Racism in Cincinnati, Ohio....

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by righteousdude2, Dec 19, 2011.

  1. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,458
    Likes Received:
    136
  2. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    While I don't advocate racism, I do value private property rights. Anti-discrimination laws took away rights from property owners. Owners of private property should absolutely be able to deny access to anyone they wish based upon any condition they wish.
     
  3. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,458
    Likes Received:
    136
    Understood....

    That is a good point, and I can't disagree. Thanks Matt! :type:
     
  4. plain_n_simple

    plain_n_simple
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,887
    Likes Received:
    5
    Cincinatti has been a hotbed for racial tensions since the Civil War. That town needs Jesus.
     
  5. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,458
    Likes Received:
    136
    We Have Several Cities Like That....

    ...we have a few cities, within a fifty mile radius of where I live, that are hotbeds for racism and there are active KKK clans in both towns. On top of this there are skinheads, and motorcycle groups known as Hell's Angels!

    I'd agree with you that Cincinnati, and the two cities I'm thinking of, need are most urgent prayer and attention. :praying::praying::praying:

    Thanks for your comment....
     
  6. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    My big beef is reverse discrimination, or even worse, discrimination coming from colors other than white. I have seen it time and time again that it is ok for a black sergeant to favor a black soldier, but not a white sergeant to favor a white soldier. Neither one is right (if that favoritism is based on color, that is. Based on performance is fine). But the only one that gets noticed is the white/white.
     
  7. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    But not advertise the fact in public.
     
  8. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Why shouldn't a private property owner be able to advertise their choices?
     
  9. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    Am I missing something? Did the sign not say "PUBLIC" swimming pool? If I were a young peson visiting my parents at their duplex and the duplex had a PUBLIC swimming pool, then I would be jumping in it.

    Am I missing something else? Don't WHITE people load their hair with chemical treatments also? I was raised in a beauty shop, so I know from which I speak.

    Am I missing something yet again? Even if the woman in question considered the swimming pool private even though she PURPOSEFULLY labeled it as public, then isn't the "white only" sign STILL unjustifiable?

    Wasn't there a better way to make the swimming pool private?

    I guess I don't get it.

    What this woman did is indefensible.

     
  10. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Scarlett said. Plus she's made it a public matter by...er...publicising it. She deserves what she gets.
     
  11. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    And for privately owned businesses of whatever size to hire whom they wish and reject whom they wish for whatever reason.
     
  12. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,144
    Likes Received:
    365
    I think ANYBODY who singles out a person because of their race is sick. End of story. I don't care if it's private property or not.

    I do think that the woman is wrong, however, about the swimming pool. If it is open to the use of the residents, then the association or whatever owns it and thus it is a "public" place to them. She cannot discriminate when renting - she cannot discriminate on who then uses the facilities that come with the apartments.
     
  13. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    What you describe is discrimination, not "reverse discrimination," and I need to remind you obviously that whites have always and continue to have the upper hand in this country. While racism is wrong in any direction, we're talking about a segment of the population that was deeply and undeniably maligned, disenfranchised, and abused for generations. We can't expect that to turn around overnight (or even during one generation).

    I have to ask forgiveness for my own feelings of superiority and realize that we wouldn't be in this place if it hadn't been for the evil deeds carried out by whites.
     
  14. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    I know it's discrimination, not reverse. Hence:
    Also, I don't know anyone who was a slave. And all of my peers were born in the last 30 years, and have grown up their whole life in an equal society. They know nothing being "maligned, disenfranchised, and abused for generations". And we can expect it to turn around in one generation. Unless of course, people are holding on to things that they have no idea or experience of.

    Some of my ancestry is Irish. The Irish had it hard coming over here, were hated by many groups of people. However, I don't cling to that. I also have native American in my heritage. I shouldn't have to explain how they were mistreated. I don't cling to that.

    Racism is wrong in any direction. I agree with that. However, what I hate is that it is only noticed if it is coming from a white person. Or the fact that it's perfectly acceptable to have "Black Entertainment Television", or a "Black Miss America Pageant", but if the roles were reversed, it would be discrimination.

