HylianSwordsman said: RCTjunkie said: HylianSwordsman said: Okay, I have an issue with that poll. White people aren't just an ethnicity, they're several ethnicities. White people are incredibly diverse, and lumping them all together like that is ignorant. The world is more than just black and white (and yellow and red, whatever). White and black alike have diverse ethnicities. Yet we just assume blacks are African and whites are European. Oh yeah, and of course yellow means you're Asian. Heads up people, those are WHOLE CONTINENTS, you can't just divide people into continents by color and think you understand diversity. The conversation of multiethnicity most definitely includes the many ethnicities that happen to be considered white. It's ignorant, racist bastards like the ones you're quoting that should be kept out of the conversation until they're better informed about the whole of human diversity. You make a good point. I would change it, but I would go over the character count..... Hmm, that's tough. How about..."Yes-White people are multiethnic themselves"? 43 characters, I forget the character limit. Or maybe just "Yes-White people are multiethnic, too"?

Changed it! Unfortunately, it deleted all of the data from the first poll. It was lob-sided, anyway.....

Mr Khan said: outlawauron said: Jay520 said: rolltide101x said:There are far more black people on tv than their % of the population. WAY more than 12% of people on tv are black, terrible point You are missing the point. Even if those statistics were true, which I'm not sure if they are, that be missing the core point of BET. The point of BET is not merely to boost the amount of Black actors on television; rather, it is primarily meant to provide entertainment particularly for the Black audience (whether or not it succeeds at that is another question). Now, let's think about whether or not the same thing would make sense for the White audience...no it would not. Almost all television channels try to produce entertaintment for the majority (Whites); so it would be pretty redundant to make a channel particularly for Whites.  Further, if a company wanted to make a channel called "White Television", then no one would catch a fit. Yes, people would be shocked because there are already plenty of channels that would accomplish the same goal, but it definitely would not be forcibly shut down lol. But of course, this is all hypothetical conjecture which would be impossible to prove or disprove. So I would rather not get too deep into this hypothetical scenario. This is a huge lie and you know it. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be on a plane within the hour. I also don't understand you believe every other channel is White People TV. Pretty certain people target genders and ages, meaning humans not color. The key to the outrage is that we don't need *white television.* How many sitcoms out there have a non-white in the lead role that aren't specifically made to pander to another ethnicity? TV in America is overwhelmingly white, which is why "white TV" would have particular issue. Now you could get away with "Irish TV" or "Polish TV." Just not "white TV" (WASP TV would probably also catch flak, from non-WASP whites as well as nonwhites)

I don't think you need any specialized television. BET shouldn't exist anymore than a mythical WET or H(ispanic)ET.

I can think of a few popular shows, but this isn't really worth arguing.

Jay520 said: DarkD said: I admit to attacking the implication of the thread title.   It would be best if you stopped assuming implications, because you are attacking arguments that no one has made.

There are two types of responses in a thread, the type that responds to the topic of the thread, and the type that gets into an argument with another user.  You are assuming I got into an argument with a user, I didn't, I commented based on the thread.  In a way, my comments are more relevant than yours.  Allow me to clarify what the thread topic is

Side one:  White people should be allowed in a multiethnicity conversation.(The side that the whole thread took)

Side Two: White people should not be allowed in those conversations (implication, is that white people are the cause of all the multicultural problems in the world and should be excluded)

I attacked the implication of side two.  Is this english clear enough for you or is english not your first language?

DarkD said: Jay520 said: DarkD said: I admit to attacking the implication of the thread title.   It would be best if you stopped assuming implications, because you are attacking arguments that no one has made. There are two types of responses in a thread, the type that responds to the topic of the thread, and the type that gets into an argument with another user.  You are assuming I got into an argument with a user, I didn't, I commented based on the thread.  In a way, my comments are more relevant than yours.  Allow me to clarify what the thread topic is Side one:  White people should be allowed in a multiethnicity conversation.(The side that the whole thread took) Side Two: White people should not be allowed in those conversations (implication, is that white people are the cause of all the multicultural problems in the world and should be excluded) I attacked the implication of side two.  Is this english clear enough for you or is english not your first language?

That's the thing....that implication doesn't really exist. It was not implied. In fact, if you read the OP, he clearly stated he was hesitant to join the discussion because...

" . I don't even know if I should be allowed to be part of the discussion. I'm not oppressed in any way. I don't know what others are experiencing or seeing. I can't really contribute anything without compromising my own heritage which I happen to like."

He's hesitant because he doesn't know if he can contribute something meaningful. It has nothing to do with him being the same race of the people who caused oppression. So my point stands, no one has made the implication and you are assuming things where they don't exist.

