[QUOTE=The Jack;48094335]Were they not always so?[/QUOTE]
No, they used to be actual unpopular opinions quite often....
Oi Oi, Mine are usualy genuinely unpopular. See:
- There are very slight physical differences between the races. A higher percentage of white and black men are big and tough looking, in comparison to other groups.
- In some places, race correlates to wealth and backround. This is unfortunate, but it is fact. For some reason this is dumb.
- There's a distinct probability that funding cancer research might actually be more profitable than curing cancer. Which is why cancer treatments are coming along so slowly.
- Square enix don't do Deus ex justice. (though they do a better job than invisible war) Thought I'd end it on a less serious note.
Then again, This is all reasonable stuff when put out like this. Maybe I just wrote it all wrong.
[QUOTE=The Jack;48094723]Oi Oi, Mine are usualy genuinely unpopular. See:
- There are very slight physical differences between the races. A higher percentage of white and black men are big and tough looking, in comparison to other groups.
- In some places, race correlates to wealth and backround. This is unfortunate, but it is fact. For some reason this is dumb.
- There's a distinct probability that funding cancer research might actually be more profitable than curing cancer. Which is why cancer treatments are coming along so slowly.
- Square enix don't do Deus ex justice. (though they do a better job than invisible war) Thought I'd end it on a less serious note.
Then again, This is all reasonable stuff when put out like this. Maybe I just wrote it all wrong.[/QUOTE]
Your comments about race are hard to take seriously considering it wasn't even a page since you admitted you're racist.
There is also pretty much zero possibility of "Big Pharma" or whatever fucking with cancer treatment research. The first company to make a treatment for it that can safely remove it without hurting the person will get richer then any other company on the planet.
Was hyperbole. I really don't care for race. I just find people scary.
why is there zero possibility. What if the treatment only costs ten quid each? Infinite money, or 10 quid per the uncommon person who get's cancer.
[QUOTE=The Jack;48094723]Oi Oi, Mine are usualy genuinely unpopular. See:
- There are very slight physical differences between the races. A higher percentage of white and black men are big and tough looking, in comparison to other groups.
[B]- In some places, race correlates to wealth and backround. This is unfortunate, but it is fact. For some reason this is dumb. [/B]
- There's a distinct probability that funding cancer research might actually be more profitable than curing cancer. Which is why cancer treatments are coming along so slowly.
- Square enix don't do Deus ex justice. (though they do a better job than invisible war) Thought I'd end it on a less serious note.
Then again, This is all reasonable stuff when put out like this. Maybe I just wrote it all wrong.[/QUOTE]
That's likely because the ruling/invading party has oppressed, and continues to oppress the nation they have such a huge (and often negative) influence on? You're from Britain, it shouldn't be difficult for you to understand this.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48092334]I think Nationalism is bad and leads to very bad things
[editline]e[/editline]
like for example, WWI
and uh
WWII...[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say always, it's not necessarily a bad thing to love your country. But when it reaches the point where you actively look down on other countries, then there's huge potential for something horrible happening.
[QUOTE=The Jack;48094723]Oi Oi, Mine are usualy genuinely unpopular. See:
- There are very slight physical differences between the races. A higher percentage of white and black men are big and tough looking, in comparison to other groups.
[B]- In some places, race correlates to wealth and backround. This is unfortunate, but it is fact. For some reason this is dumb. [/B]
[B]- There's a distinct probability that funding cancer research might actually be more profitable than curing cancer. Which is why cancer treatments are coming along so slowly. [/B]
- Square enix don't do Deus ex justice. (though they do a better job than invisible war) Thought I'd end it on a less serious note.
