Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Women, basketball, hos and radio hosts

1272829303133»

Posts

  • VoodooVVoodooV Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    How do you feel about Reagon's policies of "Benign Neglect?" How do you explain the hugely popular and well-received The Bell Curve, a work that pushed "scientific" racism? Remember, this book was published in 1994. How do you explain the fact that, given equal credentials and equal work experience, women and minorities will earn 20-30% less than a white male for the same job?

    I'm unfamiliar with such things so I can't really comment. I, myself, work for state government, so my pay is strictly regulated. I have position X, and I've worked for the state Y years, so therefore I get Z pay. Public pay is also considerably lower than private sector pay in many cases. Are we going to address that too? Should we?

    I just know that there is equality under the law, and then there is social equality. And just because you have one, doesn't mean you're going to have the other. You can try and put programs in place in order to encourage social equality. But I dunno, If the atrocities of slavery are truly still fresh in the black community's mind can we really do anything other than to just give it more time? I also tend to believe that if someone is a racist, there is precious little you can do in most cases to encourage that person to not be a racist. Some of that just isn't going to go away until the old generation dies off and is replaced by the newer generation which is, hopefully, more tolerant.

    But it's my understanding that not even two white males with equal credentials and experience necessarily get the same pay. One might be a better negotiator than the other, one might know the boss better than the other and therefore, quietly get a bit more pay. So unless you want the govt to come in and mandate equal compensation in the private sector for everyone in a given position and years of experience. I honestly don't see how you can address how women and minorities get paid when we don't even have equal pay amongst white males.

    Even if you were somehow able to mandate equal pay for all. How does equal pay ultimately address how any given person personally feels about a minority at the end of the day?

  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    Did you watch Borat?

    Did you watch TMNT? I hear it was really quite good, is it still in theaters? If you're trying to imply that a film that was clearly satirical is perpetuating racism...That's just the kind of thing I'm arguing against. Are you maintaining that an educated person would walk away from Borat with the understanding that it was a real documentary, and that all Middle Eastern people's sisters are award winning whores? If anything, I feel that the film Borat, (and I have watched it once, but really didn't like it that much) was aimed more at the ignorant image of the middle-eastern community that people have, than it was aiming at the middle-eastern people themselves. Like Colbert, if you take what he says at face value, you're going to think he's an idiot. The entire point of satire is to take a thought, and blow it way out of proportion to clearly show the ignorance of said thought.

    I would say that Borat was successful in what it set out to do. It took this image of the muslim/middle eastern community that is perpetuated by our government and our news media, and said "This is what you think Middle-Eastern people are like, then this is how that image would operate in reality". Educated people would come away with the understanding that this image is ridiculous.

    NickleDL.png
    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Oh, so you completely missed the point of Borat, what with the racist comments coming from the rodeo owner, the frat kids, that one dinner party, and so on and so forth.

    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    Oh, so you completely missed the point of Borat, what with the racist comments coming from the rodeo owner, the frat kids, that one dinner party, and so on and so forth.

    No, I thought you were arguing that Borat was perpetuating racism. That WAS the point of the movie, to expose ignorant views that are still around. Wouldn't you say that the success of the film was representative of the fact that a majority of people don't share these views? Would people still have been watching the movie if they were thinking "Damn, I feel just like those white boys in the RV, why are they making fun of me?" Do you think that the footage they chose to use was an acurate representation of the average cross-section of America? No, they chose to use the footage that served the purposes of the film. I think for every person they found expressing racist views, there are ten other people on the cutting room floor that didn't do anything to justify their presense in the film.

    NickleDL.png
    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Nickle wrote: »
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    Oh, so you completely missed the point of Borat, what with the racist comments coming from the rodeo owner, the frat kids, that one dinner party, and so on and so forth.

    No, I thought you were arguing that Borat was perpetuating racism. That WAS the point of the movie, to expose ignorant views that are still around. Wouldn't you say that the success of the film was representative of the fact that a majority of people don't share these views? Would people still have been watching the movie if they were thinking "Damn, I feel just like those white boys in the RV, why are they making fun of me?"

    Pretty much every one of my roommates felt that way.

    Anecdotal evidence, sure sure, but there you go.

    I mean, while I agree that most people no longer hold "out and out" racist beliefs, like "It's okay to lynch black people!," it's been my experience that denial of subtle racism is still widespread, especially in people who try to emphasize that "welp racism is over already, right?"

