Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To be fair MGS, I think that might the one thing both sides of the fence get better in the UK than the US, that whilst I might think you are a product of a culture I find unpleasent, that is not in itself racism. For example, I don't have any time for mysoginistic arseholes, and yet some cultures seem to promote that. If I have a problem with someone from said culture, it's not about where they are from, as the attitude itself.

The initial sentiments, yes, but they are rapidly coalesced into a prejudice which certainly includes race. The stigma becomes racial tension. The blur exists as 'I don't like x religion or x nationality' sits next to 'I don't like black people or I don't like arabs' etc.

The resentment about immigration for example, is principally directed at black or asian or hispanic immigrants into a largely caucasian population, since the media (blessed be the Daily Mail...) tells us about the floods of immigrants and the paranoid and ill educated look about and see black/asian/hispanic etc.

Then it becomes racially based.

True enough fella.

I do think sheer paranoia plays a large part in Racial tensions, but then so does heavy handed political correctness. For example (and not a great one, but bare with) the radical Muslims who apparently want Britain as a whole to convert and embrace Sharia. Thanks to PC, it's now racists to point out that there are in fact countries offering that, and they might be happier in one of them. Ludicrous, is it not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And no, you're not seeing things. Cpt Liberal himself has just decried political correctness!

True enough, as a liberal, as a left wing believer in equality and fairness and ending discrimination of race and gender, I've had plenty of arguments with my peers. I've been accused of racism and called a 'red neck'. But, finally, my own beliefs about the rights of women and the freedom to express and enjoy education and tolerance have forced me to draw a line in the sand against the behaviour of a significant number of those of the islamic faith who stand with liberals and do indeed use the shelter and tolerance of those committed to freedom, but who actually represent and enforce a type of religious fascism and bigotry.

Still, again the pit fall is prejudicing as a whole. I know I've been guilty of that. I wish I could find a clip of it on youtube, but there was a news clip showing a young extremist muslim, on the green outside the Houses of Parliament, telling the channel 4 interviewer about how the muslim yoof were feeling and how much they hated it in the UK and were working to overthrow it all and convert the infidel scum, citing from the qur'an about 'striking down the enemies' etc etc, when another young man walks over and firstly apologises for interrupting and then politely introduces himself as an Islamic scholar and berates the 'angry muslim yoof' guy, citing the qur'an and excepts from it about tolerance and civilised behaviour and seeking to better one's self. For every angry and vengeful sound bite the first could come up with or just invent, the second countered him politely but resolutely.

I really wish we'd hear more from that second bloke in our daily news and less from the first.

Pft. Tolerance and civilised behavior don't make for good news stories.

Unless it's something absolutely absurd that makes no sense or gets a laugh out of folks.

Polonius wrote:I just thought of something:

A thread was started with a provacative, controversial title with link.

The OP then rolls out swinging against "liberals" and "trolls" that disagree.

The OP has a tenuous grasp on the difference between facts, opinions, and arguable assertions.

Is the OP Frazz's alt account?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously, if you're simply trying to point out that the NAACP, or more accuratly, that local chapters of the NAACP do their share of race baiting, than I agree.

I think where we'd disagree is in the nature of racism in this country, particularly in it's effects on the races. All the racism against whites doesn't seem to hurt whites in any tangible way, while racism against black people still is a factor (not the only one) in the huge differences in every measurable quality of life factor between white and black.

If you think black people get bank loans less often, or are arrested far more often, or receive harsher sentences, or are under represented in nearly all professional and governmental ranks because of the NAACP, then I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

You really need to stop making assumptions about me.

My point has always been that the NAACP and people like Al Sharpton and JJ propegate racism and encourage racism (what I have been calling reverse racism, possibly to my demise). It has nothing to do with your last sentence. In making claims about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that might possibly be construed as racism, the NAACP, in the eyes of ALL races, loses credibility, and makes themselves look stupid, which in turn, fuels even more racism.

The NAACP, and people like Al Sharpton and JJ are trolls, seriously...what is a troll? Lets get this from wikipedia, anybody can update it, so you know its true.

