Reneging means to go back on what one did before, so they are asking people to vote like they did last election. What a strange way to campaign for Obama.
That racist bumper sticker attacking President Obama with the n-word has disappeared from the web, but its sulfurous odor lingers on.
Forbes magazine reported this week that Paula Smith of Georgia, the seller of the bumper sticker — “Don’t Re-Nig 2012/Stop Repeat Offenders. Don’t Re-elect Obama!” — defended the offending word, saying it didn’t mean black, but only signified “a low down, lazy, sorry, low down person.” “That’s what the N-word means,” Smith insisted.
Yeah, right. Smith is clearly delusional, and it says everything about what she understands the word to mean that the bumper sticker is no longer available on her website. But we shouldn’t be surprised. For more than 40 years, elements of the GOP have leveraged racial fears and hate as part of the party's Southern strategy to win voters. Just within the past year, you could hear it in Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn's reference to President Obama as a "tar baby," a racially charged term from which he later back-pedaled, and in the speeches of candidates who call Obama “the food stamp president.”
there was another bumper sticker she did which had "the original guys( Or gang) in the Hood" with it being placed above a picture of KKK members in the full robes
Frazzled makes an interesting point actually... It's not a very nice thing to have on your car - but as soon as you see it, you can tell the driver is a douche and not someone you want to engage in conversation with...
Why? I like the signs that help self identify carzy/loser/donkey caves I want to avoid.
I'd bet good money the driver is male and always always speeds and rides your bumper - especially in the rain.
While I can see that would be useful, it is still sad and pathetic that in this day and age is all about the lowest common denominator; where ignorant entrenched mud slinging and bigotry are pretty much the only 'discourse'.
Why? I like the signs that help self identify carzy/loser/donkey caves I want to avoid.
I'd bet good money the driver is male and always always speeds and rides your bumper - especially in the rain.
While I can see that would be useful, it is still sad and pathetic that in this day and age is all about the lowest common denominator; where ignorant entrenched mud slinging and bigotry are pretty much the only 'discourse'.
Don't let the4 media fool you. In reality we aren't constantly set upon by racists, black panthers, have shootouts in the drive way, and pass by by riots of evil republicans rumbling with evil democrats 50's zoot suit riot style to go get the milk.
However, the whole stay off my lawn thing, well thats real.
I would LOVE to see some actual evidence that this is really "One of the hottest selling election related items ".
I seriously doubt it really is. In fact, I suspect that the guys who do have one are a small minority of crap bags, and the guys who try to portray these as being mega-popular and then use that to paint a negative/racist picture of any/all folks who may not like Obama are also a minority of crap bags, just on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
Prove this is "One of the hottest selling election related items ".
Read YOUR topic title.
I bet you can't prove either, yet you are willing to paint folks as racist and between the words in your OP and your topic title you sure as gak imply anyone who does not want to re-elect Pres Obama must be racist.
Frazzled wrote:Don't let the4 media fool you. In reality we aren't constantly set upon by racists, black panthers, have shootouts in the drive way, and pass by by riots of evil republicans rumbling with evil democrats 50's zoot suit riot style to go get the milk.
However, the whole stay off my lawn thing, well thats real.
Don't get me wrong, I know that the kinds of people who would have there kinds of displays are a subset of a small minnority; it just annoys me that so much of politics (especially in america from what I have seen) is at a similar kind of basement intelect level.
First, when I first read that, I laughed out loud. It's a dumb pun, and it's racially insensitive, but it's actually kind of funny (like a lot of racist jokes are.)
That said, isn't this just counterproductive? Is anybody going to see that and go, "holy cow, Obama's black? I should vote for Romney!"
Isn't it a lot more likely that this will just fuel the perception many people have that the GOP is still enmeshed with racism?
As Frazzled pointed out, seeing one of these will tell me pretty much all I'd care to know about a person.
The radical right are all idiots. They're yelling and screaming about things that are crazy, because those are the things they care about.
They actually think that pointing out Obama is black will make people agree with them, because that's enough to convince them. But, all they're actually doing is forcing moderates and less-extreme conservatives to move further left to clearly differentiate them. They aren't helping their cause, they're hurting it.
And, yes, there are plenty of people on the radical left doing the same thing.
Cptjake, you sure do wear your insecurities on your sleeve don't you?
This sticker is one example of a larger campaign: to paint Obama as ANYTHING that will get the wingnut vote:
1. Socialist
2. Illegal alien
3. Muslim ( "you got a funny name boy")
4. Conspirator to become dictator of America
5. And in case you missed it he is also a (inser racial slur here)
We have had other politicians call him the "food stamp president" ( obvious implication), one even called him a "tar baby". All of this is part o the public record for anyone that has been paying attention or can fathom how to use the Internet/google.
It is pretty clear that the above attacks have happened repeatedly and in numerous forms. This attitude is not isolated to a few people with a bumper sticker no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise...
CT GAMER wrote:Cptjake, you sure do wear your insecurities on your sleeve don't you?
This sticker is one example of a larger campaign: to paint Obama as ANYTHING that will get the wingnut vote:
1. Socialist 2. Illegal alien 3. Muslim ( "you got a funny name boy") 4. Conspirator to become dictator of America 5. And in case you missed it he is also a (inser racial slur here)
We have had other politicians call him the "food stamp president" ( obvious implication), one even called him a "tar baby". All of this is part o the public record for anyone that has been paying attention or can fathom how to use the Internet/google.
It is pretty clear that the above attacks have happened repeatedly and in numerous forms. This attitude is not isolated to a few people with a bumper sticker no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise...
So, I guess you cannot show that many people who are against Pres Obama's re-election are against him for racist reasons, nor can you show that the bumper sticker is one of the hottest selling items right now, which give a lot of credence to my statement in my first post on the topic. I am guessing you WANT to believe your opening post and topic title because it makes it easier for you to dismiss legitimate issues. Frankly in that respect it puts you in the same category as the folks who would buy and display the sticker.
So, as part of the public record, show me where your statement about the sticker being a hot seller is accurate.
Go ahead. I've asked multiple times. Either you can show it, or your whole premise starts to fall apart.
The point most folks make against Pres Obama tend to be based on the economy, handling of foreign policy, difference of vision when it comes to taxation. Those are not racist issues.
CT GAMER wrote:Cptjake, you sure do wear your insecurities on your sleeve don't you?
This sticker is one example of a larger campaign: to paint Obama as ANYTHING that will get the wingnut vote:
1. Socialist
2. Illegal alien
3. Muslim ( "you got a funny name boy")
4. Conspirator to become dictator of America
5. And in case you missed it he is also a (inser racial slur here)
We have had other politicians call him the "food stamp president" ( obvious implication), one even called him a "tar baby". All of this is part o the public record for anyone that has been paying attention or can fathom how to use the Internet/google.
It is pretty clear that the above attacks have happened repeatedly and in numerous forms. This attitude is not isolated to a few people with a bumper sticker no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise...
So, I guess you cannot show that many people who are against Pres Obama's re-election are against him for racist reasons, nor can you show that the bumper sticker is one of the hottest selling items right now, which give a lot of credence to my statement in my first post on the topic. I am guessing you WANT to believe your opening post and topic title because it makes it easier for you to dismiss legitimate issues. Frankly in that respect it puts you in the same category as the folks who would buy and display the sticker.
It also kind of flies in the face of 2008. If everyone who disagrees with him and doesn't want to re-elect him are racists, how do you explain them electing him in the first place?
