2 edits
Originally posted by stockeni like people who fight against the wrongs that people do, because if you don't those repeating cycles of abuse will continue. some people should be dealt to.
I don't know why I reply, cause I'd think it's obvious what I meant, but just to make sure there's no missunderstanding.
I can understand how truly bad experiences can sometimes turn you into a irrational being, striking at anything wearing black skin; being male; being born within a specific religious circle; denouncing the existence of Gods and so on, ecause the color of their skin or their nationality or religion or what have you.
See?
also:a racist person who has been brought up being brainwashed is never going to be mature enough untill someone is able to make them see sense. this may be very hard to do as all the ways out of their mental illnes will have replies that they give. sometimes that worthless intelligence will have been handed down from generations.
this i believe, 'although sometimes i wonder' is changing due to the net and the whole world becoming one where no longer can they hide away in their own environment. a good verse for them, 'and i do believe some follow the bible per suitability' is that one about a lamp how you put it out for the whole world to see.
1 edit
Originally posted by KaboooombaOf course. Just not an entire group of people you don't know because they're skin is... religion is... nationality is... sexual inclination is... oh, you know what I mean.
...some people should be dealt to.
If a single person is pointed to and accused of being a rapist or murderer or any of the other things that are harmful to people in society, then that specific individual needs to be "dealt with" by the law inforcement. The fact that he's a muslim (as an example - could just as well have chosen gay, atheist, christian, american or whatever other stereotype you like), should cast no shadow on any other muslim. If he claim that his actions was because he's a muslim, then you can still not cast a shadow on all muslims, because with just a tiny, little bit of intellect you'll realise that not all muslims agree (just like within any other "group" of people).
This is what's wrong with racism. It attempts to unite all the "others" under common labels and then deal with those groups as if every single member were an autonomous robot saying, acting and doing the exact same thing as everyone else within a group. What's more, a racist tend to only see the bad things members of a specific group does, say or imply and completely ignore good things as random chance. It makes it much easier to hate that way. Finally, as if racism wasn't despicable enough as it is, a racist usually considers him/herself better than those whom do not belong to his/her group.*
A large group may unite on a single issue for a short period of time. That could be honest. But if even just two people agree on everything all the time, there's something going on that's not good for one or both of them. Just look at marriages. They're filled with compromise to make them work. Mistake that compromise for actual agreement and there'll be trouble down the road.
So, all I'm saying is that it's really hard for me to understand a person who's supposedly reached a certain level of education and independence, being rascist and judging people based on general labels that really aren't helpful in understanding even one single human being. Because noone fully fits the label (it's usually too wide). If the label is narrow enough for me to fit it, than it doesn't describe much of my true self. Just that, narrow, specific part of me. And if you do manage to get to know me enough to have all the labels on me that fits, you will no doubt find that some of them are replaced with others after a while as I (like everyone else) changes slowly over time.**
I'd also like to point out the difference between being a racist (positively sure that everyone who is part of a specific group are the same) and being naturally suspicious of a person belonging to a specific group of others. For instance, if you hear all the time that black people in Harlem are bad and out to get you if they get a chance, and by some freak twist of events you find yourself in the company of such a black man, it's natural for you to be suspicious. That's not the same as being a racist at all, if you allow that one person to "prove" himself to you. I'd say that skepticism like that is even healthy for you.
Have I made myself perfectly clear now? Is there anything you don't understand about my dislike for generalisations of any kind?
---
* I wonder if it's possible to say I'm judging all racists alike here. Is it possible there are rascists who doesn't consider themselves better than anyone not part of their group, but still dislike those same people?
** Isn't it funny how people around you, when you act on an emotion or idea that you usually don't, will tell you you're not being yourself? I'd say that's part of when you allow yourself to change.
Originally posted by stockenI don't think it's even necessary to dislike people who are not part of your group to be racist. If you dislike your own group and think other groups are inherently better, I would say that's racist, too (if you define your group by race). There was a lot of this kind of racism (or maybe rather nationalism in this case) in the Germany I grew up in (West Berlin in the 70's and 80's). We basically learned that being German was something to be ashamed of, and that Germans were more evil than people from other nations. It took me a long time to understand that this actually was a form of nationalism, too.
Is it possible there are rascists who doesn't consider themselves better than anyone not part of their group, but still dislike those same people?
Originally posted by stockenI made a public speech on this issue and many others recently. Got me kind of famous around here, but in the speech I cited some examples of fear, hatred, misunderstanding, and uneducated. Even in this little town in Canada, we still call rip-offs being "Jewed" out.
Fine. Now don't go saying all swedes, atheists, programmers, and whatever else you think I am are idiots based on your encounter with me, and you've gotten the idea.
Spunkface!
Something that got to people the most is what we do to others that most of us aren't aware of.
For example, " . . . many soldiers who returned from the wars after WWII suffered from conditions related to PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Basically, it was the guilt of knowing that the bullets from their rifle tore through the flesh of another living, breathing human like themselves. But what did we do? We told them that their reaction wasn't normal and we gave them drugs. Last time I checked, merciless slaughter was a great reason to feel guilty. The message we get here is that killing people isn't supposed to make you feel bad . . ."
The speech got me second place in the competition. First place was someone who talked about teenage stress and suicides.
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZJust passing the information along from a BBC News article. But apparently I need to inform you of an important policy at RHP of which you must be unaware:
Nice to see the perpetuation of a stupid email forward.
EDIT: You're an idiot.
If you don't like my posts, guess what? You don't have to read them! IDIOT!!! 😛
Originally posted by Whats goin on ehI find that extremely pussling, also. We are taught as youngsters not to fight or mistreat others, then we're thrown into the army and taught how to kill each other. If we're really unfortunate we may actually have to do it.
Last time I checked, merciless slaughter was a great reason to feel guilty. The message we get here is that killing people isn't supposed to make you feel bad . . .
That sucks.
My heart goes out to anyone suffering from PTSD. I had a hard time just shooting my cat, for crying out loud. Imagine having to shoot another human being (even if it could be considered self-defence).
The people sending those men into raging war are the people to blame though. You'd think they could at least provide proper care once the soldiers return home. I certainly hope the american soldiers coming home from Iraq receives a better treatment from their own people. What do you think? Are they neglected and put aside as a social problem like the vets from Vietnam?
There was a swedish documentary a week ago. It was about soldiers who had joined the peace troops (interesting paradox there) to various war inflicted parts of the world. They were weeping like little children in front of the camera when they thought about what they had gone through. They were traumatised for life, no doubt.
Declaring war is a despicable excercise of human stupidity.
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenThe ruling people in government uses the populace to their own advantage. They tell the people that they are there to serve and protect them, but in reality they end up exploiting their power.
We are taught as youngsters not to fight or mistreat others, then we're thrown into the army and taught how to kill each other.
The people sending those men into raging war are the people to blame though. You'd think they could at least provide proper care once the soldiers return home. I certainly hope the american soldiers coming home from Iraq receive ...[text shortened]... you think? Are they neglected and put aside as a social problem like the vets from Vietnam?
Yes, they train people to kill and follow orders. They don't want the solders to think for themselves. And when the solders come home their government no longer has a use for them.