Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(witntv.com)   NAACP Says "Low Pants Bill" Is Discriminatory   (witntv.com) divider line 866
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

15661 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2008 at 12:17 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



866 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-03-27 02:11:45 PM  
Nutsac_Jim: //thread needs more thongs coming out the top of shorts pics.

Daisy Dukes and minis that allow the thongs to be visible out the bottom are also acceptable.
 
2008-03-27 02:11:49 PM  
Sorry Spacechicken. Hope the right person read it. Typo. I'm with you.
 
2008-03-27 02:11:55 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND: If you want to know why "baggy" pants became fashionable why not ask a black guy who came of age during the period instead of pulling shiat from your ass?

Answer: We like them.


No, no, no...don't you realize everything in the black community must be somehow connected to poverty, jail or gang life? Get with the program!
 
2008-03-27 02:12:10 PM  
I'm not sure how people even wear their pants like that.. I did it once at home as part of a joke (mostly to piss off my wife) and it actually hurt my hips to walk in a way that would keep them from falling to my ankles.
 
2008-03-27 02:12:28 PM  
Answer: We like them.

Not to chicken-and-egg this topic but you like them because your Mom bought them for you. This trend started in the Seventies while you were still playing with your EZ Bake Oven sans light bulb.

I was there, Bucko.
 
2008-03-27 02:13:05 PM  
This: Nutsac_Jim: //thread needs more thongs coming out the top of shorts pics.

Daisy Dukes and minis that allow the thongs to be visible out the bottom are also acceptable.


The downside to that are all the chicks that most guys would say, "NO! AHHH! KILL IT WITH FIRE" to also follow that, and I've seen some things that all the mindbleach in the world can't undo.
 
2008-03-27 02:13:38 PM  
drunkennewfiemidget: Because deciding on your safety based on the colour of skin of the person walking behind you is idiotic if there's no other indication as to their intentions.

So this would apply to anyone that makes that connection?
 
2008-03-27 02:13:41 PM  
FarkleMatter: Can they outlaw Fanny packs next? (please)

That is the most amazing combination of cracka and gangsta I've seen in a long time. WOWZERS!
 
2008-03-27 02:13:42 PM  
"Rev. WRight is no racist. In order to be a racist you have to be a member of the dominant racial group. It's about power."

You sad little person: From the American Heritage Dictionary...
Rac-ism
n.
1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Note the lack of qualifiers about dominance and power. You know that racism is what humans of all colors have in common, right?
 
2008-03-27 02:13:55 PM  
"Once the Hip-Hop community began to embrace a looser style of dress..."

I love this assertion that there's some sort of 'community', some sort of unity with the hip-hop crowd. The way they beat the shiat out of each other, that's nothing further from the truth.

Can you not understand why clubs are starting to have dress codes that exclude hip-hop / gang colors (or oversized teamwear) / wife beater style clothing? It's because 9 out of 10 times it's the black guy in 'low riders' or the white guy in a wife beater t-shirt that causes the trouble. The dress codes are there to make the place SAFER for the other patrons who just want to have a drink and a good time.

It's not about race, it's about class. So pull up your farking pants and get some!
 
2008-03-27 02:15:11 PM  
fireclown: That is the most amazing combination of cracka and gangsta I've seen in a long time. WOWZERSIZZLE!

FTFY.
 
2008-03-27 02:15:25 PM  
FormlessOne: I do believe that the NAACP is confusing racial with cultural discrimination

A lot of people confuse criticism of culture with racism. If I say black people tend to yell at the screen at the movies, I'm not saying that blacks are genetically predisposed to yelling in a movie theater. I'm observing that a certain segment of black culture condones it. Same with the pants thing.
 
2008-03-27 02:15:38 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: drunkennewfiemidget: Because deciding on your safety based on the colour of skin of the person walking behind you is idiotic if there's no other indication as to their intentions.

So this would apply to anyone that makes that connection?


Yes.
 
2008-03-27 02:16:40 PM  
Could have avoided the whole issue if they had just made school uniforms mandatory.
 
