|
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 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. Show nested quote +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!
I did not justify anything nor anyone. The internet is a shitfest, and once you put yourself out in the public realm, be ready for anything. That's the reality.
|
Yet somehow with it being completely separate from the "real world" it had very real impact on a person's life.
It's not because these forms of media weren't available before, does it make less real world.
Everyone is connected with everyone. So this stuff like this will happen now. This is the real world.
I agree that the situation probably wouldn't have ever happened if social media didn't exist except if her boss or coworker was one of those people and she told that 'joke' 'in confidence'.
Twitter is moderated to some sense. Accounts get closed down and people get censored from time to time. I'm pretty sure if people want to find something out, a moderated forum won't hold them back.
|
On August 30 2017 06:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote: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.
Nah, you launched into your own pet attacks on interracial marriage disapproval. You literally couldn't even faithfully portray his own two theories without half of it being your own inclusion.
Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history.
Apparently written in invisible ink in the article.
Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist.
Author Kwark can't grasp a reaction where voters resent being regarded as racist idiots. His only intellectual contribution is pretending a positive support of racist policies is identical to a backlash from resentment.
There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough.
The actual breakdown from the article. Kwark is entirely in the first camp, but isn't as much calling them idiots than saying racists just need to be trained like children. He cannot mentally engage with good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, because in his mind they only support racist policies.
You want to move on to some more ideological reasons, and why they're wrong, but I'm unwilling to go on that tangent with someone who quotes one sentence and says its "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism." Basically, the man with a fondness for one-liners and snipping out single sentences from larger posts has enough troll qualities to limit my time spent and sometimes wasted. My only interest is seeing if you will support a larger view of humanity's intricacies than reductive blathering. I happen not to think half the country are these racists that hate minorities, and it's in keeping with an understanding that you push and prod and call people evil long enough that they'll resent your behavior and legitimately discard your candidate (if you intentionally put such a despicable candidate up there, as was done). We can come back to the variety of opinions of your good fellow citizens that can speak intelligently and are concerned with the good of their families and society, or we can reduce to the dumb "it ends in racist policies, throw all the antecedents in the garbage I don't want to hear them." Which is your argument.
|
On August 30 2017 07:20 Uldridge wrote:
Yet somehow with it being completely separate from the "real world" it had very real impact on a person's life.
It's not because these forms of media weren't available before, does it make less real world.
Everyone is connected with everyone. So this stuff like this will happen now. This is the real world.
I agree that the situation probably wouldn't have ever happened if social media didn't exist except if her boss or coworker was one of those people and she told that 'joke' 'in confidence'.
Twitter is moderated to some sense. Accounts get closed down and people get censored from time to time. I'm pretty sure if people want to find something out, a moderated forum won't hold them back.
Twitter isn't really moderated. If you are famous, they might do something for you. They don't give a shit about anyone else.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40870447
"Germany needs a final solution to Islam," reads one.
"Let's gas the Jews," says another, in reference to the Nazis' murder of six million Jews during World War Two.
"If Twitter forces me to see these things, then they'll have to see them too," the artist said in the video, posted on Monday.
He described the comments as "not just plain insults or jokes, but absolutely serious threats of violence".
I have known people who have been sent death threats on twitter and the company said the tweet doesn't violate their terms and conditions(they have robots reviewing them, not people).
Twitter is an un-moderated dumpster fire of a service run by people who refuse to spend money to moderate the public space they created. And it has Dog_Rates.
On August 30 2017 07:19 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:09 Uldridge wrote: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! I did not justify anything nor anyone. The internet is a shitfest, and once you put yourself out in the public realm, be ready for anything. That's the reality.
I don't 100% agree with this. I think websites like twitter should clamp down on this stuff, rather than claim it is the price of using their service. But it is a twitter problem, not a problem with discussing racism.
|
On August 30 2017 07:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +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... 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.
I can't disagree with any of that really.
Priorities, however, are a little bit irrelevant when discussing this if you ask me. We could start imprisoning people immediately upon an accusation of racism, and say "yeah well racists are worse because they kill people.". It wouldn't stop us from being able to question the policy of imprisoning people, would it?
