No, it's just stupid.

By sepuku2 at 2008-02-08

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.

Lord knows I've never seen white boys in low baggy pants. Hell no. Never. Ever. Even at the shopping mall. All the kids are wearing drainpipe trousers with Creepers, now, and quiff their hair up like Elvis.

I say let them dress however they like. It makes it easier for me to determine who I need to watch closely to make sure they don't steal my wallet/ turn down for interviews.

MrKraclenutz: I say let them dress however they like. It makes it easier for me to determine who I need to watch closely to make sure they don't steal my wallet/ turn down for interviews.

Exactly. Much easier to spot the stupid ones from a safe distance.

kronicfeld: A law can be racially motivated and improperly target individuals on the basis of race notwithstanding the fact that it also pulls in individuals not of that targeted race. I'm not saying this one is racially motivated, but just sayin'.

The white boys, IMHO, are worse. They should know better.

The sponsor (new window) of the bill.

Because you can't jump fences in low riders.

acurus: MrKraclenutz: The white boys, IMHO, are worse. They should know better.

What the f*ck does that mean? Why?

Respectfully, if you can't figure it out it's not worth me trying to explain it to you/ them.

acurus: Oh, I figured it out. I just wanted to see if you had the conviction to eschew obfuscation.

Nope, I'm being forthright in my assertion that dressing like this is a willful act of ignorance. If you want to dress like a complete retard, fine. By all means do so. Just don't come crying to me when the inevitable consequences rear their ugly heads.

People (like me) are going to look at you as a thug.

"Low Pants Bill" sounds like Clinton's nickname.

Other than that, NAACP should learn to pick their battles. I'm sure the black community has bigger problems than idiots with their asses hanging out of their pants. If it was white/Asian/hispanic kids doing instead of black kids, the point would still stand.

acurus: You've utterly failed to explain why white boys should know better.

Through observation dear sir.

Black kids dress like retards = discrimination.

My first thought - as a white boy - was always; "Hmm, sure don't want to be lumped in THAT category."

MrKraclenutz: The white boys, IMHO, are worse. They should know better.

Archie Bunker, ladies and gentlemen!

Diogenes: True, but you're right at the bottom of a slippery slope. If a law is broken most often by a minority group, do we not enforce it for fear of being discriminatory (the advisability of the law notwithstanding)?

Well that's pretty silly.

Rape is illegal for the obvious damage it causes to the victim, the victim's family, the community, etc.

Low Pants laws do not demonstrate any damage to anyone besides the fashion sense of the retards who wear their pants below their asscracks. And maybe the sensibilities of the people who care that much about the way other people dress.

Come on. The only thing you can compare one sumptuary law to, is another sumptuary law. And in principle, sumptuary laws are on their face nonsensical and betray bigoted intent in the people who pass them.

Diogenes: I felt like stopping and giving him a Nelsonesque "HA ha!"

Well it's not like he could've caught you, even if the two of you were on foot.

acurus: MrKraclenutz: Black kids dress like retards = discrimination.

I agree. To make that blanket statement does indeed = discrimination

Cry me a river.

MrKraclenutz: acurus: MrKraclenutz: Black kids dress like retards = discrimination.

I agree. To make that blanket statement does indeed = discrimination

Cry me a river.

Well, at least we know you didn't "misspeak" now.

Kyosuke: Well, at least we know you didn't "misspeak" now.

I'm sorry. Did I say something that you were unaware of? Did you just now figure out that people tend to react poorly to willful displays of thuggery?

Kyosuke: MrKraclenutz: I say let them dress however they like. It makes it easier for me to determine who I need to watch closely to make sure they don't steal my wallet/ turn down for interviews.

Exactly. Much easier to spot the stupid ones from a safe distance.

Also makes it easier for the police to catch them because you can't run real fast with your pants at your knees.

Diogenes: The thing is they might actually get it passed because the supporters have the whole public decency angle. Very much like a "but it's for the children" thing.

Even worse, IMHO. If the naughty bits are properly covered, then why is it the government's business how many layers of fabric cover them? Will going commando be outlawed next?

kronicfeld: It's when you get into criminalizing arbitrary behaviors, like types of music, clothing styles, etc., that you start to have an issue.

They aren't criminalizing it. Consider it an addendum to the dress code.

Isn't it racist to say that black people are the only people that wear their pants low?

This Bill is stupid, but only because of its inherent stupidity, not because of any discrimination.

Kyosuke: Exactly. Much easier to spot the stupid ones from a safe distance.

I use the "W" stickers left on vehicles after the last election to help me determine the idiots.

/But yeah, the low pants pretty much say the same thing to me.

seems like girls with thongs sticking out of their pants would be the most likely to get in trouble with this bill...

/wait - does anyone do that anymore?

//get off my lawn ** shakes fist **

MrKraclenutz:
I'm sorry. Did I say something that you were unaware of? Did you just now figure out that people tend to react poorly to willful displays of thuggery?

I'm with you on this. This isn't discrimination against blacks. I know lots of very respectable black people and let me tell you, not one of them wears their pants below their crack. Exactly like MrKraclenutz said, it's a "willful display of thuggery."

The type of people who wear their pants like that, weather they be black, mexican, OR white typically have that asshole, thug attitude. Just like you could safely assume the young "hot" white girls who wear skirts and shorts that show their asscheeks, and flashy their boobies for Girls Gone Wild are slutty.

I DO think that all of this is stupid however. If someone wants to look like a douchebag, let them. It'll make it easier for the rest of us to tell the difference.

Ryan2065: raanne: seems like girls with thongs sticking out of their pants would be the most likely to get in trouble with this bill...

No, they don't get in trouble for things like this...

No, but they still need to step into my office after class so we can discuss the matter. Giggity giggity.

I misread that as "NCAA" and thought it was something that mattered.

Nope... one falm palm is not enough...

I bet subby meant to use OBVIOUS tag instead.

Darwin in 3, 2, 1....

Yes, but wouldn't it also ban chicks from wearing super-low jeans with visible thongs? Then what am I going to ogle at the mall?!

Please, think of the perverts.

MrKraclenutz: Nope, I'm being forthright in my assertion that dressing like this is a willful act of ignorance.

