Fucking gypsies
-
It can't be racist, they're not a race. It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves? But who gives a shit. They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing. At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination. * The gypsies haven't either, because they did it in reaction to something that wasn't a budget cut.
harold aptroot wrote:
It can't be racist, they're not a race.
Nonsensical rationalization and nothing more. Pick what ever term you wish which fits the following. A person with a prejudiced belief that one arbitrary grouping of characteristic/attribute is superior to others. Own your arbitrary prejudice rather than attempting to relabel it in a vain attempt to make it objective.
harold aptroot wrote:
It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves
Obviously another offensive statement.
harold aptroot wrote:
They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing.
At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination.Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It can't be racist, they're not a race.
Nonsensical rationalization and nothing more. Pick what ever term you wish which fits the following. A person with a prejudiced belief that one arbitrary grouping of characteristic/attribute is superior to others. Own your arbitrary prejudice rather than attempting to relabel it in a vain attempt to make it objective.
harold aptroot wrote:
It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves
Obviously another offensive statement.
harold aptroot wrote:
They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing.
At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination.Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
Look mate, it's supposed to be offensive. You can label it "racist" if you like - I don't really care, it's just that I like calling it what it is, and it ain't racism. I can give you some racism too, if you'd like.
jschell wrote:
Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
I refuse. That would be an entirely pointless exercise. My point was never that they should quietly accept everything, though that would be nice too. They do, however, have to accept it. It's the law. They don't get to bawww about "human rights" when 1) they aren't even human, and 2) their human rights, supposing they deserve them, are not being threatened. And yes, that was offensive again, boohoo.
-
RobCroll wrote:
I here you but it's discrimination from the broader community that makes these people exist the way they do.
There is your mistake, you assume that the society doesn’t wants to integrate them but it’s the vice-versa. Most of the countries with a significant gipsy population have tried to integrate them at least partially during the years without even a partial success. We are not talking of isolated case or particular country or even a continent. They WANT their way of life, which would be okay if their way of life wasn’t consists of not working, stealing, polluting, making a lot of children which they neither are able to support nor care. Just a few weeks ago in my country they run over a young boy with a cargo van for the only reason they haven’t liked him and he’s been a Bulgarian dare to walk in a gipsy ghetto. They have ran over him a few times, just to be on the save side. During the communism when I was in the middle school the education was mandatory(and this was enforced) for everybody. Even then in the whole school we had only one gipsy boy. The reason for him been there? The poor kid had serious heart disease, so his parents decided he is useless and will die soon anyway and allow him to school. Do I think they are evil people? No of course they aren’t. Do I hate them? No I don’t although in some cases they disgust me. But I’m scared from the fact that such a people regarding the forecasts will be the majority of the population in my country (this will be the end of it of course) after only 30 years. As I said they double their population every 10 years if they receive welfare and have what to steal (which is the case from 1945).
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
There is your mistake, you assume that the society doesn’t wants ...
And your mistake is not in understanding history and even current events in terms of how "racist" might be applied. Everything you are saying is used by many, many other people to rationalize their own specific prejudice. Myself I make a broad allowance for the beliefs of people but take exception when they attempt to 'prove' that their belief is more than just a personal opinion. Own your prejudice as a personal choice or give it up. Your 'evidence' is not and never will be more than a vain attempt at rationalization.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
But I’m scared from the fact that such a people regarding the forecasts will be the majority of the population in my country (this will be the end of it of course) after only 30 years. As I said they double their population every 10 years if they receive welfare and have what to steal (which is the case from 1945).
Which is obvious nonsense. Based on that model one can just as easily demonstrate that at some time in the future they will mass more than the entire earth. It completely ignores the very, very complex nature of human relationships and the very, very complex nature of human cultures. For that matter it uses a model that applies to almost nothing in the real world much less people and culture.