I even said in the post you quoted that racism is much worse than accusations of racism most of the time. I know that. My priorities are where they are because frankly, I have watched in horror as both my beloved UK and then the US told the left to go fuck themselves with their zealotry on these matters by making stupid irreversible decisions.
I'm arguing for a more well thought out approach to dealing with the problem of racism. I'm arguing firstly for better tools in the guise of proper language to be able to do so.
|
United States43729 Posts
On August 30 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler [for length] +On August 30 2017 06:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote: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. Nah, you launched into your own pet attacks on interracial marriage disapproval. You literally couldn't even faithfully portray his own two theories without half of it being your own inclusion. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Apparently written in invisible ink in the article.Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Author Kwark can't grasp a reaction where voters resent being regarded as racist idiots. His only intellectual contribution is pretending a positive support of racist policies is identical to a backlash from resentment.There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough. The actual breakdown from the article. Kwark is entirely in the first camp, but isn't as much calling them idiots than saying racists just need to be trained like children. He cannot mentally engage with good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, because in his mind they only support racist policies.You want to move on to some more ideological reasons, and why they're wrong, but I'm unwilling to go on that tangent with someone who quotes one sentence and says its "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism." Basically, the man with a fondness for one-liners and snipping out single sentences from larger posts has enough troll qualities to limit my time spent and sometimes wasted. My only interest is seeing if you will support a larger view of humanity's intricacies than reductive blathering. I happen not to think half the country are these racists that hate minorities, and it's in keeping with an understanding that you push and prod and call people evil long enough that they'll resent your behavior and legitimately discard your candidate (if you intentionally put such a despicable candidate up there, as was done). We can come back to the variety of opinions of your good fellow citizens that can speak intelligently and are concerned with the good of their families and society, or we can reduce to the dumb "it ends in racist policies, throw all the antecedents in the garbage I don't want to hear them." Which is your argument.
You haven't learned a thing. You're back to the equivalent of "vaccines cause autism" here.
|
On August 30 2017 07:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 06:58 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Nah, you launched into your own pet attacks on interracial marriage disapproval. You literally couldn't even faithfully portray his own two theories without half of it being your own inclusion. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Apparently written in invisible ink in the article.Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Author Kwark can't grasp a reaction where voters resent being regarded as racist idiots. His only intellectual contribution is pretending a positive support of racist policies is identical to a backlash from resentment.There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough. The actual breakdown from the article. Kwark is entirely in the first camp, but isn't as much calling them idiots than saying racists just need to be trained like children. He cannot mentally engage with good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, because in his mind they only support racist policies.You want to move on to some more ideological reasons, and why they're wrong, but I'm unwilling to go on that tangent with someone who quotes one sentence and says its "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism." Basically, the man with a fondness for one-liners and snipping out single sentences from larger posts has enough troll qualities to limit my time spent and sometimes wasted. My only interest is seeing if you will support a larger view of humanity's intricacies than reductive blathering. I happen not to think half the country are these racists that hate minorities, and it's in keeping with an understanding that you push and prod and call people evil long enough that they'll resent your behavior and legitimately discard your candidate (if you intentionally put such a despicable candidate up there, as was done). We can come back to the variety of opinions of your good fellow citizens that can speak intelligently and are concerned with the good of their families and society, or we can reduce to the dumb "it ends in racist policies, throw all the antecedents in the garbage I don't want to hear them." Which is your argument. You haven't learned a thing. You're back to the equivalent of "vaccines cause autism" here.
This was legitimately funny and I salute you.
|
That's why I used: it's moderated to some extent. They close down and censor on their own accord, without really caring what the situation entails.
People get death threats all the time. Especially when they get some form of notoriety/fame.
The internet has lifted some real boundaries people had when interacting face to face with one another. This is partly I think because literally the most polar opposites have a possibility to come into close contact in the digital space.
|
On August 30 2017 07:26 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:14 Nebuchad wrote: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... 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. I can't disagree with any of that really. Priorities, however, are a little bit irrelevant when discussing this if you ask me. We could start imprisoning people immediately upon an accusation of racism, and say "yeah well racists are worse because they kill people.". It wouldn't stop us from being able to question the policy of imprisoning people, would it?