Polonius wrote:
Isn't it a lot more likely that this will just fuel the perception many people have that the GOP is still enmeshed with racism?
That, and increase the likelihood that you'll be buying a new windshield, or repainting your car within the year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:Prove many.
Prove this is "One of the hottest selling election related items ".
Read YOUR topic title.
I bet you can't prove either, yet you are willing to paint folks as racist and between the words in your OP and your topic title you sure as gak imply anyone who does not want to re-elect Pres Obama must be racist.
Wait, what?
Are you really trying to claim that this isn't both racist, and election swag? I mean, I guess its not "swag" because you have to buy them (or could, the site was taken down), but still.
I disagree with painting all people who don't support Obama as racist, but you're not exactly helping matters.
I claim it is NOT "One of the hottest selling election related items" (which is what the OP alleges) and that folks have plenty of reasons, not race related at all, to not want Pres Obama to be re-elected.
Honestly I'm not sure how you were able to interpret my post the way you did.
CptJake wrote: I claim it is NOT "One of the hottest selling election related items" (which is what the OP alleges) and that folks have plenty of reasons, not race related at all, to not want Pres Obama to be re-elected.
Honestly I'm not sure how you were able to interpret my post the way you did.
CptJake wrote: I claim it is NOT "One of the hottest selling election related items" which is what the OP alleges).
So why aren't you posting your own sales figs to support it isn't?
Maybe if you show me yours I'll show you mine....
Oh right, because focusing on one line in an Internet thread is really just a smoke screen to avoid talking about the much larger and obvious issue of the general smear campaign against Obama that has played upon people's fear surrounding hot button isssues like illegals, Islam, race, etc.
Obama has plenty of things he can be questioned/ called to task on, claiming he is an "islamic illegal alien tarbaby" seems counterproductive to having one's concerns with the president taken seriously...
Sorry, some racist crap bag making up a bumpersticker does not say "America" to me.
My point was the OP used that topic title and his claim that these stickers are "One of the hottest selling election related items" to paint anyone not supporting Pres Obama as racist. And I think that is a gakky thing to do.
CptJake wrote:
Sorry, some racist crap bag making up a bumpersticker does not say "America" to me.
My point was the OP used that topic title and his claim that these stickers are "One of the hottest selling election related items" to paint anyone not supporting Pres Obama as racist. And I think that is a gakky thing to do.
And he has yet to back up his claims.
indeed, the OP has to prove his assertion, CJ does not have to disprove a negative or whatever the crappy logical term is.
CptJake wrote:
Sorry, some racist crap bag making up a bumpersticker does not say "America" to me.
My point was the OP used that topic title and his claim that these stickers are "One of the hottest selling election related items" to paint anyone not supporting Pres Obama as racist. And I think that is a gakky thing to do.
And he has yet to back up his claims.
I know your not new here.
It is tradition for dakkadakka political threads to be high on rhetoric and emotion and little else.
You just happen to not like it this time because your not onboard.
Don't worry one of the usual suspects will probably post a new" liberals/Obama/Gays/Arabs are the devil" threads before days end to balance it all out for you.
Frazzled wrote:
It also kind of flies in the face of 2008. If everyone who disagrees with him and doesn't want to re-elect him are racists, how do you explain them electing him in the first place?
Polonius wrote:Is anybody going to see that and go, "holy cow, Obama's black? I should vote for Romney!"
Yes.
In' 2012?
Do you really think that?
I'm not saying that people didn't decide in 2008 that while they agreed with his policies, he was black, and thus not worth the vote.
But it's got to be a small number of people that would change their mind about racism.
Lots of people are going to change their minds about Obama for lots of reasons, both good and bad. There's plenty of racial undertones to the opposition to Obama, but I just don't see it being useful in changing any individual minds.
Though I could see it somehow motivating apolitical racsists to get out to vote, I suppose.
I think that some latent racists might see a bumper sticker like that and feel emboldened, feel that the racism they previously did not act on because of inward shame is now actionable. No, I don't think it would convince someone who voted for Obama before not to vote for him now. But I do think it might help someone not vote for him (again or otherwise) who previously did not (conciously) take race into account in opposing him.
Polonius wrote:Is anybody going to see that and go, "holy cow, Obama's black? I should vote for Romney!"
Yes.
Only half, if you are THAT racist you can vote for the other half. It does bring up an interesting point...if your core values leave you prejudiced against black people what about Mormons? Conundrum.
Whichi s both sad and amusing considering as far as ethnic groups go they're a pretty strong and reliable voting block, only exceeded by the elderly I think.
Melissia wrote:Whichi s both sad and amusing considering as far as ethnic groups go they're a pretty strong and reliable voting block, only exceeded by the elderly I think.
Never underestimate the power of your opponent underestimating your power.
I think, though I could be wrong, the colloquial term is "mocha",
It's becoming more common amongst parents (at least in my experience) to believe that mixed race children are actually considered quite beautiful because they reach across racial divides. Then again, this could coincide with more people openly identifying as multiracial as well.
There's been plenty of interracial children born over the past few thousand years that effectively everyone is the world (except a few small isolated tribes in the Amazon or other complete remote places) is a mixture of all the different races. We only differ in how much Black/White/Hispanic/Asian/American Indian/Pacific Islander/etc we are.
I can only look forward to the day when the color of a person's skin is viewed as no more important than their eye color, hair color, height, or any other cosmetic difference between us. (I'd also throw sex in there, but that's another discussion.)
All we need is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction. Everybody just gotta keep f***in' everybody 'til they're all the same color.
-Warren Beatty - Bulworth
Grakmar wrote:When you get down to it, we're all multiracial.
There's been plenty of interracial children born over the past few thousand years that effectively everyone is the world (except a few small isolated tribes in the Amazon or other complete remote places) is a mixture of all the different races. We only differ in how much Black/White/Hispanic/Asian/American Indian/Pacific Islander/etc we are.
I can only look forward to the day when the color of a person's skin is viewed as no more important than their eye color, hair color, height, or any other cosmetic difference between us. (I'd also throw sex in there, but that's another discussion.)
I dunno man.
I like the sentiment, but the races have been pretty seperate since they've developed. We all share common ancestry, but I can assure you nobody was making the trip to my ancestor's dirt farms in poland and Ireland from polynesia to get a little.
Virtually all slave descendents in the US are multi-racial, as are nearly all hispanics.
But there are plenty of people whose bloodlines go exclusively to Europe or Asia and stay there for dozens of generations.
Yet recent scientific evidence suggests that the idea of race is a biological myth, as outdated as the widely held medieval belief that the sun revolved around the earth. Anthropologists, biologists and geneticists have increasingly found that, biologically speaking; there is no such thing as "race." Modern science is decoding the genetic puzzle of DNA and human variation - and finding that skin color really is only skin deep.
My wife is studying anthropology atm and she came home with something along these lines. I got in a big debate over it with her, but the more I think about it the more sense it seems to make. YMMV of course.
Grakmar wrote:When you get down to it, we're all multiracial.
There's been plenty of interracial children born over the past few thousand years that effectively everyone is the world (except a few small isolated tribes in the Amazon or other complete remote places) is a mixture of all the different races. We only differ in how much Black/White/Hispanic/Asian/American Indian/Pacific Islander/etc we are.
