EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 243
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9262 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
What I'm trying to get at is that I think the most important thing is the opinion of the people involved in the act. Same thing with the Dove commercial: what were the actors/producers/editors/etc thinking? And I don't mean that in an attacking kind of way, just genuinely their intent and feelings regarding the matter are the most important thing. If the black man in chains knows what is happening and is happy about his role/position, then it's fine. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On June 02 2018 22:59 a_flayer wrote: What I'm trying to get at is that I think the most important thing is the opinion of the people involved in the act. This is what I told the judge. He disagreed. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18159 Posts
On June 02 2018 22:59 a_flayer wrote: Replace the black man with me and it sound like a potentially good time to me. But I'm a bit of a masochist. What I'm trying to get at is that I think the most important thing is the opinion of the people involved in the act. Same thing with the Dove commercial. Except that there's a very big difference between the two: I'm not going to call "racism" at some bachelor party. If the black guy is having a good time then who the fuck are we to judge. He's clearly having his little fantasy thingy, and wheter that's some perverted fantasy of being a slave, or being in a medieval torture chamber, who the fuck cares anyway? Stay out of other peoples' business. But Dove made an advertisement for the general public. Unsurprisingly, a fairly large part of that general public took one look at that and said "wtf? are you seriously advertising to wash the blackness off black people? get the fuck off my television". Dove took that advice to heart, apologized for their tone-deaf advertisement, and that was the end of it. Everybody thinks Dove are a bunch of insensitive pricks, except the "political correctness police" who keeps dragging this back up to say that people are a bunch of thin-skinned pussies. Perhaps they are, but this isn't about Dove's legal rights, which I'm pretty sure weren't touched. It's about whether or not Dove is going to sell more soap, and clearly that ad was doing more harm than good in that regard, because apparently a lot of people are "thin-skinned pussies" (not my opinion). | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On June 02 2018 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote: This is what I told the judge. He disagreed. People with authority always think only their opinion matters. Luckily the Dove commercial won't send you to jail. Though I can see the problem of pervasive and subconscious racism towards Blacks and Hispanics as much as I see it with hate towards Muslims and Russians, etc. I mostly agree with you Acrofales. As I said, it's surprising to me that someone at Dove didn't have the wits to see it. I don't think Dove are insensitive pricks though -- we've already established I appear to have different standards. =) | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On June 02 2018 23:05 Acrofales wrote: Except that there's a very big difference between the two: I'm not going to call "racism" at some bachelor party. If the black guy is having a good time then who the fuck are we to judge. He's clearly having his little fantasy thingy, and wheter that's some perverted fantasy of being a slave, or being in a medieval torture chamber, who the fuck cares anyway? Stay out of other peoples' business. But Dove made an advertisement for the general public. Unsurprisingly, a fairly large part of that general public took one look at that and said "wtf? are you seriously advertising to wash the blackness off black people? get the fuck off my television". Dove took that advice to heart, apologized for their tone-deaf advertisement, and that was the end of it. Everybody thinks Dove are a bunch of insensitive pricks, except the "political correctness police" who keeps dragging this back up to say that people are a bunch of thin-skinned pussies. Perhaps they are, but this isn't about Dove's legal rights, which I'm pretty sure weren't touched. It's about whether or not Dove is going to sell more soap, and clearly that ad was doing more harm than good in that regard, because apparently a lot of people are "thin-skinned pussies" (not my opinion). So you're part of the problem then. To summarise what PC people like you think: 1. Black woman -> white woman is racist. 2. White woman -> black woman isn't racist. If you're going to treat it that way, then that's RACIST in my opinion. If you can order it any way you want, that's fair and it's not racist in my opinion. In other words, if you only prefer one of the 2 options, you're racist. If you're fine with both, then you're not. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On June 02 2018 23:08 a_flayer wrote: People with authority always think only their opinion matters. Luckily the Dove commercial won't send you to jail. Though I can see the problem of pervasive and subconscious racism towards Blacks and Hispanics as much as I see it with hate towards Muslims and Russians, etc. Not the Dove commercial, but being Black in Amerikkka sure as shit can. When Lamonte McIntyre was exonerated for a double murder in October, he walked out of a Kansas prison with a clean record – but not a dime to his name, reports CBS News' Dean Reynolds. After losing 23 years of his life behind bars, the state is offering him nothing. Kansas is one of 18 states that offer wrongfully convicted prisoners no compensation at all upon their release. "I think it's unjust, but me being angry about it is not going to change it," McIntyre said. Tricia Bushnell of the Midwest Innocence Project worked to win McIntyre's release. She said McIntyre has other reasons to be angry. She called this case the "perfect storm." For example, at his trial in 1994 when he was 17, there was no physical evidence or motive presented. Worse, according to McIntyre's current lawyers, lead police detective Roger Golubski built the case by threatening witnesses. Bushnell said the fallout may impact other potential exonerations. She said there are about a dozen people behind bars whose cases are connected to detective Golubski. Golubski has since retired, and said he did nothing wrong. But Mark Dupree, who became the state's attorney a year ago, has asked the Kansas Bureau of Investigation to review his conduct. "If my office receives that information and there's probable cause to charge Mr. Golubski, it will happen," Dupree said. He agrees that McIntyre got a raw deal. "He did. And the only thing we can do is push forward," he said. www.cbsnews.com | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
Some blacks today are still, due to authoritarian State oppression based on nothing but racism of the people representing the State (at various levels -- cops, judges, et al), at the socioeconomic level of slaves just being released from centuries of oppression. It's absurd to think of this as reality in 2018. I guess complaining about the way the Dove commercial is received is perceived by you as 'getting in the way'? I'm certainly not opposed to blocking the potential daily nationwide broadcasting of that commercial, I'm just saying we can listen to the explanation and the views of the artists and the people involved and not think of them as "insensitive racist pricks", but rather have an open discussion about different perceptions. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On June 02 2018 23:11 sc-darkness wrote: So you're part of the problem then. To summarise what PC people like you think: 1. Black woman -> white woman is racist. 2. White woman -> black woman isn't racist. If you're going to treat it that way, then that's RACIST in my opinion. If you can order it any way you want, that's fair and it's not racist in my opinion. In other words, if you only prefer one of the 2 options, you're racist. If you're fine with both, then you're not. It doesn't work like that because reality is not symmetrical... No one ever suggested that white people had to turn into black people to be clean and gain value, while the reverse happened. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4985 Posts
Let me ask this: is it ok for a director (or w/e) to use skin color as a symbolic way to represent class/intelligence/personality/whatever creative thing you can think of in which the most contrasting colors can be used? And this would be disregarding current historical trends ofc... So people from African or Caucasian descent have the same chance of being represented as one or the other in the dichotomy -and then suddenly Asians pop up as the supreme overlords all along- Or is there too much baggage to ever overcome things becoming heated? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On June 02 2018 23:15 a_flayer wrote: It's like being released from slavery with nothing to your name. You think it's fair to say that your perspective on the dove commercial is necessarily mired in gross ignorance? | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On June 02 2018 23:38 a_flayer wrote: I edited my post while you posted that. I don't know what you think my perspective on the Dove commercial is. I feel I have quite an all-encompassing perspective... I can see how it can be perceived as racist in various ways. From the literal white-washing to the figurative white-washing. It's also a commercial about soap where you see these kind of flowey color-changes more often, and I think they were just desperate to be multicultural but got the order of the people's color wrong. Do you understand why that's still racist and how it's connected to the story I posted or the endless stream of stories like it? How the dismissal of the obliviousness demonstrated in the Dove commercial is part and parcel of how those stories are allowed to continue? | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
