Posted August 13, 2011 Wow, this thread just took a turn for the even more disgraceful. I'm ashamed on behalf of you guys. But to avoid making jokes about them (when you make jokes about all other groups) would be treating them as if they're not equal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 There is nothing funny about a joke that relies on tired and roundly debunked racial stereotypes to be functional. In using it, you yourself are propping up those same attitudes, and by laughing at them, you are proving that it is still socially acceptable to laugh at someone being systemically unfairly treated. What struck me the most though is that when a black voice enters the thread to shed some light on the matter which zie knows much more about, and from a more valuable perspective, (since we as whites have the white privilege of not experiencing racial discrimination in anywhere near the same way) the unanimous response is to say "lighten up, it's just a joke" and essentially ignore the entire statement. That is the disgrace of this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 King V didn't just put across his opinions on the matter though. He branded most of the people in the thread racists and started throwing around insults. He just has an aggressive style of posting that will never help him, something I find with you as well Yvonne. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 It was not a unanimous response. The response was for King_V to control his insults which frankly are unneeded and irrelevant. His attitude has for the majority of the time been aggressive and very little else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 I assumed King_V was making a hilarious joke. Accusing everyone of being judgemental and generalising, and then in the very next paragraph going on to brand non-blacks as pitiful, narrow-minded sheep? That's some of the best use of comedic irony I've seen in a while. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 I assumed King_V was making a hilarious joke. Accusing everyone of being judgemental and generalising, and then in the very next paragraph going on to brand non-blacks as pitiful, narrow-minded sheep? That's some of the best use of comedic irony I've seen in a while. In fairness to V, I believe he only referred to the "racists" in question as the pitiful, narrow-minded sheep. Or, at least, that was his intention. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 In fairness to V, I believe he only referred to the "racists" in question as the pitiful, narrow-minded sheep. Or, at least, that was his intention. His intention seemed to be to imply that anyone who finds the odd racist joke funny is as bad as whose who would bully/beat up someone just because they're black. If he said that he personally dislikes them then fair enough - that would be an appropriate comment. Making jokes and stuff be based on what the individual thinks of them, and what their personal experiences are. For example, you wouldn't make jokes about a topic when you know someone in the room has had a traumatic experience related to it. And if you didn't know, then you should apologise. They should understand. My point is that you shouldn't generalise that if one person thinks that, then they all must do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 Yah, I'm sure you'd all be /much/ more receptive to my points if I sugar coated them to protect your feelings... His intention seemed to be to imply that anyone who finds the odd racist joke funny is as bad as whose who would bully/beat up someone just because they're black. It's all part of the same machine of oppression, "racist" is a category of action, not a predefined quantity of harm For example, you wouldn't make jokes about a topic when you know someone in the room has had a traumatic experience related to it. what about when you DON'T know if someone in the room has had a traumatic experience? Then you have to back pedal and apologise, but essentially you're saying you'd laugh about someones pain when they're not around. But the worst is the person who will when called out, say "oh well I'm free to make jokes about this if I want, and you are just /choosing/ to be hurt by it." Yeah, that's exactly how offense works ¬_¬ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 In fairness to V, I believe he only referred to the "racists" in question as the pitiful, narrow-minded sheep. Or, at least, that was his intention. Ugh, you're going to make me respond properly, aren't you? Fine. I think he reacted completely the wrong way, but then annoyance can often get the better of people's judgement. Whilst not commendable the aggression is understandable, and it's not really anyone else's place to tell him what can and cannot offend him; you could spend all day telling me why butter's great, I'm still not going to like it. Personally I think anything's fair game when it comes to humour, but that isn't the same as making jokes mindlessly. Whenever you're dipping into an area of potential offence you have to weigh things up, ask yourself whether what you're about to say is really funny or clever enough to warrant any potential fallout. You can't get too up in arms if someone does find the thing you said offensive, that's just the risk you run for stepping into that territory even if you don't mean any real offence. On the other hand, before you take offence at something you should always try and think about how you might be misinterpreting or overreacting. Neither of those is going to do you any favours in the long run, and when people do fall into those traps they end up worked up but can't really tell you why; a joke that acknowledges racism is not the same as a racist joke, for instance. In other words, communication is about give and take. It behoves everyone to consider who they're talking to and where they're coming from, making compromises and apologies where necessary rather than thinking others' opinions can be crushed through sheer force of will. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 Yeah, that's exactly how offense works ¬_¬ And so what if someone was offended? It's more important that an individual has the right to offend another individual than it is for an individual to have the right not to be offended. Once one person has the right not to be offended, then we all have that right. At which point, logically, anything can be banned or censored as it might cause someone offense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 Sky news did a interview with a few lads who have admitted to 'looting' and given there reasons for doing so. http://news.sky.com/home/video/16049147 Or i have found a youtube link: So what are peoples thoughts on their 'reasons'? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) Zech, this is a very important point, and it's one that people fail to understand repeatedly, so I will say it again: You are free to do and say whatever you want. This does not free you from being an arsehole for doing it. Edited August 13, 2011 by Yvonne Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517 10 minutes. Worth watching. David Starkey's a twat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 So what are peoples thoughts on their 'reasons'? Pure rationalisation. Not to say there isn't a kernel of truth to it being hard for young people to find jobs at the moment but you can't hide behind that, especially not whilst patting yourself on the back for gathering up more than a van's worth of loot and bragging about your newly stolen plasma TV. It's an incredibly disingenuous and dangerous thing to say: repeat that sort of thing enough and you start to really believe it. As I'm currently looking for work I can tell you that this country offers up a wealth of opportunities for those willing to put some effort in. Job Seeker's Allowance is the most obvious form of support, but there's also all sorts of apprenticeships, courses and subsidised qualifications on offer. If anything the government does too much for the unemployed, creating a breeding ground for notions of entitlement and complacency. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 Well Fresh has already posted a link but here's a condensed version with added music... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 David Starkey is the most brilliant political mind in the country. I saw him on Newsnight and he was talking complete and utter common sense. Unfortunately, the subject is too sensitive for people to admit he's right. Either that or people can't grasp what he's saying, hence the "racist" tags already. We won't be able to solve this problem until we're able to talk about it honestly. When you see how sensitive people are about David Starkey's completely rational and perceptive comments, that may well be never. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 I've said it before an I'll say it again. Having a job is not a right. Employment is based around an individual having certain skills, and another individual or organization having a need for these skills. If you do not have any skills whatsoever, you are worthless in the world of employment, and you have to take what you can get. You can do all sorts of things to gain skills that make you more employable though. The most obvious being formal post secondary education, but naturally not everyone can afford this (I'm aware that not everyone can gain the necessary prerequisites to attend a university either, but that's ALMOST always down to the fault of the individual and the poor decisions that they've made). There are tons of other ways to gain skills to make you employable though, volunteer work, seminars, certifications, etc. Then there's of course the path of starting your own business. Its not that there aren't people who have been given the rotten end of the stick and will find improving their situation harder, but the fact is, they CAN improve their situation. It appears, however, they'd rather be out stealing TVs and mobiles than actually trying to do anything about that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 Ugh, you're going to make me respond properly, aren't you? Fine. I think he reacted completely the wrong way, but then annoyance can often get the better of people's judgement. Whilst not commendable the aggression is understandable, and it's not really anyone else's place to tell him what can and cannot offend him; you could spend all day telling me why butter's great, I'm still not going to like it. Personally I think anything's fair game when it comes to humour, but that isn't the same as making jokes mindlessly. Whenever you're dipping into an area of potential offence you have to weigh things up, ask yourself whether what you're about to say is really funny or clever enough to warrant any potential fallout. You can't get too up in arms if someone does find the thing you said offensive, that's just the risk you run for stepping into that territory even if you don't mean any real offence. On the other hand, before you take offence at something you should always try and think about how you might be misinterpreting or overreacting. Neither of those is going to do you any favours in the long run, and when people do fall into those traps they end up worked up but can't really tell you why; a joke that acknowledges racism is not the same as a racist joke, for instance. In other words, communication is about give and take. It behoves everyone to consider who they're talking to and where they're coming from, making compromises and apologies where necessary rather than thinking others' opinions can be crushed through sheer force of will. I agree with what you're saying. It was over the top, but I was just pointing out that he wasn't referring to everyone as that, just those involved. I don't think I've seen the joke. What page was it on? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) David Starkey is the most brilliant political mind in the country. I saw him on Newsnight and he was talking complete and utter common sense. Unfortunately, the subject is too sensitive for people to admit he's right. Either that or people can't grasp what he's saying, hence the "racist" tags already. We won't be able to solve this problem until we're able to talk about it honestly. When you see how sensitive people are about David Starkey's completely rational and perceptive comments, that may well be never. Simon Schama >>>> David Starkey. I would say that Christopher Hitchens is also a much, much more brilliant mind than David Starkey, but then again he resides in the United States these days. EDIT - More Starkey fun, this time attacking women: I mean even the Mail readers think he's being a dick. Edited August 13, 2011 by ipaul Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 Simon Schama is a good historian, but less politically interesting than David Starkey. Peter Hitchens is another favourite of mine, but I suppose it depends on whether you lean more to the left or right. What I like about David Starkey is that he's always radical and usually presents a solution (eg. taking lessons from Canada to deal with the financial crisis). He always looks at the issues, seemingly without bias or prejudice, and then comes to a conclusion regardless of how popular or unpopular it might be. It's really quite odd people are calling him racist when he went out of his way to praise the Tottenham MP David Lammy, for example. He doesn't appear to have an interest in being racist at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 And so what if someone was offended? It's more important that an individual has the right to offend another individual than it is for an individual to have the right not to be offended. Once one person has the right not to be offended, then we all have that right. At which point, logically, anything can be banned or censored as it might cause someone offense. Zech, this is a very important point, and it's one that people fail to understand repeatedly, so I will say it again: You are free to do and say whatever you want. This does not free you from being an arsehole for doing it. Both entirely valid points... in fact, aren't they pretty much the same point..? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 As brilliant as he may be I believe that in this case, and a few more in fact, he's not handled himself well. It was too much of his 'THEM' and 'US' attitude the people seem to have the problem with. Anyway this isn't a matter of race, at all. These 'riots' (I'm getting sick of calling them riots, Egypt was a riot, stonewall was a riot, this was looting) are about so much more than the color of someones skin. It seems agreement seems to be with the unearned entitlement attitude many of these thugs have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 They caught the scumbag responsible for this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14515047 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 what about when you DON'T know if someone in the room has had a traumatic experience? Then you have to back pedal and apologise, but essentially you're saying you'd laugh about someones pain when they're not around. But the worst is the person who will when called out, say "oh well I'm free to make jokes about this if I want, and you are just /choosing/ to be hurt by it." Yeah, that's exactly how offense works ¬_¬ So what you're saying is that no form of humour that could potentially be offensive to anyone should ever be made because it's oppressive? I will never understand this attitude towards humour. Humour is all about poking fun at things. There's a reason humour is regarded as the opposite to seriousness - because it's not meant to be taken seriously. It doesn't necessarily reflect actual opinion, and in any case it's the actual opinion that matters. That's not to say you shouldn't try to avoid offending whoever's present, of course. But then again, people need to have a certain level of self-irony. Should I be offended when black people make fun of white people? Of course not! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 13, 2011 My point is that I am repeatedly misinterpreted as trying to censor free speech. The only people trying to do that are the government (re: switching off social media during unrest. I guess they got the idea from the arab dictators) I do not desire a world where you have a "right to not be offended". In fact there is literally no way of implementing it - it's like declaring "you are free to not be injured", then expecting no one to ever have an accident again. Offense is not predictable and not a choice. Someone will do something and hey, it upsets you. At no point did you decide it upset you, it just did. But it doesn't mean you can't pay attention to what hurts those around you. You have the option to act courteously and respect other peoples' feelings even when/especially when they are different from yours. If, even when you know those around you will be hurt by what you do, you continue to do those things, you are at best inconsiderate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
