Discussion about the Suspension List
Quote: RaleighCrapsI do not agree that there should be a ban on posting any systems though.
But you shouldn't get to weasel around in posting ALL details necessary to analyse something. Might as well be posting spam then.
Quote: RaleighCrapsI also recall the Ron Harris scam. What was his backdoor? Bet 1 coin, then 2, then 2, then 3, then 5, then 3, or something like that. Suppose someone had stumbled into that sequence and brought it to this board as his/her system. They would have been pointed to the math and shown the math to show how wrong they were. And then out comes the news, and what do you know, they were on to something. Do I think this is the case with Singer's system? No, but I think anyone who says he is 100% wrong, is themselves making a mistake.
That's not what Jerry and Singer are saying, though. They're saying that the machines are programmed non-randomly, in cahoots with regulations that we can't see. Harris was obviously breaking the law, but according to Singer, the non-randomness he thinks is in VP machines is both intentional and legal. He repeatedly says the machines are *not* rigged.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's not what Jerry and Singer are saying, though. They're saying that the machines are programmed non-randomly, in cahoots with regulations that we can't see. Harris was obviously breaking the law, but according to Singer, the non-randomness he thinks is in VP machines is both intentional and legal. He repeatedly says the machines are *not* rigged.
That's selective arguing. From what I've read here and elsewhere your last 2 sentences are right on. But also from what I've read and more in conjunction with the purpose of RaleighCraps post, RS is able to consistently beat the negative ev machines with his complex strategy, and that has nothing to do with the fact that he believes he's proven the machines to be non-random.
Quote: JerryLoganRS is able to consistently beat the negative ev machines with his complex strategy, and that has nothing to do with the fact that he believes he's proven the machines to be non-random.
That cannot be the case. Either (a) RS beats the games *because* they are non-random, or (b) the games are random and RS has gotten lucky. We all know, even you, that no betting system can alter the EV of a game of independent random trials regardless of what that game is -- slots, VP, roulette, dice, coin-flipping, etc. In other words, if the game is operating as the proverbial book says it should -- for example, as described on the Wizard's site -- then Singer's play has been -EV and any winnings over ten years are due to luck and luck alone.
I suspect that you wouldn't claim Singer's strategy will work for a slot machine. However, if the games are indeed random (and they are, in spite of Singer's repeated protestations to the contrary), then there is little qualitative difference between the outcome distribution of a slot game vs. the outcome distribution of a video poker game. In both cases, the game is a random variable with many outcomes: >50% chance of losing, a small chance of a very large award, and other smaller awards appearing with roughly increasing probabilities. If random/non-random has nothing to do with it, the system should work just as well on slots. Does it?
Quote: MathExtremistThat cannot be the case. Either (a) RS beats the games *because* they are non-random, or (b) the games are random and RS has gotten lucky. We all know, even you, that no betting system can alter the EV of a game of independent random trials regardless of what that game is -- slots, VP, roulette, dice, coin-flipping, etc. In other words, if the game is operating as the proverbial book says it should -- for example, as described on the Wizard's site -- then Singer's play has been -EV and any winnings over ten years are due to luck and luck alone.
I suspect that you wouldn't claim Singer's strategy will work for a slot machine. However, if the games are indeed random (and they are, in spite of Singer's repeated protestations to the contrary), then there is little qualitative difference between the outcome distribution of a slot game vs. the outcome distribution of a video poker game. In both cases, the game is a random variable with many outcomes: >50% chance of losing, a small chance of a very large award, and other smaller awards appearing with roughly increasing probabilities. If random/non-random has nothing to do with it, the system should work just as well on slots. Does it?
Here's what I've either read from him or was told by him in person: He does not claim to beat games because they aren't random. He says he's structured his play strategy so as to take the most advantage from whenever luck comes along, which includes something I've never been able to do: to walk away after reaching a certain win goal. I've never even set win goals but I'm going to start.
He does not claim to alter the EV of any game and I've seen him say that he doesn't give a rats butt about game EV until AFTER he's played. At that time after winning he's written something like how the machine he just played turned out to be +205%EV or whatever.
I wouldn't think you could compare how he does his thing to being equally able to do it with slots. My experience with those things is either feast or famine, mostly famine, and if you're playing any kind of game where you increase denomination after losing, it won't be long before you bust out on many of your tries. I think the trick with vp is that it has so many small wins that it keeps you in the game a long time and you'll eventually see a big winner most of the time, and to him a big winner is not necessarily one of the top winners. I really can't wait to try it again in Laughlin later this week.