FZ6
2008-03-27 02:16:50 PM  
drunkennewfiemidget: FZ6: How about adding "popped collars" to "baggy pants" in the list of things they need to ban in public schools?

A-farkin-men.


Sweet - glad to see I'm not the only one. ;)

Unhip1: GWShenlong05

No, but there is almost always a tinge of bigotry behind sumptuary laws. The zoot suit ban, for instance, was directed at hispanics - the people who could often be found wearing them.
Wrong: the Zoot Suit began as an African American trend that was later copped by Latinos. The look reflected a culture unfortunately linked to criminal activity, and conveniently (for law enforcement) consisting of 80% non-whites. The suits were regarded as excessive, using much more fabric than needed while everyone else was sacrificing for the war effort.

"Low pants" laws are in themselves sumptuary laws. So the NAACP is correct, even if they do sound like whiners.
Wrong: Again, "low pants" reflect a culture of thug lifestyle (the look is actually taken from prison life, indicating the "availability" of someone), affiliated with criminal activity, and consisting of an almost even number of members of different ethnicities.


Get your history straight and your paranoia in order.


But it's so much easier to just yell "Racism!". :)
 
2008-03-27 02:17:26 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND: danlpoon: Baggie pants became "attributable" to blacks not from a fashion motivator but an economic one. Black parents would buy their children's clothes sized two or three years beyond their current need. So kids regularly had baggy clothes.

Eventually, over time, outsiders who witnessed this mistook it for a "statement" and as such took-off with it as a fashion meme. It wasn't until later that black fashion, FUBU, etc, would partially recapture the trend for themselves but by that time the traditionally white retailers like Gap and white textile conglomerates a la Levi's Jeans had already co-opted the look.
===================================

LOL. This mutherfarker just made this shiat up. Cite the source, please.

If you want to know why "baggy" pants became fashionable why not ask a black guy who came of age during the period instead of pulling shiat from your ass?

Answer: We like them.

Fashion is cyclical. If everyone is wearing their hair short, someone will wear their hair long, and people will follow. An example is the way cornrows and braids are slowly going the way of the dinosaur. I actually saw a kid with a high-top fade on ESPN last night.

Music videos had the most influence because they brought regional fashions to other places. Once the Hip-Hop community began to embrace a looser style of dress, people followed. The funny thing is that while they're passing this legislation, the kids are moving on to the next thing. The NEW trend is actually to wear fitting jeans ala Kanye West or the black dude from N.E.R.D. Because once everyone gets onto something it gets stale and people do the opposite. So, the answer to the question, "what do we do about these baggy pants" is - Shut the fark up and wait for the kids to change their minds.

I'm waiting for the new "anti-tight pants" legislation that will be coming in the Summer of '09


No worries Dro you know we wanna see you in those tight pants.

Really, I can't believe either side has gotten this up in arms over this issue. For jeepers sake.
 
2008-03-27 02:17:42 PM  
drunkennewfiemidget: Dancin_In_Anson: drunkennewfiemidget: Because deciding on your safety based on the colour of skin of the person walking behind you is idiotic if there's no other indication as to their intentions.

So this would apply to anyone that makes that connection?

Yes.


And what if crime statistics clearly show you are more in danger of a black guy with pants around his knees, than of a white guy in a suit and tie? It is not racism to use common sense.
 
2008-03-27 02:18:35 PM  
These kids walk around holding themselves like they're afraid their balls are going to fall off. Or are they just holding themselves?
 
2008-03-27 02:18:36 PM  
i238.photobucket.com
 
2008-03-27 02:19:04 PM  
danlpoon: How would you feel if you were in a race and the leader cheated himself half-way round the track but, once discovered, he wasn't required to relinquish the lead?

Would that be fair?


That would make sense if all white people were on group that shared everything equally, but that isn't the case.

Giving blanket advantages to black people doesn't help anything.

