It is 64-bit
-
@David1 said:
@boomzilla said:
I believe you that someone might get offended at the suggestion that Obama's race helped get him elected. I'm offended that such people would call me racist for noticing and not denouncing that idea.
Yes, it turns out the concept that when 2.4% of the people who have held a position are not white, jumping to the conclusion that the only reason that that 2.4% got chosen for the position was their race is in fact increadibly racist.
Yes, if you found someone doing that, they're probably racist. Can you see the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote?
@flabdablet said:
Arguing with boomzilla about racism is about as productive as arguing with Blakeyrat about git, for much the same reason. Neither is the slightest bit willing to acknowledge any actual fact if doing so might risk their needing to alter a treasured personal opinion. Sad, but there it is.
Well, I think racism is bad and blakey thinks git is bad (I assume he thinks racism is bad, too). I'm quite willing to admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong, but you guys have done a terrible job of arguing that I'm wrong by trying to convince me that noticing obvious things or having opinions about topics with no obvious link to race is anything like judging an entire class of people based on their skin color.
-
@boomzilla said:
@David1 said:
@boomzilla said:
I believe you that someone might get offended at the suggestion that Obama's race helped get him elected. I'm offended that such people would call me racist for noticing and not denouncing that idea.
Yes, it turns out the concept that when 2.4% of the people who have held a position are not white, jumping to the conclusion that the only reason that that 2.4% got chosen for the position was their race is in fact increadibly racist.
Yes, if you found someone doing that, they're probably racist. Can you see the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote?
You focused on the 2.4% and ignored the 97.6%, many of which were elected in systems with widespread suppression of the black vote. Somehow, despite every candidate in the 2004 election on multiple state ballots being a white male (one Hispanic), their race didn't help them get a shot at getting elected; it was just coincidence.
What effect Obama's race had on the election is a complex one. Analogously, if you say that "C++ is so complex that the compiler can't even prove that most functions will even complete.", you've said a true statement, but you've also demonstrated bigotry against C++ for singling it out and ignoring the complexities of that statement.
-
@David1 said:
You focused on the 2.4% and ignored the 97.6%
No. Just, no.
@David1 said:
What effect Obama's race had on the election is a complex one.
Sort of. But I'd be interested to hear why you think so. Please elaborate. Be sure to show your work as to why a non-minority with Obama's resume would have been considered a serious candidate at all.
@David1 said:
Analogously, if you say that "C++ is so complex that the compiler can't even prove that most functions will even complete.", you've said a true statement, but you've also demonstrated bigotry against C++ for singling it out and ignoring the complexities of that statement.
Not that analogous. Look, snooder said that if you think that there was some sort of "affirmative action" component involved in Obama's election, you're a horrible terrible racist, because some people experience racism (true) and noticing obviously true things is just too mean to them. I'm saying that if you think Obama's race wasn't a big net positive for his election, you weren't paying attention or you are lying. Or possibly you just think that being the editor of the law review at Harvard is really fucking awesome and qualifies you for, like, anything!
But mostly, I'm saying that if you think talking about Chicago or complaining about how much golf the President plays ("Watch this shot!") is racist, you're also probably dumb enough to think that snow in Atlanta is racist.
-
@David1 said:
What effect Obama's race had on the election is a complex one.
No, it really isn't. Or shouldn't be - he's half white for starters...
-
@PJH said:
@David1 said:
What effect Obama's race had on the election is a complex one.
No, it really isn't. Or shouldn't be - he's half white for starters...Perhaps it shouldn't be, but it's clear it had an impact on a number of voters, and process that through two elections (primary and presidential) and the Electorial College, and it gets quite complex.
And he's not half-white. That fails to comprehend American racial categories. Historically he would have been a mulatto; since around 1930, those who would have been mulatto are now classified as black or African-American. One can identify as biracial, but Obama doesn't. Note that Obama has at least as much recent African ancestry as Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington, both of which had white fathers. The very fact that American racial terms are being redefined to exclude Obama from the category of black people is an example of why it is complex.
@boomzilla said:
being the editor of the law review at Harvard is really fucking awesome and qualifies you for, like, anything
It is a better qualification then starring in "Knute Rockne, All American". Assuming that because you don't understand how someone got the position they did, it must be because they aren't white is racism.
-
@David1 said:
@boomzilla said:
being the editor of the law review at Harvard is really fucking awesome and qualifies you for, like, anything
It is a better qualification then starring in "Knute Rockne, All American".Now you're just bragging that you didn't read the thread, or you'd understand why I wrote that.
@David1 said:
Assuming that because you don't understand how someone got the position they did, it must be because they aren't white is racism.
Yes, I can agree with this strawman.
-
I'm still trying to figure out why you like arguing with Social Justice WarriorsTM so much. I'm also trying to figure out why so many of them have shoulder aliens.
-
@boomzilla said:
The problem is that's neither what I said, nor what was wrong with what you said. See, calling Obama an "affirmative action president" does not just mean that his race played a role along with all other factors. It means that is his ONLY qualification and without that, he'd never have had a shot. Or at least that's what it means to the people who hear you say it. Can you understand why it's racist to imply that Obama, who is not dissimilar from most other politicians in terms of career and qualifications, only got into office through affirmative action?Not that analogous. Look, snooder said that if you think that there was some sort of "affirmative action" component involved in Obama's election, you're a horrible terrible racist, because some people experience racism (true) and noticing obviously true things is just too mean to them.
There is a difference between saying that Obama's race "played a role" in his election, and saying that his only qualification to be president was his race. The first is true and inoffensive, in the same way as saying that an Irish politician who wins in Boston was helped by his ties to working class Irish voters. The second statement is quite offensive because it devalues everything he's accomplished in his life, and implies that you don't actually care about what he's done; you just care about his race. It implies that no matter what he's done, you'd still just look at his skin and say he's unqualified. And yes, I know that you don't think that, and don't mean to imply that; but the things that you say do imply it, and you can't just refuse to acknowledge how other people interpret the things you say.
