Kramer is a racist nutbag!

[Sam.]

What a triumphant display of ignorance skyfire.

How the hell can you say thats how far "black people" will "go to get free money"? Black people aren't a species or a subclass. They are all individuals, just like white people. Sure some black people are probably money hungry bastards, but SUPRISE so are lots of white people. They aren't "pulling the race card", Richards was racist, and the victims went to press with just cause, if he did something like that on stage and got away with it, then we would live in a much sadder time, but he didn't. Frankly I find your comments offensive and you should probably think before you post such poorly informed crap again.

[ManicMatt]

*Stares aggressively at Skyfire*

[Helm]

*Stands in x-treme pose against skyfire*

[Nikolas]

*Stares aggressively at Skyfire*

*Stands in x-treme pose against skyfire*

Both.

[DGMacphee]

*jumps in a plane, writes "SKYFIRE IS A RACIST" in the sky with smoke, then jumps out of the plane mid-air, does interpretive aerobatic dance to demonstrate the extent of Skyfire's racism, pulls rip-cord, lands on a cushion target with Skyfire's face drawn in the centre, pulls pants down, urinates on cushion target, makes love to Skyfire's mother, has children with Skyfire's mother, tells all of Skyfire's half-brothers and half-sisters they're better than him, and convinces them to give Skyfire a lifetime supply of wet willies and noogies.*

Too much?

[Sam.]

no.

[Helm]

I'd stop at the sweet lovemaking. Because I'm a jerk.

[ManicMatt]

Not that I'm trying to be racist or anything but that just proves how far black people will go to get free money.

He was right about one thing though. He wasn't "trying", he was SUCCEEDING.

[Helm]

*waits for dg to make a short film for his turn*

[Andail]

The term 'reverse racism' is one of those buzzwords to describe what you are doing: legitimizing black racism because they are 'owed' something for having been slaves.Ã,  Every race has seen slavery, and none more than the Jewish people, and yet (I will say it again) why do they choose to live life on equal terms without clinging to past wrongs?

I can hardly demand that you back up all that; it's seems too dire a task. "None more than the Jewish people..."??, "...without clinging to past wrongs"...no offense, is there any group of people who cling on to the past more than the Jews? (Be it justified or not. I'm not accusing the Jews for anything, it was you who brought them into the picture.)
Seriously, Progzmax, that just seemed like the wrong argument to pick for this debate. Are you, pray, misstakingly referring to the Amish?

[Vince Twelve]

Skyfire, may I ask out of curiosity what race you are?

[Nacho]

Ahhh... "Kicks up are acceptable, whereas kicks down are not"

Sounds great... Really cool! But will it work so well as it sounds? Mmmm... let' s see...

Which kind of "kicks up" are acceptable? If your race/civilization/culture, has suffered constant "kicks" from a bigger/most powerfull race/civilization/culture... Return the kicks with the same degree would be acceptable? If you have suffered of constant verbal abbuse, are you allowed to do the same? If a white man calls you "nigga", can you call him "cumshot? If you have been bombed, will you be allowed to bomb?

The line is set in violence? What do we consider violence? Can some kind of verbal abbuses be considered as more harmfull as some kid of violence? If a brunette guy calls me "Sissy Barbie girl", will I be allowed to slap gently slap him on the face? Will a big slap be allowed? Will a punch be allowed?

If your culture has been constantly annoyed and and exploited by a bigger one, an only very violent act would balance the score board? A carrier? A tower of the WTC balances the scoreboard for all the outrages the Islam suffered from the USA? Two towers? Two towers and the Pentagon? If Ireland has been offended by the powerfull England... Is it allowed to bomb London? What happens if 50% of the Irish want to bomb London and the other 50% doesn' t? Do we vote? Can a VERY VERY annoyed Irish be allowed to decide for the rest of Irish and bomb London? If all the Irish are annoyed by the English, can they bomb London, but only if military or gouvernamental targets are bombed? What if a civilian falls? One civilian is allowed? Two? A kid is? Dead kids are acceptable but girls are not?

When can the offenses be forgiven? If slavery is abolished and 150 years happened from that acts... Will that period be enough? Yes, but only if, after abolishion, there is no verbal abbuse? Yes, but if there' s no segregation? Segregation can be forgiven in 50 years but only if there has no been verbal abbuse? Segregation can' t be forgiven in New York till 50 years happened till segregation was abolished in Alabama?

A Rodney King resets all the process and "kicks up" are allowed for the next 150 years?

If Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordania and a Palestine militia, summing more than 150 million of muslims attack you, an unarmed country with 6 million of inhabitants, are you allowed to deffend your country? Yes? No? Yes, but only if your army is smaller than the enemy?

What happens if you are weak but you became stronger? Were the Jews allowed to deffend their country in 1949, but not in 1960, because they were more powerfull? Are Jews allowed to attack Russia, but not Syria? Were the Jews allowed to kick Iraq when they were weaker, in 1990, but not now, because they are stronger? Is the iraqi insurgency allowed to attack american humvies with IEDs because they are weaker? Will they still if the amount of americans in Iraq is redouced, making them weaker to the insurgents?

Phew... This think or reverse kicks is damn difficult... I thought kicks were bad, no matter the direction.

The last question... Pacifist elf boy. Was the elf pacifist because the orcs were weak? If the Orks become stronger and they start oppressive, arrogant and annoying attitudes towards the elves, will the Pacifist elf boy turn into a "Up kicker Elf boy"?

