So... 36 days to the US midterms. Most polls say the GOP are likely to pick up 6+ senators and take the Senate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/29/the-odds-of-republicans-winning-the-senate-are-growing/
If so, what will we see happen in the US? What are you thoughts?
down with measure 5!
honest question: do wetlands actually provide anything for the environment, aside from ecological reasons?
Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2014, 01:27:45 PM
honest question: do wetlands actually provide anything for the environment, aside from ecological reasons?
:huh:
Wetlands are critical for the environment, but if we exclude ecology what is left?
Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2014, 01:27:45 PM
down with measure 5!
honest question: do wetlands actually provide anything for the environment, aside from ecological reasons?
That's a pretty big "aside".
Wetlands are huge for flood control.
Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2014, 01:27:45 PM
honest question: do wetlands actually provide anything for the environment, aside from ecological reasons?
What does this sentence mean?
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2014, 01:23:00 PM
If so, what will we see happen in the US? What are you thoughts?
I think the US system is rather dysfunctional. I was recently reading how the Philippines has for some time been considering constitutional changes to move toward a parliamentary system (they basically have the US system).
I doubt any good will come from a republican led senate, but at least then congress might be able to pass laws, maybe even some that can get signed into law after working with the president. In the current environment it seems a republican house and democratic senate can't come together to do much of anything.
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2014, 01:23:00 PM
If so, what will we see happen in the US? What are you thoughts?
Not much will change in the big picture. It'd be a nice moral victory for the GOP but in truth it will be a bit hollow. Dems would lose some face and should be encouraged to make some changes (cough, cough, replace DNC chair) looking towards 2016.
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2014, 01:32:30 PMWhat does this sentence mean?
i mean, i don't know what wetlands do. completely ignorant of it. are there massive downsides to removing all or some to make way for actual development?
Quote from: alfred russelWetlands are critical for the environment, but if we exclude ecology what is left?
what is the effect on the environment? X creatures or species are wiped out due to removal of wetlands, but what impact does that have on, say, farmland in the region? creatures die, aside from that is there an actual environmental impact? what's the (realistic) butterfly effect?
Quote from: BarristerWetlands are huge for flood control.
okay, this is what i mean. thank you. but can't human ingenuity (dikes, dams, whatever) offset the loss of wetlands? for example, if we can increase the profitability of a parcel of land by $50,000, but we have to pay $10,000 to offset environmental changes (changes, not permanent damage -- though i don't know if removing wetlands causes permanent environmental damage), then isn't it worth it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/us/fumbled-bid-for-governor-imperils-ohio-democrats.html?_r=0
Lolz
Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2014, 04:04:32 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2014, 01:32:30 PMWhat does this sentence mean?
i mean, i don't know what wetlands do. completely ignorant of it. are there massive downsides to removing all or some to make way for actual development?
Quote from: alfred russelWetlands are critical for the environment, but if we exclude ecology what is left?
what is the effect on the environment? X creatures or species are wiped out due to removal of wetlands, but what impact does that have on, say, farmland in the region? creatures die, aside from that is there an actual environmental impact? what's the (realistic) butterfly effect?
Quote from: BarristerWetlands are huge for flood control.
okay, this is what i mean. thank you. but can't human ingenuity (dikes, dams, whatever) offset the loss of wetlands? for example, if we can increase the profitability of a parcel of land by $50,000, but we have to pay $10,000 to offset environmental changes (changes, not permanent damage -- though i don't know if removing wetlands causes permanent environmental damage), then isn't it worth it?
Environments don't seem to exist in your world, it's just land waiting to be concreted over or ploughed under.
Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2014, 04:04:32 PM
[Quote from: BarristerWetlands are huge for flood control.
okay, this is what i mean. thank you. but can't human ingenuity (dikes, dams, whatever) offset the loss of wetlands? for example, if we can increase the profitability of a parcel of land by $50,000, but we have to pay $10,000 to offset environmental changes (changes, not permanent damage -- though i don't know if removing wetlands causes permanent environmental damage), then isn't it worth it?
You can't just "offset" wetlands. The trouble with flooding is that you have more water than the existing drainage system can handle at a given point in time.
Wetlands help because thay are an area where the water level can rise, and then slowly be absorbed back into the water table.
There's no real "whatever" besides dikes and dams (and diversions - I'll get to those) - those are the two options. Dikes are problematic - they increase the volume of water than can flow through a river, but it just transfers the problem downstream. And if downstream just builds more dikes, the problem just jeeps getting magnified.
