paintedlady said:

purplemonster04 said:

I'm sorry if I repeated what's already been said, I didn't read every post.

I was just trying to say, why would you get angry at someone who didn't know that whatever they did, or said, was offensive? That's not very fair.

I feel silly for posting on this thread anyway, the picture's gone, and no one gives shit about my opinion.

If I see something that makes me feel awful... why and who posted it doesn't matter.

It matters how that image bothers me. If and image is offensive to me and causes me pain I don't want to see it. I don't want people to post it. I don't want to go somewhere and see it posted.

I don't want to see that shit period. So please remove it thanks. Its a mixed community, the org. is not a white's only black people deal with it and shut the fuck up community.

So intent doesn't matter. Respect matters. Anything disrespectful should be removed because its mixed company. Period.

I can't come in here posting shit that offends people that are different than me... regardless if I know better or not. My ass would get snipped and warned and even banned.

Dave gets no pass... he is no dummy. He can keep that shit in his livingroom.

There have been posted many pictures of woman and female orgers here that I found degrading towards women.

I have stretched the discussion about women's portray of sexuality many times here. And will continue to do so, because it's an issue that bothers me.

However, in your way of reasoning, in stead of discussing it, I should have got the orgers banned and censored. Because they confronted me with something I thought was offensive. Because I’m a woman and don’t like women as a group to be degraded by men. And therefore it should be removed. Because I consider it to be disrespectful. Period.

I prefer not to censor other people. I prefer discussing and talking about it. Without getting rude or using any form of power, like censorship.

If you have time, please watch this episode of South Park. I think it's very funny and nails it.

http://www.southparkstudi...-tolerance

davetherave6767 said:

[Snip - luv4u]

luv4u,

I would really apreciate it if you would explain or argument to remove Dave's child picture and why he got banned for it.

The discussion here has been polite and reasonable. I really think we all would profit if we will know why you decided to snip the picture and ban Dave for it.

Steadwood said:

This has got to be the longest photowhore thread with the fewest photos

Poor lad.

Now that Dave finally has found out how to post pics, he posts the wrong childhood pic.

And all of us are scared now to post childhood pics. Especially from the Dutch national favorite childhood tradition Sinterklaas!

JustErin said:

Oh no....

A friend of mine just posted this pic on facebook. What a coincidence.

you know you should get banned for posting that pic, don't you?

starkitty said:

and the only reason those "culture not a costume" ads won't work is because the dumbass white people who want to dress up like stereotypes don't give a shit about non-white feelings.

Do you want to sencor all white people their dressing style and freedom of speech because of the meaning you attach to it, eventhough that meaning differs from the intention of the white person?

It doesn't. And get the chip off your shoulder.

starkitty said:

It doesn't. And get the chip off your shoulder.

What does that mean?

dJJ said:

you know you should get banned for posting that pic, don't you?

^ chip

I googled the "chip on your shoulder" meaning.

And I'm confused now.

THe chip is placed on a shoulder, in order to provoke the other to start a fight when getting the chip of.

Imo removing a childhoodpic of a child dressed as a Zulu warrior for halloween and banning the poster is the chip.

Now you want to stop me from discussing that issue and questioning that kind of censorship?

Wow.

I didn't see that one coming.

dJJ said:

davetherave6767 said:

[Snip - luv4u]

luv4u,

I would really apreciate it if you would explain or argument to remove Dave's child picture and why he got banned for it.

The discussion here has been polite and reasonable. I really think we all would profit if we will know why you decided to snip the picture and ban Dave for it.

The post got reported. I reviewed it as it indeed was a black face pic. Those have never been allowed on the org because they have been deemed as a racist.

dJJ said:

Steadwood said:

This has got to be the longest photowhore thread with the fewest photos

Poor lad.

Now that Dave finally has found out how to post pics, he posts the wrong childhood pic.

And all of us are scared now to post childhood pics. Especially from the Dutch national favorite childhood tradition Sinterklaas!

Now you have opened another box of Worms

dJJ said:

I googled the "chip on your shoulder" meaning.

And I'm confused now.

THe chip is placed on a shoulder, in order to provoke the other to start a fight when getting the chip of.

Imo removing a childhoodpic of a child dressed as a Zulu warrior for halloween and banning the poster is the chip.

