|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 11 2015 23:35 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2015 23:19 oneofthem wrote:
some people who are against tpp and the like would really like to return to the world before the WTO etc. but that's never going to happen so they are essentially spitting in the face of an improvement for want of an unobtainable alternative.
this is not to say the tpp is perfect. the copyright regime is pretty retarded People who don't understand that those kind of trade agreement have nothing to do with trading are amazing. The WTO is basically sleeping since some years now because what they have made for (which is lessening protectionnism) has already succeed - what's the average tariff right now ? 2 % ? Show nested quote +On November 11 2015 19:19 Velr wrote:
Uhm, the costumes?
Going as some sheik or african "Mama" in the most stereotypical way is pretty common and no one cares. And that is racist but we accept it because we don't have the same history of racial tension as the US. Dress as a caricature of a jew and see the response.
the u.s. is an open market, but not so some of the developing markets. so in terms of trade protection it can only be a gain for the u.s. given already low inbounding tariffs. the tpp is mostly about regulatory and legal harmonization whcih are still barriers to trade.
|
United States44203 Posts
On November 11 2015 23:48 heliusx wrote:
Why's it not wrong to dress like a man or white person?
The same reason nobody makes fun of names like John or Peter but have fun with "You'll never guess what names black people gave their children. Number 7 will shock you!". You can try to make fun of the dominant group but they get to set the benchmark of acceptable so it won't work very well. Even with something as arbitrary as sounds we make to identify each other.
|
On November 12 2015 00:04 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2015 23:35 WhiteDog wrote:On November 11 2015 23:19 oneofthem wrote:
some people who are against tpp and the like would really like to return to the world before the WTO etc. but that's never going to happen so they are essentially spitting in the face of an improvement for want of an unobtainable alternative.
this is not to say the tpp is perfect. the copyright regime is pretty retarded People who don't understand that those kind of trade agreement have nothing to do with trading are amazing. The WTO is basically sleeping since some years now because what they have made for (which is lessening protectionnism) has already succeed - what's the average tariff right now ? 2 % ? On November 11 2015 19:19 Velr wrote:
Uhm, the costumes?
Going as some sheik or african "Mama" in the most stereotypical way is pretty common and no one cares. And that is racist but we accept it because we don't have the same history of racial tension as the US. Dress as a caricature of a jew and see the response. the u.s. is an open market, but not so some of the developing markets. the tpp is mostly about regulatory and legal harmonization whcih are still barriers to trade.
The idea that regulation are barriers to trade is shortsighted : a market without reglementation cannot exist. The rules are not "barriers" but what permit trading in the first place.
What you call harmonization is a process where the dominant state impose their legal frame on the dominated. It has nothing to do with trading, and more to do with creating a legal frame that favor certain specific economic structure and certain agents within the economy. It is not a mystery that most of the evaluation about the benefitt of the TPP consider that most of the wealth created would go to two countries, the two dominant forces in this trade agreement, which is Japan and the US.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 12 2015 00:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 00:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 11 2015 23:35 WhiteDog wrote:On November 11 2015 23:19 oneofthem wrote:
some people who are against tpp and the like would really like to return to the world before the WTO etc. but that's never going to happen so they are essentially spitting in the face of an improvement for want of an unobtainable alternative.
this is not to say the tpp is perfect. the copyright regime is pretty retarded People who don't understand that those kind of trade agreement have nothing to do with trading are amazing. The WTO is basically sleeping since some years now because what they have made for (which is lessening protectionnism) has already succeed - what's the average tariff right now ? 2 % ? On November 11 2015 19:19 Velr wrote:
Uhm, the costumes?
Going as some sheik or african "Mama" in the most stereotypical way is pretty common and no one cares. And that is racist but we accept it because we don't have the same history of racial tension as the US. Dress as a caricature of a jew and see the response. the u.s. is an open market, but not so some of the developing markets. the tpp is mostly about regulatory and legal harmonization whcih are still barriers to trade. The idea that regulation are barriers to trade is shortsighted : a market without reglementation cannot exist. The rules are not "barriers" but what permit trading in the first place. What you call harmonization is a process where the dominant state impose their legal frame on the dominated. It has nothing to do with trading, and more to do with creating a legal frame that favor certain specific economic structure and certain agents within the economy. It is not a mystery that most of the evaluation about the benefitt of the TPP consider that most of the wealth created would go to two countries, the two dominant forces in this trade agreement, which is Japan and the US.
i said it's regulatory harmonization, which means lessening the cost of adjusting to different regulatory regimes and standards. regulatory and legal regimes are also given some floor requirements in environmental protection and labor rights so this can only be a good thing given the current situation of no protection in those areas in some of the low wage countries.
outside of the distributional stuff favoring poors like disney, a truly odious company, the tpp should be an efficiency agreement that really is for pushing better regulatory practices.
|
|
|
On November 12 2015 00:17 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2015 00:14 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2015 00:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 11 2015 23:35 WhiteDog wrote:On November 11 2015 23:19 oneofthem wrote:
some people who are against tpp and the like would really like to return to the world before the WTO etc. but that's never going to happen so they are essentially spitting in the face of an improvement for want of an unobtainable alternative.
this is not to say the tpp is perfect. the copyright regime is pretty retarded People who don't understand that those kind of trade agreement have nothing to do with trading are amazing. The WTO is basically sleeping since some years now because what they have made for (which is lessening protectionnism) has already succeed - what's the average tariff right now ? 2 % ? On November 11 2015 19:19 Velr wrote:
Uhm, the costumes?
