en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/759175 Comments by angert2390 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/south-park-off-the-hook__trashed/#IDComment70065576 Let me start off this blog post by saying that I am a huge South Park fan. It is a hilarious show and has always been one of the best cartoons and programs on television. However, it's not just hilarious but it is brilliant. Nearly every episode has a message and every episode is a satire. It is not created just to have foul mouth jokes and inappropriate language. But rather, it pokes fun on current events and the craziness that is today's 21st century society and America. Having said that, this past week's two part episode about Muhammad and the muslims was great. It was in my opinion one of the best episodes in South Park history. Again, having said that, people need to lighten up and learn how to take jokes. That is what South Park is. It is a satirical joke with a message. South Park's creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone aren't making fun of Muslims, the islamic religion or Muhammad. They are just using the episode for a greater message and to be funny. Today's society with the radical Christians and Muslims, whoever it may be, need to take a chill pill and relax. People need to learn how to take jokes and lighten up a little bit at times. Laughter makes this world such a better place and South Park's creators helps a better mood. Yeah, the show may cross the line at times. I could name 20 episodes off the top of my head that people would consider too racy and crossing the line. But you know what, who the hell cares. It is funny. It is a comedy. Whether it is censorship and stuff like this or whatever, people need to just relax, smile and have a good time. In my opinion, this is just a small representation of people caring too much. The FCC, the christian conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, everyone. People are too damn serious. Life is short and we should have fun and laugh. I know this doesn't necessarily answer the question directly but I'm using this blog post to just tell people to live and laugh. People always say carpe diem and sieze the day and life life to the fullest. Well, the best way to live life to the fullest is to smile and laugh and have some fun. South Park has fun and it makes me smile and laugh. So Trey Parker and Matt Stone, keep making fun of Muhammad and whoever the hell you want to because I want to laugh some more. People will complain, it's a fact. People complain about everything. Sarcasm and satire make life fun. Being uptight just makes everyone unhappy and I don't want to be unhappy. I want to laugh ans South Park is all about laughing. Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:29:58 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/south-park-off-the-hook__trashed/#IDComment70065576 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68451048 Looking through most of the comments above about the question asked about men, I can't help but agree with the majority of my peers who say men conform just as much as women in today's society. We feel the same way as women do when it comes to fitting in. Feeling accepted is not really a gender issue or a race issue or an issue that relates to any specific type of person. It is a matter of self-esteem and self-confidence. People want to fit in and they want to be apart of the group, whether you are a guy or girl. For girls, it just appears that they want to conform because companies target this. They use stick thin, super model types in all of their commercials and they sell their products to girls in order to look like these women. But doesn't the same thing apply to men? Don't companies like Gilette and Axe use guys who are models and flawless in their commercials to convince normal looking, average joe's to purchase their products to look like them. They do. It happens to both men and women. I think the major difference between the two are that girls are more likely to admit another girl is attractive and say they want to look like that. Not many guys are comfortable enough to say another guy is good looking and that they wish they appeared like that. That is why I think we always assume it's just girls who want to conform to these images and not men too. I think this reason goes full circle and I think the reason behind it is conformity too. As easy as it is to spot a good looking girl, it is just as easy to spot a guy who is good looking. However, most guys won't admit another guy is good looking or that they want to look like them because other guys don't do this and it is not manly to do this. But in all reality, guys crave to conform to society's standards. Why do you think you see so many guys in the gym lifting weights? Why do you see so many guys drinking protein and using weight gain supplements? Guys do all these sorts of things because society expects us to look like this and be fit and athletic looking. This is why so many guys try to dress a certain way and work out. So long story short, it's not just girls who feel the need to conform to society's image of perfection. Boys do the same exact thing. We secretly want to look like Brad Pitt just as much as you wish you looked like Angeline Jolie. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:40:47 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-men__trashed/#IDComment68451048 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/i-really-want-to-know-also__trashed/#IDComment66923629 I have to agree with this also. I think when the class first started, I was really intrigued and interested. I'm not sure what the reason is but it was probably the shock value. I think the great thing about Sam is that he is so out there at times that you don't expect what comes out of his mouth. However, after a month in the class, that shock value kind of gets old and it's not as, well, shocking. I think this is why I have been kind of drifting off in class a little bit and having a hard time staying engaged. Though I must say that Tuesday's class with the guest speaker really kept me interested and I thought it was an overall fun class. But while some of the lectures do get old and very repetitive, I will give Sam this- he riles up your emotions. I feel for most in the class, these emotions