MoogleViper Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 That makes absolutely no sense. To me it would only make sense if the person was literally of citizenship in 3 countries, one of which being within Africa. But eh what do I know. Just to clarify, I was joking. I wouldn't read too much into things and I don't think its healthy to believe in generic reasoning ie "Black men think of mixed-race women like this...". Me and my gf get stares even here in London - for those that don't know I am a brutish Black Brit* and my gf is a small typical scandi, very blonde and green eyes. Shes short and I am tall... theres just so many reasons why people would stare - sometimes its annoying so Ive spoken out at times, most don't seem to be aware. If people are hurling abuse at you though, that shit needs to be reported. (* In the past on forums, I haven't usually been up for disclosing my ethnicity because I notice a slight 'distance' that it sometimes creates - DGAF now though) Yeah I don't read too much into it (and obviously I take the generalisations as generalisations. Most black people don't stare at us) I just find it interesting as I've only ever known racism being propagated by white people, so hearing about generalisations and stereotypes from other races and cultures is quite interesting to me. The verbal abuse is hard to stand up to as they're usually driving past so they're gone as quickly as it's said. It's only been veryvfew occasisions mostly we experience nothing at all
Beast Posted July 1, 2016 Author Posted July 1, 2016 My girlfriend is black (mixed race, black and white) and I've noticed racism when walking down the street with her, from both black and white people (admittedly only men). From white men it's always been a shout from a car as they drive passed. From black men we often get dirty looks as we walk by holding hands (I used to have this with my previous girlfriend, Arabic, from middle eastern men). For me it seems like they're directing the dirty looks at me, but my gf thinks they're at her. Can't remember her exact reasoning but something to do with how mixed race/light skinned black women are viewed by black men. I've never heard of that but I have had racist experiences from white and black people. For me, it was that I was a 'product of an abomination' and that I wasn't human. I just laugh because they just sound completely uneducated. I know this will sound weird but this week has been the first time where I actually have thought a lot about my skin colour. I never used to and I've not thought about it as much before. I've always been the mixed race one in the family and my friends but I've never actually had it pointed out to me or anything. The one question that irritates me a little is: do you class yourself as black or white? My answer: "I class myself as Darren/Animal/a Beast, who wants to know!"
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) I believe its a good thing to be fully aware of your identity and how it registers with some people. With that knowledge, I think people have a better understanding of the world around them and a greater sense of self awareness. It is a red pill vs blue pill choice however. Edited July 3, 2016 by King_V
Iun Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 I believe its a good thing to be fully aware of your identity and how it registers with some people. With that knowledge, I think people have a better understanding of the world around them and a greater sense of self awareness. It is a red pill vs blue pill choice however. Try being a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jewish Native American Celtic hybrid. I get the most wonderful stares when I write "Other" for my ethnicity on forms! Haterz be liek " Yo' brah, you a white dude." I be all "Nah my bromide, I be many terrible fings, but white ain't one uf em." China it's worse though: they automatically assume every foreigner is French or American. In the end I had to grow really thick skin. Fucking accusing me of being Fench... whoop your stupid ass...
Iun Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 I believe its a good thing to be fully aware of your identity and how it registers with some people. With that knowledge, I think people have a better understanding of the world around them and a greater sense of self awareness. It is a red pill vs blue pill choice however. Try being a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jewish Native American Celtic hybrid. I get the most wonderful stares when I write "Other" for my ethnicity on forms! Haterz be liek " Yo' brah, you a white dude." I be all "Nah my bromide, I be many terrible fings, but white ain't one uf em." China it's worse though: they automatically assume every foreigner is French or American. In the end I had to grow really thick skin. Fucking accusing me of being Fench... whoop your stupid ass...
MoogleViper Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 China it's worse though: they automatically assume every foreigner is French or American. In the end I had to grow really thick skin. American I get (hollywood and basically all media) but why French?
MoogleViper Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 China it's worse though: they automatically assume every foreigner is French or American. In the end I had to grow really thick skin. American I get (hollywood and basically all media) but why French?
