|
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. |
On August 30 2017 04:39 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:37 brian wrote:On August 30 2017 04:33 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:29 brian wrote:On August 30 2017 04:26 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:24 brian wrote:On August 30 2017 04:19 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I’ve known way to may racists who use racist jokes as the test to find out if they are in favorable company. Never cracked a joke about stereotypes? Or disabled people? edit: or gender? I think, and don't get this wrong, that people like you are as big a part of the problem as racism itself. You're not helping by screamishly pointing at anyone who's cracking a race/nationality joke. do you, honestly? because that would be alarming. there are innumerable casual racists in the country and here you are trying to silence someone acknowledging it. If it's alarming to you that someone cracks a joke based on gender, nationality, religion etc, you're an idiot. I certainly am not a sexist, racist, antifa, antichrist because i occasionally make a funny about it. There lies the problem with racism in the US: people, again, like you. There's so many actual huge problems with institutionalised racism in the US, if jokes are your problem, well tough shit. Btw, even black comedians do that, live on TV, about white men and black men. Because it's funny. Jesus. that's all well and good and of course there's a fine line between comedy and racism. you quoted P6's accurate portrayal of how racists sometimes use comedy as a way to identify whether their company is as casually racist as themselves and your response is to shut him down, silence him, and call me an idiot for double checking your intent. so like i was saying, the line exists and that is well and good but you're shutting down people talking about casual racism is definitely a problem. whether falsely identifying the line between comedy and racism is a problem i'm happy to discuss, but i know for sure what you're doing is a problem. No, i didn't. I said if it's alarming to you if someone cracks a joke, then you're an idiot. Not to mention i didn't try to silence P6, wat? To assume immediately that someone is potentially racist by cracking a joke is idiotic. There has to be a little more intent than a funny, it's that easy. It's like saying that you get alarmed if you see someone wearing white polos and khaki shorts. Oh and it's not just me, mate. It's literally every single comedian out there. So fighting that, good luck. Tip: not gonna happen. are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? hiding behind if-then's is childish. own your words. not to mention you explicitly called me out later with 'again, people like you.' you also said P6 is part of the problem. that's what us people call shutting down and silencing. if you don't want to discuss casual racism fine. if you want to draw the line between comedy and racism so we can know definitively the difference- kudos. i certainly won't. so in that regard yes, we'll have to wonder if a joke is just a joke or not. but in trying to silence those who will discuss casual racism, i don't need to wonder whether or not you're a problem. you are. Okay, i am. Solve it then. Otherwise, i'm not gonna go in circles whereas P6 made clear that he pretty much is the same as me, so your point really doesn't stand by itself.
lol i'd give my left nut if it would help me to solve casual racism. unfortunately i don't think it's a one man job. i do know identifying the problem is part of the battle. and i know talking about it is one of the necessary steps. i hope in the future maybe you'll try.
|
On August 30 2017 04:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:36 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:34 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 04:19 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I’ve known way to may racists who use racist jokes as the test to find out if they are in favorable company. Never cracked a joke about stereotypes? Or disabled people? edit: or gender? I think, and don't get this wrong, that people like you are as big a part of the problem as racism itself. You're not helping by screamishly pointing at anyone who's cracking a race/nationality joke. Of course I do, in good company that I know well. But I am also very aware that racist and sexist humor is used by racist and sexist people to test the waters. So I do not profess that the jokes are harmless, because that is simply not true. Actually, yes, the jokes are still harmless the same way a knife by itself is harmless. It's the way they're used in this case that differ. Maybe it's because i've never seen this approach to test the waters as you put it, usually it's clear from the first five minutes after meeting someone if there's racist tendencies. Not necessarily jokes. I'm german, we don't do jokes with people we just met. I completely disagree with you. You will never remove the power those words or phrases have over people. The jokes can be harmless to some people, but they will always have the potential to hurt someone or make them feel othered. I don’t think you are wrong about the idea that we can tell the jokes in the right company, but we should always view them as harmful to someone. Rather than placing the burden on the person to “not be hurt” by the joke, because we believe it is harmless. And just to be clear, there is nothing you will tell me that will change my opinion on this specific subject. I have heard all the arguments you are about to make because I made them myself in my 20s.