    On the same note, it also bugs me that people see color as a race. "You white people..." My ancestry (to the best of my knowledge) never owned slaves, and I certainly haven't. So I can't be grouped with people who did. Also, "black" isn't a race. I had a guy in my platoon that got offended when people called him "African American". He was Jamaican.
     
  15. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    fighting words

    From http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

    What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

    The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky.In fact, in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court immediately began a long process of narrowing and reshaping the broad scope of the original fighting-words doctrine. Terminiello was charged with breaching the peace after publicly insulting a group of adversaries. While not addressing whether Terminiello's speech constituted fighting words, the Court found that the breach of the peace statute in question was overbroad because it permitted convictions for both fighting words and constitutionally protected expression. Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.The fighting-words doctrine was again reaffirmed in Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969). After publicly burning an American flag and making defiant comments regarding the flag, Street was convicted of violating a New York statute making it a misdemeanor to "publicly mutilate, deface, defile, defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon an American flag either by words or act." The Supreme Court reversed Street's conviction because his comments, considered a possible factor in his conviction, were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Emphasizing that the mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content.

    What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

    The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:

    There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

    Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky.

    In fact, in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court immediately began a long process of narrowing and reshaping the broad scope of the original fighting-words doctrine. Terminiello was charged with breaching the peace after publicly insulting a group of adversaries. While not addressing whether Terminiello's speech constituted fighting words, the Court found that the breach of the peace statute in question was overbroad because it permitted convictions for both fighting words and constitutionally protected expression. Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.

    The fighting-words doctrine was again reaffirmed in Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969). After publicly burning an American flag and making defiant comments regarding the flag, Street was convicted of violating a New York statute making it a misdemeanor to "publicly mutilate, deface, defile, defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon an American flag either by words or act." The Supreme Court reversed Street's conviction because his comments, considered a possible factor in his conviction, were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Emphasizing that the mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content. . . .
     
  16. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,458
    Likes Received:
    136
    You Have a Great Point....

    ....and at times I feel and sense the exact thing within society, especially here in america.

    As a Caucasian, reverse discrimination has become a real issue. However, no one wants to breach its sensative boundaries. Could the taboo of reverse discrimination be because deep down in the minds and hearts of people of color is the thought that the caucasion folks are finally getting what they deserve?

    I say this because this was touched on by a person of color in a tolerance and sensitivity class I took back in the late 90s. It prompted a lot of discussion among those in the course, and it actually became quite heated. The course instructors had to calm things down and give the participants an early, extra-long, lunch.
     
  17. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. It is quite rightly illegal for a business to have a sign outside saying "No blacks, no Irish" (as we used to commonly have it the UK for example).
     
  18. marke

    marke
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Early in Bill Clinton's presidency Hillary was doing a photo shoot with a bunch of people and when it was over, a reporter kept his recording mike open and caught Hillary saying, "get these niggars out of here." Racial prejudices are just another form of the sin and hatred in the hearts of men because of Adam, which cause Cain to kill Abel. Congress has created more harm than good, for example and in my opinion, by trying to legislate that sin nature out of man, resulting in the perception that some (white woman example) are especiaslly wicked over the innocent victims (black teenager). Homosexuals are 'innicent' victimsa of religious bigotry, and so forth.

    The problem is not that the white woman is racially prejudiced, but that the black teenager, her parents, her friends and neighbors, and the whole world is prejudiced and all who are not motivated by God are seeking to justify and legally codify their prejudicial views over others.

    Laws against 'prejudice' and news stories slanted against 'prejudice' have the negative effect of promoting and prolonging racial prejudices.
     
  19. Christos doulos

    Christos doulos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2011
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally I don't know if that is racism; lacking wisdom more so.
     
  20. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    The sign says, Public Pool. It cannot be a public pool and at the same time exclude part of the public. I am not sure what the feeling of the local government would be if the sign said:

    Private Pool
    Swimming By Permission Only
     

Share This Page

Loading...