Yes, if the worst of us started treating racist people in the same way as the worst of racists treat people they are racist against, for example by imprisoning them under false pretenses as you offered here, the concern wouldn't seem as foreign to me.
However, it's not happening, and so it does.
I would also be interested in hearing more about why such priorities as I described here would be irrelevant.
|
United States43729 Posts
On August 30 2017 07:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:28 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 06:58 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Nah, you launched into your own pet attacks on interracial marriage disapproval. You literally couldn't even faithfully portray his own two theories without half of it being your own inclusion. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Apparently written in invisible ink in the article.Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Author Kwark can't grasp a reaction where voters resent being regarded as racist idiots. His only intellectual contribution is pretending a positive support of racist policies is identical to a backlash from resentment.There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough. The actual breakdown from the article. Kwark is entirely in the first camp, but isn't as much calling them idiots than saying racists just need to be trained like children. He cannot mentally engage with good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, because in his mind they only support racist policies.You want to move on to some more ideological reasons, and why they're wrong, but I'm unwilling to go on that tangent with someone who quotes one sentence and says its "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism." Basically, the man with a fondness for one-liners and snipping out single sentences from larger posts has enough troll qualities to limit my time spent and sometimes wasted. My only interest is seeing if you will support a larger view of humanity's intricacies than reductive blathering. I happen not to think half the country are these racists that hate minorities, and it's in keeping with an understanding that you push and prod and call people evil long enough that they'll resent your behavior and legitimately discard your candidate (if you intentionally put such a despicable candidate up there, as was done). We can come back to the variety of opinions of your good fellow citizens that can speak intelligently and are concerned with the good of their families and society, or we can reduce to the dumb "it ends in racist policies, throw all the antecedents in the garbage I don't want to hear them." Which is your argument. You haven't learned a thing. You're back to the equivalent of "vaccines cause autism" here. This was legitimately funny and I salute you.
who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side If the woman who called you a racist is running against the man who says you're not a racist but plans to put Sessions in charge of the DoJ, you call the woman a bitch and you vote for her anyway.
Right and wrong don't change because one side hurt your feelings. That's my issue with the article. The author seems to genuinely believe that Americans know the difference between right and wrong but will choose wrong if it hurts the opposing team. "They may not admire the man" is an admission of as much. They know the issues with him as a candidate, but because he's on their side whereas the mean lady called them names, they can look past those issues.
I think more of the American public than that. I'd sooner believe ignorance than malice.
|
On August 30 2017 07:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:20 Uldridge wrote:
Yet somehow with it being completely separate from the "real world" it had very real impact on a person's life.
It's not because these forms of media weren't available before, does it make less real world.
Everyone is connected with everyone. So this stuff like this will happen now. This is the real world.
I agree that the situation probably wouldn't have ever happened if social media didn't exist except if her boss or coworker was one of those people and she told that 'joke' 'in confidence'.
Twitter is moderated to some sense. Accounts get closed down and people get censored from time to time. I'm pretty sure if people want to find something out, a moderated forum won't hold them back. Twitter isn't really moderated. If you are famous, they might do something for you. They don't give a shit about anyone else. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40870447Show nested quote +"Germany needs a final solution to Islam," reads one.
"Let's gas the Jews," says another, in reference to the Nazis' murder of six million Jews during World War Two.
"If Twitter forces me to see these things, then they'll have to see them too," the artist said in the video, posted on Monday.
He described the comments as "not just plain insults or jokes, but absolutely serious threats of violence". I have known people who have been sent death threats on twitter and the company said the tweet doesn't violate their terms and conditions(they have robots reviewing them, not people). Twitter is an un-moderated dumpster fire of a service run by people who refuse to spend money to moderate the public space they created. And it has Dog_Rates. Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:19 uiCk wrote:On August 30 2017 07:09 Uldridge wrote: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! I did not justify anything nor anyone. The internet is a shitfest, and once you put yourself out in the public realm, be ready for anything. That's the reality. I don't 100% agree with this. I think websites like twitter should clamp down on this stuff, rather than claim it is the price of using their service. But it is a twitter problem, not a problem with discussing racism.
but that's the reality we live in. it's not a twitter problem either, since its privately owned for profit corporation.
