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.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's a difficult case as anything referring to whites isn't loaded with a history of racism.

Nope. You have just been lucky enough to never have been exposed to actual racism directed at you for being white. And I am not talking about someone on Tumblr telling you to “check your priviledge”, I am talking actual racism. In France, the word they would use would be babtou. I do not know in Germany, or the U.S. I do not live there.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Racism against white people simply is widely accepted or not looked into.

I disagree with “widely accepted”. It is mostly ignored. And you seem like you are ignorant of what the actual racism against white looks like. But it is a real issue!

I can't speak for Sigvatr, but to me "history of racism" means more than just that someone at some time made an anti-white comment. To me, it means that a group of people has been systematically and effectively excluded from wealth and influence in a society because of their race. Has this happened to white people in France? It certainly has not happened to white people in the USA or (just based on visiting and studying history) Germany.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/codi-bott/2014/07/racism-against-white-people-exists/

White people aren't the only people who can be racists. Anyone who hates someone because of their skin color, nationality or religion is racist.

People aren't saying racism against whites doesn't exist. It's about whether or not a specific term should/could/would be considered racist.

http://www.rsdb.org/race/whites

Oooh, I'm definitely referring to all white people as dog-fethers now.
(I guess that means I'm one as well now).

 Manchu wrote:
I can't speak for Sigvatr, but to me "history of racism" means more than just that someone at some time made an anti-white comment. To me, it means that a group of people has been systematically and effectively excluded from wealth and influence in a society because of their race. Has this happened to white people in France? It certainly has not happened to white people in the USA or (just based on visiting and studying history) Germany.

How many do you need before its not acceptable on Dakka?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

(I guess that means I'm one as well now).

That heavily irritates me as the term "bitch" stems from black culture / slang language and refers to women. I...am...confused.

 Frazzled wrote:
How many do you need before its not acceptable on Dakka?

As you know (or should know), any comment a moderator judges to be rude is not acceptable.

 Sigvatr wrote:
the term "bitch" stems from black culture

I don't think that's true.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

(I guess that means I'm one as well now).

That heavily irritates me as the term "bitch" stems from black culture / slang language and refers to women. I...am...confused.

Whowhatnow? I was referring to that fact that I;m white. Swedish, Norwegian, Irish and English mostley.

Weird, I wanted to quote the first part of your post :(

Oh.

Apologies, you little Goat Roper, you :*

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

(I guess that means I'm one as well now).

That heavily irritates me as the term "bitch" stems from black culture / slang language and refers to women. I...am...confused.

No, it doesn't. That term's been in use since before Europeans knew black people existed.

*popular use of it stems [...]

It doesn't, it really doesn't. Like most forms of vulgarity, its actual origins are probably lost in the mists of time (such as the origins of "f**k" or "s**t"), but it has nothing to do with urban black culture. Seriously. I mean, shoot, the term pre-dates Emancipation, back to a time when slave-owning America was not even necessarily teaching their slaves English, and the word was well in use then.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Scruffy WhiteDude is a pretty good description of the type of videogame character like Drake out of Drake's Whatever (can't remember the name of the games.) He is a scruffy white dude and there are many similar characters in other video games.

I have seen the term used in articles outside the confines of DakkaDakka. It is a fairly common trope.

Whitey McWhiteBoy does nothing to describe a character except emphasise his whiteness and, in terms of using the term 'boy', to diminish his adult identity. Think about why black servants and slaves used to be called 'boy'.

Whitey McWhiteBoy means nothing to me in terms of being offensive. The "boy" part is your own cultural bias showing as well, and isn't something that people from where I live would even notice. It's no more demeaning than talking about "boys and girls" - that is to say - not at all. Whitey McWhiteGirl. See?

Even with your cultural bias in place, I think people are overreacting on that one and perhaps even looking to be offended. It's not "cracker". (which is also a piss-poor insult). But it's certainly not what I'd consider racist.

I think it could be used as a racist slur but the question here is whether it was used that way in a certain context (see OP's links), which I do not think is the case.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

And yes, I do feel mugged. I absolutely disagree that what Psienesis stated here was not a derisive comment about white people. To be told that his use of "Whitey McWhiteBoy" could be replaced with "just a white guy" is insulting, because he could have done that. But he didn't, he chose to use a ridiculous term to make a point.

