Is this a red flag?

[Golem]

One of you quotes agreeing with the other fool that I was a racist:

Making overgeneralized comments about Romanians definitely qualifies as racist.

Excuse me, you are deliberately cutting off the sentence that immediately followed it, and which I quoted above:

 

"(NB Whether or not the comments about Romanians in this thread were overgeneralized is a different question, one that I have no desire to touch.)"

 

I did not say your comments were racist. I said, explicitly, that I had no desire to touch the question of whether or not they were racist.

You're now deliberately misquoting me in order to suggest that I have been negative towards you, when you were the one calling other posters "pricks." That's troll territory, and I am proceeding to the nearest exit and ignoring you. Enjoy your rabbit.

[+ tassojunior]

I read not long ago that Dutch is one of the easiest languages for a native speaker of English to learn. The only easier one is Frisian, and how much good would that do you?

I'm native English and a German speaker fairly well but the year I lived in Amsterdam I had little to no luck with Netherlandse. Maybe it's because I hate it so much.. It's German but with more than enough "woops" and "oops" and "slups" thrown in to make it remind you of old vaudeville Dutch comedy acts. Like bedroom is slaapkammer instead of the standard schlafzimmer, the Nederlandse version just seems too heavy and artificial. "Slappen in das slaapkammer". Even years ago everyone spoke English there so I avoided their language when possible. That's why it amazed me at my friends speaking with Danes.

In neither Germany or Nederlands is there any reason to not speak English as both countries are bilingual now. My last visit to Hamburg I noticed even there many or most signs were in English only, including tram signs.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

@Tarte Gogo I appreciate the explanation. I think you're right that if you get past the words, we are not looking at things very differently.

 

I still maintain that your restricted use of the words is nuts -- simply because they have always been used to encompass a much broader scope of things, and that is how the world at large still uses them. It seems that we have had different experiences of the way people use them. Not sure what else there is to say here; I guess I'll have to be content with having Wikipedia agree with me

Well fair enough, if you think I am committing an etymological fallacy, maybe I am, but if we let meanings drift completely without restriction on such important concepts we are going to have difficulty having a sensible conversation in society.

 

Btw are you aware that there is a large part of the left now that think that in the US, blacks cannot be racist, but also whites are all necessarily racist, because “racism is systemic”.

That is their new definition of racist.

 

https://mobile.wnd.com/2007/10/44291/

https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/black-people-can’t-be-racist

 

 

What next? we define “racist” to include anyone whose opinion on how the solar system was formed we don’t like? Some other random meaningless shit?

And when do we deal with the real problem of racism?

Edited August 7, 2018 by Tarte Gogo

[+ goosh69]

Romanian is DEFINITELY an ethnic group apart from the nation of Romania. It’s strangely ignorant of you to ignore the difference between nationality and ethnicity- which has DEFINED 200 years of European or even World history.

 

Since you value Wikipedia as a source -

 

“The Romanians (Romanian: români pronounced [roˈmɨnʲ] or—historically, but now a seldom-used regionalism—rumâni; dated exonym: Vlachs) are a Romance[52] ethnic group and nation native to Romania, that share a common Romanian culture, ancestry, and speak the Romanian language, the most widespread spoken Eastern Romance language which is descended from the Latin language. According to the 2011 Romanian census, just under 89% of Romania's citizens identified themselves as ethnic Romanians.”

 

“

Today, estimates of the number of Romanian people worldwide vary from 26 to 30 million according to various sources, evidently depending on the definition of the term 'Romanian', Romanians native to Romania and Republic of Moldova and their afferent diasporas, native speakers of Romanian, as well as other Eastern Romance-speaking groups considered by most scholars as a constituent part of the broader Romanian people, specifically Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, Istro-Romanians, and Vlachs in Serbia (including medieval Vlachs), in Croatia, in Bulgaria, or in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[1][2][3][55][56]”

 

Look up Hungarian next, and see how many of them (and Germans and others) live in Romania.

[+ tassojunior]

Romanian is DEFINITELY an ethnic group apart from the nation of Romania. It’s strangely ignorant of you to ignore the difference between nationality and ethnicity- which has DEFINED 200 years of European or even World history.

