Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John who wrote (33235)	7/7/2010 1:35:48 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

Re: "I would rather you call me paranoid than dead. -ng-" Me too, John... (but I don't exactly fear for my life from "mass rioting" by any particular racial group in my own fair country.) Though, I donno... now that I think about it, maybe them Irish! They can get pretty riled-up! Re: "McShame betrayed his race and continues to do so." What if you've got TWO people of the same "race" running a'gin each other? Who becomes the "betrayer"?

To: John who wrote (33235)	7/7/2010 2:34:48 PM
From: HPilot	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

You know, there really is such a thing as "the lesser of two evils". And although the lesser of evils would be very very bad. He would not have been nearly as bad as what we got!

To: John who wrote (33235)	7/8/2010 1:34:45 AM
From: grusum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

you said in an earlier post that you thought you were, or might be racist, or words to that effect. i say maybe, or maybe not. i believe there are many nuances that are quite subtle in racism. many people think that if one prefers the company of one's own race, then one is a racist. i don't agree. i think one can have preferences for one's own race just because one may want to be with people that one has more in common with. conversely, one may prefer the company of different races because one enjoys the differences. simple preferences do no harm and aren't racist. as an example, if one prefers chocolate ice cream it does no harm to vanilla. however, if only chocolate ice cream can be transported unlimited miles and other flavors could only be transported 50 miles from point of origin by law, then the law favors chocolate ice cream over all others and harms them. similarly if the law favors any race, harm is done to all the rest. so one can prefer a certain race or flavor without being 'in favor' of it, so to speak. this is the subtlety i was speaking of earlier. preferring to hang around a certain race, doesn't mean that one is in favor of that race. when the above subtlety is apprehended, it soon becomes apparent that affirmative action is racist by its very nature. it harms both blacks and other races, but i think it actually harms blacks most. it binds them to mediocrity and different forms of dependency. it should also become apparent that being in favor of one's own race harms everyone in the long run. it is polarizing and brings different forms of violence to all races. a while ago on this thread i said that a single culture, if it is a good one, could embrace all races. i want to emphasize this point again because i think it is so true. all races could thrive in an honorable and honest culture that is based on freedom. differences between the races would be accepted and even at times embraced. i hope you can see that i'm not talking about multi-culturalism, which is destructive. race doesn't determine culture, although it is certainly associated with it. in short, racism is always destructive. and a society without racism is in theory at least possible. but racism needn't and probably shouldn't be attacked directly. it should be attacked indirectly with honor and freedom that encompasses many personal rights.