Thanks in advance for the replies.

[Andail]

Nacho, I don't even know why you're bringing violence/bombing/terrorism into the discussion.
To bring the discussion back to its track; from the start, I've never endorsed racism, "reversed" or "normal", I've said it's a difference in gravity when you kick down on an under-privileged group and when you kick up on a group who don't suffer any major discrimination due to their race/origin/gender etc.
That's what I said.
The topic of this debate (at least the part I'm partaking in, even if people try to put words in my mouth) has to do with whether it's worse to call someone "nigger" (whose heritage and social connotation I've been trying to pin-point) than an equivolent term referring to white skin. Yes, both are bad, terribly bad, but in my opinion there is still a difference.

[Nacho]

And I asked you where do you put the line in this anti-gravity kick. Because this "kick" is a metaphor refering to an act. If you see a difference between a verbal act that goes down, to another that goes up, you must also see a differences between any act, even if it implies use of violence.

I am sure you see them. I am sure you see a difference to an american missile falling in a residential area in Baghdad to a terrorist bomb put by a jihaddist in the Rockefeller centre. Both are terrible, despicable, but if you keep your argument coherent, there must be a difference for you.

I know you and I know you would put the line miles before the violent acts. But, and now it comes my "serious" question after the crappy post of before... Where do you put the line in all the grey areas between calling someone something and the violent acts? You' ll see that, if any AGSer was asked about issue, we would get a huge pallete of grays. Which AGSer is right?

Shouldn' t be easy to say there's no difference between those acts, no matter the direction? Shouldn' t be easier to put the line in the black (or white, I don' t care, I am not racist) in spite of arguing in which tone of the grey the difference is?

EDIT: What I am basically saying is that seeing a difference between "kicks" deppending in the direction they go, is the genesis for nuts people doing stupid things. Like Palestinians blowing buses. You are an extremelly sensitive and sensible pacifist man, but that same thought in the mind of an idiot is terribly dangerous.

Also, it' s impossible (for me) to see the difference. Imagine a guy simillar to the character of Karton Banks in the Prince of Bel-Air. Never oppressed, rich, posh, extremelly bad-mannered... and black...

And now imagine a poor, young white guy whose alcoholics parents abbuse of him.

Imagine the white working in the house of the black. The black is not happy because the white does not work propperly, and calls him "stupid bag of cumshots". Is there a difference between this verbal abbuse and the ones "white men" use to do on "black men"? When did this "Karton Banks" felt the slavery? Where is the opression?

Hope you see my point.

[Darth Mandarb]

My entire philosophy on racism is this: Racism = Ignorance

You can't cure ignorance, thus you can't cure racism.

Not that I'm trying to be racist or anything but that just proves how far black people will go to get free money. They've always used racism as a trump card but now its going too far. What Michael Richards did is wrong but paying money for flying off the handle at some black people is just ridiculous.

Thank you Skyfire ... you couldn't possibly have proven my point better than that.

... whether it's worse to call someone "nigger" (whose heritage and social connotation I've been trying to pin-point) than an equivolent term referring to white skin. Yes, both are bad, terribly bad, but in my opinion there is still a difference.

Andail, this may shock you , but I agree with most of what you're saying!

Yes, the word "nigger" has far more power than "honkey" or "cracker" because of the past.  I would agree with that.

However, in my opinion, it's still just a word.  It only has that power because black people still get upset over it and thus give it that power.

I've been called "honkey", "cracker", "white boy" several times by ignorant black people who were attacking my solely based on the color of my skin.  I just laugh.  Why not call me "poop head" or something even more childish.

If you are low-class enough to resort to racial slurs you aren't worth getting upset over.  That's just my opinion.  So if you're a black person and a white person calls you a nigger why not just look at them and laugh at their ignorance?  They aren't better than you, they don't have power over you ... unless you react to a "word" and give them that power over you.

[skyfire2]

No, that is a fucking racist thing to say. In fact, forget racist, it's just fucking dumb. You make it seem like the hecklers had this all planned in advance: an elaborate plot to heckle Krammer in the off-chance he'd go nuts, start calling them niggers, apologise on national TV so they had some justification for playing the race card and sue him? Give me a break!

I mean, Christ, this is no different to any moron spilling coffee on himself and suing Starbucks. Doesn't matter if you're black or white.

Are you 12 years old? I implied nothing like what you're saying. If a black comedian on stage started to call a white man a cracker, no lawsuit would ever come up.

[Sam.]

are you 14 years old?

[skyfire2]

are you 14 years old?

No I'm 100!

[evenwolf]

[edit]

ah, nevermind.....   what's there left to be said?

[DGMacphee]

Are you 12 years old? I implied nothing like what you're saying. If a black comedian on stage started to call a white man a cracker, no lawsuit would ever come up.

You may not have implied it but that's how it came off. You're saying, "all them black people just want to get a quick buck," as if it were inherent in their nature. I'm saying that's bullshit. I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I've gone completely off the rails, the person I mentioned who sued Starbucks was white.

See, I don't make the distinction between black and white. I make distinctions between idiots and non-idiots. If the hecklers are suing Richards, they're idiots. If Richards calls them "niggers", he's an idiot. If a guy sues Starbucks because he spilt coffee on himself, he's an idiot.

And if you seriously think the situation is proof that black people will do anything for money, you're an idiot.