-
@Snooder said:
The problem is that's neither what I said, nor what was wrong with what you said. See, calling Obama an "affirmative action president" does not just mean that his race played a role along with all other factors. It means that is his ONLY qualification and without that, he'd never have had a shot. Or at least that's what it means to the people who hear you say it. Can you understand why it's racist to imply that Obama, who is not dissimilar from most other politicians in terms of career and qualifications, only got into office through affirmative action?
At least we now know what you're saying, even if you can't even properly misrepresent what I said.
@Snooder said:
There is a difference between saying that Obama's race "played a role" in his election, and saying that his only qualification to be president was his race.
No one here disagrees with this. Some of us don't hear "affirmative action" and think "race is the only factor."
@Snooder said:
And yes, I know that you don't think that, and don't mean to imply that; but the things that you say do imply it, and you can't just refuse to acknowledge how other people interpret the things you say.
I could add a page of disclaimers to everything I write, but I'm not really interested in catering to your shoulder aliens.
@Snooder said:
...and implies that you don't actually care about what he's done...
I care a lot about what he's done. As far as his influence on public policy I think he's been mostly wrong, often grossly incompetent and sometimes downright evil. And none of that has anything to do with his race.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
There is a difference between saying that Obama's race "played a role" in his election, and saying that his only qualification to be president was his race.
No one here disagrees with this. Some of us don't hear "affirmative action" and think "race is the only factor."
This is the thing I've been trying to get you to come around on. Yes, YOU don't hear "affirmative action" and think "race is the only factor." This is because you haven't had to deal with the sly insinuations and subtle insults that comes when you are a minority and people start talking about how incompetent people are taking jobs/positions/college admissions simply because of their race. To someone who's had to deal with that shit for most of their life, that's exactly what they think you are saying. Because most of the time when they've heard people say it in the past, that's precisely what was meant. Knowing that, if you don't want to be called racist, it's incumbent on you not to say things that people will interpret, based on past experience, as being racist.
And it's one thing to simply not know how the things you say are interpreted. We all make minor communications faux pas on occasion. We learn from them, apologize and move on. It's another thing entirely, when someone points out to you exactly where you inserted your foot into your mouth, to simply dig in and refuse to accept that you ever did anything wrong.
-
@Snooder said:
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
There is a difference between saying that Obama's race "played a role" in his election, and saying that his only qualification to be president was his race.
No one here disagrees with this. Some of us don't hear "affirmative action" and think "race is the only factor."
This is the thing I've been trying to get you to come around on. Yes, YOU don't hear "affirmative action" and think "race is the only factor." This is because you haven't had to deal with the sly insinuations and subtle insults that comes when you are a minority and people start talking about how incompetent people are taking jobs/positions/college admissions simply because of their race. To someone who's had to deal with that shit for most of their life, that's exactly what they think you are saying. Because most of the time when they've heard people say it in the past, that's precisely what was meant. Knowing that, if you don't want to called racist, it's incumbent on you not to say things that people will interpret, based on past experience, as being racist.
And it's one thing to simply not know how the things you say are interpreted. We all make minor communications faux pas on occasion. We learn from them, apologize and move on. It's another thing entirely, when someone points out to you exactly where you inserted your foot into your mouth, to simply dig in and refuse to accept that you ever did anything wrong.Why do people think they have the right to never be offended? If you knew what he meant, then why call him out? Do you really think we need political correctness on here?
-
@Snooder said:
Because most of the time when they've heard people say it in the past, that's precisely what was meant. Knowing that, if you don't want to called racist, it's incumbent on you not to say things that people will interpret, based on past experience, as being racist.
I'm not really interested in catering to their shoulder aliens, either.
@Snooder said:
It's another thing entirely, when someone points out to you exactly where you inserted your foot into your mouth, to simply dig in and refuse to accept that you ever did anything wrong.
Yeah, I do this all the time. It sucks that there have been (and to a lesser extent) continue to be very racist people. But the antidote isn't to pretend that 2+2=5. Your affirmative action troll was interesting in how it got away from my original point and ended up proving it, so thanks for that, at least.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
Because most of the time when they've heard people say it in the past, that's precisely what was meant. Knowing that, if you don't want to called racist, it's incumbent on you not to say things that people will interpret, based on past experience, as being racist.
I'm not really interested in catering to their shoulder aliens, either.
Unless those shoulder aliens are white? You horrible racist!
-
@joe.edwards said:
@boomzilla said:
I'm not really interested in catering to their shoulder aliens, either.
Unless those shoulder aliens are white? You horrible racist!It's a fact: the left shoulder is separate but equal to the right shoulder.
-
@JoeCool said:
You're right. It is transparent for the most part. What too_many_usernames is missing is the part where this is Java, and the 64-bit version needs a 64-bit jvm, while the 32-bit version requires a 32-bit jvm.
WTF? That sure isn't a requirment of java but some retarded design like embedding Java (reason you need a 32-bti JVM for Java in browsers). Any Java code will run on 32 or 64 bit JVM regardless on where it was compiled (32 or 64 bit).
-
@Snooder said:
We all make minor communications faux pas on occasion. We learn from them, apologize and move on. It's another thing entirely, when someone points out to you exactly where you inserted your foot into your mouth, to simply dig in and refuse to accept that you ever did anything wrong.
We all object to grunting and squealing on occasion. We make sure our objection was noted, and move on. It's another thing entirely, when a pig responds to that by grunting and squealing all the louder, to simply dig in and refuse to accept that it doesn't want you to teach it to sing.