Affirmative action doesn't do shiat for some kid in the ghetto, and the middle class black kid who works hard to get into college, a job etc will always have the taint of not really earning it.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who grow up in shiatty neighborhoods with single parents surrounded by crime in schools with old books. But I don't have more sympathy for if their grand parents couldn't vote.
 
2008-03-27 02:19:04 PM  
"And what if crime statistics clearly show you are more in danger of a black guy with pants around his knees, than of a white guy in a suit and tie? It is not racism to use common sense."

THIS.
 
2008-03-27 02:19:22 PM  
Marla Singer's Laundry: GlassHouses: I'd be psyched to see a low-pants bill in my office so I don't have to keep looking at the thongs of the junior staff.

//My lawn. Off. Now!

More like, "I'm having hot flashes! Cover up, you little harlot!"


Nah, I just don't like looking at their underwear...Call me crazy, but I think showing your underwear (for either gender) should not be an "office" thing. :) No droopy pants on the guys, no thongs showing on the girls.
 
2008-03-27 02:19:30 PM  
Raikus: You can all thank the original African American who started this craze.

Your statement is not as ridiculous as some may think. Of course, there were other reasons (hand-me-downs, etc.) why people wore their pants sagging but a lot of this coordinated around showing off the boxers, too. And Marky Mark was one of the folks who started got recognition for that.
 
2008-03-27 02:19:36 PM  
toonz: I had a cop tell me he liked "thugz" wearing low pants, made them easier to chase.

My brother-in-law (a cop) says the exact same thing. Also wishes the Geo Tracker was still the Gangsta car of choice.
 
2008-03-27 02:19:46 PM  
Surool: "Rev. WRight is no racist. In order to be a racist you have to be a member of the dominant racial group. It's about power."

You sad little person: From the American Heritage Dictionary...
Rac-ism
n.
1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Note the lack of qualifiers about dominance and power. You know that racism is what humans of all colors have in common, right?


my PhD in Sociology says otherwise. If all you have to refute my position is the dictionary then I guess we're done here.
 
2008-03-27 02:19:47 PM  
UnkleKrakker: DROxINxTHExWIND: If you want to know why "baggy" pants became fashionable why not ask a black guy who came of age during the period instead of pulling shiat from your ass?

Answer: We like them.


DROxINxTHExWIND: Because all of the people on the "Compton street corner" think alike. Just like all of the people in YOUR neighborhood, right?


/all black people are not the same...

Hypocrite much?

 
2008-03-27 02:19:47 PM  
UnkleKrakker: In that in order to actually act on racist tendencies, one has to be the dominant race in a culture.

That is simply false. How about when a big black guy decides to push around a small white guy, just because he is white. That would be effective wouldn't it? How does culture mater?

There is no such thing as a sociologically accepted definition of racism that is different than the one in the dictionary.
 
2008-03-27 02:20:17 PM  
There is only one type of dress that needs to be done away with.............fat people in spandex
 
2008-03-27 02:20:40 PM  
GlassHouses: no thongs showing on the girls

You know how I know you're gay?
 
2008-03-27 02:20:48 PM  
Thunderpipes: drunkennewfiemidget: Dancin_In_Anson: drunkennewfiemidget: Because deciding on your safety based on the colour of skin of the person walking behind you is idiotic if there's no other indication as to their intentions.

So this would apply to anyone that makes that connection?

Yes.

And what if crime statistics clearly show you are more in danger of a black guy with pants around his knees, than of a white guy in a suit and tie? It is not racism to use common sense.


common sense should tell you that if you judge people simply by the color of their skin, you're wrong.
Serial killer tend to be white males, and Dahmer was a snappy dresser.
 
2008-03-27 02:20:59 PM  
drunkennewfiemidget: So this would apply to anyone that makes that connection?

Yes.


I see. (Two links. Second link contains NSFW language. FF to about 6:55 for the money quote)
 
2008-03-27 02:21:18 PM  
Burn98: UnkleKrakker: In that in order to actually act on racist tendencies, one has to be the dominant race in a culture.

That is simply false. How about when a big black guy decides to push around a small white guy, just because he is white. That would be effective wouldn't it? How does culture mater?