Now you want to stop me from discussing that issue and questioning that kind of censorship?

Wow.

I didn't see that one coming.

lol Chip on your Shoulder is an old saying, it means "A perceived grievance or sense of inferiority"

Basically someone who whinges or whines a lot about something in particular.

dJJ said:

JustErin said:

Oh no....

A friend of mine just posted this pic on facebook. What a coincidence.

you know you should get banned for posting that pic, don't you?

I wasn't actually going to say anything, but seeing as there is a level of Hypocrisy going on here in this Thread:

I must admit that I personally do find anyone that dresses up as an Indigenous American, is being racially offensive, moreso when that person comes from the same Nation(s) as the one that wiped these People off the face of the Earth, Murdered Men, Women and Children, Raped the Women, Burned down their Homes, Starved them etc etc etc

And yes it does actually offend me, Yes I am White but that is irrelavent.

No I am not demanding the PIcture being removed, as I am making a point that the Site is being a little Hypocritical with its Moderation, Rule 1. You cannot post Pictures of White people dressed as Black people as its Racist

Sub Rule a) This does not apply to any other Colour ONLY Black.

Sorry Mods, but that in itself is wrong Rules for one and not the other are Discriminatory - Regardless of the reasons behind it.

At a Mary Kay convention in Philly this past weekend.

[img:$uid]http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/376494_292883974062889_100000238660293_1195731_1499422818_n.jpg[/img:$uid]

Wait. So were not actually photowhoring in this thread??

I really need to start reading shit before I post.

dJJ said:

JustErin said:

Oh no....

A friend of mine just posted this pic on facebook. What a coincidence.

you know you should get banned for posting that pic, don't you?

No, this is not the same.

If white people were historically treated like animals and cattle, and their great warriors were treated like boogey men and children's costumes of those great warriors were a mockery of that race of people....

and you could capture that in an image...that reminds white people of the mockery of how little those great warriors were thought of....

then you would have the same singificance in the picture like Davetherave's simple childhood image captured.

Zulu men costume=imitate an animalistic savage... not another person.

I don't think these ladies were acting like wild animals or savages, grunting and growling and sounding like gorillas.

So its not the same. Doesn't have the same effect IMHO.

A picture of a white man dressed as Obama wouldn't offend me one bit (brown faced and all)... because its a person dressed as another person. Tastefully done.

Davetherave's image was more provacative and something that made you look at him sideways.

Got it? No? Well... then, remember this...

there is an orger here, who posted a picture of her legs in her avartar, and she was promptly banned.

Are legs offensive? It depends on the image. Intent didn't matter then and it doesn't matter now.

And for those ignorant people who think this is merely an "American" issue...

Any place African slaves were shipped to blackface in different forms were "celebrated".

Black face is in any nation slaves were sent as a conditioning process to make whites not feel bad about keeping black people as cattle. It was simply "good business" to do so.

This blackface shit led to many cultures being color struck... which they STILL are today.

Which leads me to the South American and Carribean countries... almost the entire western heme-sphere is effected by this black-face sambo mentality (except for Canada) and that's lots of people... so this is not a American issue and 'mintrel' only scratches the surface.

Images can provoke anger/pain/joy...etc. No one here should decide for anyone how they should or shouldn't react to an image so steeped in an ugly history. Not just American history either.

I am American but I am not African American, so you people thinking it is just one segment of Americans need to add that in your calculations when telling anypeople to "get over it".

Fuck... even Indian people have 4 tiers of people... dark skinned being the least respected/desired. Its everywhere.

TotalANXiousNESS said:

At a Mary Kay convention in Philly this past weekend.

[img:$uid]http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/376494_292883974062889_100000238660293_1195731_1499422818_n.jpg[/img:$uid]

OMG !!! The woman to the bottom right is a spitting image of a Woman I work with !!! DOPPLEGANGER !!!!!!!

paintedlady said:

dJJ said:

you know you should get banned for posting that pic, don't you?

No, this is not the same.

If white people were historically treated like animals and cattle, and their great warriors were treated like boogey men and children's costumes of those great warriors were a mockery of that race of people....

and you could capture that in an image...that reminds white people of the mockery of how little those great warriors were thought of....

then you would have the same singificance in the picture like Davetherave's simple childhood image captured.

