Racists!

[SEC=UGA]

17

 

and the Harvard if the Midwest is in Wisconsin.

 

I thought North Western was in Illinois?

[detlef]

I don't like comparisons with the lowest common denominator. If the LCD is always our new standard, standards can never go up, they can only decrease when oversights or mistakes in the lower direction are not prevented. Those oversights or mistakes then become the new standard. A standard not set by thoughtful policy, but only by the lower half of random happenstance.

 

BTW, this kid is no civil rights pioneer. Yes I know analogies could be made, and I could make them myself, but this is not about essential human dignity. This is about a kid finding his fashion sense can only be served by showing his crack in the back and his taint in the front. Trying to work up outrage over this only cheapens real outrageous conduct.

Fine enough points. Far better, certainly, than trying to pretend that the style is not a black one. And make no mistake, this guy is no Rosa Parks. He's just a d-bag who wears his pants too low. Like I said, this is not something I'm going to take to the streets over. Just tired of BeeR's incessant b!tching and whining about this sort of thing, so I'm inclined to call him on it when I think he's full of it.

 

Here's the issue though. It's not really an issue of diminished standards of what is appropriate. It's not as if US Air's answer to why they didn't tell the ghey dude to put some more clothes on was because, "It's not that bad." Their answer was, "We don't have a dress code." End of story. In other words, if you're not going to get arrested how you're dressed (or not dressed), we're not going to stop you.

 

But they did.

 

And for those pretending that an airplane is some special place. How is that? It's not a court of law. It's not a classroom. It's not a private club, or even a fancy restaurant that has a plainly stated and consistently enforced dress code. It's a bus that flies. Sure, there are safety issues and, thus, we need to allow heightened security. But it's not some hallowed ground. And US Air's official policy on not dictating what you're allowed to wear seems rather consistent with that. It's just not consistent with how this flight crew played fashion police.

Edited July 20, 2011 by detlef

[Big John]

17

 

and the Harvard if the Midwest is in Wisconsin.

The Midwest does include Wisconsin, so the conditional is trus.

[Ursa Majoris]

Nominated for Thread With Most Idiot Posts 2011.

[Clubfoothead]

Nominated for Thread With Most Idiot Posts 2011.

 

Probably impossible given my lack of replies.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

17

 

and the Harvard if the Midwest is in Wisconsin.

 

 

Lawrence

[TimC]

17

 

and the Harvard if the Midwest is in Wisconsin.

 

University of Ontario?

[chester]

Are there any black kids in Eau Claire?

 

Lots more than when I first came here. (1992)

 

Isn't that a college town?

 

yes. great school actually.

 

it's a bar with books

 

I spent as much on beer as I did on tuition.

[BeeR]

It's relevant because the rationale given by the flight attendant for why she asked him to pull up his pants was that she thought it indecent. It was not mentioned that it was unsafe.

Yeah it was:

A spokesperson from U.S. Airways said the Arizona-based company doesn't believe the incident was racially motivated. "The issue has always been that Marman failed to comply with with crew member instructions. Above all else, Marman's removal from the plane was primarily about safety."

 

True her initial complaint was about indecency, but it went way beyond that. Again: he was not kicked off and arrested due to indecency but because he refused to comply. As for "they got on his case but not the guy in women's clothes," it's the stewardresses' call about what is indecent and what is not (influenced in part no doubt by other people on the flight), so that is only a valid point if it was the same stewardress in both cases. I guess this one was just a racist

 

I understand that the pilot needs to have authority for safety reasons. However, I'd like to think they'd wield that authority in matters other than having their sense of fashion offended.

One more time: that is not why he was kicked off. He refused to comply with a very reasonable request.

 

Because white kids have picked up the style does not mean it is not a "black style".

Yeah, actually, it does.

 

Does the fact that Eminem also raps undo the fact that the vast majority of rappers are black?