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response" By pulling the RACE card EVERY TIME, they are using RACISM to fuel their standpoint. Evil begets evil, violence begets violence, racism begets racism.

Their stance is that racism is bad. They generate support based on the abhorrence of racism, and therefore its continued existence. However, they do not themselves propagate racism. You're mistakenly equating two distinct ideas.

That said, many NAACP chapters also mistakenly identify certain things as racist. The greeting card, as based on the presented audio, for example.

dogma wrote:Their stance is that racism is bad. They generate support based on the abhorrence of racism, and therefore its continued existence. However, they do not themselves propagate racism. You're mistakenly equating two distinct ideas.

That said, many NAACP chapters also mistakenly identify certain things as racist. The greeting card, as based on the presented audio, for example.

They are one and the same, though. If they are generating support by proclaiming the abhorrence of racism, but crying RACISM at every possible facet, it's ridiculous. Can't you see the redundancy of that?

I am one for odd examples, but imagine I start a coalition to erase the color blue from all advertising and print....all of my signs are blue, with blue letters, and they say "THIS IS BLUE!!! WE NEED TO GET RID OF BLUE!" It's just spreading more blue everywhere....negating my purposes. Instead, I might make red signs with red letters and even if it is just my opinion, and people disagree I can say.. "THIS IS RED!!! DO YOU SEE HOW MUCH BETTER RED IS? WE CAN ALL BE HAPPIER AND MORE PEACEFUL WITH THIS COLOR!!!" Instead of pointing out blue wherever I see it, I replace it with red and try to promote how much better I think it is.

I am sure you can switch the example around and figure out my point....

Sorry, but you've totally lost me and I haven't been drinking tonight.

You started the thread by claiming that the NAACP causes racism by complaining about racism, and how somehow it's bad to make signs out of blue or red paint. I fail entirely to see how the two points are connected.

Kilkrazy wrote:Sorry, but you've totally lost me and I haven't been drinking tonight.

You started the thread by claiming that the NAACP causes racism by complaining about racism, and how somehow it's bad to make signs out of blue or red paint. I fail entirely to see how the two points are connected.

really?...REALLY????/

ok....then...for you....

I am one for odd examples, but imagine I start a coalition to erase RACISM from all advertising and print....all of my sings say "THIS IS RACIST!!! WE NEED TO GET RID OF RACISM!" It's just spreading more RACISM everywhere....negating my purposes. Instead, I might make DIFFERENT SIGNS and even if it is just my opinion, and people disagree I can say.. "THIS IS WHAT EQUALITY LOOKS LIKE! LOOK HOW PEACEFUL AND UNITED WE CAN BE WITH EQUALITY!" Instead of pointing out RACISM wherever I see it, I replace it with EQUALITY and try to promote how much better I think it is.


It's the same diff man....I have found, especially in debate in HS and in college (just one quarter), that odd scenarios, sometimes help illustrate a point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
you know, leading by example?

Fateweaver wrote:I, and MGS have something in common (other than Warhammer). I too live in an area where the minorities outnumber the caucasians and it gets really old and tiring when the ones crying the most about racism are the biggest culprits and most definately milk the system for all it's worth concerning entitlement and benefits.

You poor thing...

IG_urban wrote:
They are one and the same, though. If they are generating support by proclaiming the abhorrence of racism, but crying RACISM at every possible facet, it's ridiculous. Can't you see the redundancy of that?

It may be ridiculous, but it isn't racism, which is the point you seem to be trying to make.

It seems to me that you feel quite strongly about this issue, and that emotion is impairing your sensibility.

IG_urban wrote:
I am one for odd examples, but imagine I start a coalition to erase the color blue from all advertising and print....all of my signs are blue, with blue letters, and they say "THIS IS BLUE!!! WE NEED TO GET RID OF BLUE!" It's just spreading more blue everywhere....negating my purposes. Instead, I might make red signs with red letters and even if it is just my opinion, and people disagree I can say.. "THIS IS RED!!! DO YOU SEE HOW MUCH BETTER RED IS? WE CAN ALL BE HAPPIER AND MORE PEACEFUL WITH THIS COLOR!!!" Instead of pointing out blue wherever I see it, I replace it with red and try to promote how much better I think it is.

