I never heard it, either, but if the speaker himself doesn't say "I never said that", and makes statements that align with him having said it... well, I'll just go with that he must be right and he said it.
And this right here is why I disagree with statements like:
To his credit, he doesn't seem to be trying to tell those people they're jerks for hearing those sounds a certain way, he just apologies, which is the right thing to do in this case.
Because if one didn't do it but apologizes anyways out of respect you get people taking it as absolute admission. On the other hand if he didn't apologize, regardless of if he said it or not, people will assume he did and is being a jerk so kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
I never heard it, either, but if the speaker himself doesn't say "I never said that", and makes statements that align with him having said it... well, I'll just go with that he must be right and he said it.
And this right here is why I disagree with statements like:
To his credit, he doesn't seem to be trying to tell those people they're jerks for hearing those sounds a certain way, he just apologies, which is the right thing to do in this case.
Because if one didn't do it but apologizes anyways out of respect you get people taking it as absolute admission. On the other hand if he didn't apologize, regardless of if he said it or not, people will assume he did and is being a jerk so kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
Long story short, fuck assumptions.
Even shorter: follow Occam's razor and get the fuck on with your life.
If you demand someone stops doing something while wanting to continue to do it yourself, it is a bit hypocritical. Its pretty hard to take it seriously from any kind of logical perspective which is again, part of why I say it contributes to the polarizing nature.
Maybe if your logical perspective refuses to consider all the various ways in which individuals differ from each other, and that not all "somethings" are equatable to each other. If your logical perspective refuses to consider context.
Y'know, the whole point of the video.
Except, you know... the video fails to do that and only paints it in a racial light. It in part argues context but then rips that away by ripping away context and tries to substitute race for context and argues this is acceptable for vengeful reasons. If what you describe was in fact the point, it missed it with a bait and switch by presenting race and context as interchangeable.
So... you're saying that race isn't a context worth consideration?
Yes, though I consider it a necessary evil. Its current form needs improvement and more focus on education such as the piss poor funding at minority heavy schools (seriously, that whole system needs some rebalancing) and a plan to phase it out because by definition? It IS a racist practice. The ONLY reason its even remotely acceptable? Not just slavery, but active racism in the job market up to generations that are only in there 50s-60s still. That's fairly recent and some reparations to those families makes sense to help them get on a more balanced level. However again, the idea needs to be temporary and is a band-aid that ultimately? Creates discontent among those who might be in similar situations for one reason or another but happen to be the wrong race to benefit. Ignoring those people is just as bad as the racism that made such a band-aid a necessity in the first place because fact of the matter? Everyone deserves a chance to succeed.
Also you're extrapolating too far. There's a difference between talking about race and demanding something be different between one race and another simply based on race. You can add in one's history for example, but one should accept another's history as valid as well and not reject it simply based on race. Yes, I consider that different from one's race even if their race influenced it because not everyone of a race has the exact same history.
Event shorter: follow Occam's razor and get the fuck on with your life.
Occam's Razor is a problem solving practice, not something you make a final decision with. Its along the lines of "ok, what hypothesis do I test first?" not "THIS IS THE CORRECT ANSWER!"
You're so close, but you keep stopping short of epiphany.
You know, funny thing is, I think I know what you're getting at but I'm pretty sure I already taken it into account but you know.... conversations are supposed to be two sided with people coming out and saying what they mean, not being inane and pretentious. Fact of the matter is I get the impression you agree with much of what I'm saying just that you have distinctly different interpretations on certain significant aspects of it, which is all fine and dandy but what makes coming to your interpretation a "epiphany"? Hell, if I'm completely off base I welcome the insight. Spell things out a little. I'm decent at core concepts but not the type that picks up entirely on that kind of hinting very well. Never will be either, not how I'm wired.
I never heard it, either, but if the speaker himself doesn't say "I never said that", and makes statements that align with him having said it... well, I'll just go with that he must be right and he said it.
And this right here is why I disagree with statements like:
To his credit, he doesn't seem to be trying to tell those people they're jerks for hearing those sounds a certain way, he just apologies, which is the right thing to do in this case.
Because if one didn't do it but apologizes anyways out of respect you get people taking it as absolute admission. On the other hand if he didn't apologize, regardless of if he said it or not, people will assume he did and is being a jerk so kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
Long story short, fuck assumptions.
Event shorter: follow Occam's razor and get the fuck on with your life.
My Occam's razor is that I trust my senses and he never actually said the word. And people are freaking out over nothing. Because that happens roughly every day and is totally believable.
You're so close, but you keep stopping short of epiphany.
You know, funny thing is, I think I know what you're getting at but I'm pretty sure I already taken it into account but you know.... conversations are supposed to be two sided with people coming out and saying what they mean, not being inane and pretentious. Fact of the matter is I get the impression you agree with much of what I'm saying just that you have distinctly different interpretations on certain significant aspects of it, which is all fine and dandy but what makes coming to your interpretation a "epiphany"? Hell, if I'm completely off base I welcome the insight. Spell things out a little. I'm decent at core concepts but not the type that picks up entirely on that kind of hinting very well. Never will be either, not how I'm wired.
You acknowledge that there is a history of wrongs that have occurred in this country, and that corrective actions are being attempted to try and compensate for the centuries of oppression, but then you also immediately label those measures as "just as bad as the racism made such a band-aid a necessity in the first place."
You've asserted that affirmative action is just as bad as Jim Crow laws, as bad as redlining, as bad as slavery.
I don't think you are deliberately engaging in this behavior. I think you're speaking from a position that you consider enlightened, imagining that society would be a better place if only everyone entered a post-racial state of mind. But such a viewpoint is actually naively ignorant, as it ignores the fact that that society as a whole is still systematically biased, and until that system of conscious and unconscious discrimination is eliminated, taking the stance of "well we shouldn't consider race at all" only helps those who are already benefiting from the system of bias. When you chastise anyone who calls out discrimination as "playing the race card," all you do is reinforce the unequal status quo.
Well yeah, I find those things just as bad on some level because in the end they still separate people out by race and they create a measure of discontent. Imagine someone negatively affected by affirmative action. Someone like a college kid who is trying to get a start in certain industries. They finally think they may have found a place where they can get the job they're looking for only to find out later someone else got it due to affirmative action. Now statistically the former's race is better off overall... however the individual finds themselves in a situation of poverty and struggle. At some point there's going to be a breaking point for that person. Some would paint this example as a straw man, but there ARE those who legitimately feel this is what has happened to them. Whether it is or not is not something easily determined.
THAT'S the perspective that makes me speak the way I do on the subject. Its a system that has made people feel abandoned. That even if its not necessary affirmative action's fault for example, people look for something to blame. I'd argue that feeling in fact expands and reinforces bias. Why do you think some jackass like Trump got elected? This kind of thing played a part in why Trump and Bernie were so popular among younger voters. What seems naive to me is whether this feeling is right or not, the idea of elevating one race over another in ANY way whether it be through affirmative action or other such things and not creating racism and discontent in the process? THAT is naive to think its possible. How possible it is or not is one thing... but if you think these things haven't been taken advantage of in their own way to shift status quo in a very BAD direction? THAT is naive. I've seriously been considering applying for immigration to Canada myself with this last election over it because frankly? I'm downright terrified of the negative changes that have occurred. I think Canada at least has their shit together a little bit better.
But still, every action has a reaction. Change needs to take those reactions into some account. Some you can ignore, particularly those that want to make others feel lesser, but there is such thing as being self-defeating which is what I think some of these things have become and while I feel these things need some desperate changing I find myself not really trusting many in regards to such changes. Some would make the minimal possible changes that's just bite us in the ass again to make people happy temporarily, others would take things too far in one direction and make things worse one way or another (the position I felt last presidential election was in with the two main parties).
Also, to be clear I never said it was as bad as slavery. I picked racism pretty deliberately as its something that exists in varying degrees both big and small and has a significant impact on people. Slavery is a point where such things have been allowed to grow to such an extent where one no longer sees those different from themselves as human at all, so its related but that's when we're getting to a high degree territory and there's currently not much I can compare it to other than how some businesses handle illegal immigrants and give them absurdly low wages but that's going off onto a different topic and is very much pushing it in many regards.
Well yeah, I find those things just as bad on some level because in the end they still separate people out by race and they create a measure of discontent. Imagine someone negatively affected by affirmative action. Someone like a college kid who is trying to get a start in certain industries. They finally think they may have found a place where they can get the job they're looking for only to find out later someone else got it due to affirmative action. Now statistically the former's race is better off overall... however the individual finds themselves in a situation of poverty and struggle. At some point there's going to be a breaking point for that person. Some would paint this example as a straw man, but there ARE those who legitimately feel this is what has happened to them. Whether it is or not is not something easily determined.