Zulu men costume=imitate an animalistic savage... not another person.

I don't think these ladies were acting like wild animals or savages, grunting and growling and sounding like gorillas.

So its not the same. Doesn't have the same effect IMHO.

A picture of a white man dressed as Obama wouldn't offend me one bit (brown faced and all)... because its a person dressed as another person. Tastefully done.

Davetherave's image was more provacative and something that made you look at him sideways.

Got it? No? Well... then, remember this...

there is an orger here, who posted a picture of her legs in her avartar, and she was promptly banned.

Are legs offensive? It depends on the image. Intent didn't matter then and it doesn't matter now.

And for those ignorant people who think this is merely an "American" issue...

Any place African slaves were shipped to blackface in different forms were "celebrated".

Black face is in any nation slaves were sent as a conditioning process to make whites not feel bad about keeping black people as cattle. It was simply "good business" to do so.

This blackface shit led to many cultures being color struck... which they STILL are today.

Which leads me to the South American and Carribean countries... almost the entire western heme-sphere is effected by this black-face sambo mentality (except for Canada) and that's lots of people... so this is not a American issue and 'mintrel' only scratches the surface.

Images can provoke anger/pain/joy...etc. No one here should decide for anyone how they should or shouldn't react to an image so steeped in an ugly history. Not just American history either.

I am American but I am not African American, so you people thinking it is just one segment of Americans need to add that in your calculations when telling anypeople to "get over it".

Fuck... even Indian people have 4 tiers of people... dark skinned being the least respected/desired. Its everywhere.

Wasnt there cooch in that shot?

paintedlady said:

dJJ said:

you know you should get banned for posting that pic, don't you?

then you would have the same singificance in the picture like Davetherave's simple childhood image captured.

Zulu men costume=imitate an animalistic savage... not another person.

I don't think these ladies were acting like wild animals or savages, grunting and growling and sounding like gorillas.

So was Dave dancing around and grunting like a Wild animal? (I didn't see the Picture as it was snipped before I got here lol)

I just found it odd how you used this term btw

"grunting and growling and sounding like gorillas"

Considering that this kind of behaviour was used as a detrimental image to Coloured People (I cannot post what I am trying to explain due to offensiveness but I am sure most people will know what I mean).

I dont fully agree with you btw as simply put, If I posted a Picture of me here wearing that Red Leather Suit Eddy Murphy once wore, with my Face painted Black and both my Thumbs up whilst smiling a big cheesy grin, the Photo would still be deemed offensive, but you are trying to differentiate the two. You are trying to say that any image of a White person wearing a Black face is totally unacceptable, but because the two girls look cute it is ok. This is simply not so.

Therefore without doubt the Picture of the Two women dressed as an Indigenous American and a Japanese woman are therefore offensive to those races. There can be no argument - If mockery (in these cases mentioned "Dressing up as") are offensive, then the rule applies to ALL not any specific one, as I have ssaid repeatedly, it cannot work one way simply through choice.

paintedlady said:

dJJ said:

you know you should get banned for posting that pic, don't you?

No, this is not the same.

If white people were historically treated like animals and cattle, and their great warriors were treated like boogey men and children's costumes of those great warriors were a mockery of that race of people....

and you could capture that in an image...that reminds white people of the mockery of how little those great warriors were thought of....

then you would have the same singificance in the picture like Davetherave's simple childhood image captured.

Zulu men costume=imitate an animalistic savage... not another person.

I don't think these ladies were acting like wild animals or savages, grunting and growling and sounding like gorillas.

So its not the same. Doesn't have the same effect IMHO.

A picture of a white man dressed as Obama wouldn't offend me one bit (brown faced and all)... because its a person dressed as another person. Tastefully done.

Davetherave's image was more provacative and something that made you look at him sideways.

Got it? No? Well... then, remember this...

there is an orger here, who posted a picture of her legs in her avartar, and she was promptly banned.

Are legs offensive? It depends on the image. Intent didn't matter then and it doesn't matter now.

And for those ignorant people who think this is merely an "American" issue...

Any place African slaves were shipped to blackface in different forms were "celebrated".

Black face is in any nation slaves were sent as a conditioning process to make whites not feel bad about keeping black people as cattle. It was simply "good business" to do so.

