|
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 06:16 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:07 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 06:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:43 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:40 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:10 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists. Nah, the occasional racist joke makes the racist. Btw, i don't think Danglars believes that, i actually think he knows full well that Trump is a racist because of other reasons. I still like the Chapell show. Funny thing, never watched it because i have trouble understanding what he's saying. Kevin Hart, and Ben Clover are the most watched black comedians for me. On August 30 2017 05:10 semantics 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. It is racism either way...Just because jokes can often be taken in good light doesn't make it less racist. Both joke teller and audience can make a joke more or less a racist act. Jokes are about expectations, you subvert an exception or you play into it, either way you're doing it at the expense of that thing. Meaning a joke can be funny multiple ways, an absurd or a straight take on it. So a joke based on race depending on the joke teller and audience, it can be racist and shit or just that mild racism we all kinda are fine with depending on the people because it's understood it's in poor taste/is bad Funny enough, does it make it better m4ini if you're a racist for your jokes, and Trump's a racist for (likely) participation in his father's real estate controversies and Arpaio? I think there's a difference between making a funny about american stereotypes etc and pardoning someone who tortured and "hunted" down blacks and latinos. What kind of retarded question is that? Semantics just said "it is racism either way." As in, your behavior about cracking a joke about stereotypes will have people call you a racist. Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. It concerns me for sure. Shit you are racist now if you're white and you exist. Unless you join the people saying you're racist, then you're not. What if I told you that we can all do racist things and not be a Racist? That we can make mistakes and just fix them. It depends on where you put the goalposts, because your post there could just be a paraphrase of my last two sentences.
Racism is a complex subject. There is no specific path to avoid doing something that is racist. Which is fine, because we can always correct the issue.
I grew up in a rural all white part of my state. I moved to the city after college and had a bunch of black co-workers. I screwed up and offended a few of them. I always said I was sorry and made it clear I wanted to know why so I wouldn’t do it again. This stuff isn't hard, people just need to be critical of themselves and listen.
|
On August 30 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:04 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:
Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. Who do you consider to be a real racist? Where is your bar? Can you give us an example? On August 30 2017 06:03 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:42 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:52 Logo wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. Show me. You exaggerate like mad, but show me "you shit on people who voted for Clinton" and this bs about not extending the same to others. Nah, I’m all set. I won’t play into your victimhood any more. As I said before, you are more interested in proving the other side is terrible than having a discussion. You fail to provide other posters with the respect you constantly demand. Then I accept you claim ill behavior on both sides, but are unwilling to show what you mean. I really see no point in justifying all this racism-mongering with "You did it too with Clinton" except lacking any proof. I’ve been willing for two years or more. I’ve done this over and over with you. I’m not doing it again simply because you are to obtuse to remember. I am tired of explaining the same thing over and over when you won’t answer a simple question from 5 pages ago. You are not worth the effort of the paragraphs I would need to write again. We'll let's just say I've proved you wrong for two years and done it over and over with you. See how that works? You haven't changed your behavior. I can see I probably should just let your posts pass by, however much I wish you were asking honest questions. Also, for first post, setting a low bar for criticism cheapens the criticism.
Can you please give an example of someone you would consider to be racist?
|
On August 30 2017 06:33 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Then remind me. I read hundreds of pages a day, and Kwark's Alabama, other's North Carolina are in the forefront of my mind. If you're unwilling to explain yourself, then you're just some beat reporter shoving a microphone in somebody's face and demanding they give a statement.
The original post, however abused these days, contains some useful advice. Show, don't tell, and listen. + Show Spoiler +I've heard from you that greater than 20% of the "eligible black population in Kentucky can't vote." With language, if they're eligible black population, why do you say they can't vote? Is it lifetime felon laws? Is it poverty? I'm sorry, but social issues are not Uldridge's one sentence with a question mark ... it actually takes some time or these would be solved by now. Fine. Felons in Kentucky can't vote. Even when they have finished their prison sentence, they are prohibited from voting. Not only is it an issue for felons in general, it's indicative of the innate problem of the prison-industry complex. However, because there is racial bias because of infrastructural and other socio-economic factors and racial profiling (because it's one of the lesser things Kentucky can be faulted of when discussing racism), a disproportionate amount of black people are jailed. This makes them non-eligible for voting. Do you have issues with this? Also; why don't you answer my other questions? Do they also need an exposition to frame the issue into context for you?
Yes, I want to restore voting rights to felons that have completed all jail time and court-mandated probation/supervision. I condemn those kind of policies.
The other questions I answered to the half dozen other posters that asked them and similar. You can look them up; the search function is open to you and there just aren't that many conservatives around to get to all of them. I call the disparate sentencing durations on African Americans one example of institutional racism present today. I know there's a terrible history present even after the civil rights movement that are perfect examples. We'll probably disagree on several points if you brought your top-10 examples and asked me if I thought they were examples.
|
Or perhaps, Plansix, instead of saying: there's no specific path to avoid doing something that is racist, you could say: it's not so straight forward to actually say what's racist and what's not other than what people feel is racist nowadays, which is pretty nebulous as this can change from individual to individual.