THAT'S the perspective that makes me speak the way I do on the subject. Its a system that has made people feel abandoned. That even if its not necessary affirmative action's fault for example, people look for something to blame. I'd argue that feeling in fact expands and reinforces bias. Why do you think some jackass like Trump got elected? This kind of thing played a part in why Trump and Bernie were so popular among younger voters. What seems naive to me is whether this feeling is right or not, the idea of elevating one race over another in ANY way whether it be through affirmative action or other such things and not creating racism and discontent in the process? THAT is naive to think its possible. How possible it is or not is one thing... but if you think these things haven't been taken advantage of in their own way to shift status quo in a very BAD direction? THAT is naive. I've seriously been considering applying for immigration to Canada myself with this last election over it because frankly? I'm downright terrified of the negative changes that have occurred. I think Canada at least has their shit together a little bit better.
But still, every action has a reaction. Change needs to take those reactions into some account. Some you can ignore, particularly those that want to make others feel lesser, but there is such thing as being self-defeating which is what I think some of these things have become and while I feel these things need some desperate changing I find myself not really trusting many in regards to such changes. Some would make the minimal possible changes that's just bite us in the ass again to make people happy temporarily, others would take things too far in one direction and make things worse one way or another (the position I felt last presidential election was in with the two main parties).
All this post is doing is exhibiting exactly the sort of behavior and attitude I was calling you out for.
You've given a hypothetical example where a white candidate is not hired because a lesser-qualified black candidate was selected instead. And you feel just so terrible for that white candidate who was not hired.
But the reality is that many, many, many more minority candidates who are equally or better-qualified for a position do not get hired, because a white candidate also applied for the job. But where's your empathy and compassion for them?
And then you assert that it's the fault of all the people who are being discriminated against that bigots and racists are being elected!
Also, to be clear I never said it was as bad as slavery. I picked racism pretty deliberately as its something that exists in varying degrees both big and small and has a significant impact on people. Slavery is a point where such things have been allowed to grow to such an extent where one no longer sees those different from themselves as human at all, so its related but that's when we're getting to a high degree territory and there's currently not much I can compare it to other than how some businesses handle illegal immigrants and give them absurdly low wages but that's going off onto a different topic and is very much pushing it in many regards.
Yeah dude, that's called racism. Thinking of human beings as less than human is racism. Racism comes in wide varieties of behavior and degrees of severity.
The justification of the enslavement and treatment of African slaves and their descendants is rooted in racism, and you can draw a straight line connecting racism and all the discriminatory bullshit that the slaves and their descendants have had to deal with over the years and decades and centuries.
And you said that affirmative action and other corrective measures that are attempts at trying to counteract these generations of disenfranchisement and discrimination are "just as bad," because what about the poor white person who gets excluded.
When I quote your words and talk you through the implications of them, and you don't like those implications, rather than getting mad at me, maybe instead examine your words and thoughts.
Yes, though I consider it a necessary evil. Its current form needs improvement and more focus on education such as the piss poor funding at minority heavy schools (seriously, that whole system needs some rebalancing) and a plan to phase it out because by definition? It IS a racist practice. The ONLY reason its even remotely acceptable? Not just slavery, but active racism in the job market up to generations that are only in there 50s-60s still. That's fairly recent and some reparations to those families makes sense to help them get on a more balanced level. However again, the idea needs to be temporary and is a band-aid that ultimately? Creates discontent among those who might be in similar situations for one reason or another but happen to be the wrong race to benefit. Ignoring those people is just as bad as the racism that made such a band-aid a necessity in the first place because fact of the matter? Everyone deserves a chance to succeed.
Also you're extrapolating too far. There's a difference between talking about race and demanding something be different between one race and another simply based on race. You can add in one's history for example, but one should accept another's history as valid as well and not reject it simply based on race. Yes, I consider that different from one's race even if their race influenced it because not everyone of a race has the exact same history.
Event shorter: follow Occam's razor and get the fuck on with your life.
Occam's Razor is a problem solving practice, not something you make a final decision with. Its along the lines of "ok, what hypothesis do I test first?" not "THIS IS THE CORRECT ANSWER!"
You've given a hypothetical example where a white candidate is not hired because a lesser-qualified black candidate was selected instead. And you feel just so terrible for that white candidate who was not hired.
But the reality is that many, many, many more minority candidates who are equally or better-qualified for a position do not get hired, because a white candidate also applied for the job. But where's your empathy and compassion for them?
I have plenty. Its why I find the situation a necessary evil to some extent, but I won't LIMIT my empathy strictly to them. As I'll bring up below, its part of why I get upset with your "implications". Because to make them you have to ignore other things I've said rather than take everything I say as part of a whole. Yes I understand there are jackasses who use the parts as excuses to do some dumb shit. Frankly though such people use them as such because its a fair point that deserves addressing during the process and ignoring it just gives them more ammo.
And then you assert that it's the fault of all the people who are being discriminated against that bigots and racists are being elected!
A shared fault, but a fault nonetheless. As I said, actions have reactions. Failing to account for reactions makes for some level of responsibility. Not as much as those who mean ill in the first place that take advantage, but enough that one should think "hey, this is going in the wrong direction. Maybe we should rethink our strategy a little and figure out where things went wrong! Frankly I'd argue that responsibility grows when people decide to beat their heads against brick walls over such things. I'd put most of the fault on the political parties involved themselves but either way, the ends don't always justify the means.
And you said that affirmative action and other corrective measures that are attempts at trying to counteract these generations of disenfranchisement and discrimination are "just as bad," because what about the poor white person who gets excluded.
Because ANYONE who suffers deserves a way to correct that suffering regardless of race. There shouldn't be any controversial sentiments here. If you don't like human suffering, you shouldn't be ok with anyone being forced to endure such things.
When I quote your words and talk you through the implications of them, and you don't like those implications, rather than getting mad at me, maybe instead examine your words and thoughts.
Reason I get mad is because you use what you think the implications are to assume my thoughts rather than ask about them because quite frankly, people interpret things different. Implications are meaningless if you aren't looking at the reasoning and other possibilities behind them.
Always loved the bizarre faux-wokeness inherent in the "Lets let bygones be bygones, clean slate everyone's equal starting now" canard.
If that's in regard to me somehow, I believe I did specifically say that I consider reparations are a necessary evil of sorts. Specifically because a clean slate implies everyone gets the same starting point. If the starting point isn't equal it becomes necessary to account for that. If this is to me your statement is a prime example of why the polarizing nature is such a bad thing... because you have to ignore huge key points to come to a conclusion that matches your perception of what a person is saying rather than pay attention to what is actually being said. That doesn't make for good problem solving if you do that in the first place. Its faulty thinking and is why I think those who ignore such things are in fact partially responsible for the problems that are brewing as I mentioned to Primus. Start ignoring lines of thinking because those of you who'd love to keep status quo use them as a weapon, you give that weapon power. Take them into account, they have to find a new excuse and start getting backed into a corner.
You've given a hypothetical example where a white candidate is not hired because a lesser-qualified black candidate was selected instead. And you feel just so terrible for that white candidate who was not hired.
But the reality is that many, many, many more minority candidates who are equally or better-qualified for a position do not get hired, because a white candidate also applied for the job. But where's your empathy and compassion for them?
I have plenty. Its why I find the situation a necessary evil to some extent, but I won't LIMIT my empathy strictly to them. As I'll bring up below, its part of why I get upset with your "implications". Because to make them you have to ignore other things I've said rather than take everything I say as part of a whole. Yes I understand there are jackasses who use the parts as excuses to do some dumb shit. Frankly though such people use them as such because its a fair point that deserves addressing during the process and ignoring it just gives them more ammo.
You say you have plenty, but that hasn't come across in any of your posts. The most you've come to is just now, where you say that you feel for them too. You are operating on the assumption that affirmative action only operates at the expense of a white person, which carries the unstated implication that people of color are less deserving of these positions. I'm not saying that's what you actually, consciously believe, but that's an underlying implication of the thought process. That's why it's popular with the people who you claim to disagree with!
You are fixated on this notion that people of color cannot succeed without white people suffering. You call it a fair point that shouldn't be ignored. If you are serious about not internalizing biased thoughts, you're going to need to reevaluate how you think about these sorts of things.
And then you assert that it's the fault of all the people who are being discriminated against that bigots and racists are being elected!
A shared fault, but a fault nonetheless. As I said, actions have reactions. Failing to account for reactions makes for some level of responsibility. Not as much as those who mean ill in the first place that take advantage, but enough that one should think "hey, this is going in the wrong direction. Maybe we should rethink our strategy a little and figure out where things went wrong! Frankly I'd argue that responsibility grows when people decide to beat their heads against brick walls over such things. I'd put most of the fault on the political parties involved themselves but either way, the ends don't always justify the means.
