Australian aboriginal actor. Probably best known outside of Australia for being the “you’ve got the lens cap on” guy in Crocodile Dundee.
Well shit… every discussion I have here is feeble attempt at a chance to do the same…
There’s nothing wrong with his statement in this thread. Unless you intend to argue that someone can’t reject a relationship because the potential partner is ugly, or because he’s dumb as a sack of rocks, or because he decided to abstain from sex, or because he’s alcooholic, or because he’s too old, or because he’s financially irresponsible, etc, etc, etc… you have no business criticizing him for rejecting a potential partner because he isn’t autonomous.
:smack: - nm, that was David Gulpili. I presumed that if I said “presents The Great Outdoors” everybody outside Australia would be going “the what?”
Agreed. Most people are so culturally accustomed to the idiotic black/white distinction that they can’t believe that people denying that such a thing exists aren’t just pretenting not to see this soooo obvious difference (despite being totally unable to define it in any meaningful way).
It’s not racism, it’s just a cultural perception so deeply ingrained in most people’s brain since their earliest years that they’re unable to think beyond it.
Sure, threads move on, but they can also be hijacked. I’m inclined to think it’s the latter since the OP repeatedly asked people to come off that tangent, and it’s a tangent well-explored on the dope.
But that said, yeah marshmallow and shagnasty both mis-stepped, so it’s good they got slapped down. But blake’s lengthy posts + this pit thread seem pretty excessive.
This, and especially this:
Are things of beauty :).
I’m reminded of an ex-girlfriend whom I recently saw on Facebook* promoting herself as a bestselling author. I was delighted, wondered whether her book would be interesting to me–but when I looked it up, I discovered it was a $3.99 e-book about an obscure field of management, with lots of 2-star reviews. “Bestselling” here apparently meant that at some point it had ranked high in its e-book subgenre.
You may be right that he’s not so much a pathological liar as he is a pathological self-aggrandizer.
- no, I’m not stalking her–the breakup was amicable, and while we lost touch twenty years ago, we’re FB friends.
(Missed edit window my last post)
I see that Velocity, the OP of the linked thread is now asking why most wide receivers or something (I don’t follow football) are black.
In which case I concede the point; it’s not a hijack if the OP is now leading us down that road.
What does that have to do with anything in this thread just out of curiosity?
Thank you mhendo! That is probably the nicest thing you will ever say about me but most of it is accurate. I know you can’t stand me and vice versa but that isn’t a bad thing. If you are ever in the Boston area and in trouble, give me a call. I would definitely help you out.
Well of course he would, since it’s a tangent that exposes his OP for the JAQing variety of scientific racism thread we’ve all seen before.
And it’ll continue to get explored because it’s necessary.
Still wonder about the “phenotype” thing from the OP. What on earth were you thinking?
Probably something like “Winning! Tiger Blood!”…
It is simple and there was no malice intended or any ‘lying’. Blake posed a gotcha question that asked how you could create a definition that differentiated between ‘Black’ people from various groups including Sri Lankans and Australian Aborigines. I was irritated at the question because most of the people he used for examples aren’t ‘Black’ at all at least in American terminology so I pointed that out.
The phenotype reference was mainly about skin color. He seems to think that anyone with dark skin is ‘Black’ and I don’t. My definition of ‘Black’ refers to a specific set of ethnic groups and not just anyone with dark skin.
I realize there is room for disagreement on that but it is the most common American interpretation. I didn’t realize that an Australian would get so ticked off at my answer that he would be willing to start a new thread about it.
But he specifically asked about phenotypes, and you specifically responded (later) with “What do phenotypic characteristics have to do with anything?”.
The point of his question, as I took it, at least, was to demonstrate that American racial groupings (and most racial groupings) are arbitrary, and based on nothing scientific.
And he’s right that most Sri Lankans, or native Australians, or Papuans, or Andamanese, if they happened to walk down the street in 1935 Atlanta, would be assumed to be “black”, demonstrating the arbitrary, superficial, and unscientific nature of American racial groupings.
Man, you are such a fucking racist dumbshit. The whole point of that exercise is to show that your definition of Black is arbitrary and culturally-defined. You are so fucking stupid that you don’t even understand why using your definition of Black in a discussion about genetics is completely unscientific.
And yet, even though you don’t understand the science at all, you pop up in thread after thread to lecture everyone about genetics, just so you can fly your racist flag.
Ding, ding, ding!
Please flesh (ha!) that out a bit. Which are the specific set of ethnic groups and how do you determine which are in and out?
Dude is a nitwit. The only interaction he deserves is ridicule in The Pit.
Black just means people with significant sub-Saharan African ethnic heritage. I personally didn’t and don’t decide what qualifies. That is the most common American definition of the term although I realize that it is used quite differently in other parts of the world.