Lurker > Yamato_san

No, it was clearly an attempt at discrediting Kyuubi, as if Far-Queue's any more experienced on the matter.

There it is again with the "privilege" nonsense. The whole thing's nothing but shorthand for "your point doesn't count, I win", like a god damn toddler refusing to play fair. Have you ever experienced prejudice? 'Cause it seems like the people who whine about "privilege" are just as ignorant about prejudice, if not more so, than the people they're trying to argue with. Hell, from what I've witnessed, quite a few of these people are "privileged" whites themselves, and people of color, even the lower-classed ones, don't appreciate those people speaking for them.

And it doesn't matter if the issue of underqualified people getting jobs over more skilled people because of their ethnicity isn't overly pervasive. If it happens at all, that's an issue. Not just because the skilled people are being discriminated against, but because we don't want unskilled hires to fail at their jobs. Nobody's arguing "they took our jerbs!", this is a serious issue that could lead to societal collapse if not handled properly. Would you like a surgeon who got in because of Affirmative Action to operate on you? She knows a lot less about the human body than about 10 other potential hires, but it's okay, she's a black lesbian. That makes all the difference.

But Affirmative Action is just a different form of prejudice. As I said, it's just tipping the scales to an opposite end rather than going for a balance. And yes, police need to be better disciplined, but why does it need to be strictly a racial issue? Yes, some individual cops are racist, and they should be condemned for that, but it's not like anybody could know that when hiring them, just like nobody could tell that they're liable to fly off the handle and break the rules in general. Better discipline and stricter punishment for law enforcement does seem to be needed, but to suggest the the entire police force in this country just has it out solely for black people based on a few bad apples (or worse, to suggest that this is the case literally every time a shooting occurs, even the occasions when it is arguably justified against an armed maniac who happens to be black and couldn't be neutralized via non-violent means) is just asinine.

The solution is really simple, I can't believe it even needs to be discussed: just stop focusing on race. Stop making every little thing be about skin color. Ultimately, the only people who continue to make race an issue are the people who whine about it. People are people, that's all that needs to be taught. Not this inane notion that the world is out to get you based on your melanin count. We are all people and we all have our rights, that's it.

RIP_Supa posted...

Yamato_san posted...

RIP_Supa posted...

black people entertain white audiences all the time... just not on places called honky tonk television, cause the president is white again or something

Funny, I seem to recall racial relations being just fine back when every president in history was white. Not that I'd blame Obama for this entirely, especially not for the color of his skin (though his sympathy towards BLM doesn't paint a good picture), but it seems ironic that only after he was elected did racial relations grow to the worst they've been in the three decades I've been alive. Growing up in the '90s, it seemed like the Civil Rights Movement was already something that was said and done a long time ago, but only now do we have people whining that black people are so oppressed despite one managing to climb up to what may be the single most powerful position on the planet and holding it for two terms. BTW, wouldn't your comment have made just as much sense if Hillary were elected?

That took a turn real quick. Can someone help me out here? Does this guy think I liked Obama or something?

Sorry about that. Looking at your post again, I seem to have missed the sarcasm, my bad. I should've paid attention to your username and notice you posting earlier as one of the only pro-Trump voices in this entire thread.

And there you go with the privilege BS. You realize that blatant deflection like that is just grounds for you never to be taken seriously, right? But whatever, I'll play along with you. Systems are already in place. It's unfortunate when the people who are meant to uphold those systems go against them, but aside from punishing such rogue cops, what left is there to do? How many more rights can we give to blacks? Should we cater to their every whim? Should we give them free money that they don't deserve because they think every white person alive today owes it to them? Should we let them off the hook for crimes that they are irrefutably guilty of? Should we allow them to keep white slaves? I'm sorry, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Ultimately, I think the past few years have demonstrated that a good deal of the people shouting for "equality" aren't really asking for "equality" at all, they just want the scales tilted from one (perceived) side to the other, and that makes them the true racists of our society.