Then again, This is all reasonable stuff when put out like this. Maybe I just wrote it all wrong.[/QUOTE]
The wealth and background thing tends to be about history. If you're poor and uneducated, it's likely your kids will be poor and uneducated. In America's case this is because institutionalized racism would prevent them from becoming educated, and getting good jobs. The whole point of affirmative action is to fight this generational poverty. By letting minorities into higher education with lower standards than whites, the point is that they'll be able to get a better job than their parents could, which tends to lead to their children being better educated and raised. You aren't really racist/dumb for saying that that exists, but it depends on what your overall point is.
What about countries with socialized medicine, whose very goal is to cut down on costs? Hell, not just breaking down costs, it's in the general economic interest to cure cancer as a nation that spends its capital on consumer goods rather than deadly diseases will have a healthier economy.
[QUOTE=greeley;48093614]The unpopular opinions in this thread are getting less and less unpopular and more of a ratings bank[/QUOTE]
i feel like it's often more about "popular opinions left unsaid" than unpopular ones
Maple syrup is just about the worst breakfast condiment.
Peanut butter is something that sounds and looks fantastic, but tastes similarly awful.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;48095761]The wealth and background thing tends to be about history. If you're poor and uneducated, it's likely your kids will be poor and uneducated. In America's case this is because institutionalized racism would prevent them from becoming educated, and getting good jobs. The whole point of affirmative action is to fight this generational poverty. By letting minorities into higher education with lower standards than whites, the point is that they'll be able to get a better job than their parents could, which tends to lead to their children being better educated and raised. You aren't really racist/dumb for saying that that exists, but it depends on what your overall point is.[/QUOTE]
Affirmative action is racist bullshit, and I don't get why so few people are willing to realize this. What it does is help out black people in need, along with black people who don't need help, while ignoring people who need help just as much but happen to be of the wrong skin color.
If you truly care about curbing generational poverty, how about you solve it for everybody who's afflicted by it instead of discriminating based on a criterion as irrelevant as skin color?
Also, if you want to reduce inequalities between poor people and rich people when it comes to education, the worst thing you could do is reduce the standards required for them, for multiple reasons. The reason such inequalities exist in the first place is not that poor people are inherently dumber than rich people, so why give them a boost in this area? No, they do more poorly because they're poor and can't afford quality education. Why not solve the problem firsthand then and give them grants they can use to pay for their education?
I really don't see why half-assed measures such as the one you mentioned are so popular. I guess it's easier to hide the symptoms under the carpet than tackle the problem directly.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48096506]Affirmative action is racist bullshit, and I don't get why so few people are willing to realize this. What it does is help out black people in need, along with black people who don't need help, while ignoring people who need help just as much but happen to be of the wrong skin color.
If you truly care about curbing generational poverty, how about you solve it for everybody who's afflicted by it instead of discriminating based on a criterion as irrelevant as skin color?
Also, if you want to reduce inequalities between poor people and rich people when it comes to education, the worst thing you could do is reduce the standards required for them, for multiple reasons. The reason such inequalities exist in the first place is not that poor people are inherently dumber than rich people, so why give them a boost in this area? No, they do more poorly because they're poor and can't afford quality education. Why not solve the problem firsthand then and give them grants they can use to pay for their education?
I really don't see why half-assed measures such as the one you mentioned are so popular. I guess it's easier to hide the symptoms under the carpet than tackle the problem directly.[/QUOTE]
There are programs for everyone, not just black people and minorities though.
Affirmative action as a whole is a good thing, not sure why you're labeling it as racist. Just because there are programs that focus solely on impoverished non-white people and not white people, who would more than likely have better chances in a certain field of work, doesn't mean it's putting down white people or acting in any way against them.
[QUOTE=TAU!;48096585]There are programs for everyone, not just black people and minorities though.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]By letting minorities into higher education with lower standards than whites[/QUOTE]
?
[QUOTE=_Axel;48096602]?[/QUOTE]
And there are still many white people getting into better colleges and universities than non-whites. White people aren't actively being set aside like second class citizens in order to make way for non-whites.