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 Try being a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jewish Native American Celtic hybrid. I get the most wonderful stares when I write "Other" for my ethnicity on forms! Haterz be liek " Yo' brah, you a white dude." I be all "Nah my bromide, I be many terrible fings, but white ain't one uf em." China it's worse though: they automatically assume every foreigner is French or American. In the end I had to grow really thick skin. Fucking accusing me of being Fench... whoop your stupid ass... I don't know what its like to be blonde-haired and blue-eyed, but try being brown-skinned and afro-haired in most parts of the world for some real true stories bro.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 Try being a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jewish Native American Celtic hybrid. I get the most wonderful stares when I write "Other" for my ethnicity on forms! Haterz be liek " Yo' brah, you a white dude." I be all "Nah my bromide, I be many terrible fings, but white ain't one uf em." China it's worse though: they automatically assume every foreigner is French or American. In the end I had to grow really thick skin. Fucking accusing me of being Fench... whoop your stupid ass... I don't know what its like to be blonde-haired and blue-eyed, but try being brown-skinned and afro-haired in most parts of the world for some real true stories bro.
bob Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 You guys should try being a brown haired, brown eyed, white dude. It's awful.
bob Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 You guys should try being a brown haired, brown eyed, white dude. It's awful.
Nolan Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 You guys should try being a brown haired, brown eyed, white dude. It's awful. Brown hair red beard hazel eyed white dude. It was only a little super awkward when my girls super Mexican mom told me my eyes were gorgeous over breakfast... So, this is a thing that happened. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/4/black-lives-matter-shuts-down-toronto-gay-pride-pa/ Can't say I'm a fan...and this latest stunt doesn't help. Honored guests, leading the parade and they decide to stop and stall the entire parade for some rather silly demands. The worst of which in my opinion is prioritizing hiring people of color, and that police shouldn't be allowed representation in the parade with floats. Horribly horribly ironic when they want more colored representation; which perhaps they have a point I don't know, alternatively the demographics may just be skewed that way as opposed to the anti-black practices they're claiming. They stalled for a half hour before the Pride organizer agreed to the demands. I've typed all this and just realized perhaps it's already posted and talked about in the LGBT thread, but I think it somewhat fits here too.
Nolan Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 You guys should try being a brown haired, brown eyed, white dude. It's awful. Brown hair red beard hazel eyed white dude. It was only a little super awkward when my girls super Mexican mom told me my eyes were gorgeous over breakfast... So, this is a thing that happened. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/4/black-lives-matter-shuts-down-toronto-gay-pride-pa/ Can't say I'm a fan...and this latest stunt doesn't help. Honored guests, leading the parade and they decide to stop and stall the entire parade for some rather silly demands. The worst of which in my opinion is prioritizing hiring people of color, and that police shouldn't be allowed representation in the parade with floats. Horribly horribly ironic when they want more colored representation; which perhaps they have a point I don't know, alternatively the demographics may just be skewed that way as opposed to the anti-black practices they're claiming. They stalled for a half hour before the Pride organizer agreed to the demands. I've typed all this and just realized perhaps it's already posted and talked about in the LGBT thread, but I think it somewhat fits here too.
MoogleViper Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 I don't know what its like to be blonde-haired and blue-eyed, but try being brown-skinned and afro-haired in most parts of the world for some real true stories bro. I'm ginger.
MoogleViper Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 I don't know what its like to be blonde-haired and blue-eyed, but try being brown-skinned and afro-haired in most parts of the world for some real true stories bro. I'm ginger.
Ashley Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 Going back a bit (been away a few days) I've recently been engaging in conversations with all sorts on Twitter. Started with something to do with the referendum and someone saying like "seems we're not getting WW3 as promised!" and I made a flippant comment that civil war may start the rate we're going and after explaining I meant that because of the racism that has been unleashed it went down this kind of route: "But there's always been racism" "Yes, not denying that but it has increased and we should use this opportunity to address it head on" "But remainers are being horrible to old people" "That is bad and we should address that too" "The media only care about it because they want to criticise leavers" "Report it to the police if you witness it, complain to ofcom" "But they won't do anything!" "Particularly if you don't report it..." "They only care about certain ethnicities! I saw a white person beat up black people and the media didn't mention it." "Did you report it? They won't report if they don't hear" "I didn't actually see it but I heard about it" "Did anyone report it to the police? Where was this? Worth seeing if anyone tweeted it as proof" No reply and some messages got deleted... But its indicative of this desire to finger-point and try and deflect from the actual issue out of either wanting to squash it or a misplaced sense of "but other things are wrong too!" Actually at one point I said what we need is to come together as a nation to tackle this (and other related) issues, not a blame culture. They then asked what a blame culture was... It just feels like some people are so keen to prove that not all people that voted leave are racist (which is obvious) that they're not actually concerned about tackling the problem at hand.