Of course they have the potential to hurt someone, that literally is the definition of comedy. Comedy always has a "victim". That's why i wouldn't go over to a mexican and crack jokes about Mexifornia (not that i'd got that one anyway). In fact, that's something that doesn't compute with me: i have never met a single person who just randomly told me a racist joke briefly after meeting him. I don't do that, either. Of course, when we're talking joking, we're talking friends. I don't "joke" with people that i've just met other than smalltalk. It's like going over to someone i've just met and ask if she has vaginal warts. It's something that just doesn't go together.
Oh, and i've never said someone shouldn't be hurt by a joke, to make that clear. If someone tells me "dude that wasn't funny", i apologise and avoid that topic in general. Don't put things in my mouth i have neither said nor implied.
My 20s are almost 20 years ago, the fuck do i know what i was joking about back then. I'd assume my superiors in the army and russians, since we constantly drank vodka with them (and i mean, every day). edit: ah they btw were on the same table, and laughed as well - as did we when they started making funnies about german stereotypes.
|
United States44190 Posts
On August 30 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:
I find broad similarities between you and actual haters based on skin color.
And we're straight back to "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism".
|
On August 30 2017 04:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:31 OuchyDathurts wrote:Everyone is a tiny bit racist in some regard. One of the main things conservatives don't seem to be able to understand is racism is on a spectrum. They seem to think it's binary. You're either a Grand Wizard in the KKK and thus racist, or you're not a Grand Wizard and as such aren't a racist. Apparently dog whistles don't count. IMO it makes it easier to separate being a racist from racist acts for the purposes of demonstration. Telling a racist joke, spreading racial stereotype, even using the word nigger are racist acts. Those actions don't NECESSARILY make you a racist...but. If you do that kind of stuff on the regular you might just be a racist. It might be time for some self reflection if you don't consider yourself a racist person but you're committing little "white" racist acts on a pretty regular basis. Surely there's a disconnect there somewhere and if you indeed aren't a racist you should work on bettering yourself. Getting to the root cause of why you're doing those acts and try to improve. That's literally the ONLY adult option. A racist person certainly could be a Grand Wizard, but there's many shades of racist. Your grandparent if we're being real is more than likely a racist. Dear sweet granny who is so kind to you and always made you a snack and slipped you a $5 bill. It's not always ugly and that's part of the problem. Racists don't always come with undisputed proof and a huge neon sign that says "RACIST SHITBAG" like Donald Trump. Also a black cop can be racist against blacks. I know this might be shocking stuff since Republicans love to point to useless human beings like Sheriff Clarke as some sort of proof that policing couldn't possibly be racist. Look, we got this complete hack black Sheriff dude, no racism here! But many police will tell you sometimes black officers are the most ruthless and racist against their own people. This right wing nonsense keeps going around though. Milo is gay so.....Clarke is black so.....I'm married to a woman so I can't be sexist so.......Complete and total bullshit and the sooner people get that through their heads the sooner they might start seeing fuckery afoot. Racism now days is a lot more subtle than it has been in the past. That doesn't mean its gone anywhere. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
-Lee Atwater Oh, and you aren't Mel Brooks or Louis CK or anyone who can masterfully craft a joke that can take a racial joke and make it stab the racist 1000 times harder so just keep that in mind. There's a reason they can do shit you can't, they are gods among men in a very specific art form. The word didn't start as some spectrum where everybody's a little racist. It started and to some extent remains as a vicious charge. To the vast majority of people. And calling, for example, vast majorities of people that didn't vote Obama as motivated by racism ... that straight up insulting and demeaning for people that know why the voted that way. If you think you really know better than them as to what motivated them, you're part of the reason for the trope "liberal elitists." And saying that you gotta be some professional skilled comic or you're a racist for telling that joke ... like, gimme a break. You're part of the reason we can't talk about racism in this country and you're making it worse.
More things have been added to what constitutes racism because we understand the problem, and human nature, better than we have in the past. Most people are extremely awful judges of character and flaws within themselves so yes. People can see your racism even if you can't see it yourself, tough luck? I've got no problem insulting or demeaning racists just like I've got zero issue with punching nazis so you won't catch me shedding a single tear about that or about being called a "liberal elite".
