View Full Version : Racist 13 yr. old twins
Jenny
10-31-2005, 07:03 PM
^^^
I was sort of specifically responding to the post directly above mine, that discussed the "restraints" placed on music. If the only restraints are market - like fewer people want to buy Prussian Blue records than gangsta rap - I don't think her comment makes any sense at all. Like surely she can't be arguing that all the people who buy gangsta rap should be forced to buy Prussian Blue as well?
Interesting, I don't think gangsta rap is all that acceptable. I think whenever a misogynist, violent artist breaks into the mainstream there is all sorts of controversy. Like Eminem. A lot of people spend a lot of time talking about how bad it is. It doesn't change the fact that it has a different social context. Like you don't need to be embracing sweeping affirmative action goals to acknowledge that a shirt that reads "Black Power" just means something integrally different than a shirt that reads "White Power." Insisting that we look at these things in a social vacuum is just foolish.
Amethyst
10-31-2005, 07:49 PM
Since Both CO and Jenny have schooled the class on those (poorly) manipulated statistics posted earlier, I will just add that one of the biggest flaws in those stats (besides some of them being made up) is that it does not take into consideration socio-economic factors:
*How much more likely are Black/Hispanic-Americans to live in poorer, more crime-ridden areas as compared to White-Americans?
*Not factoring in white-collar crimes, how much more likely are poor White-Americans to commit crimes than wealthier White-Americans? For that matter, wealthy Black/Hispanic-Americans vs poorer Black/Hispanic-Americans?
*Who is going to be able to afford better representation and be acquitted of the charges (think O.J. and Robert Blake versus Tyrone and Billy-Bob)?
*You should also factor in the fact that most crimes go unreported so there really is no telling just how many crimes are actually being committed.
*As CK pointed out earlier, what about unequal treatment of offenders when it comes to certain crimes? Take the ole Crack vs Cocaine example. Getting caught with some crack (which poorer people in general are more likely to use, but for the sake of argument, we'll say poor minorites) is almost guaranteed to get you some prison time, whereas getting caught with coke (which wealthier - wealthier Whites are more likely to use) - not so much.
On a personal note, Melonie, I think it was highly irresponsible for you to post those graphs and those statistics without considering the sources (or maybe you did, which is even scarier). I mean, really - adversity.net? amren.com? We've done nationalvanguard.com before - should we expect some tidbits of wisdom from stormfront.org next? As much as you and I disagree, you will NEVER see me link to anything that is known for promoting hatred against anyone not like me in order to boost my argument.
Question for all you so-called non-racist "White Nationalists" out there, why is it that your websites and pamphlets spend so much time demonizing Black Americans and every other non-White American (except rich Asians/Asian-Americans) and not nearly enough time simply uplifting your heritage?The only non-racist heritage-proud groups I've come across have been those that pay tribute to their European culture (Italian orgs, Irish orgs, German orgs, etc...). But get some of you under one umbrella and SHEESH!!!
Amethyst
10-31-2005, 07:55 PM
Lilith - come on. This is not a Tigerlily issue (and in case you're wondering - I'm not her). Posting links and reference to racist propaganda is a little beyond the pale, don't you think? I mean, I'm a big fan of generally ignoring this crap, but there does have to be SOME point where it is deemed offensive, short of her pasting a photo of herself is a sexy KKK costume.
LOL, I wouldn't worry about it. This is like how when conservatives run out of arguments, they blame Clinton. When your champion's arguments are being blown apart, blame Tigerlilly ::)
^^^
Interesting, I don't think gangsta rap is all that acceptable. I think whenever a misogynist, violent artist breaks into the mainstream there is all sorts of controversy. Like Eminem. A lot of people spend a lot of time talking about how bad it is. It doesn't change the fact that it has a different social context. Like you don't need to be embracing sweeping affirmative action goals to acknowledge that a shirt that reads "Black Power" just means something integrally different than a shirt that reads "White Power." Insisting that we look at these things in a social vacuum is just foolish.
Agreed.
The most vehement group of people to ever come out against gangsta-rap are Black women, who also happen to be the most negatively portrayed by gangsta-rappers. There are TONS more lyrics against Black women and women in general than "killing whitey" lyrics.
Casual Observer
10-31-2005, 08:15 PM
*Not factoring in white-collar crimes, how much more likely are poor White-Americans to commit crimes than wealthier White-Americans? For that matter, wealthy Black/Hispanic-Americans vs poorer Black/Hispanic-Americans?