Ashley Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 Going back a bit (been away a few days) I've recently been engaging in conversations with all sorts on Twitter. Started with something to do with the referendum and someone saying like "seems we're not getting WW3 as promised!" and I made a flippant comment that civil war may start the rate we're going and after explaining I meant that because of the racism that has been unleashed it went down this kind of route: "But there's always been racism" "Yes, not denying that but it has increased and we should use this opportunity to address it head on" "But remainers are being horrible to old people" "That is bad and we should address that too" "The media only care about it because they want to criticise leavers" "Report it to the police if you witness it, complain to ofcom" "But they won't do anything!" "Particularly if you don't report it..." "They only care about certain ethnicities! I saw a white person beat up black people and the media didn't mention it." "Did you report it? They won't report if they don't hear" "I didn't actually see it but I heard about it" "Did anyone report it to the police? Where was this? Worth seeing if anyone tweeted it as proof" No reply and some messages got deleted... But its indicative of this desire to finger-point and try and deflect from the actual issue out of either wanting to squash it or a misplaced sense of "but other things are wrong too!" Actually at one point I said what we need is to come together as a nation to tackle this (and other related) issues, not a blame culture. They then asked what a blame culture was... It just feels like some people are so keen to prove that not all people that voted leave are racist (which is obvious) that they're not actually concerned about tackling the problem at hand.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 I feel the number of racist people in this country probably hasn't really increased - its more the racist people feel empowered by Brexit and are simply more open about it. But really the good people of this country should have been keeping racism and xenophobia in check all the time - not simply after a major event that makes it seem as if it just came out of no where. The sentiment was very much in the air in recent times when people grasped onto the right to be able to offend people and denounce 'political correctness' (basically, being nice) - cartoon drawings et al. But when ethnic minorities bring this to the forefront, its usually shushed away as having a chip on your shoulder or being too sensitive or with the fact that there are worst places in Europe so people should just deal with it.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 I feel the number of racist people in this country probably hasn't really increased - its more the racist people feel empowered by Brexit and are simply more open about it. But really the good people of this country should have been keeping racism and xenophobia in check all the time - not simply after a major event that makes it seem as if it just came out of no where. The sentiment was very much in the air in recent times when people grasped onto the right to be able to offend people and denounce 'political correctness' (basically, being nice) - cartoon drawings et al. But when ethnic minorities bring this to the forefront, its usually shushed away as having a chip on your shoulder or being too sensitive or with the fact that there are worst places in Europe so people should just deal with it.