Dams and diversions are similar - if there's too much water in one area, either store the water, or divert it somewhere else. But the problem with these options is that they also require land - lots of it. If you want to use wetlands as for development, you're not really any further ahead if you then have to convert another area into a dam or drainage basin.
Quote from: mongers on September 29, 2014, 04:10:45 PMEnvironments don't seem to exist in your world, it's just land waiting to be concreted over or ploughed under.
not necessarily. it's hard to farm on concrete. but, provided there's no permanent lasting damage to the planet that might threaten habitability, then i can't support saving a parcel of land from economic development (i don't just mean factories). i approve of designated conservation areas that everyone can enjoy, but i don't think people can enjoy wetlands in the same sense.
in the U.S., there's lots of rural areas. tons. there's no fear it'll all get swallowed up by exponentially expanding population centers.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2014, 04:15:00 PMYou can't just "offset" wetlands. The trouble with flooding is that you have more water than the existing drainage system can handle at a given point in time.
Wetlands help because thay are an area where the water level can rise, and then slowly be absorbed back into the water table.
There's no real "whatever" besides dikes and dams (and diversions - I'll get to those) - those are the two options. Dikes are problematic - they increase the volume of water than can flow through a river, but it just transfers the problem downstream. And if downstream just builds more dikes, the problem just jeeps getting magnified.
Dams and diversions are similar - if there's too much water in one area, either store the water, or divert it somewhere else. But the problem with these options is that they also require land - lots of it. If you want to use wetlands as for development, you're not really any further ahead if you then have to convert another area into a dam or drainage basin.
very informative. again, thank you!
then isn't the question -- what's more effective, wetlands or man-made diversionary/storage plans? if it's a 1:1 ratio... then if the wetlands could be drained because that good ol' NODAK soil is under it, and less fertile land is "destroyed" to make up for it, wouldn't that be the a more efficient use of land?
Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2014, 04:25:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2014, 04:15:00 PMYou can't just "offset" wetlands. The trouble with flooding is that you have more water than the existing drainage system can handle at a given point in time.
Wetlands help because thay are an area where the water level can rise, and then slowly be absorbed back into the water table.
There's no real "whatever" besides dikes and dams (and diversions - I'll get to those) - those are the two options. Dikes are problematic - they increase the volume of water than can flow through a river, but it just transfers the problem downstream. And if downstream just builds more dikes, the problem just jeeps getting magnified.
Dams and diversions are similar - if there's too much water in one area, either store the water, or divert it somewhere else. But the problem with these options is that they also require land - lots of it. If you want to use wetlands as for development, you're not really any further ahead if you then have to convert another area into a dam or drainage basin.
very informative. again, thank you!
then isn't the question -- what's more effective, wetlands or man-made diversionary/storage plans? if it's a 1:1 ratio... then if the wetlands could be drained because that good ol' NODAK soil is under it, and less fertile land is "destroyed" to make up for it, wouldn't that be the a more efficient use of land?
Dude - Winnipeg has a very nice diversion that goes around the city to protect it from floods. Unfortunately though it's all excellent and fertile soil, which is now very dubious for farming (since in any year there's a possible flood the land gets flooded).
You don't get to choose where you build a damn or a diversion - geography dictates it. And unfortunately there is no place in North Dakota or southern Manitoba that isn't good farm land.
So rather than spend hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe we'll just let the nice ducks live in their existing wetlands?
Millions for dikes not a penny for ducks!
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2014, 04:34:50 PM
Millions for dikes not a penny for ducks!
Fuckers shit all over everything.
Oooooh well played BB.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2014, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2014, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2014, 04:34:50 PM
Millions for dikes not a penny for ducks!
Fuckers shit all over everything.
Jealous?
A little insensitive to say that to a guy who had aggressive Diharrea for 2 weeks.
Asshole.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2014, 04:08:30 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/us/fumbled-bid-for-governor-imperils-ohio-democrats.html?_r=0
Lolz
I'm bringing my broom to the voting booth.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2014, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2014, 04:34:50 PM
Millions for dikes not a penny for ducks!
Fuckers shit all over everything.
I thought that was strictly a German thing, not normally associated with lesbians. :unsure:
:bleeding: Your mom is calling Seedy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2014, 05:05:30 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2014, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2014, 04:34:50 PM
Millions for dikes not a penny for ducks!