And therein lies the crux of what most people mistake for racial divisiveness; socioeconomic standing. Irrespective of race, wealthy and middle-class people do not want to live or associate with poor people. That's just a fact. You don't see wealthy black folks moving into Watts or Compton to show racial unity in the same way you don't see wealthy white folks moving to Appalachia rather than the Upper East Side. Some of that is about status and professional and social interaction, but much of it is about safety and crime.
All that said, there can be no doubt that cultural norms between differing racial and socioeconomic groups are a determining factor in the type, prevalence and nature of crimes committed, not to mention the causal factors. This is where people are afraid to tread--while it seems OK to elaborate on the epidemic of crystal meth and its criminal externalities destroying poor, white middle America and attributing subcultural norms to its spread, the same conversation about Hispanic gang culture or black youth violence is frequently labelled as racist or at least biased, even though an objective observer could come to any such conclusion.
It's not a sign of bigotry to acknowledge that the crimes in different communities frequently have unique and localized causal factors.
Lilith
11-01-2005, 01:08 AM
LOL, I wouldn't worry about it. This is like how when conservatives run out of arguments, they blame Clinton. When your champion's arguments are being blown apart, blame Tigerlilly ::)
Apparently you've missed the point. I suspect subtlety is wasted on you. Those of us who actually have connections here know which ones are the sockpuppet accounts.
It's not paranoia if there really is a psychotic nutjob on the loose.
Jenny, touchy doesn't seem your style. The rest of you (and Tigerlily! *waves*) may recommence behaving badly.
Jenny
11-01-2005, 06:38 AM
Lilith - are you kidding? For Halloween I dressed up as a hypersensitive feminist. Guess why! I do take your point about behaving badly, and politicizing conversations, and I did know what you were talking about (i.e. Melonie v. Tigerlily). I think what I meant was that when you have members posting links that are one step up from the KKK (seriously - check them out and SEE who they are associated with. I am not exaggerating or making this up. They are well known "intellectual racists") people BESIDES Tigerlily (and me) mind. Not every concern about racism on this board is Tigerlily in disguise (and again - I swear - I'm not her) although I do understand that a lot of the more vocal ones ARE. I think this also has the effect of completely drowning the people here who have very legitimate concerns.
susan
11-01-2005, 12:23 PM
It's sad really. I dont think they will have a long carrear. Remember that song "short people got no reason to live" He didnt last long.
Actually, "Short People" was written and sung by Randy Newman as a bit of satire. Randy Newman is considered one of America's great composers. He's won multiple Grammy's and Tony's, and won an Oscar for his music in the movie "Monsters, Inc.".
The better analogy is "Tatu", who disappeared pretty quickly, thank goodness, never to be seen again.
Lilith
11-01-2005, 01:04 PM
I think this also has the effect of completely drowning the people here who have very legitimate concerns.
I always got a bit of a giggle out of this. The mental image of some poster typing, vehemently banging away at the keys and then... the moment of pause. "Is this important enough that I want to side with the batshit looney toons forum nutjob? What if she wants to thank me by sending heads through the mail?"
S'okay though, 'cause for every person who hit delete, Tigerlily can always make more sockpuppets to agree with her. Which makes conversations like this SO boring (unless she forgets which poster she is logged in as, which is always good for a laugh).
Jenny
11-01-2005, 01:10 PM
^^^
You didn't like your head? Maybe we can trade? I have a blonde - although I do suspect it's a dye job.
kittenkat
11-07-2005, 02:12 AM
I believe in freedom of speech. In fact, most people I know would agree that they have the right (meaning the 13 year old twins) to say what they want. I also agree with some people here that the message is quite abhorrent. I'll aslo say that I find Gangster Rap abhorrent, and let me just say that a many African-Americans people agree that it speards a negative image of blacks and poses a bad example to black people in general. You don't find educated African-americans speaking of the benfits of Gangster Rap. In fact, there are many discussions about how it negatively impacts their community, but that never gets discussed because it's not newsworthy.
Some people would even say that the promotion of Gangsta Rap is actually a way to promote negative image of black people. Divide and Conquer.
BTW, if you go to many places like Stromfront- you will see them complaining about Asians, just not as much, but it's been increasing over the years. Hate crimes against Asians have been steadily rising over the last decade.