I thought the droopy pants were a sign of one's willingness to take it up the butt (i.e. prison culture)?

This bill isn't aimed at just blacks it's aimed at Youth

MrKraclenutz: acurus: MrKraclenutz: The white boys, IMHO, are worse. They should know better.

What the f*ck does that mean? Why?

Respectfully, if you can't figure it out it's not worth me trying to explain it to you/ them.

Oh, I know! You hate black people.

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.

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

Pretty much this.

It's discriminatory by intent, and it doesn't have any tangible public benefit.

The personal satisfaction I'd get out of seeing kids (and some adults) actually have to dress in a half-way decent manner isn't enough to stop me from opposing a law like this.

You want to stop these dudes from wearing their baggy, low ride pants? Tell 'em what it signifies in prison.
/prison biatch FTW

Now if we can just outlaw the 99 cent doo rag! And the sideways baseball cap. And those grillz things. I just have those farking things. But, I digress.

I came here for a picture of a group of people frowning on some shenanigans but I guess some people are still asleep.

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.

It's aimed at preventing UNDERGARMENTS from being shown. More importantly, it's probably aimed at the local losers who lack respect for themselves, the schools and society.

When the school system adopted a "social development" approach to teaching, they also were forced to take these new snowflakes and their social well being and make them productive. Good luck now!

The schools have so screwed society that you can no longer tell student's they are WRONG or their behaviors are unacceptable, for fear they may sue you. So if you want your little shiate bag kid to dress like an asshat, go right ahead, but home school the little prick and keep him away from students who are trying to LEARN in school.

I pray for the day that we have institutionalized dress codes for all school students. It'll take the emphasis off of designer clothes and socializing in schools and put it back on education. Not to mention, no one can claim "racism" if everyone is forced to wear the dress code.

I had a cop tell me he liked "thugz" wearing low pants, made them easier to chase.

Did the NAACP pick up some former PETA staff? Stupid move by a (less) legitimate agency.

Speakin' as a Bill who's had my pant's real low a number of times -- ain't that right ladies? -- I find this development highly distressin.'



plus, now they got me chasin' Grannies, for chrissakes! And oh yeah, Obama sucks.

consciousNOT: Now if we can just outlaw the 99 cent doo rag! And the sideways baseball cap. And those grillz things. I just have those farking things. But, I digress.

That's all you have?

You should also get 20" rims, riding on the side.

Bag-o-Nugs: Isn't it racist to say that black people are the only people that wear their pants low?

THIS

I see plenty of kids of all races looking like they are wearing daddy's pants by mistake and forgot a belt.

Dennis Leary says "PULL UP YOUR PANTS! And get me a coffee!"

Whoa whoa whoa. Blacks are dropping out of high school in record numbers*, so we create a bill SUSPENDING them from school for wearing pants a certain way??

Can we pick and choose our battles here, people?? Or at least get some kind of better punishment?


* http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/1HighSchoolDropout.cfm

consciousNOT: Now if we can just outlaw the 99 cent doo rag! And the sideways baseball cap. And those grillz things. I just have those farking things. But, I digress.

I have 99 cent grillz with baseball cap patterns, and I'm slightly dark skinned, so you'll be hearing from my lawyer about that reply.

MrKraclenutz: kronicfeld: A law can be racially motivated and improperly target individuals on the basis of race notwithstanding the fact that it also pulls in individuals not of that targeted race. I'm not saying this one is racially motivated, but just sayin'.

The white boys, IMHO, are worse. They should know better.

So, black people just don't know any better???

Ryan2065: What adults are going to school? Or did you not notice this is only for kids going to school and at most they are going to be suspended after being told twice to quit it?

Sorry, I consider 18 to be an adult.

If you're old enough to be drafted, you've reached the adult world. Welcome to it. Now pull up your pants and get a job, hippie.

SiriuslyBlack: Dennis Leary says "PULL UP YOUR PANTS! And get me a coffee!"

He says a lot of stuff...most of it stolen from Bill Hicks.

toonz: I had a cop tell me he liked "thugz" wearing low pants, made them easier to chase.

must...read...thread...before...posting...to...avoid...saying...what's...been... said.
/Department of Redundancy Department.

GWShenlong05: sumptuary laws

New phrase and concept for me, I can't imagine when I'll use it, but I thank you for the interesting google diversion.

(It may just be the benefit of 60 years of culture and my memories of James Edward Olmos trailers for the movie, but Zoot Suits looked cool, boxers and bagging not so much.)

Discriminatory?

As whiny as it sounds, they do have a point, although this does not reflect very well on the black community, even if it's just one part of it (young black males) that usually does it.

Then again...what about any other race that does this? It's not intentionally discriminatory, but the NAACP's angle is easy to see.

Isn't willingness to follow this fashion part of class and not race. I have seen some white people who think they are ghetto thug too.

/Agree the law is pointless, anything that allows transaction free idiot filtering is good.

Doggie McNugget: "Low Pants Bill" sounds like Clinton's nickname.

thats exactly what i came here to say...

Tyee: Bag-o-Nugs: Isn't it racist to say that black people are the only people that wear their pants low?

THIS

I see plenty of kids of all races looking like they are wearing daddy's pants by mistake and forgot a belt.

NAACP? Reinforcing racial stereotypes?
Noooo. Get out.

Oh the man, keeping the black race down for all these years.

If you are too stupid to know what size clothes you wear, I don't want to associate with you.

I don't think passing this law will do anything but stir up racial unrest, but I do like the idea.

Zik-Zak: Then again...what about any other race that does this? It's not intentionally discriminatory, but the NAACP's angle is easy to see.

Bills banning dreadlocks are likewise discriminatory, even though the argument can be made that they're purely voluntary hairstyles.

AAH! I can't stand when people say any law is discriminatory when it covers everyone! There's a rule where I live at a mall that children under 16 can't be there after 5pm on weekends without a parent because of recent violence and shoplifting. Of course, "It's discriminating against blacks!" What? The law is children under 16, not black children under 16.

How can a law that protects equally be discriminatory? By the very definition of the word?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/wallach3.html

If drug dealers wore tighter clothing, the silhouette of a gun could much more easily be identified by passing police. With saggy, baggy pants and shirts hanging out, it is impossible. This is also why you see so many coats with hoods, in drug-infested areas. It's another case of form fitting function. Big Brother puts up cameras, so the drug dealers put up their hoods when they are doing a deal.