Fuckers shit all over everything.
I thought that was strictly a German thing, not normally associated with lesbians. :unsure:
(https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/rimshot.jpg)
My thread was only on the 2nd page! :angry:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,11037.0.html
It's not all about you. :P
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2014, 04:30:46 PM
Dude - Winnipeg has a very nice diversion that goes around the city to protect it from floods. Unfortunately though it's all excellent and fertile soil, which is now very dubious for farming (since in any year there's a possible flood the land gets flooded).
You don't get to choose where you build a damn or a diversion - geography dictates it. And unfortunately there is no place in North Dakota or southern Manitoba that isn't good farm land.
So rather than spend hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe we'll just let the nice ducks live in their existing wetlands?
You can build levees and the like, but it's a losing battle. Eventually it'll flood, anything on the other side of the levee will be destroyed. I saw whole houses washed away back in 93. Floods are amazingly powerful. I remember steel girders twisted out of shape by flood waters. The downside to wetlands is they tend to stink and you get a lot of mosquitoes and that can breed insect borne disease, though it's not as big a problem as it once was.
Nobody knows more about flooding than someone from Winnipeg.
I expect the Republicans to do well, which will be a disaster in the short term, but might be beneficial in the long term. If Republican thought can result in severe damage to the United States, perhaps they can be eliminated.
Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2014, 04:20:51 PM
in the U.S., there's lots of rural areas. tons. there's no fear it'll all get swallowed up by exponentially expanding population centers.
That would require an exponentially expanding population. Though it's not such a distant possibility in the East. For instance, look at the reach of the Atlanta metro area:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fr.b5z.net%2Fi%2Fu%2F6016692%2Fi%2Fmap_county.jpg&hash=d8949e059c4be4973751e330d3808a061150e822)
I'm not sure how to respond to LaCroix...wetlands are an incredibly important part of the environment and also very vulnerable, but LaCroix apparently doesn't see any intrinsic value in that...
Quote from: alfred russel on September 29, 2014, 10:57:28 PM
I'm not sure how to respond to LaCroix...wetlands are an incredibly important part of the environment and also very vulnerable, but LaCroix apparently doesn't see any intrinsic value in that...
I'm still puzzling about how he's somehow distinguishing between "the environment" and "ecology".
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2014, 11:33:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 29, 2014, 10:57:28 PM
I'm not sure how to respond to LaCroix...wetlands are an incredibly important part of the environment and also very vulnerable, but LaCroix apparently doesn't see any intrinsic value in that...
I'm still puzzling about how he's somehow distinguishing between "the environment" and "ecology".
The 'environment' is where you grow crops and where animals that are directly usable as cuts of meat are kept. :smarty:(LaCroix)
The Senate may not be a lock like it looked a few months ago, but the GOP will increase their lead in the House, just like last time.
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2014, 11:33:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 29, 2014, 10:57:28 PM
I'm not sure how to respond to LaCroix...wetlands are an incredibly important part of the environment and also very vulnerable, but LaCroix apparently doesn't see any intrinsic value in that...
I'm still puzzling about how he's somehow distinguishing between "the environment" and "ecology".
He might be thinking about those wetlands that are outside the environment. Like were they towed that oil tanker.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2014, 09:25:25 AM
The Senate may not be a lock like it looked a few months ago, but the GOP will increase their lead in the House, just like last time.
Why are you talking politics in the wetlands thread? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2014, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2014, 09:25:25 AM
The Senate may not be a lock like it looked a few months ago, but the GOP will increase their lead in the House, just like last time.
Why are you talking politics in the wetlands thread? :hmm:
Yea, quit ducking the issue.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2014, 09:25:25 AM
The Senate may not be a lock like it looked a few months ago, but the GOP will increase their lead in the House, just like last time.
Actually it looked like it was edging closer to 50-50 a few weeks ago but with two or three races starting to favor the GOP candidate it's leaning more towards the GOP. Fivethirtyeight gives the GOP a 60% shot and that's pretty significant. Anything could happen in this last month, of course.
Which reminds me, I need to send in for the wife's vote-by-mail ballot :cool:
Be sure to fill it out for her correctly.
College Republican National Committee fires up a swing and a miss in an attempt to reach out to young female voters. I know, women will make the right political choices if we pitch candidates as wedding dresses!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/college-republicans-make-say-yes-to-the-dress-pa#39jqgut
I hope their next one compares candidates to beers so I can understand.