I can only look forward to the day when the color of a person's skin is viewed as no more important than their eye color, hair color, height, or any other cosmetic difference between us. (I'd also throw sex in there, but that's another discussion.)
I dunno man.
I like the sentiment, but the races have been pretty seperate since they've developed. We all share common ancestry, but I can assure you nobody was making the trip to my ancestor's dirt farms in poland and Ireland from polynesia to get a little.
Virtually all slave descendents in the US are multi-racial, as are nearly all hispanics.
But there are plenty of people whose bloodlines go exclusively to Europe or Asia and stay there for dozens of generations.
Not directly. But, someone traveled to your ancestor's dirt farm from the neighboring village. And, one of his ancestors traveled there from the neighboring city. And, one of his ancestors got it on with someone visiting from Russia. And, one of his ancestors got pregnant from a trader on the silk road. And, that guy's ancestors were displaced from Malaysia years before. And, one of that guys ancestors met a nice boy who survived his fishing boat being swept up in a storm from Polynesia.
Fair enough, but as Manchu points out, there is not real biological definition of race.
If a person has pale white skin, green eyes, red hair, and freckles, she's white.
That race is impossible to precisely define is trivially true.
I mean, many hispanics consider themselves a seperate race from whites, blacks, and native americans. Are they? Are they all mult-racial? Except the white ones, of course.
I think Race is more subjective than we think. Jews were cosnidered a seperate race until recently, as were the Irish. The idea of a "white people" is actually very recent. And still inconsistent, as we rarely consider fully europeaon Argentineans to be white.
Manchu wrote:There is clearly such a thing as race. Whether it has anything to do with biology is a separate matter.
If not biology then what? It is simply a matter of opinion. Which makes it a fallacious argument. You could say "culture" instead of race, but you'd still use cosmetic differences as the definining element. "Black Culture" "White Culture" "Hispanic Culture" But what happens when a black child is raised in a white culture? He remains under the label of "black." I happen to be a white man who was adopted by a black family. You might say I had just as much experience in the "black culture," yet I don't identify myself as black.
So yes the concept of race exists, but only because we make it so. In actuality there are no seperate "races" as we use the term to define other species. For humans the term race is simply a broken generalization, and ignorant concept.
streamdragon wrote:Really the issue is that people like to equate "race" with "ethnicity".
Not really. I think the concept of race arose primarily when it became clear that there were groups of people that shared more in terms of skin tone, religion, and culture with each other than with other groups.
A Dutch sailor in Nagaski in 1650 had to realize that he had far more in common in terms of culture, language, rligion, and appearance with an Italian or Englshman than with a Japanese person.
They'er loose groups, but not totally without merit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lint wrote:So yes the concept of race exists, but only because we make it so. In actuality there are no seperate "races" as we use the term to define other species. For humans the term race is simply a broken generalization, and ignorant concept.
Since I'm a human, the classifications humans use for humans has relevance to me.
Manchu wrote:Why would you consider "science" more relevant than "culture"?
My sarcasm radar seems to be broken so I'll just answer the question.
Simply put: Science is generally based upon facts and ineffable truths. Culture is a concept generally based on opinion, which is certainly relevant in some regards but not when it comes to defining race, which has a completely different definition when speaking about any species other than our own. What I'm saying is when humans use race in relation to humanity it is a bastardized use of the word, and misleading.
To better explain how I define culture as an opinion I again offer the example of my own childhood. To say that I was raised in a black culture is offensive to me, and I don't choose to define my culture according the skin color of my family. Even if I were it wouldn't make sense because I am not a black person. In my opinion the culture has nothing to do with how we define race.
Manchu wrote:Why would you consider "science" more relevant than "culture"?
My sarcasm radar seems to be broken so I'll just answer the question.
Simply put: Science is generally based upon facts and ineffable truths. Culture is a concept generally based on opinion, which is certainly relevant in some regards but not when it comes to defining race, which has a completely different definition when speaking about any species other than our own. What I'm saying is when humans use race in relation to humanity it is a bastardized use of the word, and misleading.
To better explain how I define culture as an opinion I again offer the example of my own childhood. To say that I was raised in a black culture is offensive to me, and I don't choose to define my culture according the skin color of my family. Even if I were it wouldn't make sense because I am not a black person. In my opinion the culture has nothing to do with how we define race.
It sounds like you're obsessing over the use of the word race, which admittedly does have a biological definition. Of course, lots of words have both vernacular and technical definitions. I don't increase the potential energy of a lot of mass, yet I still say I do a lot of work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Also, culture is not an opinion.
Culture is no more an opinion than a flood is a cloud.
Floods are caused by rain, which are caused by many clouds releasing rain. In much the same way, millions of opinions and tastes combine to form culture.
Polonius wrote: It sounds like you're obsessing over the use of the word race, which admittedly does have a biological definition. Of course, lots of words have both vernacular and technical definitions. I don't increase the potential energy of a lot of mass, yet I still say I do a lot of work.
You're mostly right, and I'm being too wordy in my posts.
I just find it misleading to use the word race when it should be culture. And I find it offensive to identify culture by skin color.
I'm getting the feeling Lint is of the idea that if there's not a hard and fast rule, there is no rule.
I kind of like this, I might have to toss it around a bit in the old gulliver..
Yeah. Race isn't culture, because, well, culture is culture.
as a general rule, most cultures in the same race will have more in common with each other than with other cultures. Or did before industrialization.
Things are also more complicated in the US, because black americans are denied an ethnicicty, as so much of their ancestry and culture was lost during slavery.
Manchu wrote:There is clearly such a thing as race. Whether it has anything to do with biology is a separate matter.
Manchu wrote:Why would you consider "science" more relevant than "culture"?
Manchu wrote:
Polonius wrote:I think he's saying that culture, not science, defines race.
Spot on.
Manchu wrote:Race is not the same thing as culture.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your position. I thought you were saying culture is race, but then you said it isn't.
Manchu wrote:
Polonius wrote:I think he's saying that culture, not science, defines race.
Spot on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lint wrote:
Manchu wrote:Race is not the same thing as culture.
Correct. And it has been/is being proven that seperate races do not exist in humanity.
And we're back to square one.
There is no discernible genetic difference between the races. Of course, there isn't a genetic difference between a polar bear and a grizzly bear either, so I'm not as impressed by genetic homogeniety as most. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#cite_note-18
Polonius wrote:I think he's saying that culture, not science, defines race.
Spot on.
But, that seems to directly contradict his statement that a person's culture is not their race.
Every culture defines race in different ways. Meaning, Victorian England defined race differently from aparthied south africa, Modern Mexico, or the late 19th century California.
Cultures define what race means.
I can see that it can be misread that a perosn's culture defines their race, but that's not what we're saying.
I'm sure most Americans know that if porn-man or Romney or w/e gets in, they'll just be in a worst state then if Obama is to be elected for a second term. To be quite honest, he really saved your guy's behinds. If Mcain got in... well jesus, I'm just not going to go there.
McCain would've been far from terrible. And he'd have the same opposition from the current Congress, TBH. It's amazing how severely the political rhetoric has shifted since even that election.
Poppabear wrote:I'm sure most Americans know that if porn-man or Romney or w/e gets in, they'll just be in a worst state then if Obama is to be elected for a second term. To be quite honest, he really saved your guy's behinds. If Mcain got in... well jesus, I'm just not going to go there.
Saved our behinds from what, exactly?
Perhaps you shouldn't have gone there at all, then.
There is no discernible genetic difference between the races.