-
No he is not a racist (at least on this subject). I understand your sentiments and they are normal for a decent guy from a country with a very little or none Gypsy population. I would react the same way if you didn’t know better. Nearly 90% of the street crimes on my country are committed from the 7% Gypsy population. Nobody can forced them to send their kids to School. There is some small part of them who are normal hard working people from a Gypsy origin, but at least in my country nobody call them Gypsy and they don’t consider themselves as such. They also tends to double their numbers every 20 or so years while living on welfare and stealing, which is scary. And don’t let me start with the smelly ghettos they create every ware, old people killed for their pensions etc. Just a resent case, from a few months ago. In order to clean one ghetto the government has given to the inhabitants an bright new 9 stories apartment building some years ago…for free! No rent, no payments nothing, they usually don’t pay their electricity, heating and water bills as well. After a few years of them being there the building is about to collapse. Horses in the apartments, all wooden parts of the building (beams, hardwood floors, ) burned in the stoves, fires on the floor, steel bindings stoled and sold etc. After the inspectors alarmed that it’s dangerous for people to live there the police is send to remove the inhabitance. They not only refuses but in a protest start to destroy the building concrete pillars with a sledgehammers…don’t taking under account that they are IN the building. The police finally stops them but not before a 7 yo girl is flattened under the concrete.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
No he is not a racist (at least on this subject). I understand your sentiments and they are normal for a decent guy from a country with a very little or none Gypsy population. ...
Said by every prejudice person attempting to justify that their personal prejudice is in fact rational even though those of other people are not.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It can't be racist, they're not a race.
Nonsensical rationalization and nothing more. Pick what ever term you wish which fits the following. A person with a prejudiced belief that one arbitrary grouping of characteristic/attribute is superior to others. Own your arbitrary prejudice rather than attempting to relabel it in a vain attempt to make it objective.
harold aptroot wrote:
It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves
Obviously another offensive statement.
harold aptroot wrote:
They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing.
At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination.Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
I might point out that he is not basing his opinion upon a prejudice. Prejudice means to pre-judge before any evidence. The societal behavior of the people he speaks about provides plenty of evidence for him to go by.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
Look mate, it's supposed to be offensive. You can label it "racist" if you like - I don't really care, it's just that I like calling it what it is, and it ain't racism. I can give you some racism too, if you'd like.
jschell wrote:
Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
I refuse. That would be an entirely pointless exercise. My point was never that they should quietly accept everything, though that would be nice too. They do, however, have to accept it. It's the law. They don't get to bawww about "human rights" when 1) they aren't even human, and 2) their human rights, supposing they deserve them, are not being threatened. And yes, that was offensive again, boohoo.
harold aptroot wrote:
ou can label it "racist" if you like - I don't really care, it's just that I like calling it what it is, and it ain't racism.
In general usage of how the term is currently used - it is. But as I said you can pick another term if you wish. It will still mean the same thing.
harold aptroot wrote:
they aren't even human,
I would say that should make it very clear what your "point" really is.
-
I might point out that he is not basing his opinion upon a prejudice. Prejudice means to pre-judge before any evidence. The societal behavior of the people he speaks about provides plenty of evidence for him to go by.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
The societal behavior of the people he speaks about provides plenty of evidence for him to go by.
Standard rationalization for probably every prejudicial grouping.
Re-read what I wrote. It's not a prejudice (pre-judgement) if you are going by evidence.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
ou can label it "racist" if you like - I don't really care, it's just that I like calling it what it is, and it ain't racism.
In general usage of how the term is currently used - it is. But as I said you can pick another term if you wish. It will still mean the same thing.
harold aptroot wrote:
they aren't even human,
I would say that should make it very clear what your "point" really is.
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
No he is not a racist (at least on this subject). I understand your sentiments and they are normal for a decent guy from a country with a very little or none Gypsy population. ...
Said by every prejudice person attempting to justify that their personal prejudice is in fact rational even though those of other people are not.