I think you can frame racism objectively up to a certain point, but after that it becomes very difficult to define. And I think this is basically the crux of the entire racism debate. Not everyone is able to accept that something is racist just because they're being told they are. I am one of those people. I might make a mistake and I might fix that mistake when confronted with it, but I will not stand for someone telling me I'm racist because I've never been aware of its systemic nature.
@Danglars: I'm fine with that answer, I'll stop harping on you now, lol.
|
United Kingdom10021 Posts
On August 30 2017 06:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2017 06:07 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 06:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:43 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:40 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:10 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists. Nah, the occasional racist joke makes the racist. Btw, i don't think Danglars believes that, i actually think he knows full well that Trump is a racist because of other reasons. I still like the Chapell show. Funny thing, never watched it because i have trouble understanding what he's saying. Kevin Hart, and Ben Clover are the most watched black comedians for me. On August 30 2017 05:10 semantics 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. It is racism either way...Just because jokes can often be taken in good light doesn't make it less racist. Both joke teller and audience can make a joke more or less a racist act. Jokes are about expectations, you subvert an exception or you play into it, either way you're doing it at the expense of that thing. Meaning a joke can be funny multiple ways, an absurd or a straight take on it. So a joke based on race depending on the joke teller and audience, it can be racist and shit or just that mild racism we all kinda are fine with depending on the people because it's understood it's in poor taste/is bad Funny enough, does it make it better m4ini if you're a racist for your jokes, and Trump's a racist for (likely) participation in his father's real estate controversies and Arpaio? I think there's a difference between making a funny about american stereotypes etc and pardoning someone who tortured and "hunted" down blacks and latinos. What kind of retarded question is that? Semantics just said "it is racism either way." As in, your behavior about cracking a joke about stereotypes will have people call you a racist. Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. It concerns me for sure. Shit you are racist now if you're white and you exist. Unless you join the people saying you're racist, then you're not. What if I told you that we can all do racist things and not be a Racist? That we can make mistakes and just fix them. It depends on where you put the goalposts, because your post there could just be a paraphrase of my last two sentences. Racism is a complex subject. There is no specific path to avoid doing something that is racist. Which is fine, because we can always correct the issue. I grew up in a rural all white part of my state. I moved to the city after college and had a bunch of black co-workers. I screwed up and offended a few of them. I always said I was sorry and made it clear I wanted to know why so I wouldn’t do it again. This stuff isn't hard, people just need to be critical of themselves and listen.
Its easy to make it sound like its not hard, and that calling someone racist is always just a gentle nudge in the style of a self help book.
You know as well as I do that this isn't true, though.
Just look at the story of Justine Sacco.
Racism used to be the sword that kept minorities enslaved. Now the left wields that sword and have a habit of using it quite unwisely.
Once again BTW I'm in this thread talking about this stuff but I've never been to America and have no idea how racist things are over there, except that I get the impression that life is generally much more racist than it is in the UK.
|
On August 30 2017 06:49 Jockmcplop wrote:
Just look at the story of Justine Sacco.
Rofl, just looked that up. That tweet was so bad. Even if it was a joke, is was so bad. Its insensitivity out of context was just totally uncalled for hahahaha. There's so many layers of insensitivity in there that's it's almost a little genius at how self destructive it is.
More @Jockmcplop
Actually it's the same for me. I feel like Europe is still very weird though. It's like we're racist and we're not, but the racism that one could say there is so ubiquitous and towards everyone that it's mostly lost its meaning.
By the way, what would one call having (strong) negative opinions or cracking jokes at the expense of communities in your own country (let's say for example against Californians)?
|
Jock, would you say that it's worse to be at the receiving end of racism, or at the receiving end of an accusation of racism?
|
On August 30 2017 06:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 06:04 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:
Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. Who do you consider to be a real racist? Where is your bar? Can you give us an example? On August 30 2017 06:03 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:42 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:52 Logo wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
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. Show me. You exaggerate like mad, but show me "you shit on people who voted for Clinton" and this bs about not extending the same to others. Nah, I’m all set. I won’t play into your victimhood any more. As I said before, you are more interested in proving the other side is terrible than having a discussion. You fail to provide other posters with the respect you constantly demand. Then I accept you claim ill behavior on both sides, but are unwilling to show what you mean. I really see no point in justifying all this racism-mongering with "You did it too with Clinton" except lacking any proof. I’ve been willing for two years or more. I’ve done this over and over with you. I’m not doing it again simply because you are to obtuse to remember. I am tired of explaining the same thing over and over when you won’t answer a simple question from 5 pages ago. You are not worth the effort of the paragraphs I would need to write again. We'll let's just say I've proved you wrong for two years and done it over and over with you. See how that works? You haven't changed your behavior. I can see I probably should just let your posts pass by, however much I wish you were asking honest questions. Also, for first post, setting a low bar for criticism cheapens the criticism. Can you please give an example of someone you would consider to be racist?
