It's ok now - the argument's over.
It is still women who are under attack:
(do not read if you are of a delicate disposition)
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...d-2072201.html
Printable View
It's ok now - the argument's over.
It is still women who are under attack:
(do not read if you are of a delicate disposition)
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...d-2072201.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
The BBC has operated since its creation in 1927 under a Royal Charter as a public corporation. The Charter decreed that the BBC's views be entirely independent of any private or governmental influence. It is thereby required to be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners.
I have just discovered that our most recent socialist government has changed the charter. Spot the difference? To help you, I have highlighted the relevant changes.
A number of important changes were made in the latest Charter to the Corporation's management and purpose:
Abolition of the Board of Governors, and their replacement by the BBC Trust.
A redefinition of the BBC's "public services" (which are considered its prime function):
Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
Promoting education and learning;
Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, and taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.
The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content: high quality, originality, innovation, to be challenging and to be engaging.
The BBC must demonstrate that it provides public value in all of its major activities.
Hmmm...were the "pigs" painting the sign again? Sounds a bit Orwellian...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
You are right. It's no coincidence that Orwell was employed by the BBC during WWII, but those were exceptional circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I'm pretty sure the second highlighted portion is merely a reference to BBC international broadcasting. The BBC broadcasts in the US, Canada, Australia, and several other countries around the world. Moreover, this clearly benefits the UK by promoting their cultural influence beyond their borders.
Personally, being the rabid homosexual atheist socialist I am, the only news channel I watch is Al Jazeera. :rolleyes:
Whoaaa, that's some pretty radical anti-white extremist policies. Damn, I should've known beforehand that the BBC's new policies were destroying our moral decorum of our society and media. :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Maybe you should read Animal Farm (again if you already have)... the changes are always subtle. But it seems that any argument presented will be met with disregard. I've been called an extremist for a while now. It really means nothing anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
I indeed have read Animal Farm and I indeed do understand Orwell's brilliant insight into how language is manipulated in order to virtually control minds. But that does not justify one accusing the BBC of whatever terrible thing you are accusing it of for harmless policies such as. . . . promoting education and learning? :confused5:Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Maybe I'm not using my magnifying glass well enough, or maybe my semantic deconstrucation isn't practical enough, but please explain to me the 'Orwellian' significance behind the BBC's new policies so as to make it as sinister as some kind of communist propaganda system.
Also, I was asking Brian to display for me the so called 'pro-black' biases in the media. I was a little disappointed with what he gave me :(
Say whatever you like about the UK media, liberalized or not, I don't care. The issue at hand is in regards to the racial bias the media has been accused by Brian of having.
[QUOTE=DanielBenoit;951249]... promoting education and learning? :confused5:QUOTE]
Might I suggest that you re-read 1984? In which the concepts of Newspeak and doublethink are introduced. If you don't know already, Orwell used his wartime propaganda work at the BBC as the model for Big Brother's broadcasting system. Whatever the satirical intent, there is more than a little truth in the observation.
Having given up watching television, which largely consists of rubbish, I spend quite a lot of time listening to the BBCs radio output. Presumably on account of 'affirmative action', there are an increasing number non-white presenters and a plethora of programmes about Africa, usually concentrating on social problems. Other minorities are disproportionately catered for and, if one isn't, the BBC programmers will soon find it and, no matter how small the minority, it will receive plenty of coverage.
There are also an ever increasing number of 'standup comedians' who are not only unfunny but whose 'jokes' are practically all anti-establishment.
One really has to have experienced the BBC over a number of years to understand the extent of its decline. As I have pointed out, the new charter gives them the opportunity to ditch objectivity and apply the subjective approach. {edit}So now the BBC, the socialists and the minorities are happy; leaving those who don't fall into those categories having to increasingly switch off what used to be a fine sevice.
Language does not define our thoughts or our understanding of the world. Newspeak is an example of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. True, language can marginally influence thought, but certainly not in the way Orwell suggested. 1984 is a work of fiction, not a work on linguistic relativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Besides, it's a very big (and unsubstantiated) jump to say that "Sustaining citizenship and civil society, representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities and bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK is an anti-white policy.
And are you seriously saying unfunny anti-establishment stand-up comedians is a sign that whites are being discriminated against?
To suggest that the decline of the media (and I'm not merely talking about the BBC) is due to anti-white policies is absolutely ridiculous and in fact not based on anything except your racial prejudices and delusions.