GhostGiblet posted...

Well the problem, and the idea behind that last article, is that what it was actually like for MLK (and Rosa Parks) is not taught and so a lot of people use an imaginary idea of MLK's beliefs or tactics as a way to criticize modern day movements. He was considered an 'extremist' and protests/demonstrations similar to what he carried out are being criticized like "Oh MLK would never do something like this, civil rights protests have fallen so far."

I just think if we all were taught more and understood more about the civil rights movement and how it was perceived by the public we would have more context for today's world

Admittedly, I didn't read through all of your links to ridiculously long articles to see exactly what you were getting at. But if you're comparing MLK to BLM and Antifa and crap, I think the difference is that blacks genuinely were being mistreated in MLK's time, people were being discriminated against based on something as irrelevant as skin color. Today's activists don't have a platform to stand on. They come off as nothing but a bunch of crybabies who get set off by the slightest perceived misjustice and blame entire groups of innocent people for it.

ESMWjot posted...

Yamato_san posted...

RIP_Supa posted...

black people entertain white audiences all the time... just not on places called honky tonk television, cause the president is white again or something

Funny, I seem to recall racial relations being just fine back when every president in history was white. Not that I'd blame Obama for this entirely, especially not for the color of his skin (though his sympathy towards BLM doesn't paint a good picture), but it seems ironic that only after he was elected did racial relations grow to the worst they've been in the three decades I've been alive. Growing up in the '90s, it seemed like the Civil Rights Movement was already something that was said and done a long time ago, but only now do we have people whining that black people are so oppressed despite one managing to climb up to what may be the single most powerful position on the planet and holding it for two terms. BTW, wouldn't your comment have made just as much sense if Hillary were elected?

Presidents literally owned slaves.

How is that relevant today? I'm not saying race relations were great in the 19th century. Is your memory so short-term that you forgot that "when every president was white" can apply to a time just a little over 8 years ago?

GhostGiblet posted...

Yamato_san posted...

Growing up in the '90s, it seemed like the Civil Rights Movement was already something that was said and done a long time ago

I actually think this is something that hurts the discussion about race in America, is that it's kind of presented that way in grade school history classes. Like "There was racism until MLK Jr. asked it to go away". In the 90s, that was only 30 years or less after MLK was assassinated (that should say something about the kind of opposition he faced, too) It just doesn't make sense to me to think that that kind of hatred just disappeared in a few decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States#Civil_Rights_Movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

Thought this article was interesting and taught me a bunch of stuff I didn't know, especially about Rosa Parks:
https://theintercept.com/2017/10/08/the-sanitizing-of-martin-luther-king-and-rosa-parks/

So history's been simplified for a majority audience to take in. I think it's the intent that really matters: people of all races have their rights now, don't be a jackass to others based on their skin color. Growing up, I've been taught those simple but very crucial values. What could possibly be wrong with that line of thinking? Yes, racist assholes existed in King's time and were likely responsible for his assassination, racist assholes still exist today. Guess what? King's currently viewed as a martyr while racist assholes are widely looked down upon. I don't see the issue there.

Jen0125 posted...

It seemed that way to...whom? You?

Lmao right?

RCtheWSBC posted...

Ignorance sure is bliss, mirite?

In a pregame interview before a radio broadcast of Monday nights game between the Chicago Bears and Minnesota Vikings, he said, There has been no oppression in the last 100 years that I know of.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/10/10/mike-ditka-on-nfl-protests-no-oppression-in-the-last-100-years-that-i-know-of/

Oh wow, fantastic debating skills, A+ for effort. Seriously though, since when have blacks been genuinely oppressed in recent decades? You can bring up police shootings all you want, but so far as I'm concerned, those are isolated incidents at most (and they happen to be the isolated incidents that the corrupt media most enjoys bringing to the spotlight constantly, despite whites being just as liable to fall victim to police brutality). The entire police force doesn't have it in for blacks, laws are in place to explicitly punish employers who stunt people based on skin color, we had a black man in office, groups such as the KKK have a very negative social stigma to them (among people of ALL political affiliations), blacks have had the same rights as everyone else in this country for the past half a century, anyone calling for reparations over stuff they were never alive for are nothing but selfish and ironically racist crybabies, get over yourselves.

keyblader1985 posted...