 

Since you value Wikipedia as a source -

 

“The Romanians (Romanian: români pronounced [roˈmɨnʲ] or—historically, but now a seldom-used regionalism—rumâni; dated exonym: Vlachs) are a Romance[52] ethnic group and nation native to Romania, that share a common Romanian culture, ancestry, and speak the Romanian language, the most widespread spoken Eastern Romance language which is descended from the Latin language. According to the 2011 Romanian census, just under 89% of Romania's citizens identified themselves as ethnic Romanians.”

 

“

Today, estimates of the number of Romanian people worldwide vary from 26 to 30 million according to various sources, evidently depending on the definition of the term 'Romanian', Romanians native to Romania and Republic of Moldova and their afferent diasporas, native speakers of Romanian, as well as other Eastern Romance-speaking groups considered by most scholars as a constituent part of the broader Romanian people, specifically Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, Istro-Romanians, and Vlachs in Serbia (including medieval Vlachs), in Croatia, in Bulgaria, or in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[1][2][3][55][56]”

 

Look up Hungarian next, and see how many of them (and Germans and others) live in Romania.

 

There are more people of Romanian nationality than the 20 million in Romania. But they are not the Roma or Romani or "Gypsies". Wikipedia, which you first sighted again:

 

 

Romani people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Gypsys)

 

Jump to navigationJump to search

Not to be confused with Romanians, an unrelated ethnic group and nation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

 

 

Roma are spread worldwide. there's even a million in the US. But Romanians are a nationality that is not just in Romania.

 

When you hear gay men in Europe talking about Romanians they are talking about people from the country of Romania and they can be Hungarian -Romanians or Transylvanian-Romanians as well as pure Romanians. I doubt they would ever be Roma or Romani even though people confuse the two.

 

Gay clients in Europe are often talking about the "Czechs" , the "Brazilians",and the "Romanians " because those are the three main groups of providers who pop up in most of central and western Europe. The guys from the country of Romania have a bad reputation from way too many experiences of too many gay men, including me. But I would happily have sex with a Romanian who actually had sex, much less bottom. They're very attractive. But I've met and talked to a hundred and actually gone out or gone in a cabin with a baker's dozen and have a perfect score with them: zero. Just like every other client I've ever spoken with.

[Rudynate]

I'm native English and a German speaker fairly well but the year I lived in Amsterdam I had little to no luck with Netherlandse. Maybe it's because I hate it so much.. It's German but with more than enough "woops" and "oops" and "slups" thrown in to make it remind you of old vaudeville Dutch comedy acts. Like bedroom is slaapkammer instead of the standard schlafzimmer, the Nederlandse version just seems too heavy and artificial. "Slappen in das slaapkammer". Even years ago everyone spoke English there so I avoided their language when possible. That's why it amazed me at my friends speaking with Danes.

In neither Germany or Nederlands is there any reason to not speak English as both countries are bilingual now. My last visit to Hamburg I noticed even there many or most signs were in English only, including tram signs.

 

To me there's a wonderful continuity to them all - English, German, Dutch, Danish. Norwegian and Swedish not as much.

[Rudynate]

There are more people of Romanian nationality than the 20 million in Romania. But they are not the Roma or Romani or "Gypsies". Wikipedia, which you first sighted again:

 

 

Romani people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Gypsys)

 

Jump to navigationJump to search

Not to be confused with Romanians, an unrelated ethnic group and nation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

 

 

Roma are spread worldwide. there's even a million in the US. But Romanians are a nationality that is not just in Romania.

 

When you hear gay men in Europe talking about Romanians they are talking about people from the country of Romania and they can be Hungarian -Romanians or Transylvanian-Romanians as well as pure Romanians. I doubt they would ever be Roma or Romani even though people confuse the two.

 

Gay clients in Europe are often talking about the "Czechs" , the "Brazilians",and the "Romanians " because those are the three main groups of providers who pop up in most of central and western Europe. The guys from the country of Romania have a bad reputation from way too many experiences of too many gay men, including me. But I would happily have sex with a Romanian who actually had sex, much less bottom. They're very attractive. But I've met and talked to a hundred and actually gone out or gone in a cabin with a baker's dozen and have a perfect score with them: zero. Just like every other client I've ever spoken with.