Going as some sheik or african "Mama" in the most stereotypical way is pretty common and no one cares. And that is racist but we accept it because we don't have the same history of racial tension as the US. Dress as a caricature of a jew and see the response. the u.s. is an open market, but not so some of the developing markets. the tpp is mostly about regulatory and legal harmonization whcih are still barriers to trade. The idea that regulation are barriers to trade is shortsighted : a market without reglementation cannot exist. The rules are not "barriers" but what permit trading in the first place. What you call harmonization is a process where the dominant state impose their legal frame on the dominated. It has nothing to do with trading, and more to do with creating a legal frame that favor certain specific economic structure and certain agents within the economy. It is not a mystery that most of the evaluation about the benefitt of the TPP consider that most of the wealth created would go to two countries, the two dominant forces in this trade agreement, which is Japan and the US. i said it's regulatory harmonization, which means lessening the cost of adjusting to different regulatory regimes and standards. regulatory and legal regimes are also given some floor requirements in environmental protection and labor rights so this can only be a good thing given the current situation of no protection in those areas in some of the low wage countries. outside of the distributional stuff favoring poors like disney, a truly odious company, the tpp should be an efficiency agreement that really is for pushing better regulatory practices.
Yes, you lessen the cost of adjusting to different regulatory, by imposing one legal frame to various economies with diverse caracteristics. In doing so, you favor certain agents over others : certain type of firms over other type of firms and over individuals.
I would like to agree with you on the idea that it will indeed lead to a higher protection, but I highly doubt that. Let's see how things end up in the end : some countries already pointed out that the TPP as it is would make any policies against tabacco compagnies impossible. So if something as mainstream as fighting against cigaret is impossible under the TPP, how can you really believe fighting for the environment is possible : regulation to protect the environment goes against the interests of the dominant players at the moment, which are multinational firms.
Hum... that's actually a good question ! Good exemple.
|
A white person dressing as a white person?
I'd say yes. The question to me would be, the other way around. Would a black person dressing as a redneck be accceptable.
|
On November 11 2015 23:49 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2015 23:48 heliusx wrote:
Why's it not wrong to dress like a man or white person? The question is, why nobody dress as a man or a white person ? Reason : because it's not funny, because the dominant does not have any ridicule caracteristic attached to his persona.
Plenty people dress as "White"... Pilgrim, Clergiman, Nun, Explorer, Cowboy, Knight, Pope, Banker or the local cloths that people used to wear way back (well, imitiations of them) or just plain 80ies looks... Just about anything? Dressing as native american is very common and blackfacing is just part of the costume when you go as some african tribesmen/women...
Going as a Nazi or an orthodox Jew would probably also not exactly spark an outrage, i won't ever do it personally but wouldn't be shocked to see it (i probably allready have seen several...).
The benchmark for acceptable when it comes to this is kinda non existant here. I remember having had several drinks with several diffrent ghadaffis while the war was actually going on and no one cared.
Is this racist? Nah, its just Fasnacht.
|
On November 12 2015 00:33 m4ini wrote:A white person dressing as a white person? I'd say yes. The question to me would be, the other way around. Would a black person dressing as a redneck be accceptable.
And I can think of a version of the costume that would offend a lot of white people if a black person wore it.
|
On November 12 2015 00:33 m4ini wrote:A white person dressing as a white person?
Its not anything close to the simplicity of "a white person dressing as a white person" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and chalk that up to you being unaware because you're German.
|
On November 12 2015 00:26 heliusx wrote:This is acceptable?
No, but as a northerner/ suburban white guy/ someone who doesn't identify as a hick, I distance myself from connecting with such a satirical costume. However, I'd assume that a Southerner from Mississippi or Alabama might take issue if you trick or treat at their house (and I metacognitively recognize the prejudicial comment I just made- a connection between this stereotype and *those other white people*, which is why *I* don't feel offended by it). Because even though that skin color is white, *I'm not a redneck*. I can hide behind the safety of my majority and biases and ingroup/ outgroup defense, because I've already rejected that kind of person as "not me". That costume includes white skin which I can relate to, but a lot of other things that I don't relate to.