Based on that logic, committing crimes is a "black thing" too, since far more blacks than whites are in jail. Right? Or should we break out the ol "this reasoning is only correct when it's in blacks' favor, incorrect when it's not" bit?

 

And again, my orig point and biggest problem with this is the NAACP race card BS. Not that they have a stranglehold on using it to say the least - it's all the rage - but they're one of the best at it.

Edited July 20, 2011 by BeeR

[TimC]

Story is obviously fake. Black people can't afford a plane ticket.

[BeeR]

Fine enough points. Far better, certainly, than trying to pretend that the style is not a black one. And make no mistake, this guy is no Rosa Parks. He's just a d-bag who wears his pants too low. Like I said, this is not something I'm going to take to the streets over. Just tired of BeeR's incessant b!tching and whining about this sort of thing, so I'm inclined to call him on it when I think he's full of it.

I wasn't "b!tching and whining," I was pointing out how bogus and idiotic the NAACP's b!tching and whining is.

 

More generally, I'll stop when the militant race card junkies stop playing it, or at least it slows to a trickle. Hold your breath.

 

But credit for legit/adult answers regardless. You did make some fair points.

 

 

And for those pretending that an airplane is some special place. How is that? It's not a court of law. It's not a classroom. It's not a private club, or even a fancy restaurant that has a plainly stated and consistently enforced dress code. It's a bus that flies. Sure, there are safety issues and, thus, we need to allow heightened security.

Answered your own question...

[detlef]

I wasn't "b!tching and whining," I was pointing out how bogus and idiotic the NAACP's b!tching and whining is.

 

More generally, I'll stop when the militant race card junkies stop playing it, or at least it slows to a trickle. Hold your breath.

 

But credit for legit/adult answers regardless. You did make some fair points.

 

 

 

Answered your own question...

1) Surely you're not implying that I'm unique in recognizing that your constant reverse racism schtick is not rather played.

2) That you refuse to admit that the style in question is specifically associated with black culture even if it is borrowed by white kids (who are, btw, emulating black culture) and that you compare that to crime really shows that you care less about making a valid point and more about making points that fit your predetermined stance.

3) Yes, I get that, ultimately, the issue was that he failed to comply with a "request" from a stewardess. But, it's not the stewardess' call about what is indecent and what's not. That's the thing. They've made that clear. They don't have a dress code. If you came into my restaurant and one of my waitresses said you had to take off your hat. Then you refused and I came out and got in your face about refusing to comply with a simple request and it escalated beyond that. Ultimately the issue would be about you refusing to comply with a simple request. But initially it all began with you making the very fair determination that some waitress does not have the authority to tell you what you can and can't wear unless she is supported by a dress code that is consistently enforced.

4) It only became a "safety issue" once it got confrontational and I agree that a better man would have just let it go and pulled his pants up. But that does not absolve the stewardess from her role in the issue. It just means he's an a-hole, which is something I don't doubt is the case.

[BeeR]

1) Surely you're not implying that I'm unique in recognizing that your constant reverse racism schtick is not rather played

? What is so played, and what this is about, is race card aholes like the NAACP playing the race card without justification (although reverse racism is as well). And I repeat.....once again........that is my main complaint. If you disagree and think they have a valid point, you haven't made it clear, even or what that point might be, unless you're actually trying to hang your hat on "baggy pants are a 'black thing' and that's why he was kicked off" silliness, despite it being very clear that is not the case.

 

2) That you refuse to admit that the style in question is specifically associated with black culture even if it is borrowed by white kids (who are, btw, emulating black culture) and that you compare that to crime really shows that you care less about making a valid point and more about making points that fit your predetermined stance.

Comments like that only show that you have blinders on and aren't interested in rational discussion any more. The baggy pants bit and rap are no longer simply a "black style" or a "black thing;" get over it. And sorry but my point is quite valid - the logic is the same, ie you saying something dominated by black people is therefore a "black thing" in one case, but not in another. Typical double-standard BS. Ironically, I bet if you went up to some blacks or assorted bleeding heart liberals and declared baggy pants, rap music etc a "black thing," there's a very good chance they wouldn't like it and would accuse you of stereotyping or even label you a racist. Oh until you explained you meant it as a good thing, then maybe not.