I disagree that it's in any way insulting or derisive about white people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
I think it could be used as a racist slur but the question here is whether it was used that way in a certain context (see OP's links), which I do not think is the case.

I'll even disagree with you on that for the most part. Anything can be used as an insult, given the right tone and emphasis. Ever been called an onion? Hell, you could even turn that into a racist insult (against a whole range of different races) simply by implication (and people looking to be offended). And Mc being implied to mean "Mick"? There's a lot of reaching in this thread.

 Manchu wrote:
I can't speak for Sigvatr, but to me "history of racism" means more than just that someone at some time made an anti-white comment.

Did I say something about history?

 Ghaz wrote:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/codi-bott/2014/07/racism-against-white-people-exists/

White people aren't the only people who can be racists. Anyone who hates someone because of a 'biological difference' (their skin color, nationality, religion, etc.) is racist.

Every ethnicty contains many racists. And it's not simply related to the most broad brush of "black/white/yellow/red/brown" either. There's lots of racism in Japan towards Koreans Go to Europe. The Irish have a long history of it from.... the English. (Hey, both are "white!"). Jews, Albanians, Slavs, Romani. Greeks and Turns and Kurds. Hutu and Tutsi. Persians and Arabs. What about Polentone and Terrone? Just because you don't see the differences, doesn't mean they don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:


http://www.rsdb.org/race/whites

That's awesome. "Anglo" is in there. We should ban that here on Dakka since it can be used as a racist term by some people in a small part of the world.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Did I say something about history?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's a difficult case as anything referring to whites isn't loaded with a history of racism.

Nope.

I definitely think that Whitey McWhiteboy is pretty offensive, why not just "generic white bloke"?

The back and forth argument is absolutely preposterous frankly. Really absurd. There is absolutely no need to use the term... its not even an abbreviation! "white guy" requires fewer keystrokes!

If someone that was any other ethnicity at all called me "Whitey McWhiteboy" in the pub, we all know what the people surrounding us would think, they would think "the guy throwing that name about is a dick"

But yes, as DT has pointed out, a small group (well 2) Dakka mods are about as impartial as Al Sharpton, and what they say goes.

Why even pretend otherwise when everybody knows it?

Its like Russia denying that they have been active in Ukraine!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yeah I forgot to vote, I say nay.

Its pretty PC on dakka. If the President couldn't say it on TV, then we shouldn't use it either.

Can you imagine Fox news if he said "Oh well, obviously I want to hear the views of Whitey Mcwhiteguy"

It's totally okay to use offensive terms if they target a majority group. Privilege etc.

Ehm. Kind of. At least in the US, there has never been a time in the history of our national identity that being of Anglo-Saxon descent was ever a bad thing in regards to our legal institutions, financial institutions, systems of government or... anything else, really. In America, if you are white, you are already American Citizen +1. Shoot, even most social institutions were more open to whites than they were to blacks (or anyone of color for that matter)... and still are.

So if the people who have most-benefited from their ethnic heritage... their whiteness, if you will... in this nation, from its inception all the way up to this very second right now, get their jimmies rustled that I, the living example of Whitey McWhiteboy, refer to their generic depiction in video game protagonists as Whitey McWhiteboy.... tough. If that's the worst thing that happens to them this week, then they do, indeed, live lives of privilege.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's totally okay to use offensive terms if they target a majority group. Privilege etc.

I disagree with that too, but thats because I am a man of honor and integrity.

Case in point, I am poor, but I loathe class warfare. I am the son of a single parent who was a steel-worker, yet I have argued with many a friend (almost all of them) who since the bankers crisis think its fine to hate rich people.

We don't choose to be poor, most rich don't choose to be rich, they are born and the cards lie where they may, yet the amount of hate (and by numerous posters on here I am pretty friendly with too) for "the rich" I see is immense. Its really fething ugly and it is made uglier still because people seem to think it is fine. Did Prince Harry choose to be Prince Harry? Why do so many effete Cambrdge students think its ok to throw eggs at him then? They wouldn't stand for doing it to other minorities.

Hating the rich is almost as intolerable to me as hating the poor, or people of color, its all the same thing, being a judgmental donkey-cave.