Quote: JerryLoganI think the trick with vp is that it has so many small wins that it keeps you in the game a long time and you'll eventually see a big winner most of the time, and to him a big winner is not necessarily one of the top winners. I really can't wait to try it again in Laughlin later this week.
That happens to be true for most multi-line slot games these days. You might try a similar martingale-style system with slot denoms, going from pennies up through quarters or dollars. It won't be +EV, but it may lead to the same type of distribution -- many small-ish wins, the occasional, soul-crushing loss. Plus, if you play any meaningful amount of time on $1 or more multiline slots, you'll get quite a bit of comp attention.
Quote: MathExtremistThat happens to be true for most multi-line slot games these days. You might try a similar martingale-style system with slot denoms, going from pennies up through quarters or dollars. It won't be +EV, but it may lead to the same type of distribution -- many small-ish wins, the occasional, soul-crushing loss. Plus, if you play any meaningful amount of time on $1 or more multiline slots, you'll get quite a bit of comp attention.
Not for me. The one thing I liked about RS's strategy was that I had quite a few smaller cashouts along the way, and those were almost all due to hitting small winners close to each other. He said those go a long way in eliminating those soul-crushing losses, but they still happen infrequently and are over time more than made up for with the huge wins. I can't see that happening with a slot machine.
Quote: RaleighCrapsAs a frequent lurker, and one who dislikes the troll posting and bickering, I am glad to see people get booted. As I have posted before, the forum was much easier to read before the latest generation of posters showed up. I am not saying there should not be any disagreements. That would serve no purpose. I do appreciate reading all the different views that people have, and am constantly surprised how some topics that would seem to be binary, end up having many different view points.
I do not agree that there should be a ban on posting any systems though. Yes, most of us on here realize that there is no system that can be utilized which will overcome the house edge, but not allowing people to post their system would be a mistake. Sure the Iron Cross is a lousy system, but it still is fun to play it once in a while, and at times, it does show a profit. And so does throwing a buck down on the 6 on the big wheel, although you'll never see one of my dollars on there.
While most of the time, I find what JL has written to be a waste of my time, I have enjoyed reading the whole Rob Singer system threads. While I am fairly certain the math people have it correct, I also recall the Ron Harris scam. What was his backdoor? Bet 1 coin, then 2, then 2, then 3, then 5, then 3, or something like that. Suppose someone had stumbled into that sequence and brought it to this board as his/her system. They would have been pointed to the math and shown the math to show how wrong they were. And then out comes the news, and what do you know, they were on to something. Do I think this is the case with Singer's system? No, but I think anyone who says he is 100% wrong, is themselves making a mistake.
Thanks Wizard for the forum, and for taking steps to get the forum back to enjoyable reading again.
Why would anyone post their system, knowing it is useless? It seems like they are looking for praise of their brilliance, to me. I think it is harmful for naive gamblers to encounter this stuff and start "wishing it were true". If ANYONE is posting their system for my benefit, please DON'T! It must bother the Wizard most of all.
Quote: MathExtremistThat cannot be the case. Either (a) RS beats the games *because* they are non-random, or (b) the games are random and RS has gotten lucky. We all know, even you, that no betting system can alter the EV of a game of independent random trials regardless of what that game is -- slots, VP, roulette, dice, coin-flipping, etc. In other words, if the game is operating as the proverbial book says it should -- for example, as described on the Wizard's site -- then Singer's play has been -EV and any winnings over ten years are due to luck and luck alone.
I suspect that you wouldn't claim Singer's strategy will work for a slot machine. However, if the games are indeed random (and they are, in spite of Singer's repeated protestations to the contrary), then there is little qualitative difference between the outcome distribution of a slot game vs. the outcome distribution of a video poker game. In both cases, the game is a random variable with many outcomes: >50% chance of losing, a small chance of a very large award, and other smaller awards appearing with roughly increasing probabilities. If random/non-random has nothing to do with it, the system should work just as well on slots. Does it?
I think that before you can possibly get any kind of rational explanation into Jerry's head, or anyone else's head, you have to be able to convince him why the statement:
"RS is able to consistently beat the negative ev machines with his complex strategy"
cannot possibly be true. Nor can any similar claims stated directly by RS, OR ANYONE ELSE, be true. Jerry has constantly deflected any attempts to show why that is the case, by calling the people who try to do so "liars", "cowards", "in denial", "envious", blah blah blah. Can Jerry get past his extreme propensity to personally attack anyone who teels him something he doesn't want to hear? Or can he get past that and begin to understand the underlying logic, and MAYBE, why neither RS nor anyone else on the planet can "consistently beat" ANY -EV game with ANY strategy?