1. I think George Orwell probably knew more about the usage and abusage of language in relation to propaganda than yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Propter W.
2. I don't know if you listen regularly to the BBC's 'flagship' channel, Radio4, but they are disproportionately pro-black if not anti-white.
3. I am not saying that unfunny stand-up comedians are directly promoting anti-white discrimination but they are promoting socialism, which has already initiated anti-white discrimination through the previous Socialist government's 'positive discrimination' policies.
4. I'm not suggesting that anti-white policies are the cause of the BBC's decline ( I don't speak for other broadcasters ) but I am suggesting that the socialist slant of much of what is broadcast since the creation of its new charter in 2006, has discredited its claim to impartiality and compromised the variety of programmes at the listener's disposal.
When I read this post I can't help but think of my original post in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Times change and money talks. Why in the world would a media company, that is in business to make money, knowingly be anti-white? Why alienate their largest group of customers?
Could it possibly be that they realize that they can also capture other listeners/viewers by adding programming geared towards minorities? Doesn't it make more sense that it is based on profits then a conspiracy to bring down their largest customer base?
I'll say it again. 30 years ago white men looked at TV, radio , and the board room and they saw people like them. Today they look around and there's different people. Does that mean those people are anti-white? No, it means those people are pro-themelves and making a decent living for themselves and their familes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
I should explain that the BBC isn't a privately owned business. It is a public corporation and is funded primarily by the license fee that is charged to public users. It doesn't have share holders like an ordinary company and is answerable to the British government through members of a trust.
There is no conspiracy as such but liberal bias has been increasing to such an extent that it is a standing joke in the UK that you can't get a job with the BBC unless you are from a minority or read the UK's leading socialist newspaper. To give you a fuller picture of the machinations that take place within the corporation would involve entering into the realm of politics and I have already been edited by the moderators on this thread.
If you are really interested, you could try reading my book which covers this subject in some detail.
Based on what exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Anyway, Newspeak does not work like Orwell thought. Language does not define thought, nor does restricting vocabulary or language diminish thought. Newspeak is a classic example of linguistic determinism. If you claim Newspeak is a valid theory then this is what you have to accept:
If a certain term that exists in language A does not exist in language B, speakers of B would be incapable of perceiving that which the term describes.
Reducing the meaning of "free" so that it can only be used in sentences like "the dog is free from lice" in no way eliminates the concept of freedom nor does it prevent anyone from understanding that concept. Keep with the times{EDIT}. Things, including linguistic theories, have changed since the 40s.
As for the rest of your post: {EDIT} "How is it possible black people are allowed to present things on TV these days? You won't see any black presenters on prime time, though...
Also, could you explain a radio programme can be "pro-black" and "anti-white"? They've got a bunch of Black Panthers presenting no doubt? Saying the whities are a lower race, right?
Anyway, I'm off... That is, if I can survive another day in this world where the white man is so terribly, terribly oppressed.
I think Papaya makes an excellent point here.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
To me, it feels like this is nothing more than "the new baby" syndrome. Once a new baby arrives in the family, the older siblings do not get the attention they used to and start complaining that they are unfairly treated.
The white man, being used to have the bigger and better cut of everything, now cannot accept the fact that they do not get the opportunities they once used to be given by default and, gasp, need to work hard and compete to have the things they desire.
I had worked at a place where all the upper management in my group are WASPs. They have names like Harrington, Coburn and they are handsome and spiffy. They are go getters, very intelligent, personable, charismatic. I loved working with them. Then the place had to make cutbacks. They cut one of the WASPs among some non WASPs in other groups. The top guy who cut the WASP in my group, well, he himself is a WASP. No reverse discrimination here, it's all economics.
There are indeed federal grants programs that favor minorities, including women. There is a company owned by several women, it's the biggest of that type of business in the region, I can bet on it that they benefited from these programs. It's noteworthy though, 99% of the employees in this woman run company are men. Mostly white male.
From what I witnessed there is definitely reverse discrimination in America, that happened to some of my very close friends. For instance, they lower scores for minority groups so they can get into universities as well as compete in the workforce and get jobs. And as a result qualified people are passed over for jobs they are more qualified for, and the ones that are already on the job have to pick up the slack. I personally think it's reprehensible. That said, the field I work in, they don't give a damn about affirmative action. They do hire minorities, but they quit on their own or they are let go for lack of performance. It is not an environment for everyone. So it always remains a predominantly white industry. On the other hand, they won't hesitate to hire anyone, black or purple, if they have the right talent and personality to make their business succeed.