LOL. Then how do you define "race?" Is it just a loosey goosey word that can mean many different things depending on what culture you are? I prefer to define it the same way that scientists and anthropologists do, that is to say simply: substantial genetic differences. Of which there are none between the different cultures of humanity.
edit: should probably give this thread back to the OP, perhaps we can continue the debate in it's own thread later...
Lint wrote:
LOL. Then how do you define "race?" Is it just a loosey goosey word that can mean many different things depending on what culture you are?
Yes.
I prefer to define it the same way that scientists and anthropologists do, that is to say simply: substantial genetic differences. Of which there are none between the different cultures of humanity.
"substantial differences" is, itself, a pretty loosey goosey concecpt. As is species.
When you're looking for genetic races, and dont' find them, you stop caring. But.. if you're looking at cultures, you see them defining themselves racially, especially in the last few hundred years.
Polonius wrote:Every culture defines race in different ways. Meaning, Victorian England defined race differently from aparthied south africa, Modern Mexico, or the late 19th century California.
Cultures define what race means.
I can see that it can be misread that a perosn's culture defines their race, but that's not what we're saying.
Rather, race is a cultural construct.
Ah, okay. I get what you're both saying. Thanks for clearing that up.
I find the bumper sticker situation humorous. I imagine it was meant to get a rise out of people, regardless of if the wielder is a racist or not. After skimming the past 3 pages I think it's safe to say it accomplished what it set out to do and then some.
Don't understand why people can't look at it and simply not care.
I think we're arguing semantics here, which is probably a waste of time on the interwebz. Good debate though, I won't say I didn't learn anything and won't remember a lot of this the next time I talk about this topic.
Because certain people apparently like to believe that is impossible to vote against Obama for political reasons. If you voted or vote against him in the upcoming election you are racist.
I find it funny how some conservative blacks voted for Obama simply because he is partially black. Fething Cosby.
CptJake wrote:So, I guess you cannot show that many people who are against Pres Obama's re-election are against him for racist reasons, nor can you show that the bumper sticker is one of the hottest selling items right now, which give a lot of credence to my statement in my first post on the topic. I am guessing you WANT to believe your opening post and topic title because it makes it easier for you to dismiss legitimate issues.
No, you want to pretend people are saying the only reason people oppose Obama is racism, because that's obviously wrong and therefore easy to dismiss. And this allows you to ignore the plain and obvious fact that there is an undercurrent of racism in the Republican party, in addition to a heavy dose of just plain flying rodent gak crazy paranoia, and that the party plays on this, and has done since they first decided on the Southern Strategy.
CptJake wrote:So, as part of the public record, show me where your statement about the sticker being a hot seller is accurate.
And now you're making a big deal over one hyperbolic claim about sales numbers, so you can ignore the issue of racism within the Republican Party.
"I mean seriously, who cares if a major political party plays racebaiting games, when someone on the internet claimed a product was selling well without having access to the sales figures?"
CptJake wrote:So, as part of the public record, show me where your statement about the sticker being a hot seller is accurate.
And now you're making a big deal over one hyperbolic claim about sales numbers, so you can ignore the issue of racism within the Republican Party.
"I mean seriously, who cares if a major political party plays racebaiting games, when someone on the internet claimed a product was selling well without having access to the sales figures?"
I am going to go back and remove that line so that cptjake can hopefully get his blood pressure back to normal levels.
Polonius wrote:Lots of people are going to change their minds about Obama for lots of reasons, both good and bad. There's plenty of racial undertones to the opposition to Obama, but I just don't see it being useful in changing any individual minds.
Though I could see it somehow motivating apolitical racsists to get out to vote, I suppose.
I think the big thing that seperates skillful politicians and their staff from yokels who make their own bumper stickers is the ability to play on underlying motivations in a subtle way, as opposed to just shouting about the obvious thing that you're not really supposed to admit.
So the thing about Obama being the foodstamp president likely worked on some level with some people, despite not really meaning anything coherent, because ultimately he's black and to a lot of people that means scrounging food stamps off of government. Reagan's welfare queens is probably the classic example, and that one worked so well because it probably worked on people who wouldn't even consider themselves racist.
I guess what I'm saying is that the bumper sticker in the OP isn't going to work, but that campaigns playing on racism and other bigotry do, when they're put together well.
I guess what I'm saying is that the bumper sticker in the OP isn't going to work, but that campaigns playing on racism and other bigotry do, when they're put together well.
Not to mention it is the cumulative effect of one campaign after another.
If you hear things said enough times and from enough sources you just might start to think it must be true.
Polonius wrote:it's a stirring of the pot, but I'm not sure it's good strategy.
It's been a strategy that has delivered. I mean here's an election shift in just 8 years, in 1956 Eisenhower dominated as a Republican everywhere but in the South,
to 1964 when Johnson dominated everywhere but in the South;
We all know what happened to cause that change.
But I think it's a strategy with a pretty definite time limit. Every year the old generation of racist voters is a little fewer, and younger generations of white voters just don't have the same racist beliefs. And at the same time every election the proportion of voters who are black or hispanic and are offput by the racebaiting is a little larger. We all know that black voters return about 90% for the Democrats, and I think we all know that's due to the racebaiting the Republicans play on every election. And then you look at the Hispanic vote getting bigger every year, and in general beliefs they're reasonably close to Republican core values, but the racebaiting is costing Republicans votes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Whichi s both sad and amusing considering as far as ethnic groups go they're a pretty strong and reliable voting block, only exceeded by the elderly I think.
No, while they're relevant because they vote overwhelmingly Democratic, their actual turnout is really woeful. They were a significant factor in 2008 for Obama, but not because the percentage of black people voting for Obama changed much (it was in the mid 90s but it was in the mid 90s for Kerry, Gore, Clinton and so on as well), but because the turnout of black people went up significantly.
It's commonly held that if Democrats could get turnout rates anything like Republicans get out of the elderly, then the Republicans wouldn't ever win a presidential election again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:When you get down to it, we're all multiracial.
There's been plenty of interracial children born over the past few thousand years that effectively everyone is the world (except a few small isolated tribes in the Amazon or other complete remote places) is a mixture of all the different races. We only differ in how much Black/White/Hispanic/Asian/American Indian/Pacific Islander/etc we are.
More to the point, ultimately there's no clear differentiation between the races. There is no specific set of genetic markers that makes a person white, or black or anything else. We kind of think it's to do with skin colour, but then you notice people who are regarded as black who's skin is much lighter than, say, people from Spain or Southern Italy.
So then we start adding other factors, nose, should breadth, and so on, but then we notice more and more discrepancies. Ultimately it becomes obvious race is just a social construct, that relfects economics and history far more than it reflects genetics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote:Horribly under rated movie, that.
Had strengths and weaknesses, but among those strengths was one of the best things ever written about politics;
Angry black woman: Are you sayin' the Democratic Party don't care about the African-American community?
Bullworth: Isn't that OBVIOUS? You got half your kids are out of work and the other half are in jail. Do you see ANY Democrat doing anything about it? Certainly not me! So what're you gonna do, vote Republican? Come on! Come on, you're not gonna vote Republican! Let's call a spade a spade! I mean - come on! You can have a Billion Man March! If you don't put down that malt liquor and chicken wings, and get behind someone other than a running back who stabs his wife, you're NEVER gonna get rid of somebody like me!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:I dunno man.