This is doubling-down on victim blaming. Those in positions of oppression are to be held responsible for the actions of those who would oppress them, even though those who would oppress them will seek to oppress them regardless of the actions that the oppressed take.
Let's take a real-world example. The Selma to Montgomery marches held in 1965. One could take the position that the protesters are partially responsible for being beaten by police officers, because after all, they were only beaten because they showed up to protest.
But that completely ignores the context, doesn't it? It ignores that the protests were in response to systematic discrimination and oppression, and the police response was part of that very systematic discrimination and oppression.
Either the oppressed do not protest, and continue to suffer discrimination and oppression in silence, or they protest, and are beaten and jailed, and then people with your fair and balanced objective viewpoint of shared responsibility point at them and say "well what did they think was going to happen?"
In this mental framework, there is no action that the oppressed cannot take without being criticized for it. Or, as Dr. King put it, in part of his criticism of the white moderate:
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence.
And you said that affirmative action and other corrective measures that are attempts at trying to counteract these generations of disenfranchisement and discrimination are "just as bad," because what about the poor white person who gets excluded.
Because ANYONE who suffers deserves a way to correct that suffering regardless of race. There shouldn't be any controversial sentiments here. If you don't like human suffering, you shouldn't be ok with anyone being forced to endure such things.
Ah, so now white people are "forced to endure such things" as affirmative action? I have been giving you a very generous benefit of the doubt this entire time. However, if a conservative pundit were to say what you said, I would refer to that statement as a racist dog whistle.
If you utilize the rhetoric of those who wish to enforce discriminatory practices, do not be surprised when people assume that your beliefs align with those people. Again, rather than getting mad at me, take the time to engage in some introspection, and go beyond the surface-level of your own feelings on these matters.
When I quote your words and talk you through the implications of them, and you don't like those implications, rather than getting mad at me, maybe instead examine your words and thoughts.
Reason I get mad is because you use what you think the implications are to assume my thoughts rather than ask about them because quite frankly, people interpret things different. Implications are meaningless if you aren't looking at the reasoning and other possibilities behind them.
You've had plenty of time to clarify your thoughts, and during your quest to clarify them, you have said nothing to dissuade me of my initial evaluations. Perhaps an implication without clarification is meaningless, but you've taken plenty of time making clarifications and explaining your reasoning, and in those I have found plenty of meaning, which continue to align with what I originally stated.
EDIT: You accuse people like myself of wanting to "keep the status quo," when the status quo has been a system of deep racial inequality, the likes of which are only slightly being corrected against with such "necessary evils" as affirmative action. Your faux-enlightened equivocation actually advocates for the enforcement of the unequal status quo, making you guilty of the very thing you condemn us for. Projection, like dog whistles, are also a mark of conservative pundits.
I always struggle with whether I should interject into a conversation like this, lest I be seen as supporting one side or another. Particularly when one side is represented by one person I only partially agree with and the other side is represented by literally everyone else piling on to the lone person and either misconstruing his argument or supporting their own argument with disturbing ideas that no one else seems to object to.
But let me propose a rhetorical situation. Let me know if any part of it is not possible. A white person is more qualified than a black person for a single specific job. The black person is hired due to that company's interpretation of affirmative action.
You all have suggested that (1) to propose such a situation is racist because it implies that black people are less qualified (which of course is not the case because we are referring to two individual people and not representatives of their race). More overtly you have said (2) that you have no sympathy for that white individual (mocking him as "the poor white guy" or mayonnaise) because white people overall are doing just fine and therefore his individual suffering is non-existent.
I can't speak for Kuari but that's what's disturbing to me. I didn't watch the video posted earlier but if he really did say that he wants to make people feel uncomfortable or marginalized because white people have it coming to them, that is messed up. The theme of this thread seems to be that any sort of suffering, discomfort, or mild inconvenience for a white person, whether it be Ninja's crucifixion or a white guy not getting hired, is not only acceptable but desirable because black people have it worse. I'm not refuting that, and I'm not trying to be naive, but shouldn't less suffering overall, be it little or small, be our goal? Sure there's bigger fish to fry, and it's not like we need a foundation for the suffering of whites. But we're talking about going out of the way to hurt white people in little ways being a desirable end goal because it's only fair.
Note that I'm not arguing against affirmative action, and I know Kuari isn't (because he said he isn't). But even without being so naive as to say it's not necessary now, shouldn't we hope that it won't be necessary in the future? Isn't that the goal? If it's not a program that exists with the specific intent to phase itself out one day, than what is even the point?
Back to the original subject of this thread, I had initially said I'm not qualified to talk about whether black people using the n word is ok, and really, I'm not. But I'll at least say that I don't see that using the word does any good to outweigh the potential bad. And I'm not talking about bad like Ninja's slipup. I'm just talking about a black person who feels insulted at the use of the word.
I honestly know very few black people and none of them say the n word or listen to rap. So I don't really know their individual opinions on that issue. But any white person who said it was ok to use the word because some black person told him he could would be wrong. So shouldn't the opinions of black people who don't think anyone should say the word matter before we unilaterally declare that it's okay for black people to say it? Someone mentioned that it's different to call yourself something verses for someone else to call you that. But that analogy only works if all black people are a single entity, and they're not. Just because some millionaire declares that he's speaking for all black people when he uses slurs and brags about violence and rape doesn't make it true. He may want to "defy the stereotype" by embracing it, but not everyone thinks that way.
You all have suggested that (1) to propose such a situation is racist because it implies that black people are less qualified (which of course is not the case because we are referring to two individual people and not representatives of their race). More overtly you have said (2) that you have no sympathy for that white individual (mocking him as "the poor white guy" or mayonnaise) because white people overall are doing just fine and therefore his individual suffering is non-existent.
Uh. Let's avoid strawmanning here. I don't see anywhere where people are calling white people "mayonnaise"** in the thread, other than you. "Poor white person" was used as part of a rhetorical phrase to shorten the intent of the original author's posting* (which wasn't used in an derogatory way in my reading).
* actual sentence: "And you said that affirmative action and other corrective measures that are attempts at trying to counteract these generations of disenfranchisement and discrimination are "just as bad," because what about the poor white person who gets excluded."
** EDIT: Whoops, I found it. Stupid search function not working properly. So yeah, that's not right! But it was spoken in anger in the quote "I mean even assuming we get to the point of this perfect world (*fart noise*) where the N-word is completely and utterly destigmatized enough that some mayonnaise boy can use it without earning several glares it is so fucking far down the list of priorities holy shit what is wrong with you."... Which is a whole 'nother can of worms.
The affirmative action argument is getting WAY into the weeds of racial inequality of America and can't really be dialed down to the scope of this comic. Especially since it has nothing to do with the nuances of language and the ways that it changes based on context and audience, which is the disconnect that is at play here.
Someone mentioned that it's different to call yourself something verses for someone else to call you that. But that analogy only works if all black people are a single entity, and they're not.
When a black person uses the N-word to describe themselves or their close friends, they aren't using it in this manner either! They aren't speaking for a whole race. That's a different issue, and you're conflating it with this one.
My girlfriend works as a recruiter for a well known tech company, and that's really not how affirmative action policies work in the hiring process, at all. You never hire someone because they are race X, Y, or Z. That's stupid. You never find yourself in a situation where you're down to two candidates- a qualified white person and an unqualified black person. Ever. That situation only happens in internet hypotheticals. The way affirmative action works is that you take measures to make sure your pipeline and candidate pool have an overall diversity that matches the general population, before you start to whittle down candidates with phone screens and interviews. This is sometimes known as the "Rooney rule". You don't just dismiss good candidates because they are white, that's a terrible way to do business.
As for the N word, Kuari I think you are struggling with the concepts of reclamation and ironic reversal. Perhaps not every single black person agrees that it's cool to use the N word, but I think most people would agree that there is a sort of defiant power in reclaiming a word that has been negatively used against you. It's really not that different from a woman ironically referring to herself as a bad bitch, proud slut, nasty woman, etc. Or the LGBT community's reclamation of "queer". Or the Trumpies proudly calling themselves deplorables. Or people reclaiming nerd, geek, dork. Why would it be different for a racial slur?
I guess I am conflating because I thought we were talking about the word's use in public arenas like music and comedy. But yeah, I don't care one bit if a black guy wants to use it with his friends and I certainly don't take that as meaning it's okay for me to use it.