Of course, there are others who follow the lead of gun-carrying drug dealers and wear this fashion, even though they aren't dealing drugs or carrying drugs, but in the neighborhoods they live in, they sure better look like they are carrying. Otherwise, who is going to protect them, when they come across a true gangster, the police? Not likely. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. In the hood, do as the government-created gangsters do.

GAWD! These politicians gripe my ass!

The sponsor of the bill and everyone who voted for it should be immediately thrown out of office for dereliction of duty.

This IS discriminatory against plumbers everywhere. I'd like to see what the plumber's union has to say about this!!

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.

This is Gary Silpan, the Senator who is sponsoring this bill:

I also assumed that the headline was referring to B.J. Clinton.


Typical low pants black and white people.

consciousNOT: Now if we can just outlaw the 99 cent doo rag! And the sideways baseball cap. And those grillz things. I just have those farking things. But, I digress.

Your lawn let me get off it

Icy Hot Stuntaz unavailable for comment...

Seriously, do we need to legislation to address fashion?

If yes, shouldn't banning any of this be of higher importance?

Yeah - it discriminates against morans.

drjekel_mrhyde: consciousNOT: Now if we can just outlaw the 99 cent doo rag! And the sideways baseball cap. And those grillz things. I just have those farking things. But, I digress.

Your lawn let me get off it

Why? He clearly says he has all those things.

12 Inch Pianist: You want to stop these dudes from wearing their baggy, low ride pants? Tell 'em what it signifies in prison.
/prison biatch FTW

Close. Belts aren't allowed in prison for security reasons.

acurus: I don't see a law being enforced at the mall which targets, intentionally or not, hot little white chicks for walking around with the bottom part of their ass showing.

So then go complain about it...

At that point, I'm sure that -someone- will listen and actually try to get that law passed.

--I swear - someone always gets upset with freaking everything.

Oh no you didin'.

Sybarite: With all the stories of read (mostly here on FARK) of some baggy pants criminal trying to outrun the cops and ending up with his face on the ground and pants around his ankles, you'd think the police unions would be fighting the low pants bill tooth and nail.

No kidding. It's a lot easier to chase someone who's spending half their time making sure you can read the label on their boxers.

Fact Man: How can a law that protects equally be discriminatory? By the very definition of the word?

That same argument was used to support laws banning inter-racial marriage.

The legislators said that white people were prevented from marrying black people as equally as black people were prevented from marrying white people.

The laws were still obviously racially motivated, and targeted toward one race.

Nigeria, please.

SchlingFo: Fact Man: How can a law that protects equally be discriminatory? By the very definition of the word?

That same argument was used to support laws banning inter-racial marriage.

The legislators said that white people were prevented from marrying black people as equally as black people were prevented from marrying white people.

The laws were still obviously racially motivated, and targeted toward one race.

But that law involved racial separation. A ban on showing your ass in public doesn't.

And I, in response, say the NAACP is discriminatory. How's that?

acurus: hot little white chicks for walking around with the bottom part of their ass showing.

This is why I'm here. Bring the pics.

xanadian: FTFA: The bill calls for no criminal sanctions, but it would prohibit students from wearing pants low so that they expose undergarments.

I think the answer here is simple, really...

Don't wear undergarments.

Hey, some of us have a hard enough time not looking at (older) teen boy's underwear.

/won't someone please think of the lechers

Diogenes: It is the right of all African Americans to look like they don't know how to dress themselves!

/silly legislation
//sillier naacp response

If not for the "silly legislation" there would be no "silly response" and therefore, no "silly discrimination"

I live in a hotbed of this "anti-sag lawmaking" and even i can see clearly this is all 100% discriminatory... Whether it's racial, cultural, or just plain ignorance, it's all "discrimination" under the constitutional rights of this great country we live in.

Too bad people can't read/comprehend simple concepts laid out by brilliant men some 232 years ago.

(witntv.com) NAACP Says "Low Pants Bill" Is Discriminatory

Sooooooo.... only colored people sag their pants?

/That's certainly going to help advancement; and by the way...NAACP Wiki (new window) Maybe time for a name change?
//The NAACP will never be satisfied because if "colored" people have advanced beyond advocacy, their organization ceases to be relevant.

Sybarite: With all the stories of read (mostly here on FARK) of some baggy pants criminal trying to outrun the cops and ending up with his face on the ground and pants around his ankles, you'd think the police unions would be fighting the low pants bill tooth and nail.

We all know that REAL police work these days is about busting people for chickenshiat speeding tickets... and no level of baggy pants will make up for lardass traffic cops eating too many donuts.

/mmm, donuts

Serious question that I and my friends always ask each other when we see some guy, no matter what his skin color, wearing these:

How the hell do you run in those things if you're chasing someone, being chased, trying to catch a bus, etc? Keerist, I would fall on my face if I took three steps at anything more than a walk. I saw one guy and the crotch was below his kneecaps! Also, what keeps those suckers up? If the pants waist is below ass crack, well, how do the things not just fall down to the guy's ankles?

/inquiring minds want to know

yeah, because it's the " black way " to dress like a slob with their draws sticking out above their pants. I guess part of the problem is that they're too stupid to know what size to buy in the first place.

Oh, wait, it ISN'T a black thing. I see plenty of young white punks dressing the same way. in addition, I've seen plenty of young girls with the low rize jeans and their thong riding above.

Stupid law? maybe

Stupid response? absolutely.

stupid fashion statement? Indeed

The problem is that when these stupid kids dress like this and receive nothing but disrespect from adult society, they are upset and can't understand why they're being " dissed. "

They'll also whine when they have trouble getting a job and demand those of us who know how to dress properly pay them some unemployment or Welfare.

...but it's such a great fashion statement..............

............For the Society of the perpetually unemployed dumbasses anyway.

GWShenlong05
No, but there is almost always a tinge of bigotry behind sumptuary laws.

You maked me use a dictionary:

"Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures in the matter of apparel, food, furniture, etc."

