EPTwhere they do make casual and flippant jokes about race and homosexuality, but I wouldn't say those cops are racists and homophobes
lol whyUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1813
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 05 2015 23:06 oneofthem wrote: lol why Well if you narrow down the meaning of racist to "willing to burn crosses on lawns" then it makes its pretty easy. The problem is that some folks equate racist with "malicious person," as opposed to someone who is just racially bias. You can be a fundamentally good, well meaning person and still be racist. It doesn't excuse the racism, but doesn't make them the devil either. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
I imagine most cops talk to each other like on the Wire, where they do make casual and flippant jokes about race and homosexuality, but I wouldn't say those cops are racists and homophobes. Because the jokes on the show were mostly harmless. The actual posts by SF cops were much much worse. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On April 05 2015 23:23 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, all these genuinely good and honest casual racists , don't we know them all I've known a few. Fewer as I get older and get to pick my friends more/move up in society. It's pretty much at a peak in middle school as far as I can tell, though there are communities where that shit never gets discouraged/worked out. (Mostly thinking of people I know who ended up doing the white-working-class thing in racially homogeneous areas.) But are they all bad guys? I mean, I'm a God-fearing Calvinist, so I'm gonna say, yeah, but this is one of their many faults and it's rarely a particularly harmful one except when they vote or go online or otherwise interact with groups and races they aren't normally in contact with. And as faults go, this is far more an issue of ignorance than legitimate malice. But, all that said, I think is a bit beside the point. Implicit bias is a thing. Most people have quite a bit. Sure, the test is more useful as aggregate information than an individual assessment, but the point stands. Are all those people who have implicit bias secret Klan members? No. Are they racists? Sure. They have racial associations that affect all sorts of things that hurt other people in large and small ways. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
is it a serious belief in eugenics/'realist about racial inferiority'? is it a serious guttural racism? what makes a casual and flippant attitude with respect to racial jokes able to bleach the harm out of that behavior? does it not require a flippant and casual attitude about race and racism as a problem? would you use the same sort of 'it's a joke faggot' standard for categories other than race and homosexuality (where incidentally there's great historical and present prejudice). And as faults go, this is far more an issue of ignorance than legitimate malice. disagree. active pogroms and lynching etc are not required to make an attitude malicious. in their own time these events were instigated by very few 'true' racists as well, but the great enabler is the lack of social response, or a snowball in the way of racism. we are much closer to that world than people would admit. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Everybody has instinctive biases, that doesn't mean you have to attribute any value to them. That's a concious decision and if you do so you're definitely a racist. | ||
|
EuroEconomyAnalyst
Sweden9 Posts
On April 05 2015 23:50 Nyxisto wrote: Well if you're a racist that means you put humans into different categories of worthiness, which is already bad enough, but you even base it on irrelevant factors like someone's skin colour. That says so much about a person that I have trouble reconciling that. Everybody has instinctive biases, that doesn't mean you have to attribute any value to them. That's a concious decision and if you do so you're definitely a racist. Most people do this, intrinsically. A racist is someone who uses the ideas of race in an aggressive form. Racism = displaying racist thoughts to others. However racism, the word itself, has negative connotations. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On April 05 2015 23:48 oneofthem wrote: what exactly is the requirement for serious enough to qualify as racist? is it a serious belief in eugenics/'realist about racial inferiority'? is it a serious guttural racism? what makes a casual and flippant attitude with respect to racial jokes able to bleach the harm out of that behavior? does it not require a flippant and casual attitude about race and racism as a problem? would you use the same sort of 'it's a joke faggot' standard for categories other than race and homosexuality (where incidentally there's great historical and present prejudice). disagree. active pogram and lynching etc are not required to make an attitude malicious. in their own time these events were instigated by very few 'true' racists as well, but the great enabler is the lack of social response, or a snowball in the way of racism. we are much closer to that world than people would admit. It's a matter of behavior and respect. If a comment indicates that the person would change their behavior or attitude regarding another on the basis of their race, then it's racist. There's nothing wrong with being aware of race, but it shouldn't change our basic respect for each other as members of society. The same pretty much goes for homophobia. In the Wire, there are quite a lot of comments about race and a LOT of gay jokes, but they're in the context of poking fun at each other and passing the time, not actually slurring other people for their race or sexual orientation. The SF cops are making comments that clearly indicate they have very little respect for black citizens. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Chewbacca.