I think it's better if we took some time apart. PM, please.
+ Show Spoiler +On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote: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:
[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. 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 05:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:22 Plansix 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:
[quote]
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." I’ve said this before: but I am convinced a man could burn a cross on Obama’s lawn and you would still question if that man was racist. Your refusal to engage with the word makes further discussion of this topic pointless. Then stop these political gotcha questions like you voted for Hillary or that racist. I've heard enough of your style binaries, like there's what you believe about immigration policy, and then there's the racist policy. Ironic because it was directly addressed by the article that I linked. This isn't a political gotcha questions. Over the past couple of years, I’ve come to the opinion that you simply refuse to engage with any discussion about racism unless you get to set the terms. And absent that, you simply refuse. That includes what I posted above. You are some uncomfortable with the topic, you just ignore it or claim that its unfair that its brought up. On August 30 2017 05:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Show me. You exaggerate like mad, but show me "you shit on people who voted for Clinton" and this bs about not extending the same to others. Nah, I’m all set. I won’t play into your victimhood any more. As I said before, you are more interested in proving the other side is terrible than having a discussion. You fail to provide other posters with the respect you constantly demand.
|
United States44401 Posts
On August 30 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:43 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:40 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:10 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists. Nah, the occasional racist joke makes the racist. Btw, i don't think Danglars believes that, i actually think he knows full well that Trump is a racist because of other reasons. I still like the Chapell show. Funny thing, never watched it because i have trouble understanding what he's saying. Kevin Hart, and Ben Clover are the most watched black comedians for me. On August 30 2017 05:10 semantics 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. It is racism either way...Just because jokes can often be taken in good light doesn't make it less racist. Both joke teller and audience can make a joke more or less a racist act. Jokes are about expectations, you subvert an exception or you play into it, either way you're doing it at the expense of that thing. Meaning a joke can be funny multiple ways, an absurd or a straight take on it. So a joke based on race depending on the joke teller and audience, it can be racist and shit or just that mild racism we all kinda are fine with depending on the people because it's understood it's in poor taste/is bad Funny enough, does it make it better m4ini if you're a racist for your jokes, and Trump's a racist for (likely) participation in his father's real estate controversies and Arpaio? I think there's a difference between making a funny about american stereotypes etc and pardoning someone who tortured and "hunted" down blacks and latinos. What kind of retarded question is that? Semantics just said "it is racism either way." As in, your behavior about cracking a joke about stereotypes will have people call you a racist. Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. It's not complicated. We were all raised in a society that treats people differently based on the colour of their skin. That's something we all learned. Same as we learned to treat boys and girls differently, and learned about boy jobs and girl jobs and so forth. Nobody expects you to treat everyone the same all the time. That's an unreasonable standard. Nobody expects you to feel as emotionally invested in issues that impact people you don't relate to as you do issues that feel closer to you. Nobody expects you to understand what it feels like to have a different skin colour to your own. Literally the only requirement is for you to want to try and treat other people with respect. That's it. That if someone says "hey, that thing you just did, it was pretty racist" you reflect on it and try to do better. That you spend a minute thinking about the issues that matter to you and ask yourself "would these priorities be the same if my skin were a different colour?" The problem is that some people seem to treat this very benign and entirely self evident claim that racial biases exist as an insult and attack on their character. But the issue isn't that they have the biases, it's that they refuse to think about their own biases and instead double down, turning those biases into a part of their self identity. The country isn't divided between racists and aracial superhumans who are free of bias. It's divided between people who don't want to be racist and people who don't want anyone to call them racist. It's actually pretty complicated when you arrive at comparing reflexive Trump voters to worse than the KKK (because at least the KKK aren't moral cowards in your rubric). You see, for ordinary Americans that is a logical leap. So you connect it with all these logical twists and turns involving racist not being an insult, and it's just like instructing boys and girls (sickening condescension if you ask me) to not hate people with different skin color. When you move to the adult world, it's Kwark swapping between calling half the country racists, and telling them that it's okay that they're racists only try not to be as racist as you are. It doesn't jive with the history of using the topic as a political divide to incite Democratic support among minorities etc. Once you've heard the demagogues do "Vote for me, because these people hate you," then Kwarkian logic that racism is just a dialogue on treating people with respect vanishes. It's a very adult topic, and pretty harsh if it's the first exposure. You walk up to people that respect their neighbors, contribute their income to the needy, but thought Romney was the better choice. When Kwark comes along saying how numerous were the people that didn't vote for Obama out of racism, they obviously react with ire. It isn't true in their life and it isn't true universally. I'm sorry that the nuance has gotten lost and you usually jettison your logic to sound bites after a short countdown, but that's the truth as I see it.