 

I have seen some Romanian men who are simply stunning.

[+ tassojunior]

To me there's a wonderful continuity to them all - English, German, Dutch, Danish. Norwegian and Swedish not as much.

Yes, but when you're not great at German and you have to really use it on occasion you can't let yourself get confused with the variations

[+ tassojunior]

I have seen some Romanian men who are simply stunning.

Oh I have too and some were very honest with me. Not that they put out any real sex, but some were honest and frank.

Also once at Thermas Sauna in Barcelona there were three hot Romanian muscle studs lined against a wall with hard erections blocking the hall you had to walk down. I spoke with one and told him I was an acvtive looking for a passive. All three looked at me like I had called their grandmothers bitches and walked off. After the first ten or twenty who said they were bottoms but turned out not to even be tops, I just gave up trying, like most clients. Maybe if muscle worship is all a client wants... But I'll stick to my Czechs and Brazilians.

 

I hear Thermas has recently had to hire a security guard to patrol the halls.

[Wolfer]

I'm native English and a German speaker fairly well but the year I lived in Amsterdam I had little to no luck with Netherlandse. Maybe it's because I hate it so much.. It's German but with more than enough "woops" and "oops" and "slups" thrown in to make it remind you of old vaudeville Dutch comedy acts. Like bedroom is slaapkammer instead of the standard schlafzimmer, the Nederlandse version just seems too heavy and artificial. "Slappen in das slaapkammer". Even years ago everyone spoke English there so I avoided their language when possible. That's why it amazed me at my friends speaking with Danes.

In neither Germany or Nederlands is there any reason to not speak English as both countries are bilingual now. My last visit to Hamburg I noticed even there many or most signs were in English only, including tram signs.

As a native Dutch speaker my experience is the opposite. I've always found German words to be amusingly longwinded. Like nurse is "Krankenschwester". Saying it is a mouthful and writing is such a jumble of consonants. Don't get me wrong, I love it, but to me it feels like a very embellished language.

 

I can't imagine Dutch being easy to learn. We have a lot of grammatical exceptions and oddities. Even I have to look up if pancake is "pannekoek" or "panneNkoek". And not to speak of the vast, VAST regional differences in usage. If I drive two hours west I can hardly understand what people are saying yet they are still, technically, speaking Dutch.

 

German, though, really stumped with its grammar. I will concede that compared to German our grammar is a lot more simpler, it's just that we also have a lot of verbs that have special conjugations in the past tense instead of following the standard conjugation rules. So those you just have to learn by heart, can't rely on grammar rules.

[Golem]

Well fair enough, if you think I am committing an etymological fallacy, maybe I am, but if we let meanings drift completely without restriction on such important concepts we are going to have difficulty having a sensible conversation in society.

No, I'm not saying you're committing a fallacy at all (and certainly not an etymological one). I'm just saying you are using the words in a different (more restricted) way than most people use them today.

 

Btw are you aware that there is a large part of the left now that think that in the US, blacks cannot be racist, but also whites are all necessarily racist, because “racism is systemic”... What next? we define “racist” to include anyone whose opinion on how the solar system was formed we don’t like? Some other random meaningless shit? And when do we deal with the real problem of racism?

You bring up some heavy topics here. Working on the words involved:

 

Nobody in the U.S. thinks that blacks can't be biased. But there has indeed been a big shift in how "racist" and "racism" are used in one chunk of the population. And while, you are right, it is a large part of the left, it is also a large part of young people. In other words, there is a real generational element to this particular shift in meaning.

 

I don't think these ideas about structural racism are crazy at all (though a lot of the people who talk about them on the internet do not understand them and are bad at explaining what they do understand).

 

What I do think is crazy -- and you may agree with me here -- is just starting to use the word in a new way, when half the population doesn't use it that way. It leads to all sorts of communication problems. Young people on the left, and old people on the right, have a hard time talking about any issues related to race for exactly this reason. However, the motivation behind the shift in usage is exactly what you cited earlier as your motivation for wanting to restrict the use of "racist" -- to keep the focus on what they see as the most crucial applications of the concept.

 

(Anyway, I think you went way overboard in the last bit you wrote -- whether or not you see the value in the contextual, structural conception of racism, it is obviously a lot more closely connected to the more traditional concept of racism than any opinions about the solar system are.)