He's gotten testy and called you names several times, but on the whole, he doesn't blow his cork as often with you as with others. Do you think that that gives you a fighting chance of getting him to see reason?
Quote: PaigowdanWe all have those people who push our buttons, but to whom we are complelled to respond in a primal way, otherwise it just gets under our skin if let it slide. An "I gotta give him that needed jab right back" type of impulse. It creates pockets of bickering couples as part of our community: MKL & Jerry, etc. There can be a "bad marriage/relation" list formed from these pairings.
I realize that was the case with me, as in how I respond to things such as Jerry, and I had to force myself to stop reacting to him. I now respond only peripherally, and in one recent case, that of his utterly abhorrent and disgusting "Christmas greeting", I felt compelled nonetheless to rebuke him. Probably shouldn't have, though--his shameful post spoke for itself.
In any case, he's not long for this board; as surely as the night doth follow the day, he will go off the rails again. Then we can have threads go on for more than five posts without being hijacked by a foul-smelling diatribe against some group of people that Jerry hates.
Quote: mkl654321I realize that was the case with me, as in how I respond to things such as Jerry, and I had to force myself to stop reacting to him. I now respond only peripherally, and in one recent case, that of his utterly abhorrent and disgusting "Christmas greeting", I felt compelled nonetheless to rebuke him. Probably shouldn't have, though--his shameful post spoke for itself.
In any case, he's not long for this board; as surely as the night doth follow the day, he will go off the rails again. Then we can have threads go on for more than five posts without being hijacked by a foul-smelling diatribe against some group of people that Jerry hates.
What I find absolutely hilarious is how you constantly say you're quitting the forum along with a whiney version of waaa waaa waaa, then how you say you're not going to respond to anything JL posts, yet you just can't help yourself as you embarrassingly do what you just said you were NOT going to do!
Remember, Christmas greetings only mean something to those with a warm heart, and a warm heart is supported by the following:
In God We Trust
One Nation Under God
God Bless America
See GOD anywhere in any of those proud lines? And you wonder why those with cold hearts are the most unhappy, conflicted, hateful people in the world who can't marry and enjoy their own children, and who constantly whine and blame their troubles on everyone but themselves?
Maybe Happy New Year works better? After all, there's ALWAYS hope.
Quote: JerryLoganAnd you wonder why those with cold hearts are the most unhappy, conflicted, hateful people in the world who can't marry and enjoy their own children, and who constantly whine and blame their troubles on everyone but themselves?
I would love you to elaborate your meaning on this, and justify your reasoning.
Quote: mkl654321
In any case, he's not long for this board; as surely as the night doth follow the day, he will go off the rails again. Then we can have threads go on for more than five posts without being hijacked by a foul-smelling diatribe against some group of people that Jerry hates.
mkl, Ive got to say that I disagree. Whilst Jerrys opinions may be a route cause, the thread hijacking is equal parts you and Jerry not being able to agree or ignore each other.
Quote: Croupiermkl, Ive got to say that I disagree. Whilst Jerrys opinions may be a route cause, the thread hijacking is equal parts you and Jerry not being able to agree or ignore each other.
I know it would take some coding, but maybe that is the answer Wiz needs here. Next suspension those two get together and they come back on forced ignore without the "show me anyways" button?
Quote: CroupierI would love you to elaborate your meaning on this, and justify your reasoning.
Sure. I've met my share of atheists in the past 15 years (even some truckers) and by & large they are the most hateful people who seem to always be involved in ragged issues and personal or family conflict. Also, a high percentage of them are gay, which is a conflict in its own right, and they always seem to be blaming their problems on someone else. To these people, warm wishes go right through the holes in their heads. It just aggravates the hell out of them to see a happily married family with traditional values. They just seem so unhappy almost all of the time. That's where the cold heart comment comes from. "Merry Christmas" is like a dagger through the heart to many of them, as nothing about Christmas is merry for them because it celebrates the birth of Christ.
