The Obamas are "Uppity": according to a Georgian Congressman.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/05/politics/p091746D97.DTL&tsp=1

Wow. :jay:

wow. an there's no way he didn't know what he was saying.

I can't stand racists.

I didn't even know about this one:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/5/1112/13691/34/587786

In a moment of rage inducing hilarity, Westmoreland had his staff release the dictionary definition of Uppity to prove that he wasn't speaking in racist code. Riii-iiight. Just like when Rep. Geoff Davis, (R)(acist) Kentucky, said of Obama:

“I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button."

I am so sick and tired of these assholes.

people find racism in everything they can. boy can be used as a term for "younger male", too. . .

Ascona wrote:people find racism in everything they can. boy can be used as a term for "younger male", too. . .

Wow. You know absolutely nothing.

Granted, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about American history, southern slavery and racism, or the Civil Rights movement. But trust me on this, "uppity", "lynching", "boy", and a number of other words are loaded with meaning.

Also, no, "boy" does not imply a younger male. It implies that a person is a child.

Racism aside calling a man near 50, who's a Harvard Law grad, community organizor, fomer state senator, and current federal senator a 'Boy' is the hight of insulting.

"Boy" is offensive especially when it's directed at a black man. If Obama or any Democrat were to in public say "McCain, that old coot should not have his finger on the button." ALL HELL WOULD BREAK on the right and right wing talk radio."

TheWoerus wrote:

Ascona wrote:people find racism in everything they can. boy can be used as a term for "younger male", too. . .

Wow. You know absolutely nothing.

Granted, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about American history, southern slavery and racism, or the Civil Rights movement. But trust me on this, "uppity", "lynching", "boy", and a number of other words are loaded with meaning.

blegh, i've had enough trouble using "boy" online already. i know what it can carry. but that's why i said "can be used" in my original post, to stress there's another meaning to it, aside from the racist one. namely the logical one.

and i still stand by my point that "boy" is also applicable to males younger than yourself.

i could call TLP "boy", and it'd be normal. but if he'd be black, i shouldn't be able to be called "boy"? that's racism.

Ascona wrote:

TheWoerus wrote:

Ascona wrote:people find racism in everything they can. boy can be used as a term for "younger male", too. . .

Wow. You know absolutely nothing.

Granted, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about American history, southern slavery and racism, or the Civil Rights movement. But trust me on this, "uppity", "lynching", "boy", and a number of other words are loaded with meaning.

blegh, i've had enough trouble using "boy" online already. i know what it can carry. but that's why i said "can be used" in my original post, to stress there's another meaning to it, aside from the racist one. namely the logical one.

and i still stand by my point that "boy" is also applicable to males younger than yourself.

i could call TLP "boy", and it'd be normal. but if he'd be black, i shouldn't be able to be called "boy"? that's racism.

"Boy" use towards black men by white men is an offence and always has been.

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:"Boy" is offensive especially when it's directed at a black man. If Obama or any Democrat were to in public say "McCain, that old coot should not have his finger on the button." ALL HELL WOULD BREAK on the right and right wing talk radio."

And frankly, old coot is no where near as offensive as 'boy', in this context.

Ascona wrote:

TheWoerus wrote:

Ascona wrote:people find racism in everything they can. boy can be used as a term for "younger male", too. . .

Wow. You know absolutely nothing.

Granted, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about American history, southern slavery and racism, or the Civil Rights movement. But trust me on this, "uppity", "lynching", "boy", and a number of other words are loaded with meaning.

blegh, i've had enough trouble using "boy" online already. i know what it can carry. but that's why i said "can be used" in my original post, to stress there's another meaning to it, aside from the racist one. namely the logical one.

and i still stand by my point that "boy" is also applicable to males younger than yourself.

i could call TLP "boy", and it'd be normal. but if he'd be black, i shouldn't be able to be called "boy"? that's racism.

You can not possibly be that stupid. A 105 year old could call a 102 year old "boy"?

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:"Boy" is offensive especially when it's directed at
a black man.

see, that's just racism. it's judging meanings of words depending on the
color of skin of the person they're directed to.

it's either offensive to whites, reds, yellows and blacks, or it's offensive
to none. if you want to claim otherwise, you're being racist.

yes, they have a different background. does that account for a difference in
treatment? that's what is called discrimination.


and most blacks nowadays have been slaves as much as the whites or yellows
or reds.

