fact that your opinion isn't any more valid than ours is. You can get triumphant and that's fine but it doesn't make you right.

If someone is standing in front of me and is rude to me in my opinion and three other people see the same attitude but two don't see a problem at all, then who is right? It is ridiculous for one or the other to insist that their opinion is the "right answer" the only legitimate thing to do is to agree to disagree.

Unfortunately you seem like you want to fight. Which is why I aimed at levity but seem to have missed the mark.

I just wanted to contribute to the thread that I do understand what the OP is talking about even if I don't necessarily agree with him 100 percent.

Cheers.

 

[Lonewulf]

No I am.

I stand behind my statement.

Most people who think I'm a guy are morons who think my avatar is really me or something. Sheesh.

Actually, it comes from your rampant misogynistic attitude, as well as unbelievable life stories. But that's okay, this is off topic anyways.

Either way, I'm still referring to you as "ve/vis/ver".

 

[Lonewulf]

Actually you seem a little pent up here buddy. Its just a message board. You want applause for your opinion? You want evidence? I'm not trawling through google to give you evidence.

Real indication here that people have become so expectant of the inevitable "evidence link" that people don't want to engage their brains any more.

Gee, people want evidence on a skeptic's board. The horror.

 

[Puppycow]

Could you provide a specific example or two?

Here is one

Here is a rebuttal

 

[jimtron]

Here is one

Here is a rebuttal

The top link argues that in the US, incarceration rates for blacks are disproportionately high. How does that support Big Red's claim about blacks not having to apologize? AFAIK, no one is arguing that black people should be allowed to commit crimes without being punished. The argument is that law enforcement and/or the judicial system isn't color blind. Whether this is true or not is for a different thread. Either way, it's not evidence for BR's claim.

 

[Puppycow]

The top link argues that in the US, incarceration rates for blacks are disproportionately high. How does that support Big Red's claim about blacks not having to apologize? AFAIK, no one is arguing that black people should be allowed to commit crimes without being punished. The argument is that law enforcement and/or the judicial system isn't color blind. Whether this is true or not is for a different thread. Either way, it's not evidence for BR's claim.

Go back and read my post that you were responding to. I am explicitly not trying to "support Big Red's claim about blacks not having to apologize." In fact I gave two examples of blacks apologizing. I am supporting my claim that "People do sometimes use racism as an excuse or scapegoat when black people misbehave," which is what you asked for an example of.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Real indication here that people have become so expectant of the inevitable "evidence link" that people don't want to engage their brains any more.

You're not willing to provide any evidence? You're on the wrong forum guy.

I'm not trawling through google to give you evidence.

If your claims are accurate and frequently demonstrated, why would you need to 'trawl' through google?

 

[Shrike]

I think the title should be changed to "Being bigred means never having to explain yourself (or thinking you don't)".

 

[truethat]

You're not willing to provide any evidence? You're on the wrong forum guy.



If your claims are accurate and frequently demonstrated, why would you need to 'trawl' through google?

Because apparently we both saw the same thing and interpreted it different ways.

Lets flip it around.

Man walks into a store and looks around. The sales clerk sees him and immediately rushes up to him to see if he wants any assistance looking. He thanks her and says "No I'm just looking." The sales girl says "Well I'm here to help"

She then stands at the end of the aisle and watches him as he looks around. The man then walks out of the store without buying anything.


There are several different ways to interepret this situation.


If the Store is Barney's and the man is a white collar professional then it could be that the sales girl is being helpful. That is how some would interpret it. Others might say she was a pushy sales person who annoyed the customer who then left.

If the Store is the Radio Shack and the man is black it could be interpreted that the woman is racist and that the man left because he was insulted. Others might suggest that the man was trying to shoplift and left because he was being watched.


If the Store is Barney's and the man is an hip hop music producer dressed in hip hop style clothing who came to get his mother a birthday present, he might feel that the woman singled him out and thought he was shoplifting and so he got offended and left.


If we all watched the same news footage and everyone interpreted things different ways, then there's no point in tit for tat arguing. We're not talking some remote story. Everyone watched that footage. My interpretation of the footage was the people who were there behaved in a way that I have never seen anyone behave during a natural disaster or terrorist attack.


If you have evidence otherwise of people behaving in a similar manner then by all means feel free to prove me wrong.

But my observation was that rather than being angry with the people who behaved this way, their behavior was somehow excused as the result of being a victim. Even though, they themselves put themselves in this situation.

Seems like other people have interpreted other things (if not this one) the same way.