Hmm. I'm not getting the race card here. I deal with this fashion vomit all the time in the classroom, and it's ALWAYS a white kid showing off his underwear. I just point and tell him there's a huge skid mark. The pants go up before the the class is finished laughing at him. If we all just pointed and laughed this nonsense would go away.

Fact Man: But that law involved racial separation. A ban on showing your ass in public doesn't.

I was addressing your question as to how a law could be discriminatory if it applies to everyone equally.

I provided an example of a law that applied to everyone equally and was discriminatory.

kc987654: xanadian: FTFA: The bill calls for no criminal sanctions, but it would prohibit students from wearing pants low so that they expose undergarments.

I think the answer here is simple, really...

Don't wear undergarments.

Hey, some of us have a hard enough time not looking at (older) teen boy's underwear.

/won't someone please think of the lteachers

FTFY

BrianGriffin: Also, what keeps those suckers up?

They perfected anti-gravity about fifteen years ago. All the gangster stuff is just a front to conceal their plans to leave Earth in a low-riding spacecraft powered by Olde English.

If I read it correctly it was directed at schools.

I don't have a problem with that.

On one hand I think it is a waste of time, on the other I think setting a state standard for how kids are allowed to dress witll free up school s to do what they are supposed to do teach. Deciding if some little slutina is showing too much underwear or if some thug wannabe is distracting class by having his pants halfway down won't take as much time. And with it being a state law the state not the schools or school district will have to worry about the court cases.

since when does the NAACP argue on behalf of plumbers?

Dreaded_South: i202.photobucket.com

Reminds me of longcat.

Young people rebelling with dress just to piss off their elders?

Unpossible.

tuna fingers: I think this bill should discrimate! But only against a gender. There is absolutely no problem with chicks who sag.

Thank you for making our morning better.

Fact Man: AAH! I can't stand when people say any law is discriminatory when it covers everyone!

How can a law that protects equally be discriminatory? By the very definition of the word?

Illegal to marry someone of your same gender.
Illegal to marry outside of your race.
Illegal to wear your hair in cornrows or dreadlocks.
Illegal to urinate outside (that one was once used to justify locking up all the homeless people in Miami).

Wow, the NAACP is not too popular on fark.

I can see their point, though.

1. A particular fashion is popular among black males.
2. Said fashion is banned by Florida(who would have thought).

Black males had their fashion banned. What's so hard about that?

If khaki shorts and pastel polo shirts were banned, you know damn well all us pale-ass farkers would be up in arms.

I don't care what hugh the man sponsoring this bill is, KevinC. It's not going to change the fact that this is going to affect black males (and probably young women) the most. It's one group of people telling another group of people what to do, and that ain't right.

I'd like to hear from the "That's racist!" kid.

SchlingFo: Fact Man: But that law involved racial separation. A ban on showing your ass in public doesn't.

I was addressing your question as to how a law could be discriminatory if it applies to everyone equally.

I provided an example of a law that applied to everyone equally and was discriminatory.

I see. Well that does do it.

I live in St. Louis, where there are neighborhoods with mansions five blocks away from ghettos, and every time a law is passed to try to better a crime-affected area, there are board meetings trying to shut it down because it's discriminatory and targeting races (see my mall example above).

It makes my head hurt.

Soracloud
Oh the man, keeping the black race pants down for all these years.

/fixed :)

I was driving home from a holiday fireworks show in downtown Cincinnati one night, and stopped at a red light in the worst neighborhood in town. A black guy, probably around 20, walked across the cross walk with "low pants" that were low enough to expose pubes, ass crack, and ass pubes as he passed. I had an urge to run him over.

I'm not racist, but neither I, my friend, nor our girlfriends want to see that crap.

ZachF81: I was driving home from a holiday fireworks show in downtown Cincinnati one night, and stopped at a red light in the worst neighborhood in town. A black guy, probably around 20, walked across the cross walk with "low pants" that were low enough to expose pubes, ass crack, and ass pubes as he passed. I had an urge to run him over.

I'm not racist, but neither I, my friend, nor our girlfriends want to see that crap.

Stay in Sycamore then, Sandra Dee.

If only black kids shot people, would it be racist to prosecute them for shooting people?

ZachF81: A black guy, probably around 20, walked across the cross walk with "low pants" that were low enough to expose pubes, ass crack, and ass pubes as he passed. I had an urge to run him over.

I'm pretty sure that sort of thing is already indecent exposure.

/sellout

SchlingFo: Fact Man: But that law involved racial separation. A ban on showing your ass in public doesn't.

I was addressing your question as to how a law could be discriminatory if it applies to everyone equally.

I provided an example of a law that applied to everyone equally and was discriminatory.

That's kinda different, assuming this law is actually being used to prevent "indecent exposure," which would be a crime.
If it's something that's already a crime (granted, wear)

You can't exactly call anti murder laws drisciminatory because more people of some ethnic group perform murders (You'll probably find that every law is broken by a different ratio of ethnicities). It has to be racially motivated. Stupid whites and blacks do this. Not racial (but unless there's performing indecent exposure, not really enforceable either).

Stupid!= race.
/They're too slow to race

liam76: Deciding if some little slutina is showing too much underwear or if some thug wannabe is distracting class by having his pants halfway down won't take as much time.

What's wrong with you that the level at which a guy wears his belts is distracting to you in class? Are you just staring at his crack?
If his behavior is distracting, there are already ways to deal with it. But short of a battery-operated propeller beanie or a blinkenlight shirt, clothing shouldn't distract you for more than a second or two.

whatever. if these hoodlums would quit trying to act like thug naggers then they wouldnt have a problem. i guarantee if you walk into a NAACP office no one is dressed with their ass hanging out.

Fact Man: I live in St. Louis, where there are neighborhoods with mansions five blocks away from ghettos, and every time a law is passed to try to better a crime-affected area, there are board meetings trying to shut it down because it's discriminatory and targeting races (see my mall example above).

I think that's probably due to them seeing it as an effort from an outside group of people to control them.

They'd probably meet with more success if they went into the neighborhood, asked them how they can help them to help themselves improve the neighborhood, and provide them with the tools and funding necessary.

.02

ZachF81: I was driving home from a holiday fireworks show in downtown Cincinnati one night, and stopped at a red light in the worst neighborhood in town. A black guy, probably around 20, walked across the cross walk with "low pants" that were low enough to expose pubes, ass crack, and ass pubes as he passed. I had an urge to run him over.