I fully understand you're the reason racism won't go away because you refuse to see it. If you're not Mel Brooks stop crying when I call you a racist for making a hack joke.
|
On August 30 2017 04:47 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:42 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 04:36 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:34 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 04:19 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I’ve known way to may racists who use racist jokes as the test to find out if they are in favorable company. Never cracked a joke about stereotypes? Or disabled people? edit: or gender? I think, and don't get this wrong, that people like you are as big a part of the problem as racism itself. You're not helping by screamishly pointing at anyone who's cracking a race/nationality joke. Of course I do, in good company that I know well. But I am also very aware that racist and sexist humor is used by racist and sexist people to test the waters. So I do not profess that the jokes are harmless, because that is simply not true. Actually, yes, the jokes are still harmless the same way a knife by itself is harmless. It's the way they're used in this case that differ. Maybe it's because i've never seen this approach to test the waters as you put it, usually it's clear from the first five minutes after meeting someone if there's racist tendencies. Not necessarily jokes. I'm german, we don't do jokes with people we just met. I completely disagree with you. You will never remove the power those words or phrases have over people. The jokes can be harmless to some people, but they will always have the potential to hurt someone or make them feel othered. I don’t think you are wrong about the idea that we can tell the jokes in the right company, but we should always view them as harmful to someone. Rather than placing the burden on the person to “not be hurt” by the joke, because we believe it is harmless. And just to be clear, there is nothing you will tell me that will change my opinion on this specific subject. I have heard all the arguments you are about to make because I made them myself in my 20s. Of course they have the potential to hurt someone, that literally is the definition of comedy. Comedy always has a "victim". That's why i wouldn't go over to a mexican and crack jokes about Mexifornia (not that i'd got that one anyway). In fact, that's something that doesn't compute with me: i have never met a single person who just randomly told me a racist joke briefly after meeting him. I don't do that, either. Of course, when we're talking joking, we're talking friends. I don't "joke" with people that i've just met other than smalltalk. It's like going over to someone i've just met and ask if she has vaginal warts. It's something that just doesn't go together. Oh, and i've never said someone shouldn't be hurt by a joke, to make that clear. If someone tells me "dude that wasn't funny", i apologise and avoid that topic in general. Don't put things in my mouth i have neither said nor implied. My 20s are almost 20 years ago, the fuck do i know what i was joking about back then. I'd assume my superiors in the army and russians, since we constantly drank vodka with them (and i mean, every day).
Honestly, I don’t know how to strongly disagree with you on a subject without offending you. I wasn’t implying you were racist or bad, only that I disagreed. I do not use the phrase “jokes are harmless’ because I don’t believe it is true. And I don’t think it is helpful to promote that view because it is so often used by shitty people to justify awful, offensive humor and then blaming everyone else when it falls flat.
Also, the US is a very different country than Germany.
|
On August 30 2017 04:23 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:51 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. “definition it really had joined fascist” Can you rephrase that please? I’m have a hard time parsing what you are trying to say. Fascist showed up in Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language. He said it now existed as simply "something not desirable." When you posit the racist choice for president, or really which racist you wanted for president, I say the word similarly exists as something like "a person I disagree with personally or politically." He also said in that essay that politics is the defence of the indefensible. Do you think Trump is a racist or not?
I just finished saying it was a meaningless term used to insult people. Then you want my opinion on it? Seriously, man, get a grip.
|
United States44190 Posts
|
On August 30 2017 04:45 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump is racist, but you don't have to be racist to vote for him.
Sure, but at what point does someone become responsible for allowing a racist to enact racist actions?
There is a reason we mentioned Trump voters being racists or 'racist enablers'.
|
On August 30 2017 04:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:
I find broad similarities between you and actual haters based on skin color. And we're straight back to "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism".
And any criticism of liberal elites is folly. I call them like I see them, and your argument is basically the same fringe with the political epithets and sacred cows reversed.
|
United States44190 Posts
On August 30 2017 04:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:45 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump is racist, but you don't have to be racist to vote for him. Sure, but at what point does someone become responsible for allowing a racist to enact racist actions? There is a reason we mentioned Trump voters being racists or 'racist enablers'.
Yeah but Danglars' article said they were only enabling racist policies to be enacted by racists to get back at the left so they're not really racist or something and anyway if they are being racist it's because Hillary made them be racist by calling them deplorable.
|
United States44190 Posts
On August 30 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:51 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:
I find broad similarities between you and actual haters based on skin color. And we're straight back to "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism". And any criticism of liberal elites is folly. I call them like I see them, and your argument is basically the same fringe with the political epithets and sacred cows reversed.