If you don't then its fair dues to you. I respect that you don't have the same opinion as me. But again, it does seem like several people do interpret it this way and so can not just be dismissed as not true.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

My interpretation of the footage was the people who were there behaved in a way that I have never seen anyone behave during a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

What behavior was this? Remember, the stakes are very high on what you are claiming, so I suggest you back this up with a compelling amount of examples.

 

[jimtron]

Go back and read my post that you were responding to. I am explicitly not trying to "support Big Red's claim about blacks not having to apologize." In fact I gave two examples of blacks apologizing. I am supporting my claim that "People do sometimes use racism as an excuse or scapegoat when black people misbehave," which is what you asked for an example of.

OK, so your example is that some people claim blacks are disproportionately incarcerated (your first link in your previous post)? I don't understand--could you elaborate? Is someone saying that blacks should be allowed to break the law without consequences? I'm missing the excuse or scapegoat.

 

[jimtron]

truethat said:

If we all watched the same news footage and everyone interpreted things different ways, then there's no point in tit for tat arguing. We're not talking some remote story. Everyone watched that footage. My interpretation of the footage was the people who were there behaved in a way that I have never seen anyone behave during a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

Yes, but this thread is not about interpreting a sales clerk watching a customer. From the OP:

No, it's mocking the absurd "being black means never having to say your'e sorry" attitude I have seen/heard about a billions times either personally or in the media/news from black apologists...

There is a claim made about something that has been seen or heard. I'm waiting for evidence for this very common (according to Big Red) attitude.

 

[truethat]

What behavior was this? Remember, the stakes are very high on what you are claiming, so I suggest you back this up with a compelling amount of examples.

What stakes are high? Your little bubble of denial? I don't need to prove to you what I and other people who agree with me have observed.

OK, so your example is that some people claim blacks are disproportionately incarcerated (your first link in your previous post)? I don't understand--could you elaborate? Is someone saying that blacks should be allowed to break the law without consequences? I'm missing the excuse or scapegoat.

His point I assume, is the way the disproportionate number of incarcerated black people is promoted as evidence of racism rather than what it is, disproportionately high crime among this group. Just as across the board problems are disproportionately high in this community. It could be class, it could be not learning personal responsibility. But most of the time its blamed on racism.

What is quite funny to me is that other ethnic groups such as Chinese people who are at an extreme disadvantage in this country and experience the exact same difficulties as the black community seem to be at the polar opposite of the scale. Odd.

 

[jimtron]

His point I assume, is the way the disproportionate number of incarcerated black people is promoted as evidence of racism rather than what it is, disproportionately high crime among this group. Just as across the board problems are disproportionately high in this community. It could be class, it could be not learning personal responsibility. But most of the time its blamed on racism.

That's a different issue. This thread keeps getting sidetracked. If anyone wants to discuss whether the disproportionately high number of incarcerated blacks is due to racism or not, please start a new thread.

I'm asking for evidence for Big Red's claims, mentioned in the OP, and in my last post. Here it is again:

...it's mocking the absurd "being black means never having to say your'e sorry" attitude I have seen/heard about a billions times either personally or in the media/news from black apologists...

And: (also from the OP, said by Big Red):

More generally, I'm sick to death of that attitude, which is all the rage thanks mostly to hoardes of mindless white liberals still apparently feeling guilty about slavery, or whatever. It's not equal treatment at all, it's preferential treatment - the very thing they claim to be the problem in the first place.

I'd appreciate it if we could stay on this topic. Where is the evidence for BR's claim?

 

[truethat]

You're splitting hairs to win an argument. Unfortunately, as I've stated, the rest of us live in this country as well. The low number of replies on this thread shows me what I know. That most people don't want to talk about this because it is not PC. But I'm pretty sure that people know exactly what the OP is talking about even if you don't. If you really are that confused do a little research on google maybe yourself instead of expecting things to be handed to you. Or did you pick that up from New Orleans?

 

[jimtron]

I don't care if this is "PC" or not. BR said that he has seen and heard an attitude where people think blacks don't need to apologize because of racism. I'm asking for examples of this attitude.

I don't buy that the Goldberg/Vick incident is an example, because she didn't say anything about race, she didn't say Vick needn't apologize, and she said that she condemned his actions. Perhaps she tried to humanize him, and put his actions in context. But she didn't say his actions should be excused due to racism or due to his being black.

The example of more blacks being incarcerated is not relevant, because no one is saying that blacks are above the law, or should get away with things that white people shouldn't get away with.

Regarding N.O., I haven't seen an example where someone was quoted as saying it's OK for African Americans to behave badly because of racism.

If I've missed something, please show me.