-
@JoeCool said:
Why do people think they have the right to never be offended? If you knew what he meant, then why call him out? Do you really think we need political correctness on here?
OK, so when some fuckwit fratboy mouthbreather bores everybody shitless with the same worn-out Beavis and Butthead attempt at the same lame non-joke for the leventy billionth time that's "free speech", but any consequential callout is "political correctness" or possibly an attempt to "silence". Gotcha.
I'd forgotten for a moment there that free speech can only be free if it comes from the Right, because obviously nobody from the Left ever has time to speak freely what with being so busy astroturfing about climate change on behalf of the One World Government Green Lesbian Whale Conspiracy and all.
-
@beginner_ said:
WTF? That sure isn't a requirment of java but some retarded design like embedding Java (reason you need a 32-bti JVM for Java in browsers). Any Java code will run on 32 or 64 bit JVM regardless on where it was compiled (32 or 64 bit).
I used to think that the only reason you needed to care was when embedding Java or using some embedded native code (like some JDBC drivers) where having to have matched word-size across the whole process is required. But we recently hit the problem that merely launching a browser on Windows to just go to a URL provided by Java also requires word-size matching. Which is both crappy and weird.
-
@flabdablet said:
OK, so when some fuckwit fratboy mouthbreather bores everybody shitless with the same worn-out Beavis and Butthead attempt at the same lame non-joke for the leventy billionth time that's "free speech", but any consequential callout is "political correctness" or possibly an attempt to "silence". Gotcha.
You just can't understand art. It's OK, not everyone Gets It.
@flabdablet said:
I'd forgotten for a moment there that free speech can only be free if it comes from the Right, because obviously nobody from the Left ever has time to speak freely what with being so busy astroturfing about climate change on behalf of the One World Government Green Lesbian Whale Conspiracy and all.
Now that's amusing. Excuse me while I go cash my check from Exxon.
-
@boomzilla said:
You just can't understand art. It's OK, not everyone Gets It.
-
@beginner_ said:
@JoeCool said:
You're right. It is transparent for the most part. What too_many_usernames is missing is the part where this is Java, and the 64-bit version needs a 64-bit jvm, while the 32-bit version requires a 32-bit jvm.
WTF? That sure isn't a requirment of java but some retarded design like embedding Java (reason you need a 32-bti JVM for Java in browsers). Any Java code will run on 32 or 64 bit JVM regardless on where it was compiled (32 or 64 bit).
Wasn't this already covered on the first page where it was said this is a Windows service?
-
@flabdablet said:
@JoeCool said:
Why do people think they have the right to never be offended? If you knew what he meant, then why call him out? Do you really think we need political correctness on here?
OK, so when some fuckwit fratboy mouthbreather bores everybody shitless with the same worn-out Beavis and Butthead attempt at the same lame non-joke for the leventy billionth time that's "free speech", but any consequential callout is "political correctness" or possibly an attempt to "silence". Gotcha.
I'd forgotten for a moment there that free speech can only be free if it comes from the Right, because obviously nobody from the Left ever has time to speak freely what with being so busy astroturfing about climate change on behalf of the One World Government Green Lesbian Whale Conspiracy and all.
You lost me. I have no idea what you just said or how it applies to the part of this circus that I responded to. What I responded to was basically "I knew what you meant all along, but others might not get it, so I'm trolling".
-
@JoeCool said:
Why do people think they have the right to never be offended? If you knew what he meant, then why call him out? Do you really think we need political correctness on here?
Because I'm not actually a mindreader so don't really "know" what he meant. I'm simply being extremely charitable and assuming that he's not a racist. For all I know, he could be a racist asshole trying to hide his racist comments and thoughts behind a not-too-subtle facade of feigned outrage. That I'm being charitable should be obvious when I say "what you say sounds racist, but I know you don't mean it that way." Of course I don't actually know that. And if wasn't being charitable, then I would assume that you mean exactly what you say. I.E., that you mean to be racist.
@flabdablet said:We all object to grunting and squealing on occasion. We make sure our objection was noted, and move on. It's another thing entirely, when a pig responds to that by grunting and squealing all the louder, to simply dig in and refuse to accept that it doesn't want you to teach it to sing.
Meh, as you can probably tell from the sporadic nature of my replies, I'm not really all that invested in this. It's a decent way to kill time a couple times a day at work. Boomzilla's the one who decided to take this from the original thread with the little joke in his signature.
The real irony of course, is that this all started when I was pointing out that the reason the Republican party has a hard time getting support from minorities is because too many of their members say racist shit and the rest of the party just lets it slide. And I used the example of a racist asshole constantly talking about how Obama is an "affirmative action president." Boomzilla proceeded to illustrate in great and exhaustive detail exactly why I was right in the first place.
-
@Snooder said:
For all I know, he could be a racist asshole trying to hide his racist comments and thoughts behind a not-too-subtle facade of feigned outrage.
Why do you think my outrage is feigned? Why shouldn't I be outraged at being falsely accused with a horrible slur (and not just by your strawman affirmative action)?
@Snooder said:
The real irony of course, is that this all started when I was pointing out that the reason the Republican party has a hard time getting support from minorities is because too many of their members say racist shit and the rest of the party just lets it slide.
As opposed to all the racist shit that Democrats say that slides by. Most of the "racist" things attributed to Republicans are called out as dog whistles by the bien pensant. There are certainly some racist Republicans, as in any slice of society, but not in the way you imagine. Democrats are generally not subtle (ask Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice). But sure, tell yourself that the Republicans are more racist than Democrats if it helps you get through the day.