pratty Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) I feel the number of racist people in this country probably hasn't really increased - its more the racist people feel empowered by Brexit and are simply more open about it. This is why I don't see a civil war happening, the numbers of actual racists are so small that the majority of people fighting them would be white. The racists are actually exposing themselves making them easier to for the authorities to tackle. But really the good people of this country should have been keeping racism and xenophobia in check all the time - not simply after a major event that makes it seem as if it just came out of no where. The sentiment was very much in the air in recent times when people grasped onto the right to be able to offend people and denounce 'political correctness' (basically, being nice) - cartoon drawings et al. But when ethnic minorities bring this to the forefront, its usually shushed away as having a chip on your shoulder or being too sensitive or with the fact that there are worst places in Europe so people should just deal with it. I think the problem is politcial correctness really has gone too far. Firstly offence is subjective, and then the scale of offence is wide usually refelcted by intent, generally the least harmful offence is usually unintended while the most harmful offence is fully intended. At some point I think some people in certain instances just have to toughen up a bit and show a little tolerance of their own. For example I think my freedom and right to wear dreadlocks if I want to is more important than a black person's feelings about it. Sorry but I'm not intending any offence and I'm only willing to restrict my personal freedom so far. Likewise if I decide to dress up as a samurai for fancy dress I'll also do as I please, if Japanese people don't like it then they can not look at me. What's happened is many people have been so henpecked by the hard left and SJW-types over the slightest things that they are sick of living in a ever shrinking box of accepted terms, opinions and actions, where you're expected to be aware of every concern of every minority group, and aware of every newly forbidden term and every newly invented term. And then also sick of being labelled an insentive hate crimminal and thrown in the same category with the same scorn as the worst actual bigots, if they so much as make the mistake of saying "he" instead of "xe". Maybe ethnic minorities would fee less oppressed if we stopped worrying about non-racist white people wearing dreadlocks and concentrated more on the actual racists expressing overt racism. Another instance of political correctness we've seen is the refusal by some to call Islamic extremism "Islamic extremism", which in my opinion is to deny reality, and acts as though Islam is irrelevent to the subject. At some point people's feelings and concerns can't get in the way of stating the truth, or the truth as we see it. With regard to the later I think we need to be honest about what we're doing when we want to censor people's opinions, I feel this is wear political correctness loses credability with many. "Hate speech" is a fair term to describe what is regarded a hateful expression, but when we decide to silence a person's opinion for what we consider the greater good let's just admit we're censoring their free speech. When we apply conditions to the definition of 'free speech' then it isn't free. I think saying they're two different things, free speech and hate speech, is just how people have justified silencing speech they don't like but without admitting they have infrigned a person's freedom to speak their mind, which would be an uncomfortable thing for a person professing to be liberal to admit. But saying they have censored their hate speech and not their free speech sounds better. Maybe some people should be silenced and some words should be banned, if that's the case let's not pretend we're for free speech and pose as 'liberals' as we call to ban things. I expect I may be flamed for not fully toe-ing the PC line but this is just how I feel about it, i'm PC up to a point. Any issues I have with political correctness doesn't mean I condone what I perceive to be actual racism, ie the hate of difference races. Edited July 5, 2016 by pratty
pratty Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) I feel the number of racist people in this country probably hasn't really increased - its more the racist people feel empowered by Brexit and are simply more open about it. This is why I don't see a civil war happening, the numbers of actual racists are so small that the majority of people fighting them would be white. The racists are actually exposing themselves making them easier to for the authorities to tackle. But really the good people of this country should have been keeping racism and xenophobia in check all the time - not simply after a major event that makes it seem as if it just came out of no where. The sentiment was very much in the air in recent times when people grasped onto the right to be able to offend people and denounce 'political correctness' (basically, being nice) - cartoon drawings et al. But when ethnic minorities bring this to the forefront, its usually shushed away as having a chip on your shoulder or being too sensitive or with the fact that there are worst places in Europe so people should just deal with it. I think the problem is politcial correctness really has gone too far. Firstly offence is subjective, and then the scale of offence is wide usually refelcted by intent, generally the least harmful offence is usually unintended while the most harmful offence is fully intended. At some point I think some people in certain instances just have to toughen up a bit and show a little tolerance of their own. For example I think my freedom and right to wear dreadlocks