Anonymous wrote:Did well on my SATs thank you.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There was a difference of opinion as to whether they were rude or obnoxious. There are people who were on the train who said they weren't. So unless I see video, I'm not going to say for sure how I would feel if I had been on that train. Second, why do "quiet white Presbyterians" get to choose the tone for the wine train? Are "black baptists" only welcome in public if they act like "quiet white Presbyterians"? And "when in Rome" suggests that you think that the "quite white Presbyterians" ought to control how everyone else behaves on the wine train.Anonymous wrote:it is rude to be loud and obnoxious in a public setting no matter what the color of the skin of the individuals involved. It sound like you are the one with a racial issue.Anonymous wrote:Yes, it sounds like that one poster thinks that black people should only act "black" when they're off with their own but the rest of the time they should make sure that all us fragile white anglo-saxon protestants are not made to feel uncomfortable.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.
The problem is that:
A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and
B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group
There isn't a problem with white social mores. I don't go into black baptist churches and expect them to praise as they do a a quiet white Presbyterian. When in Rome dude.
Maybe they were loud and annoying - maybe they weren't. Not worth speculating about.
Possibly the most racist thing I have read on DCUM and that is saying something
How fucking stupid are you? It's an analogy. Presbyterians don't specifically relate to the wine train. You must have blown your SAT's...
I have never been on said train, but it's Napa... So, anyone equating this to a" booze cruise" probably hasn't visited this area. You don't get to come into someone else's home and dictate customs. You don't go to Japan and leave your shoes on. Well, maybe some Americans do and that's why we aren't always a welcome sight in some places. You don't get to go sit in the quiet car of the train and make ruckus. It has nothing to do with race.
And no- I wouldn't wander into a boisterous baptist congregation ( white or black) and expect them to pipe down so I could quietly pray. Their house. Their rules. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Now, whether these women actually behaved in a way that should have gotten them kicked off the train.... who knows?
. My point is that black baptist churches are seen culturally as the oddity while the behavior in white Anglo-Saxon churches is seen as the norm. I think it's important to ask why WASP behavioral norms are expected to be the standard for public places. Your analogy suggests that you think the train is "their house" (as in white Protestants' house) and therefore "their rules" should govern behavior and too bad for anyone who doesn't share the same culture. At least that's how your analogy comes across. Maybe you don't intend it to be interpreted that way but insulting my intelligence (which I find amusing) doesn't help convince me of your point.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.
The problem is that:
A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and
B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group
There isn't a problem with white social mores. I don't go into black baptist churches and expect them to praise as they do a a quiet white Presbyterian. When in Rome dude.
Maybe they were loud and annoying - maybe they weren't. Not worth speculating about.
Possibly the most racist thing I have read on DCUM and that is saying something
Did well on my SATs thank you.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There was a difference of opinion as to whether they were rude or obnoxious. There are people who were on the train who said they weren't. So unless I see video, I'm not going to say for sure how I would feel if I had been on that train. Second, why do "quiet white Presbyterians" get to choose the tone for the wine train? Are "black baptists" only welcome in public if they act like "quiet white Presbyterians"? And "when in Rome" suggests that you think that the "quite white Presbyterians" ought to control how everyone else behaves on the wine train.Anonymous wrote:it is rude to be loud and obnoxious in a public setting no matter what the color of the skin of the individuals involved. It sound like you are the one with a racial issue.Anonymous wrote:Yes, it sounds like that one poster thinks that black people should only act "black" when they're off with their own but the rest of the time they should make sure that all us fragile white anglo-saxon protestants are not made to feel uncomfortable.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.
The problem is that:
A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and
B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group
There isn't a problem with white social mores. I don't go into black baptist churches and expect them to praise as they do a a quiet white Presbyterian. When in Rome dude.
Maybe they were loud and annoying - maybe they weren't. Not worth speculating about.
Possibly the most racist thing I have read on DCUM and that is saying something
How fucking stupid are you? It's an analogy. Presbyterians don't specifically relate to the wine train. You must have blown your SAT's...
I have never been on said train, but it's Napa... So, anyone equating this to a" booze cruise" probably hasn't visited this area. You don't get to come into someone else's home and dictate customs. You don't go to Japan and leave your shoes on. Well, maybe some Americans do and that's why we aren't always a welcome sight in some places. You don't get to go sit in the quiet car of the train and make ruckus. It has nothing to do with race.
And no- I wouldn't wander into a boisterous baptist congregation ( white or black) and expect them to pipe down so I could quietly pray. Their house. Their rules. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Now, whether these women actually behaved in a way that should have gotten them kicked off the train.... who knows?
. My point is that black baptist churches are seen culturally as the oddity while the behavior in white Anglo-Saxon churches is seen as the norm. I think it's important to ask why WASP behavioral norms are expected to be the standard for public places. Your analogy suggests that you think the train is "their house" (as in white Protestants' house) and therefore "their rules" should govern behavior and too bad for anyone who doesn't share the same culture. At least that's how your analogy comes across. Maybe you don't intend it to be interpreted that way but insulting my intelligence (which I find amusing) doesn't help convince me of your point. Anonymous wrote:I guarantee the same thing would have happened if the group was white. The woman who complained had an issue with fun and loud. She was expecting a civil wine tasting and got a late night bar scene.
I am so tired of all issues against blacks being blamed on race.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I don't like to go to movie theaters with blacks since they talk so much.
It's not worth shit - who cares what you like.