Quote: mkl654321I think that before you can possibly get any kind of rational explanation into Jerry's head, or anyone else's head, you have to be able to convince him why the statement:
"RS is able to consistently beat the negative ev machines with his complex strategy"
cannot possibly be true. Nor can any similar claims stated directly by RS, OR ANYONE ELSE, be true.
This gets to the heart of the "betting systems" issue, which as I mentioned on another thread, any regular reader of this forum should understand by now. It may very well be the case that "RS has been able to stay ahead of the negative EV machines with his complex strategy", but as with investing, "past performance does not guarantee future results". Since each game is an independent, random event, the statement that "RS's complex strategy is able to consistently beat the negative EV machines" is not accurate, or I should say, will not always be accurate for all players of his complex strategy.
It's the most complicated strategies that, unfortunately, tend to be the most persuasive to those who experience results with them. It's hard to wrap one's mind around good luck when it happens, and it's far easier and more seductive to chalk it up to some intentional act on the bettor's behalf. Far easier and more seductive, but wrong.
"When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer..."
-- Stevie Wonder, "Superstition"
Quote: JerryLoganSure. I've met my share of atheists in the past 15 years (even some truckers) and by & large they are the most hateful people who seem to always be involved in ragged issues and personal or family conflict. Also, a high percentage of them are gay, which is a conflict in its own right, and they always seem to be blaming their problems on someone else. To these people, warm wishes go right through the holes in their heads. It just aggravates the hell out of them to see a happily married family with traditional values. They just seem so unhappy almost all of the time. That's where the cold heart comment comes from. "Merry Christmas" is like a dagger through the heart to many of them, as nothing about Christmas is merry for them because it celebrates the birth of Christ.
I think that athiests fall into two groups. There are "agnostics" who just don't believe in any god and go about their day not bothering anybody. Then there are "athiests" who take it upon themselves to be offended anytime someone mentions God or has any belief system. The latter often take "mother earth" as their religion and are the ones who demand you limit TP use to one square; ban good light bulbs; and the like. As to percentage being gay I attribute this to most religions stating homosexusluty to be wrong so homosexuals figure why stay around?
My feeling is that such athiests don't like consequences for their actions so they don't like religion.
I've been to Chauaka parties and wished a "Happy Chaunaka" at them. I accepted the good wishes as no one was trying to convert me. When a Merry Christmas is wished it is the same way--which is why anyone who get upset and wants "Happy Holidays" instead in the name of "diversity" should rather be given the greeting "drop dead."
Happy New Year all.
Quote: AZDuffman
I've been to Chauaka parties and wished a "Happy Chaunaka" at them. I accepted the good wishes as no one was trying to convert me. When a Merry Christmas is wished it is the same way--which is why anyone who get upset and wants "Happy Holidays" instead in the name of "diversity" should rather be given the greeting "drop dead."
Happy New Year all.
Not that I prefer one to another greeting (I would imagine only a sociopath would search for the negativity of a greeting) however Holiday is a contraction for Holy Day. Perhaps those who insist upon being greeted with Merry Christmas are unaware that it is considered a holy day not just a feast of presents.
Quote: Wavy70Not that I prefer one to another greeting (I would imagine only a sociopath would search for the negativity of a greeting) however Holiday is a contraction for Holy Day. Perhaps those who insist upon being greeted with Merry Christmas are unaware that it is considered a holy day not just a feast of presents.
With an imagination like that, that's quite a perverted post. But I did forget about the presents aspect, and I must have been nuts to have left it out.
Quote: Croupiermkl, Ive got to say that I disagree. Whilst Jerrys opinions may be a route cause, the thread hijacking is equal parts you and Jerry not being able to agree or ignore each other.
Sorry, no equivalence. I don't feel compelled to insert some kind of raving polemic against an ethnic/racial/class/etc. group as seasoning for virtually every post. And I do call Jerry on that when he does it, because I don't think hate-posts should be tolerated. Anywhere.
Quote: mkl654321Sorry, no equivalence. I don't feel compelled to insert some kind of raving polemic against an ethnic/racial/class/etc. group as seasoning for virtually every post. And I do call Jerry on that when he does it, because I don't think hate-posts should be tolerated. Anywhere.
You don't posts racist rants, but you do go off topic and remind us that Jerry does so in most of your replies to him, even if the specific post you're replying to is completely tame.
As far as tolerating hate speech, who decides what qualifies at hate speech?
Quote: mkl654321Sorry, no equivalence. I don't feel compelled to insert some kind of raving polemic against an ethnic/racial/class/etc. group as seasoning for virtually every post. And I do call Jerry on that when he does it, because I don't think hate-posts should be tolerated. Anywhere.