if I want to is more important than a black person's feelings about it. Sorry but I'm not intending any offence and I'm only willing to restrict my personal freedom so far. Likewise if I decide to dress up as a samurai for fancy dress I'll also do as I please, if Japanese people don't like it then they can not look at me. What's happened is many people have been so henpecked by the hard left and SJW-types over the slightest things that they are sick of living in a ever shrinking box of accepted terms, opinions and actions, where you're expected to be aware of every concern of every minority group, and aware of every newly forbidden term and every newly invented term. And then also sick of being labelled an insentive hate crimminal and thrown in the same category with the same scorn as the worst actual bigots, if they so much as make the mistake of saying "he" instead of "xe". Maybe ethnic minorities would fee less oppressed if we stopped worrying about non-racist white people wearing dreadlocks and concentrated more on the actual racists expressing overt racism. Another instance of political correctness we've seen is the refusal by some to call Islamic extremism "Islamic extremism", which in my opinion is to deny reality, and acts as though Islam is irrelevent to the subject. At some point people's feelings and concerns can't get in the way of stating the truth, or the truth as we see it. With regard to the later I think we need to be honest about what we're doing when we want to censor people's opinions, I feel this is wear political correctness loses credability with many. "Hate speech" is a fair term to describe what is regarded a hateful expression, but when we decide to silence a person's opinion for what we consider the greater good let's just admit we're censoring their free speech. When we apply conditions to the definition of 'free speech' then it isn't free. I think saying they're two different things, free speech and hate speech, is just how people have justified silencing speech they don't like but without admitting they have infrigned a person's freedom to speak their mind, which would be an uncomfortable thing for a person professing to be liberal to admit. But saying they have censored their hate speech and not their free speech sounds better. Maybe some people should be silenced and some words should be banned, if that's the case let's not pretend we're for free speech and pose as 'liberals' as we call to ban things. I expect I may be flamed for not fully toe-ing the PC line but this is just how I feel about it, i'm PC up to a point. Any issues I have with political correctness doesn't mean I condone what I perceive to be actual racism, ie the hate of difference races. Edited July 5, 2016 by pratty
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) This is why I don't see a civil war happening, the numbers of actual racists are so small that the majority of people fighting them would be white. The racists are actually exposing themselves making them easier to for the authorities to tackle. How do you know this? No one can possibly know how many people exist with racist beliefs... Racism itself isn't even that black and white. I think the problem is politcial correctness really has gone too far. Firstly offence is subjective, and then the scale of offence is wide usually refelcted by intent, generally the least harmful offence is usually unintended while the most harmful offence is fully intended. At some point I think some people in certain instances just have to toughen up a bit and show a little tolerance of their own. For example I think my freedom and right to wear dreadlocks if I want to is more important than a black person's feelings about it. Sorry but I'm not intending any offence and I'm only willing to restrict my personal freedom so far. Likewise if I decide to dress up as a samurai for fancy dress I'll also do as I please, if Japanese people don't like it then they can not look at me. What's happened is many people have been so henpecked by the hard left and SJW-types over the slightest things that they are sick of living in a ever shrinking box of accepted terms, opinions and actions, where you're expected to be aware of every concern of every minority group, and aware of every newly forbidden term and every newly invented term. And then also sick of being labelled an insentive hate crimminal and thrown in the same category with the same scorn as the worst actual bigots, if they so much as make the mistake of saying "he" instead of "xe". Maybe ethnic minorities would fee less oppressed if we stopped worrying about non-racist white people wearing dreadlocks and concentrated more on the actual racists expressing overt racism. Another instance of political correctness we've seen is the refusal by some to call Islamic extremism "Islamic extremism", which in my opinion is to deny reality, and acts as though Islam is irrelevent to the subject. At some point people's feelings and concerns can't get in the way of stating the truth, or the truth as we see it. With regard to the later I think we need to be honest about what we're doing when we want to censor people's opinions, I feel this is wear political correctness loses credability with many. "Hate speech" is a fair term to describe what is regarded a hateful expression, but when we decide to silence a person's opinion for what we consider the greater good let's just admit we're censoring their free speech. When we apply conditions to the definition of 'free speech' then it isn't free. I think saying they're two different things, free speech and hate speech, is just how people have justified silencing speech they don't like but without admitting they have infrigned a person's freedom to speak their mind, which would be an uncomfortable thing for a person professing to be liberal to admit. But saying they have censored their hate