Vallejo holds panel discussion on what is and isn't funny...

I like heterosexual white males.

This is a sex reference.

Oh, I'm sure it's not. Then again, "fucking stupid retard stupid trolling stupid asshole retard asshole stupid" et cetera, et cetera, doesn't really come out to "explaining", either, so I suppose that makes us even.

What's more likely is that, just as I explained to Zombie the other day the difference between rights and legal protections of rights, it's actually you who doesn't grasp the definition of context and, in your arrogant belief that your ideology must indicate that you're the smartest guy in the room, you're completely incapable of reexamining what you think the phrase means in light of its actual meaning and then adjusting your belief about it.

Which is fine. This isn't a university and I'm not going to lose my jolly grin just because you want to play the role of Greg Marmalard, especially since I'm perfectly comfortable playing Bluto.

If this were a doubles tennis match, the score would be:

Vallejo & tandelou ------------25
John Castle & Oldfella -------00

Oi!

There's a fine line between white knight and pathetic fanboy...

Wait, who am I kidding, there's no line.

Wait, when did Anea let you off your leash?

Two new strongly opinionated posters jumping right into the thick of things...muppet was my first thought too.

I don't question your claim, and I wouldn't just because you're white, but if you think you were "the target of racism" then you don't have a good grasp of what racism is (and isn't.)

It's either Packard, or Chuck.

As defined by you, which if the usual liberal pattern holds, is, "Anything a white individual has ever done that I disapprove of, which has subsequently been ascribed to the larger group, and from there ascribed to every individual member of that group."

And to you, of course, what racism "isn't" is doing the same thing to whites as white racists do to members of any other ethnicity.

Basically, you use the accusation of "racism" as a weapon, and you employ that weapon exclusively based on race. And you don't think that behavior is racist.

No, but thanks for playing.

Racism is believing that one racial group is superior to another racial group. Blacks hate me because I'm white?
That's bigotry, unless they are claiming their superiority.

A black comic says Asians have tiny dicks.He's offensive, but not racist, unless he claims black dicks are superior due to their size.
BTW black dicks aren't necessarily bigger...there just aren't too many small ones. Thus the average size would be bigger.

Then kindly favor us with your pet definition of the word. Also, because you missed the edit, let me repost this:

Basically, you use the accusation of "racism" as a weapon, and you employ that weapon exclusively based on race. And you don't think that behavior is racist.

What?

I'd just like to point out that I didn't accuse anyone in this thread of being racist. You trotted that out first. In fact, I still haven't called you a racist, or a bigot, or anything like that.

Maybe it's Garamet trying to prove to us all how we would treat her differently if we just didn't know it was her!

Prove me wrong. No, MythBusters never covered it , but the facts are out there.

Being a white man is a horrible impediment when you're trying to pursue a career. It's totally comparable to the discrimination minorities and even women face.

Wait, no. It isn't.

Where is this magical place where minorities run everything and oppress white people at will? I'll tell all my friends so they can move to this utopia immediately.

I have my tissue ready. Do you?

So, let me get this straight. There are no situations where corporations systematically filter out white applicants and raise the bar for white applicants who are more qualified? Here is just one example. If you want play-by-play details I can provide them, but would you have an open mind to believe the truth? Not likely.

It's Jenee's ghost!
We get back one dead member re-incarnated per anniversary.
This is it.

No.

Want another one?

I'll give you a different example: Gender quotas.

Do I think they're fair on an individual level? No.

The thing is that most job fields are dominated by men. This becomes more evident the higher you go up the hierarchy. The upper echelons have traditionally been "men clubs" and have tended to reproduce that pattern. Men tend to pick men for high ranking jobs. Because of this asymmetrical power structure the well-paid jobs aren't being given out based on a meritocracy but women have traditionally been at as a disadvantage.
This isn't going to change until either all men miraculously lose sexist attitudes or we force them to change the composition of those upper echelons that get to decide. This is why a quota is needed.

As soon as parity is reached we can assume that future hirings will more likely be based on the concept of meritocracy and not on gender. That's when we should get rid of the quota asap.

I'm not a fan of a quota. On an individual level it's unfair towards the men in question. Yet it's possibly the only short-term solution for the structural problem at hand and should be removed asap once the goal is reached.

Well, boo-fuckin'-hoo. There's one tiny little way in which white guys are a little bit less privileged than we used to be.

Feminism's mistake was in wanting to climb the hierarchy in the first place, instead of outright toppling it.

A revolution where the slaves just want all the master's stuff is no revolution.