 

As for my "predetermined stance," that is simply that there is a truckload of hypocritical, double-standard race card BS which is all the rage in this country. You want to disagree, fine, whatever, but the NAACP's little game reinforces my point, not yours.

 

I get that, ultimately, the issue was that he failed to comply with a "request" from a stewardess. But, it's not the stewardess' call about what is indecent and what's not. That's the thing.

Yes it is. As you pointed out, they have no dress code. That doesn't mean "do whatever you want" but rather that yes, obviously it is a judgment call, again within reason. She has the authority to make the call and hers was completely reasonable.

 

If you came into my restaurant and one of my waitresses said you had to take off your hat. Then you refused and I came out and got in your face about refusing to comply with a simple request and it escalated beyond that. Ultimately the issue would be about you refusing to comply with a simple request. But initially it all began with you making the very fair determination that some waitress does not have the authority to tell you what you can and can't wear

Since you came out and got in my face, you're making it clear that she does. Otherwise you'd have told her she has no such right and let me wear it.

 

4) It only became a "safety issue" once it got confrontational and I agree that a better man would have just let it go and pulled his pants up. But that does not absolve the stewardess from her role in the issue. It just means he's an a-hole, which is something I don't doubt is the case.

It's more than him being an ahole. It's him refusing to comply and now being a safety and/or security risk. He deserved to be kicked off and arrested, even if it started out from something debatable, and the NAACP playing the race card is a joke.

[bushwacked]

Do we really need to start a thread every-time the NAACP plays the race card? Is that really newsworthy and post a new thread worthy?

 

Does anyone else in here need to start a thread every-time the NRA plays the fear card?

 

 

Does anyone else in here need to start a thread every-time the Heritage Foundation plays the socially conservative God-Fearing card?

 

 

Face it, your obsessed.

Edited July 20, 2011 by bushwacked

[SEC=UGA]

Do we really need to start a thread every-time the NAACP plays the race card? Is that really newsworthy and post a new thread worthy?

 

Does anyone else in here need to start a thread every-time the NRA plays the fear card?

 

Face it, your obsessed.

 

I read an article the other day in the NRA Times about some dudes that broke into a house and tied up the family. The roughed them up pretty good and stole a bunch of their possessions. A neighbor heard the commotion and ran over their with his .45 in hand and killed the two intruders just as they were about to perform a sex act with the wife and daughter.

 

This shook me up so much that I went out and bought a brand new handgun to add to my collection.

 

Another article in the same issue outlined how bullets were about to be banned, well not really banned, but taxed at something like 4,000%. Due to this I loaded myself back into my car and went out and bought 22 LBS of black powder, a few thousand casings each for .45, .40, .44, .357, .223, .308, and 7 mag. I, of course, also bought all of the associated primers and projectiles. I then scored every box of pre-manufactured ammo that the store would sell me... just in case the tax hit the next day or in case some of these greedy bastards decided to make a run on the store and buy up all of the ammo.

 

The Democrats are goin g to take away our guns and I'm not about to let them get away with it.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I thought the sagging, baggy pants thing was a mexican prison gang culture thing that was then adopted by the black prison gangs, then by mexican street gangs, black street gangs, black and mexican middle class kids and wannabe's, and finally by ignorant whites.

 

Why is this a black thing and not a mexican thing or a prison thing?

[detlef]

I thought the sagging, baggy pants thing was a mexican prison gang culture thing that was then adopted by the black prison gangs, then by mexican street gangs, black street gangs, black and mexican middle class kids and wannabe's, and finally by ignorant whites.

 

Why is this a black thing and not a mexican thing or a prison thing?