speech and not their free speech sounds better. Maybe some people should be silenced and some words should be banned, if that's the case let's not pretend we're for free speech and pose as 'liberals' as we call to ban things. I expect I may be flamed for not fully toe-ing the PC line but this is just how I feel about it, i'm PC up to a point. Any issues I have with political correctness doesn't mean I condone what I perceive to be actual racism, ie the hate of difference races. See, I think this sort of attitude is actually the real problem - Have you actually worn dreadlocks and met black people who were offended? Have you actually dressed up in some other cultures native dress and seen them be offended? The problem I'm identifying seems to be this pre-emptive action on "political correctness" - where (IMO right-winged) people are voicing fears on possible scenarios that never actually happen. Its in the same bracket of Brexit voters who chose leave primarily due to immigration - but whose lives aren't actually affected by it. Kind of like a counter-attack but without the opponent issuing an attack to begin with. Where is this Political Correctness circus enforcing their agenda on you? No one here is really 'toeing the PC line'. My angle is about a general human respect. I haven't heard anyone enquiring to ban words or silence people - Like the N-word, ofcourse, anyone should be able to say it but why would you want to say it, to say, a Black person when you know its highly likely going to cause offense? (or call a disabled person "handicapped", or a person suffering from mental disorders "retard", or a gay person "faggot"). But yeah this has diverged a bit - I'm by no means flaming you or calling you out - just rapping with you to a nice little drum beat. Edited July 5, 2016 by King_V Automerged Doublepost
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) This is why I don't see a civil war happening, the numbers of actual racists are so small that the majority of people fighting them would be white. The racists are actually exposing themselves making them easier to for the authorities to tackle. How do you know this? No one can possibly know how many people exist with racist beliefs... Racism itself isn't even that black and white. I think the problem is politcial correctness really has gone too far. Firstly offence is subjective, and then the scale of offence is wide usually refelcted by intent, generally the least harmful offence is usually unintended while the most harmful offence is fully intended. At some point I think some people in certain instances just have to toughen up a bit and show a little tolerance of their own. For example I think my freedom and right to wear dreadlocks if I want to is more important than a black person's feelings about it. Sorry but I'm not intending any offence and I'm only willing to restrict my personal freedom so far. Likewise if I decide to dress up as a samurai for fancy dress I'll also do as I please, if Japanese people don't like it then they can not look at me. What's happened is many people have been so henpecked by the hard left and SJW-types over the slightest things that they are sick of living in a ever shrinking box of accepted terms, opinions and actions, where you're expected to be aware of every concern of every minority group, and aware of every newly forbidden term and every newly invented term. And then also sick of being labelled an insentive hate crimminal and thrown in the same category with the same scorn as the worst actual bigots, if they so much as make the mistake of saying "he" instead of "xe". Maybe ethnic minorities would fee less oppressed if we stopped worrying about non-racist white people wearing dreadlocks and concentrated more on the actual racists expressing overt racism. Another instance of political correctness we've seen is the refusal by some to call Islamic extremism "Islamic extremism", which in my opinion is to deny reality, and acts as though Islam is irrelevent to the subject. At some point people's feelings and concerns can't get in the way of stating the truth, or the truth as we see it. With regard to the later I think we need to be honest about what we're doing when we want to censor people's opinions, I feel this is wear political correctness loses credability with many. "Hate speech" is a fair term to describe what is regarded a hateful expression, but when we decide to silence a person's opinion for what we consider the greater good let's just admit we're censoring their free speech. When we apply conditions to the definition of 'free speech' then it isn't free. I think saying they're two different things, free speech and hate speech, is just how people have justified silencing speech they don't like but without admitting they have infrigned a person's freedom to speak their mind, which would be an uncomfortable thing for a person professing to be liberal to admit. But saying they have censored their hate speech and not their free speech sounds better. Maybe some people should be silenced and some words should be banned, if that's the case let's not pretend we're for free speech and pose as 'liberals' as we call to ban things. I expect I may be flamed for not fully toe-ing the PC line but this is just how I feel about it, i'm PC up to a point. Any issues I have with political correctness doesn't mean I condone what I perceive to be actual racism, ie the hate of difference races. See, I think this sort of attitude is actually the real problem - Have you actually worn dreadlocks and met black people who were offended? Have you actually dressed up in some other cultures native dress and seen them be offended? The problem I'm identifying seems to be this pre-emptive action on "political correctness" - where (IMO right-winged) people are voicing fears on possible scenarios that never actually happen. Its in the same