This is a regulation, governmental issue if anything.
|
Rupert Murdoch has taken the rightwing US channel Fox News off the air in the UK after 15 years.
His US media group 21st Century Fox said it would withdraw Fox News from Sky in the UK on Tuesday because it no longer regarded the service as commercially viable.
The decision came as Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, is set to return her verdict on whether to ask the competition regulator to launch an investigation into the Murdochs’ adherence to broadcasting standards in the UK as part of an inquiry into Fox’s £11.7bn takeover bid for Sky.
Source
Investigation starts, they leave.
|
people post a lot of garbage on the internet. unfortunately, twitter's particularly prone because of its format and its status as one of the most popular sites on the internet.
it's one of the biggest examples of "the internet was a mistake".
|
On August 30 2017 07:32 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 07:20 Uldridge wrote:
Yet somehow with it being completely separate from the "real world" it had very real impact on a person's life.
It's not because these forms of media weren't available before, does it make less real world.
Everyone is connected with everyone. So this stuff like this will happen now. This is the real world.
I agree that the situation probably wouldn't have ever happened if social media didn't exist except if her boss or coworker was one of those people and she told that 'joke' 'in confidence'.
Twitter is moderated to some sense. Accounts get closed down and people get censored from time to time. I'm pretty sure if people want to find something out, a moderated forum won't hold them back. Twitter isn't really moderated. If you are famous, they might do something for you. They don't give a shit about anyone else. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40870447"Germany needs a final solution to Islam," reads one.
"Let's gas the Jews," says another, in reference to the Nazis' murder of six million Jews during World War Two.
"If Twitter forces me to see these things, then they'll have to see them too," the artist said in the video, posted on Monday.
He described the comments as "not just plain insults or jokes, but absolutely serious threats of violence". I have known people who have been sent death threats on twitter and the company said the tweet doesn't violate their terms and conditions(they have robots reviewing them, not people). Twitter is an un-moderated dumpster fire of a service run by people who refuse to spend money to moderate the public space they created. And it has Dog_Rates. On August 30 2017 07:19 uiCk wrote:On August 30 2017 07:09 Uldridge wrote: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! I did not justify anything nor anyone. The internet is a shitfest, and once you put yourself out in the public realm, be ready for anything. That's the reality. I don't 100% agree with this. I think websites like twitter should clamp down on this stuff, rather than claim it is the price of using their service. But it is a twitter problem, not a problem with discussing racism. but that's the reality we live in. it's not a twitter problem either, since its privately owned for profit corporation. This is a regulation, governmental issue if anything.
Agreed. Especially in the US, where companies are completely protected from liability for what their users write and do.
|
On August 30 2017 07:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2017 07:14 Nebuchad wrote: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... 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. I can't disagree with any of that really. Priorities, however, are a little bit irrelevant when discussing this if you ask me. We could start imprisoning people immediately upon an accusation of racism, and say "yeah well racists are worse because they kill people.". It wouldn't stop us from being able to question the policy of imprisoning people, would it? Yes, if the worst of us started treating racist people in the same way as the worst of racists treat people they are racist against, for example by imprisoning them under false pretenses as you offered here, the concern wouldn't seem as foreign to me. However, it's not happening, and so it does. I would also be interested in hearing more about why such priorities as I described here would be irrelevant.
Because I can happily argue against the left without ending every single sentence with "but being a racist nazi is worse".
I don't see why you disagree to be honest. At first I gave you the benefit of doubt when you left out the part of my quote which said something along the lines of "racism is generally much worse than accusations of racism."
Apparently I was being overly generous.
I have made my opinions on that clear, am I not also able to discuss the reactions to racism and what is/is not appropriate, or are we only allowed to discuss one side of the issue?
I mean, we could all discuss all night how much we hate racism, but there wouldn't really be much point unless there was a self proclaimed racist here to disagree with us, right?
|
On August 30 2017 07:37 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +Rupert Murdoch has taken the rightwing US channel Fox News off the air in the UK after 15 years.
His US media group 21st Century Fox said it would withdraw Fox News from Sky in the UK on Tuesday because it no longer regarded the service as commercially viable.
The decision came as Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, is set to return her verdict on whether to ask the competition regulator to launch an investigation into the Murdochs’ adherence to broadcasting standards in the UK as part of an inquiry into Fox’s £11.7bn takeover bid for Sky. SourceInvestigation starts, they leave.