[QUOTE=Brian Bean;951371]
Well considering the ongoing situations that are going on in the rest of the world where *gasp* non-white people live, I would hard-pressed to call any news organization actual "news" if it were not covering them.Quote:
Having given up watching television, which largely consists of rubbish, I spend quite a lot of time listening to the BBCs radio output. Presumably on account of 'affirmative action', there are an increasing number non-white presenters and a plethora of programmes about Africa, usually concentrating on social problems. Other minorities are disproportionately catered for and, if one isn't, the BBC programmers will soon find it and, no matter how small the minority, it will receive plenty of coverage.
And, omg, more non-white presenters! Omg! We are not living in the 50's anymore and the white male is no longer dominating TV. Totally anti-white!! :rolleyes5:
May it be because this guy, among others decided to take a stand for their freedom to say whatever the hell they want and now today. . . . .comedians can. . . .:eek6:. . . .say whatever the hell they want. Damn minorities and socialists!!!!!Quote:
There are also an ever increasing number of 'standup comedians' who are not only unfunny but whose 'jokes' are practically all anti-establishment.
One really has to have experienced the BBC over a number of years to understand the extent of its decline. As I have pointed out, the new charter gives them the opportunity to ditch objectivity and apply the subjective approach. {edit}So now the BBC, the socialists and the minorities are happy; leaving those who don't fall into those categories having to increasingly switch off what used to be a fine sevice.
So. . . the comedians are the socialist governments propagandists, right? Also, please provide me with any mainstream stand-up comedian of the last 20 years and show me their 'promoting of socialism'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
I could not agree more. The two most logical posts hitherto. :patriot:
I just want to quote papaya's beautiful final two sentences once more:
This is completely true for almost every average working minority out there. From my own experience, and from many others, the average black American, Hispanic, Asian-American, etc. just want to make a decent living for themselves and their families. They truly could care less about terrorizing the white man's radio.Quote:
Does that mean those people are anti-white? No, it means those people are pro-themelves and making a decent living for themselves and their familes.
QUOTE=Propter W.;951485]Based on what exactly?
Based on Orwell's years working in a BBC propaganda unit and I am not exactly surprised that you seem to think you know more about Newspeak than the man who invented it
Anyway, Newspeak does not work like Orwell thought. Language does not define thought, nor does restricting vocabulary or language diminish thought. Newspeak is a classic example of linguistic determinism. If you claim Newspeak is a valid theory then this is what you have to accept:
If a certain term that exists in language A does not exist in language B, speakers of B would be inapable of perceiving that which the term describes.
Non-applicable as the language used in 1984 was English, even in it's perverted form.
Reducing the meaning of "free" so that it can only be used in sentences like "the dog is free from lice" in no way eliminates the concept of freedom nor does it prevent anyone from understanding that concept. Keep with the times{EDIT}. Things, including linguistic theories, have changed since the 40s.
Have they really? How about 'Positive Action' = Anti-white discrimination?
As for the rest of your post: {EDIT} "How is it possible black people are allowed to present things on TV these days? You won't see any black presenters on prime time, though...
You obviously don't watch British television.
Also, could you explain a radio programme can be "pro-black" and "anti-white"? They've got a bunch of Black Panthers presenting no doubt? Saying the whities are a lower race, right?
It's pro-black by dealing with black issues which many white people are simply not interested in. Black Panthers? Don't make me laugh.
Anyway, I'm off... That is, if I can survive another day in this world where the white man is so terribly, terribly oppressed.[/QUOTE]
The white man isn't terribly oppressed but he is becoming increasingly depressed by self-righteous one-worlders who are either too young or too foolish to understand human nature and, consequently, don't know how much trouble they are storing up for themselves.
I find this a very poor and lacking point of view: labeling anyone who does not agree with you or subscribe to your philosophy "...either too young or too foolish to understand human nature".Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
I think rather than sticking with rigid philosophies, we all need to take a step back and consider other possible explanations.
Not every white man is out there to get a minority member; not every black man is aiming to get what the white man has; not every bullying or violentt incident on a different group is racially motivated.