If you reread my response to the article you quoted I actually completely disagreed with his premise. His premise was that people voted for Trump (and Sessions, and the rest of the disparate impact crew with their policies) because they were upset about being called racists. I don't think that's why they did it. I think that argument shows an unbelievable level of contempt towards the American voters, it implies that they're not genuinely in favour of policies that disproportionately impact minorities but that they will support those policies if they think it'll spite someone who called them a racist.
Regarding what I said about a member of the KKK having more courage. If we were to compare someone who genuinely believed the racist nonsense and was voting as a logical consequence of those beliefs with the hypothetical individual the author of that article created, who did not believe in racist nonsense but still voted for the same policies as the KKK member as a way of getting back at the other side for calling him racist, I think the latter is worse. The former is ignorance, the latter is malice. Ignorance is more easily excused, and more easily fixed.
But again, I don't think that the right supported policies with a disparate racial impact out of malice. I disagree with his entire premise. My point was just that if they did, that'd actually be even worse.
You're not wrong to say that there is a problem of language. This is what GH attempted to get into a while ago when he started putting a y in the middle of the word racist to show what he was talking about. People didn't want to play that game with him though.
I'm sure there are ideological reasons to swallow the bitter pill that is Trump. Where you lose me is when I ask myself whether the issues were weighted in a colourblind fashion.
Let's say you have a voter who doesn't think he's racist and the most important issue to him is liberty from tyranny and the spectre of government oppression. A good, constitutional, patriotic American who really loves the second amendment. Trump's rhetoric on the second amendment was better than Hillary's, therefore he voted for Trump. That makes sense so far.
The problem emerges when you consider the interplay between his stated starting point, opposing government oppression, and the outcome. Because second amendment rights aren't the only thing to consider there, not when the DoJ is reporting that local police departments are actively oppressing African Americans. Now maybe he sat down and asked himself "is Trump having a supreme court nominee who protects the second amendment worth justice department endorsement of systematic civil rights abuses?" And maybe he did his very best to understand the issues involved and consider how he would feel on both sides before casting his vote.
But I'm not sure our hypothetical voter did in this instance, because I'm not seeing how things like actual current voting rights limitations can be outweighed by the incredibly remote chance that Hillary would seize all the guns. I worry that the reason he voted the way he did was because he weighted the thing that impacted him (and people like him) far, far more heavily than the thing that impacted people who don't look like him.
|
United Kingdom10021 Posts
On August 30 2017 06:54 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:49 Jockmcplop wrote:
Just look at the story of Justine Sacco. Rofl, just looked that up. That tweet was so bad. Even if it was a joke, is was so bad. Its insensitivity out of context was just totally uncalled for hahahaha. There's so many layers of insensitivity in there that's it's almost a little genius at how self destructive it is.
Yeah that tweet was fucking stupid and mega racist. But its a tweet. Instead of trying to decide whether this woman was racist using any other source than one tweet that was a joke, people got together to make sure she was fired within hours.
I'm not commenting on whether that is right or wrong, but it very much disproves the whole "Well if you say something racist someone will tell you and then you can be nicer in the future." attitude, doesn't it?
Say something racist, and then maybe try and be nicer if you have time between losing your job, house, suffering extreme social mental issues etc. etc.
This is my point. The stakes have been raised by people who don't even know their own definition of racism. If people think she should have been witchhunted, they should at least have the guts to clearly define what is an offence worthy of this treatment and what isn't.
On August 30 2017 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:
Jock, would you say that it's worse to be at the receiving end of racism, or at the receiving end of an accusation of racism?
It depends on the consequences, and the definitions. We'll use the definition that seems to be accepted in this thread.
1: You're a black guy in a bar when you hear some guy in the corner of the bar tell his friends a racist joke.
2: You're Justine Sacco, you wake up, get off a plane and your whole life has been ripped to shreds in a few hours.
This isn't typical. In general, racism is much worse than accusations of racism, but it isn't always.
I'm assuming a bit here but you seem to be framing this in terms of a 'lesser of two evils' sort of argument. This doesn't really work though because the main thing I am arguing for is a differentiated definition of racism. The term has come to encompass so many behaviours, many of them not particularly harmful, that an accusation of racism is both vicious and meaningless at the same time.
