Hubadubalubahu's forum posts
No, it doesn't. Dark brown skin == dark brown skin... it's a f***ing description, not a racial identity.[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]
[QUOTE="King-Kai"]Considering the fact that Suzzane Collins - the author of the books - is American, and the fact that Blacks have a historical presence in America, it is safe to assume that the characters are intended to be Black, not indian. In America, dark brown skin == Black.King-Kai
Quick: which of these people has dark brown skin:
...hint: it's NOT the black person.
Halle Berry is half White. So, she doesn't count. Also, What I meant was that considering the historical presence of Blacks in America, when an American person reads adescription which uses terms like dark skin, they are more likely to thinik of a Black person than any sort of other dark skinned person.
It would make more sense to picture a Native American.[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"][QUOTE="MgamerBD"] Depends on the context and concept actually.MgamerBD
Not really. Its a hateful word and black people more than anyone should know better. Doesnt matter about the context. Even if its just a friendly greeting. Just seems an utter spit on the face of the forefathers of these people who fought for civil rights and had to go through all that stuff.
Embarrasses me really when i here.
You will be alright...its here and its not going anywhere soon sadly. Like I said much like politics the word now means something different. Time changes things...if a person has a problem with it they don't have to say it. He is saying everything your forefathers went through and every race card an african american pulls now is pointless. To take such insults and turn them into a title of endearment is beyond stupidity. Just because we can choose how we want to respond to an external stimulus doesn't mean that said stimulus doesn't pack a punch. I think it's really cute how you guys made the word your own and all but words dont change meaning. Enough said. You can say it is a slang word now but it holds the same meaning it did then and will not change. You cannot just drop the historical baggage one moment and then bring it up when it suits you. The notion that it's acceptable for african americans to refer to each other using the n-word while considering it racist for others to use sets up a clear double standard And the fact that african americans can call white people crackers and we can't call you the N word is again a double standard and shows no respect for us or yourselves. To me, the notion that one ethnic group has property rights to a term is a reductio ad absurdum argument, since language is a public enterprise. Most of the inner city african americans I deal with are more racist then most white people. Sometimes I think everyone would be happy if african americans would of stayed oppressed. Would sure give peoples bitc*ing more weight. What's needed here is a history lesson. Reclaiming racist words like the n-word doesn't eliminate its ugly historical baggage - or the power dynamics between whites and blacks in this country. All it does is paper over the past, pretending that we can overlook the historical injustice of slavery. It numbs Americans to the use and abuse of power in this country - undermining the daily struggle of those Americans who daily endeavor to improve race relations. inb4 im called a bigot.[QUOTE="mAArdman"]
[QUOTE="TheBlackKnight3"]
Western way of thinking alert. How about you learn some anthropology and look at things holistically before you decide to offend a third of the world.
TheBlackKnight3
you used three words i don't understand. please explain.
Everyone should at least have some basic knowledge of the largest populations in the world. If they don't they need to be able to accept things they might not want to hear.... no one way of doing things is best. There can be an extremely solid arguement on why people in Eastern societies would use such products to enhance their virility. The most obvious being that if they believe they are more virile, it has some affect on their effort when attempting to procreate. Western societies would also do that with something called a placebo, if you have heard of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
Lol this is what TC wanted to post.[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]aren't the first two behaviors associated with aggression though? Or aren't they basically forms of agression themselves? That's an interesting question, definitely. It's quite possible that competitiveness is related to aggression. However, I don't think status-seeking behavior has such an association. I enjoy watching you debate. You are remarkably polite while poking holes in opposing arguments. Its an oxymoron a lot of politician's campaign ads could learn a thing or two about.[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] Not necessarily; testosterone is positively associated with increased status-seeking behavior and competitiveness. Aggression isn't necessarily related (though one could reasonably argue that aggression relates to the types of behavior I have mentioned). ghoklebutter
We may not pay hundreds for rhino horns but we will pay thousands for a chinchilla fur coat.never heard of western people paying hundreds for powdered rhino horn or the like.
guess viagra's about as close as it gets here i've seen, but that actually does something about blood flow to your bodies extremeties. not just "magic"
elessarGObonzo
Log in to comment