are agreeing with him. However, a lot times for me they are disagreement. There have been a few classes now when I have walked out of 100 Thomas and came back to my apartment to vent to my roommate in anger and frustration about how I disagree with a lot of Sam's comparisons. This is nothing against Sam. If anything, I think it is a testament to how good of a teacher he is. In my opinion, being a good teacher doesn't mean getting your students to think and to get them riled up. This has happened to me. Just ask my dad, I've called him numerous times too in frustration. So as to if I've learned anything new in this class or if it has changed my opinions, I'd have to say no. I'm pretty aware of the disparity in races throughout the world and all the stuff Sam talks about so it's not like he's opened my eyes. And I come from a very diverse area with friends of all races and backgrounds so it's not like he's changed any of my opinions on race. What this class has done is it has solidified my own opinions, which I think is just as valuable as the opposite. I'd also like to add that I love the discussions that we have once a week. While some of the lectures are interesting, some aren't. However, when it comes to the discussion groups, I am always fully engaged and interested. Normally, I can be very quiet and reserved when I am not in a setting with friends or a setting where I feel in control or comfortable. But for some reason, I am always willing to speak and share my opinions in my discussion group. Sometimes a lot of the people disagree and sometimes I reveal a little too much about myself, but I feel they are the most rewarding part of the class because talking with my peers has been a nice way to discuss my opinions and whatnot. Sat, 10 Apr 2010 02:45:24 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/i-really-want-to-know-also__trashed/#IDComment66923629 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/those-damn-dolls__trashed/#IDComment65677910 This argument that we had in class really frustrated me about beauty being a white versus black topic. The whole thing about how the media depicts beauty to be white and that it is out to get black and brown people is completely wrong. What beauty is really based off of is more socio-economic. Factors like the majority versus the minority and people with power/money versus those who don't is what decides beauty. If beauty was a black vs white thing than it would be universal. However, if you go to South America, beauty would be people who were black or brown. If you go to Asia, beauty would be people who are Asian. If you go to many parts of Africa, beauty would be black. Then, white would be considered what was not beautiful. If you go to Asia, girls aren't trying to be white. If you go to Latin America, people aren't trying to look as light as possible. Therefore, what it really boils down to for beauty is the people in the majority. In the United States of America, the people in the majority and with power are white people. This is why white is considered beautiful here. If you go anywhere else, white isn't considered beautiful. As for the dolls, the reason why the little kids always picked the white doll is obvious. And while I will admit it is very disturbing for black and brown people, it makes sense why they do it and no one should be to blame- especially white people. Growing up, little kids don't know one color from the next. So what they see on tv is what is right. The reason why the Disney princesses for example and tv characters are white is because these shows are made to make money. The way to make money is to cater to the majority. Again, in the USA the majority is white. This is why Disney makes their characters white. White people want to watch shows with white people in it, white people make the majority of the country, therefore because of points A and B, disney will make their characters white to make MONEY. This isn't a white vs black thing, it's a money issue. If you go to Mexico, turn on a television and you'll see every character is brown. Go to China and you'll see every character is Asian. So are all the dolls these kids grow up with. It's not because "the media" is racist, it's because no matter where you go, they are trying to make money and cater to those with money. America is no different and that's why beauty is defined as white here. It's nothing against black and brown people. It's not media bias. It's not a conspiracy. It just makes sense. Sat, 3 Apr 2010 01:27:18 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/those-damn-dolls__trashed/#IDComment65677910 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/if-men-could-menstruate__trashed/#IDComment64220094 I agree with the people who said that this comment was kind of strange in the idea that men don't know about women's menstrual cycles. We know it happens once a month, we know that it affects girls moods and we know that the "bleeding" means you are fertile. Do we really need to know the scientific terms about menstruation. Do we need to know that the official meaning of menstruation is the shedding of the endometrium. Do girls really know any of that? I think the concern is that men don't like talking about menstruation compared to simply not knowing what it is. Personally, I don't know what the big deal is that we don't like talking about with girls. Do girls like when we talk about pooping and farting? Those are both bodily functions but they are deemed as things you keep to yourself because it's not appropriate conversation. It's not that we're disgusted about it. It's just that it's proper and respectful to keep that stuff to yourself. We understand it happens. We know what it is. When you are in a relationship or if it's your family member it may be okay to talk about. But I'm not going to want to have a conversation with a girl about pooping, farting and bleeding. This is the reason why it's off limits. It's not because we aren't educated about it and it's not because we are weirded out by girls bleeding from that area. It's just how civilized people conduct themselves by not talking about their personal bodily functions. The reasons why talking about periods with your dad or brother can be awkward is the same as other things. Do you want your brother to talk to you about going to the bathroom or your dad talk to