Again, when people say you're being racist, they're not doing it as an insult. They're doing it because you're being racist. You can keep telling yourself that it's not connected to anything you're doing but that won't make it true. It's not an insult. It's a description. If you don't want the description then stop doing the thing.
I feel like we're living in the equivalent of a bizarro world where a bunch of actual literal rapists who actually rape people are insisting that rapist is a rude insult and that they won't engage in any kind of debate until the other side agrees to stop calling them rapists. And then they go out and vote to legalize marital rape or some shit but insist they only did it to get back at the people who keep saying they're fine with rape.
|
On August 30 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:51 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:
I find broad similarities between you and actual haters based on skin color. And we're straight back to "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism". And any criticism of liberal elites is folly. I call them like I see them, and your argument is basically the same fringe with the political epithets and sacred cows reversed.
We do the same. And maybe someday we will all get beyond this and be able to discuss racial injustice honestly in this country. But not today.
|
On August 30 2017 03:52 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. You know good and well there's like a dozen reasons people have brought up for Trump and racism that amounts to a lot more than he's a white male. You can dismiss it as circumstantial or not substantial enough, but it's silly to pretend that people don't have cause to see him that way.
Presenting the election as a choice with an "incompetent and racist version of the same thing" is inviting scorn. It's a politically partisan attack and should be seen and treated as such. Your mythical "hmm let's go down the bullet points from immigration policy to Arpaio and reach a conclusion" isn't at issue.
On August 30 2017 03:53 m4ini wrote:
I see what people mean by "deflecting".
It's hardly arguable that Trump is a racist by any standard regardless of how you wanna spin it. He's not a "basically a racist because he's a white man", he's basically a racist because he is fucking racist. And, to make that a little more clear, just pardoned one of the biggest and influential racists of your country.
I don't understand why you feel the urge to deflect to something really idiotic and then complain why people fuck you over for it.
Same response.
On August 30 2017 04:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. do you think "black man" or "white woman" or "asian woman" are pejorative or merely descriptive?
You need to understand just what's meant by Plansix's partisan election choices.
|
On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 03:52 Logo wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. You know good and well there's like a dozen reasons people have brought up for Trump and racism that amounts to a lot more than he's a white male. You can dismiss it as circumstantial or not substantial enough, but it's silly to pretend that people don't have cause to see him that way. Presenting the election as a choice with an "incompetent and racist version of the same thing" is inviting scorn. It's a politically partisan attack and should be seen and treated as such. Your mythical "hmm let's go down the bullet points from immigration policy to Arpaio and reach a conclusion" isn't at issue.
I don't see how that changes the intellectual dishonesty of pretending people are saying Trump is racist because he's a white male when it's obvious and clear it's because of a series of events that people think paint a picture of him as a racist.
|
On August 30 2017 04:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:51 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:
I find broad similarities between you and actual haters based on skin color. And we're straight back to "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism". And any criticism of liberal elites is folly. I call them like I see them, and your argument is basically the same fringe with the political epithets and sacred cows reversed. Again, when people say you're being racist, they're not doing it as an insult. They're doing it because you're being racist. You can keep telling yourself that it's not connected to anything you're doing but that won't make it true. It's not an insult. It's a description. If you don't want the description then stop doing the thing.
"You're being an asshole"
"No I'm not!"
"It's not up to you, it's up to everybody else!"