Re: affirmative action. My mom worked for 4H in rural PA, where there were almost no minorities to speak of in our population. She and her co-workers were under frequent pressure from the higher-ups (particularly those in Pittsburgh and Philly) to get more minority kids in the door: but it was hard. She found herself getting excited anytime a black kid or kid in a wheelchair walked in because she could take lots of pictures. Then she realized what she was doing and how that would impact the kids who already probably got stared at a lot. But a lot of other leaders jumped in with both feet: taking pictures exclusively of the minority kids and letting them lead every game, doing whatever they could to make that kid feel like the star. To some degree I'd approve of that--they need to feel special because they undoubtedly faced some level of discrimination. But that sort of spotlight treatment wasn't doing the best for a kid who joined a club to make friends and be normal.
That's obviously not what affirmative action always looks like and is certainly far from it's intent. But it *can* look like that, which is what I tried to get across with the phrasing "interpretation of affirmative action". Maybe it's a small enough sample set that it really is a strawman. I'm just going off of what affirmative action has looked like in my own experience.
My girlfriend works as a recruiter for a well known tech company, and that's really not how affirmative action policies work in the hiring process, at all. You never hire someone because they are race X, Y, or Z. That's stupid. You never find yourself in a situation where you're down to two candidates- a qualified white person and an unqualified black person. Ever. That situation only happens in internet hypotheticals. The way affirmative action works is that you take measures to make sure your pipeline and candidate pool have an overall diversity that matches the general population, before you start to whittle down candidates with phone screens and interviews. This is sometimes known as the "Rooney rule". You don't just dismiss good candidates because they are white, that's a terrible way to do business.
As for the N word, Kuari I think you are struggling with the concepts of reclamation and ironic reversal. Perhaps not every single black person agrees that it's cool to use the N word, but I think most people would agree that there is a sort of defiant power in reclaiming a word that has been negatively used against you. It's really not that different from a woman ironically referring to herself as a bad bitch, proud slut, nasty woman, etc. Or the LGBT community's reclamation of "queer". Or the Trumpies proudly calling themselves deplorables. Or people reclaiming nerd, geek, dork. Why would it be different for a racial slur?
Yeah, it's also explicitly illegal per the Civil Rights Act to hire someone solely on the basis of race. AA laws also really only apply to places of employment that receive federal money in some fashion. AA in education is something different... and it's also a violation to fire/let go a white employee to take on a minority employee as in doing so you cause harm or something. How'd you guys even get on AA? o_O
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Is anyone saying that it is not a big a deal a black American or even minority? I would bet a pretty big chunk of money none of you are. I would bet that same chunk that you are straight, white, and men. Seems kind of weird.
Is anyone saying that it is not a big a deal a black American or even minority? I would bet a pretty big chunk of money none of you are. I would bet that same chunk that you are straight, white, and men. Seems kind of weird.
I'd bet the same chunk of money none of us here can transcribe from the video where we think the word was uttered. The best I got is some random gutteral sounds as he got tongue tied, ending in "ah" so that it rhymed with Indica. But even knowing I'm probably supposed to hear the word there, I still can't. Which is remarkable, because usually the power of suggestion is all it takes to hear words in random noise. That's how 90% of ghost hunter shows work.
I really didn't care about Ninja before: I had never heard of him before reading his handle in Penny Arcade. I don't care about him now.
I just feel that if you have this word that is so culturally bound it approaches something like a Nam Shub if uttered out-of-tradition, it cannot be anything other than awkwardly misappropriated, then why in God's name do certain rappers insist on using it so prolifically?
Let it die. If you don't want it to be used outside your own tradition, let it die. Otherwise come to grips with the fact that other cultures than your own will use it from time to time.
So... there isnt any monolithic culture or tradition that all blacks abide by to which one could let such a thing die.
It’s also ignorant to even assume that because “certain rappers” do it that all use the word or find it acceptable. It’s fairly safe to assert that there has never been a point when that was the case.
When I call myself a "Godforsaken sonofabitch muthafucker", it doesn't quite have the same "punch" as when someone else calls me that (and on these forums, you can only call each other "silly geese", because of this). There's a big difference in that context alone. You can use derogatory terms to identify yourself while still having them mean awful things when used against you. On the flipside, there are many terms of endearment I would call my family and friends ("Honey", "Sweetheart") that I would never use for strangers or acquaintances.
Yes, words have meaning. But they also have history and context, and they don't fall into "Well, this is logical, so it must fall into this box" categories. And yeah, when you break it down into simplistic elements, it can totally technically fit into a box. But it's more complicated than that in reality. Reality is messy and imperfect.
It also feels a bit icky to me to circle it around and say "Well, it's the black rappers' fault for using the word, not the individual who said it." (Note: The streamer HAS apologized and taken responsibility for using the word.) The black rappers come from a history in which white people have used the word to tear down their heritage and identity, and they "wear" it as a badge of defiance. Is it right? Well, maybe not, but change takes time, and we are nowhere near a position of equality now. As I said before, reality is messy and imperfect.
Yeah, so, tastydonuts makes an excellent point I wish I had made in my original post ITT: it's not like there's some monolithic culture by which all blacks abide. I'm fortunate to live in a fairly diverse environment and this is readily apparent to me on a daily basis.
However, I guess I feel the need to defend my point (although it's not much of a point, really): I wasn't intending to say it's anyone's "fault" that the N-word is still being used in recent times. Racism I think often takes far more subtle tacks and is often harder to spot, especially in my own thinking. That's why I feel conversations like this are so important: I am open to being challenged and view this as a positive thing. Hopefully it results in new awareness and a healthier outlook overall.
I was writing more toward the collective subconscious: words fall into and out of usage, and what bothers me ever so slightly (on a subconscious level, even) is the implication that it's only ever OK for a certain segment of Earth's population to use a word. It seems... clique-ish, or even cult-ish. tastydonuts' post raises the point that some will always find it offensive, all the time, regardless of whoever uses it. That's a view I can respect. I also recognize that the U.S. has a sordid history involving black slavery, which is a running subcurrent throughout this discussion. Thankfully, legislatively at least, the U.S. has taken a new direction in recent decades with things like affirmative action and anti-gerrymandering measures at a state level.
In rap songs where the 'N-bomb' is dropped usually the word is not being used to denote "I": it is referring to others. I just think the way forward ought to be about building bridges rather than walls. Suggesting whether the word is offensive or not always depends on one's skin color bothers me. I may not ever understand what it's like to come from an ancestry of systemic oppression spanning generations, but fascism is not always directed at one group. People in places of unchecked authority tend to do messed up things, regardless.
I didn't watch the video posted earlier but if he really did say that he wants to make people feel uncomfortable or marginalized because white people have it coming to them, that is messed up.
Go and watch the video, it probably would have taken as much time as writing up your post.
It's really a silly circumstance. A word is taboo for a bunch of people to say. But it's acceptable for use in a huge amount of pop culture and music. So we can listen to and enjoy said music and media, but we must not repeat it. Occasionally it slips out because of course it does.
Like, 60% of my media diet falls under this category and I've never "slipped up" or been tempted to.
I am completely baffled by how badly it tears some people up.
You say you have plenty, but that hasn't come across in any of your posts. The most you've come to is just now, where you say that you feel for them too. You are operating on the assumption that affirmative action only operates at the expense of a white person, which carries the unstated implication that people of color are less deserving of these positions. I'm not saying that's what you actually, consciously believe, but that's an underlying implication of the thought process. That's why it's popular with the people who you claim to disagree with!
It functionally does. Its a process that essentially if two people appear equally qualified apply, one should choose the minority when under an equal system it should essentially be a coin flip. There's really no ifs, ands or buts about that. Ignoring that just because some people take it to a jackassed level doesn't change what it is. The only reason its tolerable at all is because its a method to lessen a racist manager's ability to stack the deck against someone and to try to bring balance back to a system that functioned on stacking the deck for years, but it doesn't change that it in itself stacks the deck and in the end is not a fair system. Stacking the deck is just that, stacking the deck.
You are fixated on this notion that people of color cannot succeed without white people suffering. You call it a fair point that shouldn't be ignored. If you are serious about not internalizing biased thoughts, you're going to need to reevaluate how you think about these sorts of things.
No, this is you going on with "implications" again and assuming one possible scenario that you see as more common. I think there has to be a measure that balances things out ultimately and that its not being put into practice. Current practices certainly aren't it for either side.
This is doubling-down on victim blaming. Those in positions of oppression are to be held responsible for the actions of those who would oppress them, even though those who would oppress them will seek to oppress them regardless of the actions that the oppressed take.
Let's take a real-world example. The Selma to Montgomery marches held in 1965. One could take the position that the protesters are partially responsible for being beaten by police officers, because after all, they were only beaten because they showed up to protest.
But that completely ignores the context, doesn't it? It ignores that the protests were in response to systematic discrimination and oppression, and the police response was part of that very systematic discrimination and oppression.