Quote from: garbon on October 01, 2014, 09:48:49 PM
College Republican National Committee fires up a swing and a miss in an attempt to reach out to young female voters. I know, women will make the right political choices if we pitch candidates as wedding dresses!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/college-republicans-make-say-yes-to-the-dress-pa#39jqgut
It's going to work on derspiess' wife for sure.
Aww...
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/09/republicans-new-black-friend-either-stock-photo-interesting-day/#6cTRRBmCUh5FThJ4.01
QuoteRepublicans' New Black Friend Is Either A Stock Photo Or Is Having A Very Interesting Day
Earlier, we told you about the enormous fail that is the #IAmARepublican hashtag campaign, and the equally enormous fail of an ad campaign to which it was pegged. As crummy as the "Republicans Are People Too" ad is, you would think that at a minimum, it would feature actual people who are actual Republicans. You would be wrong.
Lots of ads use stock photos, of course, but if you are trying to court a group of people you have been aggressively ignoring as a matter of political strategy, you might want to think about finding a real person to be in your ad. Also, if you're going to include a slide that says, in the plural, "Republicans are black," then you should probably make at least one other person in the rest of your ad black. Alas, that sole honor fell to this attractive, young, apparently Republican woman:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbanter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2Fgop-ad.jpg&hash=063161ea19cc4ef66d4c5a9af0b9db8a922094a9)
The woman in this photo may or may not be a Republican, but she's certainly been busy. Here she is as a Georgia Black Woman Attorney:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbanter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2Fgabwa.jpg&hash=dcee2f92d06bb5265bfd661ef854bded3af31749)
And here she is hiring a Virtual Clone to help out with her online fashion design business:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbanter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2Fclone.jpg&hash=ce9344fbd1bf71405874febf506a0e5218bb4975)
Which she probably was able to afford by getting coupons for nice glasses:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbanter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2Fglasses.jpg&hash=4928a8cf16b9272d88e96a52cee079812bbb9e86)
That paid off with a mentorship with something called the Toigo Foundation:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbanter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2Ftoigo.jpg&hash=9bd57cdb87557741a58132b2db41c88ef7fcf516)
The fashion designing/lawyering thing apparently hit a snag, so she took out a payday loan:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbanter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2Fpayday.jpg&hash=4c89dfd4aa5c39c84c1de15ef7fe3ff2457cd76b)
Unfortunately, that didn't go so well, so she decided to either give or receive biblical counseling (I can't tell which):
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbanter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2Fcounseling.jpg&hash=be37368c257abe56f098cc82885c5de90f22dbb6)
Not sure what happened right after that, but before long, she's giving testimonials for New Hope rehabs:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbanter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2Fnew-hope.jpg&hash=baad565bc6067848b793b6f90f9634510bd0f2bb)
And finally, she's getting a fresh new start studying engineering:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbanter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2Fengineering.jpg&hash=6c93bebe966edd475495cde45af7af79fa38fbdd)
Update: A Facebook user sussed out the source of this photo. It's entitled "Positive Woman," you can find it at iStockPhoto.com, along with another shot of our heroine "cultivating her faith" in, apparently, the London Underground.
I think they should hire me as a consultant as they clearly have no idea what they are doing. As mentioned above, the launched a hashtag about Republicans as part of their campaign to rehabilitate the image of the GOP. I 'm not that twitter savvy but even I know that you don't put out a hashtag for something disliked unless you are hoping to get waves of abuse.
Maybe they should recycle this one:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.sodahead.com%2Fprofiles%2F0%2F0%2F1%2F6%2F8%2F8%2F3%2F5%2F1%2Ftwo-platforms-9177519612.jpeg&hash=4a4652d8b30a9abce72d44f6721ca55ea3f3ae6f)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2014, 01:13:47 PM
Be sure to fill it out for her correctly.
All I do is inform her of her political opinions. I would never, ever fill the thing out for her. She has to fill in those boxes herself :)
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 07:26:42 AM
Aww...
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/09/republicans-new-black-friend-either-stock-photo-interesting-day/#6cTRRBmCUh5FThJ4.01
In what way is that woman black? These Americans are crazy.
The RNC is pretty inept. About the only thing working in their favor is the person chairing the DNC.
Quote from: Maximus on October 02, 2014, 09:10:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 07:26:42 AM
Aww...
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/09/republicans-new-black-friend-either-stock-photo-interesting-day/#6cTRRBmCUh5FThJ4.01
In what way is that woman black? These Americans are crazy.