It's interesting, because strippers get all kinds of negative stereotypes associated with it- so you would think we would become more sensitive to stereotyping of others. Some people never learn, I suppose.
stant
11-07-2005, 03:51 AM
And therein lies the crux of what most people mistake for racial divisiveness; socioeconomic standing. Irrespective of race, wealthy and middle-class people do not want to live or associate with poor people. That's just a fact. You don't see wealthy black folks moving into Watts or Compton to show racial unity in the same way you don't see wealthy white folks moving to Appalachia rather than the Upper East Side. Some of that is about status and professional and social interaction, but much of it is about safety and crime.
All that said, there can be no doubt that cultural norms between differing racial and socioeconomic groups are a determining factor in the type, prevalence and nature of crimes committed, not to mention the causal factors. This is where people are afraid to tread--while it seems OK to elaborate on the epidemic of crystal meth and its criminal externalities destroying poor, white middle America and attributing subcultural norms to its spread, the same conversation about Hispanic gang culture or black youth violence is frequently labelled as racist or at least biased, even though an objective observer could come to any such conclusion.
It's not a sign of bigotry to acknowledge that the crimes in different communities frequently have unique and localized causal factors.
This is exactly the problem that causes the racism in organizations such as the LAPD. It's not a historical racial bigotry, it's more or less a Pavlovian learned racism. When the first 50 black people a white boy rookie cop from the burbs meets are all criminals, the next one he sees will no doubt be treated unfairly. I was pulled over while riding a motorcycle without registration, missing turn signals, and a variety of other citable offenses by the LAPD some years ago. Both officers were out of the car and had unbuckled their firearms when I got off the bike. When I removed my helmet, they visibly relaxed and actually became friendly and jovial. I did not even receive a warning. Such glimpses of racism are rare for white people, which is why we have such difficulty appreciating the problem. I'm not calling these cops hatefull bigots.
Can you explain how when the OJ verdict was announced, it was almost universally condemned by whites, and contrastly cheered by most black people, absolutely regardless of socioeconomic status.
In my opinion, it is because every black person knows someone that has been screwed by the system in a way a white person would not have been. I have yet to meet a black man in LA that has not been pulled over for DWB. Driving while black. The richest investment banker I know is black and this shit happens to him all the time. If he and I behaved identically and drove identical vehicles, the odds are far from even which one of us could end up in jail at any given moment. This is not a problem that can be readily analyzed with statistics.
Check out this frontline documentary:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/view/
You don't see wealthy black folks moving into Watts or Compton to show racial unity in the same way you don't see wealthy white folks moving to Appalachia rather than the Upper East Side. Some of that is about status and professional and social interaction, but much of it is about safety and crime. In LA, Baldwin Hills is a predominantly black community and also quite affluent. Racial segregation has some ingrained cultural cause that hopefully will someday be only a memory.
Melonie
11-07-2005, 07:39 AM
I believe in freedom of speech. In fact, most people I know would agree that they have the right (meaning the 13 year old twins) to say what they want. I also agree with some people here that the message is quite abhorrent. I'll aslo say that I find Gangster Rap abhorrent, and let me just say that a many African-Americans people agree that it speards a negative image of blacks and poses a bad example to black people in general. You don't find educated African-americans speaking of the benfits of Gangster Rap. In fact, there are many discussions about how it negatively impacts their community, but that never gets discussed because it's not newsworthy.
Again, going back to the origins of this thread, some speech appears to be much more 'free' than other speech. There is a world of difference between Prussian Blue working with a fly-by-night independent record producer and being decried as racists throughout the little bit of news coverage they got, versus mainstream recording/movie industry spending millions of dollars on promotions of 'gangsta rappers' followed by open mike opportunities on MTV.
Think about it the next time you drive by a 20 ft tall $100,000 billboard of '50 cent' exemplifying the film's lead character in 'get rich or die trying' ... which in and of itself consists of a pretty strong racial 'hate' message.
I have yet to meet a black man in LA that has not been pulled over for DWB. Driving while black. The richest investment banker I know is black and this shit happens to him all the time. If he and I behaved identically and drove identical vehicles, the odds are far from even which one of us could end up in jail at any given moment. This is not a problem that can be readily analyzed with statistics.