[QUOTE=TAU!;48096585]Affirmative action as a whole is a good thing, not sure why you're labeling it as racist. Just because there are programs that focus solely on impoverished non-white people and not white people, who would more than likely have better chances in a certain field of work, doesn't mean it's putting down white people or acting in any way against them.[/QUOTE]
If you have programs that only favor non-whites you're de facto refusing people help based on their skin color. In what world is that not being racist?
[QUOTE=_Axel;48096641]If you have programs that only favor non-whites you're de facto refusing people help based on their skin color. In what world is that not being racist?[/QUOTE]
Programs meant to give non-whites a better chance than usual isn't racism. Again, there are literally programs for people from every single background imaginable.
[QUOTE=TAU!;48096636]And there are still many white people getting into better colleges and universities than non-whites. White people aren't actively being set aside like second class citizens in order to make way for non-whites.[/QUOTE]
White people aren't a single individual. Just because their demographic is more privileged as a whole doesn't mean every single individual benefit from those privileges. There are white people who have it as bad as minorities and don't give a shit that the white son of a rich asshole got into Harvard. By making programs that only help minorities you leave these people aside and fuck them over.
[editline]1st July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=TAU!;48096672]Programs meant to give non-whites a better chance than usual isn't racism. Again, there are literally programs for people from every single background imaginable.[/QUOTE]
Are there programs for whites only though? If not, then you are giving minorities an advantage over white people. Why do we need to make those programs only accessible to specific races in the first place? To hide the symptoms?
[editline]1st July 2015[/editline]
Do I really have to explain why selecting the beneficiaries of social programs based on their skin color is racist?
[QUOTE=_Axel;48096675]White people aren't a single individual. Just because their demographic is more privileged as a whole doesn't mean every single individual benefit from those privileges. There are white people who have it as bad as minorities and don't give a shit that the white son of a rich asshole got into Harvard. By making programs that only help minorities you leave these people aside and fuck them over.
[editline]1st July 2015[/editline]
Are there programs for whites only though? If not, then you are giving minorities an advantage over white people. Why do we need to make those programs only accessible to specific races in the first place? To hide the symptoms?[/QUOTE]
I don't even know where to go with this anymore. Again, if you just google this stuff, there are programs for people from any background possible. Just because there are programs solely for impoverished non-whites doesn't mean impoverished white people can't somehow acquire those same benefits.
[editline]1st July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;48096675]Do I really have to explain why selecting the beneficiaries of social programs based on their skin color is racist?[/QUOTE]
Racism isn't giving minorities/non-whites in a nation a chance at a better life over white people in that same nation, because they would have a much better chance at getting somewhere in life. It'll be more difficult for poorer people, yes, but that doesn't mean they don't have a chance.
Racism is systematically marginalizing a people, based on their ethnicity/skin color/race, and treating them as lesser beings than whoever the majority is in power.
Just because there are beneficial programs aimed at non-whites more than whites doesn't mean that lower-class white people are going to just be flushed away and left to rot in their poverty.
[QUOTE=TAU!;48096731]I don't even know where to go with this anymore. Again, if you just google this stuff, there are programs for people from any background possible. Just because there are programs solely for impoverished non-whites doesn't mean impoverished white people can't somehow acquire those same benefits.[/QUOTE]
Then what's the point of having programs that cater to minorities if it doesn't give them any advantage, which you seem to pretend?
[QUOTE=_Axel;48096744]Then what's the point of having programs that cater to minorities[B] if it doesn't give them any advantage,[/B] which you seem to pretend?[/QUOTE]
I never made that claim. In countries that have a more predominant population of white people, they have a better chance at getting certain jobs or going to certain schools, more than non-whites would. Just look at the US, Europe (might be a little off, depending on your perspective really), Brazil, or in the reverse (in reference to ethnicity/population sizes) with South Africa during apartheid. The point is to give them a better chance at competing in career fields and getting into better schools/universities, [b]not[/b] to make things harder for white people of varying classes. Not at all.