[Rudynate]

As a native Dutch speaker my experience is the opposite. I've always found German words to be amusingly longwinded. Like nurse is "Krankenschwester". Saying it is a mouthful and writing is such a jumble of consonants. Don't get me wrong, I love it, but to me it feels like a very embellished language.

 

I can't imagine Dutch being easy to learn. We have a lot of grammatical exceptions and oddities. Even I have to look up if pancake is "pannekoek" or "panneNkoek". And not to speak of the vast, VAST regional differences in usage. If I drive two hours west I can hardly understand what people are saying yet they are still, technically, speaking Dutch.

 

German, though, really stumped with its grammar. I will concede that compared to German our grammar is a lot more simpler, it's just that we also have a lot of verbs that have special conjugations in the past tense instead of following t.

 

 

German doesn't rely on abstraction that much. Everything has to be expressed. So they end up with these absurdly long words. That simple short word "nurse" for example, is loaded with layers of abstraction. In German, they lack a similarly abstract expression, so they need a multisyllabic word that is essentially a functional description. It's like the difference between assembly language and a modern object-oriented language.

[Wolfer]

German doesn't rely on abstraction that much. Everything has to be expressed. So they end up with these absurdly long words. That simple short word "nurse" for example, is loaded with layers of abstraction. In German, they lack a similarly abstract expression, so they need a multisyllabic word that is essentially a functional description. It's like the difference between assembly language and a modern object-oriented language.

That's an interesting perspective I ahdn't thought of. And it makes sense. The literal translation of "Krankenschwester" is "sickness sister". The sister part I think may even date back to when nuns (often called sisters) were the caretakers of the ill and infirm of society.

But that's just a guess on my part.

 

ANYWAY, you guys, thanks for being interested on how my date went with the Brazilian guy in Paris (the original topic of this thread ).

[mike carey]

Romanians are not a race and they are not an ethnic group.

Pedantic point (stated above also), Romanian is a nation state and also an ethnic/language group, the two definitions form a Venn diagram. According to Google, the Romanian word for 'Romanian' is 'Română' which is uncomfortably close to Roma/Romani, which as you note is a completely different ethnic group (some of whom also happen to be Romanian [nationality]).

 

From my observation, Americans tend to classify people into about five large racial categories and only look at race and racism through that prism. IIRC the Australian census asks about ancestry not race, and lists origins that are not necessarily race-based: some overlap groups that may be seen as being different, and some distinguish between origins that to most people are not distinct racially (Chinese and HK, English/British/Scottish/Irish). To me, racism is a view that one's own group is superior to another, with prejudicial treatment of the other as a result, and I see race and ethnic origin both as being valid sources of racial prejudice. Whether I would describe a particular instance as being racist or prejudiced can be a difficult decision.

 

Finally, I've seen the argument that all whites are racist because systemic racism. I think it's nonsense. To be racist is an individual decision, systemic racism is about how society has evolved over time, and to me only becomes individualised or the responsibility of one group today when some aspect of systemic (often unconscious) racial advantage is legislated to formalise the discrimination.

Edited August 7, 2018 by mike carey

[+ tassojunior]

As a native Dutch speaker my experience is the opposite. I've always found German words to be amusingly longwinded. Like nurse is "Krankenschwester". Saying it is a mouthful and writing is such a jumble of consonants. Don't get me wrong, I love it, but to me it feels like a very embellished language.

 

I can't imagine Dutch being easy to learn. We have a lot of grammatical exceptions and oddities. Even I have to look up if pancake is "pannekoek" or "panneNkoek". And not to speak of the vast, VAST regional differences in usage. If I drive two hours west I can hardly understand what people are saying yet they are still, technically, speaking Dutch.

 

German, though, really stumped with its grammar. I will concede that compared to German our grammar is a lot more simpler, it's just that we also have a lot of verbs that have special conjugations in the past tense instead of following the standard conjugation rules. So those you just have to learn by heart, can't rely on grammar rules.