Then why do you lie about me so much, and why can't you ever do what you say you're going to do? Had you left in your "blaze of sorry" when you were suspended, your pain would have stopped then and there, as would your sniveling and lying here. You get what you ask for.
Quote: sunrise089You don't posts racist rants, but you do go off topic and remind us that Jerry does so in most of your replies to him, even if the specific post you're replying to is completely tame.
As far as tolerating hate speech, who decides what qualifies at hate speech?
I would classify "hate speech" as any expression whose primary purpose is to express or to incite hatred against any person or group. I would also include anything gratuitous inserted into speech that dealt with a larger topic, such as when someone mentions Indian casinos, and Jerry employs his wisdom and prescience to tell us that all Indians are worthless drunks and cheats.
I also think that you don't have to answer the question "who decides". Hate speech is pretty obvious when it occurs.
Quote: mkl654321I would classify "hate speech" as any expression whose primary purpose is to express or to incite hatred against any person or group. I would also include anything gratuitous inserted into speech that dealt with a larger topic, such as when someone mentions Indian casinos, and Jerry employs his wisdom and prescience to tell us that all Indians are worthless drunks and cheats.
I also think that you don't have to answer the question "who decides". Hate speech is pretty obvious when it occurs.
One would tend to think that you are trying very hard to let others know you're in one or two of those "groups" they way you rant & rave over what you want to think someone else is saying. We don't need to know what you're into.
Way to go ducking the first point!
Quote: mkl654321I would classify "hate speech" as any expression whose primary purpose is to express or to incite hatred against any person or group.
So would the statement "I hate pedophiles and encourage everyone else to advocate for the death penalty for crimes of child sex abuse" be hate speech? I hate pedophiles, and specifically intend to incite hatred of pedophiles in others enough to get US laws changed making crimes of child sex abuse a capital offense.
Quote: EnvyBonusSo would the statement "I hate pedophiles and encourage everyone else to advocate for the death penalty for crimes of child sex abuse" be hate speech? I hate pedophiles, and specifically intend to incite hatred of pedophiles in others enough to get US laws changed making crimes of child sex abuse a capital offense.
I don't think so. You need to advocate for beating them up, castrating vigilante style or something that is actually unlawful. I could be wrong though.
Quote: EnvyBonusSo would the statement "I hate pedophiles and encourage everyone else to advocate for the death penalty for crimes of child sex abuse" be hate speech? I hate pedophiles, and specifically intend to incite hatred of pedophiles in others enough to get US laws changed making crimes of child sex abuse a capital offense.
There's a distinction here. A "pedophile" is not someone who has committed a crime; that would be a "child sex abuser" or something of that nature. (In fact, I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of pedophiles out there who have not and never will commit a crime.)
In any case, the group "child sex abusers" is not protected by law, but it is dealt with by law. So hate speech against a particular class of criminals isn't in the same category as hate speech against gays or Chinese or accountants or whatever, but it DOES subvert the process of law. If you or anyone else feels that the penalities for child sex abuse are too lenient, the lawful way to advocate that is to contact your legislative representatives, not to incite by way of angry speeches.
By the way, Jerry and others like him (who feel free to toss hate speech around like confetti) think that a person has to be a member of a particular group before he can be offended by hate speech against that group. As with most narrow, bigoted thinking, this couldn't be more wrong. Personally, I am neither Indian, Asian, or gay, but I am offended by Jerry's and others' attacks on those groups. And I'm sure I'm not alone in being so offended.
Ditto.Quote: mkl654321Personally, I am neither Indian, Asian, or gay, but I am offended by Jerry's and others' attacks on those groups. And I'm sure I'm not alone in being so offended.
Quote: mkl654321By the way, Jerry and others like him (who feel free to toss hate speech around like confetti) think that a person has to be a member of a particular group before he can be offended by hate speech against that group. As with most narrow, bigoted thinking, this couldn't be more wrong. Personally, I am neither Indian, Asian, or gay, but I am offended by Jerry's and others' attacks on those groups. And I'm sure I'm not alone in being so offended.
I really shouldn't bring this up, because I'm operating under a one-way truce with you. But I feel it necessary to give you a chance to apologize for some rather bigoted remarks you've made about Mexico and Mexicans in the past.