United States3634 Posts
On April 05 2015 23:06 oneofthem wrote: lol why Possibly for the same reason that everyone who makes a hollocaust joke isntva Jew hating nazi? | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On April 06 2015 00:32 oneofthem wrote: why isn't the casual and flippant joke itself a part of behavior? how do you tell if someone is being serious? Depends on the context. There are some clear signs, like being told a certain group doesn't like using words and people using them anyways, like the n-word or the f-word for gays. It's reiterated on a fairly regular basis that these words are not acceptable because they deeply offend blacks and gays. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
JERUSALEM (AP) — An official Israeli analysis has drawn up a list of alleged shortcomings of the nuclear framework agreement between Iran and world powers, providing a basis for what is expected to be months of furious lobbying by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reshape or cancel the deal. Netanyahu, an outspoken critic of the negotiations with Iran, has already criticized the deal as insufficient. He is expected to lobby heavily against the framework deal as its language is finalized ahead of a June 30 agreement. The framework agreement was announced on Thursday in Lausanne, Switzerland, by U.S.-led world powers and Iran. It seems to cut significantly into Iran's bomb-making technology while giving Tehran quick access to assets and markets blocked by international sanctions. The commitments, if implemented, would substantially pare down Iranian nuclear assets for a decade and restrict others for an additional five years. According to a U.S. document listing those commitments, Tehran is ready to reduce its number of centrifuges, the machines that can spin uranium gas to levels used in nuclear warheads, and submit to aggressive monitoring and inspections of its nuclear facilities. But the Israeli analysis, drawn up by officials in Netanyahu's office over the weekend, claims the system of inspections is not as thorough as proclaimed by negotiators because it does not explicitly force the Iranians to open their sites "anywhere, anytime." It also claims the agreement is vague about what happens to Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, a key ingredient in producing nuclear bombs, or how sanctions might be re-imposed if Iran violates the deal. While Iran is not supposed to enrich uranium with its advanced centrifuges for 10 years, the deal permits limited "research and development" of the advanced centrifuges, according to the U.S. document. Israeli officials say this means that Iran could immediately put these centrifuges into action after the deal expires or breaks down. Netanyahu has said the deal leaves too much of Iran's nuclear infrastructure in place. He says the deal should "significantly roll back" Iran's nuclear program. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
If a comment indicates that the person would change their behavior or attitude regarding another on the basis of their race, then it's racist. then i proposed that the racial jokes is such behavior. would these jokes still work if substituted by other categories? most definitely not. Possibly for the same reason that everyone who makes a hollocaust joke isntva Jew hating nazi? the basic problem with the holocaust joking is the particular meaning attached to the holocaust within the joke, that it is funny. take something like flag burning, or other desecration, and it is the same kind of offense generating mechanism. now this is already giving some space for humor to challenge the sacred and profane in society, but humor in itself isn't some great revolutionary activity that deserves absolute protection. humor can be spelled out. a joke employing racist terms may be okay if its message is against racism. there is also a legitimate space for having sanctions and uncross-able lines. in general boundary crossing jokes gain their purchase from the breaking of the sanction, and rarely as direct insults against the group. but the criticism here is that the way some of these jokes arrange their meaning is bad, for example, a racist joke not meant to disrespect a particular nigger or jap still operate within a world in which these categories carry heavy derogatory payload. they operate upon prejudice, otherwise these jokes would not work. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
I don't know what is more bothersome, that they are still police officers, or that they were so highly decorated. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On April 05 2015 13:59 coverpunch wrote: San Francisco doesn't need a months-long DOJ investigation to make a run at Ferguson: Unfortunately, CBS doesn't publish any samples of the kinds of things these cops were saying to each other and it is notable that these were texts that might have been on their personal phones (and thus in a private capacity), as opposed to Ferguson where people were using their official work e-mails to send racist jokes. I imagine most cops talk to each other like on the Wire, where they do make casual and flippant jokes about race and homosexuality, but I wouldn't say those cops are racists and homophobes. The article makes it seem like it goes deeper than that but it's impossible to know without samples. EDIT: I should note that this comes as SFPD is defending itself from allegations of public corruption and mishandled evidence, which might also run quite deep, and this might have been a pretense to throw out some of the more abusive cops before the DOJ comes in. Police officers should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. People who are not racist don't make jokes like "All ******* must hang." | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On April 06 2015 00:32 oneofthem wrote: why isn't the casual and flippant joke itself a part of behavior? how do you tell if someone is being serious? cuz no fun allowed. seriously, by most modern definition of racism, all comedians are racists, and sexist, cuz jokes. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On April 06 2015 03:10 wei2coolman wrote: cuz no fun allowed. seriously, by most modern definition of racism, all comedians are racists, and sexist, cuz jokes. Except that's not true. What 'modern definition' are you thinking of? | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 06 2015 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote: I am impressed they could read those messages again and still say "I'm not racist"... If they aren't racist they may be some of the dumbest functioning human beings I've ever heard of. I don't know what is more bothersome, that they are still police officers, or that they were so highly decorated. You can be a huge asshole in one aspect of your life, and a hero in another. I'm sure there had to have been a few racists in the fire department on 9/11 who still ran into the towers. It's possible they really did deserve the awards. | ||
| ||