|
On August 30 2017 06:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:42 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 06:04 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:
Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. Who do you consider to be a real racist? Where is your bar? Can you give us an example? On August 30 2017 06:03 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:42 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:52 Logo wrote:
[quote]
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. Show me. You exaggerate like mad, but show me "you shit on people who voted for Clinton" and this bs about not extending the same to others. Nah, I’m all set. I won’t play into your victimhood any more. As I said before, you are more interested in proving the other side is terrible than having a discussion. You fail to provide other posters with the respect you constantly demand. Then I accept you claim ill behavior on both sides, but are unwilling to show what you mean. I really see no point in justifying all this racism-mongering with "You did it too with Clinton" except lacking any proof. I’ve been willing for two years or more. I’ve done this over and over with you. I’m not doing it again simply because you are to obtuse to remember. I am tired of explaining the same thing over and over when you won’t answer a simple question from 5 pages ago. You are not worth the effort of the paragraphs I would need to write again. We'll let's just say I've proved you wrong for two years and done it over and over with you. See how that works? You haven't changed your behavior. I can see I probably should just let your posts pass by, however much I wish you were asking honest questions. Also, for first post, setting a low bar for criticism cheapens the criticism. Can you please give an example of someone you would consider to be racist? I think it's better if we took some time apart. PM, please. + Show Spoiler +On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote: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:
[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. 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 05:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:22 Plansix 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:
[quote]
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." I’ve said this before: but I am convinced a man could burn a cross on Obama’s lawn and you would still question if that man was racist. Your refusal to engage with the word makes further discussion of this topic pointless. Then stop these political gotcha questions like you voted for Hillary or that racist. I've heard enough of your style binaries, like there's what you believe about immigration policy, and then there's the racist policy. Ironic because it was directly addressed by the article that I linked. This isn't a political gotcha questions. Over the past couple of years, I’ve come to the opinion that you simply refuse to engage with any discussion about racism unless you get to set the terms. And absent that, you simply refuse. That includes what I posted above. You are some uncomfortable with the topic, you just ignore it or claim that its unfair that its brought up. On August 30 2017 05:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Show me. You exaggerate like mad, but show me "you shit on people who voted for Clinton" and this bs about not extending the same to others. Nah, I’m all set. I won’t play into your victimhood any more. As I said before, you are more interested in proving the other side is terrible than having a discussion. You fail to provide other posters with the respect you constantly demand.
OMG. You guys are breaking up? The back and forth between you two were stellar. I thought KwarK was your main squeeze, but it's been P6 this entire time. I'm saddened.
|
On August 30 2017 06:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:42 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 06:04 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:
Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. Who do you consider to be a real racist? Where is your bar? Can you give us an example? On August 30 2017 06:03 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:42 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:52 Logo wrote:
[quote]
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. Show me. You exaggerate like mad, but show me "you shit on people who voted for Clinton" and this bs about not extending the same to others. Nah, I’m all set. I won’t play into your victimhood any more. As I said before, you are more interested in proving the other side is terrible than having a discussion. You fail to provide other posters with the respect you constantly demand. Then I accept you claim ill behavior on both sides, but are unwilling to show what you mean. I really see no point in justifying all this racism-mongering with "You did it too with Clinton" except lacking any proof. I’ve been willing for two years or more. I’ve done this over and over with you. I’m not doing it again simply because you are to obtuse to remember. I am tired of explaining the same thing over and over when you won’t answer a simple question from 5 pages ago. You are not worth the effort of the paragraphs I would need to write again. We'll let's just say I've proved you wrong for two years and done it over and over with you. See how that works? You haven't changed your behavior. I can see I probably should just let your posts pass by, however much I wish you were asking honest questions. Also, for first post, setting a low bar for criticism cheapens the criticism. Can you please give an example of someone you would consider to be racist? I think it's better if we took some time apart. PM, please. + Show Spoiler +On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote: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:
[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. 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 05:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:22 Plansix 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:
[quote]
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." I’ve said this before: but I am convinced a man could burn a cross on Obama’s lawn and you would still question if that man was racist. Your refusal to engage with the word makes further discussion of this topic pointless. Then stop these political gotcha questions like you voted for Hillary or that racist. I've heard enough of your style binaries, like there's what you believe about immigration policy, and then there's the racist policy. Ironic because it was directly addressed by the article that I linked. This isn't a political gotcha questions. Over the past couple of years, I’ve come to the opinion that you simply refuse to engage with any discussion about racism unless you get to set the terms. And absent that, you simply refuse. That includes what I posted above. You are some uncomfortable with the topic, you just ignore it or claim that its unfair that its brought up. On August 30 2017 05:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Show me. You exaggerate like mad, but show me "you shit on people who voted for Clinton" and this bs about not extending the same to others. Nah, I’m all set. I won’t play into your victimhood any more. As I said before, you are more interested in proving the other side is terrible than having a discussion. You fail to provide other posters with the respect you constantly demand.