I am sure you can switch the example around and figure out my point....

I know what point you're attempting to make. It's just that your point is incorrect. You're assuming that the NAACP is behaving in a racist manner, when they are not. They are stating that racism is bad, and then working to actively eliminate it by pointing out things that they feel are racist. The NAACP is not making things racist by labeling them as such, they don't have that kind of power.

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
They are one and the same, though. If they are generating support by proclaiming the abhorrence of racism, but crying RACISM at every possible facet, it's ridiculous. Can't you see the redundancy of that?

It may be ridiculous, but it isn't racism, which is the point you seem to be trying to make.

It seems to me that you feel quite strongly about this issue, and that emotion is impairing your sensibility.

IG_urban wrote:
I am one for odd examples, but imagine I start a coalition to erase the color blue from all advertising and print....all of my signs are blue, with blue letters, and they say "THIS IS BLUE!!! WE NEED TO GET RID OF BLUE!" It's just spreading more blue everywhere....negating my purposes. Instead, I might make red signs with red letters and even if it is just my opinion, and people disagree I can say.. "THIS IS RED!!! DO YOU SEE HOW MUCH BETTER RED IS? WE CAN ALL BE HAPPIER AND MORE PEACEFUL WITH THIS COLOR!!!" Instead of pointing out blue wherever I see it, I replace it with red and try to promote how much better I think it is.

I am sure you can switch the example around and figure out my point....

I know what point you're attempting to make. It's just that your point is incorrect. You're assuming that the NAACP is behaving in a racist manner, when they are not. They are stating that racism is bad, and then working to actively eliminate it by pointing out things that they feel are racist. The NAACP is not making things racist by labeling them as such, they don't have that kind of power.

I feel strongly about attempting to keep a level head when people are being stubborn and barely giving an inch despite the fact that I am attempting to provide my side intelligently. You are being smug and that is kind of pissing me off, but this has nothing to do emotions impairing my sensibility, don't be an ass.

You can not just tell me I am incorrect, that is smug. I have NEVER said the NAACP makes things racist, if I did, then I did not mean to. What I DID say was that they bring race into the issue whenever and wherever possible, hell, even when it's highly improbable, or even non existent. THEY ARE behaving in a racist manner.

It goes back to this point...if I went public, and sued BET for racism, because they do not include enough white people in their broadcasts (which I DO NOT believe at all, I am just trying to think of something that is as ridiculous as an act the NAACP would pull). The aforementioned parties and their lawyers would have a field day with me.....

Now reverse it, and imagine I made a White Entertainment Network.






Calling somebody or something racist, when it is unwarranted, is Racism. Calling racism bad by labeling anything and anybody as a racist, is it of itself, RACISM.

racism begets racism, and until somebody steps up, breaks the cycle, and leads by example by completely taking race out of the struggle, and making it human, then all that will be accomplished is more racism. This goes for all sides.

IG_urban wrote:

Now reverse it, and imagine I made a White Entertainment Network.

I thought that was the channel that shows Nascar and C.O.P.S. 24/7?

I have it on my Cable package...

IG_urban wrote:
You can not just tell me I am incorrect, that is smug.

Its really the only option here though, as you are plainly misusing the word 'racism'.

IG_urban wrote:
I have NEVER said the NAACP makes things racist, if I did, then I did not mean to.

I didn't say that you did. I made an inference on the basis of what you did say. Namely that the NAACP perpetuates racism. I envisioned that this could be possible in two sense:
1)Annoying people, and thereby inciting them to assign negative characteristics to black people.
2)Labeling things as racist in order to justify their existence, and thereby influencing the popular understanding of what racism is, and what it can be applied to.

As the latter of the two arguments is the better, I obliquely referenced that one.

