U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-18-2011, 10:20 PM
 
Location: Alabama
1,068 posts, read 1,514,036 times
Reputation: 934

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
Yes, when southerners tend to think that "Mountain Dew is the best drink ever made."

Most people drink enormous amounts of Mountain Dew in the South, particularly Tennessee, Kentucky, and southern Indiana.
Since when was Indiana considered a southern state?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-18-2011, 10:29 PM
 
154 posts, read 342,657 times
Reputation: 196
Wow, looks like you bought in to the stereotype thing, while being so afraid of it.

Homosexuality=most people will not agree with, but are not going to agree with killing or beating gays either....they just will not support marriage.

Jews= are generally loved, because as you should know..the south is the bible belt and their beloved Jesus was a Jew....which are the chosen people.

Blacks= most do not have a problem with skin color anymore unless they are a-holes over 60, they do however have a problem with rude or pushy people who would want to use the race card....so you can guess where that goes as far as favoring black american culture.

Muslims= considering many southerners if not military families are more supportive of our military..I would say yes they have a problem with muslims....what sober minded country would not, unless they were drowning in ignorant politcal correctness?....OH wait,....ummmm....yeh well anyways, moving along


minorities= southerners are not the racist you would imagine, but going back to the "all american attitude" they are going to have a problem with fence hoppers and illegals soaking up their very hard earned dollars.

In general, keep in mind the south has a culture of extremism! Whether it is with food, anger, politics or religion they are not fence riders. There is a lovely side to that and there is not a lovely side to that. Besides the weight problems from over loving fried food, the extreme religion and the lack of importance people put on education....I would say the south is the only place left with common sense people who support the basic beliefs that started this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 06:45 AM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,581,022 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna777 View Post
Wow, looks like you bought in to the stereotype thing, while being so afraid of it.

Homosexuality=most people will not agree with, but are not going to agree with killing or beating gays either....they just will not support marriage.
True.

Quote:
Jews= are generally loved, because as you should know..the south is the bible belt and their beloved Jesus was a Jew....which are the chosen people.
Jesus was not a Jew but an Israelite, a descendant of the 12 Tribes in the line of Jacob. He was of Judea in the region of Galilee. The term Jew did not even exist during the time of Christ. Thus, the Jews were not chosen, nor are they today. The Israelites were chosen to be the people of whom the Messiah would be born into. That's it. The sacrifice of Jesus began a New Covenant that did away with the Old Covenant. Those in Christ are now chosen. It clearly states this in many areas of the New Testament.

Quote:
Blacks= most do not have a problem with skin color anymore unless they are a-holes over 60, they do however have a problem with rude or pushy people who would want to use the race card....so you can guess where that goes as far as favoring black american culture.
Most people worldwide are most comfortable around their own people and prefer to live around their own group. Most also don't desire to see their communities become inundated with racial groups different from their own. This is a condition of mankind, and nothing is wrong with it. By the way, race is much more than skin color. It relates to skull shape, hair texture, nose shape, different propensities to disease, as well as crime, and differences in intelligence and many other factors. I also don't like the way you try to paint older adults in a negative light.

Quote:
Muslims= considering many southerners if not military families are more supportive of our military..I would say yes they have a problem with muslims....what sober minded country would not, unless they were drowning in ignorant politcal correctness?....OH wait,....ummmm....yeh well anyways, moving along
While there are many radical elements to Islam, as written in the Quran, many of the attacks on U.S. facilities and personnel in the middle east have to do with the fact that the U.S. government has foregone the founder's warnings not to spread themselves too far. In essence, the U.S. has sent military into other people's lands, to dictate to them how they are supposed to run their own country. Do you why some people might not like that? Coupled with Islamic passages about the enemy being those who do not follow Islam, and you can see that you're opening yourself up to attack. The truth of the matter, however, is that those wars in the middle east don't benefit the typical American or the U.S., for that matter, but rather Israel.