    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    Nickle wrote: »
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    Oh, so you completely missed the point of Borat, what with the racist comments coming from the rodeo owner, the frat kids, that one dinner party, and so on and so forth.

    No, I thought you were arguing that Borat was perpetuating racism. That WAS the point of the movie, to expose ignorant views that are still around. Wouldn't you say that the success of the film was representative of the fact that a majority of people don't share these views? Would people still have been watching the movie if they were thinking "Damn, I feel just like those white boys in the RV, why are they making fun of me?"

    Pretty much every one of my roommates felt that way.

    Anecdotal evidence, sure sure, but there you go.

    I mean, while I agree that most people no longer hold "out and out" racist beliefs, like "It's okay to lynch black people!," it's been my experience that denial of subtle racism is still widespread, especially in people who try to emphasize that "welp racism is over already, right?"

    And I'm saying that denial of subtle racism is still widespread because people are too busy focusing on a type of racism that is out-dated. For some reason we cannot seperate this subtle racism, and the divide between races, from an old guy being a racist. As long as we continue to fight the 'old' idea of racism, the subtle forms of racism will never have a chance to be resolved. The only way that the rift between races can be healed is by opening up the lines of communication between the races, and this is impossible to do when people are still hung up on an antiquated idea of what racism is. And that's not directed at you, as you've admitted that you can see the difference between these two things, but in the general populace, and in the media that 'controls' the general populace, this fear of the 'old kind' of racism is preventing any talk about solving the more relevant 'new kind' of racism.
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    Pretty much every one of my roommates felt that way.

    And that's a good thing. If this satirical movie pointed out to them the idiocy of some of the beliefs they have themselves, that's progress. I would say that's more progress than this whole Imus situation would ever achieve. If you go back and release this film a few years ago, you'd have white people saying "I can understand where those frat boys are coming from, FUCK Borat". In this day and age you have people saying "I can understand where those frat boys are coming from, FUCK ME!". I'd say that's a pretty promising sign.

    NickleDL.png
    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited April 2007
    VoodooV wrote: »
    Even if you were somehow able to mandate equal pay for all. How does equal pay ultimately address how any given person personally feels about a minority at the end of the day?
    Affirmative action isn't generally aimed at correcting racist attitudes. It's aimed at helping to correct the disparity in income and opportunity between white dudes and other races or genders. Part of the reason for the disparity are racist/ sexist attitudes, sure, but most of it is just economic inertia - people tend to stay in the same socioeconomic class as their parents, and American blacks started in a really shitty economic position and have mostly stayed in the same relative economic demographic.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited April 2007
    Nickle wrote: »
    And I'm saying that denial of subtle racism is still widespread because people are too busy focusing on a type of racism that is out-dated. For some reason we cannot seperate this subtle racism, and the divide between races, from an old guy being a racist. As long as we continue to fight the 'old' idea of racism, the subtle forms of racism will never have a chance to be resolved. The only way that the rift between races can be healed is by opening up the lines of communication between the races, and this is impossible to do when people are still hung up on an antiquated idea of what racism is. And that's not directed at you, as you've admitted that you can see the difference between these two things, but in the general populace, and in the media that 'controls' the general populace, this fear of the 'old kind' of racism is preventing any talk about solving the more relevant 'new kind' of racism.
    I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that combating the "new kind" of racism really requires an agreement in attitudes towards the "old kind" of racism.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    VoodooV wrote: »
    Even if you were somehow able to mandate equal pay for all. How does equal pay ultimately address how any given person personally feels about a minority at the end of the day?
    Affirmative action isn't generally aimed at correcting racist attitudes. It's aimed at helping to correct the disparity in income and opportunity between white dudes and other races or genders. Part of the reason for the disparity are racist/ sexist attitudes, sure, but most of it is just economic inertia - people tend to stay in the same socioeconomic class as their parents, and American blacks started in a really shitty economic position and have mostly stayed in the same relative economic demographic.

    That's kind of my point, as well. Things like Affirmative action are positive steps that are taken, and they have nothing to do with correcting racist attitudes. There will always be racist, ignorant people in the world, but we can't let that make us think we are 'losing the fight'. All I'm arguing for is a move towards fighting for equality, as opposed to fighting against those people who are still ignorant. We reserve the right to marginalize these people.
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that combating the "new kind" of racism really requires an agreement in attitudes towards the "old kind" of racism.