Either the oppressed do not protest, and continue to suffer discrimination and oppression in silence, or they protest, and are beaten and jailed, and then people with your fair and balanced objective viewpoint of shared responsibility point at them and say "well what did they think was going to happen?"
In this mental framework, there is no action that the oppressed cannot take without being criticized for it. Or, as Dr. King put it, in part of his criticism of the white moderate:
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence.
I would not hold that position because one has the right to protest. That alone doesn't do it. However the goal of any good protest should to be unify towards a cause, not divide. To convince others that their side is correct. Sometimes extreme measures are necessary. My point is that when those measures fail to hit home and have the opposite effect the ones who put those measures into effect share responsibility for what results at some level. One doesn't escape responsibility for the specifics of their actions just because they're acting in response to something. There's a certain point where one is no longer just a victim but a perpetrator themselves. Harassment of a community for example doesn't excuse harassment against others. Its a very fine line and subjective to SOME extent, but such things are not a free pass to do whatever one wants and to be free of what occurs.
I won't deny there are some things that are worth fighting for in extreme cases (such as I don't particularly blame the more violent protesters during certain cases. "Give me liberty or give me death" and all that. Though to be honest? MLK would probably disagree with me on that as he did Malcom X. On the other hand, Malcom X disagreed with MLK's "I have a dream" speech which was one that very much shaped many of my ideals). That doesn't mean that one escapes responsibility for such things however when they engage in them, just the possibility that they'd be justified which is separate from responsibility. One can be both responsible for something but by the same taken be justified.
Ah, so now white people are "forced to endure such things" as affirmative action? I have been giving you a very generous benefit of the doubt this entire time. However, if a conservative pundit were to say what you said, I would refer to that statement as a racist dog whistle.
If you utilize the rhetoric of those who wish to enforce discriminatory practices, do not be surprised when people assume that your beliefs align with those people. Again, rather than getting mad at me, take the time to engage in some introspection, and go beyond the surface-level of your own feelings on these matters.
Jumping the gun again. And I'm not surprised by it. Its perfectly reasonable to be angry about it because frankly? You're telling ME to go beyond surface-level? The reason I have problems with that sort of thing is the reverse. That people look at how others have used it and don't go much deeper than that. The lack of more careful consideration because of that kind of thing. I MOSTLY blame alt-right sorts for abusing reasonable ideas and twisting them but I'd argue one can't claim to be any more logical if they're willing to jump to conclusions because of those types so I hold those that don't responsible for that. I share responsibility in not being able to find better ways to state these things that can work around it and I do try to but there are limits to language. I'm not sure if I'm stretching those limits as far as they possibly can go and frankly? I doubt it. Its why I don't try to go into politics. I don't believe I could be a unifying force in that regard. I don't have the right skillsets for it.
EDIT: You accuse people like myself of wanting to "keep the status quo," when the status quo has been a system of deep racial inequality, the likes of which are only slightly being corrected against with such "necessary evils" as affirmative action. Your faux-enlightened equivocation actually advocates for the enforcement of the unequal status quo, making you guilty of the very thing you condemn us for. Projection, like dog whistles, are also a mark of conservative pundits.
I'm relatively certain I didn't accuse you of WANTING that. What I DID to was state that not being willing to adjust one's strategy when things are going in the opposite direction maintains such a status quo by virtue of repeatedly trying something that clearly isn't working and not being willing to explore one's options further. This by no means means stop trying. One should NEVER stop trying to do right. To quote Martin Luther King Jr. as you have "The time is always right to do what is right".
Okay, I think you've made it perfectly clear now how thoroughly set in your ways you are, and that you are unable/unwilling to even entertain the possibility that anything you say could possibly carry any sort of negative connotations at all.
I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in a discussion with you when you aren't even paying attention to what is being said, by yourself or by others.
I've been reading this thread to train myself to experience takes in 400x gravity but the one about only black people being able to say the n-word being cliqueish or cultish nearly took me down
I didn't watch the video posted earlier but if he really did say that he wants to make people feel uncomfortable or marginalized because white people have it coming to them, that is messed up.
Go and watch the video, it probably would have taken as much time as writing up your post.
Sorry about that. This is a feeble excuse but from how Kuari responded I assumed the video was crude and/or aggressive and I didn't want to watch it around my kids. I just watched it and obviously I had nothing to worry about.
So yeah. Making white people feel guilty or wanting vindication somehow is not healthy even if it is "fair". But that's not what he was saying here at all. It is good for white people to be told they can't do something. It's good for everyone to be told they can't do something: but that happens for black people already. So it's not vindication but entitlement in question here.
I'm not trying to sound waffley or overly defending myself. I'm just trying to work through this argument on both sides and figure things out. I appreciate the discussion.
I was writing more toward the collective subconscious: words fall into and out of usage, and what bothers me ever so slightly (on a subconscious level, even) is the implication that it's only ever OK for a certain segment of Earth's population to use a word. It seems... clique-ish, or even cult-ish. tastydonuts' post raises the point that some will always find it offensive, all the time, regardless of whoever uses it. That's a view I can respect. I also recognize that the U.S. has a sordid history involving black slavery, which is a running subcurrent throughout this discussion. Thankfully, legislatively at least, the U.S. has taken a new direction in recent decades with things like affirmative action and anti-gerrymandering measures at a state level.
I was writing more toward the collective subconscious: words fall into and out of usage, and what bothers me ever so slightly (on a subconscious level, even) is the implication that it's only ever OK for a certain segment of Earth's population to use a word. It seems... clique-ish, or even cult-ish. tastydonuts' post raises the point that some will always find it offensive, all the time, regardless of whoever uses it. That's a view I can respect. I also recognize that the U.S. has a sordid history involving black slavery, which is a running subcurrent throughout this discussion. Thankfully, legislatively at least, the U.S. has taken a new direction in recent decades with things like affirmative action and anti-gerrymandering measures at a state level.
I was writing more toward the collective subconscious: words fall into and out of usage, and what bothers me ever so slightly (on a subconscious level, even) is the implication that it's only ever OK for a certain segment of Earth's population to use a word. It seems... clique-ish, or even cult-ish. tastydonuts' post raises the point that some will always find it offensive, all the time, regardless of whoever uses it. That's a view I can respect. I also recognize that the U.S. has a sordid history involving black slavery, which is a running subcurrent throughout this discussion. Thankfully, legislatively at least, the U.S. has taken a new direction in recent decades with things like affirmative action and anti-gerrymandering measures at a state level.
you could cut stone with how edgy this is, lmao
How? Please explain.
Well, I suppose it could be considered clique-ish or cult-ish if we're defining these cliques and cults as "a group of people removed from their original cultures, histories and homelands, forced to work for generations while being devalued as human beings, "freed" and then indirectly and directly disadvantaged for generations afterward all the while being referred to by a particular slur?"
IDK.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Among other things you're describing being a member of a racial group like being in a highschool clique.
No, not at all; we are all born of different ancestry: however much weight you give to it is up to you. There are very real social pressures in the world today, unfortunately some of these are due to race when they shouldn't be.
I argued that saying some language is appropriate for one race but not another is clique-ish. It's like saying everyone should stay inside their own lines, and on certain matters you should just never cross over.
I'm for dropping the expletive this strip is based on from the lexicon altogether.
Okay, I think you've made it perfectly clear now how thoroughly set in your ways you are, and that you are unable/unwilling to even entertain the possibility that anything you say could possibly carry any sort of negative connotations at all.
I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in a discussion with you when you aren't even paying attention to what is being said, by yourself or by others.
I've entertained the possibility, but I know what I mean and what I intend. You can either choose to examine things from that standpoint or don't. My opinions aren't going to change because of the connotations. I can't control people's misuse of such ideas and I'm not going to allow such misuse to change my views nor someone trying to use such things against me rather than argue them from the context I'm presenting them in. You mistake unwillingness for simply not caring. Those "connotations" are not my intent or the meaning of what I'm trying to present. One can either accept it or not. If you have some idea of how what I'm saying can be better presented, I welcome that advice but that so far has not been what you've been doing.
Among other things you're describing being a member of a racial group like being in a highschool clique.
No, not at all; we are all born of different ancestry: however much weight you give to it is up to you. There are very real social pressures in the world today, unfortunately some of these are due to race when they shouldn't be.
I argued that saying some language is appropriate for one race but not another is clique-ish. It's like saying everyone should stay inside their own lines, and on certain matters you should just never cross over.
I'm for dropping the expletive this strip is based on from the lexicon altogether.
