Lokie's Profile > Messages Posted

Subject: Re: Can homosexuals be religious?

Forum: Can homosexuals be religious?
Homosexuals can be religious. Everyone is free to practice their own religion and within Christianity, we are all sinners and are forgiven. Homosexuals are not just sexual beings, but unfortunately, that is all people seem to define them as. If a person is working to amend their sins within the church, why try to cast them out...we all are sinners. Only God can judge us.

Subject: Re: How many of you think this is a form of art.

Forum: How many of you think this is a form of art.
The woman's body is an aesthetic...appreciation. I see it as art.

Subject: Re: Why can only whites be racists?

Forum: Why can only whites be racists?
And to all of those who say, "get over it, it was our ancestors, I wasn't involved", nobody is blaming you. Who is attacking you???

A White person calling a Black man or woman the N word is not "bad" because it's a naughty word. Here is what I see: We all know the origin of this word and as it was used historically (I hope), but the metaphorical weight it continues to carry is an oppressive symbol of white male supremacy. To show superiority back in the day, the white man enslaved a black man and if he was out of line, the owner or society would punish him-beating, whipping, lynching. Dehumanization. A white man using the N word is not just being racist, but the power of this is that in one word, the white man can strip the black man or woman of all the progress made for equality and respect. The struggles, the leaders, the perseverance belittled to one word. Abolishing in one quick slip of the tongue decades of progression. And it is not just this notion that is frustrating; it is the fact that it has the power to do this. The fact that the white man still has the power to do this-just by a word-in a modernized form of dehumanization, enslavement, and white supremacist domination. And that is why ancestry is called to mind.

I have sooooo much more to say, but on a final note, just because you have a black friend does not give you the right to tokenize that person.
And for you to say you have a mulatto friend.." ", you are applying the one drop rule.
See Link:

More to say tomorrow

Subject: Re: Why can only whites be racists?

Forum: Why can only whites be racists?
"Speaking of American why is it the whites get to be called American and the rest of us have to be African-American or Mexican-American, or Native-American. Why can't we just be American too if everything is so equal"
I agree we are all American. In the addition of -American, it is a cultural aspect. Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano...all have cultural meanings and it is how you choose to identify with your culture.

"How is it that all these white people are racist and no other race is? It's not exactly the most fair thing in the world. I've heard other races call white people "racist like" names all the time and yet no one ever says anything to them."
White people are in power and hold decision-making power where racism is most visibly exhausted...in my opinion. However, this does not exclude others from racism. Names are not necessarily racist in my opinion unless they are used within context or originate from a context of degradation. You can call me a couch potato because I have been watching TV for an hour, but I don't watch TV 24/7 without moving and I am not oppressed because I watch TV for an hour. I do not have a history of being forced to watch TV and enslaved to those with TiVO. IF all this were true, yeah, I'd say you were wrong for calling me a couch potato...do you know my history?! When you say the N word or the S word or a racially charged slander that has this context and is still (c)overtly apparent in society, then it is blatant racism

Subject: Re: Why can only whites be racists?

Forum: Why can only whites be racists?
"Racism is a system and only those who benefit from that system can be racist."
I see what you are saying and somewhat agree, but do not define racism as a system, but it is based on a system. It does not have to be beneficial.

"i agree i mean colored people play the race card too often. It didn't happen to them specificly and we didn't do it. Slavery was created in africa anyway and we stole the idea from black africans enslaving other blacks. If anyone man helped to end slavery it was Abraham Lincoln and he is seldom remembered for it. Why? Is it because he is not a man of color?
NO NO NO NO NO...ohhh my dear. You do not really mean this...and I know you meant people of color in the least regard to respect? Abraham Lincoln did not end slavery. I do not feel like teaching...so tired of this so I ask you to research the context of the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln used slavery to persuade public opinion, preserve the Union, and enlist Black men -slaves-in the war (can we guess who made up the front line?), in addition to attaining votes, all manipulated in political advantage.

"Why not start including minority religions, too? We judge on that, and some people consider Muslims to be of a different race." Minority religion? Really? Are you sure now? and what is "of a different race"? Think about how you phrase these statements.

Subject: Re: Why can only whites be racists?

Forum: Why can only whites be racists?
I really tried to avoid this forum because of its absolute ignorance, but I can not withhold anymore. Some of you truly need to educate yourselves before you write because what you are saying is very offensive and even embarrassing.

I have so much to say, but I will address the original question that instigated this messy debate: Why is it that only whites can be racists?

Aside from your points leading up to this great climatic claim, the question itself is offensive in so many ways: automatically labeling a group of people as racist which is racist in itself because you attribute racism to whiteness and support it by your internalized notions of a race, making a generalization of grandeur by referencing racists as "whites", segregating the term racist as an identity --a white identity-- versus a marked characteristic of a particular individual and once again, you assigned this identity to an entire race.

My rebuttal of some quotes:

"Well there is no such thing as slavery any more, so black people aren't being oppressed. I am Irish and my ancestors were opressed. Ever heard of NINA? [NO IRISH NEED APPLY]"
Ever hear of whites only? Did you know that the Irish were excluded from these signs as well? Did you know that the Irish and Blacks held the same social status and competed for the same jobs...that is until the Irish learned that they could assimilate into White culture by oppressing Blacks.
"The Irish were often referred to as "Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish...ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks."
See link: http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/white13.htm

"I have no more opportunity as a white person than anyone else. In fact, because of all the minority crap, I have LESS of an opportunity" Are you being serious...?