bracket of Brexit voters who chose leave primarily due to immigration - but whose lives aren't actually affected by it. Kind of like a counter-attack but without the opponent issuing an attack to begin with. Where is this Political Correctness circus enforcing their agenda on you? No one here is really 'toeing the PC line'. My angle is about a general human respect. I haven't heard anyone enquiring to ban words or silence people - Like the N-word, ofcourse, anyone should be able to say it but why would you want to say it, to say, a Black person when you know its highly likely going to cause offense? (or call a disabled person "handicapped", or a person suffering from mental disorders "retard", or a gay person "faggot"). But yeah this has diverged a bit - I'm by no means flaming you or calling you out - just rapping with you to a nice little drum beat. Edited July 5, 2016 by King_V Automerged Doublepost
pratty Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) How do you know this? No one can possibly know how many people exist with racist beliefs... Racism itself isn't even that black and white. Well ok I don't know the numbers for a fact, but it is my belief that the percentage of racist people is low and if they were to violently rise up as one against ethnic minorities they would be crushed by the sheer numbers of non racist people. , I think this sort of attitude is actually the real problem - Have you actually worn dreadlocks and met black people who were offended? Have you actually dressed up in some other cultures native dress and seen them be offended? The problem I'm identifying seems to be this pre-emptive action on "political correctness" - where (IMO right-winged) people are voicing fears on possible scenarios that never actually happen. Its in the same bracket of Brexit voters who chose leave primarily due to immigration - but whose lives aren't actually affected by it. Kind of like a counter-attack but without the opponent issuing an attack to begin with. Where is this Political Correctness circus enforcing their agenda on you? No one here is really 'toeing the PC line'. My angle is about a general human respect. But yeah this has diverged a bit - I'm by no means flaming you or calling you out - just rapping with you to a nice little drum beat. We'll have to disagree then. No I've not worn dreads in the presence of a black person or dressed as a samurai in the presence of a Japanese person, but I will retain the freedom to do so, I'm sorry if my clothing or hairstyle offends them but they will just have to deal with being offended by it. I do understand the argument of cultural appropriation, I just disagree, we're talking about people's hair and clothing making people upset and angry for goodness sake, like I said at some point some people need to toughen up and show some tolerance of something they don't like themselves, you can't police people's hair. I agree about being respectful, there is a respectful way to dress as a samurai and a disrespectful way to dress as a samurai, so I believe there should be the wriggle room for this context, but even then as with offence being respectful or disrespectful is subjective to a large degree. I honestly thought liberals who have traditionally generally been against absolute right and wrongs (the traditional hallmark of the conservative) would appreciate this. If we say that it is offensive then were does this end? As I said offence is subjective and so people can claim to be offended by anything, does that mean we have to ask permission or check it's cool with literally everybody before we make a decision as mundane as how we wear our hair? And can we really expect multiculturalism and integration without some appropriation? Some cultures actually want you appropriate their culture, many want to sell it to you, or in the case of a religion they want people to convert. And how can people say that all races are the same and that race is irrelevant to identity but at the same time insist a specific culture such as wearing dreads belongs only to a specific race? If we're all the same why can't we all be samurais? Why would someone want to wear dreads or dress like a samurai? Who cares? There reasons are their own. I'm willing to bet a white person with dreads or braids didn't do it to offend black people, they did it because they though it looked good and that's all the reason they need as far as I'm concerned. If you don't like it, disapprove by all means and move on, don't lump them in with the actual racists that actually hate people. Call me right wing if you like, that's not how I would identify but I will at least be glad I'm not associated with the creeping 'liberal' fascism of the left. I haven't heard anyone enquiring to ban words or silence people - Like the N-word, ofcourse, anyone should be able to say it but why would you want to say it, to say, a Black person when you know its highly likely going to cause offense? (or call a disabled person "handicapped", or a person suffering from mental disorders "retard", or a gay person "faggot"). It happens all the time, the words you've just mentioned are some that can carry severe social consequences. If you're in a job and you use some of those words you can expect to lose it, so those words are in effect banned, and rightly so in many cases. The inconsistency of this stance against offensive language doesn't help the cause. The other day in the Brexit thread Dr. Bob called Gove, a politician he and the majority of the remain voting thread contributors didn't like, a "knobjockey", which as we should all know is an offensive derogatory term for a homosexual. Yet there was not one word about this from anyone. So what do we conclude? Is the language of someone with an opinion that we like judged to a different standard than a person with an opinion that we don't? When instances like this double standard happen it does appear that perhaps the word isn't so offensive after all, at least not to he extent that it warrants comment, and that the voiced objection to it as political correctness is selectively applied to only certain people, making it look like political correctness is as much about punishing and silencing certain people we object to or disagree with, such as those who politically lean to the right. Edited July 6, 2016 by pratty