    That's nearly exactly my point. At what point can we agree that the majority of people disagree with the 'old kind of racism' and focus exclusively on the subtle, subliminal forms that still persist. Do you think that a majority of people in this country, regardless of race, supported Imus' views? I don't think that was the case, and that it's indicative of a change in our society that should be recognized.

    Like I said to Jinn, while certain points and opinions that we have still differ, the fact that we can agree on the main points of this topic, is a good indication that other intelligent people, given the same forum, can come to the same conclusions. Discrimination against someone because of their skin color, gender, nationality, etc is becoming more and more unwelcome in our society everyday.

    NickleDL.png
    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I would say pushing Don Imus off air is a good way of marginalizing him...?

    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    I would say pushing Don Imus off air is a good way of marginalizing him...?

    You would.

  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    I would say pushing Don Imus off air is a good way of marginalizing him...?

    Yep, so would I. If you keep arguing my points for me, I can just stop now. :P

    Who marginalized him? Was it our society? Would that not be indicative of the fact that attitudes have changed?

    The point: The reaction to Imus' comments by the media and certain sensationalists put forth the image that this 'kind' of racism is still as prevelant and powerful as it ever was, and this just is not the case. The racism we have today is not the result of ignorant hate, so much as it is the result of ignorance due to a lack of real understanding of our differences. When you bring back this image of racism that (I think we can all somewhat agree) is obsolete, you draw attention away from the real root of the problem that we currently have. Giving such power to words and ideas that are widely considered to be wrong, is just putting another road block in the way of true communication, and resolution of the underlying issues.

    And dammit, I really need to get some work done, I'm just engrossed in this right now. Just let me say thanks for the enlightening conversation. This is the kind of discourse that needs to be happening all over the world. I'll be back in a few hours.

    NickleDL.png
    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited April 2007
    Nickle wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that combating the "new kind" of racism really requires an agreement in attitudes towards the "old kind" of racism.
    That's nearly exactly my point. At what point can we agree that the majority of people disagree with the 'old kind of racism' and focus exclusively on the subtle, subliminal forms that still persist. Do you think that a majority of people in this country, regardless of race, supported Imus' views? I don't think that was the case, and that it's indicative of a change in our society that should be recognized.
    Part of "disagreeing with the old kind of racism" is condemning it when it rears its ugly head. I don't see the Imus firing as a huge incident - I just see it as a demonstration of how far general attitudes against racism have advanced. Basically, part of being anti-racist is to call out racists.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Nickle wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that combating the "new kind" of racism really requires an agreement in attitudes towards the "old kind" of racism.
    That's nearly exactly my point. At what point can we agree that the majority of people disagree with the 'old kind of racism' and focus exclusively on the subtle, subliminal forms that still persist. Do you think that a majority of people in this country, regardless of race, supported Imus' views? I don't think that was the case, and that it's indicative of a change in our society that should be recognized.
    Part of "disagreeing with the old kind of racism" is condemning it when it rears its ugly head. I don't see the Imus firing as a huge incident - I just see it as a demonstration of how far general attitudes against racism have advanced. Basically, part of being anti-racist is to call out racists.

    Arguing my point, in a way, again. If general attitudes have changed, and people with these kinds of thoughts are being marginalized, then what are we fighting? Have we advanced far enough that people don't need to be reminded constantly that this kind of thinking is bad? Can we move to the next 'step', as it were? If we keep harboring animosity over an idea that is not shared by a majority of the people, is that not preventing us from making any further progress? Ridding the world completely of any ignorant and racist views is a noble cause indeed, but it is also an unrealistic, impossible one.

    UGH. WORK. FUCK.

    NickleDL.png
    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • VoodooVVoodooV Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Talking about this is reminding me of how, whenever I watch news coverage of this, that there have been a lot of people who have admitted that they have paid little or no attention to Imus, or have admitted that they didn't even know who he was till this happened. Which goes back to my criticism of the media for taking what happened and making it bigger than it actually was.

    So in that sense, one could make the argument that he already was marginalized, no?

  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited April 2007
    When you're pulling in as many dollars and listeners as Imus was, I don't think you can claim to be marginalized.