It is arguable that there ARE statistics involved though. For starters, what are the relative statistics on legal ownership of new Beemers by whites versus blacks ? Put another way, what are the relative statistics of white versus black drivers being pulled over while driving a new Beemer actually being the legal owner of the vehicle ? What are the relative statistics regarding the percentage of young white males versus young black males convicted of car theft ? Yes it's unfortunate for the black investment banker. However, like anti-terrorism body cavity searches of grandmothers from Minnesota, it's simply an insane waste of resources to ignore that statistics do play a role.
Jenny
11-07-2005, 08:57 AM
Geez, Melonie, not the point. For police to pull you over you are meant to be DOING something - certain activities notwithstanding (RIDE, for example is random). Police do not just randomly stop people to look for stolen cars. They are meant to have some REASON to believe it was stolen before they stop you. We are NOT MEANT TO HAVE INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM. We are not meant to be able to infer guilt from social background. What racism IS is determining that a man (or woman) must be driving a stolen vehicle BECAUSE that man or woman is black (or hispanic. Or anything else for that matter).
And - I'm interested - how many innocent grandmothers from Minnesota are having body cavity searches? And why? I travelled in the US alone after 9/11 - frequently. I have all my bags checked at every single airport. (woman travelling alone. I think that would generally add up to drug trafficking rather than terrorism - still profiling. Oh, and there was concern about SARS, being all Canadian and all). Never once have I been physically searched. Even a pat down. As for the idea that white people aren't a terrorism risk - tell it Tim McVeigh. Even better? They don't have to get into the country. They were already here. But after the Oklahoma bombing it would have been pretty ridiculous to start searching all white men, assuming that because they fit a profile they are obviously a risk. THAT is a waste of resources.
doc-catfish
11-07-2005, 09:08 AM
I happened to be on a website yesterday that specializes in selling T-shirts supporting right-wing ideals. I just happened to come across this shirt. Look at the two models in the bottom picture.
:O
http://www.thoseshirts.com/moon.html
No, I don't think that's the PB girls, but you've got to admit that they look pretty close. Weird.
soybeangirl
11-07-2005, 09:16 AM
Has anyone else listenend to the mp3 on the website? They suck. Seriously. Even if they weren't singing about "that stuff" they would still be eventually exploited and laughed off the proverbial stage because they are god-awful.
i know this has nothing to do with the content of the music. just wanted to let you know I think it's some of the worst sounding crap i have ever heard.
Melonie
11-07-2005, 10:47 AM
We are NOT MEANT TO HAVE INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM
... oh, so you're saying that preferential government hiring policies towards minorities should stop ? You're saying that 'set asides' for minority businesses should stop ? You're saying that racially weighted criteria for school admission/acceptance should stop ? If so I agree with you ! However, what in fact many people are saying is that racism is abhorrent if it has a negative effect on minorities, but that racism is acceptable and justified if it has a positive effect on minorities. Therein lies the hypocracy.
how many innocent grandmothers from Minnesota are having body cavity searches?
Exactly the same number as the young arab males who are getting searched, namely NONE. This was the result of an ACLU lawsuit brought against New York City when they attempted to search subway passengers after the London tube attacks - where the court gave the city cops a choice of searching everybody or searching nobody.
We are not meant to be able to infer guilt from social background. What racism IS is determining that a man (or woman) must be driving a stolen vehicle BECAUSE that man or woman is black (or hispanic. Or anything else for that matter)
This is not racism, it is profiling. This is attempting to make the most effective use of limited LE resources by concentrating those resources in areas with the highest statistical probability. Reasonable suspicion and a finding of guilt are two extremely different things. I guarantee you that any white teenager dressed in 'hoodies' found driving a new Beemer in Baldwin Hills is far more likely to be pulled over than a Beemer being driven by a middle-aged black man wearing a business suit.
Jenny
11-07-2005, 11:02 AM
... oh, so you're saying that preferential government hiring policies towards minorities should stop ? You're saying that 'set asides' for minority businesses should stop ? You're saying that racially weighted criteria for school admission/acceptance should stop ? If so I agree with you ! However, what in fact many people are saying is that racism is abhorrent if it has a negative effect on minorities, but that racism is acceptable and justified if it has a positive effect on minorities. Therein lies the hypocracy.
Well, I'm willing to bet that there are laws in place in the US (and I know there are here) that state that laws set in place to "equalize" identifiable groups that are suffering under historical disadvantage that still impacts today are not in fact discriminatory because they exist solely to combat discrimination. That is just elementary logic.