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Ascona wrote:

TheWoerus wrote:

Ascona wrote:people find racism in everything they can. boy can be used as a term for "younger male", too. . .

Wow. You know absolutely nothing.

Granted, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about American history, southern slavery and racism, or the Civil Rights movement. But trust me on this, "uppity", "lynching", "boy", and a number of other words are loaded with meaning.

blegh, i've had enough trouble using "boy" online already. i know what it can carry. but that's why i said "can be used" in my original post, to stress there's another meaning to it, aside from the racist one. namely the logical one.

and i still stand by my point that "boy" is also applicable to males younger than yourself.

i could call TLP "boy", and it'd be normal. but if he'd be black, i shouldn't be able to be called "boy"? that's racism.

"Boy" use towards black men by white men is an offence and always has been.

you motherfucking racist

Ascona wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:"Boy" is offensive especially when it's directed at
a black man.

see, that's just racism. it's judging meanings of words depending on the
color of skin of the person they're directed to.

it's either offensive to whites, reds, yellows and blacks, or it's offensive
to none. if you want to claim otherwise, you're being racist.

yes, they have a different background. does that account for a difference in
treatment? that's what is called discrimination.


and most blacks nowadays have been slaves as much as the whites or yellows
or reds.

What? How is acknowledging that words have different meaning based on the context that they're used racist?

Ascona wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:"Boy" is offensive especially when it's directed at
a black man.

see, that's just racism. it's judging meanings of words depending on the
color of skin of the person they're directed to.

it's either offensive to whites, reds, yellows and blacks, or it's offensive
to none. if you want to claim otherwise, you're being racist.

yes, they have a different background. does that account for a difference in
treatment? that's what is called discrimination.


and most blacks nowadays have been slaves as much as the whites or yellows
or reds.

WHAT!?!

You need to study some US history on the racial divide. White slave owners called their black male slaves "BOY!" all the time and it did not mater the age of the of black man.

TheWoerus wrote:

Ascona wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:"Boy" is offensive especially when it's directed at
a black man.

see, that's just racism. it's judging meanings of words depending on the
color of skin of the person they're directed to.

it's either offensive to whites, reds, yellows and blacks, or it's offensive
to none. if you want to claim otherwise, you're being racist.

yes, they have a different background. does that account for a difference in
treatment? that's what is called discrimination.


and most blacks nowadays have been slaves as much as the whites or yellows
or reds.

What? How is acknowledging that words have different meaning based on the context that they're used racist?

because you're defining the word depending on the color of the skin of the person they're directed to. which is racist towards non-blacks.

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Ascona wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:"Boy" is offensive especially when it's directed at
a black man.

see, that's just racism. it's judging meanings of words depending on the
color of skin of the person they're directed to.

it's either offensive to whites, reds, yellows and blacks, or it's offensive
to none. if you want to claim otherwise, you're being racist.

yes, they have a different background. does that account for a difference in
treatment? that's what is called discrimination.


and most blacks nowadays have been slaves as much as the whites or yellows
or reds.

WHAT!?!

You need to study some US history on the racial divide. White slave owners called their black male slaves "BOY!" all the time and it did not mater the age of the of black man.

man, that's why i said it could ALSO mean blablabla.

it *can* be used in a racist way, but it doesn't have to be.


"moon" could be used to talk about a big thing in the sky at night, or it can be used as an order to show your butt.

see?

Ascona wrote:

TheWoerus wrote:

Ascona wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:"Boy" is offensive especially when it's directed at
a black man.

see, that's just racism. it's judging meanings of words depending on the
color of skin of the person they're directed to.

it's either offensive to whites, reds, yellows and blacks, or it's offensive
to none. if you want to claim otherwise, you're being racist.

yes, they have a different background. does that account for a difference in
treatment? that's what is called discrimination.


and most blacks nowadays have been slaves as much as the whites or yellows
or reds.

What? How is acknowledging that words have different meaning based on the context that they're used racist?

because you're defining the word depending on the color of the skin of the person they're directed to. which is racist towards non-blacks.

It's historically contextual. The meaning of a word is derived from it's context. It's offensive to black people because historically it's been used to indicate inferiority to white people. Using a word like 'boy' or 'uppity' when referring to a black man today brings up that historical context.

i also want to add that i *am* aware of the historical background of all the namecalling.

i also would like to say i am not a racist.

i would like to say, though, that i am anti-antiracism-fanatics that see racism in everything that's directed towards blacks, but don't see harm in reverse racism.