-Louis CK
|
On August 30 2017 04:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:47 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:42 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 04:36 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:34 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 04:19 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I’ve known way to may racists who use racist jokes as the test to find out if they are in favorable company. Never cracked a joke about stereotypes? Or disabled people? edit: or gender? I think, and don't get this wrong, that people like you are as big a part of the problem as racism itself. You're not helping by screamishly pointing at anyone who's cracking a race/nationality joke. Of course I do, in good company that I know well. But I am also very aware that racist and sexist humor is used by racist and sexist people to test the waters. So I do not profess that the jokes are harmless, because that is simply not true. Actually, yes, the jokes are still harmless the same way a knife by itself is harmless. It's the way they're used in this case that differ. Maybe it's because i've never seen this approach to test the waters as you put it, usually it's clear from the first five minutes after meeting someone if there's racist tendencies. Not necessarily jokes. I'm german, we don't do jokes with people we just met. I completely disagree with you. You will never remove the power those words or phrases have over people. The jokes can be harmless to some people, but they will always have the potential to hurt someone or make them feel othered. I don’t think you are wrong about the idea that we can tell the jokes in the right company, but we should always view them as harmful to someone. Rather than placing the burden on the person to “not be hurt” by the joke, because we believe it is harmless. And just to be clear, there is nothing you will tell me that will change my opinion on this specific subject. I have heard all the arguments you are about to make because I made them myself in my 20s. Of course they have the potential to hurt someone, that literally is the definition of comedy. Comedy always has a "victim". That's why i wouldn't go over to a mexican and crack jokes about Mexifornia (not that i'd got that one anyway). In fact, that's something that doesn't compute with me: i have never met a single person who just randomly told me a racist joke briefly after meeting him. I don't do that, either. Of course, when we're talking joking, we're talking friends. I don't "joke" with people that i've just met other than smalltalk. It's like going over to someone i've just met and ask if she has vaginal warts. It's something that just doesn't go together. Oh, and i've never said someone shouldn't be hurt by a joke, to make that clear. If someone tells me "dude that wasn't funny", i apologise and avoid that topic in general. Don't put things in my mouth i have neither said nor implied. My 20s are almost 20 years ago, the fuck do i know what i was joking about back then. I'd assume my superiors in the army and russians, since we constantly drank vodka with them (and i mean, every day). Honestly, I don’t know how to strongly disagree with you on a subject without offending you. I wasn’t implying you were racist or bad, only that I disagreed. I do not use the phrase “jokes are harmless’ because I don’t believe it is true. And I don’t think it is helpful to promote that view because it is so often used by shitty people to justify awful, offensive humor and then blaming everyone else when it falls flat. Also, the US is a very different country than Germany.
You really can't offend me, feel free to go full out. Your disagreement is fine, if you think it's racist, go with it. But i'm telling you, this "definition" what already accounts for racism will make it impossible to solve actual racism.
Maybe jokes aren't harmless, for people who get hit with them. I do think that it's helpful to see comedy as comedy though, because again: you have such big problems in the US with actual, blatant racism, that going after jokes where there are simply no clear lines and also are clearly subjective is idiotic. You'll tread water until you drown, meanwhile actual racism still continues.
To be clear: as long as comedians do the same, you will not "solve", lets call it "loaded comedy". And they won't stop, because they know that it's not racist. Satire isn't racist either, we gonna get rid of that too?
Hysterical screeching every time something could be perceived as racist while your president just pardoned one of the biggest ones in the wake of constant neo nazi marches makes me simply not take you serious. That's what i mean by "guys like you are the problem". It doesn't help the cause of fighting racism, the same way radical/militant feminism really doesn't help females.
|
|
|
On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 03:52 Logo wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. You know good and well there's like a dozen reasons people have brought up for Trump and racism that amounts to a lot more than he's a white male. You can dismiss it as circumstantial or not substantial enough, but it's silly to pretend that people don't have cause to see him that way. Presenting the election as a choice with an "incompetent and racist version of the same thing" is inviting scorn. It's a politically partisan attack and should be seen and treated as such. Your mythical "hmm let's go down the bullet points from immigration policy to Arpaio and reach a conclusion" isn't at issue.
That is because you shit on people who voted for Clinton. You demand your views be respected at all costs, but then refuse to extend the same to others. Everything revolves around your feelings and that you feel respected and comfortable at the expense of everyone involved.
|
On August 30 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:23 kollin wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:51 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. “definition it really had joined fascist” Can you rephrase that please? I’m have a hard time parsing what you are trying to say. Fascist showed up in Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language. He said it now existed as simply "something not desirable." When you posit the racist choice for president, or really which racist you wanted for president, I say the word similarly exists as something like "a person I disagree with personally or politically." He also said in that essay that politics is the defence of the indefensible. Do you think Trump is a racist or not? I just finished saying it was a meaningless term used to insult people. Then you want my opinion on it? Seriously, man, get a grip.
Do you think Trump cares about the plight of non-white people at all, especially if it's not in order to help him get elected?
|
Christ... She's going to run again...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