Exactly the same number as the young arab males who are getting searched, namely NONE. This was the result of an ACLU lawsuit brought against New York City when they attempted to search subway passengers after the London tube attacks - where the court gave the city cops a choice of searching everybody or searching nobody.
Actually, that is a facinating story in and of itself. London and England for that matter have a long history of terrorism. The bombing is not the first terrorist attack in London. They've had more bombings than you can conveniently shake a stick at. And they've had extremely permissive laws regarding police interrogation and racial profiling. Want to know what that led to? It wasn't a state in which police judiciously used those powers to capture the right terrorists. It led to faulty convictions which led to more faulty convictions. It showed, demonstrably, over a fair period of time that racial profiling is ineffective.
TarynJolie
11-07-2005, 11:53 AM
laws set in place to "equalize" identifiable groups that are suffering under historical disadvantage that still impacts today are not in fact discriminatory because they exist solely to combat discrimination. That is just elementary logic.
excellant point !
Melonie
11-07-2005, 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenny
laws set in place to "equalize" identifiable groups that are suffering under historical disadvantage that still impacts today are not in fact discriminatory because they exist solely to combat discrimination. That is just elementary logic.
excellant point !
Actually, that's 'liberal' logic ... holding the son responsible for the 'sins' of the father (or great, great, great grandfather as the case may be). Today there is practically zero chance that an 18 year old white college applicant in any way directly exploited an 18 year old minority college applicant on the basis of race, such that the 18 year old white applicant must 'equalize' his past actions ... yet the white applicant is faced with a higher 'hurdle' than the black applicant in regard to being accepted at the same college. Same situation applies when a white applicant faces higher hurdles when seeking civil service employment in competition with a black applicant. On what logical basis do you consider this to be 'equal treatment under the law' ?
I would also agree that past laws put in place to 'equalize' identifiable groups did serve an important purpose, and did accomplish some portion of their objective during the 40+ years they were in effect and some 6 Trillion dollars was spent to provide 'extra help' to two generations worth of those identifiable groups. However, at this point in time in regard to US law at least, it is no longer considered equal (or legal, i.e. equal protection under the law) to treat particular identifiable groups either favorably or unfavorably compared to other groups, because continuing to do so after two generations smacks of PERMANENT gov't sanctioned discrimination against white people and permanent gov't sponsored favorable treatment for black people - exactly what you were complaining about, but aimed in a different direction. Again we come back to the double standard.
Admittedly, both of those points are off topic in regard to extremists such as Prussian Blue or 'gangsta rappers'. The only common point of course is that the same double standard appears to be alive and well depending upon whether the message is coming from white artists or black artists.
Jenny
11-07-2005, 03:07 PM
Actually, that's 'liberal' logic ... holding the son responsible for the 'sins' of the father (or great, great, great grandfather as the case may be).
Well, that doesn't actually directly impact my point, but I do think it brings up something interesting. For example - it is possible for the son to inherit EVERYTHING else from his father, grandfather etc. He may inherit property, money, chattel, title (in some places), intellectual property, and even pride. The estate inherits debt. Why not guilt? Why do we choose to endow upon this son all the benefits and opportunities afforded by his forefathers, but none of the guilt, payment or responsibility? I'm not sure that is altogether sensible.
Today there is practically zero chance that an 18 year old white college applicant in any way directly exploited an 18 year old minority college applicant on the basis of race, such that the 18 year old white applicant must 'equalize' his past actions
Equalize his actions? That makes no sense. Not even grammatically. The attempt is to equalize the minority groups, not to punish anyone (which is why I pointed out that your above statement doesn't directly impact this issue). Now there are interesting points, that are certainly discussed and acknowledged by "liberals" that "disadvantaged group" doesn't exist in a strict dichotomy - the typical examples being that a black woman may not feel particularly "equalized" that a white woman may be admitted to a program (of any kind) over a black man; nor might a working class white woman feel that any social justice is served if a wealthy Asian woman is admitted over a poor white man. This may be a weakness in the system, but I don't see it as such a great one as to justify jettisoning the baby with the bathwater.
... yet the white applicant is faced with a higher 'hurdle' than the black applicant in regard to being accepted at the same college. Same situation applies when a white applicant faces higher hurdles when seeking civil service employment in competition with a black applicant. On what logical basis do you consider this to be 'equal treatment under the law' ?