I'm sorry; I just couldn't let this line pass.

Yamato_san posted...

Funny, I seem to recall racial relations being just fine back when every president in history was white.

What in the sweet fuck.

Oh, but there's nothing wrong with this apparently.

RIP_Supa posted...

black people entertain white audiences all the time... just not on places called honky tonk television, cause the president is white again or something

'Cause the president's skin color is to blame for the state of entertainment. Never mind the fact that not a single non-white was even in the running this time around.

RIP_Supa posted...

black people entertain white audiences all the time... just not on places called honky tonk television, cause the president is white again or something

Funny, I seem to recall racial relations being just fine back when every president in history was white. Not that I'd blame Obama for this entirely, especially not for the color of his skin (though his sympathy towards BLM doesn't paint a good picture), but it seems ironic that only after he was elected did racial relations grow to the worst they've been in the three decades I've been alive. Growing up in the '90s, it seemed like the Civil Rights Movement was already something that was said and done a long time ago, but only now do we have people whining that black people are so oppressed despite one managing to climb up to what may be the single most powerful position on the planet and holding it for two terms. BTW, wouldn't your comment have made just as much sense if Hillary were elected?

Isn't Donald more popular than Mickey on a global scale? I know in most countries outside the US, he's the more favored Disney character, though the US does have one of the highest populations.

darkknight109 posted...

Also, if you're including Pikachu despite the fact he premiered in non-animated form, you're also opening up the list to characters like Batman, Spiderman, Superman, the X-men, etc. (though I guess my Goku suggestion above would probably get tagged by that too).

How has there been no mention of Mario so far?

I think if you've managed to invest enough to be at least fluent to a certain degree, it'd be a real shame to just stop. Besides, you're letting interactions with just a few people hold you back? I mean, you realize this is a language spoken by tens of millions of people and not everyone acts the same way, right?

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Renraku_San posted...

Mitsubishi sushi karaoke hyundai arigato, sake.

karate anime ninja wasabi?

Carry-oky, korady, Toy-yoda, Nentendo!

GameFAQS 20

I am a native English-speaker, but I do know a second language, so I'll occasionally refer to it as "aki". In regards to English, however, "fall" or "autumn" doesn't really matter, I'll use either one.

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Firewood18 posted...

Ok I overreacted a tiny bit when I made this topic late last night. Not all talking animal movies are bad. I love the muppet movies and there are alot of decent animated movies.

But the ones that truly irk me are the live action voice over animal movies. Homeward Bound, Milo and Otis are just as bad as Air Bud to me.

But Air bud doesn't talk

The TC's probably thinking of all those lame ass sequels.

Animal Farm?

I wish I could say I have, but things really get complicated when you think about it. I mean, if you're talking strictly "series" and not "franchise", I guess it's not hard too pull off. But between so many spin-offs and obscure mobile titles and Japan-only releases and the like, it seems almost impossible to complete a "franchise" unless it's very low-key or strictly a one-off thing (or you've just been following it VERY closely from the beginning). Let's not even get into whether certain ports or regional versions count or not.

But I guess Smash Bros. seems like a safe bet. I wanna say I followed Zelda up to a certain point (missed out on the GBC games and later portable releases), but even then, there was always that damn Game&Watch title (and CD-i, but we could probably discount that for not being official Nintendo releases). Jade Cocoon's a fairly obscure series that should have only two titles to its name, but there was also a Japan-only cellphone game I never had access to. This is a surprisingly difficult question to answer if you really, really stop to think about it.