Many Americans have lofty reasons for supporting the military, as the military is a good thing to have, and the men fighting for our country are sacrificing their lives. However, most of the goals of the military in this day and time are not reasonable, nor moral.


Quote:
minorities= southerners are not the racist you would imagine, but going back to the "all american attitude" they are going to have a problem with fence hoppers and illegals soaking up their very hard earned dollars.
Deep down, over ninety-five percent of all people, world-wide, are not going to want people of different racial groups replacing their own as the identifiable group of their country. It's not wrong, it's a protectionist mindset. Most really could care less whether they are legal or illegal, as the same damage to the country's social, cultural, and racial status occurs. That said, illegal invasions are law-breaking activities and shouldn't be condoned.

Quote:
In general, keep in mind the south has a culture of extremism! Whether it is with food, anger, politics or religion they are not fence riders.
Paleo-conservatism is not extremism, but rather appears that way to people who wish to tear down everything that makes America, America. In essence, the opposition to an extremist appears extremist, for you're dealing with two diabolically opposed ends of the spectrum. Most of the media is that opposition to the people, particularly those people in the South.

Quote:
There is a lovely side to that and there is not a lovely side to that. Besides the weight problems from over loving fried food, the extreme religion and the lack of importance people put on education....I would say the south is the only place left with common sense people who support the basic beliefs that started this country.
I'll agree that the South is a little more obese than other regions, but those other regions are catching up. There is nothing extreme with following Jesus Christ. I don't know of many people who would say that education is not important.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
302 posts, read 546,330 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
I've lived in the south my entire life, and I would say that some of the stereotypes are plenty true, but nothing is 100% of course. I see perfect examples of true, southern rednecks every single day, but it's not like those are the only kid of people I see. I know super religious, conservative people who hate homosexuals and evolution, but I also know liberal, gay atheists (well, a couple anyway). I've known southerners who absolutely despised anyone who wasn't white, and I've know others who were the least racist people you could imagine.

That being said, most of the southerners I know (and since I've lived here so long I know many) are very religious, very conservative, and very anti-science (at least when it contradicts their religion). And I know a few people who are blatantly racist and proud of it. I know a lot of people who are somewhat racist but don't realize it, which could probably include almost everyone in the country, myself included. Many are nice to your face, but will say bad things about you after you walk out of the room. Others would never do that and are nice all the time, and others still are just plain jerks all the time. Yes, I hear country music all the time, but I hear just as much rap and a lot of classic rock. Not much jazz, though.

I'd say if you took a small town in the south, and held it up next to a small town in much of the rest of the country, they wouldn't look that much different. The weather might be a little different, and the accents of course, but I bet you'd see MUCH bigger differences between, say, Cleveland, TN and Atlanta, GA. The last big trip I took was to the Seattle area last November, and it was indeed like a completely different world to me. But I went through some smaller towns as well and to be honest, in a lot of ways they could just as well have been small towns in Tennessee, except they had buses and passenger trains. And I wasn't sweating.
From Someone who also comes from the South, good post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,514,551 times
Reputation: 4055
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Yeah, it's just outrageous to ask for specific examples when charging others with racism, isn't it?
No. You're the one who's in the wrong. Without knowing the situation or giving the poster an opportunity to respond to your initial question:

Quote:
What specific examples of "racism" have you experienced, or witnessed?
You charge them with being the problem:

Quote:
Ever consider that maybe your attitude is the real source of the problem...?
You had no idea what that poster had experienced, yet saw it fit to chastise them for claiming they had experienced racism. Your response was totally out of line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 12:16 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,123,607 times
Reputation: 5742
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
No. You're the one who's in the wrong. Without knowing the situation or giving the poster an opportunity to respond to your initial question:
Uhhhh, not that I have to explain anything to you -- since it probably wouldn't do much good, anyway -- did I not ask the poster for specific examples?