I'm not racist, but neither I, my friend, nor our girlfriends want to see that crap.

You just don't want your girlfriends knowing he was hung much better than you...

The new album coming soon!

They let spandex on fatties be ok in public, but they instead target this????

'tarded.

Barakku: That's kinda different, assuming this law is actually being used to prevent "indecent exposure," which would be a crime.

So this law has an exception if the low-pants-wearer has his boxers pulled up normally? It's really about exposed skin rather than pants height?

A part of me wholeheartedly agrees to banning "saggy pants"!

However if it does not violate decency laws (no Mr. Danglybits in public), therefore it should not be outlawed.

Sure they look like idiots, and I wouldn't trust someone who does this with even elementary menial labor. It is their right to wear it.

/Snakes have rattles
//Douchebags have bluetooth in public areas
///Idiots have very saggy pants
////Hurrah warning signs

Marla Singer's Laundry: Stay in Sycamore then, Sandra Dee.

Unfortunately my drive from any place downtown to my home in Clifton routes me through Over-the-Rhine. Usually it's a rather normal drive.

Theaetetus: If his behavior is distracting, there are already ways to deal with it. But short of a battery-operated propeller beanie or a blinkenlight shirt, clothing shouldn't distract you for more than a second or two.

Idunno, I often find certain women's outfits (or lack their of) very distracting. Guys, not so much.

Wait, does this mean that money laundering is discriminatory against white people?

Hibno 2008-03-27 12:40:41 PM
Wow, the NAACP is not too popular on fark.

I can see their point, though.

1. A particular fashion is popular among black males.
2. Said fashion is banned by Florida(who would have thought).

Black males had their fashion banned. What's so hard about that?

If khaki shorts and pastel polo shirts were banned, you know damn well all us pale-ass farkers would be up in arms.

I don't care what hugh the man sponsoring this bill is, KevinC. It's not going to change the fact that this is going to affect black males (and probably young women) the most. It's one group of people telling another group of people what to do, and that ain't right.


it isn't a black thing, it's what's appropriate. Making this all about race is ignorant unless what you're saying is that black kids are so stupid that they don't even know what size pants to buy. Yeah, I know it started with rappers and the whole prisoner deal but the bottom line is that it's nothing more than jeans hanging below the ass. I don't give a rats ass if someone has so little respect for themselves that they would dress that way, but I have no problem forcing them to show some respect for others in society.

We already have plenty of laws for that very reason.

Instead of making laws like this, why don't they just make school uniforms mandatory and call it a day?

Disparate impact arguments are retarded. A law that is this facially neutral is by definition not discriminatory. At the same time, allowing stupid people to be stupid serves a valuable sorting function. Those people who want to cut themselves out of the job market, housing market, and polite society can go ahead and do so.

ya know. I'm the average white guy, 26 yo good job, kid, and girlfriend. I like guns, cars, and the occasional beer, I am not a big fan of rap, I don't wear my pants saggy, I wear them comfortable. And I just came in here to say, I don't like ties, all of you old assholes who wear these multi colored ties, you distract me from my work and your ties look like shiat, I myself am going to campaign and enact a law that would prohibit all of you farktards from wearing ties, if you chose to wear a tie you get one warning. After that one warning you will be sent home from work. If you chose to disobey you will be labeled a troublemaker and arrested for disturbing my peace. I don't like ties therefor ties = banned

/I see what I did there

maniacbastard: They let spandex on fatties be ok in public, but they instead target this????

'tarded.

And they don't ban socks and sandals either.

/I'd vote for that
//want to step on feet that are in that getup

1) The bill is discriminatory. Any argument to the contrary is intellectually dishonest.

2) The bill is a stupid waste of legislative time (and our money)

3) The NAACP does not deserve all of the derision heaped upon it by whiney white guys (and gals)

4) Pull up your damn pants! You look like an idiot!

SchlingFo: Fact Man: I live in St. Louis, where there are neighborhoods with mansions five blocks away from ghettos, and every time a law is passed to try to better a crime-affected area, there are board meetings trying to shut it down because it's discriminatory and targeting races (see my mall example above).

I think that's probably due to them seeing it as an effort from an outside group of people to control them.

They'd probably meet with more success if they went into the neighborhood, asked them how they can help them to help themselves improve the neighborhood, and provide them with the tools and funding necessary.

.02

That sounds nice, but that's assuming they want help in the first place. If you've lived around these areas, you know that an outside source has to help them.

so why not just make wearing uniforms mandatory.

90supraT: ya know. I'm the average white guy, 26 yo good job, kid, and girlfriend. I like guns, cars, and the occasional beer, I am not a big fan of rap, I don't wear my pants saggy, I wear them comfortable. And I just came in here to say, I don't like ties, all of you old assholes who wear these multi colored ties, you distract me from my work and your ties look like shiat, I myself am going to campaign and enact a law that would prohibit all of you farktards from wearing ties, if you chose to wear a tie you get one warning. After that one warning you will be sent home from work. If you chose to disobey you will be labeled a troublemaker and arrested for disturbing my peace. I don't like ties therefor ties = banned

/I see what I did there

I hope the Burger King where you work isn't in a downtown business area...

Doubleodoug: This IS discriminatory against plumbers everywhere. I'd like to see what the plumber's union has to say about this!!

You think you're joking, but the plumber's did protest when Florida passed a law against saggy pants. They argued that their profession required that they wear heavy toolbelts which tend to cause pants to sag. Two senators proposed an amendment exempting plumbers from the law, but it didn't pass.

You can read about it here: (Scroll down a few stories on the page)
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2008/03/13/jockstrip_the_world_as_we_know_it /8121/

My suggestion: Get a bunch of old Jewish dudes to walk around saggin'. A bunch of middle-aged crackers, too, saggin' around. Teen agers be sportin' a suit & tie in a month.

Theaetetus: Barakku: That's kinda different, assuming this law is actually being used to prevent "indecent exposure," which would be a crime.

So this law has an exception if the low-pants-wearer has his boxers pulled up normally? It's really about exposed skin rather than pants height?