you about that either. The answer most times is probably not. A period is a natural bodily functions but unfortunately we were created in a way that our bodily functions are not the most appealing things. This is why talking about them at the dinner table or in public is so taboo. As for the question about if men could menstruate, would tampons and pads be free, that is just ridiculous. What is free in this world. NOTHING. Water is free (not in Europe even) and toilet paper is free. Not much else is. Why would they make tampons free if they cost money to make. What difference would men menstruating make? It's a money issue, not a gender issue. Even though toilet paper is free in public bathrooms, you still have to buy it for your house. And public places pay for that toilet paper. So it is free for you, but someone is paying for it. If you could get tampons for free at a public bathroom, why would you buy them for your house? It just doesn't make sense and is illogical. What products aimed for men are free? Nothing. And don't say condoms when health clinics give them away. They may be used on men, but they are for both men and women. Simply put, if men menstruated it would be no different in terms of buying tampons. Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:59:54 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/if-men-could-menstruate__trashed/#IDComment64220094 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/women-and-sports__trashed/#IDComment63001394 In response to the assumption here that because she played for a women's football team along with teaching experience she has the skills to coach high schoolers, I have to respectfully disagree. I don't know much about the Divas and women's football, but I do know a lot about sports. And what I know about team sports is that men's and women's games are completely different. Hockey, baseball and basketball are all examples how the women's games are much different then the men's games and it is not an easy crossover. I'm not saying a woman can't coach a men's team because you see many men coach women. What I'm saying is you can't compare playing women's football to men's. I'm not saying one is better, I'm saying they are simply different. I have gone to every single Lady Lions game this year and from experience I can tell you that women's basketball for example is 100 percent different then mens. The men's game relies much more on brute strength and athleticism while the women's game is much more about finesse. I'm not saying men are stronger than women but there is no arguing science and that males and females have different pre-disposed genes- whether they are emotional or physical. This is why the games are different. Women's Olympic hockey relies a lot more on speed and agility while the men's game is about aggression and physical play. When you watch a women's basketball game, the style of play is much slower. It's not about taking the ball to the hole and dunking over the other players. I can guarantee if you had Pat Riley coach a team of women he wouldn't be as successful as Tennessee coach Pat Summitt. And this isn't even just reserved for males vs females. It's also true for college and professional sports. That's why you see so many college coaches unsuccessful on the professional level. The same way that college football is different from professional football is the same way that mens is different from womens and you can't assume you can cary over success. Being a good women's basketball player doesn't mean you will be a good men's coach. And that works both ways. Being a good men's basketball player doesn't mean you will be a good women's coach. You have to have knowledge about the way that specific gender plays the sport to be good head coach. I'm not positive about how women's football works but I know women's flag football is a lot different then mens. Men's football is a lot more physical, it is played in the trenches by guys who are over 300 pounds of pure muscle. With the Divas I'm sure the game was played much differently. Yeah, yeah, yeah I know I'm making assumptions there but they are more realistic. I don't think what I am saying is sexist. I'm not saying women can't coach men. I'm just saying that women's sports are different then mens. Not lesser, not any worse. Heck, I like watching women's college basketball a lot more than mens. The two are just different. Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:49:32 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/women-and-sports__trashed/#IDComment63001394 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/are-whites-the-only-people-willing-to-humiliate-themselves__trashed/#IDComment59707094 TV is a business. It is a gigantic business that makes a lot of money. Therefore, TV is all about money and making as much of it as possible. Big time networks like an ABC or a CBS or a NBC are not concerned about the demographics of the USA as a whole. They are concerned about THEIR demographics. I don't condone or agree with having all white people on the Bachelor but I can understand it. I don't know the exact demographics of these major networks, but by judging by their past most successful shows- Friends, Everybody Loves Raymond, Seinfeld, etc.- their viewership is predominantly white and usually middle-aged white people. Having said that, if there was an all black Bachelor on ABC, it probably would not get that high of ratings compared to the current one. Again, I am not agreeing with this. I am simply giving logical reasoning in terms of money and making money. Think of the opposite and flipside and I think it may make more sense. Imagine a reality show on the former UPN or on BET that was all white people or 95 percent white people. The ratings would be total shit. Nobody who normally tunes into those stations would watch that show. That is because people like to watch stuff about similar people. That is why BET's audience is black. That is why MTV's audience is typically teens and twenty-somethings. And that is why ABC's audience is primarily white. Another main reason why a show like the Bachelor is mainly white is because it is a dating show. And as we learned in Sam's class and talked about in our discussions, this country isn't 100 percent accepting of interracial dating. If an interracial couple walks down the street, people will give them a second look. Just like with two people of the same sex. Not that it is wrong. It's just not the social norm and what is expected to be seen. Therefore, a dating show on ABC is going to have contestants matching their selector. Maybe there will be one or two black contestants if the main Bachelor is white, but after a while they usually get eliminated. This is mainly because it is a dating show. I don't think this applies to shows like Big Brother and Survivor. Yes, those shows have a majority of white people. But the ratio of whites to people of color is more representative of the country as a whole. Say maybe three white people to every black or Asian person. So in summation, I understand completely why it is 95 percent white people on the Bachelor. It comes down to two things. The first is making money and the second is America's not accepting of interracial dating yet. Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:36:47 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/are-whites-the-only-people-willing-to-humiliate-themselves__trashed/#IDComment59707094 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-five__trashed/#IDComment57668447 I think it is obvious why people wouldn't support gay marriage. Plain and simple, there are a lot of stupid, crazy people in this world. I probably shouldn't call people stupid for believing in a certain belief but, what the hell, I think they are. This is a country founded by and filled with religious fanatics. It's really an entire world filled with religious freaks and those people can be as stubborn as a mule when it comes to sticking by their guns and what they are told by their religion. Don't quote me word for word on this but to my knowledge the bible says marriage is a sanction between man and wife. Therefore, the reason why so many people disagree with gay marriage is because they believe this is violating that sanctity. The thing we don't realize going to a school filled with so many eighteen to twenty-two year olds is that Penn State isn't a representation of the entire country. Outside of Penn State and the small liberal communities or big urban cities most of us come from, the rest of the United States of America is filled with bible-thumping religious fanatics. They make up the majority of this country. How else do you explain an idiot like George W. Bush being elected president ... twice! That is because most people are blind to being able to think for themselves and just go by whatever the Bible says. These aren't all Christians, these are simply the ones who are fanatical in the Bible belt of America. The average Christian that I meet (I'm Jewish) may be really religious and go to church, but for the most part they are open-minded and hip with the 21st century and two dudes or chicks getting married. That isn't how most people are though. Most of those people aren't going to college or at least aren't going to a school like Penn State. This isn't just America though and not just about gay marriage. There are religious fanatics all over the world who listen to their book of worship without any questions asked. The terrorist attack of September 11th is a prime example. It was for religious reasons and they thought they were fulfilling their religious destinies. I'm not comparing being against Gay Marriage and killing thousands of people but in a way I am. It is simply proof that a lot of people, no matter how crazy it might seem to fly a plane into a building or how crazy it is to be against two people in love getting married, will do anything their religion says. And in this situation, their religion says shame on two men or women ruining the sanctity of marriage. Crazy world we live in, right? Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:08:26 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-five__trashed/#IDComment57668447 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55515211 This topic about Avatar and "the White Man's Burden" is an interesting one to me. I think it relates to something we talked about in my first discussion group last week in relation to the situation in Haiti. During that discussion I had brought up the idea that I think that, not necessarily white people, but Americans are in somewhat of a Catch-22 situation. I'm going to use Haiti as the example here but it really can relate to a lot of things like the Tsunami in southeast Asia or any natural disaster or human tragedy. I feel that if Americans help out a country like Haiti, the public perception across the world (not 100 percent, but by a lot of people) is that we are fulfilling this White Man's Burden and we are superior and we have to intervene everywhere. But if we don't help a country like Haiti, we get looked down upon by other countries because we have the resources to help but we're not doing it. Thus, it's a lose-lose for the USA. Well, not really a lose-lose because if we are helping than it is aiding a country that needs it. But a lose-lose for public perception. The main reason for this is simple: people don't like us. It's no sudden news flash that countries around the world, whether it is France, China or whoever, doesn't like us. Again, it's not everybody but the average foreign person from Europe or Asia or wherever looks down on American's. They think we are low-class, uncultured, dominating and conceited. So when it comes to helping a country like Haiti, whether it is because of this White Man's Burden or not, everyone else is never going to say "Good job US, here's a pat on the back." It dates back hundreds of years for the USA. We took the land of the American Indians. We made Chinese immigrants our slaves. We made Africans our slaves. We intervened in Vietnam. We're intervening in Iraq now. This superiority complex is nothing new and neither are the beliefs of others. Therefore, it's not crazy for others to think our help of a country like Haiti to be us believing it is our burden. Even if it is for a good cause. They are somewhat justified in their beliefs because of our track record. But then on the flipside, if we don't help we get bitched at. We have so much power and the ability to help that we have to. Not saying I don't think we should, but if we don't we will get scapegoated more than any other country. Therefore, in my opinion this White Man's Burden that we see in Avatar isn't just made it up. It's a real thing. And it's a lose-lose situation for the US and the white man in regards to public perception. Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:29:53 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55515211 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/i-guess-it-pays-to-learn-a-bit-about-other-people__trashed/#IDComment54390541 I agree that is is so disturbing how fearful our country is since 9/11. However, while you are sickened because of innocence and being too naive, I think I am sickened because of my cynicism. I am envious of you that you you think it is trust and understanding that was taken away from us. Unfortunately, I don't think there ever was that trust from the USA. I think we always were afraid of other cultures and other countries. I think the best example is the Cold War and the fear against Communism. Our country did everything it could to prevent communism from "brainwashing" Americans. We persecuted people we thought were communism and we started a fake war based off of propaganda to combat another countries political ideals. However, I don't think this is just the USA. I think everyone all over the world is afraid of people who are different. How about the Holocaust. Hitler killed millions of jewish people and anyone who was different from him simply because he wanted to create the perfect race and he was scared anyone not like it would come in the way. It is a shame that the guy could not practice his religion on the plane but I think the plane wasn't the perfect place to be doing that. I am Jewish and I am well aware of what tefillin is. It looks very strange to the unknowing eye and in a way it kind of does look like someone could be strapping a bomb on. Having said that, if I saw a muslim person on an airplane that was doing some sort of practice I was unfamiliar with, I would be a little uneasy. It is by no means racism or narrow mindedness. I just think it's human nature. We are programmed to be afraid of what we are not used to and there is added fear being on an airplane because of 9/11 and the simple fact that you are so high up in the air. I think the flight attendant needed to step in and intervene because the other passengers were probably a little concerned. Being Jewish, I want to say how ridiculous it is and how he should be able to where the tefillin and pray. But then I put myself in somebody else's shoes and play devil's advocate and I realize I would have been pretty freaked out. The world is a scary place and it is an innate quality to be fearful of other people. That is why I have to agree with the flight attendant intervening and I think that is why the rabbi understood why it happened. So yes, the world continues to change for the worse, I'm just a cynic who doesn't think it was ever that trusting or great to begin with. Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:50:25 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/i-guess-it-pays-to-learn-a-bit-about-other-people__trashed/#IDComment54390541 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-a-e-g-brian-anderson__trashed/#IDComment53866115 yo Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:28:49 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-a-e-g-brian-anderson__trashed/#IDComment53866115 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/haitis-calamity__trashed/#IDComment53438170 I grew up in a Jewish household as well and attended Hebrew School up until the same point as you. And, like you, I always had a tough time believing in God. Yeah, every time the Eagles needed some sort of fourth quarter miracle I prayed to God that if he lets them win I'll start being more religious and do better. But I personally never dropped my Jewish faith and labeled myself an atheist. I may have a hard time believing that Moses really parted the sea and that God really exists, but I think there is more to my religion than just, well, religion. I think a big part about religion isn't necessarily believing in an omnipresent power but its also about the heritage and the culture. I may not attend temple often (who am I kidding, ever) but I still cling to my Jewish faith and cherish my religion knowing that I am part of something bigger than me. I feel this is important for Christians, muslims and all other religions. I personally believe its pretty far fetched to believe there is a God ruling over us but it's nice to observe Yom Kippur or go to confession and throw away your sins, simply as a cleansing process. Without religion, there is no way to do that. As for the claims about the earthquake in Haiti, even though I embrace my Jewish religion but don't whole-heartedly believe in God, I have to agree that it was an act of weather, not God. Pat Robertson and evangelicals are entitled to their opinions 100 percent but on a personal level I have to think it is sad for this country that the average person can believe their claims. If all of middle America listens to their beliefs, then we are just a bunch of sheep heading for disaster a la 1984. The reason is because these people have the power and the numbers to send this country back into a conservative era. We breathed a sigh of relief when Obama was elected president but just a two years ago we were still in the Bush campaign. People who believe these outrageous, conservative, religious claims are going to send this country so far right that it could be hazardous to America. That being said, I have to disagree with the idea that they should be removed from the media. That right there is what they want to do but to the leftist radicals and the Howard Sterns of the world. Censorship is just what they want. They don't want us to think what we want. They want us to think what they think. That is why this is such a catch-22. We want to give them the right to say what they believe because of the First Amendment and we want to hold onto those rights. But with those rights they are able to sway those in Bible thumping regions of the country. All in all, on an overly exaggerated note, we are all doomed. But hey, as Sam says, we're all going to die one day anyway. It hurts just to right that. Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:33:58 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/haitis-calamity__trashed/#IDComment53438170