Quote:
You charge them with being the problem:
Where did I do that? Where did I "charge" anyone with being the problem? I merely asked the poster to consider that it is their attitude that might be the problem. Because yes, in many cases, it has been my experience that those who find "racism" everywhere just go around looking for it everywhere. And in this particular instance, the poster did not bother to give any examples at all of what they had experienced (or claimed to have experienced). There is a difference here than with "charging" someone with something. Not my problem if you don't recognize some of the obvious here...

Quote:
You had no idea what that poster had experienced, yet saw it fit to chastise them for claiming they had experienced racism.
That's right, I don't. That is why I asked for a more detailed explanation...which has yet to be forthcoming.

Quote:
Your response was totally out of line.
Sorry if I am not particularly over-awed nor humbled with your assertion I was out of line. In that case, I will repeat my earlier response so you can tell me I was out of line twice. Meanwhile, I nominate your own response as one of the most clueless of the year...

Last edited by TexasReb; 07-19-2011 at 12:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,514,551 times
Reputation: 4055
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Uhhhh, not that I have to explain anything to you -- since it probably wouldn't do much good, anyway --
Who asked you to explain anything? I was simply commenting on what I perceived to be an inappropriate way to "ask a question".

Quote:
did I not ask the poster for specific examples?
Yes, right before you suggested it could be the person's fault for having something racist said to them.

Quote:
Where did I do that? Where did I "charge" anyone with being the problem? I merely asked the poster to consider that it is their attitude that might be the problem.
If a woman tells you she's been sexually harassed at work, do you respond with "Ever consider that maybe your wardrobe is the real source of the problem...?". I would hope not. Usually when you ask a question, you wait for a response before suggesting reasons as to why it happened.

Quote:
Because yes, in many cases, it has been my experience that those who find "racism" everywhere just go around looking for it everywhere.
The person said they had experienced racism in Alabama. That's neither shocking, nor "everywhere".

Quote:
And in this particular instance, the poster did not bother to give any examples at all of what they had experienced (or claimed to have experienced). There is a difference here than with "charging" someone with something. Not my problem if you don't recognize some of the obvious here...
There's directly charging someone ("you went looking for trouble!"), and there's the indrect way of charging someone ("perhaps you went looking for trouble?"). Whether or not you're willing to admit it, you were saying the same thing.

Quote:
Sorry if I am not particularly over-awed nor humbled with your assertion I was out of line.
Who asked you to be?

Quote:
In that case, I will repeat my earlier response so you can tell me I was out of line twice.
Huh?

Quote:
Meanwhile, I nominate your own response as one of the most clueless of the year...
Why? Because I called you out?

Ever consider that maybe your phrasing is the real source of the problem...?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 02:56 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,123,607 times
Reputation: 5742
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
Who asked you to explain anything? I was simply commenting on what I perceived to be an inappropriate way to "ask a question".
And I asked in turn what was inappropriate about it? Could it be perhaps you instinctively sympathize with someone who charges "racism" without providing examples of why they feel that way...?

Quote:
Yes, right before you suggested it could be the person's fault for having something racist said to them.
See above. So are you suggesting that anyone charging racism -- especially when it seemingly applies to an entire state and, arguably, the part of the country (in this case, Alabama and the South) -- should just have their word accepted as gospel? Even though the poster in question backs it up with nothing, and does not even have a semblence of a profile on line to at least provide some credibility, this same poster has a history of posting "woe is me" type things. Don't take my word for it, anyone can look it up. So how do you know that any of what was said is actually true?

Quote:
If a woman tells you she's been sexually harassed at work, do you respond with "Ever consider that maybe your wardrobe is the real source of the problem...?". I would hope not. Usually when you ask a question, you wait for a response before suggesting reasons as to why it happened.
For one thing, this is a non-sequituer, as we are talking real life complaints as opposed to on-line allegations where anyone can say anything. Regardless though, if a woman alleges "sexual harrasment" or someone hollers "racism" in the former instance (i.e. real life), then not only will they be known as to their own history, but be expected to present concrete examples of what they charge. Then it can be judged and/or evaluated on the merits and validity of the charges, right? And, yes, on the person's past history in many regards.