I like the sentiment, but the races have been pretty seperate since they've developed. We all share common ancestry, but I can assure you nobody was making the trip to my ancestor's dirt farms in poland and Ireland from polynesia to get a little.
More to the point though, up to 50 years ago those Polish people were considered their own race, just as much as black people are now thought of differently compared to white people. You can find stuff from the 50s where people talk about the Irish being different to white people. Race is just a thing we made up because what actually makes different societies function differently is way too damn complicated for most people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Not really. I think the concept of race arose primarily when it became clear that there were groups of people that shared more in terms of skin tone, religion, and culture with each other than with other groups.
A Dutch sailor in Nagaski in 1650 had to realize that he had far more in common in terms of culture, language, rligion, and appearance with an Italian or Englshman than with a Japanese person.
They'er loose groups, but not totally without merit.
Except that a Dutch sailor saw as many differences between himself and an Englishman as he did with anyone he met in an African colony. Most of what we now understand as race came out of what was called at the time racialist thought, which was basically an effort to reconcile the increasing power of Europe, and Europe's colonisation of the rest of the world. Before then you'd see people talk about how the people of other nations were different or horrible in one way or another, but not in terms of them being inferior.
It's only when Europe was in a position to colonise other nations and in some cases make slaves of the people there that you start getting this racial notion of a superior, white ancestry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lint wrote:Simply put: Science is generally based upon facts and ineffable truths. Culture is a concept generally based on opinion, which is certainly relevant in some regards but not when it comes to defining race, which has a completely different definition when speaking about any species other than our own. What I'm saying is when humans use race in relation to humanity it is a bastardized use of the word, and misleading.
Which is why people describing the phenomenom have come to use ethnicity instead of race.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Necroshea wrote:I find the bumper sticker situation humorous. I imagine it was meant to get a rise out of people, regardless of if the wielder is a racist or not. After skimming the past 3 pages I think it's safe to say it accomplished what it set out to do and then some.
Don't understand why people can't look at it and simply not care.
Because the impact of racial bigotry has a real and measurable impact in society.
One of the best things about priviledge is that all this stuff seems so funny, because it's only something other people suffer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:Not to mention it is the cumulative effect of one campaign after another.
If you hear things said enough times and from enough sources you just might start to think it must be true.
Especially if you're inclined to believe this kind of stuff in the first place.
And in case we still want to pretend that these sort of things are only perpetrated by a few random people with no status/influence, here is a gem that was sent out by an elected Republican official Marilyn Davenport that she circulated via email to her constituants and co-workers:
When asked if she thought the email was appropriate, Davenport said, "Oh, come on! Everybody who knows me knows that I am not a racist. I have friends who are black. Besides, I only sent it to a few people--mostly people I didn't think would be upset by it."
This is the second time in recent years that an Orange County political official has been in the news for Obama-themed emails.
In early 2009, Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose forwarded an email to a group of people depicting a picture of the White House with a watermelon patch as its garden. Grose later resigned amid the backlash.
So are you pretending that a website suggesting Bush looks like a chimp has the exact same connotation as saying a black person is a monkey?
I would assume your smart enough to not believe that.
Also I'm not sure if you can find a single one of these racist Obama atacks that originated from the mind of a black individual.
Yet Bush was made fun of by white people regularly. Point being his race was hardle ever if never the issue or point of attack...
All of the things I have sited and (and many of the others not posed) have originated from white individuals obsessd with his race/ethnicity/birthplace.
The main line of attack towards Bush Jr. was always to suggest that he was dumb, a simpleton, a goober, etc..
He always had a very animated face and people used to take still pics of him like those you featured and poke fun at his expressions as a way to mock him.
It had nothing to do with race and you know that.
Suggesting that blacks are monkeys/apes (ie. savage animals) is an insidious a tradtition dating back hundreds of years and is a common racial slur/attack made against them.
If bush can be made fun of for looking like a chimp, then so can Obama. Equal rights, bro. It works for us whites too. Just because he is dark skinned doesn't make him immune to casual election banter and political satire.
Polonius wrote:it's a stirring of the pot, but I'm not sure it's good strategy.
It's been a strategy that has delivered. I mean here's an election shift in just 8 years, in 1956 Eisenhower dominated as a Republican everywhere but in the South,
to 1964 when Johnson dominated everywhere but in the South;
We all know what happened to cause that change.
LBJ signing the same Civil Rights Act he blocked Ike from pushing through.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:If bush can be made fun of for looking like a chimp, then so can Obama. Equal rights, bro. It works for us whites too. Just because he is dark skinned doesn't make him immune to casual election banter and political satire.
No, bro. Just no. Not being from America I suspect it's harder to understand.
And if he's such a horrid President, why would someone need to go racist? Why not stick to the record?
So are you pretending that a website suggesting Bush looks like a chimp has the exact same connotation as saying a black person is a monkey?
I would assume your smart enough to not believe that.
Also I'm not sure if you can find a single one of these racist Obama atacks that originated from the mind of a black individual.
Yet Bush was made fun of by white people regularly. Point being his race was hardle ever if never the issue or point of attack...
All of the things I have sited and (and many of the others not posed) have originated from white individuals obsessd with his race/ethnicity/birthplace.
The main line of attack towards Bush Jr. was always to suggest that he was dumb, a simpleton, a goober, etc..
He always had a very animated face and people used to take still pics of him like those you featured and poke fun at his expressions as a way to mock him.
It had nothing to do with race and you know that.
Suggesting that blacks are monkeys/apes (ie. savage animals) is an insidious a tradtition dating back hundreds of years and is a common racial slur/attack made against them.
Nice try...
Don't even try to pretend it's not the same thing, CT. If those Bush pictures had Obama's face instead, you'd be all over it like flies on crap.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:If bush can be made fun of for looking like a chimp, then so can Obama. Equal rights, bro. It works for us whites too. Just because he is dark skinned doesn't make him immune to casual election banter and political satire.
No, bro. Just no. Not being from America I suspect it's harder to understand.
And if he's such a horrid President, why would someone need to go racist? Why not stick to the record?
Um... if Bush can be made to look like a chimp, so can Obama. Just because you are saying that it is racist doesn't make it so. The other such things, like the bumper sticker on the first page, are in fact racist, and are unneccesary.
Relapse wrote:
Don't even try to pretend it's not the same thing, CT. If those Bush pictures had Obama's face instead, you'd be all over it like flies on crap.
Considering the historical use of the word "monkey" in relation African Americans, no, it isn't the same thing. Context is important where language and symbolism are involved.
For example, the "re-nig" bumper sticker would have simply been considered an unfortunate spelling error if the subject of it had been white.
Relapse wrote:
Don't even try to pretend it's not the same thing, CT. If those Bush pictures had Obama's face instead, you'd be all over it like flies on crap.
Considering the historical use of the word "monkey" in relation African Americans, no, it isn't the same thing. Context is important where language and symbolism are involved.
For example, the "re-nig" bumper sticker would have simply been considered an unfortunate spelling error if the subject of it had been white.
So what your saying is that it's ok for someone to call a white man an arsehole, but to call a black man an arsehole is racist?
Relapse wrote:
Don't even try to pretend it's not the same thing, CT. If those Bush pictures had Obama's face instead, you'd be all over it like flies on crap.
Considering the historical use of the word "monkey" in relation African Americans, no, it isn't the same thing. Context is important where language and symbolism are involved.