    Home-1.jpg
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited April 2007
    Nickle wrote: »
    Arguing my point, in a way, again. If general attitudes have changed, and people with these kinds of thoughts are being marginalized, then what are we fighting? Have we advanced far enough that people don't need to be reminded constantly that this kind of thinking is bad? Can we move to the next 'step', as it were? If we keep harboring animosity over an idea that is not shared by a majority of the people, is that not preventing us from making any further progress? Ridding the world completely of any ignorant and racist views is a noble cause indeed, but it is also an unrealistic, impossible one.

    1) It's an ongoing fight, and condemning the lingering bits of this in our society is how we demonstrate solidarity in moving forward.

    2) We've advanced a lot, but judging by the amount of irate people rallying behind Imus, we haven't advanced enough to drop the whole thing.

    3) Moving to the "next step" doesn't mean abandoning the progress made in the "last step"

    4) It doesn't, in my view, stop us from making progress. Are black people pissed about Imus? SUre. Do you think black people are a little heartened that their voice was heard on this issue? Maybe black people are heartened that a good number of whites also condemned Imus, which wouldn't have happened some years ago.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Nickle wrote: »
    Arguing my point, in a way, again. If general attitudes have changed, and people with these kinds of thoughts are being marginalized, then what are we fighting? Have we advanced far enough that people don't need to be reminded constantly that this kind of thinking is bad? Can we move to the next 'step', as it were? If we keep harboring animosity over an idea that is not shared by a majority of the people, is that not preventing us from making any further progress? Ridding the world completely of any ignorant and racist views is a noble cause indeed, but it is also an unrealistic, impossible one.

    1) It's an ongoing fight, and condemning the lingering bits of this in our society is how we demonstrate solidarity in moving forward.

    2) We've advanced a lot, but judging by the amount of irate people rallying behind Imus, we haven't advanced enough to drop the whole thing.

    3) Moving to the "next step" doesn't mean abandoning the progress made in the "last step"

    4) It doesn't, in my view, stop us from making progress. Are black people pissed about Imus? SUre. Do you think black people are a little heartened that their voice was heard on this issue? Maybe black people are heartened that a good number of whites also condemned Imus, which wouldn't have happened some years ago.

    I'm not saying we need to drop the fight completely, but maybe a shift in focus is neccessary for further progress. I would hope that what you're saying is true, that black people could be heartened that white people took up the cause with them, but when this situation is put in the hands of sensationalists like Sharpton or Jackson, or the media itself, that aspect of the fight is lost in the story. Even though I know, and have seen white people here stand up and say that what Imus said is wrong, this is not something that the media covers, and Sharpton and Jackson would have people believe that all white people are perfectly OK with Imus' actions. Again, I know that those particular people are accepted to be fuckheads in this forum, but on a national scale, they still have their constituents. And yes, the issue of 'old racism' has not been fully resolved yet, but I would like to see an image portrayed by the media that doesn't make it seem like this 'old racism' is the main thing that's keeping us apart, because it isn't. Not anymore, anyway, there are several issues that are keeping different races apart, and at the moment this 'kind' or racism isn't the prelevant issue. It is still an issue, mind you, but not as important to race relations as it once was. Like I said, idiots will be idiots, and it's up to us to marginalize these people, but not at the expense of alienating ourselves further from one another. When people are saying that the comments of one old racist dude are setting race relations back by decades, how are we making progress at all?

    Also, a majority of the people who were 'rallying around Imus' were not doing so because they shared his racist beliefs, most of them just didn't understand what 'free speech' really means.

    This 'old racism' or verbal abuse is a symptom of the underlying problem, not the problem itself. Any doctor will tell you that when you are trying to attack an illness, you go after the source, and that sometimes trying to attack a symptom will just make the underlying cause worse.

    NickleDL.png
    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Nickle wrote: »
    Do you think that a white guy saying a racist thing on the radio is going to convince white people that racism is OK?
    A white guy saying a racist thing in public and not being called out over it sends a message to his audience indicating that that sort of comment is still publically acceptable. A casual racist hearing a public figure make that sort of offhand racist comment probably isn't going to question his beliefs - if anything, his racist mindset will only get further reinforced by hearing that mindset reflected by his peers. Hell, the casual racist doesn't even realize that those beliefs are racist, because he's never been forced to really reflect upon them before.

Sign In or Register to comment.