Surely you are not naive enough to suggest that there are not some who do not scream "sexual harrasment" at the drop of a hat -- perhaps because it might garner money or sympathy -- because some guy told them they looked nice when their cleavage is there for the world to see and they know it. Or, because they overheard some joke that they were not privy to, anyway. C'mon.

Likewise, there are some who will claim they were the victim of "racism" because someone of another race/ethnic group turned them down for a date. And really, in looking over the posters past, that almost appears to be the case on some levels. Like I say, see for yourself (as can anyone else).

Quote:
The person said they had experienced racism in Alabama. That's neither shocking, nor "everywhere".
Then why haven't specifics been provided? And I am not sure what you mean by "nor everywhere". Can YOU be more specific in this regard?

Quote:
There's directly charging someone ("you went looking for trouble!"), and there's the indrect way of charging someone ("perhaps you went looking for trouble?"). Whether or not you're willing to admit it, you were saying the same thing.
LMAO Willing to admit what? You need to get over this idea you are a prosecuting attorney and I am on a witness stand. It don't work that way, at least not with me. I said what I said. If someone charges "racism" then back it up with personal examples and let the chips falls where they may. And if such an outrageous request (said ironically) means charging someone with "Mopery with Intent to Gurk", then so be it.

Quote:
Why? Because I called you out?
No...because your "calling me out" lacked any substance to it.

Quote:
Ever consider that maybe your phrasing is the real source of the problem...?
Yeah, I considered that. Then decided no. Anyway, I am content to let others on this thread make their own judgements as to which of us made the better case. Fair?

Last edited by TexasReb; 07-19-2011 at 04:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 03:09 PM
 
1,806 posts, read 3,381,390 times
Reputation: 876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
True.



Jesus was not a Jew but an Israelite, a descendant of the 12 Tribes in the line of Jacob. He was of Judea in the region of Galilee. The term Jew did not even exist during the time of Christ. Thus, the Jews were not chosen, nor are they today. The Israelites were chosen to be the people of whom the Messiah would be born into. That's it. The sacrifice of Jesus began a New Covenant that did away with the Old Covenant. Those in Christ are now chosen. It clearly states this in many areas of the New Testament.



Most people worldwide are most comfortable around their own people and prefer to live around their own group. Most also don't desire to see their communities become inundated with racial groups different from their own. This is a condition of mankind, and nothing is wrong with it. By the way, race is much more than skin color. It relates to skull shape, hair texture, nose shape, different propensities to disease, as well as crime, and differences in intelligence and many other factors. I also don't like the way you try to paint older adults in a negative light.



While there are many radical elements to Islam, as written in the Quran, many of the attacks on U.S. facilities and personnel in the middle east have to do with the fact that the U.S. government has foregone the founder's warnings not to spread themselves too far. In essence, the U.S. has sent military into other people's lands, to dictate to them how they are supposed to run their own country. Do you why some people might not like that? Coupled with Islamic passages about the enemy being those who do not follow Islam, and you can see that you're opening yourself up to attack. The truth of the matter, however, is that those wars in the middle east don't benefit the typical American or the U.S., for that matter, but rather Israel.

Many Americans have lofty reasons for supporting the military, as the military is a good thing to have, and the men fighting for our country are sacrificing their lives. However, most of the goals of the military in this day and time are not reasonable, nor moral.




Deep down, over ninety-five percent of all people, world-wide, are not going to want people of different racial groups replacing their own as the identifiable group of their country. It's not wrong, it's a protectionist mindset. Most really could care less whether they are legal or illegal, as the same damage to the country's social, cultural, and racial status occurs. That said, illegal invasions are law-breaking activities and shouldn't be condoned.



Paleo-conservatism is not extremism, but rather appears that way to people who wish to tear down everything that makes America, America. In essence, the opposition to an extremist appears extremist, for you're dealing with two diabolically opposed ends of the spectrum. Most of the media is that opposition to the people, particularly those people in the South.