British people don't want to watch defacto Trump State TV network no surprise here.
|
|
|
On August 30 2017 07:37 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +Rupert Murdoch has taken the rightwing US channel Fox News off the air in the UK after 15 years.
His US media group 21st Century Fox said it would withdraw Fox News from Sky in the UK on Tuesday because it no longer regarded the service as commercially viable.
The decision came as Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, is set to return her verdict on whether to ask the competition regulator to launch an investigation into the Murdochs’ adherence to broadcasting standards in the UK as part of an inquiry into Fox’s £11.7bn takeover bid for Sky. SourceInvestigation starts, they leave.
I dream of a US government that regulated the media. Sadly, we don't do that any more.
|
On August 30 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:29 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:28 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 06:58 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
[quote]
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. Nah, you launched into your own pet attacks on interracial marriage disapproval. You literally couldn't even faithfully portray his own two theories without half of it being your own inclusion. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Apparently written in invisible ink in the article.Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Author Kwark can't grasp a reaction where voters resent being regarded as racist idiots. His only intellectual contribution is pretending a positive support of racist policies is identical to a backlash from resentment.There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough. The actual breakdown from the article. Kwark is entirely in the first camp, but isn't as much calling them idiots than saying racists just need to be trained like children. He cannot mentally engage with good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, because in his mind they only support racist policies.You want to move on to some more ideological reasons, and why they're wrong, but I'm unwilling to go on that tangent with someone who quotes one sentence and says its "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism." Basically, the man with a fondness for one-liners and snipping out single sentences from larger posts has enough troll qualities to limit my time spent and sometimes wasted. My only interest is seeing if you will support a larger view of humanity's intricacies than reductive blathering. I happen not to think half the country are these racists that hate minorities, and it's in keeping with an understanding that you push and prod and call people evil long enough that they'll resent your behavior and legitimately discard your candidate (if you intentionally put such a despicable candidate up there, as was done). We can come back to the variety of opinions of your good fellow citizens that can speak intelligently and are concerned with the good of their families and society, or we can reduce to the dumb "it ends in racist policies, throw all the antecedents in the garbage I don't want to hear them." Which is your argument. You haven't learned a thing. You're back to the equivalent of "vaccines cause autism" here. This was legitimately funny and I salute you. Show nested quote +who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side If the woman who called you a racist is running against the man who says you're not a racist but plans to put Sessions in charge of the DoJ, you call the woman a bitch and you vote for her anyway. Right and wrong don't change because one side hurt your feelings. That's my issue with the article. The author seems to genuinely believe that Americans know the difference between right and wrong but will choose wrong if it hurts the opposing team. "They may not admire the man" is an admission of as much. They know the issues with him as a candidate, but because he's on their side whereas the mean lady called them names, they can look past those issues. I think more of the American public than that. I'd sooner believe ignorance than malice.
You usually alternate between trolly one liners and actual addressing substance with hours between. Which is why I thought it was funny I said I wasn't going to write more because you pick and choose when you'll actually respond.
Which made your trollish one-liner funny.
Sorry, but if we're going back to substance now, do you have anything to add, or should I just tell you some version of "lol snarky lib can't take what he dishes."
|
On August 30 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:37 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Rupert Murdoch has taken the rightwing US channel Fox News off the air in the UK after 15 years.
His US media group 21st Century Fox said it would withdraw Fox News from Sky in the UK on Tuesday because it no longer regarded the service as commercially viable.
The decision came as Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, is set to return her verdict on whether to ask the competition regulator to launch an investigation into the Murdochs’ adherence to broadcasting standards in the UK as part of an inquiry into Fox’s £11.7bn takeover bid for Sky. SourceInvestigation starts, they leave. I dream of a US government that regulated the media. Sadly, we don't do that any more.
Its a very fine line. Our tory government has repeatedly threatened the BBC with massive cuts and huge changes. The BBC appears to me to be fairly pro tory (I'm not a tory though so it might just be my personal bias). There's been accusations there because of this.
Its still better than the alternative though, I guess.
Can you imagine if Trump was in charge of regulating the media, though? Perish the thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