I take everyone on a case by case basis, perhaps one day in the future people can be as wise and enlightened as I am.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Tough. If that's the worst thing that happens to them this week, then they do, indeed, live lives of privilege.

Seriously that is a fething terrible attitude to have when it comes to bigotry.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's totally okay to use offensive terms if they target a majority group. Privilege etc.

Hey, do you remember when you asked me if it was not the case that you were an acceptable target and suffered from discrimination?
And I asked you in return “Which part? Acceptable target, or suffer from discrimination?”
My point was that you are an acceptable target because you do not suffer from discrimination.
Blacks are a majority group in South Africa, and where so even during the apartheid. But it was not okay to use offensive terms targeting them. And really they did suffer from discrimination.
Do you suffer from discrimination?

*looks at his username*



Also



I love posting that vid.

This needs reposted and the thread needs locked.

 Manchu wrote:
We can see from this discussion that saying "white" and "Whitey McWhiteBoy" are actually not equivalent. In the relevant context, the word "white" just describes the character's race. "Whitey McWhiteBoy" is more than a description; it is an implicit argument about the role of race in creating bland video game protagonists, the same way that "Attitude Brown" is an argument about the role of race in writing and casting parts for black people. There are white characters to whom the term "Whitey McWhiteBoy" does not apply.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's totally okay to use offensive terms if they target a majority group. Privilege etc.

Hey, do you remember when you asked me if it was not the case that you were an acceptable target and suffered from discrimination?
And I asked you in return “Which part? Acceptable target, or suffer from discrimination?”
My point was that you are an acceptable target because you do not suffer from discrimination.
Blacks are a majority group in South Africa, and where so even during the apartheid. But it was not okay to use offensive terms targeting them. And really they did suffer from discrimination.
Do you suffer from discrimination?

Wait... this is sort of a bad argument I think. I mean, you seem to be saying - and I could be misconstruing this - but that if a group isn't traditionally discriminated against because of their skin color (lets say), then using an offensive term towards a member of that group who is selected solely based upon skin color isn't actually discrimination? Cause I don't think that flies. Even a member of a majority percentage group can be discriminated.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
against*

 Casey's Law wrote:
This needs reposted and the thread needs locked.

 Manchu wrote:
We can see from this discussion that saying "white" and "Whitey McWhiteBoy" are actually not equivalent. In the relevant context, the word "white" just describes the character's race. "Whitey McWhiteBoy" is more than a description; it is an implicit argument about the role of race in creating bland video game protagonists, the same way that "Attitude Brown" is an argument about the role of race in writing and casting parts for black people. There are white characters to whom the term "Whitey McWhiteBoy" does not apply.

I'm truly stunned that you, and half the people in this thread cannot possibly see the point of what DT, and several other people are saying. Its not that its really offensive, obviously its not "really offensive" because white people have never had the power of the state arrayed against them, it isn't the issue.

The issue, clearly, is one of consistency. I think people should be able to say absolutely anything they want. If some Muslim extremist guy wants to make a banner and stand outside the houses of Parliament saying insane things, I think he should be allowed, I have always advocated that. The ISLAM4UK march should have been allowed through Wooten Bassett, it wasn't, for the same reasons that we have drawn a line under what you can and cant say. I disagree with it, but fine, whatever.

Thus we arrive at the crux. I disagree with PC nonsense, but it has won the day, and we have decided that we are always going to be PC and watch what we say all the time. Ergo, I want some bloody consistency. If you would be unable to say something in a public forum, say as a newsreader or a politician, then we should behave appropriately. Its not terribly offensive, it obviously isn't, and it doesn't upset me. But anyone with integrity hates double standards, and that's what it is. Clearly and obviously.

If a black president or a black prime minister said "Obviously I want to address the points that "Whitey mcwhiteboy" over there have brought up" it is unacceptable to all and sundry.

I am genuinely amazed that you cant see the OPs point. Its not about offensiveness, its about hypocrisy, and consistency.

"Boy" is also rude. Im a 34 year old man, if someone calls me "boy" its almost always rude unless the guy is past 70.

Why not just admit, "ok yeah, it can certainly be needlessly rude, thus we should simply say "generic white male"

I'd call you boy in real life.

And damn right I'd be trying to be rude.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I'd call you boy in real life.

And damn right I'd be trying to be rude.

Proved my point then yes?

Much appreciated.