Subject: Re: My teacher, my mentor, my lover

Forum: My teacher, my mentor, my lover
Who are you to judge why this question is being posed? I wish people would stop inflicting judgment upon others. Not everyone is projecting through their posts and if they are, SO WHAT?!

In my opinion, it is normal to have a respectable relationship with a professor without crossing sexual boundaries. How can a professor write a true letter of recommendation if he or she barely knows who you are? It is up to the individuals whether the line is crossed and the relationship becomes more intimate. I think both should be aware of the consequences and weigh the worth. More than likely, the relationship can wait until the end of the course. Don't put yourself out there with the risk of failing because someone discovers your relationship. Remember how competitive your peers can be. If you don't want your grade to be compromised, wait it out. If you are seeing your professor to influence your grade, question your personal integrity. If you want to fulfill a fantasy or vice versa, keep it a fantasy.

Subject: Re: Affirmitive Action: Still Necessary?Is It Now Bad?

Forum: Affirmitive Action: Still Necessary?Is It Now Bad?
My final words before heading off to bed in response to another response:

"I guess the flip side of this whole thing, which I am willing to acknowledge, is that some minorities come from extremely underprivelaged backgrounds. I guess my response to this would be a lot of people live hard lives, no matter what race or skin color. You can never let anything hold you back from achieving. ANYONE can work hard, and ANYONE can make the most of the education they are receiving if they really want to."

Well, I am glad you can acknowledge this though it is quite clear. I agree anyone can work hard and it is true that anyone can make the most of the education they are receiving, but not everyone receives the same education or the experience that influence this development. And, not only do minorities displaced to a lower socioeconomic status have one strike from society against them because of a lack of educational resources, they are reminded of this and psychologically internalize these stigmas. They have several factors working against them if you want to calculate merit and credential. Unfortunately, there are varying degrees of education and not one standard scale that equally calculates who deserves what. A 3.5 may be a 2.0 elsewhere even though both are making the most of what they want to. This is why affirmative action is necessary. Or, a 3.5 in two different classes are both great GPAs, but contrast in an extensive or limited knowledge base. Because of socioeconomic constructs developed from history, measurement--especially--educational is inaccurate and it must be scaled by taking into account all these social, financial, political, historical, cultural, and psychological factors.

I can't do this anymore...good night!

Subject: Re: Affirmitive Action: Still Necessary?Is It Now Bad?

Forum: Affirmitive Action: Still Necessary?Is It Now Bad?
Oh my here we go...

There are so many factors to consider when discussing affirmative action and its effects. One question everyone needs to review is "What is the goal of affirmative action?"

Love it or hate, there is probably a greater chance at meeting in the middle, especially allocating the use of weak and strong affirmative action to their appropriate circumstances.

I believe weak affirmative action should continue to be implemented into society. Strong affirmative action has a more debatable time line.

Weak affirmative action is necessary in today's society, especially with the historical impacts still affecting our present social structures. I believe the intent of affirmative action and the results do more good than harm.

I can go back and forth with strong affirmative action.
Strong affirmative action provides too much room for corrupt ion. While the original intent was probably to temporarily equalize or raise equality, strong affirmative action is easily abused to reap the benefits of incorporating diversity--using people by external perceptions based once again on the judgments of what constitutes race and gender. It makes us judge others and type others based on visual perception.

Additionally, this type of affirmative action is disagreed upon because of critical notions from all sides, such as a minority acceptance over a white male regardless of merit. This results in self-questioning and peer criticism as to whether one really DESERVES the position.

However, for those who argue against affirmative action because it is not fair: affirmative action has always existed. In collegiate history, weren't only white males accepted at one point? It took time before the first African-American was permitted a higher level of education not to mention a female. White-only jobs, white-only colleges, etc. Is it more blatant than that?

Subject: Re: Why is being gay wrong?

Forum: Why is being gay wrong?
I was about to give up because many of you need to educate yourselves prior to posting in order to save yourself some integrity and realize your ignorance.

Homosexuality is not wrong. It is wrong according to you...whoever stated this in the first place. You labeled it as wrong, you reiterated the stigmas that defy a sense of society normalcy. There is no right or wrong; there is a construction of right and wrong.

A homosexual is not more of a sinner than anybody else, nor is he or she wrong according to Catholic belief. When a person acts upon a homosexual desire, then this is considered to be sinful...as any sexual act outside of wedlock.

Not sure exactly what was quoted about homosexuality and marriage, but traditionally marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and within this covenant is a promise to reproduce. Two persons of the same sex biologically cannot do this. However, a homosexual bond or gay marriage under a different term does not defy the sanctity or marriage. This continues to be a struggle because there really is not a separation between church and state and legally the rights and benefits would be not be appropriated to a gay couple as a they are to a married couple because their civil union is not "marriage"

The Bible was written by man, but INSPIRED by God. No inspiration = no Bible. Note also that oral tradition is referred-not solely the written Bible.

Romeo and Juliet was a PLAY---and not just about romance. There is speculation that Shakespeare was a homosexual.

What does "blacks and whites can marry" have anything to do with gay marriage? Is this supposed to be supportive of something? I see it as completely irrelevant in this context.

Your question should not be directed as why is being gay wrong...society says it is. Just because you have a friend who is gay does not mean you can tokenize him for the whole subculture. I don't know where most of you are from, but homosexuality is not that taboo in most cities.

This candidate's