Not a problem. But when we return to this topic, I'm asking that exact same question.
|
On August 30 2017 06:58 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:54 Uldridge wrote:On August 30 2017 06:49 Jockmcplop wrote:
Just look at the story of Justine Sacco. Rofl, just looked that up. That tweet was so bad. Even if it was a joke, is was so bad. Its insensitivity out of context was just totally uncalled for hahahaha. There's so many layers of insensitivity in there that's it's almost a little genius at how self destructive it is. Yeah that tweet was fucking stupid and mega racist. But its a tweet. Instead of trying to decide whether this woman was racist using any other source than one tweet that was a joke, people got together to make sure she was fired within hours. I'm not commenting on whether that is right or wrong, but it very much disproves the whole "Well if you say something racist someone will tell you and then you can be nicer in the future." attitude, doesn't it? Say something racist, and then maybe try and be nicer if you have time between losing your job, house, suffering extreme social mental issues etc. etc. This is my point. The stakes have been raised by people who don't even know their own definition of racism. If people think she should have been witchhunted, they should at least have the guts to clearly define what is an offence worthy of this treatment and what isn't. Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:
Jock, would you say that it's worse to be at the receiving end of racism, or at the receiving end of an accusation of racism? It depends on the consequences, and the definitions. We'll use the definition that seems to be accepted in this thread. 1: You're a black guy in a bar when you hear some guy in the corner of the bar tell his friends a racist joke. 2: You're Justine Sacco, you wake up, get off a plane and your whole life has been ripped to shreds in a few hours. This isn't typical. In general, racism is much worse than accusations of racism, but it isn't always. I'm assuming a bit here but you seem to be framing this in terms of a 'lesser of two evils' sort of argument. This doesn't really work though because the main thing I am arguing for is a differentiated definition of racism. The term has come to encompass so many behaviours, many of them not particularly harmful, that an accusation of racism is both vicious and meaningless at the same time.
That is a problem of social media, though. That isn't a problem with discussion about racism, except to show that we shouldn't discuss racism on social media.
|
On August 30 2017 05:51 mozoku wrote:
While we're on the topic, I'll assert that I don't consider Trump necessarily a racist but an equal opportunity selfish scumbag that happens to be politically advantaged by appealing to racists. There's a subtle difference between being actively racist and being a selfish and morally bankrupt politician where being racist is advantageous. However, most of this thread has no interest in inconvenient nuance so the difference is apparently lost.
I'd significantly blur the line between "willing to take political advantage by appealing to racists" and "actually hates people for their skin color." If he's going around denying African Americans on housing/rent applications, I won't spend much time picking around to see if it was complying with the New York real estate elites, or to please current tenants, or for some financial motive. He didn't stand against it in his own right as far as I can tell.
That I can separate out from accusations that the way his said something was overtly racist, like the famous immigration speech. So he thinks illegal immigration contains more of the scum of Mexican society than contained in the percentage of latinos hearing the speech. It's illegal immigration, and his political point is that there's no selection for immigrants that will become law abiding members of society. Trump's audience contained latinos, and he probably got more latinos to vote for him than Romney did (538, others said he did equal or better). So I posit he's making a campaign statement on immigration that's benign racially but a little insulting to the country of Mexico. That's a line I will join you in saying most of this thread has no interest in inconvenient nuance so the difference is apparently lost.
|
On August 30 2017 06:58 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:54 Uldridge wrote:On August 30 2017 06:49 Jockmcplop wrote:
Just look at the story of Justine Sacco. Rofl, just looked that up. That tweet was so bad. Even if it was a joke, is was so bad. Its insensitivity out of context was just totally uncalled for hahahaha. There's so many layers of insensitivity in there that's it's almost a little genius at how self destructive it is. Yeah that tweet was fucking stupid and mega racist. But its a tweet. Instead of trying to decide whether this woman was racist using any other source than one tweet that was a joke, people got together to make sure she was fired within hours. I'm not commenting on whether that is right or wrong, but it very much disproves the whole "Well if you say something racist someone will tell you and then you can be nicer in the future." attitude, doesn't it? Say something racist, and then maybe try and be nicer if you have time between losing your job, house, suffering extreme social mental issues etc. etc. This is my point. The stakes have been raised by people who don't even know their own definition of racism. If people think she should have been witchhunted, they should at least have the guts to clearly define what is an offence worthy of this treatment and what isn't. Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:
Jock, would you say that it's worse to be at the receiving end of racism, or at the receiving end of an accusation of racism? It depends on the consequences, and the definitions. We'll use the definition that seems to be accepted in this thread. 1: You're a black guy in a bar when you hear some guy in the corner of the bar tell his friends a racist joke. 2: You're Justine Sacco, you wake up, get off a plane and your whole life has been ripped to shreds in a few hours. This isn't typical. In general, racism is much worse than accusations of racism, but it isn't always. I'm assuming a bit here but you seem to be framing this in terms of a 'lesser of two evils' sort of argument. This doesn't really work though because the main thing I am arguing for is a differentiated definition of racism. The term has come to encompass so many behaviours, many of them not particularly harmful, that an accusation of racism is both vicious and meaningless at the same time.
Using social medias ignorantly is the root problem.
She learnt the hard way.
|
On August 30 2017 07:05 Plansix wrote:
That is a problem of social media, though. That isn't a problem with discussion about racism, except to show that we shouldn't discuss racism on social media.
But it's not. It's people using social media as a medium to become vigilant (in their eyes) and make sure someone's life is destroyed because of their vile acts.