Cause as I said before, I get the relationship between the subconscious racist message it sends out into American culture and the continued culture of racism amongst law enforcement. And the idea, for an example more closely related to soap, that black women should straighten their hair if they want to work in an office. It's repulsive that black teenage girls think like that because of this sort of thing. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On June 02 2018 22:59 a_flayer wrote: Replace the black man with me and it sound like a potentially good time to me. But I'm a bit of a masochist. What I'm trying to get at is that I think the most important thing is the opinion of the people involved in the act. Same thing with the Dove commercial: what were the actors/producers/editors/etc thinking? And I don't mean that in an attacking kind of way, just genuinely their intent and feelings regarding the matter are the most important thing. If the black man in chains knows what is happening and is happy about his role/position, then it's fine. I know the discussion's moved on a bit, but this is the perfect post for the reply I'm going to make. The opinion of the people involved in the act is actually the least important thing. This is why many people get confused on these matters, and either start assuming over-reach, or flat out don't understand the problem. You must be familiar with the idea of authorial intention. You must likewise be aware of accidental interpretations. As a writer and editor (though alas not yet an author), this is something I have to be aware of all the time, and really you still can't avoid it. The problem is that combining words together or putting images together in certain ways means things. The meanings evoked by art - and commercials are a visual art form - have meaning external to the creators and the art itself. That's how someone can be the most PC, most left wing, most unracist person on planet earth but still accidentally create a story/commercial/movie/whatever that has an unintentionally, deeply problematic and/or racist message. The intention doesn't actually matter. Now it does matter when it comes to whether to pillory the creator. If Gail Simone, for a comic book example, accidentally writes a female character in a really stereotypical, sexist manner, it doesn't matter that she's a deeply feminist writer dedicated to improving the state of women in comics. She still produced something that's sexist and/or offensive. It does mean you can assume she did it accidentally, and maybe even had another idea in mind for how it would be received, but that doesn't affect the final product. On the other hand, if Frank Millar produces something that has a racist overtone, he gets no good grace, and is rightfully called out for being racist, because he's expressed racist views and clearly done it deliberately in his comics for several years now. Stephanie Meyer 100% intended Twilight to be a deeply romantic story, and didn't intend for it to be widely interpreted as one of the most sexist works of 'romance' produced in the last 50 years. Her opinion is irrelevant. She wrote what she wrote, and those words have a meaning outside what she intended when she wrote them. Of course, the flip side to all of this is that at times people erroneously judge the artist and not the art. But that is relatively rare. You certainly shouldn't be focused on what the author intended first or foremost. That's the last and least interesting part of the textual analysis. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
Of course, the flip side to all of this is that at times people erroneously judge the artist and not the art. But that is relatively rare. You certainly shouldn't be focused on what the author intended first or foremost. That's the last and least interesting part of the textual analysis. Except that's what I was basing my response on. Acrofales was judging people as pricks. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On June 03 2018 00:30 a_flayer wrote: Except that's what I was basing my response on. Acrofales was judging people as pricks. I know. I wasn't having a go at you. It was a general point to make that your post was perfect for. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8226 Posts
On June 02 2018 22:22 Gahlo wrote: Does the black woman use the soap a bit before the ad changes to the white woman? It's an add for a soap, with a "before / after" implication. It's definitively (albeit probably accidental) racist. The fact that a lot of people think it is pretty much automatically means that it is. The only true characteristic of whether something is racist or not is after all what people think of it. Scoffing it off with "Political correctness gone mad" isn't any different than walking up to a religious person, calling Jesus an asshole, and then whining about political correctness when he gets rightfully angry. Just because any one person isn't offended by a specific scenario doesn't make it not wrong. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On June 03 2018 02:05 Excludos wrote: It's an add for a soap, with a "before / after" implication. It's definitively (albeit probably accidental) racist. The fact that a lot of people think it is pretty much automatically means that it is. The only true characteristic of whether something is racist or not is after all what people think of it. Scoffing it off with "Political correctness gone mad" isn't any different than walking up to a religious person, calling Jesus an asshole, and then whining about political correctness when he gets rightfully angry. Just because any one person isn't offended by a specific scenario doesn't make it not wrong. So if a certain amount of people sincerely hold a conviction then they must be right? I think you should reconsider whether that is actually an argument you want to make. | ||
| ||