:huh:
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 09:28:47 AM
Quote from: Maximus on October 02, 2014, 09:10:03 AM
In what way is that woman black? These Americans are crazy.
:huh:
Not enough recognizable stereotypical "black" features.
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2014, 09:14:39 AM
The RNC is pretty inept. About the only thing working in their favor is the person chairing the DNC.
Funny, the DNC could say the same about the RNC. :lol: Which is why everybody sucks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 02, 2014, 09:35:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 09:28:47 AM
Quote from: Maximus on October 02, 2014, 09:10:03 AM
In what way is that woman black? These Americans are crazy.
:huh:
Not enough recognizable stereotypical "black" features.
Yeah that's the only thing I could think beyond the fact that she isn't dark-skinned.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 02, 2014, 09:45:07 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2014, 09:14:39 AM
The RNC is pretty inept. About the only thing working in their favor is the person chairing the DNC.
Funny, the DNC could say the same about the RNC. :lol: Which is why everybody sucks.
Yep, works both ways. I would say the DNC is a bit more effective than the RNC at get out the vote grassroots type stuff. But both chairs are just plain awful.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 11:23:31 AM
Yeah that's the only thing I could think beyond the fact that she isn't dark-skinned.
What non-visual cues should I be getting from an image?
Max be all like FRO OR GTFO
Quote from: Maximus on October 02, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 11:23:31 AM
Yeah that's the only thing I could think beyond the fact that she isn't dark-skinned.
What non-visual cues should I be getting from an image?
I don't understand the question. Or perhaps better yet, what race would you consider the person in that image?
Sri Lankan. ;)
I'm kidding, but she does look more like South Asians than Africans.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 12:16:33 PM
I don't understand the question. Or perhaps better yet, what race would you consider the person in that image?
Could be anything. I thought that was the joke, actually. No one else seems to think it the least bit odd though.
Quote from: Maximus on October 02, 2014, 12:25:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 12:16:33 PM
I don't understand the question. Or perhaps better yet, what race would you consider the person in that image?
Could be anything. I thought that was the joke, actually. No one else seems to think it the least bit odd though.
Because it is pretty clear she is of African descent. Not unlike Beyonce and myself. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2014, 12:25:31 PM
Sri Lankan. ;)
I'm kidding, but she does look more like South Asians than Africans.
I have noticed that black people are more likely correctly guess my background than other groups.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 12:32:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2014, 12:25:31 PM
Sri Lankan. ;)
I'm kidding, but she does look more like South Asians than Africans.
I have noticed that black people are more likely correctly guess my background than other groups.
I find it hard to believe anyone can correctly guess your background what with you weekly Roulette wheel of self-identification.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2014, 12:48:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 12:32:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2014, 12:25:31 PM
Sri Lankan. ;)
I'm kidding, but she does look more like South Asians than Africans.
I have noticed that black people are more likely correctly guess my background than other groups.
I find it hard to believe anyone can correctly guess your background what with you weekly Roulette wheel of self-identification.
That's a languish thing. I don't pretend to be different races in real life unless you count how I didn't announce my race when I first started to study hindi.
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 02, 2014, 12:25:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 12:16:33 PM
I don't understand the question. Or perhaps better yet, what race would you consider the person in that image?
Could be anything. I thought that was the joke, actually. No one else seems to think it the least bit odd though.
Because it is pretty clear she is of African descent. Not unlike Beyonce and myself. :)
She looks mixed to me - not unlike Beyonce and you. ;) In fact, she looks just ethnic enough to not be white, but not so ethnic as to be very clearly any one particular race. Like.... a stock photo model, actually. Meant to correspond to all and offend none.
Well yes mixed race blacks are less scary. -_-
Here's more of her: http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/african-american-beauty-12271294
Looks full blown to me. Not mixed.
Yeah, she's a genuine Wilhelmina Horton, alright.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 02, 2014, 10:46:11 PM
Looks full blown to me. Not mixed.
:huh: Have you ever seen any actual Africans?
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 12:32:12 PM
I have noticed that black people are more likely correctly guess my background than other groups.
Just throwing this out there-- is it possible that they might guess than many non-African people of color are black? Reason I ask is that my friend's wife's sisters (Indian) are often mistaken as black by black Americans when they are in the US. I had to explain to these girls what a relaxer is because they were asked so many times what kind they used.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 08:51:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 12:32:12 PM
I have noticed that black people are more likely correctly guess my background than other groups.