pratty Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) How do you know this? No one can possibly know how many people exist with racist beliefs... Racism itself isn't even that black and white. Well ok I don't know the numbers for a fact, but it is my belief that the percentage of racist people is low and if they were to violently rise up as one against ethnic minorities they would be crushed by the sheer numbers of non racist people. , I think this sort of attitude is actually the real problem - Have you actually worn dreadlocks and met black people who were offended? Have you actually dressed up in some other cultures native dress and seen them be offended? The problem I'm identifying seems to be this pre-emptive action on "political correctness" - where (IMO right-winged) people are voicing fears on possible scenarios that never actually happen. Its in the same bracket of Brexit voters who chose leave primarily due to immigration - but whose lives aren't actually affected by it. Kind of like a counter-attack but without the opponent issuing an attack to begin with. Where is this Political Correctness circus enforcing their agenda on you? No one here is really 'toeing the PC line'. My angle is about a general human respect. But yeah this has diverged a bit - I'm by no means flaming you or calling you out - just rapping with you to a nice little drum beat. We'll have to disagree then. No I've not worn dreads in the presence of a black person or dressed as a samurai in the presence of a Japanese person, but I will retain the freedom to do so, I'm sorry if my clothing or hairstyle offends them but they will just have to deal with being offended by it. I do understand the argument of cultural appropriation, I just disagree, we're talking about people's hair and clothing making people upset and angry for goodness sake, like I said at some point some people need to toughen up and show some tolerance of something they don't like themselves, you can't police people's hair. I agree about being respectful, there is a respectful way to dress as a samurai and a disrespectful way to dress as a samurai, so I believe there should be the wriggle room for this context, but even then as with offence being respectful or disrespectful is subjective to a large degree. I honestly thought liberals who have traditionally generally been against absolute right and wrongs (the traditional hallmark of the conservative) would appreciate this. If we say that it is offensive then were does this end? As I said offence is subjective and so people can claim to be offended by anything, does that mean we have to ask permission or check it's cool with literally everybody before we make a decision as mundane as how we wear our hair? And can we really expect multiculturalism and integration without some appropriation? Some cultures actually want you appropriate their culture, many want to sell it to you, or in the case of a religion they want people to convert. And how can people say that all races are the same and that race is irrelevant to identity but at the same time insist a specific culture such as wearing dreads belongs only to a specific race? If we're all the same why can't we all be samurais? Why would someone want to wear dreads or dress like a samurai? Who cares? There reasons are their own. I'm willing to bet a white person with dreads or braids didn't do it to offend black people, they did it because they though it looked good and that's all the reason they need as far as I'm concerned. If you don't like it, disapprove by all means and move on, don't lump them in with the actual racists that actually hate people. Call me right wing if you like, that's not how I would identify but I will at least be glad I'm not associated with the creeping 'liberal' fascism of the left. I haven't heard anyone enquiring to ban words or silence people - Like the N-word, ofcourse, anyone should be able to say it but why would you want to say it, to say, a Black person when you know its highly likely going to cause offense? (or call a disabled person "handicapped", or a person suffering from mental disorders "retard", or a gay person "faggot"). It happens all the time, the words you've just mentioned are some that can carry severe social consequences. If you're in a job and you use some of those words you can expect to lose it, so those words are in effect banned, and rightly so in many cases. The inconsistency of this stance against offensive language doesn't help the cause. The other day in the Brexit thread Dr. Bob called Gove, a politician he and the majority of the remain voting thread contributors didn't like, a "knobjockey", which as we should all know is an offensive derogatory term for a homosexual. Yet there was not one word about this from anyone. So what do we conclude? Is the language of someone with an opinion that we like judged to a different standard than a person with an opinion that we don't? When instances like this double standard happen it does appear that perhaps the word isn't so offensive after all, at least not to he extent that it warrants comment, and that the voiced objection to it as political correctness is selectively applied to only certain people, making it look like political correctness is as much about punishing and silencing certain people we object to or disagree with, such as those who politically lean to the right. Edited July 6, 2016 by pratty
Recommended Posts