IG_urban wrote:
What I DID say was that they bring race into the issue whenever and wherever possible, hell, even when it's highly improbable, or even non existent. THEY ARE behaving in a racist manner.

Explain to me how attempting to label things as racist involves attributing qualities to an entire group of people defined only by racial or ethnic characteristics.

IG_urban wrote:
It goes back to this point...if I went public, and sued BET for racism, because they do not include enough white people in their broadcasts (which I DO NOT believe at all, I am just trying to think of something that is as ridiculous as an act the NAACP would pull). The aforementioned parties and their lawyers would have a field day with me.....

On what basis? The law isn't some magical thing that allows people to hassle each other. Its a set of codified regulations pertaining to accepted behavior. Sure, you'd probably get some negative press from the NAACP et al, but a counter-suit is unlikely. And again, that negative press isn't racism as it has nothing to do with attributing characteristics to a racial group.

IG_urban wrote:
Now reverse it, and imagine I made a White Entertainment Network.

Somebody would probably sue you for racial discrimination. Based on the precedent established by BET, they would probably lose. You'd probably also get a lot of negative press from the NAACP, but seeing as that isn't your target demographic it seems senseless to case. Again, this has nothing to do with racism on the part of people protesting your network, as they would not necessarily be assigning characteristics to a racial group.

IG_urban wrote:
Calling somebody or something racist, when it is unwarranted, is Racism. Calling racism bad by labeling anything and anybody as a racist, is it of itself, RACISM.

No, its not, plain and simple.

CT GAMER wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I, and MGS have something in common (other than Warhammer). I too live in an area where the minorities outnumber the caucasians and it gets really old and tiring when the ones crying the most about racism are the biggest culprits and most definately milk the system for all it's worth concerning entitlement and benefits.

You poor thing...

Yes, you should feel bad for me. Walmart thrives where I am because 80% of it's customers are Native American. I think Walmart should build in one of 2 reservations that immediately surround my town. They'd really get rich then.

dogma wrote:I didn't say that you did. I made an inference on the basis of what you did say. Namely that the NAACP perpetuates racism. I envisioned that this could be possible in two sense:
1)Annoying people, and thereby inciting them to assign negative characteristics to black people.
2)Labeling things as racist in order to justify their existence, and thereby influencing the popular understanding of what racism is, and what it can be applied to.

I think the most straightforward argument would be that the NAACP is racist (and so perpetuates racism) because it takes far more offense at actions that could be considered racist if they're done by white people; essentially, they stereotype white people as having ulterior motives and prejudices moreso than blacks. Of course, that would only be a contributor to black-on-white racism, which does limit it, unless you count Person X's racism as being derived from perceived racism by others rather than himself, in which case you probably end up with a lot of regression.

You could also argue that the only way for racism to truly end is for race to no longer be thought of as a significant social construct, in which case the NAACP may accidentally perpetuate racism by continuing to accept race as a useful classification.

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
You can not just tell me I am incorrect, that is smug.

Its really the only option here though, as you are plainly misusing the word 'racism'.

IG_urban wrote:
I have NEVER said the NAACP makes things racist, if I did, then I did not mean to.

I didn't say that you did. I made an inference on the basis of what you did say. Namely that the NAACP perpetuates racism. I envisioned that this could be possible in two sense:
1)Annoying people, and thereby inciting them to assign negative characteristics to black people.
2)Labeling things as racist in order to justify their existence, and thereby influencing the popular understanding of what racism is, and what it can be applied to.

As the latter of the two arguments is the better, I obliquely referenced that one.

IG_urban wrote:
What I DID say was that they bring race into the issue whenever and wherever possible, hell, even when it's highly improbable, or even non existent. THEY ARE behaving in a racist manner.

Explain to me how attempting to label things as racist involves attributing qualities to an entire group of people defined only by racial or ethnic characteristics.

IG_urban wrote:
It goes back to this point...if I went public, and sued BET for racism, because they do not include enough white people in their broadcasts (which I DO NOT believe at all, I am just trying to think of something that is as ridiculous as an act the NAACP would pull). The aforementioned parties and their lawyers would have a field day with me.....