For example, the "re-nig" bumper sticker would have simply been considered an unfortunate spelling error if the subject of it had been white.
There are clearly two schools of thought here. I, and apparently others, think it's silly to take offense at one politician being charicatured over another. There are more than a few politicians that have had their backgrounds, ie. southern=brainless redkneck, religious=fanatic, ridiculed to be offended over the fact that Obama had Bush style pictures made of him.
Relapse wrote:
Don't even try to pretend it's not the same thing, CT. If those Bush pictures had Obama's face instead, you'd be all over it like flies on crap.
Considering the historical use of the word "monkey" in relation African Americans, no, it isn't the same thing. Context is important where language and symbolism are involved.
For example, the "re-nig" bumper sticker would have simply been considered an unfortunate spelling error if the subject of it had been white.
So what your saying is that it's ok for someone to call a white man an arsehole, but to call a black man an arsehole is racist?
No, That wouldn't be racist.
Change donkey-cave to monkey, and we start having a problem.
Basicly what dogma said.
Relapse wrote:
Don't even try to pretend it's not the same thing, CT. If those Bush pictures had Obama's face instead, you'd be all over it like flies on crap.
Considering the historical use of the word "monkey" in relation African Americans, no, it isn't the same thing. Context is important where language and symbolism are involved.
For example, the "re-nig" bumper sticker would have simply been considered an unfortunate spelling error if the subject of it had been white.
So what your saying is that it's ok for someone to call a white man an arsehole, but to call a black man an arsehole is racist?
No, That wouldn't be racist.
Change donkey-cave to monkey, and we start having a problem.
Basicly what dogma said.
So if two high school kids are goofing around in class one day, one is black, one is white, and the teacher says "Stop Monkeying around!" to both of them, it's racist just because he's black?
Relapse wrote:
Don't even try to pretend it's not the same thing, CT. If those Bush pictures had Obama's face instead, you'd be all over it like flies on crap.
Considering the historical use of the word "monkey" in relation African Americans, no, it isn't the same thing. Context is important where language and symbolism are involved.
For example, the "re-nig" bumper sticker would have simply been considered an unfortunate spelling error if the subject of it had been white.
So what your saying is that it's ok for someone to call a white man an arsehole, but to call a black man an arsehole is racist?
No? I'm not even sure how you got there.
The word "monkey" has a storied history as a racial epithet, so using it in a manner where it could easily interpreted as a racial epithet fundamentally changes the meaning of the word even in the absence of that specific intent. It is, on its face, a stupid thing to do, or allude to, simply because it can (and probably will) be interpreted that way.
I know this may shock some of you, but insults and epithets actually have meanings beyond just "I am insulting you!"
Relapse wrote:
Don't even try to pretend it's not the same thing, CT. If those Bush pictures had Obama's face instead, you'd be all over it like flies on crap.
Considering the historical use of the word "monkey" in relation African Americans, no, it isn't the same thing. Context is important where language and symbolism are involved.
For example, the "re-nig" bumper sticker would have simply been considered an unfortunate spelling error if the subject of it had been white.
So what your saying is that it's ok for someone to call a white man an arsehole, but to call a black man an arsehole is racist?
No, That wouldn't be racist.
Change donkey-cave to monkey, and we start having a problem.
Basicly what dogma said.
So if two high school kids are goofing around in class one day, one is black, one is white, and the teacher says "Stop Monkeying around!" to both of them, it's racist just because he's black?
Can't believe I have to spell this out for you.
No, the teacher is describing a behavior, not a personal characteristic of the student.
Are you really trying hard not to see the difference?
Slarg232 wrote:
So if two high school kids are goofing around in class one day, one is black, one is white, and the teacher says "Stop Monkeying around!" to both of them, it's racist just because he's black?
Different context. The teacher didn't call either one a monkey, and "monkeying around" doesn't have a storied history of widespread use as a racial epithet.
Relapse wrote:
Don't even try to pretend it's not the same thing, CT. If those Bush pictures had Obama's face instead, you'd be all over it like flies on crap.
Considering the historical use of the word "monkey" in relation African Americans, no, it isn't the same thing. Context is important where language and symbolism are involved.
For example, the "re-nig" bumper sticker would have simply been considered an unfortunate spelling error if the subject of it had been white.
So what your saying is that it's ok for someone to call a white man an arsehole, but to call a black man an arsehole is racist?
No? I'm not even sure how you got there.
The word "monkey" has a storied history as a racial epithet, so using it in a manner where it could easily interpreted as a racial epithet fundamentally changes the meaning of the word even in the absence of that specific intent. It is, on its face, a stupid thing to do, or allude to, simply because it can (and probably will) be interpreted that way.
I know this may shock some of you, but insults and epithets actually have meanings beyond just "I am insulting you!"
I have never heard of Monkey being an insult against black people. Seriously, all I am seeing here is "Bush is a monkey, haha, OBAMA IS A MONKEY, OMG THAT'S RACIST!" I distinctly remember Obama running his campain on "I don't want my race to be a factor", but people come out of the woodwork to say if someone is racist for disagreeing/insulting him.
alarmingrick wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Don't even try to pretend it's not the same thing, CT. If those Bush pictures had Obama's face instead, you'd be all over it like flies on crap.
Considering the historical use of the word "monkey" in relation African Americans, no, it isn't the same thing. Context is important where language and symbolism are involved.
For example, the "re-nig" bumper sticker would have simply been considered an unfortunate spelling error if the subject of it had been white.
So what your saying is that it's ok for someone to call a white man an arsehole, but to call a black man an arsehole is racist?
No, That wouldn't be racist.
Change donkey-cave to monkey, and we start having a problem.
Basicly what dogma said.
So if two high school kids are goofing around in class one day, one is black, one is white, and the teacher says "Stop Monkeying around!" to both of them, it's racist just because he's black?
Can't believe I have to spell this out for you.
No, the teacher is describing a behavior, not a personal characteristic of the student.
Are you really trying hard not to see the difference?
So there is no possible way that someone didn't see Bush made out as a monkey, said "ha, that's funny", and made Obama out as a monkey? There is NO way that whomever is describing Obama's behavior, and not his skin color?
Because I have to tell you guys, I have never heard of monkey as a racial slur.
I think this is one of those agree to disagree moments. I have a pretty good respect for the intellegence of both you, Dogma and alarmingrick, but I don't think we'll be seeing this particular item from the same angle anytime soon.
Relapse wrote:
There are clearly two schools of thought here. I, and apparently others, think it's silly to take offense at one politician being charicatured over another. There are more than a few politicians that have had their backgrounds, ie. southern=brainless redkneck, religious=fanatic, ridiculed to be offended over the fact that Obama had Bush style pictures made of him.
Sure, but the point I'm making is that its not just about caricature in general, but what a given caricature is emphasizing and how its emphasizing it. And, really, I don't care either way and am not at all offended. I just don't understand how educated adults can't seem to grasp the significance of the distinction between comparing a black man to a monkey, and doing the same to a white man.
Comparing Obama to a monkey isn't going to go over well because it hints at his race even if the comparing person didn't intend that. And, honestly, I have difficulty believing that anyone would be ignorant of the fact that it could be viewed that way; it isn't like "monkey" is an unknown racial epithet.
More practically, if its commonly though that Republicans tend to be racist, then its probably not a good idea to do things that can be interpreted as being racist if you want people to stop thinking you're racist.