Quote: mkl654321There's a distinction here. A "pedophile" is not someone who has committed a crime; that would be a "child sex abuser" or something of that nature. (In fact, I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of pedophiles out there who have not and never will commit a crime.)
Okay. Change my speech to "I hate child sex abusers. I think they should be given the death penalty. I hate them and want others to hate them."
Isn't this still "expression whose primary purpose is to express or to incite hatred against any person or group"?
Also, I don't know how that statement "subverts the process of law". I specifically wrote, in my first example, the reason I wanted the group to be hated was to bring about a change in the law. A good way to get people to contact their representatives is to make a speech that causes them to become angry.
Quote: EnvyBonusOkay. Change my speech to "I hate child sex abusers. I think they should be given the death penalty. I hate them and want others to hate them."
Isn't this still "expression whose primary purpose is to express or to incite hatred against any person or group"?
Also, I don't know how that statement "subverts the process of law". I specifically wrote, in my first example, the reason I wanted the group to be hated was to bring about a change in the law. A good way to get people to contact their representatives is to make a speech that causes them to become angry.
I'd also say I hate pedophiles. Don't let someone politically correct you because they have T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E for them in Oregon. How many pedophiles don't eventually become child abusers.
Quote: JerryLoganI'd also say I hate pedophiles. Don't let someone politically correct you because they have T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E for them in Oregon. How many pedophiles don't eventually become child abusers.
Oops, Jerry's name is a funny color again. Was it something he said?
Quote: DeMangoAs Reggie Jackson commented on himself so many years ago; "I am the straw that stirs the drink" It's gonna be a boring two weeks.....
Reggie backed up his boisterousness with substance.
Quote: WizardI don't have much tolerance for sharing private messages in public. See this post if you're wondering why Jerry was suspended this time.
I predict Logan will be back posting within hours of his suspension ending.. He is addicted to causing trouble as a drunk is to cheap vodka.
Boring?Quote: DeMangoIt's gonna be a boring two weeks.....
On the contrary. I think it's gonna be like a breath of fresh air.
Maybe we can have some good discussions now....
Quote: NareedI really shouldn't bring this up, because I'm operating under a one-way truce with you. But I feel it necessary to give you a chance to apologize for some rather bigoted remarks you've made about Mexico and Mexicans in the past.
Nareed, I literally have no idea what you might be referring to. I've heavily criticized THE COUNTRY OF MEXICO in the past, but I have NEVER criticized the Mexican PEOPLE, and I have been very careful to draw the distinction between the two. To reiterate: I think the country of Mexico is a dysfunctional, corrupt cluster-fuck, and I think the Mexican people are the salt of the earth. I love Mexican food, music, and the general attitude of the people; I hate the policia shaking me down for all the money in my wallet before I can recross the border back into the US.
Quote: mkl654321Nareed, I literally have no idea what you might be referring to. I've heavily criticized THE COUNTRY OF MEXICO in the past, but I have NEVER criticized the Mexican PEOPLE, and I have been very careful to draw the distinction between the two.
Try this. Last post. You are referring to a transaction between private parties, in other words Mexican people, and you kick the entire culture while you're at it.
Quote: NareedTry this. Last post. You are referring to a transaction between private parties, in other words Mexican people, and you kick the entire culture while you're at it.
That's pretty tenuous, but I think I can defend the position that bribery/corruption is deeply ingrained in the Mexican culture. It's the major reason why the border communities can't stop the drug chaos, for example. Also, anyone who's ever dealt with the police, or with government officials, in any way in Mexico knows what I'm talking about.
I've traveled to and in Mexico dozens of times in the last twenty years, and in my experience, NOTHING gets done without la mordida. Nothing. It's a simple fact of Mexican life; is pointing that out a criticism of their culture? It could be construed that way, but such a comment could hardly be deemed "RACIST" by any sensible person (for one thing, "Mexican" is not a race).
Does pointing out that Mexico is corrupt and dysfunctional constitute a criticism of the Mexican people? I don't think so. The PRI ran the place like a medieval fiefdom for over seven decades. The present situation is only a minor improvement. Widespread corruption will only end when the people stop accepting bribery as the normal way of getting things done. There has to be a social movement toward honesty in government officials, and that includes increased expectations of honesty. If I DO have a criticism of the Mexican people in this regard, it would be in that I see a fatalistic approach on their part to the problem, and a perception that nothing can be done about it--a perception that will, of course, be self-fulfilling.