This blackface shit led to many cultures being color struck... which they STILL are today.

Which leads me to the South American and Carribean countries... almost the entire western heme-sphere is effected by this black-face sambo mentality (except for Canada) and that's lots of people... so this is not a American issue and 'mintrel' only scratches the surface.

Images can provoke anger/pain/joy...etc. No one here should decide for anyone how they should or shouldn't react to an image so steeped in an ugly history. Not just American history either.

I am American but I am not African American, so you people thinking it is just one segment of Americans need to add that in your calculations when telling anypeople to "get over it".

Fuck... even Indian people have 4 tiers of people... dark skinned being the least respected/desired. Its everywhere.

You just may be the biggest blowhard in this forum!You open your mouth and spew nonesense

at seemingly every turn and it is high time you were called on it.

You have no dog in this fight and yet you constantly rattle your gums,talking as if you are the victim of some underhanded scheme of "white people".Get off of your soapbox,lady.

I have read your comments in plenty of other threads here as well ,accusing "white people" of all kinds of absurd things in which you have no basis in fact.You are a race baiter of the highest order.

Don't act all friendly with Dave here and then throw the guy under the bus the 1st chance you get while he is banned and not able to represent himself.

You behave like a rat.

here is some cheese for you to nibble on...perhaps it will help keep your big mouth shut regarding topics that do not pertain to you.

luv4u said:

dJJ said:

luv4u,

I would really apreciate it if you would explain or argument to remove Dave's child picture and why he got banned for it.

The discussion here has been polite and reasonable. I really think we all would profit if we will know why you decided to snip the picture and ban Dave for it.

The post got reported. I reviewed it as it indeed was a black face pic. Those have never been allowed on the org because they have been deemed as a racist.

Thank you very much for your respons. I love clarity. And you are very clear about it.

It's policy. I do understand it.

And like the discussion about it. It did got me thinking about it and actually be more considerate about the case. On the other hand, I also think it's a very greay area. Not black or white at all. Pun intended.

TotalANXiousNESS said:

Wait. So were not actually photowhoring in this thread??

I really need to start reading shit before I post.

mask said:

paintedlady said:

No, this is not the same.

If white people were historically treated like animals and cattle, and their great warriors were treated like boogey men and children's costumes of those great warriors were a mockery of that race of people....

and you could capture that in an image...that reminds white people of the mockery of how little those great warriors were thought of....

then you would have the same singificance in the picture like Davetherave's simple childhood image captured.

Zulu men costume=imitate an animalistic savage... not another person.

I don't think these ladies were acting like wild animals or savages, grunting and growling and sounding like gorillas.

So its not the same. Doesn't have the same effect IMHO.

A picture of a white man dressed as Obama wouldn't offend me one bit (brown faced and all)... because its a person dressed as another person. Tastefully done.

Davetherave's image was more provacative and something that made you look at him sideways.

Got it? No? Well... then, remember this...

there is an orger here, who posted a picture of her legs in her avartar, and she was promptly banned.

Are legs offensive? It depends on the image. Intent didn't matter then and it doesn't matter now.

And for those ignorant people who think this is merely an "American" issue...

Any place African slaves were shipped to blackface in different forms were "celebrated".

Black face is in any nation slaves were sent as a conditioning process to make whites not feel bad about keeping black people as cattle. It was simply "good business" to do so.

This blackface shit led to many cultures being color struck... which they STILL are today.

Which leads me to the South American and Carribean countries... almost the entire western heme-sphere is effected by this black-face sambo mentality (except for Canada) and that's lots of people... so this is not a American issue and 'mintrel' only scratches the surface.

Images can provoke anger/pain/joy...etc. No one here should decide for anyone how they should or shouldn't react to an image so steeped in an ugly history. Not just American history either.

I am American but I am not African American, so you people thinking it is just one segment of Americans need to add that in your calculations when telling anypeople to "get over it".

Fuck... even Indian people have 4 tiers of people... dark skinned being the least respected/desired. Its everywhere.

You just may be the biggest blowhard in this forum!You open your mouth and spew nonesense

at seemingly every turn and it is high time you were called on it.

You have no dog in this fight and yet you constantly rattle your gums,talking as if you are the victim of some underhanded scheme of "white people".Get off of your soapbox,lady.