I didn't think your posts could get any worse but then they did
look mate, if a word is highly offensive to an entire group of people who have been historically treated like subhumans, enslaved, and still now have huge amounts of gross racism thrown their way, and that word is intrinsicly linked to that history when spoken by a white person.... maybe don't use it?
trying to argue that they themselves shouldn't use it is still a fallacy- the history revolves around the use of it by those above them, not them themselves.
like is this seriously a hill you want to die on?
"Black people should say the n word because white people aren't allowed to either and it'd be clique-y" like, please think about that real hard.
Okay, I think you've made it perfectly clear now how thoroughly set in your ways you are, and that you are unable/unwilling to even entertain the possibility that anything you say could possibly carry any sort of negative connotations at all.
I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in a discussion with you when you aren't even paying attention to what is being said, by yourself or by others.
I've entertained the possibility, but I know what I mean and what I intend. You can either choose to examine things from that standpoint or don't. My opinions aren't going to change because of the connotations. I can't control people's misuse of such ideas and I'm not going to allow such misuse to change my views nor someone trying to use such things against me rather than argue them from the context I'm presenting them in.
I am taking the context that you are presenting them in. Your inability to acknowledge that the context you present your opinions in carry certain connotations is your failing, not mine.
Those "connotations" are not my intent or the meaning of what I'm trying to present. One can either accept it or not. If you have some idea of how what I'm saying can be better presented, I welcome that advice but that so far has not been what you've been doing.
You have had plenty of time to clarify what your opinions are, and every time they have carried the same connotations that I originally called out. If these connotations are truly not your intent, why do you not take the time to re-frame your statements so that you can express what you are really trying to say, without having them weighed down by these connotations? You are somehow aware of these connotations, and do not agree with these connotations, yet you have not made the effort to workshop these connotations out of your subsequent posts. You have, instead, told me that the real problem is that I'm mentioning the connotations in your posts at all.
I cannot tell you how to better present what you are saying, because to do so would require me to make presumptions about the core of your true beliefs on these matters.
Posts
And this right here is why I disagree with statements like:
Because if one didn't do it but apologizes anyways out of respect you get people taking it as absolute admission. On the other hand if he didn't apologize, regardless of if he said it or not, people will assume he did and is being a jerk so kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
Long story short, fuck assumptions.
Even shorter: follow Occam's razor and get the fuck on with your life.
Ah, the "only racists talk about race!" canard.
Let me guess, you're against affirmative action?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yes, though I consider it a necessary evil. Its current form needs improvement and more focus on education such as the piss poor funding at minority heavy schools (seriously, that whole system needs some rebalancing) and a plan to phase it out because by definition? It IS a racist practice. The ONLY reason its even remotely acceptable? Not just slavery, but active racism in the job market up to generations that are only in there 50s-60s still. That's fairly recent and some reparations to those families makes sense to help them get on a more balanced level. However again, the idea needs to be temporary and is a band-aid that ultimately? Creates discontent among those who might be in similar situations for one reason or another but happen to be the wrong race to benefit. Ignoring those people is just as bad as the racism that made such a band-aid a necessity in the first place because fact of the matter? Everyone deserves a chance to succeed.
Also you're extrapolating too far. There's a difference between talking about race and demanding something be different between one race and another simply based on race. You can add in one's history for example, but one should accept another's history as valid as well and not reject it simply based on race. Yes, I consider that different from one's race even if their race influenced it because not everyone of a race has the exact same history.
Occam's Razor is a problem solving practice, not something you make a final decision with. Its along the lines of "ok, what hypothesis do I test first?" not "THIS IS THE CORRECT ANSWER!"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
You know, funny thing is, I think I know what you're getting at but I'm pretty sure I already taken it into account but you know.... conversations are supposed to be two sided with people coming out and saying what they mean, not being inane and pretentious. Fact of the matter is I get the impression you agree with much of what I'm saying just that you have distinctly different interpretations on certain significant aspects of it, which is all fine and dandy but what makes coming to your interpretation a "epiphany"? Hell, if I'm completely off base I welcome the insight. Spell things out a little. I'm decent at core concepts but not the type that picks up entirely on that kind of hinting very well. Never will be either, not how I'm wired.
My Occam's razor is that I trust my senses and he never actually said the word. And people are freaking out over nothing. Because that happens roughly every day and is totally believable.
You acknowledge that there is a history of wrongs that have occurred in this country, and that corrective actions are being attempted to try and compensate for the centuries of oppression, but then you also immediately label those measures as "just as bad as the racism made such a band-aid a necessity in the first place."
You've asserted that affirmative action is just as bad as Jim Crow laws, as bad as redlining, as bad as slavery.
I don't think you are deliberately engaging in this behavior. I think you're speaking from a position that you consider enlightened, imagining that society would be a better place if only everyone entered a post-racial state of mind. But such a viewpoint is actually naively ignorant, as it ignores the fact that that society as a whole is still systematically biased, and until that system of conscious and unconscious discrimination is eliminated, taking the stance of "well we shouldn't consider race at all" only helps those who are already benefiting from the system of bias. When you chastise anyone who calls out discrimination as "playing the race card," all you do is reinforce the unequal status quo.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
THAT'S the perspective that makes me speak the way I do on the subject. Its a system that has made people feel abandoned. That even if its not necessary affirmative action's fault for example, people look for something to blame. I'd argue that feeling in fact expands and reinforces bias. Why do you think some jackass like Trump got elected? This kind of thing played a part in why Trump and Bernie were so popular among younger voters. What seems naive to me is whether this feeling is right or not, the idea of elevating one race over another in ANY way whether it be through affirmative action or other such things and not creating racism and discontent in the process? THAT is naive to think its possible. How possible it is or not is one thing... but if you think these things haven't been taken advantage of in their own way to shift status quo in a very BAD direction? THAT is naive. I've seriously been considering applying for immigration to Canada myself with this last election over it because frankly? I'm downright terrified of the negative changes that have occurred. I think Canada at least has their shit together a little bit better.
But still, every action has a reaction. Change needs to take those reactions into some account. Some you can ignore, particularly those that want to make others feel lesser, but there is such thing as being self-defeating which is what I think some of these things have become and while I feel these things need some desperate changing I find myself not really trusting many in regards to such changes. Some would make the minimal possible changes that's just bite us in the ass again to make people happy temporarily, others would take things too far in one direction and make things worse one way or another (the position I felt last presidential election was in with the two main parties).
Also, to be clear I never said it was as bad as slavery. I picked racism pretty deliberately as its something that exists in varying degrees both big and small and has a significant impact on people. Slavery is a point where such things have been allowed to grow to such an extent where one no longer sees those different from themselves as human at all, so its related but that's when we're getting to a high degree territory and there's currently not much I can compare it to other than how some businesses handle illegal immigrants and give them absurdly low wages but that's going off onto a different topic and is very much pushing it in many regards.
All this post is doing is exhibiting exactly the sort of behavior and attitude I was calling you out for.
You've given a hypothetical example where a white candidate is not hired because a lesser-qualified black candidate was selected instead. And you feel just so terrible for that white candidate who was not hired.
But the reality is that many, many, many more minority candidates who are equally or better-qualified for a position do not get hired, because a white candidate also applied for the job. But where's your empathy and compassion for them?
And then you assert that it's the fault of all the people who are being discriminated against that bigots and racists are being elected!
Yeah dude, that's called racism. Thinking of human beings as less than human is racism. Racism comes in wide varieties of behavior and degrees of severity.
The justification of the enslavement and treatment of African slaves and their descendants is rooted in racism, and you can draw a straight line connecting racism and all the discriminatory bullshit that the slaves and their descendants have had to deal with over the years and decades and centuries.
And you said that affirmative action and other corrective measures that are attempts at trying to counteract these generations of disenfranchisement and discrimination are "just as bad," because what about the poor white person who gets excluded.
When I quote your words and talk you through the implications of them, and you don't like those implications, rather than getting mad at me, maybe instead examine your words and thoughts.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I have plenty. Its why I find the situation a necessary evil to some extent, but I won't LIMIT my empathy strictly to them. As I'll bring up below, its part of why I get upset with your "implications". Because to make them you have to ignore other things I've said rather than take everything I say as part of a whole. Yes I understand there are jackasses who use the parts as excuses to do some dumb shit. Frankly though such people use them as such because its a fair point that deserves addressing during the process and ignoring it just gives them more ammo.
A shared fault, but a fault nonetheless. As I said, actions have reactions. Failing to account for reactions makes for some level of responsibility. Not as much as those who mean ill in the first place that take advantage, but enough that one should think "hey, this is going in the wrong direction. Maybe we should rethink our strategy a little and figure out where things went wrong! Frankly I'd argue that responsibility grows when people decide to beat their heads against brick walls over such things. I'd put most of the fault on the political parties involved themselves but either way, the ends don't always justify the means.