The woman shared a very distasteful joke with the world and people made sure she got hung at the modern pole of shame.
Social media might be an enabler, but these people exist nonetheless, whether there's social media or not, Plansix.
On August 30 2017 07:08 uiCk wrote:
Using social medias ignorantly is the root problem.
She learnt the hard way.
Yes, justify e-vigilants' actions. It's the stupid woman's fault that she's now ostracized from society!
|
United Kingdom10021 Posts
On August 30 2017 07:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:58 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2017 06:54 Uldridge wrote:On August 30 2017 06:49 Jockmcplop wrote:
Just look at the story of Justine Sacco. Rofl, just looked that up. That tweet was so bad. Even if it was a joke, is was so bad. Its insensitivity out of context was just totally uncalled for hahahaha. There's so many layers of insensitivity in there that's it's almost a little genius at how self destructive it is. Yeah that tweet was fucking stupid and mega racist. But its a tweet. Instead of trying to decide whether this woman was racist using any other source than one tweet that was a joke, people got together to make sure she was fired within hours. I'm not commenting on whether that is right or wrong, but it very much disproves the whole "Well if you say something racist someone will tell you and then you can be nicer in the future." attitude, doesn't it? Say something racist, and then maybe try and be nicer if you have time between losing your job, house, suffering extreme social mental issues etc. etc. This is my point. The stakes have been raised by people who don't even know their own definition of racism. If people think she should have been witchhunted, they should at least have the guts to clearly define what is an offence worthy of this treatment and what isn't. On August 30 2017 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:
Jock, would you say that it's worse to be at the receiving end of racism, or at the receiving end of an accusation of racism? It depends on the consequences, and the definitions. We'll use the definition that seems to be accepted in this thread. 1: You're a black guy in a bar when you hear some guy in the corner of the bar tell his friends a racist joke. 2: You're Justine Sacco, you wake up, get off a plane and your whole life has been ripped to shreds in a few hours. This isn't typical. In general, racism is much worse than accusations of racism, but it isn't always. I'm assuming a bit here but you seem to be framing this in terms of a 'lesser of two evils' sort of argument. This doesn't really work though because the main thing I am arguing for is a differentiated definition of racism. The term has come to encompass so many behaviours, many of them not particularly harmful, that an accusation of racism is both vicious and meaningless at the same time. That is a problem of social media, though. That isn't a problem with discussion about racism, except to show that we shouldn't discuss racism on social media.
Social media is so ubiquitous now that surely any discussion of politics should involve it, surely?
The main ability of the public to form political groups, or push their political agenda, is using social media. How do you think Trump won the election?
Just to reiterate my main argument, try this:
1: List as many distinct forms of racism as you can think of.
2: Rank them in order of severity.
3: Take the few that are the least severe, and compare that to having 50 people post on your facebook wall that you are a racist every day.
Compare it now to the rise of Donald Trump, the worst consequence possible of going around calling 60% of the population racist.
Which is more harmful?
The problem of racism has been analyzed to death now for 60-70 years, we've ended up with vast, detailed ideas on the nature and roots of racist behaviour, but we only really have one word to describe it. Racist. It carries weight, and when people are called racist for seemingly innocuous behaviour and called out repeatedly on social media sure they will go and vote for Trump, because no-one could be bothered to get their language right and just labelled the whole south of the USA racist.
|
On August 30 2017 07:09 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:05 Plansix wrote:
That is a problem of social media, though. That isn't a problem with discussion about racism, except to show that we shouldn't discuss racism on social media. But it's not. It's people using social media as a medium to become vigilant (in their eyes) and make sure someone's life is destroyed because of their vile acts. The woman shared a very distasteful joke with the world and people made sure she got hung at the modern pole of shame. Social media might be an enabler, but these people exist nonetheless, whether there's social media or not, Plansix.
I completely disagree. Social media was the problem in that case. That could never have happened without the medium that is twitter. It reduces discussion into a binary state of right and wrong. And people then preform in an effort to be seen as teh best progressive/non-racist. On any moderated site or medium, that witchhunt would have been shut down. Social media is not the real world in any way. The number of twitter users is nothing compared to the population of US alone.
That was a social media problem. One that I have never encountered in my day to day life of discussing racism.