I have read your comments in plenty of other threads here as well ,accusing "white people" of all kinds of absurd things in which you have no basis in fact.You are a race baiter of the highest order.

Don't act all friendly with Dave here and then throw the guy under the bus the 1st chance you get while he is banned and not able to represent himself.

You behave like a rat.

here is some cheese for you to nibble on...perhaps it will help keep your big mouth shut regarding topics that do not pertain to you.

Paintedlady ventilates her opinion, as she has every right to do. She is not disrespectful nor personally attacking anybody.

The whole discussion has been interesting, especially because people actually were taking eachothers responses into account and responding to the content.

You'r contribution is pretty deviant, you are disrespectful and personally attacking Paintedlady. That doesn't serve your case very well.

I for example can't take anything you say here seriously because of the tone of your response.

TotalANXiousNESS said:

Wait. So were not actually photowhoring in this thread??

I really need to start reading shit before I post.

It's a lovely pic. Very racially mixed.

It's exactly what this thread needed!

dJJ said:

mask said:

You just may be the biggest blowhard in this forum!You open your mouth and spew nonesense

at seemingly every turn and it is high time you were called on it.

You have no dog in this fight and yet you constantly rattle your gums,talking as if you are the victim of some underhanded scheme of "white people".Get off of your soapbox,lady.

I have read your comments in plenty of other threads here as well ,accusing "white people" of all kinds of absurd things in which you have no basis in fact.You are a race baiter of the highest order.

Don't act all friendly with Dave here and then throw the guy under the bus the 1st chance you get while he is banned and not able to represent himself.

You behave like a rat.

here is some cheese for you to nibble on...perhaps it will help keep your big mouth shut regarding topics that do not pertain to you.

Paintedlady ventilates her opinion, as she has every right to do. She is not disrespectful nor personally attacking anybody.

The whole discussion has been interesting, especially because people actually were taking eachothers responses into account and responding to the content.

You'r contribution is pretty deviant, you are disrespectful and personally attacking Paintedlady. That doesn't serve your case very well.

I for example can't take anything you say here seriously because of the tone of your response.

excuse me, but weren't you asked to remove the chip from your shoulder already?

You should do that.

Here is some cheese for you as well.

enjoy!

luv4u said:

dJJ said:

luv4u,

I would really apreciate it if you would explain or argument to remove Dave's child picture and why he got banned for it.

The discussion here has been polite and reasonable. I really think we all would profit if we will know why you decided to snip the picture and ban Dave for it.

The post got reported. I reviewed it as it indeed was a black face pic. Those have never been allowed on the org because they have been deemed as a racist.

1 - As said countless times already ; it wasn't a blackface picture !

2 - You didn't have to ban him , a warning would've been sufficient , as the majority of the people have pointed out

Banning him over this is ridiculous

3 - You need to lift his ban

[Edited 11/3/11 7:25am]

mask said:

paintedlady said:

No, this is not the same.

If white people were historically treated like animals and cattle, and their great warriors were treated like boogey men and children's costumes of those great warriors were a mockery of that race of people....

and you could capture that in an image...that reminds white people of the mockery of how little those great warriors were thought of....

then you would have the same singificance in the picture like Davetherave's simple childhood image captured.

Zulu men costume=imitate an animalistic savage... not another person.

I don't think these ladies were acting like wild animals or savages, grunting and growling and sounding like gorillas.

So its not the same. Doesn't have the same effect IMHO.

A picture of a white man dressed as Obama wouldn't offend me one bit (brown faced and all)... because its a person dressed as another person. Tastefully done.

Davetherave's image was more provacative and something that made you look at him sideways.

Got it? No? Well... then, remember this...

there is an orger here, who posted a picture of her legs in her avartar, and she was promptly banned.

Are legs offensive? It depends on the image. Intent didn't matter then and it doesn't matter now.

And for those ignorant people who think this is merely an "American" issue...

Any place African slaves were shipped to blackface in different forms were "celebrated".

Black face is in any nation slaves were sent as a conditioning process to make whites not feel bad about keeping black people as cattle. It was simply "good business" to do so.

This blackface shit led to many cultures being color struck... which they STILL are today.