On what basis? The law isn't some magical thing that allows people to hassle each other. Its a set of codified regulations pertaining to accepted behavior. Sure, you'd probably get some negative press from the NAACP et al, but a counter-suit is unlikely. And again, that negative press isn't racism as it has nothing to do with attributing characteristics to a racial group.

IG_urban wrote:
Now reverse it, and imagine I made a White Entertainment Network.

Somebody would probably sue you for racial discrimination. Based on the precedent established by BET, they would probably lose. You'd probably also get a lot of negative press from the NAACP, but seeing as that isn't your target demographic it seems senseless to case. Again, this has nothing to do with racism on the part of people protesting your network, as they would not necessarily be assigning characteristics to a racial group.

IG_urban wrote:
Calling somebody or something racist, when it is unwarranted, is Racism. Calling racism bad by labeling anything and anybody as a racist, is it of itself, RACISM.

No, its not, plain and simple.

Yes, I feel it is.

It's racism, its special rights, its double standards, its NOT HELPING THE SITUATION.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The law IS some magical thing that allows people to hassle each other. They are called lawsuits. Why do you think lawyers have such a shining reputation?

Honestly, until you learn that racism is not the same as discrimination or inequality, this conversation isn't going to end well for you. You can't expect anybody to respect your opinion on an issue when you don't understand the most basic terminology used to discuss it.

Racism is assigning attributes to groups and not individuals. Wanting more stuff for your group isn't racism, it's what everybody does all the time.

Also, white pride t-shirts would be frowned upon because most people don't identify with a unifying white identity. White americans have, in general, a race (white) and one or more ethnicities (irish, german, italian, etc.) You see "proud to be Irish" shirts everywhere, and even "redneck and proud" shirts. African Americans don't have a separate ethnic identity. Black consciousness fills the same role. So, the NAACP is more closely related to ethnic organizations than to any sort of vague, white pride organization.

Polonius wrote:Honestly, until you learn that racism is not the same as discrimination or inequality, this conversation isn't going to end well for you. You can't expect anybody to respect your opinion on an issue when you don't understand the most basic terminology used to discuss it.

Racism is assigning attributes to groups and not individuals. Wanting more stuff for your group isn't racism, it's what everybody does all the time.

Also, white pride t-shirts would be frowned upon because most people don't identify with a unifying white identity. White americans have, in general, a race (white) and one or more ethnicities (irish, german, italian, etc.) You see "proud to be Irish" shirts everywhere, and even "redneck and proud" shirts. African Americans don't have a separate ethnic identity. Black consciousness fills the same role. So, the NAACP is more closely related to ethnic organizations than to any sort of vague, white pride organization.

Honestly you can sit in your smug tower with your smug self.

Racism, as defined by Merriam Webster: 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination...but its not the same as discrimination, is it?

Racism is assigning attributes to groups and not individuals. Wanting more stuff for your group isn't racism, it's what everybody does all the time.

Racism is any occasion where a group or individual is discriminated against because of their ehtnicity or skin color.

I think you and I are not going to agree, and your smug attitude is really starting to make me feel a funeral in my brain....

I still find it interesting that the NAACP reps in the OP can "hear" a phantom 'R' but then fail to hear three very distinct and complete Words... "And you Planets".

And YES, it is very Racist of them to focus on what they obviously want to hear on the card published by a White owned company, using white (possibly) voice actors, with the purpose of not only removing said card, but also harming the reputation of said company and staff.

I don't see the NAACP trying to shut down rap artists that make similar comments about 'ho's and bitches" on nearly every title on the market.
It's a double standard that promotes certain insulting language on one side while revilining the same words from the other.
And the main difference is the color of the face the words are coming out of.

If that is not "Racism" then apparently I have it wrong.

IG_urban wrote:

Honestly you can sit in your smug tower with your smug self.

Racism, as defined by Merriam Webster: 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination...but its not the same as discrimination, is it?

It's distinct, in that it has to be discrimination because race. The NAACP are rabble rousing, and clearly causing trouble, but they're doing so not because they hate white people, but because they're seeking to gain publicity. Even if you want to accept the idea that the NAACP, in this instance, is racist (in that they seem to want to hurt non-blacks), that doesn't make the organization as a whole racist, or even make them a cause of racism in general. Racial politics in this country are controlled by the simple fact that black people are poorer, less educated, and don't live as long as white people. It's simply the facts as supported by nearly every demographic datum we can find. So, while you can make the argument that wanting something just for black people is racist, it's addressing an existing inequality. An inequality, based on the histories of every other non-native american minority, that exists because of the history of slavery and racism. Saying "that was in the past and we should move on" is like borrowing $500 from a friend, sleeping with his girlfriend, and then saying "well, that was in the past. We should move."

You also seem to really enjoy personally insulting people that disagree with you. I'll admit, I've been harsh to your opinions, but so far you've called Dogma and myself smug. Now, I enjoy a certain confidence in my intellect and education, and no doubt I've treated your view with thinly veiled contempt, but I wonder if at any point you've read what I wrote and asked, "is he correct? Could I be wrong?" I know I've done that with your posts, and in many ways it's made me reform and refine my own view.

Racism is assigning attributes to groups and not individuals. Wanting more stuff for your group isn't racism, it's what everybody does all the time.

Racism is any occasion where a group or individual is discriminated against because of their ehtnicity or skin color.

I think you and I are not going to agree, and your smug attitude is really starting to make me feel a funeral in my brain....

So, how is the NAACP, in the Hallmark card case, being racist? They not discriminating against Hallmark because they're white, but because they think they're using a racial slur.

And before you launch into "but black entertainers use far worse" type arguments, there are two counters. First, actions that are wrong can be called out, regardless of when you don't call them out. Cops don't arrest every speeder and employers don't fire everybody for being late all the time. Second, there is a cultural allowance for using certain terms. A lot of rednecks proudly self identify as such, but would opposed the word being used in hate. Context it key.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:I still find it interesting that the NAACP reps in the OP can "hear" a phantom 'R' but then fail to hear three very distinct and complete Words... "And you Planets".

And YES, it is very Racist of them to focus on what they obviously want to hear on the card published by a White owned company, using white (possibly) voice actors, with the purpose of not only removing said card, but also harming the reputation of said company and staff.

I don't see the NAACP trying to shut down rap artists that make similar comments about 'ho's and bitches" on nearly every title on the market.
It's a double standard that promotes certain insulting language on one side while revilining the same words from the other.
And the main difference is the color of the face the words are coming out of.

If that is not "Racism" then apparently I have it wrong.

Well, the words were coming out of cartoon characters in a funny voice. I'm also not sure the ownership of Hallmark (which, like most companies is probably owned by mutual funds) is really the reason for the uproar. Obviously it's a ridiculous complaint, and the local chapter should be chided by the national HQ for being dumb. it's hard to paint what they did as racist, simply because they weren't doing what they did because they hate white people. they did what they did because they want attention, and accusing somebody of racism is a good way to do that.

Black people also are assumed not to hate black people when they use racial slurs. It's been a rule of comedy and enterainment for generations. Chris Rock has an infamous bit in which he claims he wished he could join the KKK. It's funny (and accepted) because obviously Chris rock isn't racist. It'd be less funny if, say, Larry the Cable Guy made that joke. Comedy relies partially on a violation of expectations, and having an educated black man spout a litany of insults against stereotypical black behaviors is not what you expect, and funny. Having a white guy adopting an uneducated southern persona spout the same is a little too close to reality to be funny.

As for music, it's part of culture, and as a part of a culture uses the language of that culture. To use the language of the culture in a performance, no matter how offensive it seems to outsiders, is part of what a culture is allowed to do.

Polonius wrote:
As for music, it's part of culture, and as a part of a culture uses the language of that culture. To use the language of the culture in a performance, no matter how offensive it seems to outsiders, is part of what a culture is allowed to do.

Hmmm, it is ok for people of a specific culture to use the language of that culture even if it offends people outside that culture. Correct?

SO, it is just fine for a group or individual from a neo-nazi culture to use the language of that culture no matter how offensive other people, outside the neo-nazi culture, find it. Even if that language is considered to be violently racist by the offended groups.

helgrenze wrote:

Polonius wrote:
As for music, it's part of culture, and as a part of a culture uses the language of that culture. To use the language of the culture in a performance, no matter how offensive it seems to outsiders, is part of what a culture is allowed to do.

Hmmm, it is ok for people of a specific culture to use the language of that culture even if it offends people outside that culture. Correct?

SO, it is just fine for a group or individual from a neo-nazi culture to use the language of that culture no matter how offensive other people, outside the neo-nazi culture, find it. Even if that language is considered to be violently racist by the offended groups.

Hmm, that's an interesting question. I think what makes it different is that the language being used is targeted at, performed by, and consumed by the same group. It's also important when a word has multiple uses, or tones. You see words used in almost opposite ways all the time. "he's my dog" is very positive, "she's a dog" is not. Such language clearly not offending overly many African americans. It can look like a troubling double standard, but what's important is the intent of the language. When a rapper uses the n-word, he's not intending to demean or intimidate black people. When a neo-nazi uses that word, he does.

I also don't grant your premise that neo-nazism is a culture, certainly not the same extent that african american culture is. Black performers, for example, don't use slurs against other races or ethnicities often. Jesse Jackson's campaign in the 80's was derailed for anti-semetic remarks.

A good example is when an elderly white person uses the term "negro" or "colored." If I were to use that, it'd be considered fairly offensive to many black people, but the culture of her time and age made that the PC term of it's day.

You see it in every culture. It's not polite to call me fatty (even though I am), but nobody is offended when I call myself one.

It should also be noted that it isn't as simple as all black people thinking it is ok to use such language. While we use such terms as "group" and "community" it really isn't that homogeneous.

Ahtman wrote:It should also be noted that it isn't as simple as all black people thinking it is ok to use such language. While we use such terms as "group" and "community" it really isn't that homogeneous.

Exactly. Finding issue with something that is obviously NOT what one claims it is, then claiming the problem is based only on a racial slur that most people do not hear, simply for the purpose of inciting controversy, is indeed a form of racism. It is one group of a larger community telling everyone that "You need to be offended by this" simply because that small group find it offensive.

Not all white people with blonde hair and blue eyes is a neo Nazi. Not all bald Punk Rockers are either. But enough individuals who fit these catagories are, infact, members of some white supremist groups that there is a perception among those groups that everyone that fits the profile needs to be offended by what they see as an injustice. So they take their messages of racial hate to those venues where they will find people that fit the same profile.

What these members of the NAACP is essentially the same thing. They took their message of perceived injustice to a venue where they could tell others "You Need to be Offended".Because they have better relations with the press, the L.A. NAACP was able to reach a national and even international audience. Add in the way the information was presented and it gives the appearance of Hallmark not being "Racially sensitive" enough to have such a card on the market.

What they did was done in an effort, conscientiously or subconscientiously, to incite a negative reaction from a specific racial group. It indirectly claimed that the issue was made by some-one that was insensitive to the "plight of the african american.".

Ahtman wrote:It should also be noted that it isn't as simple as all black people thinking it is ok to use such language. While we use such terms as "group" and "community" it really isn't that homogeneous.

I'll just add, I occasionally play dominoes with a couple of elderly Jamaican gents in a pub. We got onto rap and such and the use of the N word. They were both highly irritated and offended by it, saying 'how is it we expect the pain of the past to be eased and prejudices to fade away when those angry boys all shout N***** at each other, then some white kids listening to the music want to say it and then someone gets offended and everyone is kept at each other's throats!'

Many of the other middle aged to elderly Jamaican patrons of the pub agreed with the sentiments, whilst a couple of younger drinkers argued that it's their right to use the word due to the indignities of the past, at which stage they were heckled by the elder drinkers for not knowing crap all about the past since they hadn't lived it.

IG_urban wrote:
Honestly you can sit in your smug tower with your smug self.

Racism, as defined by Merriam Webster: 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination...but its not the same as discrimination, is it?

No, it isn't. Discrimination on the basis of race is not the same as discrimination in general.

This is a really, really basic idea.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

IG_urban wrote:
Yes, I feel it is.

Yes, you feel it is. This is why I stated that it seemed as though emotion was clouding your judgment. You have now, to my mind, confirmed that speculative comment.

IG_urban wrote:
It's racism, its special rights, its double standards, its NOT HELPING THE SITUATION.

No, none of those statements are true.

IG_urban wrote:
The law IS some magical thing that allows people to hassle each other. They are called lawsuits. Why do you think lawyers have such a shining reputation?

Because there are people, such as yourself, who believe the law is magical.

Read the legal code that you have been publicly provided with. It, miraculously, says exactly what it can be used to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:
Exactly. Finding issue with something that is obviously NOT what one claims it is, then claiming the problem is based only on a racial slur that most people do not hear, simply for the purpose of inciting controversy, is indeed a form of racism.

Nope, not necessarily. Nothing in what you have stated necessarily involves the assignment of qualities to a given group of people based only on their 'racial' characteristics.

helgrenze wrote:
It is one group of a larger community telling everyone that "You need to be offended by this" simply because that small group find it offensive.

Yep, but that's not racism.

Dogma, Are you telling me:
That it is only racism if it is done to one specific race, i.e. blacks?
That it is not possible to be racist toward either your own race or everyone that is not your race?
That racism can only be directed towards a minority?
That stating that an entire race is insulted by something because a small portion of that race found it offensive does not fall into the definition of racism?

Racism is at its base racial prejudice. Prejudice is defined as, amonge other things,

an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

The racial prejudice in this case is that the LA NAACP had "an irrational attitude of hostility" to the supposed characteristics of white opinion they felt the card conveyed.
They further showed their own prejudice toward their own race by going on the news and telling them that they should be offended, not by what the card actually said, but by what THEY claimed it said.

Simply stating "No, it isn't" does not foster debate but only establishes a contrary position. At that point it becomes a Monty Python Sketch...

helgrenze wrote:Dogma, Are you telling me:
That it is only racism if it is done to one specific race, i.e. blacks?
That it is not possible to be racist toward either your own race or everyone that is not your race?
That racism can only be directed towards a minority?
That stating that an entire race is insulted by something because a small portion of that race found it offensive does not fall into the definition of racism?

Racism is at its base racial prejudice. Prejudice is defined as, amonge other things,

an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

The racial prejudice in this case is that the LA NAACP had "an irrational attitude of hostility" to the supposed characteristics of white opinion they felt the card conveyed.
They further showed their own prejudice toward their own race by going on the news and telling them that they should be offended, not by what the card actually said, but by what THEY claimed it said.

Simply stating "No, it isn't" does not foster debate but only establishes a contrary position. At that point it becomes a Monty Python Sketch...

Why was the NAACP attitude irrational?

Kilkrazy wrote:Why was the NAACP attitude irrational?

You do not think it was irrational that they were not only hearing a single phantom letter while at the same time ignoring three whole words?

What the characters on the card said:

Hey world, we are officially putting you on notice. Yeah. And you black holes, you are so ominous. oooo, hahahaha. And you planets, watch your backs.

The audio provided by the link in the op is clear enough to hear everything in the quote above. You can hear it on crappy underpowered speakers quite clearly.
Yet the NAACP members state that they hear an "r" in the word "holes" and jump right past the words "And you planets" to the phrase "watch your backs".
They are convinced that this is what the voices say and have called the media to make their complaint known without further review.

A somewhat similar situation was played out in the Wolverine movie, when Wolverine says the word "Bub" the Fred Dukes character hears "Blob" and throws Wolverine into a wall.

Over reacting to something one has misheard is irrational. Further coloring that mishear as racism is also irrational. They made that leap. Considering the card was available for 3 years and no-one else made that connection says more about this group than anything they may have done in the past.