I’ve never said I don’t have prejudice or I’m not biased. Exactly the opposite – I’m very biased on the subject. And I was trying to explain why it’s so using facts and personal experience, not a hollow theory. And I fail to see what is so wrong, that I want a big group of people (who define themselves as a distinct group very aggressively) to start obey the law, be responsible for their children and if it’s possible(this not mandatory) to start taking a shower once in a while and to learn the language of the country in which they are born. If they start doing this I’ll be really, really happy. And I don’t want them to change their way of life, just this few things. And as I said there are gipsys who are honest, hardworking people but neither me nor most of my friends are referring to them as a “gipsy” only because of their skin color. In fact in my language “gipsy” mostly refers to a way of life and value system, rather than a particular race.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Re-read what I wrote. It's not a prejudice (pre-judgement) if you are going by evidence.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
But it's anecdotal. You need a carefully designed scientific study, preferably a double-blind experiment with a control group and everything. What you see every day with your own eyes doesn't count for anything. [/sarcasm]
So I rounded up my camel Just to ask him for a smoke He handed me a Lucky, I said "Hey, you missed the joke." My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
The ones living in the Netherlands are now "Dutch". Meaning they have to pay taxes and go to school. The horror! They also don't get a "get out of jail free" card anymore.
And apparently that is racist. And disrespective of their "culture".
Somewhat like the mob complaining about the govt hindering them in their business.
So how about they f*** off? They're not even a race anyway, just a gang of unwashed traveling criminals who bawww about human rights whenever they're not treated like royalty.Just in case you try and delete the message you racist.
"You get that on the big jobs."
Gypsies aren't a race. How was the OP making a racist statement?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Re-read what I wrote. It's not a prejudice (pre-judgement) if you are going by evidence.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
Re-read what I wrote. It's not a prejudice (pre-judgement) if you are going by evidence.
I read what you said. You didn't read what I said. I suspect that most people with stated prejudices since at least 1950 and probably further back than that have attempted to explain their prejudices by claiming that there is 'evidence' of why their belief is rational. I have certainly seen exactly that sort of argument used to justify prejudice against Hispanics, Blacks, Jews, Homosexuals and even in one case differences between Caribbean islands. (And there are others but I can recall specifics about the cases I mention.) When I have looked at such 'evidence' (which I have done a number of times) I have always found that the stated information is not only prejudiced (predetermined to provide a negative outcome) but is often so blatant that one need not do any more research than to do a cursory reading of the original 'evidence'. Not only that but one need not look far for almost any well known prejudice to find someone who claims that it a rational conclusion. And given that if all of those claims are true it becomes meaningless because then the negative attributes would then be the norm of all humanity.
-
I’ve never said I don’t have prejudice or I’m not biased. Exactly the opposite – I’m very biased on the subject. And I was trying to explain why it’s so using facts and personal experience, not a hollow theory. And I fail to see what is so wrong, that I want a big group of people (who define themselves as a distinct group very aggressively) to start obey the law, be responsible for their children and if it’s possible(this not mandatory) to start taking a shower once in a while and to learn the language of the country in which they are born. If they start doing this I’ll be really, really happy. And I don’t want them to change their way of life, just this few things. And as I said there are gipsys who are honest, hardworking people but neither me nor most of my friends are referring to them as a “gipsy” only because of their skin color. In fact in my language “gipsy” mostly refers to a way of life and value system, rather than a particular race.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I’m very biased on the subject. And I was trying to explain why it’s so using facts
You are trying to rationalize it based on something that you call "facts".
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
not a hollow theory.
A personal opinion is not a theory. I like oatmeal raisin cookies. That isn't a theory. I don't need to prove it with "facts" and there is no way that anyone can provide evidence that would contradict that. On the other hand it would be ridiculous for me to try to prove with "facts" that that cookie is the 'best' cookie. Attempting to do that would be a rationalization on my part.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
And I fail to see what is so wrong, that I want a big group of people (who define themselves as a distinct group very aggressively) to start obey the law, be responsible for their children and if it’s possible(this not mandatory) to start taking a shower once in a while and to learn the language of the country in which they are born.