Which leads me to the South American and Carribean countries... almost the entire western heme-sphere is effected by this black-face sambo mentality (except for Canada) and that's lots of people... so this is not a American issue and 'mintrel' only scratches the surface.

Images can provoke anger/pain/joy...etc. No one here should decide for anyone how they should or shouldn't react to an image so steeped in an ugly history. Not just American history either.

I am American but I am not African American, so you people thinking it is just one segment of Americans need to add that in your calculations when telling anypeople to "get over it".

Fuck... even Indian people have 4 tiers of people... dark skinned being the least respected/desired. Its everywhere.

You just may be the biggest blowhard in this forum!You open your mouth and spew nonesense

at seemingly every turn and it is high time you were called on it.

You have no dog in this fight and yet you constantly rattle your gums,talking as if you are the victim of some underhanded scheme of "white people".Get off of your soapbox,lady.

I have read your comments in plenty of other threads here as well ,accusing "white people" of all kinds of absurd things in which you have no basis in fact.You are a race baiter of the highest order.

Don't act all friendly with Dave here and then throw the guy under the bus the 1st chance you get while he is banned and not able to represent himself.

You behave like a rat.

here is some cheese for you to nibble on...perhaps it will help keep your big mouth shut regarding topics that do not pertain to you.

co - sign

[Edited 11/3/11 7:24am]

dJJ said:

mask said:

You just may be the biggest blowhard in this forum!You open your mouth and spew nonesense

at seemingly every turn and it is high time you were called on it.

You have no dog in this fight and yet you constantly rattle your gums,talking as if you are the victim of some underhanded scheme of "white people".Get off of your soapbox,lady.

I have read your comments in plenty of other threads here as well ,accusing "white people" of all kinds of absurd things in which you have no basis in fact.You are a race baiter of the highest order.

Don't act all friendly with Dave here and then throw the guy under the bus the 1st chance you get while he is banned and not able to represent himself.

You behave like a rat.

here is some cheese for you to nibble on...perhaps it will help keep your big mouth shut regarding topics that do not pertain to you.

Paintedlady ventilates her opinion, as she has every right to do. She is not disrespectful nor personally attacking anybody.

The whole discussion has been interesting, especially because people actually were taking eachothers responses into account and responding to the content.

You'r contribution is pretty deviant, you are disrespectful and personally attacking Paintedlady. That doesn't serve your case very well.

I for example can't take anything you say here seriously because of the tone of your response.

I can

Sometimes one has to be blunt to get the point across

mask said:

paintedlady said:

No, this is not the same.

If white people were historically treated like animals and cattle, and their great warriors were treated like boogey men and children's costumes of those great warriors were a mockery of that race of people....

and you could capture that in an image...that reminds white people of the mockery of how little those great warriors were thought of....

then you would have the same singificance in the picture like Davetherave's simple childhood image captured.

Zulu men costume=imitate an animalistic savage... not another person.

I don't think these ladies were acting like wild animals or savages, grunting and growling and sounding like gorillas.

So its not the same. Doesn't have the same effect IMHO.

A picture of a white man dressed as Obama wouldn't offend me one bit (brown faced and all)... because its a person dressed as another person. Tastefully done.

Davetherave's image was more provacative and something that made you look at him sideways.

Got it? No? Well... then, remember this...

there is an orger here, who posted a picture of her legs in her avartar, and she was promptly banned.

Are legs offensive? It depends on the image. Intent didn't matter then and it doesn't matter now.

And for those ignorant people who think this is merely an "American" issue...

Any place African slaves were shipped to blackface in different forms were "celebrated".

Black face is in any nation slaves were sent as a conditioning process to make whites not feel bad about keeping black people as cattle. It was simply "good business" to do so.

This blackface shit led to many cultures being color struck... which they STILL are today.

Which leads me to the South American and Carribean countries... almost the entire western heme-sphere is effected by this black-face sambo mentality (except for Canada) and that's lots of people... so this is not a American issue and 'mintrel' only scratches the surface.

Images can provoke anger/pain/joy...etc. No one here should decide for anyone how they should or shouldn't react to an image so steeped in an ugly history. Not just American history either.

I am American but I am not African American, so you people thinking it is just one segment of Americans need to add that in your calculations when telling anypeople to "get over it".