There is no such thing as a sociologically accepted definition of racism that is different than the one in the dictionary.


you are confusing discrimination based on race with racism... I could suggest some books if you are truly interested.
 
2008-03-27 02:21:50 PM  
The "Low pants in Prison means you want Deeck" story is a myth. A myth created by a white guy to humiliate blacks. Nice. Low pants are just convenience cum habit cum fashion.

One thing I would like to understand. How can black dudes wear full-on winter coats in the dead of summer? And how come I see so many black people wearing these really colorful NASCAR jackets? That seems...surreal.

I'll take my comments off the air.
 
2008-03-27 02:22:02 PM  
Maechyll: UnkleKrakker: DROxINxTHExWIND: If you want to know why "baggy" pants became fashionable why not ask a black guy who came of age during the period instead of pulling shiat from your ass?

Answer: We like them.

DROxINxTHExWIND: Because all of the people on the "Compton street corner" think alike. Just like all of the people in YOUR neighborhood, right?


/all black people are not the same...

Hypocrite much?


A little fast on the post button much?
 
2008-03-27 02:22:44 PM  
xenocide: Christ, the ignorance in this thread is staggering... I had very baggy pants growing up. Want to know why? I was poor and would wear hand-me-downs, just like a lot of my other black friends. I have no idea where this whole theory of imitating "prison culture" came from, but it makes the people who push it look shockingly out of touch.

So, in either case, why is this something the kids want to emulate?

I mean, it's your right to look silly and all, but I'm just curious as to why that look got popularized in the media.
 
2008-03-27 02:23:01 PM  
i108.photobucket.com
/Not originally my idea, but too funny not to post.
 
2008-03-27 02:23:54 PM  
Affirmative action doesn't do shiat for some kid in the ghetto, and the middle class black kid who works hard to get into college, a job etc will always have the taint of not really earning it.


I am unqualified to discuss black taint.
 
2008-03-27 02:25:28 PM  
Burn98: UnkleKrakker: In that in order to actually act on racist tendencies, one has to be the dominant race in a culture.

That is simply false. How about when a big black guy decides to push around a small white guy, just because he is white. That would be effective wouldn't it? How does culture mater?

There is no such thing as a sociologically accepted definition of racism that is different than the one in the dictionary.


Perhaps you should pick up a book occasionally. There is a very strong definition in Sociology that racism is only able to be carried out by the dominant group. This would be called 'the big picture', so racism really can only be praticed by those in power.
I didn't say the dictionary definition was wrong, I simply said there was another, accepted definition. That happens in the world outside sometimes, people redefine things and don't get everyone's permission.
 
2008-03-27 02:26:32 PM  
Fashionably, it's quite lame. Though, I would like to see Obama's stand on this issue.

FarkleMatter: Can they outlaw Fanny packs next? (please)

Then how am I going to carry a concealed firearm? The fanny pack is one of the easiest ways to carry concealed.
 
2008-03-27 02:26:54 PM  
fireclown
UnkleKrakker: Rev. WRight is no racist. In order to be a racist you have to be a member of the dominant racial group. It's about power.

No. That is the requirement to be an EFFECTIVE racist.

Glad to clear that up for ya.



Okay... then if Rev Wright is as "ineffective" as you say he is, then why do those like you even pay attention? What difference does he make to you?

I mean, if someone just stands around and talks a bunch of shiat, so what? If that same person prevents me from getting a job, an apartment, a loan... then that person needs to be dealt with.
 
2008-03-27 02:27:02 PM  
Thunderpipes: Unless you're closing a gap artificially placed between the races by past policies.

No, that is still racism. Two people go for a job, white person is better qualified, black person gets it because of slavery 150 years ago, that is still blatant racism.


I disagree. The playing field is slanted. You just can not leave that fact out of your analysis.

One team gets to advance the ball downhill while the other team has to advance the ball uphill. The uphill team deserves some kind of break to make up for the slant

So we give them an extra down that they can use but the other team cannot.