On August 30 2017 07:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:05 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 06:58 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2017 06:54 Uldridge wrote:On August 30 2017 06:49 Jockmcplop wrote:
Just look at the story of Justine Sacco. Rofl, just looked that up. That tweet was so bad. Even if it was a joke, is was so bad. Its insensitivity out of context was just totally uncalled for hahahaha. There's so many layers of insensitivity in there that's it's almost a little genius at how self destructive it is. Yeah that tweet was fucking stupid and mega racist. But its a tweet. Instead of trying to decide whether this woman was racist using any other source than one tweet that was a joke, people got together to make sure she was fired within hours. I'm not commenting on whether that is right or wrong, but it very much disproves the whole "Well if you say something racist someone will tell you and then you can be nicer in the future." attitude, doesn't it? Say something racist, and then maybe try and be nicer if you have time between losing your job, house, suffering extreme social mental issues etc. etc. This is my point. The stakes have been raised by people who don't even know their own definition of racism. If people think she should have been witchhunted, they should at least have the guts to clearly define what is an offence worthy of this treatment and what isn't. On August 30 2017 06:55 Nebuchad wrote:
Jock, would you say that it's worse to be at the receiving end of racism, or at the receiving end of an accusation of racism? It depends on the consequences, and the definitions. We'll use the definition that seems to be accepted in this thread. 1: You're a black guy in a bar when you hear some guy in the corner of the bar tell his friends a racist joke. 2: You're Justine Sacco, you wake up, get off a plane and your whole life has been ripped to shreds in a few hours. This isn't typical. In general, racism is much worse than accusations of racism, but it isn't always. I'm assuming a bit here but you seem to be framing this in terms of a 'lesser of two evils' sort of argument. This doesn't really work though because the main thing I am arguing for is a differentiated definition of racism. The term has come to encompass so many behaviours, many of them not particularly harmful, that an accusation of racism is both vicious and meaningless at the same time. That is a problem of social media, though. That isn't a problem with discussion about racism, except to show that we shouldn't discuss racism on social media. Social media is so ubiquitous now that surely any discussion of politics should involve it, surely? The main ability of the public to form political groups, or push their political agenda, is using social media. How do you think Trump won the election?
He won the election for a lot of reasons and maybe twitter was one of them. But it was mostly how the news media followed his twitter exploits and reported on them constantly. It is a good media declare things and not really back them up. But it is the worst medium to have any real discussion about racism and other complex topics.
So it is the perfect medium for Trump. Which should say a lot.
|
On August 30 2017 06:58 Jockmcplop wrote:
I'm assuming a bit here but you seem to be framing this in terms of a 'lesser of two evils' sort of argument. This doesn't really work though because the main thing I am arguing for is a differentiated definition of racism. The term has come to encompass so many behaviours, many of them not particularly harmful, that an accusation of racism is both vicious and meaningless at the same time.
Wasn't as much a lesser of two evils rather than questioning your perception of it. Reading your posts gave me the impression that you view problems based on how much they could potentially impact you rather than how problematic they actually are. The part of the left that's "evil about racism" can ruin your life by making you infamous and getting you to lose your job for something you have done (and get another one a little later where you have to be a little more careful to remain anonymous than a normal person would). The part of the right that's evil about racism can ruin your life by keeping you from voting, putting you in jail, killing you, for no fault of your own... Of course that wouldn't be you or me though.
It just feels foreign to me to be talking about racism in America and to have social justice as the thing to fear. Feels like there are some priorities that aren't in order.
|
United States44401 Posts
On August 30 2017 06:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:33 Uldridge wrote:On August 30 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Then remind me. I read hundreds of pages a day, and Kwark's Alabama, other's North Carolina are in the forefront of my mind. If you're unwilling to explain yourself, then you're just some beat reporter shoving a microphone in somebody's face and demanding they give a statement.
The original post, however abused these days, contains some useful advice. Show, don't tell, and listen. + Show Spoiler +I've heard from you that greater than 20% of the "eligible black population in Kentucky can't vote." With language, if they're eligible black population, why do you say they can't vote? Is it lifetime felon laws? Is it poverty? I'm sorry, but social issues are not Uldridge's one sentence with a question mark ... it actually takes some time or these would be solved by now. Fine. Felons in Kentucky can't vote. Even when they have finished their prison sentence, they are prohibited from voting. Not only is it an issue for felons in general, it's indicative of the innate problem of the prison-industry complex. However, because there is racial bias because of infrastructural and other socio-economic factors and racial profiling (because it's one of the lesser things Kentucky can be faulted of when discussing racism), a disproportionate amount of black people are jailed. This makes them non-eligible for voting. Do you have issues with this? Also; why don't you answer my other questions? Do they also need an exposition to frame the issue into context for you? Yes, I want to restore voting rights to felons that have completed all jail time and court-mandated probation/supervision. I condemn those kind of policies.
It's good that you condemn those kind of policies. I'm glad you do. In Kentucky Rand Paul also spoke out in favour of restoring voting rights to non violent felons who had served their time.
But the reality is that it was the Democratic governor (with the support of Republicans such as Rand Paul as mentioned) who issued the order to restore voting rights and his Republican successor who revoked that order.
In that particular race a vote for the Republican candidate was a vote in favour of maintaining a status quo founded on Jim Crow era policies enacted for openly white supremacist reasons. There could be reasons for swallowing that bitter pill while fully appreciating and understanding the degree to which African Americans will have their access to their most fundamental of democratic rights disparately impacted by the vote. But I think it's much more likely that a lot of voters just didn't really care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