 

To make it worst for me that year, I went to school in the Hague but lived with my lover in Amstelveen who was a Groninger. So I constantly had strange variations coming at me. Fortunately he knew good German and we agreed I should stick strictly to English in den Haag and Amsterdam while practicing German with him as I had to go to Hamburg every few weeks for classes. For a native speaker the variations may be enjoyable but for a learner they were too confusing. Of course even then everyone was bilingual in Holland and I'm surprised nowadays at how much English has taken over in Hamburg too.

 

and tell us about that Brazilian !

[Wolfer]

and tell us about that Brazilian !

A-MAY-ZING.

 

Cute as a button, sweet as sugar, hot as a stove and ACTUALLY A TRAINED MASSEUR.

 

Oh, yeah, the regional differences in Dutch are so big. I still like the language, though, but English is more peotic foe me.

[+ tassojunior]

Just massage? That's not very Brazilian.

[+ tassojunior]

German doesn't rely on abstraction that much. Everything has to be expressed. So they end up with these absurdly long words. That simple short word "nurse" for example, is loaded with layers of abstraction. In German, they lack a similarly abstract expression, so they need a multisyllabic word that is essentially a functional description. It's like the difference between assembly language and a modern object-oriented language.

 

and 45 letter nouns !!

Why Germans don't play scrabble.

Edited August 8, 2018 by tassojunior

[+ Tarte Gogo]

Anyway, I think you went way overboard in the last bit you wrote

Of course, but they also go completely overboard by calling me racist because I am white. That's fucked up.

In fact that is racist. They assign a psychological trait to all the individuals in a group that has a particular skin colour. That is definitely part of my definition of "things only racist people do".

Where does it stop? Next they are going to call for segregation, in order to protect the blacks against my racism?

 

I am not accepting a new definition just because it serves some people's agenda, whether they are young or otherwise. Definition need to be useful to categorise concepts. If they loose that ability, we can ditch the word and we need to coin new words with formal definitions to discriminate between the old concept and the new, diluted one.

 

Sorry everyone for having highjacked this Paris trip thread.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Tarte Gogo

[Wolfer]

Just massage? That's not very Brazilian.

We started with a massage. :cool:

[+ tassojunior]

We started with a massage. :cool:

Luv those Brazilian lip massages down where it's sore. And then....

[Rudynate]

Pedantic point (stated above also), Romanian is a nation state and also an ethnic/language group, the two definitions form a Venn diagram. According to Google, the Romanian word for 'Romanian' is 'Română' which is uncomfortably close to Roma/Romani, which as you note is a completely different ethnic group (some of whom also happen to be Romanian [nationality]).

 

From my observation, Americans tend to classify people into about five large racial categories and only look at race and racism through that prism. IIRC the Australian census asks about ancestry not race, and lists origins that are not necessarily race-based: some overlap groups that may be seen as being different, and some distinguish between origins that to most people are not distinct racially (Chinese and HK, English/British/Scottish/Irish). To me, racism is a view that one's own group is superior to another, with prejudicial treatment of the other as a result, and I see race and ethnic origin both as being valid sources of racial prejudice. Whether I would describe a particular instance as being racist or prejudiced can be a difficult decision.

 

Finally, I've seen the argument that all whites are racist because systemic racism. I think it's nonsense. To be racist is an individual decision, systemic racism is about how society has evolved over time, and to me only becomes individualised or the responsibility of one group today is when some aspect of systemic (often unconscious) racial advantage is when people legislate to formalise the discrimination.

 

 

One can, of course, make a conscious decision to be racist or not. Structural or systemic racism is another matter. I don't think most would have an argument with the idea that we are at least partially products of our society and culture. Thus, it is perfectly plausible to me that a racist society would create racist members. It is baked-in by the society at large and is only subject to choice when a person becomes aware of it.

[Rudynate]

One can, of course, make a conscious decision to be racist or not. Structural or systemic racism is another matter. I don't think most would have an argument with the idea that we are at least partially products of our society and culture. Thus, it is perfectly plausible to me that a racist society would create racist members. It is baked-in by the society at large and is only subject to choice when a person becomes aware of it.

 

A corollary to the manifestation of systemic racism at the individual level is that, being a product of his/her society, it is not the fault of the individual. Thus, it is unnecessary to feel guilty about it. Not feeling guilty about it doesn't mean that it's OK to feel complacent about it.