I see nothing wrong with my desire that 99 out of 100 people should be sterilized at birth so they could never have children. Doing that for between 30 to 100 years would solve a vast number of problems in the world. However I am rather certain that there are quite a few people that would object to my personal preferences.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
If they start doing this I’ll be really, really happy. And I don’t want them to change their way of life, just this few things.
How nice for you that others should change their lives to make you happy. And what are you willing to give up to make others happy? How about this...you agree that you will give those people who change 50% of your income for the rest of your life. I suspect that you could probably get say 5 or maybe even 10 people to change in the way that you want for that extra stipend that you would be giving to them.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
And as I said there are gipsys who are honest, hardworking people but neither me nor most of my friends are referring to them as a “gipsy” only because of their skin color. In fact in my language “gipsy” mostly refers to a way of life and value system, rather than a particular race.
Specious. The term 'racist' in general usage has a broader
-
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
Re-read what I wrote. It's not a prejudice (pre-judgement) if you are going by evidence.
I read what you said. You didn't read what I said. I suspect that most people with stated prejudices since at least 1950 and probably further back than that have attempted to explain their prejudices by claiming that there is 'evidence' of why their belief is rational. I have certainly seen exactly that sort of argument used to justify prejudice against Hispanics, Blacks, Jews, Homosexuals and even in one case differences between Caribbean islands. (And there are others but I can recall specifics about the cases I mention.) When I have looked at such 'evidence' (which I have done a number of times) I have always found that the stated information is not only prejudiced (predetermined to provide a negative outcome) but is often so blatant that one need not do any more research than to do a cursory reading of the original 'evidence'. Not only that but one need not look far for almost any well known prejudice to find someone who claims that it a rational conclusion. And given that if all of those claims are true it becomes meaningless because then the negative attributes would then be the norm of all humanity.
-
Nice one. For a moment there you had me convinced. Extra points for getting into a "no you" argument.
-
Gypsies aren't a race. How was the OP making a racist statement?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Gypsies aren't a race. How was the OP making a racist statement?
There are any number of attributes used to group humans which are used then to denigrate the group and by association individuals in that group. And that has occurred throughout history: Jews, Irish, Japanese, Catholics, Harijans, homosexuals, mentally retarded, etc. In general common usage these days the word "racist" is used to apply to that negative pejorative grouping. If you you have another term which is in the common vernacular and means the same thing I would like to know what it is.
-
But it's anecdotal. You need a carefully designed scientific study, preferably a double-blind experiment with a control group and everything. What you see every day with your own eyes doesn't count for anything. [/sarcasm]
So I rounded up my camel Just to ask him for a smoke He handed me a Lucky, I said "Hey, you missed the joke." My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
GenJerDan wrote:
What you see every day with your own eyes doesn't count for anything.
So true. Because everyone knows that astrology and homeopathy works. Not to mention the curative effects of bear bile, tiger penis and rhinoceros horn. And why are pyramid schemes illegal? Must be a conspiracy to keep poor people from getting rich.
-
Gypsies aren't a race. How was the OP making a racist statement?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997So they speak a different language, they originated from the Indian Subcontinent but that doesn't make them a race of people!? It's always funny and pathetic listening to people justify to themselves that they're not racist. In this case it was just a blatant racist attack on a group of people who are different. So if discriminating against people who are different it's racist. What is racism?
"You get that on the big jobs."
-
So they speak a different language, they originated from the Indian Subcontinent but that doesn't make them a race of people!? It's always funny and pathetic listening to people justify to themselves that they're not racist. In this case it was just a blatant racist attack on a group of people who are different. So if discriminating against people who are different it's racist. What is racism?
"You get that on the big jobs."
Is discriminating against criminals racism?
RobCroll wrote:
It's always funny and pathetic listening to people justify to themselves that they're not racist.
I'm beginning to find it funny that lots of people are just repeating this without ever, you know, backing it up. Shouting loudly and repeatedly that something is racism doesn't make it so.