Yes, I have a mostly WASP background, and WASP still control most of the business in North America. You can go to the village where my family settled when they came from England 220 years ago to take control of seized land from French colonist and see the nice streets that bare my ancestor's names.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
I'm quite confident I was given more opportunities by virtue of being white. However you want to cut it, short of government bureaucratic jobs and large companies that want to promote diversity for marketing reasons, white people aren't just more likely to get a job when equally qualified, but more likely to get an interview even.
I went form a working class high school with a fairly diverse student body to the top ranked private college in the province, minorities disappeared I had practically no black people in my classes at that point. By the time I got to university, I think there was one black person in my program of around 100 students.
The system continues to fail to assure equal opportunity for minorities, and I'm comfortable with these measures to fix this issue. Our society as a whole will be better off as a result, nothing is gained from fostering an embittered underclass.
I don't want to be rude to you Scheherazade, after all, you have been very fair to me throughout my time on Litnet, but I really do believe that if people don't learn from years of experience, it isn't very smart. I'm not talking about the youngsters on here, those of us who have been there and done that don't need any lessons from them and, in any case, there is a certain amount of fun to be had in winding them up. Nonetheless, it is my considered belief that liberal sentiment is making a rod for its own and everyone else's back. There is no truer saying than 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' I only hope that you are not around when the proverbial hits the fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Of course, so anyone under the age you happen to be at now are useless in teaching or convincing you of anything. How open-minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
No matter how old you get, you can never stop learning, and it is my belief and hope that I will be learning something new and changing my mind every day until the day I die.
I just find it unfortunate that age has all of a sudden become the defining factor in an argument, despite the fact that you know none of us or our backgrounds.
[QUOTE=DanielBenoit;950129]Honestly, Daniel, Where in the constitution does it say you have a right never to be offended?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
And I don't believe that is what he meant, and I know that it's not what I or Dr. DeFelice meant. Minority groups have activist groups and societies with lobbyists. So do women. White men do not. (Not for these kinds of issues anyway) In the political atmosphere of today, the only white men who have any say in anything are already in power and are pedaling to their constituents the same as they always have. Most politicians truly do not see color. They see votes, and votes=power, and politicians love power. The easiest way to sway a voter is to evoke strong emotion. Unfortunately, what sounds good and seems good-- isn't always truly good. It's easy to get amped up about the issues because there are a lot of injustices in this country's history to draw upon. But Feelings aren't Facts. And what seems fair isn't always fair. I know that with my children, I have to be consistent. I can't have different rules for each child or different criteria.
Besides, is anyone else offended by the idea that minorities "need" lower test standards or a leg up? The implication of many of the laws that Dr. DeFelice is so strongly against, is that minorities are somehow substandard in their abilities. Many of the absurdities are pointed out in the book, and I would urge anyone to read it. Its not even 150 pages. You could have it done in an evening, and then we can truly discuss what the book is about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
ARE YOU SERIOUS!???
First, you quote Delta, who said something along the line of "White Men Typically..."
How would you react to ANY statement I made that began with "Black Men Typically...."
Just the idea that white men are all the same. And what's with the pictures of the hanged men? What does the fact that there were some white *******S. No A LOT OF WHITE *******S, have to do with the rest of the white population??? There happen to be a lot of black *******s in the world too, but I'm sure you would agree that it would be wrong to, oh, say, pull over black drivers because some of them sell drugs.
You make my argument for me. DISCRIMINATION IS DISGUSTING, WRONG AND EVIL. People are PEOPLE. People have free will. They have their own personalities. I don't think the amount of melanin in a person's skin should EVER determine ANY political decisions.
YOU ARE THE ONE ACTING LIKE A RACIST.
I simply want to point out that white men aren't all bad and that there are other, BETTER ways to promote an attitude of equality in this country than by separating people into groups and quotas.
Ps. When white men in politics were first fighting to have the black man freed, the opposition would spread story after story of how black men had committed violent acts or raped white women. The news media at that time had the typical housewife horrified of black men, who raised her children to be equally so. Using that picture is like using the same emotional illogical tactics they used to keep black men in chains.
It is not okay to blame the many for the actions of the few.
[QUOTE=caryn4freedom;951636]White males are a majority and have been a majority in the West for decades. They have not developed any kind of "identity" because for many centuries, the world was in their minds composed of "citizens" and "semi-citizens/slaves". Maybe you should read my post about a page back on why white males are not a "group" in the sense that African-Americans are because of the lack of a need for historical and cultural "group-experience" (FifthElement's coinage).Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
And btw, when did I bring up the constitution? Brian has the right to say whatever he wants. The point I made was that what he said was morally wrong no legally.