Ascona wrote:i also want to add that i *am* aware of the historical background of all the namecalling.

i also would like to say i am not a racist.

i would like to say, though, that i am anti-antiracism-fanatics that see racism in everything that's directed towards blacks, but don't see harm in reverse racism.

Either you're aware of it and deliberately callous (at best). Or you're not aware of it. But you aren't coming off as enlightened, which, I suspect is what you like to think.

i'm not "enlightened", i'm just sick and fucking of the anti-racists, seeing racism in everything they can find, as long as it's directed towards blacks.


the center of anti-discrimination only listens to race and gender related complaints. if one is discriminated against cause he's got big feet, that's just tough luck. that's not right.

that last post might not have made much sense, though.

Ascona wrote:i'm not "enlightened", i'm just sick and fucking of the anti-racists, seeing racism in everything they can find, as long as it's directed towards blacks.


the center of anti-discrimination only listens to race and gender related complaints. if one is discriminated against cause he's got big feet, that's just tough luck. that's not right.

Right. Because white people have had it so fucking hard throughout history. I'm not sure if you just don't, truely understand, if you're trying to be deliberately dense because it gets a rise out of me, or if you're a full on racist who's clutching at straws to make himself feel better.

TheWoerus wrote:Right. Because white people have had it so fucking hard throughout history.

and that, on it's own, again, is a form of racism. you're judging people by
the history of other people who happened to have the same color of skin.
that's a prejudice. isn't that what anti-racism is all against?

again, i'm not racist, i'm anti anti-racist. cause the anti-racists usually
tond to be as much of a racist as the racists, but aimed at other groups,
non-blacks.



i am all for treating everybody the same. if you can't call a black person
"boy", then you can't call a white person "boy" either. or a kid. otherwise,
it's just discrimination against whites. cause blacks can call everyone they
want "boy" or "nigger", correction, make that "nigga"

Ascona wrote:

TheWoerus wrote:Right. Because white people have had it so fucking hard throughout history.

and that, on it's own, again, is a form of racism. you're judging people by
the history of other people who happened to have the same color of skin.
that's a prejudice. isn't that what anti-racism is all against?

again, i'm not racist, i'm anti anti-racist. cause the anti-racists usually
tond to be as much of a racist as the racists, but aimed at other groups,
non-blacks.



i am all for treating everybody the same. if you can't call a black person
"boy", then you can't call a white person "boy" either. or a kid. otherwise,
it's just discrimination against whites. cause blacks can call everyone they
want "boy" or "nigger", correction, make that "nigga"

(a) You're missing the point. I don't know how else to explain it to you since you seem to fail to grasp even the basics of historical signficance. But I'll spell it out one more time for you.

-Certain comments are loaded with meaning.
-They are loaded with meaning because they come from a time and a culture where black people were considered inferior.
-Everyone knows this.
-SO, to use those remarks, directed at a black man, in today's day and age is to reference that earlier period of history.
-This specifically applies to black people because there is no historical analogue for white people in America.
-IF THERE WERE a similar period of history in America for white people, then terms from that era would also be offensive when directed at white people.

(b) an anti-anti-racist is a racist. I'll argue that to the level of symbolic logic if you like.

Ascona wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Ascona wrote:

TheWoerus wrote:

Ascona wrote:people find racism in everything they can. boy can be used as a term for "younger male", too. . .

Wow. You know absolutely nothing.

Granted, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about American history, southern slavery and racism, or the Civil Rights movement. But trust me on this, "uppity", "lynching", "boy", and a number of other words are loaded with meaning.

blegh, i've had enough trouble using "boy" online already. i know what it can carry. but that's why i said "can be used" in my original post, to stress there's another meaning to it, aside from the racist one. namely the logical one.

and i still stand by my point that "boy" is also applicable to males younger than yourself.

i could call TLP "boy", and it'd be normal. but if he'd be black, i shouldn't be able to be called "boy"? that's racism.

"Boy" use towards black men by white men is an offence and always has been.

you motherfucking racist

you motherfucking idiot

great thread

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Ascona wrote:

TheWoerus wrote:

Ascona wrote:people find racism in everything they can. boy can be used as a term for "younger male", too. . .

Wow. You know absolutely nothing.