Fuck... even Indian people have 4 tiers of people... dark skinned being the least respected/desired. Its everywhere.

You just may be the biggest blowhard in this forum!You open your mouth and spew nonesense

at seemingly every turn and it is high time you were called on it.

You have no dog in this fight and yet you constantly rattle your gums,talking as if you are the victim of some underhanded scheme of "white people".Get off of your soapbox,lady.

I have read your comments in plenty of other threads here as well ,accusing "white people" of all kinds of absurd things in which you have no basis in fact.You are a race baiter of the highest order.

Don't act all friendly with Dave here and then throw the guy under the bus the 1st chance you get while he is banned and not able to represent himself.

You behave like a rat.

here is some cheese for you to nibble on...perhaps it will help keep your big mouth shut regarding topics that do not pertain to you.

Actually... its not me being acusitory. This entire post is filled with anger and hurt.

I don't "blame" white people... its not blame its just history and how people have adjusted to that history.

It is what it is.

Now if YOU think I am acusing white folks that's YOUR way of viewing it and if offends you, I am sorry.

See how that works? I acknowledged you and treat you as another human being...

I didn't say "get over it " a "race-baiter" would have just to start a fight and cause division.

This is all I am saying we should take the time to give people room to have an opinion... and its a fucking shame I have to explain anything at all regarding blackface or any thing about how fucking color struck people still are.

OH and BTW.... when I speak of black people I speak of all types of black folks... like in the Latino culture...

much of this ties with the "white hispanic vs. balck hispanic" bullshit.

So NO I don't blame white people for shit either... but its a fucking shame my white friends have the burden to heal me because I have been called a nigger.

And not only by "European whites" but by "white hispanics" also. That shit changes you forever and makes you try your best to understand and grow more compassion but at the same time it gives you less tolerance for people who like to use mockery as a form entertainment. Any type of mockery.

So no I don't "blame" white people... this is bigger than just that. People of the same fucking race are doing dumb shit to each other.

Why I posted in this thread in the first place is because I was encouraged to start a dialog in explaination of blackface. So that people can know WHY some are offended. This is why I speak on the oposing POV. I attacked no one here. This is no "fight"... there is no "race bait" this is merely opinion expressed to acheive some sort of understanding.

How can we move past this bullshit if there is no dialog? If people are not given the opportunity to be told why some are or could be offended? How can they stop doing it?

This issue ecffects us all because people are still hurt... Davetherave was banned, people are pissed over that... and mods are in here explaining shit when they shouldn't have to.

Simple.

Fuck me! Bitches in here are fucking crazy... but go ahead... do what you want.

itsnotallover said:

paintedlady said:

So was Dave dancing around and grunting like a Wild animal? (I didn't see the Picture as it was snipped before I got here lol)

I just found it odd how you used this term btw

"grunting and growling and sounding like gorillas"

Considering that this kind of behaviour was used as a detrimental image to Coloured People (I cannot post what I am trying to explain due to offensiveness but I am sure most people will know what I mean).

I dont fully agree with you btw as simply put, If I posted a Picture of me here wearing that Red Leather Suit Eddy Murphy once wore, with my Face painted Black and both my Thumbs up whilst smiling a big cheesy grin, the Photo would still be deemed offensive, but you are trying to differentiate the two. You are trying to say that any image of a White person wearing a Black face is totally unacceptable, but because the two girls look cute it is ok. This is simply not so.

Therefore without doubt the Picture of the Two women dressed as an Indigenous American and a Japanese woman are therefore offensive to those races. There can be no argument - If mockery (in these cases mentioned "Dressing up as") are offensive, then the rule applies to ALL not any specific one, as I have ssaid repeatedly, it cannot work one way simply through choice.

I understand what you mean.

I am trying to get at why people would find offense... for all we know Dave was probrably walking around in a majestic fashion... but my points go to "offense" and the why's so people can have some understanding and stop treating those that were genuinely offended like they are wrong....

I agree with your points.. I didn't think Davetheraves image was cute at all... it made me look at him sideways. But weirdly the image Justerin posted seemed more tasteful and the Eddie Murphy your describe woould not offend me...

Maybe because I am hispanic and I draw from my experience? The image Davetherave posted was more "universally offensive" because it is a classic image of how early samboes were depicted.