Slarg232 wrote:
So if two high school kids are goofing around in class one day, one is black, one is white, and the teacher says "Stop Monkeying around!" to both of them, it's racist just because he's black?
Different context. The teacher didn't call either one a monkey, and "monkeying around" doesn't have a storied history of widespread use as a racial epithet.
Suppose she did call both of them Monkeys, instead of saying "Monkeying around". "Your acting like a pair of monkeys". Still racist?
alarmingrick wrote:
DeadlySquirrel wrote:It isn't racist to call a spade a spade.
Bush looks like a chimp, so does Obama. Not because he's black, but because HE LOOKS LIKE A CHIMP.
Unless the spade is black.
Another wonderful choice of words.
Oh, so we can't even say the word Black when speaking about Obama now? "Call a Spade a Spade" is a very old saying that's been in use for generations.
It's like the people that continually use terms like "gay", "queer", and "[the tree letter word for cigarette]", specifically around homosexuals, just to attack them indirectly. Sure theyr'e using those words in a way that is intended to dodge the insulting definitions but that's still really just pedantic douchebaggery and homophobic attacks.
An indirect racist attack is still a racist attack.
Melissia wrote:It's like the people that continually use terms like "gay", "queer", and "[the tree letter word for cigarette]", specifically around homosexuals, just to attack them indirectly. Sure theyr'e using those words in a way that is intended to dodge the insulting definitions but that's still really just pedantic douchebaggery and homophobic attacks.
An indirect racist attack is still a racist attack.
"Gay" hasn't meant sexual orientation in widespread use for the past couple of years. Queer and [said word] are undisputed, though.
Slarg232 wrote:
Suppose she did call both of them Monkeys, instead of saying "Monkeying around". "Your acting like a pair of monkeys". Still racist?
Probably not, though the propensity for the black kid to take offense is pretty high. A comparison would be sitting in a room with a straight man, and a straight woman, then saying, in all seriousness, that they both have very attractive hind quarters. Their reactions will be different, because the context is different.
But, ultimately, that's not necessarily what's being done here. Some people made pictures comparing Bush to a monkey, I suspect entirely different people made the same claim about Obama. Maybe it was racially motivated, maybe not, either way it was stupid due to the racial component of that particular image comparison.
It doesn't have to be racially motivated, but not being aware of that meaning is just ignorant.
Slarg232 wrote:
Suppose she did call both of them Monkeys, instead of saying "Monkeying around". "Your acting like a pair of monkeys". Still racist?
Probably not, though the propensity for the black kid to take offense is pretty high.
But, ultimately, that's not necessarily what's being done here. Some people made pictures comparing Bush to a monkey, I suspect entirely different people made the same claim about Obama. Maybe it was racially motivated, maybe not, either way it was stupid due to the racial component of that particular image comparison.
It doesn't have to be racially motivated, but not being aware of that meaning is just ignorant.
So could we not come to the conclusion that people need to stop being offended by stupid, petty crap? I'm not saying racism was involved in making Obama a Monkey (If said word even is used as a racial slur.....), but I gaurantee that if you go looking for racism, your going to find it where there is none (Not saying you, specifically).
As I said earlier, Obama stated that he didn't want his race in the picture, and most people whom see a racist (I.E. all the pictures in this thread) will shy away from him. Obama just needs to avoid the Mud Slinging himself to get re-elected, unfortunately....
Oh damn, Mud is dark colored. If a spade is racist, Mud has to be.....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
If spade, never mind. Though I haven't heard that one used as a slur either.
No offense, but I've gotta ask: "What planet are you from?"
The one that doesn't make up stupid gak, and people grow a backbone and ignore/beat the son of a bitch whose being stupid with said gak.
Ahtman wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
dogma wrote: it isn't like "monkey" is an unknown racial epithet.
Not true. I have never heard of Monkey being a racist slur.
Being ignorant of a thing doesn't negate its existence, it just shows you don't know something.
True, but I have never heard Monkey used as a slur, and when we're talking about the internet/school kids, that's saying something.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:It shows how over sensitive our society has become, Ahtman.
Society isn't weakened by the fact that it has realized that racial insults have no place in public discourse, or the kind of thinking that drives it has any place anywhere. There is a reason why the KKK, Neo Nazis, Neo Black Panthers, and the like are marginalized.
Slarg232 wrote:
So could we not come to the conclusion that people need to stop being offended by stupid, petty crap? I'm not saying racism was involved in making Obama a Monkey (If said word even is used as a racial slur.....), but I gaurantee that if you go looking for racism, your going to find it where there is none (Not saying you, specifically).
Of course, and people will always be offended by petty nonsense. Lots of people get offended when anyone insinuates that America isn't Number 1 in everything, anywhere, ever.
Honestly, and maybe you aren't, but you seem offended right now; and the existence of contextual distinctions between races is a pretty silly thing to be offended by.
Slarg232 wrote:
The one that doesn't make up stupid gak, and people grow a backbone and ignore/beat the son of a bitch whose being stupid with said gak.
What's being made up? People have used "monkey" as a racial slur, and "spade" as well. Howard Cosell famously used the former on Monday Night Football.
I'm also not sure how ignoring someone implies having a backbone, it seems more like something that would imply not having one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:Then there's the politician that got into trouble for using the word "niggardly".
I remember when t his happened, there were comentaries talking about how racist this guy was.
Because sometimes people take a thing to far, or overreach, when an incident happens is no reason to pretend that they never happen.
"They called the president a [racial epithet]! WTF?!"
"So what? this one time a guy used the word niggardly and people got upset"
This is just one case of people being over sensitive and a double standard being applied.
Itcould be argued that his boss, the mayor of Washington, should have known the meaning of the word or at least given his aide some sort of a chance to explain the word before he let him be lynched.
I have never heard of Monkey being an insult against black people.
Your lack of knowledge and/or personal experience does not mean much other then that you are clueless in this instance.
I suppose you have never heard of the slur "Sambo" either?
It dates back to the 18th century, and it is believed the word came into English from the Latin American Spanish word "zambo" (monkey), which in turn may have come from one of three African language sources such as the Kongo word nzambu (monkey).
Many things exist beyond your personal knowledge or witnessing.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Anyone remember the South Park Christmas special where they ban everything Christmassy about Christmas?
People are too sensitive, and get offended too easily now. Like I said, they need to MTFU.
People should mellow out. Very good advice. It's just human nature, for some, more than others to be really quick to take offense, even where none was intended.
Relapse wrote:People should mellow out. Very good advice. It's just human nature, for some, more than others to be really quick to take offense, even where none was intended.
So there is nothing that should ever offend anyone ever at anytime? There also seems to be this perverse idea that there are no degrees to being offended either, when there are many different ways it can express itself. Our options aren't just absolute indefference and absolute outrage. I can be offended by something without it making a huge impact on my life or take up that much of my time.
I know I thought the picture of Bush as a chimp was offensive becuase it is stupid and insulting.
I know I thought the picture of Obama as a chimp was offensive becuase it is stupid and insulting and had the added context of racism due to the history of calling black people monkeys.
They are both offensive, one just adds the race angle.
Relapse wrote:People should mellow out. Very good advice. It's just human nature, for some, more than others to be really quick to take offense, even where none was intended.
So there is nothing that should ever offend anyone ever at anytime? There also seems to be this perverse idea that there are no degrees to being offended either, when there are many different ways it can express itself. Our options aren't just absolute indefference and absolute outrage. I can be offended by something without it making a huge impact on my life or take up that much of my time.