I'm reasonably sure that underwear counts as indecent exposure though, if worn like that. Someone head for the police station in tighty whities to be sure.

xanadian: FTFA: The bill calls for no criminal sanctions, but it would prohibit students from wearing pants low so that they expose undergarments.

I think the answer here is simple, really...

Don't wear undergarments.


Well, sure. That's MUCH better.

hard2bnice: Instead of making laws like this, why don't they just make school uniforms mandatory and call it a day?



/I'd vote for that.

Wearing your pants low. Its not just a stupid trend. Its a sign of stupidity.

I'm pretty sure the dirty pigs prefer chasing after these dumbasses who constantly have to drag their pants while running away from the cops. The dirty pigs could beat these idiots for all I care.

Rich enough to show off your trendy boxers, but broke enough that you can't afford a decent belt.

hard2bnice: Instead of making laws like this, why don't they just make school uniforms mandatory and call it a day?


You know who else liked uniforms?

whitefangz: Doubleodoug: This IS discriminatory against plumbers everywhere. I'd like to see what the plumber's union has to say about this!!

You think you're joking, but the plumber's did protest when Florida passed a law against saggy pants. They argued that their profession required that they wear heavy toolbelts which tend to cause pants to sag. Two senators proposed an amendment exempting plumbers from the law, but it didn't pass.

You can read about it here: (Scroll down a few stories on the page)
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2008/03/13/jockstrip_the_world_as_we_know_it /8121/

holy shiat that is funny

tuna fingers: One more.

Nice.

/one more is never enough.

Hibno:

If khaki shorts and pastel polo shirts were banned, you know damn well all us pale-ass farkers would be up in arms.

Nah, only frat boys and guidos dress like that and no one on Fark cares about them.

/now if they banned jeans and t-shirts with video game and/or Star Wars characters on them, I'd be out for blood.

dallashockey: whatever. if these hoodlums would quit trying to act like thug naggers then they wouldnt have a problem. i guarantee if you walk into a NAACP office no one is dressed with their ass hanging out.

How do you know they are "hoodlums" and "are trying to act like ____" you don't know shiat.

People like you should be banned, imo. Should that mean we should enact a law, because of your own ignorance and inner hate? I think that would be more relevant.

GET OVER IT!

Things like this only make people want to do it more, just to piss you off because it obviously really bothers you THAT MUCH and you need to be taught a lesson in "mind your own freaking business, loser"

So suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is racist, but suggesting that a trend will disproportionately affect blacks is not hypocritical? Got it!

Don't these lawmaker asswipes have anything else better to do than generate more paperwork regulating (of all things) a fashion fad?

If they really want to make a difference why don't they include whaletails, "juicy" sweatpants on underage girls, and tramp-stamps in the bill?

/stoopid

PULL UP YOUR DAMNED PANTS!

Then again, no. Leave them down. That way we know you're retarded without have to speak to you or get close enough that it might rub off on us.

Fark U: I live in a hotbed of this "anti-sag lawmaking" and even i can see clearly this is all 100% discriminatory... Whether it's racial, cultural, or just plain ignorance, it's all "discrimination" under the constitutional rights of this great country we live in.

Dress codes are allowed in schools. I think there is a legit complaint of being able to see underwear being a distraction in the classroom.

As I said earlier part of me thinks it is stupid, but the state having the law alleviates the school worrying about where to draw the line and being concerned over lawsuits.

This is why we need Obama.

I dont't know Low Pants Bill but Low Pants Steve is a hater. That's fo sho.

It's very American's God given right to dress like a complete moron if they want to.

Whoever came up with these and whoever wears them should be shot on sight!

cubsfan07: hard2bnice: Instead of making laws like this, why don't they just make school uniforms mandatory and call it a day?


You know who else liked uniforms?

Jesus?

There is a difference between something being stupid and that same something being discriminatory.

sigdiamond2000: I tell ya, it warms my heart to see Fark's resident "small" government "conservatives" up in arms over this useless and unnecessary law.

What integrity!

Since we insist on keeping government in control of schools, it's within the government's rights to determine the school's dress code. If all schools were private, they could ban this style of dress as they see fit, or not.

mrsirjojo: So suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is racist, but suggesting that a trend will disproportionately affect blacks is not hypocritical? Got it!


suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is not, in any way shape or form "racist". Actually singling them out for punishment for following said trend is, by definition "racist"

clear things up for you?

racial =/ racist

I want a law that requires everyone to wear this uniform.

Whoopty Rape Angel: 1) The bill is discriminatory. Any argument to the contrary is intellectually dishonest.

2) The bill is a stupid waste of legislative time (and our money)

3) The NAACP does not deserve all of the derision heaped upon it by whiney white guys (and gals)

4) Pull up your damn pants! You look like an idiot!

Um...Name one thing the NAACP has done in recent years except make blacks look pathetic? All they do is try and support the very worst of people from the law, under the guise of usually utterly fabricated racism. They seem to have a fetish for picking the worst possible dregs of society, and acting like that's the typical black person, and they're their to help in their assault trial because the victim was white.

If I were black I'd be pissed as hell at these idiots representing me. They're like Obama's preacher, but enough to fark over every black person in America.

/When people see a successful black person, they think affirmative action; thanks, NAACP, for keeping it real
//Like in the 50's

sigdiamond2000: I tell ya, it warms my heart to see Fark's resident "small" government "conservatives" up in arms over this useless and unnecessary law.

What integrity!

Hey! I'm a small government conservative, and I do not want to see this law.

How fast can they run with their pants hanging down when the cops are chasing them?
There's a positive side to everything.

rewind2846: If they really want to make a difference why don't they include whaletails, "juicy" sweatpants on underage girls, and tramp-stamps in the bill?

Because we would rise up and slay them.

/credit to Mr. Black

kc987654: 90supraT: ya know. I'm the average white guy, 26 yo good job, kid, and girlfriend. I like guns, cars, and the occasional beer, I am not a big fan of rap, I don't wear my pants saggy, I wear them comfortable. And I just came in here to say, I don't like ties, all of you old assholes who wear these multi colored ties, you distract me from my work and your ties look like shiat, I myself am going to campaign and enact a law that would prohibit all of you farktards from wearing ties, if you chose to wear a tie you get one warning. After that one warning you will be sent home from work. If you chose to disobey you will be labeled a troublemaker and arrested for disturbing my peace. I don't like ties therefor ties = banned

/I see what I did there

I hope the Burger King where you work isn't in a downtown business area...

actually I wear a tie to work, I was just proving a point.

mrsirjojo: So suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is racist, but suggesting that a trend will disproportionately affect blacks is not hypocritical? Got it!