Granted, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about American history, southern slavery and racism, or the Civil Rights movement. But trust me on this, "uppity", "lynching", "boy", and a number of other words are loaded with meaning.

blegh, i've had enough trouble using "boy" online already. i know what it can carry. but that's why i said "can be used" in my original post, to stress there's another meaning to it, aside from the racist one. namely the logical one.

and i still stand by my point that "boy" is also applicable to males younger than yourself.

i could call TLP "boy", and it'd be normal. but if he'd be black, i shouldn't be able to be called "boy"? that's racism.

"Boy" use towards black men by white men is an offence and always has been.

I will say this...I honestly didn't know it was used as a racist slur until probably about 5 years ago

When the revelation hit me, I was like, ".....damn, a lot of movie lines and shit people said in my redneck white trash home town make a lot more sense."

fuck asscone...

I am risking myself to be your target once again but...

classist, pedophiliac and with this thread, confirmed racist too? Fuck man, what other thing *against* you can you habe? Just knock it off.

Srlsly, the term sale flamand falls short now...

The_Edge wrote:fuck asscone...

I am risking myself to be your target once again but...

classist, pedophiliac and with this thread, confirmed racist too? Fuck man, what other thing *against* you can you habe? Just knock it off.

Srlsly, the term sale flamand falls short now...

not only now, man. it's still one of the less meaningful names you've called me. . .


and maybe you didn't read anything? i'm not a racist. i'm just sick and tired of everything having to be racism.

next thing you knew they'll artificially color every actor black, just cause otherwise they wouldn't be, and it might be considered offensive.


and anyway, you of all people should know how hypocrite the anti racism people are. . . being mexican and all.

oh yeah, and if i recall correctly, you were the classist, which initially pissed me off.

Ascona wrote:

The_Edge wrote:fuck asscone...

I am risking myself to be your target once again but...

classist, pedophiliac and with this thread, confirmed racist too? Fuck man, what other thing *against* you can you habe? Just knock it off.

Srlsly, the term sale flamand falls short now...

not only now, man. it's still one of the less meaningful names you've called me. . .


and maybe you didn't read anything? i'm not a racist. i'm just sick and tired of everything having to be racism.

next thing you knew they'll artificially color every actor black, just cause otherwise they wouldn't be, and it might be considered offensive.


and anyway, you of all people should know how hypocrite the anti racism people are. . . being mexican and all.

oh yeah, and if i recall correctly, you were the classist, which initially pissed me off.

I try to excuse a lot with you Ascona, seeing as how you're clinically depressed, and unfamiliar with American customs and traditions. But, honestly, you're just a fucking idiot. "Anti-rascism" people are hypocritical? Coloring actors black? If you honestly think you're making good points you are the stupidest son of a bitch I know.

TheWoerus wrote:

Ascona wrote:

The_Edge wrote:fuck asscone...

I am risking myself to be your target once again but...

classist, pedophiliac and with this thread, confirmed racist too? Fuck man, what other thing *against* you can you habe? Just knock it off.

Srlsly, the term sale flamand falls short now...

not only now, man. it's still one of the less meaningful names you've called me. . .


and maybe you didn't read anything? i'm not a racist. i'm just sick and tired of everything having to be racism.

next thing you knew they'll artificially color every actor black, just cause otherwise they wouldn't be, and it might be considered offensive.


and anyway, you of all people should know how hypocrite the anti racism people are. . . being mexican and all.

oh yeah, and if i recall correctly, you were the classist, which initially pissed me off.

I try to excuse a lot with you Ascona, seeing as how you're clinically depressed, and unfamiliar with American customs and traditions. But, honestly, you're just a fucking idiot. "Anti-rascism" people are hypocritical? Coloring actors black? If you honestly think you're making good points you are the stupidest son of a bitch I know.

Mr. Sale Flamand here also finds excuses to display his racism at every opportunity.

I remember the day there was a sock color thread in AF and he brought out of the blue how "n!gg3rs (he used that word) are all about contrast and liked wearing white socks so it made contrast with their black skin", and it's their fault people use white socks with sneakers. I was like " :jay: ".

When I first thought he was cool, we had a talk on MSN about colonialism... and mr. Sale Flamand sent me that very same day an e-mail (or was it a pm?) with historical records of how some dutch guy would cut african's hands and also use lighters to make them think he had magic powers. It was so uncalled for.

He is very, very racist. Which makes sense, rednecks always are.