It is my understanding that it does go back to ill-fitting prison garb (and can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to celebrate that, let alone with pajama pants as this guy was allegedly wearing). None the less, if it started out as a Mexican gang thing, so be it.

 

That said, it is a style that is largely now associated with blacks. I've worked with and employed latinos for years as well as lived in areas where latinos were the primary minority and never saw it as prevalent as I do in the black communities. For example, where I live now.

 

If I had to guess, I'd say it went down something like this: Gay people are "cute", so an old white dude in ladies underwear is a harmless little queer. We may not want to watch him kiss another man and we may actually enact laws to ensure they remain 2nd class citizens. But, as long as he's doing diva-snaps and giving us decorating advice, nobody's going to begrudge him for walking around in underwear. Y

 

Now, a young, large black man is scary and needs to get in line or people are going start freaking out. So, stewardess decides to go tough mom on him and tells him to pull up his pants. And, when you do so, you're keeping the peace because god knows what could go down if he were allowed to walk around with his pants sagging.

[TimC]

I've worked with and employed latinos for years as well as lived in areas where latinos were the primary minority and never saw it as prevalent as I do in the black communities. For example, where I live now.

 

I've noticed that everywhere I eat now. It's unusual not having some Mexican cooking the food. Must be some super-cheap labor because I doubt Rick Bayless is that popular South of the Border.

Edited July 20, 2011 by TimC

[SEC=UGA]

If I had to guess, I'd say it went down something like this: Gay people are "cute", so an old white dude in ladies underwear is a harmless little queer. We may not want to watch him kiss another man and we may actually enact laws to ensure they remain 2nd class citizens. But, as long as he's doing diva-snaps and giving us decorating advice, nobody's going to begrudge him for walking around in underwear. Y

 

 

TANGENT:

Seriously?

[MikesVikes]

Are there any black kids in Eau Claire?

 

You've offended .7 % of Eau Claire.

[bpwallace49]

You've offended .7 % of Eau Claire.

 

I am honestly surprised that % is so high.

[BeeR]

I thought the sagging, baggy pants thing was a mexican prison gang culture thing that was then adopted by the black prison gangs, then by mexican street gangs, black street gangs, black and mexican middle class kids and wannabe's, and finally by ignorant whites.

 

Why is this a black thing and not a mexican thing or a prison thing?

Because that's all detlef could come up with in his attempt to back his argument. Black guy tossed off the plane? Must be a race thing. The NAACP would be proud.

 

Now, a young, large black man is scary and needs to get in line or people are going start freaking out. So, stewardess decides to go tough mom on him and tells him to pull up his pants. And, when you do so, you're keeping the peace because god knows what could go down if he were allowed to walk around with his pants sagging.

Yeah like if people had to exit the plan in a hurry due to an emergency and this idiot is tripping all over himself or others, causing delays, etc.

[mrip]

The fact that a flight attendant has the authority to kick you off a plane because she doesn't like your clothes is ridiculous. The argument that he got kicked off because he wouldn't comply is also ridiculous. We should be arguing about whether it's reasonable for an airline to control the beltline of your pants.

Edited July 20, 2011 by mrip

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Because that's all detlef could come up with in his attempt to back his argument. Black guy tossed off the plane? Must be a race thing. The NAACP would be proud.

 

Yeah like if people had to exit the plan in a hurry due to an emergency and this idiot is tripping all over himself or others, causing delays, etc.

 

 

I could be wrong on my memory of the genesis of the trend. It might have been kids from Fond du Lac dropping trou back in the 70's and being too drunk to remember to pull them back up. My point, I don't really have one. I was just poking at Detlef. He could be right about the whole thing for all I know. I don't trust my memory so I would not want others to actually rely on it.

[matt770]

With the gold in your mouth, hat turned sideways

Pants hit the ground, call yourself a cool cat

With your pants on the ground

Walkin' downtown with your pants on the ground!

Giddy-up!