[QUOTE=TAU!;48096731]Racism isn't giving minorities/non-whites in a nation a chance at a better life over white people in that same nation, because they would have a much better chance at getting somewhere in life. It'll be more difficult for poorer people, yes, but that doesn't mean they don't have a chance.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it can. Or are you accusing homeless and extremely poor white people of being lazy or not seizing their chance?
How about you solve the problem instead of pouring water in a leaking bathtub? Like for example finding companies and institutions guilty of racial discrimination and punishing them?
The whole point of affirmative action according to the original post is to make the children of poor minorities richer by giving them access to quality education. It doesn't address racism in any capacity. Discriminating entities will still continue their abhorrent practices because nothing was put in place to stop them. What it does solve is generational poverty by giving them access to good schools, which is good. But then why only make minorities benefit from it? It'd work just as well by giving grants to people who can't pay for quality education.
[QUOTE]Racism is systematically marginalizing a people, based on their ethnicity/skin color/race, and treating them as lesser beings than whoever the majority is in power.[/QUOTE]
No, it isn't. Are you one of those guys who make up definitions of racism so that they can't be accused of holding racist views?
I think that people tend to ruin their own lives by constantly thinking of the moment they will die, instead of accepting it as a fact and living life without worrying for things like that.
[QUOTE=TAU!;48096780]I never made that claim. In countries that have a more predominant population of white people, they have a better chance at getting certain jobs or going to certain schools, more than non-whites would. Just look at the US, Europe (might be a little off, depending on your perspective really), Brazil, or in the reverse (in reference to ethnicity/population sizes) with South Africa during apartheid. The point is to give them a better chance at competing in career fields and getting into better schools/universities, [b]not[/b] to make things harder for white people of varying classes. Not at all.[/QUOTE]
Then why the fuck would you not give non minorities who also can't benefit from good education the same advantage over richer ones? You can argue all you want that it doesn't fuck over white people, by appealing to generalisations according to which white people never have this problem, but it does fuck over individual white people who actually are in as dire a situation as many blacks.
Your problem is that you treat races and demographics as if they're single persons, which is wrong. Black people in general are poorer than whites, but if you were to give all black people financial benefits until they're on average as wealthy as white people, you wouldn't have solved inequalities at all. If you want to tackle an issue, do it based on a criterion that's relevant to said issue (case in point: wealth) instead of arbitrary ones.
I can't believe how many times I've had to make posts like this on Facepunch. Many people here seem to have a skewed idea of what justice is.
I think whole this ''rape culture'' thing woman have campaigns for is absurd. It is woman fault as well for dressing like a whore and passing out in the parties and so, and they should deal with the consequences. No one forced them to dress up as sex objects and go to the places where everyone goes to get laid. And don';t say they dress this way for themselves or to impress the girls. We have good saying here '' If you fear the wolf, don't go to the woods''.
If anyone is misinterpreting my post, I had in mind that woman aren't entirely innocent of all this. I had in mind that both man and woman are at fault if something bad happens. And if girls go to party and etc, they should lower, not higher their chances of getting raped. Passing out and dressing sexually certainly doesn't help.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48096838]Actually, it can. Or are you accusing homeless and extremely poor white people of being lazy or not seizing their chance?
How about you solve the problem instead of pouring water in a leaking bathtub? Like for example finding companies and institutions guilty of racial discrimination and punishing them?
The whole point of affirmative action according to the original post is to make the children of poor minorities richer by giving them access to quality education. It doesn't address racism in any capacity. Discriminating entities will still continue their abhorrent practices because nothing was put in place to stop them. What it does solve is generational poverty by giving them access to good schools, which is good. But then why only make minorities benefit from it? It'd work just as well by giving grants to people who can't pay for quality education.[/quote]
I never accused anyone of being lazy. Are you seriously going to continue to accuse me of saying things I didn't actually say? These programs don't exist to make people rich, they exist to give people a better chance at life. How is that racist at all? Your constant moaning about "But these programs exist for a select few, why does it not exist for x group?" There are programs for everyone, and I am not at all an advocate for poor people remaining poor, no matter their background. Not everyone is able to take advantage of these programs, whether it's for personal reasons or things that may just be completely out of their control. If it's the latter, then we as a society should be working harder to make our collective governments work towards focusing more of their time and budgets on fixing these problems.