I feel like this costume wouldn't be acceptable around people who are stereotyped as these kinds of people, regardless of whether this costume was worn by a white guy or a black guy with whiteface.
|
Is it anything more then a "simpleton/redneck-farmer"? Because if that is somehow problematic I really don't get it. The other stuff and why it could Insult someone. Well, I undestand it, i don't agree and find it ridiculous to be offended at stuff like it but this?
|
No one identifies as a hick, its a word used to paint someone as uneducated simply because they were born in the south.
|
On November 12 2015 00:49 Velr wrote:
Is it anything more then a "simpleton/redneck-farmer"? Because if that is somehow problematic I really don't get it. The other stuff and why it could Insult someone. Well, I undestand it, i don't agree and find it ridiculous to be offended at stuff like it but this?
It is all about context and behavior. The costume itself is not inherently offensive without knowing where it is. If it is worn Halloween party in the country where the people who make up that stereotype are common, they could be offended. The messed up teeth could be a result of poverty or drug addiction. And to expect that none of them would be upset about the depiction is a little unreasonable.
So the real answer everything can be offensive if someone doesn’t think. You don’t tell dead baby jokes around someone who just had their first child, even if your friends normally find them funny.
|
On November 12 2015 00:53 heliusx wrote:
No one identifies as a hick, its a word used to paint someone as uneducated simply because they were born in the south.
That's not true: there are a fair number of people who identify as a hick. I knew some growing up, and that look is more Appalachian than southern IMO.
|
My brother clearly identifies with being a simple country boy who is in the military. He openly calls himself a redneck and hick, despite living in rural CT.
|
On November 12 2015 00:49 Velr wrote:
Is it anything more then a "simpleton/redneck-farmer"? Because if that is somehow problematic I really don't get it. The other stuff and why it could Insult someone. Well, I undestand it, i don't agree and find it ridiculous to be offended at stuff like it but this?
Well the fact that you still dismiss prejudicial and offensive costumes with "Fasnacht" (even after your first comment was refuted) makes me think that you've never experienced prejudice at the level that blacks and women have experienced in America. Sorry, but you just don't get it.
For the record, I haven't experienced such bigotry at my expense either (I'm a white guy), but I can appreciate and empathize a bit more because I see and hear this bigotry secondhand every day. I live in the United States and work with people who are consistently belittled and endangered by the systemic hate and violence of my country. The context and location and history are the differences between "It's just Fasnacht" and "It's actually a big deal that perpetuates many of the negative issues surrounding fairness and equality in our country". It's fantastic that you live in a bubble where these issues don't exist, but that doesn't mean no one else experiences them.
|
I must say that i really dislike the way race as an identity seems to become more prevalent. I really dislike this whole idea, and it seems inherently racist to me to assume that all people of a given skin color kind of belong together in this one big group.
There is more to people than the color of their skin, and in my opinion, the faster we get away from constantly identifying people first and foremost with their skin color the faster we can also get away from racism. A person needs to stop being "the black guy" and start being identified as "The lawyer", "The football fan", or anything along those lines.
And i really don't think focussing on making people constantly aware of the skin color of everyone around them will help this. I want to deal with people as people, not as races.
|
To piggy back on Plasmaball’s point, the problem with these issues in the US right now isn’t caused by one thing. Its 1000 tiny things heaped on one another, from the way minorities are depicted in the commercial and news media all the way down to the types of Halloween costumes that are sold. And people pushing about against those issues since they see the source of the racism as a perception problem. That there are an increasingly limited number of ways that minorities are depicted in the media and they are informing the public at large. In many ways, its no different that police being upset at the way their profession is depicted on a popular TV show. Expect in this case is every TV show.
And the same problems exist for women in the media and the roles/discussions about them. They even exist for white men that don’t conform to stereotypes. But the discussion is difficult to have because of the ongoing need for everyone to justify to each person that interacts with it.
If people want to find a real stark example of media depictions based on race, look at all shootings in the last year and how the shooter is described and notes the trends based on race. Note how often the phrase “loner” and “no one suspected he could do this” when the shooter is white, almost regardless of the nature of the crime. And isn't' a huge problem if it wasn't so persuasive across all media, from Fox News to NPR.
|
On November 12 2015 01:02 Simberto wrote:
I must say that i really dislike the way race as an identity seems to become more prevalent. I really dislike this whole idea, and it seems inherently racist to me to assume that all people of a given skin color kind of belong together in this one big group.
There is more to people than the color of their skin, and in my opinion, the faster we get away from constantly identifying people first and foremost with their skin color the faster we can also get away from racism. A person needs to stop being "the black guy" and start being identified as "The lawyer", "The football fan", or anything along those lines.
And i really don't think focussing on making people constantly aware of the skin color of everyone around them will help this. I want to deal with people as people, not as races.
that's a lovely, utopian, post-racial view. In america, police killed a black kid for playing with a toy in public, so we still need to be reminded of how race affects our judgments on a subconscious level before we can skip to ignoring race altogether. Even in areas like my own "chocolate" city where the black population isn't a minority in number, we have huge inequality and discrimination problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