I'll agree that the South is a little more obese than other regions, but those other regions are catching up. There is nothing extreme with following Jesus Christ. I don't know of many people who would say that education is not important.
What makes America then??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,514,551 times
Reputation: 4055
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
And I asked in turn what was inappropriate about it? Could it be perhaps you instinctively sympathize with someone who charges "racism" without providing examples of why they feel that way...?
I think I clearly said what I thought was inappropriate about it.

I don't instantly sympathize with people who charge racism...in fact I'm almost positive whomever made the post you quoted was probably a troll account. I just speak up when I believe others say things which are uncalled for. Just because one person is saying somethign wrong doesn't give you the right to do the same. I try to be even-handed, and will defend places that I'm not necessarily crazy about. I'm pretty luke-warm on Atlanta but have defended it numerous times against what I would consider unfair criticism....

...and to be perfectly honest, I just like to be contrarian sometimes.


Quote:
Then why haven't specifics been provided? And I am not sure what you mean by "nor everywhere". Can YOU be more specific in this regard?
I'm pairing these two because I think my response to the below quote will answer the quote from above (at least in terms of where "everywhere" is).

Quote:
See above. So are you suggesting that anyone charging racism -- especially when it seemingly applies to an entire state and, arguably, the part of the country (in this case, Alabama and the South) -- should just have their word accepted as gospel?
Definitely not. But I don't think they should instantly have their claim be put into question either. From what I saw, he was simply talking about Alabama, and not the entire south (which for this thread I would consider "everywhere"). Maybe he/she should have gone into more detail as to the exact location in Alabama, but whatever.

Quote:
Even though the poster in question backs it up with nothing, and does not even have a semblence of a profile on line to at least provide some credibility, this same poster has a history of posting "woe is me" type things. Don't take my word for it, anyone can look it up. So how do you know that any of what was said is actually true?
I don't. In fact what he said probably wasn't true. Like you said he didn't back up his claim. I think reasonable people who read a statement on the internet don't see support for the claim, they won't put much stock into it. Same goes for a small number of posts, no profile, etc...on the other hand, you can probably make a few claims without backing them up because you've got a full profile, and 6,000+ posts. However at the same time you're going to be held to a higher standard.

Quote:
For one thing, this is a non-sequituer, as we are talking real life complaints as opposed to on-line allegations where anyone can say anything. Regardless though, if a woman alleges "sexual harrasment" or someone hollers "racism" in the former instance (i.e. real life), then not only will they be known as to their own history, but be expected to present concrete examples of what they charge. Then it can be judged and/or evaluated on the merits and validity of the charges, right? And, yes, on the person's past history in many regards.

Surely you are not naive enough to suggest that there are not some who do not scream "sexual harrasment" at the drop of a hat -- perhaps because it might garner money or sympathy -- because some guy told them they looked nice when their cleavage is there for the world to see and they know it. Or, because they overheard some joke that they were not privy to, anyway. C'mon.
Oh I totally agree with what you're saying. There are tons of people who will do things like that to just take advantage of the system. However if you're going to ask a question, at least let the person answer it.

Quote:
LMAO Willing to admit what? You need to get over this idea you are a prosecuting attorney and I am on a witness stand. It don't work that way, at least not with me. I said what I said.
I think you're looking at this in a much grander light than I am. I am not imagining we're in a court room while we're typing back and forth. I'm fully aware I'm sitting at work, killing time.

Quote:
If someone charges "racism" then back it up with personal examples and let the chips falls where they may.
As I said before, I totally agree.

Quote:
No...because your "calling me out" lacked any substance to it.
Well I disagree...

Quote:
Yeah, I considered that. Then decided no. Anyway, I am content to let others on this thread make their own judgements as to which of us made the better case. Fair?
...so I'll agree with this.

I will admit I was a lot less "outraged" than I made myself out to be with my post...however I still think it was wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top