-
@boomzilla said:
As opposed to all the racist shit that Democrats say that slides by. Most of the "racist" things attributed to Republicans are called out as dog whistles by the bien pensant. There are certainly some racist Republicans, as in any slice of society, but not in the way you imagine. Democrats are generally not subtle (ask Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice). But sure, tell yourself that the Republicans are more racist than Democrats if it helps you get through the day.
Here's the thing, I don't often have this kind of conversation with a Democrat. It just doesn't happen where a guy who identifies himself as a liberal says something bigoted in ignorance, gets corrected for it, and then refuses to apologize. Yes, he might say the wrong thing, but he'll apologize for it. He won't continue being an asshole, and he damn sure won't try that "but the other guy is just as bad, so what I did is totally ok" nonsense. Nor will he try the "I'm offended that you're offended" crap either. It's that sort of behavior that makes minorities feel that the Republican party is racist.
In addition, generally, the Democrats just don't say things with the same sort of underlying subtext. For example, I've heard Democrats say that Clarence Thomas was incompetent and I've heard Democrats say that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be picked as vice president. However, when they do so, they manage to do it without implying that EVERY black person is incompetent, or that EVERY woman is unqualified.
-
@Snooder said:
It just doesn't happen where a guy who identifies himself as a liberal says something bigoted in ignorance, gets corrected for it, and then refuses to apologize. He won't continue being an asshole, and he damn sure won't try that "but the other guy is just as bad, so what I did is totally ok" nonsense.
I'm not really trying that either. I'm saying he's worse because he's actually being racist. In any case, you're doing a disservice by conflating obvious conclusions that remind people of uncomfortable things and racism. I think I made this point before, but if you said, don't bring that shit up in polite conversation, I'd agree with you. I succeed at biting my tongue and avoiding offending people all the time in appropriate situations.
@Snooder said:
In addition, generally, the Democrats just don't say things with the same sort of underlying subtext.
This is you projecting, or something. The subtext is in your head, possibly from your shoulder aliens...who knows? Be careful, or pretty soon you might think calling someone "thin" is racist.
@Snooder said:
For example, I've heard Democrats say that Clarence Thomas was incompetent and I've heard Democrats say that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be picked as vice president. However, when they do so, they manage to do it without implying that EVERY black person is incompetent, or that EVERY woman is unqualified.
You're unhinged. It's the rare person who says that Hillary or Obama are incompetent because they are a woman and a black man and all of those are incompetent, respectively, no matter how much you want it to be the norm. There's no subtext in calling someone an Oreo or an Uncle Tom, or a lot of the other things that have been said about Thomas and Rice. Claiming Thomas is incompetent or stupid just marks the claimant as ignorant.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
It just doesn't happen where a guy who identifies himself as a liberal says something bigoted in ignorance, gets corrected for it, and then refuses to apologize. He won't continue being an asshole, and he damn sure won't try that "but the other guy is just as bad, so what I did is totally ok" nonsense.
I'm not really trying that either. I'm saying he's worse because he's actually being racist. In any case, you're doing a disservice by conflating obvious conclusions that remind people of uncomfortable things and racism. I think I made this point before, but if you said, don't bring that shit up in polite conversation, I'd agree with you. I succeed at biting my tongue and avoiding offending people all the time in appropriate situations.
@Snooder said:
In addition, generally, the Democrats just don't say things with the same sort of underlying subtext.
This is you projecting, or something. The subtext is in your head, possibly from your shoulder aliens...who knows? Be careful, or pretty soon you might think calling someone "thin" is racist.
@Snooder said:
For example, I've heard Democrats say that Clarence Thomas was incompetent and I've heard Democrats say that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be picked as vice president. However, when they do so, they manage to do it without implying that EVERY black person is incompetent, or that EVERY woman is unqualified.
You're unhinged. It's the rare person who says that Hillary or Obama are incompetent because they are a woman and a black man and all of those are incompetent, respectively, no matter how much you want it to be the norm. There's no subtext in calling someone an Oreo or an Uncle Tom, or a lot of the other things that have been said about Thomas and Rice. Claiming Thomas is incompetent or stupid just marks the claimant as ignorant.
Here's the thing though, saying "Obama is an affirmative action president" implies that every black person is incompetent. I know you don't think it does, but trust me when I say that to black people hearing it, that's what they hear. I've already explained in detail why that is, so I shouldn't need to have to go into further detail.
On the other hand, black people (who are kinda the ones who matter in that conversation) don't hear someone say "Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom" and see that as indictment of the majority of black people. It's a personal insult restricted just to him alone.
In addition, trying to blow off the correction with "oh it's just your shoulder
aliens" is bullshit that makes you seem even more ignorant and bigoted
by your refusal to actually consider things from anyone else's point of
view but your own. And trying to characterize it as simply "avoiding difficult topics in polite conversation" proves that you don't actually understand why people are upset with what you say, don't think you did anything wrong at all, and think that everybody else is the problem. Which, again, makes you seem even more ignorant and bigoted.
-
@Snooder said:
@boomzilla said:
As opposed to all the racist shit that Democrats say that slides by. Most of the "racist" things attributed to Republicans are called out as dog whistles by the bien pensant. There are certainly some racist Republicans, as in any slice of society, but not in the way you imagine. Democrats are generally not subtle (ask Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice). But sure, tell yourself that the Republicans are more racist than Democrats if it helps you get through the day.
Here's the thing, I don't often have this kind of conversation with a Democrat. It just doesn't happen where a guy who identifies himself as a liberal says something bigoted in ignorance, gets corrected for it, and then refuses to apologize. Yes, he might say the wrong thing, but he'll apologize for it. He won't continue being an asshole, and he damn sure won't try that "but the other guy is just as bad, so what I did is totally ok" nonsense. Nor will he try the "I'm offended that you're offended" crap either. It's that sort of behavior that makes minorities feel that the Republican party is racist.
In addition, generally, the Democrats just don't say things with the same sort of underlying subtext. For example, I've heard Democrats say that Clarence Thomas was incompetent and I've heard Democrats say that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be picked as vice president. However, when they do so, they manage to do it without implying that EVERY black person is incompetent, or that EVERY woman is unqualified.Take some time and look up some of the names that Dr. Ben Carson has been called for speaking out against the A.C.A.
-
@DrakeSmith said:
Take some time and look up some of the names that Dr. Ben Carson has been called for speaking out against the A.C.A.
First, I never said there aren't any liberal racists. Second, the existence of liberal racists is not relevant to the conversation. The conversation is about how things that are said by many Republicans are interepreted as racist by minorities whom the statements hurt. See my statement above about how saying "but the other guy's just as bad" just digs the hole even deeper.
Third, there is a difference, and a meaningful one, between saying that a single black person is an idiot (however wrong you might be) and implying that all black people are idiots. That's why Republican accusations of liberal racism tend to miss the mark. Because they often focus on the insults thrown at a single individual without that broader implication; while attempting to defend statements that very much include insults to african americans (or some other minority) as a group.
-
@Snooder said:
Here's the thing though, saying "Obama is an affirmative action president" implies that every black person is incompetent. I know you don't think it does, but trust me when I say that to black people hearing it, that's what they hear. I've already explained in detail why that is, so I shouldn't need to have to go into further detail.
OK, fine. Maybe they do. Apparently, it's like watching a bad lip reading video, and it's the fault of the guys whose lips are being read. I know you think it doesn't seem racist to treat people like children who must be sheltered from the real world, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
@Snooder said:
On the other hand, black people (who are kinda the ones who matter in that conversation) don't hear someone say "Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom" and see that as indictment of the majority of black people. It's a personal insult restricted just to him alone.
Of course, because it's only offensive if Snooder's friends who are black say it is. In fact plenty of actual black people take offense at that kind of thing, because it says that you aren't black if you don't think a certain way. I guess this doesn't pass the friend of Snooder test.
@Snooder said:
In addition, trying to blow off the correction with "oh it's just your shoulder
aliens" is bullshit that makes you seem even more ignorant and bigoted
by your refusal to actually consider things from anyone else's point of
view but your own. And trying to characterize it as simply "avoiding difficult topics in polite conversation" proves that you don't actually understand why people are upset with what you say, don't think you did anything wrong at all, and think that everybody else is the problem. Which, again, makes you seem even more ignorant and bigoted.Here's your argument: Some people have been the victims of racist behavior (we agree on this). Many of these people are very sensitive on topics of race (again, agreed). These sensitive people may impute racist motives to negative statements about people of their own race (fair enough). Because they believe I'm being racist, I am (here's where we part ways).
Making shit up is still making shit up, even if people believe the shit they make up. Miscommunication is a bad thing, and it can happen on either end. In this and the other thread, I think I've gone to decent lengths to explain my views. You may disagree with my conclusions (and you obviously do), but I cannot see how you could read what I've written and honestly call it racism (and like any good conspiracy theory, that statement just proves it even more!).
I can understand people being upset with what I say. I get upset when someone points out how something I believed was true may not be. That's human. We all do it. But if I dismiss them by imputing bad motives, that makes me the asshole (and like anyone else, I'm not above doing that at times). Eric Holder once said that we needed to stop being a nation of cowards and start having conversations about race. It's sad that you're still being a coward on this front with cheap accusations of racism (or at least defending them).
-
@Snooder said:
Third, there is a difference, and a meaningful one, between saying that a single black person is an idiot (however wrong you might be) and implying that all black people are idiots. That's why Republican accusations of liberal racism tend to miss the mark. Because they often focus on the insults thrown at a single individual without that broader implication; while attempting to defend statements that very much include insults to african americans (or some other minority) as a group.
Unless, as you've gone to great lengths to point out, that one person is Obama. Thanks for refuting yourself.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
Third, there is a difference, and a meaningful one, between saying that a single black person is an idiot (however wrong you might be) and implying that all black people are idiots. That's why Republican accusations of liberal racism tend to miss the mark. Because they often focus on the insults thrown at a single individual without that broader implication; while attempting to defend statements that very much include insults to african americans (or some other minority) as a group.
Unless, as you've gone to great lengths to point out, that one person is Obama. Thanks for refuting yourself.
No, as I pointed out repeatedly, I had no quarrel or complaint with your position on Obama's effectiveness as a president. You could say that Obama is the worst president since Andrew Johnson and you won't be racist. You could say that you think his foreign policy is evil and not be racist. It's the "Affirmative Action" crap that hits the racist line.
Look, full disclosure here, I'm a fiscally conservative black guy myself. On matters of economic policy I generally weigh in for less government and l'm usually the guy arguing against political correctness. I've been in plenty of conversations with liberals where, as the guy arguing against gun control and universal healthcare, I've been accused of being heartless and cruel. Hell, I've actually been called an Oreo to my face for wearing loafers and an argyle sweater in high school.But overall, in a group of liberals discussing politics, I've never felt particularly uncomfortable based on the color of my skin. Sure, I've been insulted for my thoughts or beliefs, but not for my skin tone. I have however, on multiple occasions felt quite uncomfortable in a group of conservatives who don't know that I'm black when discussing politics. I expect people to insult those with different opinions because of those opinions. I do not expect, and find a great deal wrong with, people insulting others for things they cannot control; like skin tone or ethnicity or sexual orientation. And every time it happens around me (which for the record is far more around conservatives than around liberals) I wonder why the fuck I support a party filled with douchebags like that.
-
@dkf said:
@too_many_usernames said:
@ender said:
Species-ist would be more accurate.Possibly because 64-bit programs can't use 32-bit plugins
Why, are they racist?Fun thing is that 64-bit programs actually can use 32-bit plugins. It's far from trivial as it requires using a 32-bit delegate process and interfacing it with the main one via some kind of IPC, but it can be made to work. And it actually is, with success, with music production software.
-
@kFYatek said:
@dkf said:
@too_many_usernames said:
@ender said:
Species-ist would be more accurate.Possibly because 64-bit programs can't use 32-bit plugins
Why, are they racist?Fun thing is that 64-bit programs actually can use 32-bit plugins. It's far from trivial as it requires using a 32-bit delegate process and interfacing it with the main one via some kind of IPC, but it can be made to work. And it actually is, with success, with music production software.
If a program wants to use another process as a "plugin", it can go ahead and bridge from ARM to IA64.Hey, that must mean that ARM programs can run on IA64 processors natively!
-
@Snooder said:
It's the "Affirmative Action" crap that hits the racist line.
Which I think is fascinating, because by saying he was helped by something like affirmative action, I'm really saying that some of his support was due to his race, which is to say, racist. It's unfortunate that your experience has conditioned you (I think that's part of what you've disclosed) to have what appears to me to be a knee jerk reaction to talking about affirmative action. I think it's interesting, in that Clarence Thomas (whom I brought up) has a similar visceral reaction to the subject based upon how he was often perceived and dismissed. I think that his performance in his office has shown that to whatever degree getting his foot in the door at Yale relied on affirmative action, he rose to the challenge and succeeded. And it's hard to imagine that his nomination wasn't helped by the fact that it was to fill the seat of a retiring black Justice (though he was in the running before that, so it's not like he came out of nowhere).
To restate: I think an objective look at Obama's experience was very light on the sorts of things that make (or at least demonstrate) a competent executive (whatever you think about policies), and I think his record so far in office bears that out. And after the unmanaged fiasco of his supposedly signature accomplishment and other things that he admits he learns about by reading the news, I don't think there's a lot of room for reasonable people to disagree. I also think there was a lot of hoop dee do and ado about how awesome it would be to elect a black president (and it is cool, everything else being equal) and how we'd just confirm how terribly racist we were if we didn't elect him (of course, there was a bit of a struggle in the victim hierarchy in the primaries with the prospect of the first female president). I also think certain voting turnout statistics had a something to do with his race. This gave him an advantage that had nothing to do with him as an individual, as have many historical affirmative action programs in government, education and industry done for others. In short, his race was a net positive for him, possibly decisively so, though admittedly this is impossible to prove or disprove. I'm open to arguments regarding the magnitude, but I would regard arguing that his race was a detriment to his election as an extraordinary claim.
@Snooder said:I do not expect, and find a great deal wrong with, people insulting others for things they cannot control; like skin tone or ethnicity or sexual orientation. And every time it happens around me (which for the record is far more around conservatives than around liberals) I wonder why the fuck I support a party filled with douchebags like that.
I agree that it's wrong to insult people like that. I won't be an apologist for the people you've experienced doing that. Right or wrong, they were wrong.
-
@boomzilla said:
I know you think it doesn't seem racist to treat people like children who must be sheltered from the real world
where "real" is defined as "according to the worldview and experience of this particular white male Republican"; obviously, only a white male Republican could conceivably grasp the world as it truly is. The rest of us are so manifestly and perversely insistent on clinging to assorted broken and discredited ideologies that our perspectives, experience and opinions, while perhaps making interesting topics for analysis, don't actually count.
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
I know you think it doesn't seem racist to treat people like children who must be sheltered from the real world
where "real" is defined as "according to the worldview and experience of this particular white male Republican"; obviously, only a white male Republican could conceivably grasp the world as it truly is. The rest of us are so manifestly and perversely insistent on clinging to assorted broken and discredited ideologies that our perspectives, experience and opinions, while perhaps making interesting topics for analysis, don't actually count.You're just angry that you don't have a good counter argument, either. Or maybe you just think we shouldn't talk about uncomfortable subjects?
Thinking about my exchange with Snooder, he's arguing about the effects of an institution (affirmative action) and I'm arguing about an individual and how something like that institution affected the individual. I agree with him that the institution itself has had an insidious effect in that whatever its intentions (and I do believe it's an unintended consequence), it causes the perception of the classes of people it proposes to help as being incompetent or inferior. That doesn't mean that some individuals who reap benefits from it aren't actually incompetent or underqualified (some are, some aren't). I think it's one of those things we'll look back on with embarrassment like The White Man's Burden. Hey, only 14 more years to go!
-
@boomzilla said:
There's no subtext in calling someone an Oreo or an Uncle Tom, or a lot of the other things that have been said about Thomas and Rice.
Actually, there is a subtext in calling someone an Oreo or an Uncle Tom. The person who says that has a set of things in their head that blacks should do (e.g. voting Democrat) and a set of things that blacks shouldn't do (for example, voting Republican). Someone is only called an Uncle Tom or an Oreo if they do too many things from the second set. Note that there is no similar obligation assigned to whites.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
I'm one of those actual black people who take offense at that kind of thing. To my way of thinking, it's worse than anything Republicans have to say because it causes us to put limits on ourselves.On the other hand, black people (who are kinda the ones who matter in that conversation) don't hear someone say "Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom" and see that as indictment of the majority of black people. It's a personal insult restricted just to him alone.
Of course, because it's only offensive if Snooder's friends who are black say it is. In fact plenty of actual black people take offense at that kind of thing, because it says that you aren't black if you don't think a certain way. I guess this doesn't pass the friend of Snooder test.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@boomzilla said:
There's no subtext in calling someone an Oreo or an Uncle Tom, or a lot of the other things that have been said about Thomas and Rice.
Actually, there is a subtext in calling someone an Oreo or an Uncle Tom. The person who says that has a set of things in their head that blacks should do (e.g. voting Democrat) and a set of things that blacks shouldn't do (for example, voting Republican). Someone is only called an Uncle Tom or an Oreo if they do too many things from the second set. Note that there is no similar obligation assigned to whites.Maybe subtext isn't the right word. The point I was getting at is that there's no attempt to hide the offense. It doesn't take a postmodern effort at deconstruction to tie the statement to its derogatory intent.
-
@Ben L. said:
@kFYatek said:
I find myself in the usually undesirable position of agreeing with Ben L. Anyone not being a pedantic dickweed would have known that the OP meant 64-bit programs can't link against 32-bit libraries. Of course they can talk to 32-bit programs that can link against 32-bit libraries. Windows executables can also talk to Linux executables over the network.Fun thing is that 64-bit programs actually can use 32-bit plugins. It's far from trivial as it requires using a 32-bit delegate process and interfacing it with the main one via some kind of IPC, but it can be made to work. And it actually is, with success, with music production software.
If a program wants to use another process as a "plugin", it can go ahead and bridge from ARM to IA64.Hey, that must mean that ARM programs can run on IA64 processors natively!
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
It's the "Affirmative Action" crap that hits the racist line.
Which I think is fascinating, because by saying he was helped by something like affirmative action, I'm really saying that some of his support was due to his race, which is to say, racist. It's unfortunate that your experience has conditioned you (I think that's part of what you've disclosed) to have what appears to me to be a knee jerk reaction to talking about affirmative action. I think it's interesting, in that Clarence Thomas (whom I brought up) has a similar visceral reaction to the subject based upon how he was often perceived and dismissed. I think that his performance in his office has shown that to whatever degree getting his foot in the door at Yale relied on affirmative action, he rose to the challenge and succeeded. And it's hard to imagine that his nomination wasn't helped by the fact that it was to fill the seat of a retiring black Justice (though he was in the running before that, so it's not like he came out of nowhere).
And you still don't understand what I'm talking about. Neither Obama nor Clarence Thomas were recipients of "Affirmative Action." Clarence Thomas wasn't some struggling inner city youth who got a boost into admission at Yale from a friendly admissions officer who wanted to boost diversity despite his lackluster grades, mediocre test scores or less than steller undergraduate school. He was an honor student in high school who went to one of the best colleges in the country (ranked generally in comparison with Ivy League schools) and graduated cum laude. It is actually offensive to imply that someone with that pedigree needed help to "get his foot in the door at Yale." What your statements imply is that you see any African American in a position of power, despite whatever actual accomplishments or merits they have and assume that Affirmative Action was responsible for getting them there. When you say shit like "to whatever degree getting his foot in the door at Yale relied on affirmative action, he rose to the challenge and succeeded", you aren't just inadvertently invoking a knee jerk reaction to past offenses, you are actually actively engaging in that same offense.
I'm not offended because I don't want to have a honest conversation about Affirmative Action. I don't mind that conversation, and I've had it quite often. What I'm offended by is using Affirmative Action in the context of people for whom it manifestly does not relate to.
-
@flabdablet said:
where "real" is defined as "according to the worldview and experience of this particular white male Republican"; obviously, only a white male Republican could conceivably grasp the world as it truly is. The rest of us are so manifestly and perversely insistent on clinging to assorted broken and discredited ideologies that our perspectives, experience and opinions, while perhaps making interesting topics for analysis, don't actually count.
Extremely unsubtle trolling. D- for effort.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
Actually, there is a subtext in calling someone an Oreo or an Uncle Tom. The person who says that has a set of things in their head that blacks should do (e.g. voting Democrat) and a set of things that blacks shouldn't do (for example, voting Republican). Someone is only called an Uncle Tom or an Oreo if they do too many things from the second set. Note that there is no similar obligation assigned to whites.
Note that boomzilla already made this exact point. #
-
@heterodox said:
Maybe next time I'll read the whole thread before posting and we won't have this problem.@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
Actually, there is a subtext in calling someone an Oreo or an Uncle Tom. The person who says that has a set of things in their head that blacks should do (e.g. voting Democrat) and a set of things that blacks shouldn't do (for example, voting Republican). Someone is only called an Uncle Tom or an Oreo if they do too many things from the second set. Note that there is no similar obligation assigned to whites.
Note that boomzilla already made this exact point. #
-
@Snooder said:
I'm not offended because I don't want to have a honest conversation about Affirmative Action. I don't mind that conversation, and I've had it quite often. What I'm offended by is using Affirmative Action in the context of people for whom it manifestly does not relate to.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. We don't take kindly to civilized, rational discourse in these here parts.
-
@Snooder said:
And you still don't understand what I'm talking about. Neither Obama nor Clarence Thomas were recipients of "Affirmative Action." Clarence Thomas wasn't some struggling inner city youth who got a boost into admission at Yale from a friendly admissions officer who wanted to boost diversity despite his lackluster grades, mediocre test scores or less than steller undergraduate school. He was an honor student in high school who went to one of the best colleges in the country (ranked generally in comparison with Ivy League schools) and graduated cum laude. It is actually offensive to imply that someone with that pedigree needed help to "get his foot in the door at Yale."
You've invented a lot of things that I never wrote. Entrance to schools like Yale is extremely competitive, and many worthy students are turned away. I suspect that "legacy" applicants get an edge through their connections (or any other sort of well connected person). I agree that Thomas was certainly qualified, and who knows what got him that extra step past others who were also qualified but didn't get in? Either way, he's been perceived as a beneficiary of affirmative action. Indeed, a common criticism of him by people who think that he is hypocritical for opposing affirmative action when he was a beneficiary of it.
@Snooder said:
What your statements imply is that you see any African American in a position of power, despite whatever actual accomplishments or merits they have and assume that Affirmative Action was responsible for getting them there.
No, they don't.
@Snooder said:
When you say shit like "to whatever degree getting his foot in the door at Yale relied on affirmative action, he rose to the challenge and succeeded", you aren't just inadvertently invoking a knee jerk reaction to past offenses, you are actually actively engaging in that same offense.
So be mad at Clarence Thomas for saying that shit, because the claim doesn't originate from me:
@CLARENCE THOMAS BLAMES YALE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR HIS EARLY JOB PROBLEMS said:
The conservative justice says he initially considered his admission to Yale a dream, but soon felt he was there because of his race. He says he loaded up on tough courses to prove he was not inferior to his white classmates but considers the effort futile. He says he was repeatedly turned down in job interviews at law firms after his 1974 graduation.``I learned the hard way that a law degree from Yale meant one thing for white graduates and another for blacks, no matter how much any one denied it,'' Thomas writes. ``I'd graduated from one of America's top law schools, but racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value.''
@Snooder said:
What I'm offended by is using Affirmative Action in the context of people for whom it manifestly does not relate to.
It manifestly does relate to Clarence Thomas. At least, he thinks it does. I don't know how any official affirmative action policy might have affected Obama, but I think it's fairly obvious (if we are to take many of his supporters at their word) that part of his appeal as President was his race. While that isn't any official affirmative action policy like you might find in a university admittance office, it seems like an apt term, which I think people generally understand in this context. What would you prefer to call it?
-
@boomzilla said:
So be mad at Clarence Thomas for saying that shit, because the claim doesn't originate from me:
@CLARENCE THOMAS BLAMES YALE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR HIS EARLY JOB PROBLEMS said:
The conservative justice says he initially considered his admission to Yale a dream, but soon felt he was there because of his race. He says he loaded up on tough courses to prove he was not inferior to his white classmates but considers the effort futile. He says he was repeatedly turned down in job interviews at law firms after his 1974 graduation.``I learned the hard way that a law degree from Yale meant one thing for white graduates and another for blacks, no matter how much any one denied it,'' Thomas writes. ``I'd graduated from one of America's top law schools, but racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value.''
@Snooder said:
What I'm offended by is using Affirmative Action in the context of people for whom it manifestly does not relate to.
It manifestly does relate to Clarence Thomas. At least, he thinks it does.
Okay, I don't like to get involved in bullshit discussions like this, but that is not what he said. He said the other people perceived his accomplishment as being due to his race. People saw a black man who graduated from Yale and assumed "Affirmative Action," ignoring his actual accomplishments. "Racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value" - he's not saying that he didn't earn his achievement, nor is he saying that he didn't deserve his degree or other accolades. He's saying that, because he's black, and because Affirmative Action is a thing, what he had rightfully earned was not credited to him as a person, but to White Guilt.
I will now remove myself from this conversation again.
-
@boomzilla said:
What would you prefer to call it?
Intrinsic voter bonus?
Rich dude gonna get the rich vote.
Religious person gonna get the Christian vote.
Woman gonna get the woman vote.
Black dude with fairly socialist ideas gonna get the downtrodden, ignored black worker vote; a large, previously idle pool of voters.
Now, of course he didn't tent his fingers and put on his best evil laugh, like so: MUAHAHAHA I AM BLACK THEREFORE I HAVE A SECRET WEAPON. BEHOLD! RELEASE THE BLACK VOTERS! while his nefarious conspiracy played out according to plan, but if you, as a civilian, feel like you haven't been represented by your leaders for quite some time (perhaps not ever), and then suddenly this guy shows up, you haul your ass to the booth post-haste.If I've said obviously ridiculous things (moreso than usual, I mean) because I don't actually live in the USA, don't be ashamed to flame me, though I prefer gentle discourse and explanations!
*) for you RPG nerds: +10% Constituency Inspiration of the faction that matches your alignment.
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
@boomzilla said:
So be mad at Clarence Thomas for saying that shit, because the claim doesn't originate from me:
@CLARENCE THOMAS BLAMES YALE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR HIS EARLY JOB PROBLEMS said:
The conservative justice says he initially considered his admission to Yale a dream, <font size="5">but soon felt he was there because of his race</font>. He says he loaded up on tough courses to prove he was not inferior to his white classmates but considers the effort futile. He says he was repeatedly turned down in job interviews at law firms after his 1974 graduation.``I learned the hard way that a law degree from Yale meant one thing for white graduates and another for blacks, no matter how much any one denied it,'' Thomas writes. ``I'd graduated from one of America's top law schools, but racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value.''
@Snooder said:
What I'm offended by is using Affirmative Action in the context of people for whom it manifestly does not relate to.
It manifestly does relate to Clarence Thomas. At least, he thinks it does.
Okay, I don't like to get involved in bullshit discussions like this, but that is not what he said. He said the other people perceived his accomplishment as being due to his race. People saw a black man who graduated from Yale and assumed "Affirmative Action," ignoring his actual accomplishments. "Racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value" - he's not saying that he didn't earn his achievement, nor is he saying that he didn't deserve his degree or other accolades. He's saying that, because he's black, and because Affirmative Action is a thing, what he had rightfully earned was not credited to him as a person, but to White Guilt.
I will now remove myself from this conversation again.
Emphasis added. He's one of the people who perceived that. Another quote:
@Clarence Thomas said:As much as it stung to be told that I'd done well in the seminary DESPITE my race, it was far worse to feel that I was now at Yale BECAUSE of it.
I dunno...maybe he thought he didn't really benefit from affirmative action but just believed everyone thought he did. I don't think it really weakens my previous points, and I think it certainly covers me as far as not making random accusations with no evidence.