Seriously.

Disagree

This originated in the prison system. Guys were forced to wear their pants this way to show that they were "biatches", the lowered pants symbolizing an always-ready anus.

So that's what these kids are emulating. Being arse-whores. That's so gangsta!

/and farking hilarious
//back that thing up, kid

FTA: Other groups such as the Advancement Project, a Washington social advocacy organization, say the proposal is directed primarily at black males and could lead to arrests.

This is not racially discriminatory. It is discrimination, but against idiots, not blacks.

But what about the plumbers?

If they could get gang members to wear those pants and platform shoes, the police would have no trouble catching them.

I'm still waiting for the day when the NAACP sues themself for defamation

Stoj: Together, we can combat this horrible black-on-black racism.

We can still have hot midget-on-midget action though, right?

Whoopty Rape Angel: mrsirjojo: So suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is racist, but suggesting that a trend will disproportionately affect blacks is not hypocritical? Got it!


suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is not, in any way shape or form "racist". Actually singling them out for punishment for following said trend is, by definition "racist"

clear things up for you?

racial =/ racist

Taxes disproportionately affect white people since we have jobs but you don't see us crying racism.

/yeah I went there
/it's true
/pull up your pants

Barakku: Whoopty Rape Angel:

Um...Name one thing the NAACP has done in recent years except make blacks look pathetic? All they do is try and support the very worst of people from the law, under the guise of usually utterly fabricated racism. They seem to have a fetish for picking the worst possible dregs of society, and acting like that's the typical black person, and they're their to help in their assault trial because the victim was white.

If I were black I'd be pissed as hell at these idiots representing me. They're like Obama's preacher, but enough to fark over every black person in America.

/When people see a successful black person, they think affirmative action; thanks, NAACP, for keeping it real
//Like in the 50's

Sadly, this is very, very true. Take for example, Bill Cosby, toured, encouraging black youth to start to value education more, stop trying to live and value the "gangsta rap" lifestyle, stop dressing like you don't belong in sophisticated society, etc., and of course the NAACP applauded his efforts to encourage these kids ostracized and condemned him.

90supraT: ya know. I'm the average white guy, 26 yo good job, kid, and girlfriend. I like guns, cars, and the occasional beer, I am not a big fan of rap, I don't wear my pants saggy, I wear them comfortable. And I just came in here to say, I don't like ties, all of you old assholes who wear these multi colored ties, you distract me from my work and your ties look like shiat, I myself am going to campaign and enact a law that would prohibit all of you farktards from wearing ties, if you chose to wear a tie you get one warning. After that one warning you will be sent home from work. If you chose to disobey you will be labeled a troublemaker and arrested for disturbing my peace. I don't like ties therefor ties = banned

/I see what I did there

Except this isn't a public ban. It is a ban in school.



vonster: If only mostly black kids shot people sold crack, would it be racist to prosecute them for shooting selling crack people?

yes according to some people.

tuna fingers: One more.

DAMNNNN!!!!

FARK U

you are an idiot. why on earth would you support hoodlums. oh. maybe one of them is your offspring. ANYONE who wears their pants like that is an absolute moron. no questions.

Keep 'em coming tuna_fingers

tfresh:

I LOL'ed.

busy chillin': The new album coming soon!

Other than the fact that it looks retarded, it is retarded.

Barakku: Whoopty Rape Angel: 1) The bill is discriminatory. Any argument to the contrary is intellectually dishonest.

2) The bill is a stupid waste of legislative time (and our money)

3) The NAACP does not deserve all of the derision heaped upon it by whiney white guys (and gals)

4) Pull up your damn pants! You look like an idiot!

Um...Name one thing the NAACP has done in recent years except make blacks look pathetic? All they do is try and support the very worst of people from the law, under the guise of usually utterly fabricated racism. They seem to have a fetish for picking the worst possible dregs of society, and acting like that's the typical black person, and they're their to help in their assault trial because the victim was white.

If I were black I'd be pissed as hell at these idiots representing me. They're like Obama's preacher, but enough to fark over every black person in America.

/When people see a successful black person, they think affirmative action; thanks, NAACP, for keeping it real
//Like in the 50's

I see that you have had your fair share of the FARK Kool-Aid regarding the NAACP. While it is true that they do take some objectionable cases (the only ones you hear about, btw) the vast majority of their work involves real cases of racial discrimination.

They work for the betterment of our country, not against it.

Diogenes: 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.

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

True, but you're right at the bottom of a slippery slope. If a law is broken most often by a minority group, do we not enforce it for fear of being discriminatory (the advisability of the law notwithstanding)?

I think the real slippery slope is when communities make laws regarding how clothing should or shouldn't be worn.
There are already laws covering indecent exposure.

The only way to stop this trend is for the tragically unhip to adopt it.

I foresee an ad campaign...

"Pull up yo pants, you big dumb fark,
or they'll bust yo ass and throw it in the truck"

hard2bnice: Instead of making laws like this, why don't they just make school uniforms mandatory and call it a day?

They tried that here in Dekalb County (Metro ATL) but the successful and attractive African-American babymommas raised such a stink and asked for so many exceptions that the idea was abandoned.
Many of them flat out refused to comply.

dallashockey: FARK U

you are an idiot. why on earth would you support hoodlums. oh. maybe one of them is your offspring. ANYONE who wears their pants like that is an absolute moron. no questions.

Good thing being stupid is legal. Otherwise most of you would be in prison.

/Kidding!

SAVE US! SAVE US ALL!
Borderline NSFW (new window)

spacechicken170am: Whoopty Rape Angel: mrsirjojo: So suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is racist, but suggesting that a trend will disproportionately affect blacks is not hypocritical? Got it!


suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is not, in any way shape or form "racist". Actually singling them out for punishment for following said trend is, by definition "racist"

clear things up for you?

racial =/ racist

Taxes disproportionately affect white people since we have jobs but you don't see us crying racism.