Because ANYONE who suffers deserves a way to correct that suffering regardless of race. There shouldn't be any controversial sentiments here. If you don't like human suffering, you shouldn't be ok with anyone being forced to endure such things.
Reason I get mad is because you use what you think the implications are to assume my thoughts rather than ask about them because quite frankly, people interpret things different. Implications are meaningless if you aren't looking at the reasoning and other possibilities behind them.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Try bringing up reparations to someone like that and you'll have a /real/ fun time.
If that's in regard to me somehow, I believe I did specifically say that I consider reparations are a necessary evil of sorts. Specifically because a clean slate implies everyone gets the same starting point. If the starting point isn't equal it becomes necessary to account for that. If this is to me your statement is a prime example of why the polarizing nature is such a bad thing... because you have to ignore huge key points to come to a conclusion that matches your perception of what a person is saying rather than pay attention to what is actually being said. That doesn't make for good problem solving if you do that in the first place. Its faulty thinking and is why I think those who ignore such things are in fact partially responsible for the problems that are brewing as I mentioned to Primus. Start ignoring lines of thinking because those of you who'd love to keep status quo use them as a weapon, you give that weapon power. Take them into account, they have to find a new excuse and start getting backed into a corner.
You say you have plenty, but that hasn't come across in any of your posts. The most you've come to is just now, where you say that you feel for them too. You are operating on the assumption that affirmative action only operates at the expense of a white person, which carries the unstated implication that people of color are less deserving of these positions. I'm not saying that's what you actually, consciously believe, but that's an underlying implication of the thought process. That's why it's popular with the people who you claim to disagree with!
You are fixated on this notion that people of color cannot succeed without white people suffering. You call it a fair point that shouldn't be ignored. If you are serious about not internalizing biased thoughts, you're going to need to reevaluate how you think about these sorts of things.
This is doubling-down on victim blaming. Those in positions of oppression are to be held responsible for the actions of those who would oppress them, even though those who would oppress them will seek to oppress them regardless of the actions that the oppressed take.
Let's take a real-world example. The Selma to Montgomery marches held in 1965. One could take the position that the protesters are partially responsible for being beaten by police officers, because after all, they were only beaten because they showed up to protest.
But that completely ignores the context, doesn't it? It ignores that the protests were in response to systematic discrimination and oppression, and the police response was part of that very systematic discrimination and oppression.
Either the oppressed do not protest, and continue to suffer discrimination and oppression in silence, or they protest, and are beaten and jailed, and then people with your fair and balanced objective viewpoint of shared responsibility point at them and say "well what did they think was going to happen?"
In this mental framework, there is no action that the oppressed cannot take without being criticized for it. Or, as Dr. King put it, in part of his criticism of the white moderate:
Ah, so now white people are "forced to endure such things" as affirmative action? I have been giving you a very generous benefit of the doubt this entire time. However, if a conservative pundit were to say what you said, I would refer to that statement as a racist dog whistle.
If you utilize the rhetoric of those who wish to enforce discriminatory practices, do not be surprised when people assume that your beliefs align with those people. Again, rather than getting mad at me, take the time to engage in some introspection, and go beyond the surface-level of your own feelings on these matters.
You've had plenty of time to clarify your thoughts, and during your quest to clarify them, you have said nothing to dissuade me of my initial evaluations. Perhaps an implication without clarification is meaningless, but you've taken plenty of time making clarifications and explaining your reasoning, and in those I have found plenty of meaning, which continue to align with what I originally stated.
EDIT: You accuse people like myself of wanting to "keep the status quo," when the status quo has been a system of deep racial inequality, the likes of which are only slightly being corrected against with such "necessary evils" as affirmative action. Your faux-enlightened equivocation actually advocates for the enforcement of the unequal status quo, making you guilty of the very thing you condemn us for. Projection, like dog whistles, are also a mark of conservative pundits.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
But let me propose a rhetorical situation. Let me know if any part of it is not possible. A white person is more qualified than a black person for a single specific job. The black person is hired due to that company's interpretation of affirmative action.
You all have suggested that (1) to propose such a situation is racist because it implies that black people are less qualified (which of course is not the case because we are referring to two individual people and not representatives of their race). More overtly you have said (2) that you have no sympathy for that white individual (mocking him as "the poor white guy" or mayonnaise) because white people overall are doing just fine and therefore his individual suffering is non-existent.
I can't speak for Kuari but that's what's disturbing to me. I didn't watch the video posted earlier but if he really did say that he wants to make people feel uncomfortable or marginalized because white people have it coming to them, that is messed up. The theme of this thread seems to be that any sort of suffering, discomfort, or mild inconvenience for a white person, whether it be Ninja's crucifixion or a white guy not getting hired, is not only acceptable but desirable because black people have it worse. I'm not refuting that, and I'm not trying to be naive, but shouldn't less suffering overall, be it little or small, be our goal? Sure there's bigger fish to fry, and it's not like we need a foundation for the suffering of whites. But we're talking about going out of the way to hurt white people in little ways being a desirable end goal because it's only fair.
Note that I'm not arguing against affirmative action, and I know Kuari isn't (because he said he isn't). But even without being so naive as to say it's not necessary now, shouldn't we hope that it won't be necessary in the future? Isn't that the goal? If it's not a program that exists with the specific intent to phase itself out one day, than what is even the point?
Back to the original subject of this thread, I had initially said I'm not qualified to talk about whether black people using the n word is ok, and really, I'm not. But I'll at least say that I don't see that using the word does any good to outweigh the potential bad. And I'm not talking about bad like Ninja's slipup. I'm just talking about a black person who feels insulted at the use of the word.
I honestly know very few black people and none of them say the n word or listen to rap. So I don't really know their individual opinions on that issue. But any white person who said it was ok to use the word because some black person told him he could would be wrong. So shouldn't the opinions of black people who don't think anyone should say the word matter before we unilaterally declare that it's okay for black people to say it? Someone mentioned that it's different to call yourself something verses for someone else to call you that. But that analogy only works if all black people are a single entity, and they're not. Just because some millionaire declares that he's speaking for all black people when he uses slurs and brags about violence and rape doesn't make it true. He may want to "defy the stereotype" by embracing it, but not everyone thinks that way.
Try to go easy on me
* actual sentence: "And you said that affirmative action and other corrective measures that are attempts at trying to counteract these generations of disenfranchisement and discrimination are "just as bad," because what about the poor white person who gets excluded."
** EDIT: Whoops, I found it. Stupid search function not working properly. So yeah, that's not right! But it was spoken in anger in the quote "I mean even assuming we get to the point of this perfect world (*fart noise*) where the N-word is completely and utterly destigmatized enough that some mayonnaise boy can use it without earning several glares it is so fucking far down the list of priorities holy shit what is wrong with you."... Which is a whole 'nother can of worms.
The affirmative action argument is getting WAY into the weeds of racial inequality of America and can't really be dialed down to the scope of this comic. Especially since it has nothing to do with the nuances of language and the ways that it changes based on context and audience, which is the disconnect that is at play here.
When a black person uses the N-word to describe themselves or their close friends, they aren't using it in this manner either! They aren't speaking for a whole race. That's a different issue, and you're conflating it with this one.
As for the N word, Kuari I think you are struggling with the concepts of reclamation and ironic reversal. Perhaps not every single black person agrees that it's cool to use the N word, but I think most people would agree that there is a sort of defiant power in reclaiming a word that has been negatively used against you. It's really not that different from a woman ironically referring to herself as a bad bitch, proud slut, nasty woman, etc. Or the LGBT community's reclamation of "queer". Or the Trumpies proudly calling themselves deplorables. Or people reclaiming nerd, geek, dork. Why would it be different for a racial slur?
Re: affirmative action. My mom worked for 4H in rural PA, where there were almost no minorities to speak of in our population. She and her co-workers were under frequent pressure from the higher-ups (particularly those in Pittsburgh and Philly) to get more minority kids in the door: but it was hard. She found herself getting excited anytime a black kid or kid in a wheelchair walked in because she could take lots of pictures. Then she realized what she was doing and how that would impact the kids who already probably got stared at a lot. But a lot of other leaders jumped in with both feet: taking pictures exclusively of the minority kids and letting them lead every game, doing whatever they could to make that kid feel like the star. To some degree I'd approve of that--they need to feel special because they undoubtedly faced some level of discrimination. But that sort of spotlight treatment wasn't doing the best for a kid who joined a club to make friends and be normal.
That's obviously not what affirmative action always looks like and is certainly far from it's intent. But it *can* look like that, which is what I tried to get across with the phrasing "interpretation of affirmative action". Maybe it's a small enough sample set that it really is a strawman. I'm just going off of what affirmative action has looked like in my own experience.