Now the downhill team screams that the uphill team has an unfair advantage, ignoring the advantage they have had all along.

You can argue that it is a stupid way to try to even things out and I would agree with you. But it is an attempt to make things more fair.

Therefore it is not racist.
 
2008-03-27 02:27:08 PM  
Giving blanket advantages to black people doesn't help anything.

It was a blanket disadvantage that Jim Crow put on blacks. Near enough, anyway. Affirmative Action isn't a blanket advantage. As you mentioned it comes at a price and isn't available to many blacks. So in that sense Affirmative Action doesn't go far enough.

Did you intend to make my point for me?
 
2008-03-27 02:27:54 PM  
Does it seem to target one group? Yes. Does that invalidate the purpose? Not necessarily so.
 
2008-03-27 02:28:05 PM  
Maechyll: UnkleKrakker: DROxINxTHExWIND: If you want to know why "baggy" pants became fashionable why not ask a black guy who came of age during the period instead of pulling shiat from your ass?

Answer: We like them.

DROxINxTHExWIND: Because all of the people on the "Compton street corner" think alike. Just like all of the people in YOUR neighborhood, right?


/all black people are not the same...

Hypocrite much?

===================================================

Ok, let me clarify for the retarded or the people who have a hard time with reading comprehension.

The black people who WEAR them, like them.

I have to break it down that far for you? LOL. What a reach.
 
2008-03-27 02:28:10 PM  
As a self-admitted old fart (over 40 at least) I guess I can kinda see the attraction of showing underwear. There's at least a tie-in their to something sexual.

But the low-riders that are cut to join the pant-legs a foot below the crotch - that has GOT to be the dumbest looking fashion trend in history - including bell bottoms and zoot suits.

It pretty much announces to the world that the wearer is an absolutely unredeemable moron. Add a few piercings and you're basically looking at a lobotomized gibbon walking around (regardless of race - I ain't going there).
 
2008-03-27 02:28:12 PM  
GWShenlong05: twobux: How? Did MLK Jr. give the "I have a dream" speech with the top 2 inches of his boxers showing?

No, but there is almost always a tinge of bigotry behind sumptuary laws. The zoot suit ban, for instance, was directed at hispanics - the people who could often be found wearing them.

"Low pants" laws are in themselves sumptuary laws. So the NAACP is correct, even if they do sound like whiners.


So they are trying to discrimainate against souther white trash? I see more 19yr old, wife beater wearing, pant sagging rednecks running around than black youth.
 
2008-03-27 02:28:51 PM  
wilfridcyrus: My pants hang low. I'm smart and a good person. People tell me I'm white. This thread is more stupider than the NAACPs complaint.

You seem to contradict yourself there, homey.
 
2008-03-27 02:28:52 PM  
UnkleKrakker: Burn98: UnkleKrakker: In that in order to actually act on racist tendencies, one has to be the dominant race in a culture.

That is simply false. How about when a big black guy decides to push around a small white guy, just because he is white. That would be effective wouldn't it? How does culture mater?

There is no such thing as a sociologically accepted definition of racism that is different than the one in the dictionary.

Perhaps you should pick up a book occasionally. There is a very strong definition in Sociology that racism is only able to be carried out by the dominant group. This would be called 'the big picture', so racism really can only be praticed by those in power.
I didn't say the dictionary definition was wrong, I simply said there was another, accepted definition. That happens in the world outside sometimes, people redefine things and don't get everyone's permission.


look into the works Joe Feagin or Claude Levi-Strauss on the topic.
 
2008-03-27 02:29:32 PM  
Whoopty Rape Angel: you are confusing discrimination based on race with racism... I could suggest some books if you are truly interested.

I guess the dictionary is confused by that as well.
 
2008-03-27 02:29:40 PM  
Burn98: One team gets to advance the ball downhill while the other team has to advance the ball uphill. The uphill team deserves some kind of break to make up for the slant

It is racist to see us as "teams" instead of individuals who happen to have traits in common.
 
Displayed 50 of 866 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report