/yeah I went there
/it's true
/pull up your pants

do you know what the employment rate is for African-Americans?

Thought not. Deal with your ignorance before you post again. kthnxbai!

Whoopty Rape Angel: suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is not, in any way shape or form "racist". Actually singling them out for punishment for following said trend is, by definition "racist"

clear things up for you?

racial =/ racist

They aren't being singled out. The law isn't only for black people.

Whoopty Rape Angel: spacechicken170am: Whoopty Rape Angel: mrsirjojo: So suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is racist, but suggesting that a trend will disproportionately affect blacks is not hypocritical? Got it!


suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is not, in any way shape or form "racist". Actually singling them out for punishment for following said trend is, by definition "racist"

clear things up for you?

racial =/ racist

Taxes disproportionately affect white people since we have jobs but you don't see us crying racism.

/yeah I went there
/it's true
/pull up your pants

do you know what the employment rate is for African-Americans?

Thought not. Deal with your ignorance before you post again. kthnxbai!

Almost 10% compared to roughly 5% for whites and a little over 3% for Asians. kthanxgofarkurself

tuna fingers: One more.

Stop.


/fap

A large case of LOSE for the NAACP. How unsavory must it be for the NAACP to defend the classless culture of low pants and showing off your underoos? Defending this is like defending racism. A black man walks into a job interview with his pants sagging down to his ankles showing off is oh-so-uncool boxers. You think he'll get the job? No. It only gives racists ammo when they see this kind of idiotic "culture".

If the NAACP actually wanted the ADVANCEMENT of COLORED PEOPLE they would be all in favor of the bill outlawing a cultural phenomoenon which ONLY holds colored people back.

The NAACP has NO clue about doing what they intend to do. In fact they do the exact opposite.

Barakku: I'm reasonably sure that underwear counts as indecent exposure though, if worn like that. Someone head for the police station in tighty whities to be sure.

Define underwear. Some normal fashions look a lot like underwear.

Rapmaster2000: I want a law that requires everyone to wear this uniform.


From the Steve Urkel Thug Life collection?
/worst part is I think I know that guy!

This is an issue that could have been solved by a coordinated campaign of pointing and laughing.

At least, until the shootings started.

nmiguy: A large case of LOSE for the NAACP. How unsavory must it be for the NAACP to defend the classless culture of low pants and showing off your underoos? Defending this is like defending racism. A black man walks into a job interview with his pants sagging down to his ankles showing off is oh-so-uncool boxers. You think he'll get the job? No. It only gives racists ammo when they see this kind of idiotic "culture".

If the NAACP actually wanted the ADVANCEMENT of COLORED PEOPLE they would be all in favor of the bill outlawing a cultural phenomoenon which ONLY holds colored people back.

The NAACP has NO clue about doing what they intend to do. In fact they do the exact opposite.

Another race scholar heard from.

REPARATIONS MY ASS!

liam76: Whoopty Rape Angel: suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is not, in any way shape or form "racist". Actually singling them out for punishment for following said trend is, by definition "racist"

clear things up for you?

racial =/ racist

They aren't being singled out. The law isn't only for black people.

go hit Google and look up "sumptuary laws"

History is your friend.

TunaFingers for president!


more please

Nestea Plunge: Lord knows I've never seen white boys in low baggy pants. Hell no. Never. Ever. Even at the shopping mall. All the kids are wearing drainpipe trousers with Creepers, now, and quiff their hair up like Elvis.

Coif?

Marla Singer's Laundry: Another race scholar heard from.

Now now, the proper term is race scientist.

MrKraclenutz: I say let them dress however they like. It makes it easier for me to determine who I need to watch closely to make sure they don't steal my wallet/ turn down for interviews.

FTW

Fact Man: Take for example, Bill Cosby, toured, encouraging black youth to start to value education more, stop trying to live and value the "gangsta rap" lifestyle, stop dressing like you don't belong in sophisticated society, etc., and of course the NAACP applauded his efforts to encourage these kids ostracized and condemned him.


And where did Bill Cosby tour? Soulja Boy album release parties? Def Comedy Jam audiences? Crack houses? No. He "toured" safe places to say those things, usually college audiences where people are already on the right track and interested in furthering themselves.

I'd like to see Bill Cosby spew his pudding-pop horseshiat on some Compton street corner.

So if we had a bill that just banned white males from wearing their pants too low, would that be okay with the NAACP? Also, shouldn't they change their name from the National Association for the Advancement of COLORED PEOPLE to the National Association for the Advancement of African-Americans, as to call a black person "colored" is usually considered to be an archaic yet still racist term?

I'd be okay with not having to see those white guys wearing a 2-sizes-too-large basketball jersey, a sideways hat, pants that could conceal a civil war gattling gun, and sporting a moustache with less than a dozen hairs.

Shostie: But I like Low Pants Bill. So what if he doesn't like the darkies?



WAAAAAAAAAH! STOP CALLING ME "LOW-PANTS"!

I know what to expect when I read threads like this, I know how most farkers stand on this and similar issues, but it's just so damn disheartening. It's farking sad, this isn't about respect, it is about race. It's the same sickening feeling I get watching "Cops", or the nightly news for that matter.

/that is all

spacechicken170am: Whoopty Rape Angel: spacechicken170am: Whoopty Rape Angel: mrsirjojo: So suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is racist, but suggesting that a trend will disproportionately affect blacks is not hypocritical? Got it!


suggesting that blacks are more likely to follow a certain trend is not, in any way shape or form "racist". Actually singling them out for punishment for following said trend is, by definition "racist"

clear things up for you?

racial =/ racist

Taxes disproportionately affect white people since we have jobs but you don't see us crying racism.

/yeah I went there
/it's true
/pull up your pants

do you know what the employment rate is for African-Americans?

Thought not. Deal with your ignorance before you post again. kthnxbai!

Almost 10% compared to roughly 5% for whites and a little over 3% for Asians. kthanxgofarkurself

Don't get mad at me, racist boy. I'm just pointing out the racist idiocy of your post by showing that 90% of African Americans are employed, making your "they don't work" comment patently foolish.

Aren't you late for your Klan meeting?