Just throwing this out there-- is it possible that they might guess than many non-African people of color are black? Reason I ask is that my friend's wife's sisters (Indian) are often mistaken as black by black Americans when they are in the US. I had to explain to these girls what a relaxer is because they were asked so many times what kind they used.
Maybe as South Asian also often guess I'm South Asian. No discernible pattern in what white people guess except for never a guess of me being black.
It's cause they know you voted for Romney.
Didn't you? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 10:30:06 PM
Well yes mixed race blacks are less scary. -_-
To the Republican Party base, yes.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 08:51:48 AM
Just throwing this out there-- is it possible that they might guess than many non-African people of color are black? Reason I ask is that my friend's wife's sisters (Indian) are often mistaken as black by black Americans when they are in the US. I had to explain to these girls what a relaxer is because they were asked so many times what kind they used.
Heh. My two best friends - both black - tell me all the time that I "obviously" have black in my background because my hair is coarse and kinky, and I have a very round butt. I've gone back almost 300 years on both sides and no black that I've seen yet. Not only that, but the hair and butt come directly from my dad, and his dad, and his dad's dad according to family tradition. That line came over from Wales in 1871. ie I'm Whitey ap Whiteyson but there's no convincing them. :D
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2014, 08:59:37 AM
Didn't you? :unsure:
Who are they? I don't generally walk around talking about who I voted for.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2014, 09:01:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 02, 2014, 10:30:06 PM
Well yes mixed race blacks are less scary. -_-
To the Republican Party base, yes.
I'd say in general. Looking at black celebrities, a large amount are light-skinned.
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2014, 09:25:19 AM
Who are they? I don't generally walk around talking about who I voted for.
Do you walk around asking people what color you are? :unsure:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 03, 2014, 09:41:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2014, 09:25:19 AM
Who are they? I don't generally walk around talking about who I voted for.
Do you walk around asking people what color you are? :unsure:
No people ask me. :D
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2014, 09:44:23 AM
No people ask me. :D
OMG MICROAGGRESSION
The amount of "where are you from?" (with California not being in the vein of correct answers) and "what's your nationality?" (with American not being a correct reply) that I get subjected to is a bit out of control.
Since I have a German surname everyone assumes that I was born here in Cincy and that I'm Catholic. Plus people assume I attended a Catholic high school-- still trying to figure that one out, though a couple people say it's because of how I speak (??)
So yeah, I'm there with ya (kidding)
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 10:36:07 AM
Since I have a German surname everyone assumes that I was born here in Cincy and that I'm Catholic. Plus people assume I attended a Catholic high school-- still trying to figure that one out, though a couple people say it's because of how I speak (??)
So yeah, I'm there with ya (kidding)
Oh see that sort of question I'm all about. And pretty fair question for NYC where a whole chunk of us are from different places.
Oh also fun as follow-up to "where are you from" is "where are your parents/family from". California is also not the correct answer to that followup question. :weep:
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2014, 10:42:40 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 10:36:07 AM
Since I have a German surname everyone assumes that I was born here in Cincy and that I'm Catholic. Plus people assume I attended a Catholic high school-- still trying to figure that one out, though a couple people say it's because of how I speak (??)
So yeah, I'm there with ya (kidding)
Oh see that sort of question I'm all about. And pretty fair question for NYC where a whole chunk of us are from different places.
Oh also fun as follow-up to "where are you from" is "where are your parents/family from". California is also not the correct answer to that followup question. :weep:
Do you actually consider that an offensive question?
I find it rather interesting to talk to people about their families history and how they came to the states - although absent a discernible accent you want to be careful, since it is very possible they've been in the US longer than your own family.
But I am just as likely (obviously depending on the context, vibe, relationship, setting etc) to ask the same question of someone "white" who has a noticeable marker for not being native born (like an accent).
All us white people are mostly boring, and don't even know.
Offensive, no? Tiresome, sure. After all, all of these are just beating around the push as far as wanting to ask my race and to be honest, I don't really see how or why that's relevant when I've just met someone.
If someone I know is later curious about my family history in what you're saying or even wanted to ask me about race, I don't mind.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2014, 08:48:37 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 02, 2014, 10:46:11 PM
Looks full blown to me. Not mixed.
:huh: Have you ever seen any actual Africans?
Before is from the Pacific Northwest. They don't know negroes.