You go patronize the cinemas where they talk and yack it up the whole time.
Ok - but serious question....
Since when do social norms have a race? When do we have just 'social norms'.
Using the above example - is not talking during a movie a 'white social norm'? Is talking during a movie a 'black social norm'? When do we get to the point where we can just all go enjoy a movie and act in a way that is mindful of the other people in a room?
And to the PP, it is worth shit what that person likes. They paid for the movie, just like the other people in theater. It would be nice if people of all stripes just took 5 goddamn seconds to think about something other than themselves and think about how they affect others.
We aren't going to get anywhere unless we can find some common ground and a common behavior so that we can all enjoy a movie, together.
Oh please the PP could be in a dead quiet theatre and still come complaining that the blacks made the movie-going experience awful with their constant popcorn chewing.
Certainly, there are people who will complain about black people simply for the sin of being black. But the question still stands, when and where do we find some common ground on social behavior?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I don't like to go to movie theaters with blacks since they talk so much.
It's not worth shit - who cares what you like.
You go patronize the cinemas where they talk and yack it up the whole time.
Ok - but serious question....
Since when do social norms have a race? When do we have just 'social norms'.
Using the above example - is not talking during a movie a 'white social norm'? Is talking during a movie a 'black social norm'? When do we get to the point where we can just all go enjoy a movie and act in a way that is mindful of the other people in a room?
And to the PP, it is worth shit what that person likes. They paid for the movie, just like the other people in theater. It would be nice if people of all stripes just took 5 goddamn seconds to think about something other than themselves and think about how they affect others.
We aren't going to get anywhere unless we can find some common ground and a common behavior so that we can all enjoy a movie, together.
Oh please the PP could be in a dead quiet theatre and still come complaining that the blacks made the movie-going experience awful with their constant popcorn chewing.
Anonymous wrote:There was a difference of opinion as to whether they were rude or obnoxious. There are people who were on the train who said they weren't. So unless I see video, I'm not going to say for sure how I would feel if I had been on that train. Second, why do "quiet white Presbyterians" get to choose the tone for the wine train? Are "black baptists" only welcome in public if they act like "quiet white Presbyterians"? And "when in Rome" suggests that you think that the "quite white Presbyterians" ought to control how everyone else behaves on the wine train.Anonymous wrote:it is rude to be loud and obnoxious in a public setting no matter what the color of the skin of the individuals involved. It sound like you are the one with a racial issue.Anonymous wrote:Yes, it sounds like that one poster thinks that black people should only act "black" when they're off with their own but the rest of the time they should make sure that all us fragile white anglo-saxon protestants are not made to feel uncomfortable.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.
The problem is that:
A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and
B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group
There isn't a problem with white social mores. I don't go into black baptist churches and expect them to praise as they do a a quiet white Presbyterian. When in Rome dude.
Maybe they were loud and annoying - maybe they weren't. Not worth speculating about.
Possibly the most racist thing I have read on DCUM and that is saying something
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I don't like to go to movie theaters with blacks since they talk so much.
It's not worth shit - who cares what you like.
You go patronize the cinemas where they talk and yack it up the whole time.
Ok - but serious question....
Since when do social norms have a race? When do we have just 'social norms'.
Using the above example - is not talking during a movie a 'white social norm'? Is talking during a movie a 'black social norm'? When do we get to the point where we can just all go enjoy a movie and act in a way that is mindful of the other people in a room?
And to the PP, it is worth shit what that person likes. They paid for the movie, just like the other people in theater. It would be nice if people of all stripes just took 5 goddamn seconds to think about something other than themselves and think about how they affect others.
We aren't going to get anywhere unless we can find some common ground and a common behavior so that we can all enjoy a movie, together.
Anonymous wrote:I guarantee the same thing would have happened if the group was white. The woman who complained had an issue with fun and loud. She was expecting a civil wine tasting and got a late night bar scene.
I am so tired of all issues against blacks being blamed on race.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I don't like to go to movie theaters with blacks since they talk so much.
It's not worth shit - who cares what you like.
You go patronize the cinemas where they talk and yack it up the whole time.
There was a difference of opinion as to whether they were rude or obnoxious. There are people who were on the train who said they weren't. So unless I see video, I'm not going to say for sure how I would feel if I had been on that train. Second, why do "quiet white Presbyterians" get to choose the tone for the wine train? Are "black baptists" only welcome in public if they act like "quiet white Presbyterians"? And "when in Rome" suggests that you think that the "quite white Presbyterians" ought to control how everyone else behaves on the wine train.Anonymous wrote:it is rude to be loud and obnoxious in a public setting no matter what the color of the skin of the individuals involved. It sound like you are the one with a racial issue.Anonymous wrote:Yes, it sounds like that one poster thinks that black people should only act "black" when they're off with their own but the rest of the time they should make sure that all us fragile white anglo-saxon protestants are not made to feel uncomfortable.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Should be able to enjoy activities, if they observe exisiting social mores. If you act loud and obnoxious - then no.
The problem is that:
A) "Social mores" in this context is synonymous with "White social mores" and
B) Other people on the train at the same time claim the women were no louder than any other group
There isn't a problem with white social mores. I don't go into black baptist churches and expect them to praise as they do a a quiet white Presbyterian. When in Rome dude.
Maybe they were loud and annoying - maybe they weren't. Not worth speculating about.
Possibly the most racist thing I have read on DCUM and that is saying something