Jay520 said: DarkD said: Jay520 said: DarkD said: I admit to attacking the implication of the thread title.   It would be best if you stopped assuming implications, because you are attacking arguments that no one has made. There are two types of responses in a thread, the type that responds to the topic of the thread, and the type that gets into an argument with another user.  You are assuming I got into an argument with a user, I didn't, I commented based on the thread.  In a way, my comments are more relevant than yours.  Allow me to clarify what the thread topic is Side one:  White people should be allowed in a multiethnicity conversation.(The side that the whole thread took) Side Two: White people should not be allowed in those conversations (implication, is that white people are the cause of all the multicultural problems in the world and should be excluded) I attacked the implication of side two.  Is this english clear enough for you or is english not your first language? That's the thing....that implication doesn't really exist. It was not implied. In fact, if you read the OP, he clearly stated he was hesitant to join the discussion because... " . I don't even know if I should be allowed to be part of the discussion. I'm not oppressed in any way. I don't know what others are experiencing or seeing. I can't really contribute anything without compromising my own heritage which I happen to like." He's hesitant because he doesn't know if he can contribute something meaningful. It has nothing to do with him being the same race of the people who caused oppression. So my point stands, no one has made the implication and you are assuming things where they don't exist.

It was a general question which the thread author just though would be a good thread topic.  He had no part in it.  A good thread isn't supposed to insult something you know.  Its not supposed to pose an opinion, its supposed to open a thread of discussion on a question, and people are supposed to weigh in with their own opinions on the topic at hand.  The topic is the thread title, nothing more nothing less.  Take the thread title, divide it into two sides and draw conclusions, state relevant facts etc.  That is what a good thread is supposed to be....  Understand?

outlawauron said: I don't think you need any specialized television. BET shouldn't exist anymore than a mythical WET or H(ispanic)ET. I can think of a few popular shows, but this isn't really worth arguing.

Of course you don't need any specialized television. You don't need TV at all. But if there's a large enough population of people with a particular taste in a particular form of entertainment (this group can be based on age, gender, culture, race, or anything), then it actually makes sense for some producer to provide entertainment to satisfy that particular niche. BET, in theory, is supposed to fulfill the otherwise unfulfilled niche for Blacks.

i hate white people cuz the're racist... oh wait

DarkD said: It was a general question which the thread author just though would be a good thread topic.  He had no part in it.  A good thread isn't supposed to insult something you know.  Its not supposed to pose an opinion, its supposed to open a thread of discussion on a question, and people are supposed to weigh in with their own opinions on the topic at hand.  The topic is the thread title, nothing more nothing less.  Take the thread title, divide it into two sides and draw conclusions, state relevant facts etc.  That is what a good thread is supposed to be....  Understand?

So it looks like you are now admitting that no one has made the implication that you suggested earlier. This is good. We are making progress.

Now, as for responding to the thread...yes, you are right, people can give their own opinions. That's fine. However, that's not what you did. You said "I'm just countering the argument that White People have some big apology to make." Now, when you say "countering the argument", that would imply that someone had at least presented the argument, or at the very least, implied the argument. For you cannot "counter" an argument that was not made. However, if you look through the thread, no one has stated or implied that Whites have some apology to make. Therefore, you are wrong, sir.

There's nothing wrong with giving your own opinions. But you did not just give your opinion; you assumed that someone else made on particular argument, which was a false assumption. If you really want to "take the thread title" and "divide it into two sides", then both sides must be sides that people are actually supporting. Otherwise, you are attacking a straw man.

Excluding any race from a multi-ethnicity debate is the quickest way to ensure their thoughts, feelings and/or beliefs are marginalized and ignored. The only way the 'race' issue is going to end is by constantly working together, not finding a group or groups of people to cut out of the equation.

Jay520 said: DarkD said: It was a general question which the thread author just though would be a good thread topic.  He had no part in it.  A good thread isn't supposed to insult something you know.  Its not supposed to pose an opinion, its supposed to open a thread of discussion on a question, and people are supposed to weigh in with their own opinions on the topic at hand.  The topic is the thread title, nothing more nothing less.  Take the thread title, divide it into two sides and draw conclusions, state relevant facts etc.  That is what a good thread is supposed to be....  Understand? So it looks like you are now admitting that no one has made the implication that you suggested earlier. This is good. We are making progress. Now, as for responding to the thread...yes, you are right, people can give their own opinions. That's fine. However, that's not what you did. You said "I'm just countering the argument that White People have some big apology to make." Now, when you say "countering the argument", that would imply that someone had at least presented the argument, or at the very least, implied the argument. For you cannot "counter" an argument that was not made. However, if you look through the thread, no one has stated or implied that Whites have some apology to make. Therefore, you are wrong, sir. There's nothing wrong with giving your own opinions. But you did not just give your opinion; you assumed that someone else made on particular argument, which was a false assumption. If you really want to "take the thread title" and "divide it into two sides", then both sides must be sides that people are actually supporting. Otherwise, you are attacking a straw man.

Are you gonna pick apart every word I say?  I'm half asleep right now, I am not some poet who picks every word with the utmost care.  Congratulations on picking apart bad wording on my part.  You wanna go through the rest of the posts and do the same?  All you are doing now is being an asshole,  get a life.