I know I thought the picture of Bush as a chimp was offensive becuase it is stupid and insulting.
I know I thought the picture of Obama as a chimp was offensive becuase it is stupid and insulting and had the added context of racism due to the history of calling black people monkeys.
They are both offensive, one just adds the race angle.
Not saying that a person shouldn't be outraged at some things, that's how positive change can take place. What I mean is the kind of scenario where it seems like someone is loaded for bear and looking for the slightest thing to get pissed at.
Relapse wrote:Not saying that a person shouldn't be outraged at some things, that's how positive change can take place. What I mean is the kind of scenario where it seems like someone is loaded for bear and looking for the slightest thing to get pissed at.
While in principle I agree, how do you determine that line? If it isn't offensive to you, others shouldn't be offended by it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Obama doesn't look like a chimp because he's black. he looks like a chimp because he looks like a chimp.
Only if you want it to, and only in the sense that all humans and primates share some physical characteristics.
That is exactly my point! It shouldn't be. If they're fat, then they're fat. It's a fact. Why should they get offended when people point out that they eat too many pies and don't exercise enough?
DeadlySquirrel wrote:That is exactly my point! It shouldn't be. If they're fat, then they're fat. It's a fact. Why should they get offended when people point out that they eat too many pies and don't exercise enough?
It isn't really about whether or not they should be offended, but that they probably will be offended.
Also, its generally frowned upon to call undue attention to personal flaws in a nonconstructive manner. For example, a doctor might tell you that you need to lose weight out of concern for your health, but some random donkey-cave calling you fat just wants to make you feel bad.
That's a good question. I'm thinking along the lines of little girls being heckled for being the first at an all white school or the ethnic cleansing in Kosavo as something anyone who cares about humanity should be outraged about.
On the other end of the scale, I've seen people get over the top uptight about an innocent misspelling of their name or the fact that someone upon first meeting them, and with no disrespect intended, uses the short version of their name.
There can be circumstances that justify someone losing it on what I call the lower end of the offence scale, but I can't see them popping up that often.
The problem is that most racists also think all the hateful things they say are true as well.
Thankfully anyone with some common sense and the ability to read/reason/ think objectively can figure out the absurdity of what they claim rather easily...
DeadlySquirrel wrote:That is exactly my point! It shouldn't be. If they're fat, then they're fat. It's a fact. Why should they get offended when people point out that they eat too many pies and don't exercise enough?
What if they have a medical condition and are accused of being an over eater?
I have never heard of Monkey being an insult against black people.
Your lack of knowledge and/or personal experience does not mean much other then that you are clueless in this instance.
I suppose you have never heard of the slur "Sambo" either?
It dates back to the 18th century, and it is believed the word came into English from the Latin American Spanish word "zambo" (monkey), which in turn may have come from one of three African language sources such as the Kongo word nzambu (monkey).
Many things exist beyond your personal knowledge or witnessing.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:That is exactly my point! It shouldn't be. If they're fat, then they're fat. It's a fact. Why should they get offended when people point out that they eat too many pies and don't exercise enough?
What if they have a medical condition and are accused of being an over eater?
Then rather than being offended, they should explain their condition.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:That is exactly my point! It shouldn't be. If they're fat, then they're fat. It's a fact. Why should they get offended when people point out that they eat too many pies and don't exercise enough?
What if they have a medical condition and are accused of being an over eater?
Then rather than being offended, they should explain their condition.
Why should they have to explain jack gak to you?
Why should you be judging them in the first place?
There's no point in continuing this conversation. If you are of an age where you can use a computer, but not understand basic social conduct, I have nothing I can tell you.
CT GAMER wrote:Slarg I wonder then why you are in a thread attempting to discuss something you keep admitting you know nothing about?
Maybe go read a book or two or practice using google?
It doesn't take reading a book to know what being offended is. If someone gets offended because they get called a Shamolaboopakis, is that any different than being offended by being called a Rukinalonian?
But once again, we are talking about how it's ok to call one person something, while it's not to call another person the same thing.
Let me ask you something; is Obama offended by this picture of him as a monkey? Or are you?
Relapse wrote:That's interesting about the Japanese.
Japanese doctors will tell you that you broke your leg because you were "too fat".
Rather than, you know, because you fell off a roof.
Never get treated for something in Japan. Seriously. For a nation so obscenely obsessed with large breasts (putting America's love of them to shame by far), they're also obscenely obsessed with keeping minimal body fat, thus rendering large breasts impossible. Amongst other weird and bizarre cultural norms for them.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:How am I being obtuse by thinking that people are too sensitive, and that facts aren't offensive? Your logic is flawed.
Calling someone who is overweight "fat" when they have a medical condition isn't something you should do; they know, and they don't need you to point it out to them. What's going on in their head is "No gak, jackass."
Relapse wrote:That's interesting about the Japanese.
Japanese doctors will tell you that you broke your leg because you were "too fat".
Rather than, you know, because you fell off a roof.
Never get treated for something in Japan. Seriously. For a nation so obscenely obsessed with large breasts (putting America's love of them to shame by far), they're also obscenely obsessed with keeping minimal body fat, thus rendering large breasts impossible. Amongst other weird and bizarre cultural norms for them.
That's some harsh medicine they have there. The story about the obsession with large breasts puts me in mind of a Korean room mate I had.
One morning I was watching a Miss Olympia competition and he walked in and started watching with me.
After about five minutes he looked over at me with his eyes resembling eggs on a plate and asked me if all American women were like that.
I told him no, this was a contest to find the most delicate one.
At that point, he about had a heart attack.
It was a personal failing of mine to mess with the heads of my Asian room mates who were fresh off the boat.
Calling someone who is 30 stone in weight fat is a fact. Saying a spade is a spade is a fact. Saying a black person is black is a fact. Saying Obama looks like a chimp is a fact.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Calling someone who is 30 stone in weight fat is a fact. Saying a spade is a spade is a fact. Saying a black person is black is a fact. Saying Obama looks like a chimp is a fact.
Saying your head is a dark and scary place, also fact.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Calling someone who is 30 stone in weight fat is a fact. Saying a spade is a spade is a fact. Saying a black person is black is a fact. Saying Obama looks like a chimp is a fact.
Getting knocked up the side of the head by someone you called fat is also a fact. The fact that you are still among the living calls attention to the fact that you either have not said it to anyone of bad temperment or had at least the good sense to be far enough away to not be caught.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Calling someone who is 30 stone in weight fat is a fact. Saying a spade is a spade is a fact. Saying a black person is black is a fact. Saying Obama looks like a chimp is a fact.
Saying your head is a dark and scary place, also fact.
Exalted.
Dakkadakka off-topic is sounding more and more like a klan rally lately...
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Calling someone who is 30 stone in weight fat is a fact. Saying a spade is a spade is a fact. Saying a black person is black is a fact. Saying Obama looks like a chimp is a fact.
Saying your head is a dark and scary place, also fact.
Exalted.
Dakkadakka off-topic is sounding more and more like a klan rally lately...
Slarg likes this post.
Like Comment Share [Click Here to leave a comment]
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Saying a spade is a spade is a fact.
If you are talking about the playing card, yes. If you are talking about a small shovel, yes. If you are referring to a human being, no. Humans are not 'spades'.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Saying Obama looks like a chimp is a fact.
Except he does not, at least not anymore than you do as well.
Double post - Ignore please