I have a better question - why do you assume that the natural applicant for the job is white? Like, all things being equal, why do you assume that the job belongs to the white candidate? Conversely, why assume that the applicant of colour is not the most qualified? Personally, I haven't noticed a huge shortage of either senior or entry level employees under civil service who are caucasion. Nor have I noticed a huge lack of caucasions in higher education (and by the way, all of our schools are public). So I have difficulty believing that the hurdles in question are all that high. Of course, I don't think there is any affirmative action attached to schools here.
I would also agree that past laws put in place to 'equalize' identifiable groups did serve an important purpose, and did accomplish some portion of their objective during the 40+ years they were in effect and some 6 Trillion dollars was spent to provide 'extra help' to two generations worth of those identifiable groups.
Two generations? Starting from when? Don't you think it is a little naive just to declare that there was no more racism after 1969? That beginning from that date all the "assistance" (a word I think is seriously mischaracterizing) is for the past?
Admittedly, both of those points are off topic in regard to extremists such as Prussian Blue or 'gangsta rappers'. The only common point of course is that the same double standard appears to be alive and well depending upon whether the message is coming from white artists or black artists.
And this (way to go back on topic) goes back to pretending that it IS in fact a double standard. It exists as a double standard only when we pretend that there is a social/cultural vacuum, and that these things have similar social meaning. So again - while gangsta rap is far, far, far from free of critics - I'm willing to bet that you'll find way more writing condemning Eminem and Snoop than Prussian Blue - it is simply wearing intellectual blinders to pretend that it is "equal" behaviour.
Melonie
11-07-2005, 06:17 PM
Nothing personal, but attempting to carry on a 'bipolar' discussion of these issues with a Canadian appears to be somewhat hopeless. As residents of a free country, you are certainly entitled to embrace all of the liberalism, socialism and political correctness you want to. Just don't delude yourself into thinking that liberal, socialist and politically correct policies don't have a tremendous cost attached. As an American, I'm somewhat relieved by the existance of the US patriot act, in the sense that after those tremendous costs have ruined the earnings potential for 'just dancing' in Canadian clubs, Canadian dancers won't have the easy option of coming to American clubs and will essentially be stuck living with the results of their own idealism.
vegasgirl702
11-07-2005, 06:41 PM
this is a sad situation.....the parents are clearly keeping their girls away from society!!!i wonder whats gonna happen to them when they grow up and aren't "sheltered" by their parents and their racist views..
Jenny
11-07-2005, 07:29 PM
Nothing personal, but attempting to carry on a 'bipolar' discussion of these issues with a Canadian appears to be somewhat hopeless. As residents of a free country, you are certainly entitled to embrace all of the liberalism, socialism and political correctness you want to. Just don't delude yourself into thinking that liberal, socialist and politically correct policies don't have a tremendous cost attached. As an American, I'm somewhat relieved by the existance of the US patriot act, in the sense that after those tremendous costs have ruined the earnings potential for 'just dancing' in Canadian clubs, Canadian dancers won't have the easy option of coming to American clubs and will essentially be stuck living with the results of their own idealism.
I'm actually more than a little surprised you just said that. And it is actually pretty personal - but I'm far too bright to be offended by it.
You seriously think that political correctness has ruined "just dancing" in Canadian clubs? Then what has ruined it in Texas? Jeez. This has just been completely shot into outerspace. It's completely insane. The contact here doesn't differ hugely from the contact in clubs in New York and Montana - and it is a great deal less than San Francisco and what I've heard about cities like Houston. And the option to go to American clubs is still pretty easy - I have standing invitations in many cities. And the results of our own idealism? Hmm. Comparable earning potential with working conditions that kick every American city's butt? Clubs that actually respect indie status? Clubs that actually are held responsible for the activities therein (I mean we still bitch about it, but a club can't viably claim that a sign saying "do not touch the dancers" is diligence)? Laws with some measured, albeit slight, respect for women in the sex trade? Hmm. Yeah, I can live with our idealism.
And, of course, none of this has anything to do with anything in my last post or the issue at hand. It's nothing but a cheap shot at my nationality. That's just shameful. And it probably serves me right for discussing politics, however politely, in the Lounge.
Rhiannon
11-07-2005, 07:33 PM
Yeah.. So, I think we're just going in circles now. In addition to that, it's getting a little too personal. This is why Poo was closed, and this is why Poo is not allowed in the Lounge.
Stick a fork in.. We're done here.