Quote: mkl654321I've heavily criticized THE COUNTRY OF MEXICO in the past, but I have NEVER criticized the Mexican PEOPLE.
I knew lots of Mexicans when I was in Calif in the 70's and early 80's. I worked in a bar and about a quarter of the customers were Mexicans. Whats funny is, I knew at least 4 regulars who were 2nd and 3rd generation Mexican Americans, but they wouldn't admit it. They would say their parents were from Panama or Guatamala or any place but Mexico. The reason was, illegals from Mexico were so looked down upon, as were Mexicans in general, they denied they were of that heritage. It was very common. That was 30 years ago, maybe things have changed, I have never been back.
It seemed silly to me, of course I wasn't from there, what did I know.
Quote: mkl654321Quote: NareedTry this. Last post. You are referring to a transaction between private parties, in other words Mexican people, and you kick the entire culture while you're at it.
That's pretty tenuous, but I think I can defend the position that bribery/corruption is deeply ingrained in the Mexican culture. It's the major reason why the border communities can't stop the drug chaos, for example. Also, anyone who's ever dealt with the police, or with government officials, in any way in Mexico knows what I'm talking about.
Good plan. Claim superior knowledge. Much better than just apologizing. Plus, Nareed's only lived in Mexico for (redacted) years - how much can he possibly know about dealing with the Mexican Government?
Quote:It could be construed that way, but such a comment could hardly be deemed "RACIST" by any sensible person (for one thing, "Mexican" is not a race).
You're right. It isn't a racist comment, it's an ethnist comment. My Irish-American friends tell me that's not any better...
Quote: rdw4potusGood plan. Claim superior knowledge. Much better than just apologizing. Plus, Nareed's only lived in Mexico for (redacted) years - how much can he possibly know about dealing with the Mexican Government?
You're right. It isn't a racist comment, it's an ethnist comment. My Irish-American friends tell me that's not any better...
"Ethnist"?
I think everyone here's taken dumb pills. I'll say it one last time--I am criticizing the Mexican GOVERNMENT. NOT a "race". NOT an "ethnic group".
And if Nareed's lived in Mexico for 83 million years, or whatever it is, and hasn't noticed the rampant corruption there, he's been asleep or in a coma all that time.
And recognition of the corruption in Mexico isn't "superior" knowledge--it's COMMON knowledge.
Quote: thecesspitThe claim against MKL654321 was not Racism, it was being a bigot.
Uh, no, no such (valid) claim was made. I was being taken to task for, apparently, criticizing the Mexican government for tolerating and fostering corruption. Apparently Americans can't make such observations about other countries without being "bigoted":
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
So by criticizing (or, more accurately, mentioning) the Mexican government, I'm apparently a bigot. I hope that Nareed, you, and any others with a similar mindset would, in the interest of intellectual honesty, also characterize any MEXICAN who criticized the AMERICAN government as a "bigot".
Quote: mkl654321
So by criticizing (or, more accurately, mentioning) the Mexican government, I'm apparently a bigot
I don't understand this conversation. Bribery at all levels of Mexican gov't and bureaucracy has been a way of life for how many hundreds of years? Is somebody denying this?
Quote:Mexico is ranked the 86th least corrupt country in the world which makes them less corrupt than Argentina and more corrupt than China. This is according to the Corruption Perceptions Index, which is based on 13 different surveys and includes police, business, and political corruption. This is according to Transparency International.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Mexico#Corruption
Quote: mkl654321Uh, no, no such (valid) claim was made.
I was not debating whether the claim was valid. But a claim was made. The debate is whether it's valid or not. So, uh, yes.
My real point was that there was all this noise over whether you were being racist, but Nareed never said such a thing. The creation of the straw man argument that you were racist and then making the point that Mexicans are not a racist is a straw man. You can do better than that, and I'm sure you'd encourage your students to do so as well.
Quote:I was being taken to task for, apparently, criticizing the Mexican government for tolerating and fostering corruption. Apparently Americans can't make such observations about other countries without being "bigoted":
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
For what it's worth, I wouldn't call your criticism on it's own bigoted.
Quote:
So by criticizing (or, more accurately, mentioning) the Mexican government, I'm apparently a bigot. I hope that Nareed, you, and any others with a similar mindset would, in the interest of intellectual honesty, also characterize any MEXICAN who criticized the AMERICAN government as a "bigot".
I've certainly been called anti-American for criticizing the American government, and all sorts of other names for making comments against the good ol' USofA.
Not a bigot though...