Well that was Delta's statement and it's her job to defend it. That said, white racist males have indeed scapegoated minorities for what they can't handle. And a good deal of white males in the past have been racist. As I said in the same paragraph; in times of economic or social uncertainty of any kind, there is always a scapegoat group.Quote:
Originally Posted by caryn4freedom
First of all, the pictures were an elaborated response to Brian, who said, "[I]f you don't believe that blacks will gang up a gainst a single white guy, you are in serious need of an some real education." He also mentioned how less liberal we were fifty years ago. I was beyond disguisted by his comments and decided to post some examples of how less liberal we were fifty years ago. More or less, the pictures were to counter his racist statement that a group of blacks would just looove to "gang up" against a single white guy, I illustrated more than a few instances of whites "ganging up" on a single (or two) black guys. If you didn't get the sarcasm of "Oh those good old days! So much less liberal!" then that is your problem.Quote:
And what's with the pictures of the hanged men? What does the fact that there were some white *******S. No A LOT OF WHITE *******S, have to do with the rest of the white population??? There happen to be a lot of black *******s in the world too, but I'm sure you would agree that it would be wrong to, oh, say, pull over black drivers because some of them sell drugs.
You make my argument for me. DISCRIMINATION IS DISGUSTING, WRONG AND EVIL. People are PEOPLE. People have free will. They have their own personalities. I don't think the amount of melanin in a person's skin should EVER determine ANY political decisions.
Please explain to me how i am acting like a racist? I'm afraid you have not read my posts correctly. I have never said that anti-white discrimination is right, as a matter of fact, my entire argument has been throughout this thread that anti-white discrimination doesn't exist, at least not on the scale of discrimination of minorities. I would suggest that you read the posts made by papayahead and Scheherazade, as they illustrate without any sort of rhetoric, my point, short and sweetly.Quote:
YOU ARE THE ONE ACTING LIKE A RACIST.
I simply want to point out that white men aren't all bad and that there are other, BETTER ways to promote an attitude of equality in this country than by separating people into groups and quotas.
So you're saying that what the "news media" (there really wasn't one back then as we would see it today) did back then are doing the same thing except it's towards white folks now? Please present some evidence of this.Quote:
Ps. When white men in politics were first fighting to have the black man freed, the opposition would spread story after story of how black men had committed violent acts or raped white women. The news media at that time had the typical housewife horrified of black men, who raised her children to be equally so. Using that picture is like using the same emotional illogical tactics they used to keep black men in chains.
Again, I think you need to read this thread again. Idk where you're getting this.Quote:
It is not okay to blame the many for the actions of the few.
Of course, so anyone under the age you happen to be at now are useless in teaching or convincing you of anything. How open-minded.
Well, when did you ever hear of a 23-year-old person having the temerity to teach somebody far in advance of his years. Unless he was some kind of genius; which, of course, most young men of that age think they are.
Age =/= Maturity.
Just saying.
Since you are the one who brought the age into this discussion, I would like to point out that I consider myself mature enough to be able to carry on a discussion without resorting to rudeness and I sincerely do hope that the same thing is true for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Isn't it possible that a smart person has experienced and, hence, learnt different things from their experience? Why is the assumption that if they are "smart", their experience and conclusions should be in line with yours?I started teaching at the age of 24 and among my students were a group of bank managers whose average age was twice mine. (Then again, It is a truth universally acknowledged that I am a genius!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
What's more, Maturity > Age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane
I am sure there are people out there who have experienced the kind of things and learnt life lessons I could not even begin to imagine despite being younger.
You are merely stating the obvious but, of course, say what you like anyway providing it is within the LitNet rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane
Do you have statistical research that proves that "white males" scapegoat minorities for things that they cannot handle? Because that is a very racist and biased statement. People of ALL races have used other races to blame their problems on. I can say the same thing about minorities, but I don't chose to because I think that it's a racist remark.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Actually, this happens all the time in the military. Snot-nosed 21 year old 2nd Lieutenant/Ensign having authority over and sometimes instructing a Gunnery Sergeant or Chief twice his or her's age is...uh...half the job of a 2nd Lieutenant/Ensign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Assuming that someone, regardless of age, experience, or whatever, has nothing to teach you is one of the most arrogant and disrespectful things possible.