Yeah, it's also explicitly illegal per the Civil Rights Act to hire someone solely on the basis of race. AA laws also really only apply to places of employment that receive federal money in some fashion. AA in education is something different... and it's also a violation to fire/let go a white employee to take on a minority employee as in doing so you cause harm or something. How'd you guys even get on AA? o_O
PSN:Furlion
I'd bet the same chunk of money none of us here can transcribe from the video where we think the word was uttered. The best I got is some random gutteral sounds as he got tongue tied, ending in "ah" so that it rhymed with Indica. But even knowing I'm probably supposed to hear the word there, I still can't. Which is remarkable, because usually the power of suggestion is all it takes to hear words in random noise. That's how 90% of ghost hunter shows work.
Yeah, so, tastydonuts makes an excellent point I wish I had made in my original post ITT: it's not like there's some monolithic culture by which all blacks abide. I'm fortunate to live in a fairly diverse environment and this is readily apparent to me on a daily basis.
However, I guess I feel the need to defend my point (although it's not much of a point, really): I wasn't intending to say it's anyone's "fault" that the N-word is still being used in recent times. Racism I think often takes far more subtle tacks and is often harder to spot, especially in my own thinking. That's why I feel conversations like this are so important: I am open to being challenged and view this as a positive thing. Hopefully it results in new awareness and a healthier outlook overall.
I was writing more toward the collective subconscious: words fall into and out of usage, and what bothers me ever so slightly (on a subconscious level, even) is the implication that it's only ever OK for a certain segment of Earth's population to use a word. It seems... clique-ish, or even cult-ish. tastydonuts' post raises the point that some will always find it offensive, all the time, regardless of whoever uses it. That's a view I can respect. I also recognize that the U.S. has a sordid history involving black slavery, which is a running subcurrent throughout this discussion. Thankfully, legislatively at least, the U.S. has taken a new direction in recent decades with things like affirmative action and anti-gerrymandering measures at a state level.
In rap songs where the 'N-bomb' is dropped usually the word is not being used to denote "I": it is referring to others. I just think the way forward ought to be about building bridges rather than walls. Suggesting whether the word is offensive or not always depends on one's skin color bothers me. I may not ever understand what it's like to come from an ancestry of systemic oppression spanning generations, but fascism is not always directed at one group. People in places of unchecked authority tend to do messed up things, regardless.
...what a tangled web.
Go and watch the video, it probably would have taken as much time as writing up your post.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Like, 60% of my media diet falls under this category and I've never "slipped up" or been tempted to.
I am completely baffled by how badly it tears some people up.
It functionally does. Its a process that essentially if two people appear equally qualified apply, one should choose the minority when under an equal system it should essentially be a coin flip. There's really no ifs, ands or buts about that. Ignoring that just because some people take it to a jackassed level doesn't change what it is. The only reason its tolerable at all is because its a method to lessen a racist manager's ability to stack the deck against someone and to try to bring balance back to a system that functioned on stacking the deck for years, but it doesn't change that it in itself stacks the deck and in the end is not a fair system. Stacking the deck is just that, stacking the deck.
No, this is you going on with "implications" again and assuming one possible scenario that you see as more common. I think there has to be a measure that balances things out ultimately and that its not being put into practice. Current practices certainly aren't it for either side.
I would not hold that position because one has the right to protest. That alone doesn't do it. However the goal of any good protest should to be unify towards a cause, not divide. To convince others that their side is correct. Sometimes extreme measures are necessary. My point is that when those measures fail to hit home and have the opposite effect the ones who put those measures into effect share responsibility for what results at some level. One doesn't escape responsibility for the specifics of their actions just because they're acting in response to something. There's a certain point where one is no longer just a victim but a perpetrator themselves. Harassment of a community for example doesn't excuse harassment against others. Its a very fine line and subjective to SOME extent, but such things are not a free pass to do whatever one wants and to be free of what occurs.
I won't deny there are some things that are worth fighting for in extreme cases (such as I don't particularly blame the more violent protesters during certain cases. "Give me liberty or give me death" and all that. Though to be honest? MLK would probably disagree with me on that as he did Malcom X. On the other hand, Malcom X disagreed with MLK's "I have a dream" speech which was one that very much shaped many of my ideals). That doesn't mean that one escapes responsibility for such things however when they engage in them, just the possibility that they'd be justified which is separate from responsibility. One can be both responsible for something but by the same taken be justified.
Jumping the gun again. And I'm not surprised by it. Its perfectly reasonable to be angry about it because frankly? You're telling ME to go beyond surface-level? The reason I have problems with that sort of thing is the reverse. That people look at how others have used it and don't go much deeper than that. The lack of more careful consideration because of that kind of thing. I MOSTLY blame alt-right sorts for abusing reasonable ideas and twisting them but I'd argue one can't claim to be any more logical if they're willing to jump to conclusions because of those types so I hold those that don't responsible for that. I share responsibility in not being able to find better ways to state these things that can work around it and I do try to but there are limits to language. I'm not sure if I'm stretching those limits as far as they possibly can go and frankly? I doubt it. Its why I don't try to go into politics. I don't believe I could be a unifying force in that regard. I don't have the right skillsets for it.
I'm relatively certain I didn't accuse you of WANTING that. What I DID to was state that not being willing to adjust one's strategy when things are going in the opposite direction maintains such a status quo by virtue of repeatedly trying something that clearly isn't working and not being willing to explore one's options further. This by no means means stop trying. One should NEVER stop trying to do right. To quote Martin Luther King Jr. as you have "The time is always right to do what is right".
I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in a discussion with you when you aren't even paying attention to what is being said, by yourself or by others.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Sorry about that. This is a feeble excuse but from how Kuari responded I assumed the video was crude and/or aggressive and I didn't want to watch it around my kids. I just watched it and obviously I had nothing to worry about.
So yeah. Making white people feel guilty or wanting vindication somehow is not healthy even if it is "fair". But that's not what he was saying here at all. It is good for white people to be told they can't do something. It's good for everyone to be told they can't do something: but that happens for black people already. So it's not vindication but entitlement in question here.
I'm not trying to sound waffley or overly defending myself. I'm just trying to work through this argument on both sides and figure things out. I appreciate the discussion.
you could cut stone with how edgy this is, lmao
How? Please explain.
Well, I suppose it could be considered clique-ish or cult-ish if we're defining these cliques and cults as "a group of people removed from their original cultures, histories and homelands, forced to work for generations while being devalued as human beings, "freed" and then indirectly and directly disadvantaged for generations afterward all the while being referred to by a particular slur?"
IDK.
No, not at all; we are all born of different ancestry: however much weight you give to it is up to you. There are very real social pressures in the world today, unfortunately some of these are due to race when they shouldn't be.
I argued that saying some language is appropriate for one race but not another is clique-ish. It's like saying everyone should stay inside their own lines, and on certain matters you should just never cross over.
I'm for dropping the expletive this strip is based on from the lexicon altogether.
I've entertained the possibility, but I know what I mean and what I intend. You can either choose to examine things from that standpoint or don't. My opinions aren't going to change because of the connotations. I can't control people's misuse of such ideas and I'm not going to allow such misuse to change my views nor someone trying to use such things against me rather than argue them from the context I'm presenting them in. You mistake unwillingness for simply not caring. Those "connotations" are not my intent or the meaning of what I'm trying to present. One can either accept it or not. If you have some idea of how what I'm saying can be better presented, I welcome that advice but that so far has not been what you've been doing.
It is absolutely not a choice for many people of color.
I didn't think your posts could get any worse but then they did
look mate, if a word is highly offensive to an entire group of people who have been historically treated like subhumans, enslaved, and still now have huge amounts of gross racism thrown their way, and that word is intrinsicly linked to that history when spoken by a white person.... maybe don't use it?
trying to argue that they themselves shouldn't use it is still a fallacy- the history revolves around the use of it by those above them, not them themselves.
like is this seriously a hill you want to die on?
"Black people should say the n word because white people aren't allowed to either and it'd be clique-y" like, please think about that real hard.
I am taking the context that you are presenting them in. Your inability to acknowledge that the context you present your opinions in carry certain connotations is your failing, not mine.
You have had plenty of time to clarify what your opinions are, and every time they have carried the same connotations that I originally called out. If these connotations are truly not your intent, why do you not take the time to re-frame your statements so that you can express what you are really trying to say, without having them weighed down by these connotations? You are somehow aware of these connotations, and do not agree with these connotations, yet you have not made the effort to workshop these connotations out of your subsequent posts. You have, instead, told me that the real problem is that I'm mentioning the connotations in your posts at all.
I cannot tell you how to better present what you are saying, because to do so would require me to make presumptions about the core of your true beliefs on these matters.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar