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.
riight, for all the people saying you need to know the speakers race to get context...
so you get confused listening to the radio I bet, as you cannot see the race of the speaker. You will get a totally different message! Because, there isnt anything racist about making preconcived determinations on *context* based soley on race.
Get confused reading internet forums too I bet! no context there!
context:
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
apparently, the colour of someones skin, is more important then the words they say, making them unintelligible if you dont know what race they are.
Also, just FYI, you are using the word context wrong, a speakers skin colour only has context, ie is only essential in deciphering the message, for people with preconceived stereotypes tinting their interpretation of the speakers words based on his or her race.
its just the context in your head... and its racist.
and yes, it is racists for polish people to call other polish people by racial slurs, just as with white on white, or black on black racism. Just because you GET AWAY WITH IT, does not make it ok. Just because some people put up with that kind of internal racism, does not make it not racist.
even dr king wanted people to be judged on their character, deeds, and words, not their skin colour. you would think that would be obvious, but no... sigh.
*"I have a dream where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the strength of their character."*
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/03/31 18:30:28
According to Occupy Wall Street, its ok to discriminate against white, heterosexual males. That's why I disapprove of the liberal mind set that says I should be ashamed of who and what I am. Color of skin is not important...unless you're out to get votes.
I thought King's dream was that people would be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
I was in a fraternity in college. A lot of people have problems with greek life, with some criticisms both good and bad.
I've said things in chapter meetings, about my own chapter or other chapters, that I would object to being said by an outsider.
But when you are part of a group, any group, that attracts a certain fear/hate reaction, you tend to not be interested in critiques from outside the group, as they are disproportionatly likely to be based on dislike, not knowledge.
To bring this around to the topic, I'd consider Michelle Obama to have more insight into black culture than Paul Ryan, and to have very little chance of disliking black people.
and yes, it is racists for polish people to call other polish people by racial slurs, just as with white on white, or black on black racism. Just because you GET AWAY WITH IT, does not make it ok. Just because some people put up with that kind of internal racism, does not make it not racist.
Polish isn't a race.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/31 18:33:39
easysauce wrote: riight, for all the people saying you need to know the speakers race to get context...
so you get confused listening to the radio I bet, as you cannot see the race of the speaker. You will get a totally different message! Because, there isnt anything racist about making preconcived determinations on *context* based soley on race.
Get confused reading internet forums too I bet! no context there!
The medium used to communicate an idea is also part of determining the nature of the context in which it is communicated. A caller on a radio show (because it isn't hard to discover the identity of a host) would likely be judged by his accent and inflection. On the internet people tend to be judged according to their projected persona; how they represent themselves.
apparently, the colour of someones skin, is more important then the words they say, making them unintelligible if you dont know what race they are.
Nobody said that it was more important than the words they say. The argument is, and has been, that it affects how the words they say will be perceived.
Also, just FYI, you are using the word context wrong, a speakers skin colour only has context, ie is only essential in deciphering the message, for people with preconceived stereotypes tinting their interpretation of the speakers words based on his or her race.
Really? The person that can't be bothered to use correct punctuation or capitalization is going to educate us on the meaning of an English word?
At any rate, you're incorrect. One can recognize that race is important to lots of people, and therefore has contextual relevance, without actually being a racist.
its just the context in your head... and its racist.
So are ideas and the concepts associated with words. If we're going to dismiss things simply because they're "...just in our head(s)..." then we may as well throw out any argument made by any person at any time.
MWHistorian wrote: According to Occupy Wall Street, its ok to discriminate against white, heterosexual males. That's why I disapprove of the liberal mind set that says I should be ashamed of who and what I am. Color of skin is not important...unless you're out to get votes.
I thought King's dream was that people would be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Everyone always leaves out the, "Except for whitey!" coda he said right after that.
MWHistorian wrote: According to Occupy Wall Street, its ok to discriminate against white, heterosexual males. That's why I disapprove of the liberal mind set that says I should be ashamed of who and what I am. Color of skin is not important...unless you're out to get votes.
I thought King's dream was that people would be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Hmm, I have never heard that as a liberal mindset. Radical maybe, but not liberal. Or are you talking in the "liberal = democrat, conservative = republican mindset".
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
MWHistorian wrote: According to Occupy Wall Street, its ok to discriminate against white, heterosexual males. That's why I disapprove of the liberal mind set that says I should be ashamed of who and what I am. Color of skin is not important...unless you're out to get votes.
I thought King's dream was that people would be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
This is why I disapprove of the ridiculous mindset that assumes liberalism means you're ashamed of who and what you are.
Especially considering "liberal" and "conservative" (or "libertarian" as they like to call themselves now) in America are essentially the same thing, despite what you've been told.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Because, as we all know, when a person of even moderate fame and known political ideology says or does something stupid, it exposes that ideology for being utterly incorrect.
Because, as we all know, when a person of even moderate fame and known political ideology says or does something stupid, it exposes that ideology for being utterly incorrect.
Weird huh...
*shrugs* I really can't be half arsed about this.
Is it wrong that I like The Colbert Report more than Bill Maher?
But, having said that, Bill is fething funny and he has strong opinions.
It's like, we always need to pick a side...
But, dammit... sometimes I just wanna be "pool-side" and watch the drama sometimes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/31 21:09:08
Especially considering "liberal" and "conservative" (or "libertarian" as they like to call themselves now) in America are essentially the same thing, despite what you've been told.
Especially considering "liberal" and "conservative" (or "libertarian" as they like to call themselves now) in America are essentially the same thing, despite what you've been told.
Really?
Please, elaborate.
Really.
This is the crux of the argument here:
There is very little fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans in practice. In general (theoretically) today, Republicans support less social freedom and more economic freedom, while Democrats support less economic freedom and more social freedom. Democrats are known as the "big government" party and Republicans as the "limited government" party, but in reality both parties support big government. Government has consistently grown under the power of both parties. Their foreign policies are very similar (interventionist), but each party seems to only support these policies when their administrations are administering them. The root of the Republican Party is limited government, but they generally do not execute this well. Also, what many Republicans defend as "capitalism" and "free markets" is really government-aided corporatism, which is not economic freedom at all.
That has happened since the parties became pretty much what they are today at around the turn of the 20th century. Hyper-partisanship has grown exponentially since the since the start of the 21st century on both the Left and Right, no thanks to the American media, and now everyone wants to speak in absolutes and view the world in black and white. What has become common now is the idea of "libertarianism" that a lot of conservatives have been flocking too. Libertarianism promotes true economic freedom (albeit, in a somewhat unrealistic fashion) while at the same time promoting true civil liberties. The problem then becomes people claim to be "libertarian" except they hold belief in the idea that the government should interfere with civil liberties like drug policy, marriage, abortion, etc. It is no different than a "liberal" saying they want freedom for all, but don't buy that gun because you can't be trusted with it.
If you honestly think there is a fundamental difference between "conservative" and "liberal" politicians in the United States, you haven't been paying attention or you choose to ignore it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/31 23:24:24
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The problem then becomes people claim to be "libertarian" except they hold belief in the idea that the government should interfere with civil liberties like drug policy, marriage, abortion, etc. It is no different than a "liberal" saying they want freedom for all, but don't buy that gun because you can't be trusted with it.
Well no. The fact is that those people aren't libertarians to begin with.
I can claim I'm a penguin all I want. Doesn't make it so.
If you honestly think there is a fundamental difference between "conservative" and "liberal" politicians in the United States, you haven't been paying attention or you choose to ignore it.
Hypocrisy matters to me. IMO, Bell, in this instance, is incredibly hypocritical.
Fair enough, and I really should have seen that possibility; so that's a black mark on my record.
However, Bell's actions can only be seen as hypocritical if you believe identity does not matter.
And that's where it gets really sticky. I don't like Bell at all because I think he's a huge racist, but one that is "acceptable" by the media because he's a minority racist.
Its such a weird dynamic in the US today, where Bell gets a pass on gak like this, but we have Kobe Bryant getting crucified in the media because he said he doesn't automatically support something 'black' (in this instance, the Miami Heat's unquestioning support of Trayvon Martin) just because he's black as well.
Stephen A. Smith (whom I used to despise, but lately seems to be one of the only black journalists that holds his race accountable for anything) and Arsenio Hall had a really interesting conversation about it on Arsenio's show last week:
When you've got FAMOUS black people like Kobe Bryant and Stacey Dash that get vilified by their race for having opposing viewpoints, I can't begin to think the rest of us should begin....
Stephen A. Smith (whom I used to despise, but lately seems to be one of the only black journalists that holds his race accountable for anything) and Arsenio Hall had a really interesting conversation about it on Arsenio's show last week:
I snipped the video, but that was really impressive. And I agree with his points, even beyond race. I've said it before, but it bears repeating that there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." or "I am ambivalent." in response to a question; especially when social pressure dictates a particular response.
That being said, there is a huge difference between Bell's response to the realization that Michelle Obama's comment was not made by Paul Ryan and Kobe's refusal to pass judgement against Mr. Zimmerman.
When you've got FAMOUS black people like Kobe Bryant and Stacey Dash that get vilified by their race for having opposing viewpoints, I can't begin to think the rest of us should begin....
Stacy Dash is famous?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
MWHistorian wrote: According to Occupy Wall Street, its ok to discriminate against white, heterosexual males. That's why I disapprove of the liberal mind set that says I should be ashamed of who and what I am. Color of skin is not important...unless you're out to get votes.
I thought King's dream was that people would be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
This is why I disapprove of the ridiculous mindset that assumes liberalism means you're ashamed of who and what you are.
Especially considering "liberal" and "conservative" (or "libertarian" as they like to call themselves now) in America are essentially the same thing, despite what you've been told.
If they're the same thing then why is there so much disagreement in congress?
I really fething hate Bill Maher, he's a smug douche. He's also right on this one. I mean, yeah, Paul Ryan is an imbecile who relies on underlying racist assumptions about 'those people' taking all our welfare dollars for any of his bs to make sense... but freaking out about specific comments in isolation does nothing to prove that, and opens people up for the game Maher played here. If people want to properly dismiss Ryan and the rest of his mouthbreathing set, then they need to do some proper, real work disproving all the crazy stuff he believes.
It's a major problem with how people deal with conversations about race right now. It's too easy to just repeat the comment, for everyone to give their best offended face, and then everyone to just get on with . Meanwhile the people who actually believe that nonsense, well they just carry on believing it. Labelling a comment 'offensive' or 'racist' just isn't useful - you need to prove that the comment was stupid.
easysauce wrote: riight, for all the people saying you need to know the speakers race to get context...
so you get confused listening to the radio I bet, as you cannot see the race of the speaker. You will get a totally different message! Because, there isnt anything racist about making preconcived determinations on *context* based soley on race.
Obviously, it isn't just the skin colour that's the only context. Context means the history of the speaker - what else they've said about this subject. In this case the important context is that Michelle Obama involved in the problem and trying to do something to solve it. Paul Ryan is using the problem as an excuse to pull back on efforts to address the problem.
Not that, I think, either of them make a decent argument in this case. Kids dream about easy lives making money doing something they love, thinking that's the problem is stupid whether it comes from a very silly Republican or the President's wife. The problem in the inner city is and has always has been tied to economic opportunity. People started thinking there was a problem with black culture at the very moment that business started pulling out of the inner city. And now, sure enough, as economic opportunities decline across various rural areas, people are starting to talk about a problem with rural white culture.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: It makes perfect sense that he defended Rush Limbaugh... he is the liberal counterpoint to him.
Maher is more like Anne Coulter - he'll happily eat his own if it means he gets to feel morally superior and people keep paying attention to him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: According to Occupy Wall Street, its ok to discriminate against white, heterosexual males.
Yeah, no. It's pretty much just a non-starter to try and assign a single belief to the whole of Occupy Wall Street, and when you're picking an issue as radical and far removed from the issue of income distribution as the one you cite... well then you're really just muckraking the fringe for political gain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Is it wrong that I like The Colbert Report more than Bill Maher?
I don't really understand why Colbert isn't being consistently hailed as one of the best comedic products you've ever produced. I mean, I think back to all the love and adoration John Stewart got, and a lot of what he did was good, but it was way less consistent, and even his best wasn't as funny or as pointed as Colbert.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/01 04:44:45
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
That being said, there is a huge difference between Bell's response to the realization that Michelle Obama's comment was not made by Paul Ryan and Kobe's refusal to pass judgement against Mr. Zimmerman.
Agree 100%. Kobe is a really interesting case study in this whole thing.
Sort of. The bigger issue is that 'conservative' is largely just a brandname at this point. If you ask people whether they are liberal or conservative, a majority will choose conservative... but if you ask them their positions on various matters, well it changes considerably;
"Looked at this way, almost 30 percent of Americans are “consistent liberals” — people who call themselves liberals and have liberal politics. Only 15 percent are “consistent conservatives” — people who call themselves conservative and have conservative politics. Nearly 30 percent are people who identify as conservative but actually express liberal views. The United States appears to be a center-right nation in name only.
This raises the question: why are so many people identifying as conservative while simultaneously preferring more government? For some conservatives, it is because they associate the label with religion, culture or lifestyle. In essence, when they identify as “conservative,” they are thinking about conservatism in terms of family structure, raising children, or interpreting the Bible. Conservatism is about their personal lives, not their politics.
But other self-identified conservatives, though, are conservative in terms of neither religion and culture nor the size of government. These are the truly “conflicted conservatives,” say Ellis and Stimson, who locate their origins in a different factor: how conservatives and liberals have traditionally talked about politics. Conservatives, they argue, talk about politics in terms of symbols and the general value of “conservatism” — and news coverage, they find, usually frames the label “conservative” in positive terms. Liberals talk about policy in terms of the goals it will serve — a cleaner environment, a stronger safety net, and so on — which are also good things for many people. As a result, some people internalize both messages and end up calling themselves conservative but having liberal views on policy."
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Yeah, no. It's pretty much just a non-starter to try and assign a single belief to the whole of Occupy Wall Street, and when you're picking an issue as radical and far removed from the issue of income distribution as the one you cite... well then you're really just muckraking the fringe for political gain.
I know, right? They could hardly decide what their "point" was; I think its unfair for us to attribute any to them.
Having no idea who she was I looked her up... found out she's the only actor from Clueless who's career ended faster than Alicia Silverstone's. On google image the slightly naked picture of her I clicked on purely for dakka research took me to a blog saying 'how the left keep black people in their place'... so there's that.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Having no idea who she was I looked her up... found out she's the only actor from Clueless who's career ended faster than Alicia Silverstone's. On google image the slightly naked picture of her I clicked on purely for dakka research took me to a blog saying 'how the left keep black people in their place'... so there's that.
She also started a twitter war during the elections... by simply throwing her support to Mitt Romney.
And yes... she's fooking hot.
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/01 05:04:46
sebster wrote: People started thinking there was a problem with black culture at the very moment that business started pulling out of the inner city. And now, sure enough, as economic opportunities decline across various rural areas, people are starting to talk about a problem with rural white culture.
As someone who grew up in a rural area, people talking about a problem with rural white culture isn't anything new; it started a long time ago. I think the difference is, criticism of rural white culture continues to be generally accepted in society, regardless of the source, while public criticism of black culture will often be vigorously challenged, especially if the person doing the criticizing does so from a position outside the African-American community.
As someone who grew up in a rural area, people talking about a problem with rural white culture isn't anything new; it started a long time ago. I think the difference is, criticism of rural white culture continues to be generally accepted in society, regardless of the source, while public criticism of black culture will often be vigorously challenged, especially if the person doing the criticizing does so from a position outside the African-American community.
While I agree, how many rural, white Americans have criticized their own culture?
Jeff Foxworthy?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
As someone who grew up in a rural area, people talking about a problem with rural white culture isn't anything new; it started a long time ago. I think the difference is, criticism of rural white culture continues to be generally accepted in society, regardless of the source, while public criticism of black culture will often be vigorously challenged, especially if the person doing the criticizing does so from a position outside the African-American community.
While I agree, how many rural, white Americans have criticized their own culture?
Jeff Foxworthy?
Not that many, unfortunately. Jeff Foxworthy is probably one of the best examples from popular culture. But I think that lack tends to stem from rural American culture (white or otherwise) being mostly either portrayed as something negative or backwards, or simply ignored. In addition, there are groups that work to organize urban communities in order to give the people that live there a voice in the public discourse, while there isn't as much community organizing or focus on rural communities (while groups promoting the interests of rural communities exist, they don't seem to be as prominent). Part of the reason likely stems from rural communities being spread out over a broader area, but the result seems to be that even among those who work to ensure that those who come from urban areas have a voice, rural culture is seen as without value (or not seen at all), or that while they view urban culture as something multi-layered and complex, they find it acceptable to entertain rural stereotypes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/01 06:26:36
I grew up in a rural environment and live in an urban one, and I have found that both tend to stereotype the other in about the same amounts. The also tend to have strong opinions about one other while only having superficial understanding/experience with the other.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote: I grew up in a rural environment and live in an urban one, and I have found that both tend to stereotype the other in about the same amounts. The also tend to have strong opinions about one other while only having superficial understanding/experience with the other.
I would generally agree with this, with the caveat that stereotyping or criticism of rural populations tends to be more acceptable in society at large.
cincydooley wrote: I know, right? They could hardly decide what their "point" was; I think its unfair for us to attribute any to them.
I loved John Waters take on it (really, really paraphrasing, off a talkshow segment I saw him in) - They're kids, they want to shout about stuff. I think every kid should go and protest, its a great place to meet pretty girls.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: As someone who grew up in a rural area, people talking about a problem with rural white culture isn't anything new; it started a long time ago. I think the difference is, criticism of rural white culture continues to be generally accepted in society, regardless of the source, while public criticism of black culture will often be vigorously challenged, especially if the person doing the criticizing does so from a position outside the African-American community.
Yes, the thing where you can talk about white problems in a way you can't talk about problems is stupid. But focussing on that misses the point - trying to assign any of the issues to some vague 'culture' thing is fething stupid.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/01 06:57:53
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I would generally agree with this, with the caveat that stereotyping or criticism of rural populations tends to be more acceptable in society at large.
When upwards of 80% of the US population lives within urban/suburban areas stereotyping rural folk is to be expected.
It is unfortunate, though. As I have encountered (on the internet and otherwise) quite a few cool people from rural areas; such as yourself.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