Of course, but they are more likely to be the exception than the rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
I don't think that your statement accurately assesses the issue at hand. It is easy to make exaggerated statements to take the focus off of what really transpired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane
Lol, you ask for statistical research but disregard it when it is given :goof:Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I corrected my previous statement of a few pages back in that post by saying that white racist males scapegoat minorities. History has proven this with my example of post-WWI depression Germany. I don't think any logical person will dispute that racists do indeed scapegoat people.
It must also be given a regards to the common history of the West. Whites have always been the majority throughout the modern history of Europe and they have unfortunately been the perpetrators of racism (not as a result of being white, but just for being human and having the evil instincts we can have when a group of people are in absolute power). Throughout history Jews, blacks, foriegners have been scapegoated for peoples problems.
Just some examples:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...9;s_bureau.jpg
(sorry, the picture is too big to post here)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...grants1888.jpg
Just to make it clear: The above painting depicts the American citizen's jobs being "stolen" by newly-arrived immigrants.
Please explain how so :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Age.
Pope Ratzinger is 83 years old and leads a billion Catholics.
{edit}
William Pitt was Prime Minister of Britain and led the greatest Empire ever at the tender age of 24.
Joan of Arc was a legend at 15 and executed at 19.
People who assume age has any bearing whatsoever on wisdom, intelligence or ability are merely being dishonest with themselves.
Though if it did have bearing, Rimbaud would sure be one poor poet :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Fine. Black racist males (and females) use the white community as a scapegoat for their shortcomings.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Yeah....that's a no brainer!!
It's funny how I'm defending a statement that Delta originally posted. But anyway, the very context that comment was originally in was in fact just my agreement with Delta when she referred to the arguments made as "[an] old strategy". I agreed in the context that most recently conservative commentators have been throwing around the talking point that the white male is becoming the "minority" in this country, as has been argued in this thread. In light of the statistics and evidence, I call this either a rhetorical point by conservatives in order to criticize liberalism or a more subconscious admittance of their own discomfort with the growing presence of minorities on, as papaya said, the "TV, radio , and the board room". It is indeed scapegoating when one speaks of the increasingly pro-black bias in the media without evidence to back it up, and even evidence to the contrary in regards to the supposed "anti-white" discrimination increase. Until you prove the numbers wrong, it is scapegoating.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Oh and btw, it is indeed a no-brainer that a racist black male would most likely scapegoat the "white community". It's kinda a part of what racism is.
I don't agree with that statement, and I'm not going to just let you get away with it. Truth is not based upon someone's ability to document it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Truth is not based on one's disagreement either. Please provide me with evidence that speaks against my own (the links are there, go look at them) or provide me with thorough reason as to why the evidence is invalid or if there is another more accurate epistemological basis for finding out the truths of current social science that extends beyond pure reason (Kantian transcendence perhaps? :confused5:)Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
In my right hand I'm holding a bag with 50 coins. You know nothing about the bag in my left hand. Which bag holds the most coins?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Once again, step by step:Quote:
and I am not exactly surprised that you seem to think you know more about Newspeak than the man who invented it
Newspeak is a language used in a work of fiction. This language was devised in order to control thought. The assumption is that if the vocabulary is restricted, thoughts not in line with IngSoc would be literally unthinkable.
This concept, that language shapes or defines thought, is called linguistic determinism. Newspeak is an example of strong linguistic determinism. Psycholinguists have been testing this hypothesis for decades now. The general consensus is that a strong form of linguistic determinism is highly unlikely, if not impossible.
The claim that Newspeak would work and limit or restrict thought is at best unsubstantiated. I think you won't find any linguists who'd argue that the concept of Newspeak, like Orwell described it, is a realistic one.
Of course it's applicable:Quote:
If a certain term that exists in language A does not exist in language B, speakers of B would be incapable of perceiving that which the term describes.
Non-applicable as the language used in 1984 was English, even in it's perverted form.
If a certain term that exists in Oldspeak does not exist in Newspeak, speakers of Newspeak would be incapable of perceiving that which the term describes.
And this is based again on what? How can you know what interests many white people? I bet I can find lots of white people in this very thread who are interested in these "black issues".Quote:
It's pro-black by dealing with black issues which many white people are simply not interested in. Black Panthers? Don't make me laugh.
Again, you retort with unsubstantiated claims.