[quote]No, it isn't. Are you one of those guys who make up definitions of racism so that they can't be accused of holding racist views?[/QUOTE]
Are you dense? Racism correlates directly with power. I never claimed that I couldn't be racist, or even that any specific person could not be called racist or be immune to being called that. Look at what happened in Nazi Germany during the 30s and 40s, and how they treated Jewish people, gypsies, and other minorities there. Look at Brazil, and how it has always treated it's black population since its creation as a Portuguese colony. Look at the US, how it continues to mistreat black people. Also, internment camps for Japanese citizens during WWII. Look at Europe, and its continuous circle jerk over hating africans, gypsies, and other minorities. Look at Japan and its multiple conquests in mainland Asia, their attempts to subjugate China and Korea. Look at Spain's history with colonization, how they treated the natives in Spanish ruled colonies. They basically went around fucking and oppressing half of the globe.
[editline]1st July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=overpain;48096900]I think whole this ''rape culture'' thing woman have campaigns for is absurd. It is woman fault as well for dressing like a whore and passing out in the parties and so, and they should deal with the consequences. No one forced them to dress up as sex objects and go to the places where everyone goes to get laid. And don';t say they dress this way for themselves or to impress the girls. We have good saying here '' If you fear the wolf, don't go to the woods''.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit. Your mindset is absurd, really. Your "saying" is absurd, even. No one should have to fear the woods, or the wolf. There shouldn't even be a wolf to begin with. A woman shouldn't have to worry about whether or not she's going to be frowned upon for dressing skimpy (regardless of the reason she decided to show skin), get drugged at a party, or have her limp, unconscious body raped and abused. If you were a woman, believing what you believe now, would you feel that you deserved to get groped, sexually harassed, or even drugged and raped for dressing skimpy out in public?
[QUOTE=overpain;48096900]I think whole this ''rape culture'' thing woman have campaigns for is absurd. It is woman fault as well for dressing like a whore and passing out in the parties and so, and they should deal with the consequences. No one forced them to dress up as sex objects and go to the places where everyone goes to get laid. And don';t say they dress this way for themselves or to impress the girls. We have good saying here '' If you fear the wolf, don't go to the woods''.[/QUOTE]
What the hell dude, how can you actually think that a woman ''wants to be raped'' by dressing scantily or going to parties ? (Which btw, aren't events designed specifically for sex ). What about all those women that don't dress like ''whores'' or don't go to parties, what did they do to deserve to get raped? Exist?
[QUOTE=SpaceDiggle;48096970]What the hell dude, how can you actually think that a woman ''wants to be raped'' by dressing scantily or going to parties ? (Which btw, aren't events designed specifically for sex ). What about all those women that don't dress like ''whores'' or don't go to parties, what did they do to deserve to get raped? Exist?[/QUOTE]
Shit man, I didn't write it clear enough. They don't want to, but they higher chances with that. Both parties are at fault.
And I was specifically talking about clubs and house parties, where majority woman and man go to get laid.
And what's the reason for woman to wear sexual clothing in the freetime? It doesn't get them respect, it doesn't make them look good. It just screams : I am easy.
Yes, man shouldn't rape. But girls shouldn't higher their chances and feminists are not right by saying that men should learn not to rape.
And most of the times modern rape anyways is when girl sleeps with a boy and next morning she regrets it, so she just calls it that way. And I don't see how it is rape then, man was just as intoxicated as the girl was at the act of the deed. My girlfriend works as lawyer and she tells me similar stories often.
[QUOTE=overpain;48096900]We have good saying here '' If you fear the wolf, don't go to the woods''.[/QUOTE]
Well your saying (and your thought process) are fucking retarded!
[QUOTE=overpain;48096900]I think whole this ''rape culture'' thing woman have campaigns for is absurd. It is woman fault as well for dressing like a whore and passing out in the parties and so, and they should deal with the consequences. No one forced them to dress up as sex objects and go to the places where everyone goes to get laid. And don';t say they dress this way for themselves or to impress the girls. We have good saying here '' If you fear the wolf, don't go to the woods''.
If anyone is misinterpreting my post, I had in mind that woman aren't entirely innocent of all this. I had in mind that both man and woman are at fault if something bad happens. And if girls go to party and etc, they should lower, not higher their chances of getting raped. Passing out and dressing sexually certainly doesn't help.[/QUOTE]
Nice victim blaming. Has it ever occured to you that people get raped at places other than parties? Saying "they asked for it" is the most backwards, ass-hat way of thinking I've ever seen
[QUOTE=TAU!;48096914]I never accused anyone of being lazy. Are you seriously going to continue to accuse me of saying things I didn't actually say? These programs don't exist to make people rich, they exist to give people a better chance at life. How is that racist at all? Your constant moaning about "But these programs exist for a select few, why does it not exist for x group?" There are programs for everyone, and I am not at all an advocate for poor people remaining poor, no matter their background. Not everyone is able to take advantage of these programs, whether it's for personal reasons or things that may just be completely out of their control. If it's the latter, then we as a society should be working harder to make our collective governments work towards focusing more of their time and budgets on fixing these problems.
Are you dense? Racism correlates directly with power. I never claimed that I couldn't be racist, or even that any specific person could not be called racist or be immune to being called that. Look at what happened in Nazi Germany during the 30s and 40s, and how they treated Jewish people, gypsies, and other minorities there. Look at Brazil, and how it has always treated it's black population since its creation as a Portuguese colony. Look at the US, how it continues to mistreat black people. Also, internment camps for Japanese citizens during WWII. Look at Europe, and its continuous circle jerk over hating africans, gypsies, and other minorities. Look at Japan and its multiple conquests in mainland Asia, their attempts to subjugate China and Korea.
[editline]1st July 2015[/editline]
Holy shit. Your mindset is absurd, really. Your "saying" is absurd, even. No one should have to fear the woods, or the wolf. There shouldn't even be a wolf to begin with. A woman shouldn't have to worry about whether or not she's going to be frowned upon for dressing skimpy (regardless of the reason she decided to show skin), get drugged at a party, or have her limp, unconscious body raped and abused. If you were a woman, believing what you believe now, would you feel that you deserved to get groped, sexually harassed, or even drugged and raped for dressing skimpy out in public?[/QUOTE]
I edited my post, I wanted to say that woman shouldn't higher their chances with skimpy outfits in the places where's alcohol is involved and is higher risk of getting raped. I didn't get my opinion said correctly I think.
[QUOTE=overpain;48096900]I think whole this ''rape culture'' thing woman have campaigns for is absurd. It is woman fault as well for dressing like a whore and passing out in the parties and so, and they should deal with the consequences. No one forced them to dress up as sex objects and go to the places where everyone goes to get laid. And don';t say they dress this way for themselves or to impress the girls. We have good saying here '' If you fear the wolf, don't go to the woods''.
If anyone is misinterpreting my post, I had in mind that woman aren't entirely innocent of all this. I had in mind that both man and woman are at fault if something bad happens. And if girls go to party and etc, they should lower, not higher their chances of getting raped. Passing out and dressing sexually certainly doesn't help.[/QUOTE]
if i wear a shirt that says "kill me" does that make it my fault if i get brutally murdered in a back alley? if i, a man, am shirtless at a summer party does it make it my fault if i get raped? i'd be showing a lot of skin, it's pretty much asking for it isn't it?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.